Why are the movie and music makers b*tching about piracy?

af_thefragile

Its not like they've all become bankrupt and homeless because of megaupload and youtube!

The film makers are still making millions and billions in some cases through ticket sales at cinemas. Avatar grossed $2.7 billion, the awful 3rd Transformers movie grossed over $1 billion. Music artists are still making millions through ticket sales and concerts and licence fees paid by TV, radio channels etc. and its not like people have stopped buying films and music because we can get it all for free now. People are still buying DVDs and CDs of the films and albums they like. If you just take a walk into HMV this becomes very apparent.

Then why the hell do these people want to pass stupid legislations which has worldwide implications on the internet and then later go on MTV and show off their huge opulent homes and cars they own while bitching about how online file sharing is making them bankrupt.

This is completely retarded and just another aspect of USA trying to control the internet which is a global network, not a local american network.

Sorry if this topic is being beaten to death right now but this really makes no sense! We cannot let the film and music industry get away with this nonsense!

Peetrik

Greed. Plain and simple.

Dravokivich

A business is not going to invest in an individual product it makes no money from, even if overall the business is in profit. Producers require investment to develope the product. Movies / CDs are products, if they are not profitable, there won't be investment in them.

Simple really. I'm suprised many people can't seem to comprehend that. Ah well.

Duggy747

Because this poor lamb needs your money

af_thefragile

Dravokivich wrote: »

A business is not going to invest in an individual product it makes no money from, even if overall the business is in profit. Producers require investment to develope the product. Movies / CDs are products, if they are not profitable, there won't be investment in them.

Simple really. I'm suprised many people can't seem to comprehend that. Ah well.

Well that's like any other business then.

If your product is crap, no one will buy it and you'll make a loss!
If your product is good, then lots of people buy it and you'll become wealthy.

Why shouldn't this apply to film/music too?

Sindri

af_thefragile wrote: »

Avatar grossed $2.7 billion, the awful 3rd Transformers movie grossed over $1 billion

They only get half the gross.

It's the people who own the Music and Film studios who make the money.

All the stars and directors earn peanuts compared to them.

hooradiation

See, when piracy hit Hollywood, they didn't stop funding blockbusters -- they stopped funding edgy, creative movies. They're going with safer and safer bets.

Good job, jackasses.

Dravokivich

af_thefragile wrote: »

Well that's like any other business then.

If your product is crap, no one will buy it and you'll make a loss!
If your product is good, then lots of people buy it and you'll become wealthy.

Why shouldn't this apply to film/music too?

There's a bit more to it than that in this instance. The product is "good" and hugely available to be aquired without paying for it. If there's no money going back in from the product as a result of piracy, they are not going to invest more in similar products.

af_thefragile

Sindri wrote: »

They only get half the gross.

It's the people who own the Music and Film studios who make the money.

All the stars and directors earn peanuts compared to them.

Then its the Music and Film studios who need to be under the fire for exploiting artists which they have been doing for decades now.

This SOPA/PIPA thing is only going to make FOX, Universal etc. more wealthier and powerful while it will only hurt the small indie artists even more.

dasdog

"If radio is allowed, the argument went, pirate radio will destroy the music industry because who would buy music with real money when they could just listen to it on the radio for free?"

..that was the 1920's.

http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V9I1/JTHTLv9i1_Lemley.PDF

OP, have a quick read of this. It briefly outlines the lack of vision the leaders of these industries possess.

TanG411

Duggy747 wrote: »

Because this poor lamb needs your money

It 404'd.

It's a baaaad link.

af_thefragile

Dravokivich wrote: »

There's a bit more to it than that in this instance. The product is "good" and hugely available to be aquired without paying for it. If there's no money going back in from the product as a result of piracy, they are not going to invest more in similar products.

But the thing is people ARE paying for these "good" products.
People still flock to the cinema to watch good movies. People still go to concerts in huge numbers to see their favorite artists. And people will also buy the DVD and CD of their favorite movies/music albums.

So the whole "online piracy is making us bankrupt" thing is complete BS!
All its doing is making it harder for the film and music industry to get away with crap, poor quality content.

hooradiation wrote: »

See, when piracy hit Hollywood, they didn't stop funding blockbusters -- they stopped funding edgy, creative movies. They're going with safer and safer bets.

Good job, jackasses.

If it wasn't for the internet not even quarter of the people would have bothered watching the movie. The producers should be happy for atleast getting recognised for their work even though they haven't made any money of it. Maybe more people will go to the cinema to watch their next movie now that people know who these indie film makers are.

Entertainment industry is not a walk in the park. Every film maker and music producer wishes of becoming the next James Cameron or Dr Dre overnight which is not going to happen. Its a long hard road and most don't make it just like in any other business!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

no it's encouraging poor/crap content

see
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76627452&postcount=7

mikom

af_thefragile wrote: »

Why are the movie and music makers b*tching about piracy?

Because metallica need a new swimming pool.

thenightrider

Its a load of crap when you hear that xyz company lost so many million last year from people downloading.

No they didn't as most of the people that downloaded a movie to watch would not have bought it in the first place they just download it because they can.

davet82

The shoud ban VCRs and Tape Decks, they also ruined the industry in the 80s/90s

smash

The same reason scroungers whine about dole cuts... money is money disregarding the quantity. It's all relative.

Underdraft

af_thefragile wrote: »

The film makers are still making millions and billions in some cases through ticket sales at cinemas. Avatar grossed $2.7 billion, the awful 3rd Transformers movie grossed over $1 billion. Music artists are still making millions through ticket sales and concerts and licence fees paid by TV, radio channels etc. and its not like people have stopped buying films and music because we can get it all for free now. People are still buying DVDs and CDs of the films and albums they like. If you just take a walk into HMV this becomes very apparent.

Then why the hell do these people want to pass stupid legislations which has worldwide implications on the internet and then later go on MTV and show off their huge opulent homes and cars they own while bitching about how online file sharing is making them bankrupt.

Thing to remember is business isn't like sport (where a 1-0 win is practically as good as 10-0). To them making 'a' profit is not merely enough. It's all about making more. They can never have 'enough' profit. For instance they probably looked at 2.7billion for Avatar and wondered what else they could have done to make it 4billion.

davet82

smash wrote: »

The same reason scroungers whine about dole cuts... money is money disregarding the quantity. It's all relative.

yeah complaining that 8 years olds being charged 25 euro for a latest xfactor winner CD when they can download it is the same thing

smash

davet82 wrote: »

yeah complaining that 8 years olds being charged 25 euro for a latest xfactor winner CD is the same thing

What?

hooradiation

af_thefragile wrote: »

If it wasn't for the internet not even quarter of the people would have bothered watching the movie. The producers should be happy for atleast getting recognised for their work even though they haven't made any money of it.

Yeah, I mean why should people expect to get paid for their work? That'd be fucking crazy, right?

This is some of the stupidest bullshit and it fucking astounds me that people can type this and still expect to be taken seriously.

davet82

smash wrote: »

What?

dole cuts?What i'm saying is if kids download music, (in my day it was the tape deck) who cares, its hardly the same as going on about dole cuts

richiek67

They need to be able to afford another porsche carrera 4x4....lol and keep the subordinates like us down in the gutters...poor things..I'm sure they couldn't survive on less than 50k a day. They need a week with Bear Grills..
LMFAO...))))

aaronjumper

Do you not watch any films or read history books? You should never trust a pirate!

I guess they feel they went through all the trouble of making a song or movie and that anyone that wants to watch it should pay for it.

af_thefragile

hooradiation wrote: »

Yeah, I mean why should people expect to get paid for their work? That'd be fucking crazy, right?

This is some of the stupidest bullshit and it fucking astounds me that people can type this and still expect to be taken seriously.

If their work is good, they will get paid for it.

People will always share films/music no matter what you do. Even if you block off the internet which shares files, people will find other ways to share it like they have been in the past.

People can still buy DVD and make copies of them and give it to their friends etc. Like people had been doing it in the past.

Also if the bill does go through it'll could end up back firing on the industry and will only hurt the small/indie film/music makers more as at least before they were getting recognised for their work through the internet. No one is going to pay €10 to go watch some unknown obscure movie by some unknown obscure film maker. And no one will shell out €25 to buy a CD of some unknown band's music album.

The ones who will end up making more money are the big names who continue to make money in the cinema and concert halls.

The small/unknown film makers, musicians will either have to go independent under some creative commons copyright which allows people to watch/listen to their content for free on the internet as this will be the only way they will get any significant recognition but in this way they won't get the financial backing of a big label and will lose out on ever making any big production with good marketing. Or if they go under a big label, they'll be under the new copyright laws which will take away their internet free loading audience which makes up most of the audience of these artists. Hence they'll be under even more trouble as now they've made a movie, they owe a few hundred grand to this big label and they make no money cuz no one will bother paying to watch some obscure indie film by a film maker they never heard of.

An obscure indie film maker cannot complain if 10 million people watched his movie online and only 10,000 went to the cinema to watch his move. Because if it wasn't for the internet, his complete audience instead of being over 10 million will be of little over 10,000 and he'll remain forever an unknown indie film maker.

Standman

hooradiation wrote: »

See, when piracy hit Hollywood, they didn't stop funding blockbusters -- they stopped funding edgy, creative movies. They're going with safer and safer bets.

Good job, jackasses.

The subject of that article makes 60,000 to 100,000 dollars a year. That's a reasonable salary. Why do people think that just because you make films you should be a multi-millionaire.

davet82

These people are in dire straits please do not download their music...

Jay-Z and Beyonce baby Blue’s nursery proves she’s definitely a rap-royalty princess. According to the NY Post, the tot has some pricey swag:

A $600,00 solid gold, handmade rocking horse from Japanese jeweler Ginza Tanaka
$19,995 Fantasy Carriage crib from PoshTots
$15,000 Swarovski crystal-studded highchair designed by Carla Monchen
$285 Jean Paul Gaultier silk dress to burp on
These and other over-the-top gifts have set the Carters back a cool $1.5 million! The couples’ famous pals have also showered Blue with gifts. Oprah Winfrey sent a trunk of children’s books, and Kelly Rowland purchased a Bob Marley onesie and several $300 cashmere blankets.

God help them

hooradiation

ok kid let me ask you how does this

af_thefragile wrote: »

If their work is good, they will get paid for it.

square with this?

af_thefragile wrote: »

No one is going to pay €10 to go watch some unknown obscure movie by some unknown obscure film maker. And no one will shell out €25 to buy a CD of some unknown band's music album.

and this

af_thefragile wrote: »

An obscure indie film maker cannot complain if 10 million people watched his movie online and only 10,000 went to the cinema to watch his move. Because if it wasn't for the internet, his complete audience instead of being over 10 million will be of little over 10,000 and he'll remain forever an unknown indie film maker.

because on one hand you're perpetuating this idea that "good" work will get paid for, then listing reasons where that doesn't apply simply "because" and people should be happy for the scraps they get and grateful that people got the full value from a product without paying a penny.

It is the most idiotic, disgustingly over-entitled, spoilt, bullshit I've read today. Well done.

We seem to have created the idea that entertainment has no monetary value, which is so fucking wrong that it makes me want to puke blood.

hooradiation

Standman wrote: »

The subject of that article makes 60,000 to 100,000 dollars a year. That's a reasonable salary. Why do people think that just because you make films you should be a multi-millionaire.

You fail at reading comprehension, well done.
It took him three years to put together the money to shoot the movie, because studios won't fund as many small projects anymore, because of losses due to piracy.
They will fund however, stuff like Jack And Jill because it's a safe bet.

I know this might be tough to grasp, but the money you think Greg Carter makes has precious fucking little to do with this.


And to answer your banal question, I've a better one. Why do people think they have the right to view the film he created, or indeed any one, without paying for it?

mikemac1

Just on computer games, Football Manager gets pirated every year. Sometimes it takes two weeks and sometimes three or four days but it will always be pirated.

It's something I'd buy, a hell of a lot of work goes into it and people get jobs from working on it.
If nobody bought it then they would not make it


But most films I'd watch on the internet, tbh I wouldn't buy them anyway so I'm not a lost sale.

Possibly my post makes no sense and seems a double standard

If I want it I'll pay for it, if I'm just browsing and passing time I'll download most anything

Ash.J.Williams

I note all the examples are the upper tier of the industry. Jay-z, Metallica etc. These guys have huge back catalogues and have built up a big live show that keeps them rich.
What about everyone else???