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???

mike65

Eventually no one will bother committing art to a media, and you'll have to go to an art gallery to see a painting, to a live performance to hear music or see a script acted out and so on. At some point someone has to protect the artist/creator and their endeavours.

Whether the latest "big idea" is that point is another matter.

Something for nothing can't continue forever unless you like the idea of all arts being funded out of the general tax take and shown "free" thereafter.

davet82

They need to re-think how to charge for their talents, imo music should be free...

Why not setup website and let their music be downloaded for free, viewing advertisments as you wait for it download. Free music would chart well on the downlaod charts. Most real fans want hard copys that could be ordered from the website aswel as official mechandise. You have concerts and gigs... endorements if you make it big. No fees for music distubtion companies. The internet for music is the way its going. I think bands starting out would benefit equally, somethin has to change cause file sharing wont.

It was recordable tapes, then cd burners and now file shares music goes on

as for films, personnally if i wanted to see a film i go the cinema regardless if it was free online but thats just me

af_thefragile

hooradiation wrote: »

ok kid let me ask you how does this

square with this?

and this

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.

No one becomes a successful and rich film maker, artist overnight and those who wish/dream of become one need to step into the real world.

Its a long hard road becoming known and successful.

Firstly indie film makers don't get enough marketing to be able to screen their films in popular cinemas for long. One needs to head over to those niche cinemas like IFI to watch these movies which not many people bother to.

If people read on the internet the movie is good and they can watch it online, they'll watch it online for free. This way the film maker gets recognised.

Then if his work was really good, he'll gain more of a following from among the people who watched his work on the internet for free. So when he releases his next movie, he'll have a larger following and more people will go to the cinema to watch his movie than just watching it online because a cinema experience will be superior to watching a lower quality stream online. And hence slowly he'll gain more recognition and more following based on the quality of content he provides and not because some big film studio like universal or fox has spent millions marketing the movie which they only do for the big film makers like Cameron, Spielberg, Ridley Scott etc. Film studios only exploit small and unknown film makers.

For musicians its similar. Musician makes a great single or hear the song featured in a popular video/game which goes viral on youtube. Then people want to check out his other work, they like his work. They go to his gigs, his ticket sales increase, he makes more money all while not being bound to a horrible record contract which exploits him.

Yes this way musicians and film makers will not be making millions overnight, but then no one ever does. Though this way at least they gain recognition and popularity without being exploited by film/music studios.

af_thefragile

mike65 wrote: »

Eventually no one will bother committing art to a media, and you'll have to go to an art gallery to see a painting, to a live performance to hear music or see a script acted out and so on. At some point someone has to protect the artist/creator and their endeavours.

Whether the latest "big idea" is that point is another matter.

Something for nothing can't continue forever unless you like the idea of all arts being funded out of the general tax take and shown "free" thereafter.

But that is not true!

This is an argument people in favour of these SOPA/PIPA acts keep coming up with and it is just not true.

People are and will continue visiting art galleries, cinemas and concert halls not because they visit these places as they can't view/experience the content anywhere else apart from in these places, but because these places given them a better quality experience of the content than they can anywhere else.

I can watch a picture of monalisa by googling it but nothing will equate to seeing the actual painting in front of you at the Louvre.

Similarly I can listen to an album of my favourite aritist on my ipod but it won't equate to watching the artist live in front of you with many other people experiencing the same music.

And the same for cinema. As long as cinemas provide superior viewing experience than what can be found anywhere else, people will continue to flock to the cinema to watch their favourite movies or movies made by their favourite film makers/actors etc.



I don't think entertainment content should be free but piracy/sharing of content cannot be stopped and in many instances it actually helps the content creator gain more recognition. We are not socialists but we cannot control people's liberties and freedom either. If people want to download your music for free, you need to find another way of making your living which a lot of content creators do.

Back in the vinyl days people loved buying vinyl not because that was the only way of getting your music but also because you could get the amazing artwork on the vinyl covers for a more modern example Tool's 10,000 days album comes to mind. Now days game publishers do this a lot with special edition sets which comes in cool packaging and some extra toys etc.
And then there's the whole gigs and cinema experience thing where the artists make their living from.

Yakult

Its the industries fault that they wont swing with this new trend. They have plenty of ways to get on top of it and benefit just as well as they did.


The only thing that has to change here is the way film/music industries do business.

wes

SOPA and PIPA are not needed and anyone who says otherwise is imho delusion, as current law already protects them from piracy:

Why the feds smashed Megaupload

The existing laws already protect them, but the MPAA, RIAA, and ESA etc want to do away with stuff like actually having to prove piracy is actually take place, and essentially they can take down entire sites on accusation alone.

It should also be noted that the US DMCA has also been abused by members of the content industry, to for example take down a someones home video, that just so happens to have a copyrighted song audiable in the back ground for example. Such existing laws imho should be scaled back as they are being abused.

Then, there are other fair use right that have been taken away via DRM, where when you buy something your use is limited, but someone who pirates get a nice unencumbered version of the file. The content inudustry has been treating its paying customers like criminals, all the while pirates have a better product, as they don't have to deal with DRM.

These laws are not needed, and they will destroy innovation on the web, and limit people freedom of speech. SOPA and PIPA is just the US version of what China and Saudia Arabia does imho. There is no need for SOPA or PIPA, the laws that exist already protect the content industry, and whether they like it or not, they need to prove piracy etc, and not just have sites taken down on there say so.

Ash.J.Williams

af_thefragile wrote: »

No one becomes a successful and rich film maker, artist overnight and those who wish/dream of become one need to step into the real world.

Its a long hard road becoming known and successful.

Firstly indie film makers don't get enough marketing to be able to screen their films in popular cinemas for long. One needs to head over to those niche cinemas like IFI to watch these movies which not many people bother to.

If people read on the internet the movie is good and they can watch it online, they'll watch it online for free. This way the film maker gets recognised.

Then if his work was really good, he'll gain more of a following from among the people who watched his work on the internet for free. So when he releases his next movie, he'll have a larger following and more people will go to the cinema to watch his movie than just watching it online because a cinema experience will be superior to watching a lower quality stream online. And hence slowly he'll gain more recognition and more following based on the quality of content he provides and not because some big film studio like universal or fox has spent millions marketing the movie which they only do for the big film makers like Cameron, Spielberg, Ridley Scott etc. Film studios only exploit small and unknown film makers.

For musicians its similar. Musician makes a great single or hear the song featured in a popular video/game which goes viral on youtube. Then people want to check out his other work, they like his work. They go to his gigs, his ticket sales increase, he makes more money all while not being bound to a horrible record contract which exploits him.

Yes this way musicians and film makers will not be making millions overnight, but then no one ever does. Though this way at least they gain recognition and popularity without being exploited by film/music studios.

You had this information all along and you failed to pass it on to all the struggling musicians and film makers?????

af_thefragile

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

You had this information all along and you failed to pass it on to all the struggling musicians and film makers?????

They already know it and they're doing what they can. One needs to be seriously naive to believe the entertainment industry is a pretty place to work in.

Its only the ones who dream of becoming millionaires just because they went to film school or managed to put a band together, who are the ones complaining. They're the ones who as teenagers dreamed of "making it big" by playing their guitar or filming something cool but then realised their dreams getting shattered the moment they stepped into the real world.

Voodu Child

Piracy is a service problem, the way to fight it is to offer a better service.

I paid for a Bluray TV series recently and it freezes and skips at multiple places on the first disc. It's watchable but it stutters and then skips forward about 30 seconds.

Went and checked online and its a known problem since 2009. Every single disc that gets sold in the UK/Ireland has this problem. Warner have known about it but couldn't be bothered recalling it. If I bought one 2 years later they must be still manufacturing and shipping the defective disc :rolleyes: You can supposedly get a replacement if you contact them but I have tried multiple times in a period of about a month with no reply.

You tell me that's a good service that makes you want to keep buying legit content and lining the pockets of these clowns. If a scene release has a technical problem its nuked and propered within a few hours :pac:

af_thefragile

Well I have bought many blu ray discs in the past few months. Mostly BBC documentaries and such. Only had a problem of blown contrast in two discs of Planet Earth special edition which is a known problem and I can return the discs to 2 entertain and they'll send back the fixed discs.

Anyway, I can watch planet earth or any other documentary I have on blu ray online but I chose to buy the blu ray cuz of the superior video and audio quality you get on blu ray compared to on anything you can get online for free.

Going back to, if its good, people will pay for it.

hmmm

They're bitching about it because the Internet has provided people with an easier way to buy, store and watch their content.

Their efforts to compete have been, frankly, crap. Bluray with restrictions, ads, warnings before you get to see your movie. DRM on downloaded mp3s. Restricting where you can watch content you've bought. No wonder people are turning to downloading this stuff.

Ireland is a good example - where is the Pandora radio in Ireland? Or Spotify? The Netflix content library is tiny because none of these services can afford to buy the rights.

The music industries today are like the stagecoach industry in the late 1800s trying to get the nascent car industry shut down. If they don't want to keep pace with the times we live in, they don't have a right to have their stance enshrined in law.

the_syco

If someone doesn't have money, and doesn't buy a CD all year, ah well.

If the same person downloaded an album, even though the person wouldn't have bought it anyway, the industry sees it as a lost sale.

IMO, iTunes is a great tool for battling piracy: it allows people to get music quickly, and use it on their devices.

The same with netflix: people will use it than download the thing they wish to watch.

=-=

Oh, and you only see the piracy warnings that you can't skip if you buy the movie. Same goes with the music you buy: you can listen to it on one device, but if you obtain it illegally, you can play it on multiple devices.

Chuck Stone

hooradiation wrote: »

because studios won't fund as many small projects anymore, because of losses due to piracy.

Source?

Not an opinion piece now - actual evidence.

44leto

af_thefragile wrote: »

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!

Well the music industry is a shadow of what it use to be over piracy and you are forgetting the loss of tax revenue to governments. Each piece of media sold in Ireland is charged 23% VAT. So I will speculate that piracy is costing our government at least 50 million that figure is probably a lot more.

Besides its getting worse, as our BB speed increases and the process has become so easy this is a problem that will get a lot worse. I am new to piracy, I like my films, I have not set foot into extravision in at least 3 months. That is a lot of revenue out of the system.

Mickjg

As a film student, I am well aware of the amount of work and stress that goes into making a film. 10-15 hours days are common. Making a short film can take several months from pre-production to the end of post-production. On feature films this can be anywhere from 1-2 years.

A lot of people put a lot of work into these films. The only ones making the big money are the leading actors, director and producers. The rest of the crew make much smaller incomes. Also, these people tend to go from job to job rather than being employed by a company on a normal basis like in other industries.

These people put in tremendous amounts of work and deserve their money. I know I'm not going to be wealthy from the work I do but I do deserve to be paid fairly for the work that I do just like anyone posting on here. If I or anyone I know comes by a way of making a lot of money fairly then why shouldn't they be entitled to it? This sounds like typical Irish begrudgery, being angry with people who have made money. Film makers aren't the same as bankers who may have made money through means that have brought the country and world to it's knees. They are ordinary people who had a dream, reached for it and were fortunate enough to make it.

Just because you enjoy it doesn't mean it should be free. If you enjoy having a few pints on a Saturday night do you think they should be free just because you enjoy them? No. The bar tender needs to be paid. The person who delivers the beer from the factory needs to be paid. The people working on the factory floor, in the offices and other areas of the production process need to be paid. Thinking otherwise is ridiculous.

amacachi

44leto wrote: »

Well the music industry is a shadow of what it use to be over piracy and you are forgetting the loss of tax revenue to governments. Each piece of media sold in Ireland is charged 23% VAT. So I will speculate that piracy is costing our government at least 50 million that figure is probably a lot more.

Besides its getting worse, as our BB speed increases and the process has become so easy this is a problem that will get a lot worse. I am new to piracy, I like my films, I have not set foot into extravision in at least 3 months. That is a lot of revenue out of the system.

Where does that money go to then? People don't squirrel away money that they would've spent on pirated stuff.


As was said above, make the product better. Netflix and the like will still be a waste of time for me til they start offering everything at the same time as it's available in America and elsewhere.

Media999

Rumour has it Megaupload were about to launch a record label that gave the stars a huge share of the money unlike iTunes and Universal music etc...

Thats a lot of Tax shifting to Hong Kong rather than USA. Theres always **** going on in the background that we dont know about.

Theyll be years going through courts. Dont expect this to end anytime soon.

Chuck Stone

44leto wrote: »

Well the music industry is a shadow of what it use to be over piracy and you are forgetting the loss of tax revenue to governments.

Efficiency is what that's called in the free market. Downloading an album/movie/pizza from a server costs a fraction of the amount it cost to make and distribute hard copies.

That's an incredible amount of time and energy saved on production of discs, transporting them, middle men etc.

It's pure green I tells ya.

Standman

hooradiation wrote: »

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?

I think the simple answer to your question is quite obvious, people like free stuff. I don't think most people who download movies give much thought to it. I'd liken it to people labeling themselves as an "animal lover" and then sitting down to dinner with a lovely roast chicken on the table, the hypocrisy is similar. On top of that you have the attitude of the average person where they see these rich actors, movie producers and corporations and think well fuck that they've got enough money and I could do with saving mine, so that justifies it to them.

Anyway, my point was that he is being compensated for the work he does. I understand what you are saying is that piracy is apparently killing "edgy, creative movies", although what constitutes "edgy and creative" is completely subjective. Just using the example in the article you posted, "a gritty, urban retelling of 'Romeo and Juliet'". Is that edgy and creative? Maybe it was the first time.

People complain a lot about the quality of tv shows and movies these days but I think some of the best ever tv and movies have come out in the last decade. You go to the cinema and are bombarded with ads for ****ty movies like Jack and Jill and Mr.Poppers Penguins, these films are being marketed more and seem to be the big money spinners. However, it doesn't mean the great films and t.v. shows aren't there, it just means you have to look for them instead of being spoon-fed.

Chuck Stone

Media999 wrote: »

Rumour has it Megaupload were about to launch a record label that gave the stars a huge share of the money unlike iTunes and Universal music etc...

Linky please?