Is film piracy as big a problem as it's made out to be?

Blisterman

Reading this artical. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/14029865

And apparently the top 5 movies in the UK were downloaded a total of 1.4 million times. Which, compared to the overall population of the UK, equals 1 download per 40 people, per year.

According to the industry 1.4 million people downloading a movie equals a 170 million pound loss for them! Yeah, maybe at £150 a ticket!

So clearly the figures don't add up. Does anyone else get the impression that the industry is playing the victim a little bit too much?

seamus

Blisterman wrote: »

Does anyone else get the impression that the industry is playing the victim a little bit too much?

Hasn't it always?

Simple fact of the matter is that the majority of people will take the easiest route to obtain their entertainment, even if it's not the easiest. Torrenting & downloading is easy, relatively speaking, but the vast majority of people are unaware of it, nor would they be confident about what to do with a downloaded movie once they had it.

It's the same reason why "click & select" interfaces to download music, like iTunes, are far more popular for the man on the street than torrenting, which is arguably only slightly more difficult.

Pirating has always required a certain level of know-how. Even looking back to the days of cassettes and recording someone else's stuff, you needed a dual tape player and you needed to know someone else who had a copy of the album, and then you had to spend time recording it. Or you could just walk into the shop and buy it in 2 minutes.

For as long as getting your movies and music legit is even remotely easier than doing it illegaly, then the vast majority of people will go the legit route.

The problem is that the entertainment industry are notoriously slow at changing their business models. Napster, for a time, made it easier to get your music illegally than to get it legally because the music industry had missed the obvious benefits to online music delivery. And some of them still whinge about it, even though online delivery has revolutionised their business, not least by reducing the cost of production to effectively nothing.

johnny_ultimate

I query how exactly they got those figures - did they include things like illegal streaming in their analysis, or even subscription sites that provide unlimited downloads?

I do think the situation is over-exaggerated, and that unfortunately the only people who really suffer are people who buy legal copies (frickin' anti-piracy ads). But I do still feel it's a big problem for smaller and independent film. Hollywood can take the hit, others can't. The big studios only have themselves to blame too - if film and television was as readily available as it is in the States over here, I'd say you'd be looking at much less piracy.

Jagle

show me that the money they make from sueing people for downloading music/movies goes back to the artist/actors.

it doesnt. many artists have come out against this practice. I even read(ill try find a link) showing how much they spent combating piracy vs how much they made back, ill ruin he surprise, they lost millions, so thats not the reason they do it.

Found link:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/17400810200.shtml what shocking figures

Fysh

Between iTunes & Netflix you've got 2 services that have been running in the US for years that make it trivially easy to pay for digital content.

If I could pay £1-2 per episode for a DRM-free download of eg True Blood released within 24 hours of the OTA broadcast, I'd happily do so. Hell, I'm even willing to pay £3-4 for a time-limited stream of a film - for the kind of film you watch once it's easier than either renting physical media or buying it on Play/amazon for £5 and then having to sell/eBay/gumtree the disc that you no longer want. Instead the only legal option I have is to wait about for the DVD release (3-6 months for a film, usually 12 months for USTV shows). If I'm waiting that long anyway, waiting another 6 months for the half-price sale isn't much of a hit.

I wish the film & tv industry in europe would look at the games and music markets - between downloadable content on the Wii and Steam with their devilish ever-present sales, I spend a similar amount on game downloads as I do physical media games. If the download option weren't there, I just wouldn't be spending that money.

johnny_ultimate

The lack of Netflix or equivalent over here is an absolute joke. TBH iTunes rentals aren't the worst even with DRM (wait a few weeks and the price drops from the OK four euro to a very attractive one euro, which is more than reasonable for a restricted download) but we need subscription based services.

If I was in the States, I could switch on my 360 or PS3 and instantly stream extremely high quality films from a huge library for a reasonable monthly fee. Over here, no such joy.

Rights issues or not, someone's losing an absolute fortune by not sorting it out.

Jagle

Fysh wrote: »

Between iTunes & Netflix you've got 2 services that have been running in the US for years that make it trivially easy to pay for digital content.

Indeed and on that note

Link about how pirates :http://www.switched.com/2009/11/03/music-pirates-also-buy-more-tunes-than-others-poll-finds/

i can illegally have any movie in about 10-15 minutes on my couch, offer me a legal service and if its good enough i might use it like

Sad Professor

Like the music industry, the film industry tries to make out that everyone who downloads an illegal copy of a film would have bought or paid to see that film legally if not for illegal downloading. I don't believe this for a second. Many of them would have paid, yes, but certainly not all of them. I think a lot of people like getting stuff for free and if they couldn't get it for free they wouldn't be interested. So in that sense I do think it is exaggerated. However, that's not to say illegal downloading isn't doing tremendous damage. But it's the independent films and smaller foreign film industries that it's really harming.

Jagle

Sad Professor wrote: »

However, that's not to say illegal downloading isn't doing tremendous damage. But it's the independent films and smaller foreign film industries that it's really harming.

indeed Avatar still cleared

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $760,507,625 27.3% + Foreign: $2,021,767,547 72.7% = Worldwide: $2,782,275,172

Goldstein

No it's not. Equating every illegal download with a lost sale is I'd guess 85%+ inaccurate.

When something reaches DVD/Blu-Ray release then there's nothing you can do to stem illegal copies leaking, but before that they should keep a tighter rein on the review copies they send out. Individually watermark each one. It's simple to do this and visually undetectable (a few pixels at a precise position and time code within the movie is all that's needed, not a big obvious serial number that could be blurred). Then just keep a database of who has each one. Perhaps then they could trace exactly where the leak came from.

If people want to download an abysmal quality cam, then off with them. Even if it's free you won't get many people who'd accept such a poor experience. It's the decent quality early releases that have the potential to do damage to sales.

One instance where they only have themselves to blame is when there is a large disparity between cinema release dates between different countries (Super 8 as a recent example). Simultaneous or near-simultaneous releases should be standard.

Voodu Child

Goldstein wrote:

When something reaches DVD/Blu-Ray release then there's nothing you can do to stem illegal copies leaking, but before that they should keep a tighter rein on the review copies they send out. Individually watermark each one. It's simple to do this and visually undetectable (a few pixels at a precise position and time code within the movie is all that's needed, not a big obvious serial number that could be blurred). Then just keep a database of who has each one. Perhaps then they could trace exactly where the leak came from.

Most retail-quality pirate movies come from distributers, stores or pressing factories rather than review copies. The movies are all pressed and packaged a couple of weeks before release date.

And the high(ish) quality copies that come out before then are sourced from official R5 and RC releases. You can actually go into a shop in Russia or wherever and buy a legit DVD or Bluray copy of the movie while it is still in the Cinema. They do it to combat piracy, in a 'if you can't beat em, join em' kind of way.

They don't come with English audio and the quality is slightly lower because they are telecined (by the movie company at high quality) off a release print rather than scanned from the negative or interpositive.

Chardee MacDennis

Fysh wrote: »

Between iTunes & Netflix you've got 2 services that have been running in the US for years that make it trivially easy to pay for digital content.

If I could pay £1-2 per episode for a DRM-free download of eg True Blood released within 24 hours of the OTA broadcast, I'd happily do so. Hell, I'm even willing to pay £3-4 for a time-limited stream of a film - for the kind of film you watch once it's easier than either renting physical media or buying it on Play/amazon for £5 and then having to sell/eBay/gumtree the disc that you no longer want. Instead the only legal option I have is to wait about for the DVD release (3-6 months for a film, usually 12 months for USTV shows). If I'm waiting that long anyway, waiting another 6 months for the half-price sale isn't much of a hit.

I wish the film & tv industry in europe would look at the games and music markets - between downloadable content on the Wii and Steam with their devilish ever-present sales, I spend a similar amount on game downloads as I do physical media games. If the download option weren't there, I just wouldn't be spending that money.

sure everytime there is an apple announcement I wait with my credit card in hand for a subscription service for music and video - i'd pay €40 a month i reckon for all you can eat music and video (spotify type service)...

Dempsey

Jagle wrote: »

indeed Avatar still cleared

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $760,507,625 27.3% + Foreign: $2,021,767,547 72.7% = Worldwide: $2,782,275,172

That would be an exception to the rule because of its use of 3D technology and it successfully marketed as a film that you really need to see on a big screen in 3D.

Sad Professor

BastardPrince wrote: »

sure everytime there is an apple announcement I wait with my credit card in hand for a subscription service for music and video - i'd pay €40 a month i reckon for all you can eat music and video (spotify type service)...

I don't know, but I can't see Apple ever doing this. Jobs feels strongly that people want to own music rather than rent it, and I think he's right for the most part. It's a bit different with films. Apple seem have given up on the idea of owning digital downloads of films. They still offer them, but renting is clearly what they're focused on.

mikemac

People on boards have knowledge and confidence with computers but the majority of people in Ireland do not know how to use torrents.

So easy to use legal solutions work.
itunes is very easy to use.
audible.co.uk has a great selection of audiobooks, you subscribe every month and get a set number of downloads and they give bonus downloads. You can preview every book. This is a great legal site and I subscribe every month.

While I don't go near xtravision anymore, xbox live is an ok service.
But if we didn't need to wait months for releases, if they have a better selection and if Ireland had better broadband I'd use this service all the time.

Legal options can work, not everyone knows or feels confident about torrents. Yeah it's easy when you know how but sure everything is easy when you know how.

I still go to the cinema, any film I torrent is probably an old one from the 80's or 90's. It's not a lost sale, I would never have bought it anyway.

Currently watching Generation Kill online, I asked xtravision three times if they had it and would they order it in the boxset for me. They didn't, I watch online so maybe that's a lost sale for xtravision

Jagle

Dempsey wrote: »

That would be an exception to the rule because of its use of 3D technology and it successfully marketed as a film that you really need to see on a big screen in 3D.

so then they need to market more, but 3d is just bs to boost sales its been proven before.

And also the whole argument reads like a flashback in time, same horror stories arose when vhs was coming out, saying home taping would kill the movie industry, same with radio, never in its history has either the movie or music business shown any cop on or attempt to keep up with the times, i for one am delighted and hope they all go down

r3nu4l

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If I was in the States, I could switch on my 360 or PS3 and instantly stream extremely high quality films from a huge library for a reasonable monthly fee. Over here, no such joy.

Rights issues or not, someone's losing an absolute fortune by not sorting it out.

In the UK LoveFilm streams direct to PS3, only problem is that once again not all new releases are available for streaming and even at that it's only months after the original cinema release (going back to the same point made by Fysh!).

Tragic.

There's certain sites out there that allow me to watch a good quality cinema release within 24 hours of release (sometimes even before release, although that's more rare these days).

If I only had to wait two weeks from cinema release to download a high quality version of a movie then I'd probably wait for that version and pay for it, providing they were reasonable with the costs and didn't want to charge me cinema prices!

Dempsey

Jagle wrote: »

so then they need to market more, but 3d is just bs to boost sales its been proven before.

And also the whole argument reads like a flashback in time, same horror stories arose when vhs was coming out, saying home taping would kill the movie industry, same with radio, never in its history has either the movie or music business shown any cop on or attempt to keep up with the times, i for one am delighted and hope they all go down

You somehow think that I'm trying to defend the film & music industries. I'm not, I'm just explaining why Avatar is an exception because of the 3D technology used in the film. Very few people wanted to see it via torrent before they saw it in the cinema.

Phony Scott

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqDdrT2-bH4

I'm surprised a bigger fuss isn't made of these massive second hand shops, which seem to have popped up recently, which take 100% of the profits, the artists and distributors see none of it and the second hand shops close after six months.

Who is the bigger criminal, the student who downloads films for free or the supposedly legitimate companies on the street who make huge profits?

Blisterman

Yep, another thing the studios should do is put ALL of their movies for streaming.
At the moment, there's a far bigger selection of movies on DVD than online streaming, despite the fact that they need to be printed, distributed etc.

One of the reasons iTunes is so popular is because it has millions of songs available. The storage costs are negligable. Even if every movie only gets downloaded a few times a year, it's millions in revenue.

McLoughlin

Phony Scott wrote: »

I'm surprised a bigger fuss isn't made of these massive second hand shops, which seem to have popped up recently, which take 100% of the profits, the artists and distributors see none of it and the second hand shops close after six months.

Who is the bigger criminal, the student who downloads films for free or the supposedly legitimate companies on the street who make huge profits?

I would say the the majority of DVDs i buy are second hand or pre owned from Xtra Vison and I regularly get into the cinema for free thanks to a staff pass so the industry gets no money from these activities.

seamus

Fysh wrote: »

If I could pay £1-2 per episode for a DRM-free download of eg True Blood released within 24 hours of the OTA broadcast, I'd happily do so.

This. People would even pay for a limited-life version. As pointed out, unlike music, most people aren't so concerned about holding onto their video collections.

I've downloaded the entire first season of Game of Thrones last week. For no reason except that I have no other option. Can't get satellite, and it won't be shown on any Irish or British station for at least six months (I reckon). If HBO had opened a subscription service that let me access the whole series for €10, I'd be all over that ****. But they haven't, so I downloaded it.

This is what they're missing, and they're losing a ****load of revenue over it because they have unfounded fears about delivery mechanisms where they don't control every step.

Jagle

Dempsey wrote: »

You somehow think that I'm trying to defend the film & music industries. I'm not, I'm just explaining why Avatar is an exception because of the 3D technology used in the film. Very few people wanted to see it via torrent before they saw it in the cinema.

jesus i dont.

i was adding more fuel to the fire by mentioning what i did int he second paragraph, and i understand why maybe avatar grossed so much, but if they pulled over 2billion from some people because the movie had 3D...

surely that proves that if they offer a good enough movie people will come, jesus lets not go through the 90% crap they release

Blisterman

Out of interest. If I rent an old movie from Xtra vision for €3, do the film makers get any of it, or did they just get the money from the original sale of the DVD?

mikemac

Just on Game of Thrones, why is the boxset not ready to go immediately after the Series ended?
Is it because they want to sell it to international networks first?

Boxsets are a money spinner and people will gladly pay for them and for the extra content like seeing the production team, costumes, music and locations.
I'd definitely buy it and I'm constantly buying boxsets.

But as of today, there is no boxset on sale, a release date hasn't been set and unless you have Sky Atlantic and the ability to record, the only option is to go to the internet

I want to buy it legally and can't!
And this has always been the way. With work I often miss TV so I wait for the boxset at the end. But the likes of 24 or Friday Night Lights or others would wait four or five months after the series ended to release it.
Why not have it on sale ready to go?

I spend a fortune on movies, but there are actually movies out there that i wouldnt even waste my bandwidth on.

overshoot

Blisterman wrote: »

According to the industry 1.4 million people downloading a movie equals a 170 million pound loss for them! Yeah, maybe at £150 a ticket!

So clearly the figures don't add up. Does anyone else get the impression that the industry is playing the victim a little bit too much?

the record companies quote the figure of the standard fine for downloading x however many downloads. they are a joke, i saw somewhere where they tried to sue a download site for billions and the judge laughed them out. (this was a few months ago so i doubt il find the link, i just remember it beacuse if put the figure as a percentage of world gdp)

Jagle

overshoot wrote: »

the record companies quote the figure of the standard fine for downloading x however many downloads. they are a joke, i saw somewhere where they tried to sue a download site for billions and the judge laughed them out. (this was a few months ago so i doubt il find the link, i just remember it beacuse if put the figure as a percentage of world gdp)

the site they sued was the pirate bay, the biggest tracker for torrents, and all completely legal by the way, YES LEGAL

sorry i ment to say that the pirate bay website was entirely legal, it didnt break any laws didnt hold any copyright info on there server, its like suing the person who built the road cos you someone used it to move drugs across the country

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob/piratebay_header.jpg

Dempsey

Jagle wrote: »

jesus i dont.

i was adding more fuel to the fire by mentioning what i did int he second paragraph, and i understand why maybe avatar grossed so much, but if they pulled over 2billion from some people because the movie had 3D...

surely that proves that if they offer a good enough movie people will come, jesus lets not go through the 90% crap they release

If its good enough, you'd think so. I think the 'bigger the screen the better factor' is another. If the viewing experience isnt going to be enhanced by viewing it in the cinema then this is why some torrents gets alot of traffic.

Hollywood couldnt be more unoriginal or unimaginative if they tried at the moment, them attributing this to the effects of piracy is just bull aswell.

I think the problem for the industry is that nobody wants to back the next betamax so they continue with methods that have been successful in the past whilst being ignorant to the current market and the technology available to make a sale. They are looking for a delivery method that will last them years but with the current rapid progression in technology they dont know what to put their money on.

Next they be bitching at people with 50" Plasma TV's & 6.1 sound at home for the decline in cinema sales. :rolleyes:

Jagle

Dempsey wrote: »

Hollywood couldnt be more unoriginal or unimaginative if they tried at the moment, them attributing this to the effects of piracy is just bull aswell.

I think the problem for the industry is that nobody wants to back the next betamax so they continue with methods that have been successful in the past whilst being ignorant to the current market and the technology available to make a sale. They are looking for a delivery method that will last them years but with the current rapid progression in technology they dont know what to put their money on.

Next they be bitching at people with 50" Plasma TV's & 6.1 sound at home for the decline in cinema sales. :rolleyes:

indeed they couldnt be more unoriginal or unimaginative if they tried.

While noone may want to back the next betamax, who wants to continue to push your old ways onto a generation who are moving faster with technology then anyone could of imagined. If i told you ten years ago you can use your mobile phone to download movies on your pc at home you would laugh at me, if i said you can use your pc to rent/buy movies straight to your tv screen id be called stupid.

they need to wake up and realise the old ways are gone, adapt of fcuk off.

and indeed like how colour tv destroyed black and white, or how the mp3 player destroyed the music business

The Mad Hatter

Is film piracy as big a problem as it's made out to be?

Is anything as big a problem as film piracy is made out to be?

Spacedog

Dman001

Sad Professor wrote: »

Like the music industry, the film industry tries to make out that everyone who downloads an illegal copy of a film would have bought or paid to see that film legally if not for illegal downloading. I don't believe this for a second. Many of them would have paid, yes, but certainly not all of them. I think a lot of people like getting stuff for free and if they couldn't get it for free they wouldn't be interested. So in that sense I do think it is exaggerated. However, that's not to say illegal downloading isn't doing tremendous damage. But it's the independent films and smaller foreign film industries that it's really harming.

I agree, I firmly believe some of the time, many people download a film simply because it's free and never had any intention of seeing the film in cinema/buying the DVD even if there wasn't illegally available. So these "Losses" they publish are very misleading.

A subscription service is definitely the way to go. Netflix do offer a great service, widely available on you mobile, iPod, iPad, DVR, TV, Game Console and Blu Ray Player in the US. But the content available is severely limited. They do have a great range of videos to Stream Instantly, but very, very little recent titles are available. The Movie Industry insists on a waiting period before they show up on Netflix, and they then complain about their losses from illegal downloads. It is this very reason we won't see a subscription service on iTunes. Apple have a huge range of Movies on the US iTunes Store, and I don't think Apple will agree to roll out a very limited subscription service.

jaykhunter

Blisterman wrote: »

Out of interest. If I rent an old movie from Xtra vision for €3, do the film makers get any of it, or did they just get the money from the original sale of the DVD?

Nothing. I believe for Xtravision to obtain the DVD they're maybe....€200 per disc? And Xtravision make their money back via dvd rental? The number might be off but the deal is the DVD rental companies buy the DVD at an extortionate price and then make it back via rentals.

I have no sympathy for the movie industry dragging their ass with instant HD streaming. That said I don't live in America where they have that option so I've no idea how awesome that service is. But I hope they have day one releases at a cheaper price than a physical disc.

Sad Professor

I assume the studios/copyright holders get the €200/whatever that Xtravision pay for the rental disc. How much filmmakers get depends on their contracts. Nothing in most cases. Afaik this is different in the US. They don't have rental copies. Anyone can just buy a bunch of DVDs, rent them out and profit.

And I'm not so sure I'd be interested in Netflix even if it was available here. My understanding is that the quality is sh*t.

Dman001

jaykhunter wrote: »

Nothing. I believe for Xtravision to obtain the DVD they're maybe....€200 per disc? And Xtravision make their money back via dvd rental? The number might be off but the deal is the DVD rental companies buy the DVD at an extortionate price and then make it back via rentals.

I thought the same too, that they pay an over-inflated price for rental DVDs. There was one time you'd see Not For Rental on the DVD covers of Retail DVDs, which I'm guessing was because these DVDs were much cheaper than Rental DVDs. I'm sure it is still written on DVDs, but you'd wonder why more Rental Shops just rent out Retail Discs if there is such a difference in price. It is not as if it would be likely they'll get caught.

Jagle

Sad Professor wrote: »

And I'm not so sure I'd be interested in Netflix even if it was available here. My understanding is that the quality is sh*t.

According to Netflix Tech Support, Netflix's content library is encoded into three bandwidth tiers, in a compression format based on the VC-1 video and Windows Media audio codecs. The lowest tier requires a continuous downstream bandwidth (to the client) of 1.5Mbps, and offers stereo audio and video quality comparable to DVD. The middle tier requires 3Mbps, and offers "better than DVD quality". The highest tier requires 5 Mbps, and offers 720p HD with surround sound audio. As of December 2010, the PS3 is the only device able to stream Netflix at 1080p resolution.


your understand is rubbish

johnny_ultimate

jaykhunter wrote: »

Nothing. I believe for Xtravision to obtain the DVD they're maybe....€200 per disc? And Xtravision make their money back via dvd rental? The number might be off but the deal is the DVD rental companies buy the DVD at an extortionate price and then make it back via rentals.

They buy the rental licence as opposed to the disc. So they pay their one off fee, and once that's been made up for in rentals - say maybe 15-20 - it's solid profit for the rental company. I'd guess if the film-maker had some sort of revenue deal (you can rest assured someone like James Cameron has) they'd make some money off the initial cost Xtravision pay (divvied between the distributor and the studios, I'd imagine). But for the most part film-makers work like any employees - they get paid once, and that's it. Even independent film-makers would tend to get a gross sum when their film's bought up for distribution.

I could be wrong, but that's how I always perceived it as working. Retail DVDs are intended for one consumer only, so they're cheaper to buy for the retailer (who will only ever 'sell' it once). And you'd be surprised how much income a rental DVD can make over say a two - three year life span (when you count in scratches and wear and tear) - you could be looking at hundreds of rentals of a single film. I do have a bit of experience of this due to the questionable actions of employers I used to work for, but can't really go into that

jaykhunter

Jagle wrote: »

Indeed and on that note

Link about how pirates :http://www.switched.com/2009/11/03/music-pirates-also-buy-more-tunes-than-others-poll-finds/

i can illegally have any movie in about 10-15 minutes on my couch, offer me a legal service and if its good enough i might use it like

That's it. Piracy is a way to get content quicker and cheaper than legally. The movie/tv industry can't match the price but they can certainly work to bring shows out quicker and indeed offer a streaming service, making obtaining it easier than piracy. What if TV shows were aired a week BEFORE it was on TV? Or even released at the same time? Challenging the current conventions is an effective way to combat piracy. I still think anything above €1 per episode is robbery. If a physical DVD costs €25, it's free on TV, how is €30 for a digital copy ok? It's also hard to give out about piracy when forces the industry to lower prices of (eg) CDs. The actual amount given to the middle-men (shipping/warehousing etc) of DVDs of a film is a disgrace, something streaming/online download can definitely sort out.

That link from above :

"It's people like Steve, who's 25 and from Essex, that the film industry says are the biggest threat to its future survival and success.
He illegally downloads and uploads around 10 films per week."

Sorry, who downloads/watches 10 films per week? A film critic may do the latter, but I imagine it's in the absolute minute minority.

"....1.4 million times last year. Film industry bosses say it is costing £170million."

How in God's name did they come up with this figure? How are we supposed to believe what you're saying if you're plucking numbers out of the air?

Goldstein wrote: »

No it's not. Equating every illegal download with a lost sale is I'd guess 85%+ inaccurate.

I couldn't agree more. Although I might even go to say 95%+. Most people might give it a look if it's free; but getting someone to plonk down cash? Not a chance in most cases. It's not quite the same thing, but TNA Wrestling get ~1.3 million viewers each week in the US but their Pay-Per-View supershow maybe 13,000 buy it - i.e. 1%. The same supershow (free in UK/Ireland) gets the same ratings as the regular show -- ie people are willing to watch but not to pay.

Goldstein wrote: »

they should keep a tighter rein on the review copies they send out. Individually watermark each one.

I imagine the reason they don't properly watermark each DVD review copy (that gets leaked on the net) because they don't want to catch the culprit. Remember when LOTR : Two Towers got leaked onto the internet, that was an Oscar judge's copy? Yeah they didn't look into that one!

On the subject of DRM, I absolutely can't stand it. I bought it and I should be able to do what I like with it. If the option of only being able to copy it to one iPod or one computer a certain number of times, Piracy is a much more appealing option. Normal people pirate, and pirates also buy movies/dvds/music etc. The trick is to work with technology, maximise availability and affordability.

Dman001

Jagle wrote: »

According to Netflix Tech Support, Netflix's content library is encoded into three bandwidth tiers, in a compression format based on the VC-1 video and Windows Media audio codecs. The lowest tier requires a continuous downstream bandwidth (to the client) of 1.5Mbps, and offers stereo audio and video quality comparable to DVD. The middle tier requires 3Mbps, and offers "better than DVD quality". The highest tier requires 5 Mbps, and offers 720p HD with surround sound audio. As of December 2010, the PS3 is the only device able to stream Netflix at 1080p resolution.


your understand is rubbish

Very little of their library is HD encoded, well what is steamable to Desktops/Laptops. Whether this is different for PS3, I'm not sure. "Comparable to DVD" is not DVD quality either. But if I was to use such a service, I would be using it through my laptop where quality wouldn't be my number one requirement.

jaykhunter

Jagle wrote: »

your understand is rubbish

Steady on mate, no need to be snide. We're all amigos here

Sad Professor

Jagle wrote: »

According to Netflix Tech Support, Netflix's content library is encoded into three bandwidth tiers, in a compression format based on the VC-1 video and Windows Media audio codecs. The lowest tier requires a continuous downstream bandwidth (to the client) of 1.5Mbps, and offers stereo audio and video quality comparable to DVD. The middle tier requires 3Mbps, and offers "better than DVD quality". The highest tier requires 5 Mbps, and offers 720p HD with surround sound audio. As of December 2010, the PS3 is the only device able to stream Netflix at 1080p resolution.


your understand is rubbish

Huh? Your attitude is rubbish. I don't care what you've copy and pasted from the Netflix site or Wikipedia or whatever. What I've read about Netflix online from people that use it is that quality can be very poor and fluctuates a lot depending on bandwidth. It will be great one day, but streaming just isn't there yet IMO.

jaykhunter

Where will this all go? Like next-day on demand services like iTunes where u can download TV shows 24 hours after it airs is growing; maybe films will have simultaneous release in cinemas/blu-ray/streaming..... Will the end service be that we'd see the decline in 'local' TV stations, say Sky 1, Channel 4 etc and the birth of much larger 'internet Global TV stations'? Maybe I could stream ABC or NBC etc over the internet and just pay a subscription to all of their TV content available on instant streaming?

I also think it's hilarious that piracy is driving the growth/progression of the tv/film industry; not the other way around. They're limp-leggedly catching up.

Dman001

jaykhunter wrote: »

That's it. Piracy is a way to get content quicker and cheaper than legally. The movie/tv industry can't match the price but they can certainly work to bring shows out quicker and indeed offer a streaming service, making obtaining it easier than piracy. What if TV shows were aired a week BEFORE it was on TV? Or even released at the same time? Challenging the current conventions is an effective way to combat piracy. I still think anything above €1 per episode is robbery. If a physical DVD costs €25, it's free on TV, how is €30 for a digital copy ok? It's also hard to give out about piracy when forces the industry to lower prices of (eg) CDs. The actual amount given to the middle-men (shipping/warehousing etc) of DVDs of a film is a disgrace, something streaming/online download can definitely sort out.

The Cable companies in the US have a choke hold on the TV Industry. They create the most money for the TV Studios, so they are not willing to change the status quo in fear of upsetting the Cable companies. There was talk of Apple bringing in a TV subscription service, but couldn't get support from the TV Studios, fearing that many will end their Cable subscription in favour of Apple' all-you-can-eat, ad-free subscription model.

seamus

Dman001 wrote:

I thought the same too, that they pay an over-inflated price for rental DVDs. There was one time you'd see Not For Rental on the DVD covers of Retail DVDs, which I'm guessing was because these DVDs were much cheaper than Rental DVDs. I'm sure it is still written on DVDs, but you'd wonder why more Rental Shops just rent out Retail Discs if there is such a difference in price. It is not as if it would be likely they'll get caught.

You'd be suprised. There is a very obvious difference between rental and retail DVDs - trailers and ads.

A business might get away with it for a while until the day they rent it to someone connected to the production company or a holy joe samaritan. Then the big, "For home viewing only message pops up", and a ****storm begins. For example, my wife is an actress, so we would be ultra-sensitive to the protection of artists' rights and pay, and so forth. Let's say we rent a copy of a movie that she was in, and it turns out to be "Home viewing only", I'm fairly sure there would be a discussion over whether or not we should report it. Notwithstanding that the big production companies take huge profits, if a rental shop is using retail DVDs for big productions, then they are also doing the same for small independent productions, who need the money.

It's the kind of thing that if a shop was caught doing just once, it could cause a cascade effect - the movie company might start getting private individuals to rent out DVDs and make a note of whether they're legit or not. Then the movie company builds a case and gives 1,000 examples of copyright breach. The rental company finds themselves with a huge fine to pay and having to remove most of their merchandise from the shelves because it's not legit. In other words, the company is bust.

A small one-off rental shop might get away with it, especially somewhere rural. But a chain store like Xtravision couldn't. They would be caught eventually.

bnt

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that movie and TV studio fail to fully recognise that their content depreciates in value over time. There's no justification in charging full price for a 10-year-old movie or TV show. They're entitled to cover their costs and make some profit, anything more is just exploitation. I know it's not quite as simple as "a fair price will stop piracy", but it would be a start. Like it or not, I don't have to watch any "entertainment" - I could happily spend the rest of my life reading classic books.

Only they (media conglomerates) make much money from "residuals" anyway - not the director, writers or actors, who got paid long ago and won't be getting much more, if anything. Writer Ken Levine, who did a lot of work on MASH, Cheers, Frasier and more, tells the story about a bar in LA called Residuals: when a writer got a check for under $1.00, the bar would take that in payment for a drink. It was a gimmick, of course - a writer wouldn't buy just the one drink - but it happened so often they had to stop accepting the checks.

PS: I play DVDs on the computer in a media player, so I can always access the movie directly from the index. On a computer I can also go direct to the VOB files in the VIDEO_TS directory, look for the biggest ones (i.e. the movie proper) cue them up in my media player and go. All that unskippable stuff would only be a problem if I was using a standalone DVD player.

Sad Professor

jaykhunter wrote: »

maybe films will have simultaneous release in cinemas/blu-ray/streaming.....

I'm really not a fan of this idea. I like watching grown-up films on the big screen. I'd hate to think that cinema might become totally dominated by theme park crap like Transformers. But if they started doing simultaneous home video/on-demand releases that's exactly what would happen. Maybe that's where we're headed anyway, but I don't like it.

More effort needs to be made to get people back in to the cinemas. And 3D isn't it. Studios need to start making adult films again, and films need to be given a chance to do well. But that's probably like trying to get the genie back in the bottle.

jaykhunter

Going to see TF3 reminded me that I generally hate the cinema experience - moreso the obnoxious kids that think their quips are hilarious and everyone must hear them....or it could be like going to see Psycho in the National Concert Hall where i'm surrounded by the cast of the Last of the Summer Wine.... there has to be a happy medium somewhere

naughto

i have a70 gb download cap a month with vodafone what do they think iam going to be downloading with that amount.

iMuse

naughto wrote: »

i have a70 gb download cap a month with vodafone what do they think iam going to be downloading with that amount.

You could easily hit that if a netflix system existed in Ireland. I would gladly pay a fee each month for such a service but instead people are been forced down the piracy route because of the months of waiting for content to become available.

Otis Driftwood

I download movies quite alot.

In most case its movies that I wouldnt have any other way of seeing other than paying an exorbitant amount of money buying them on ebay.

The thing is though,if I like the movie,I will buy it but Im not willing to take a chance on something that I may end up hating.

There are maybe 3 or 4 production companies in existence whose movies I will always buy without downloading first but they are all small indy companies that are self financing and I know the effort they make to get the money together to make the movies in the first place.