"Over 1m viewers could have access cut over illegal streaming"

The Backwards Man

srsly78 wrote: »

The argument is very simple: if piracy provides a better service then people will choose to pirate. All the stupid restrictions imposed, and stupid "anti piracy" ads etc before films - these only punish paying consumers.

Aye, when you're paying a multi billion pound corporation sixty or seventy euros a month to watch football, and then you go for a poop and have to watch the match on your tablet via an add-on developed by a spotty student in a bedsit because the official app is a load of horse dung, there's something wrong somewhere.

mdwexford

elefant wrote: »

What the initial poster said was:

'It hasn't made a show that comes even close to HBO's best creations.'

Which is true.

Fair enough.

Personally I think comparing the back catalogue of a 40+ year network to a company that are making content for a few years is a bit silly.

Netflix are putting out high quality shows which are some of the best new stuff I've seen in the last few years.

scamalert

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

This isn't really true, to be fair.

Yes, there's an argument to be made that many/most illegal downloads or streams don't equal lost revenue because the person would not have watched it if payment was the only option.

However, you'd be very naive to think that there isn't lost revenue.

Even on a personal and basic level, even if most people don't stop to think about it, the amount of times we say to ourselves "Ah, kinda want to see it, but I'll just wait for it to come out"

Coming out meaning downloading, for me and for most people. If such a possibility did not exist, I would likely have gone to see it in the cinema (and I do go to the cinema quite a lot as it is).

There is massive amounts of lost revenue.

most likely people who wouldnt pay,wouldnt pay either way ,its not like ill wait until it comes out,once screened in korea etc movie is up usually within 24h to watch online,now sometimes its low hd quality or kor subs etc,but once its screened somewhere there are people that do proper rips.
i mean if one pays for internet subscribes to netflix or whatever,then tv license on top and still needs to pay for extra movies music youll run into ground with money spent.

if you look up new movies that come out most people dont even bother downloading them since as another user said out of 10 lucky to get 1 decent nowadays.

And this crap sony and other companies suffering is bull:
How much money did Breaking Bad make?

Cranston takes home a cool $225,000 per episode, while Paul earns $150,000. (Not bad for someone who was originally supposed to be killed off at the end of season one.) That puts Cranston's salary for the final eight episodes of the series at $1.8 million. Paul would take home $1.2 million.Aug 30, 2013


And that is why some TV series are concerned with piracy. In this regard, the TV series has been one of the most pirated HBO shows in the world. But surprisingly, that doesn't even make a dent in the producers' income, not in the long term or on the subscribers' side.
So if "Game of Thrones" makes $1 billion annually, it should have earned at least by now around $4 billion to $5 billion since it premiered in April, 2011.

In other words id imagine theres every houshold that would have some dvd's from series like Sopranos,the wire,Band of brothers,gladiator and other quality movies or shows from 2000 or so.and them copies wouldnt be that old since while its possible to downlaod many purchased them long after seeing whole shows because quality and acting put into them was worth value of having it in collection.theres some movies shows that i go back online to stream because its easier then looking for exact cd,but to say that every shows deserves its share its dreamers in hollywood .

TerrorFirmer

None of that takes way from the simple fact in any way though. Most people don't watch cam copies of new movies, but plenty of people decide to wait until it's released on DVD/Blu-ray and then download it rather than see it in the cinema and thus pay for it.

I'd say about 5-10% of media I watch on an annual basis, I actually pay for.

Would I pay for 100% of it if paying was the only option? Most definitely not, but if given no other option I would likely pay for about 50% of it.

That is the bottom line of the general argument. Calling media makers 'greedy' or arguing that 'sure they make enough so it's fine' is not really much of a riposte to be fair.

faceman

What a load of nonsense. It's not like the studios or the Irish film industry was booming prior to the launch of the internet.

When I saw this in the news this morning the whole Napster thing from years ago sprung to mind. The studios will lose out if they alienate their customers.

Fergal Quinn has a great book about running a business. I can't remember the exact quote he uses buts it's along the lines of don't complain, compete.

I used to download music until Spotify came along. I haven't downloaded any music since I subscribed years ago.

A Netflix model is the future. The quicker studios realise this the better it will be for everyone.

And calling a spade a spade, you can stream HD and full HD tv and movies on many of these Android boxes in stereo sound. That's more than adequate for the majority of users.

Blocking a few sites will just cause more to spring up.

andekwarhola

faceman wrote: »

A Netflix model is the future. The quicker studios realise this the better it will be for everyone.

And calling a spade a spade, you can stream HD and full HD tv and movies on many of these Android boxes I stereo sound. That's more than adequate for the majority of users.

Blocking a few sites will just cause more to spring up.

This.

The TV and movie industry are now putting the same finger in the dam as the music industry did. Technology is negating the monopolistic, gouging model and the industry should facilitate what people want rather than fighting an ultimately useless battle.

Jayop

Sport is the biggest joke here. You can pay your TV license, get Sky in, pay a sky sports sub, pay the extra for bt sports, pay for your Mutv or whatever and you'll still only get a limited amount of games each season so if like me you want to watch every game then you still end up streaming.

It's a joke, you do everything you can to be legal and you still miss out so why bother.

R P McMurphy

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Maybe if Hollywood produced better films, people would be willing to pay.

At the moment, about 1 in 10 films is half decent. The rest are just over-egged sequels, prequels, rehashed formulas and single joke "comedies".

People are staying away from the cinema or pay TV not because of any illegal content but mainly there's rarely anything worth paying to see.

Case in point is 'keeping up with the Joneses' which was released late last year. Billed as a comedy it was utterly witless. A comedy that manages to not have anything remotely funny happen at all, completely bizarre. I can't imagine how someone would feel walking out of a cinema if they had paid into that.

Jayop

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Case in point is 'keeping up with the Joneses' which was released late last year. Billed as a comedy it was utterly witless. A comedy that manages to not have anything remotely funny happen at all, completely bizarre. I can't imagine how someone would feel walking out of a cinema if they had paid into that.

One of the singularly most unfunny things I've ever had the misfortune of sitting through. But hey, at least I didn't lose anything more than my time to it.

ScumLord

scamalert wrote: »

most likely people who wouldnt pay,wouldnt pay either way

That's true, if I can't stream the movies I want I'll probably have to go back to ram raiding shops.


The quicker these big companies go belly up the better. We can then move on with proper services with a fair price.

Arghus

My two cents: Large numbers of people not paying for content is going to have a long term detrimental effect on the overall quality of future content.

ScumLord

Arghus wrote: »

My two cents: Large numbers of people not paying for content is going to have a long term detrimental effect on the overall quality of future content.

Yeah, big budget films where they pump millions into a celebrity list and then promote the bejaysus out of it may not do to well. But that's no great loss.

A_Sober_Paddy

Arghus wrote: »

My two cents: Large numbers of people not paying for content is going to have a long term detrimental effect on the overall quality of future content.

I'd happily pay to watch game of thrones, but I can't. As it would cost me a fortune and tie me into a contract with sky(who aren't great to cancel with) just to watch one shoe. also my apartment complex cant take sky. Why can't I just subscribe to something official online to stream the episodes at my own convenience

hatrickpatrick

VinLieger wrote: »

Hilarious how they continue fighting this losing battle instead of simply innovating and giving customers what they are begging for.

It will take minutes for workarounds to be setup by the sites in question if this action is successful not to mention the very simple solution of anyone just getting their own VPN to workaround the ISP block.

The music industry in fairness has copped on to this, although it did take them long enough.

Arghus

ScumLord wrote: »

Yeah, big budget films where they pump millions into a celebrity list and then promote the bejaysus out of it may not do to well. But that's no great loss.

Not neccessarily just that. Studios are probably going to be less likely to finance the likes of smaller more left of field or original movies. Independent movies could potentially struggle; it takes a lot to get the finances together and then to distribute and market them.That becomes a harder and harder proposition in an enviroment where people are developing an aversion to paying for entertainment.

People look at the revenues of big massive dunderheaded blockbusters, but fail to realise that these things exist because they are sure bets in a far from stable or certain market. They are broad and dumb because they are designed to play to almost anyone, anywhere and turn a profit. Expect a lot more of them in the years to come.

ScumLord

Arghus wrote: »

Not neccessarily just that. Studios are probably going to be less likely to finance the likes of smaller more left of field or original movies. Independent movies could potentially struggle; it takes a lot to get the finances together and then to distribute and market them.That becomes a harder and harder proposition in an enviroment where people are developing an aversion to paying for entertainment.

I'm not so sure about that. The fact is it's never been easier to make a film. Anyone can buy a decent camera these days, even a range of different types of camera so you can do fancy panning shots and all sorts.

The software to edit and do special effects for film has never been cheaper or more accessible. I learned how to use the entire adobe film editing suite over a year, it's not that difficult if you've got the time.

Making the film is not the problem, paying every **** with a notion is the problem, getting insurance is the problem, unions are a problem. The technology and art is sitting waiting for the financials to work out who gets what cut. If people are interested in the art and not so concerned with finances anyone could make a half ways decent film with enough time.

Even promoting the film isn't nearly as difficult as it used to be, with a bit of effort they can promote the film for next to nothing.

wes

Service like Netflix and Steam, have done more to combat piracy, then the legal system ever has.

In the case of Ireland, its actually pretty difficult to buy a TV show, and you can see on service like Google Play, they only offer movies for sale for example. This kind of strange holes, make piracy far more viable for a lot of people.

The industry needs to get there **** together, and make there stuff easily avaliable for people to pay for. Its still far to hard to get stuff in this country.

VinLieger

wes wrote: »

Service like Netflix and Steam, have done more to combat piracy, then the legal system ever has.

In the case of Ireland, its actually pretty difficult to buy a TV show, and you can see on service like Google Play, they only offer movies for sale for example. This kind of strange holes, make piracy far more viable for a lot of people.

The industry needs to get there **** together, and make there stuff easily avaliable for people to pay for. Its still far to hard to get stuff in this country.

Exactly its far too hard to find a reasonable way to pay to watch new TV shows in Ireland and in many cases simply impossible, especially if you want to watch something on demand which people now expect to be able to do because of Netflix.

Many of the shows pirated here are actually available on demand in the states through Hulu etc immediately after they first air on TV but just arent on any service in Ireland so as far as im concerned the service I would like is unavailable for me as they simply do not want my money, therefore I will continue streaming and torrenting until they decide my business and money is worth actually competing for.

As far as sports go I would happily pay to stream the specific matches and events I am interested in and not have to shellout for countless of useless channels and other sports I never intend on watching, but again that service is not available to pay for yet is very easy to find as streams so thats the way I now consume my sports.

Decuc500

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

I'd happily pay to watch game of thrones, but I can't. As it would cost me a fortune and tie me into a contract with sky(who aren't great to cancel with) just to watch one shoe. also my apartment complex cant take sky. Why can't I just subscribe to something official online to stream the episodes at my own convenience

Serious question. Can you not just buy the dvd box set if you want to pay for it?

silverharp

Decuc500 wrote: »

Serious question. Can you not just buy the dvd box set if you want to pay for it?

dvd? cute , this isn't the retro forum :pac:

VinLieger

Decuc500 wrote: »

Serious question. Can you not just buy the dvd box set if you want to pay for it?

DVD boxsets of new shows do not come out for a good few months after the last episode of the show has finished, They get to watch new series and shows on demand in the US in the vast majority of cases immediately after the episode has aired, the only thing stopping that service coming over here is archaic regional distribution that the industry is not bothered changing and instead would prefer to waste money on prosecuting all its potential paying customers

Arghus

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. The fact is it's never been easier to make a film. Anyone can buy a decent camera these days, even a range of different types of camera so you can do fancy panning shots and all sorts.

The software to edit and do special effects for film has never been cheaper or more accessible. I learned how to use the entire adobe film editing suite over a year, it's not that difficult if you've got the time.

Making the film is not the problem, paying every **** with a notion is the problem, getting insurance is the problem, unions are a problem. The technology and art is sitting waiting for the financials to work out who gets what cut. If people are interested in the art and not so concerned with finances anyone could make a half ways decent film with enough time.

Even promoting the film isn't nearly as difficult as it used to be, with a bit of effort they can promote the film for next to nothing.

You make some fair points there.

Yes, in many ways, it's never been easier for people to make a film. But whether that film is good to look at, has any quality, or whether people are willing to pay for it is another question.

My opinion is that if people want to produce an independent film in the more traditional sense, it's still hard and probably will, in all likelihood, remain hard. Next time you watch an indie movie you should try to count how many production companies or financial backers that get their logos on screen before the credits begin; usually it's quite a few, which tells me that getting financial backing to make a professionally made movie is increasingly complex and difficult.

I also wouldn't sniff at the distribution and marketing opportunities afforded by working with studios. I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound to get your own work out there and promote without some backing or help, and oftentimes the more traditional methods of raising peoples awareness of your "product" are still the most effective.

I don't want to totally confine the argument to cinema - I think there's a broader change occurring over the value people place on entertainment/cultural content. I'm no saint myself: I download plenty, but I also pay for plenty and go to things plenty as well. I just used films as an example because it's the one that sticks out to me the most.

We've just come off the most atrocious Summer Movie season that I can remember. I'm a habitual cinema goer, but I didn't go for weeks during the Summer as the fare was bloody awful: nothing but rehashes, reboots and sequels. Now some people can say, sure that only goes to show that we're fools to pay for that crap - and that's fair. But I think the dearth of risk and originality in mainstream cinema is indicative somehow of a wider culture that has less and less of a problem with placing no worth on paying for entertainment - and when that happens you frequently end up with art and entertainment that is disposable and worthless.

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

I don't know anyone who illegally downloads music any more. Like not a single person because it can all be got for a reasonable price per month on excellent services like Spotify.

.

How many people are just using the free version of spotify though. I use it but I won't pay for it so just use the free version, if that wasn't working I'd just listen to the songs on youtube or use tunein radio (which I also use anyway). If you want the songs offline you still need to download if you aren't willing to pay for spotify premium or some other paid sub that allows offline playing of content.

Chain Smoker

slavetothegrind wrote: »

The 1.3 million unique user figure is rediculous , court should have asked for proof or thrown out.

Of course this is a report in an irish paper so could be entirely unresearched and inaccurate.....

I mean, if you really stretched it, you could get there, they'd have to be counting stuff like Simpsons gifs though

CptMackey

As regards streaming sport. I work every second weekend so paying sky 60 a month is pointless . I would how ever pay a reasonable amount to watch games that I'm off for if I could pay for individual matches or even if they launched a sports service like Netflix's .

DEFTLEFTHAND

The horse has bolted, you're not going to get the Irish to stop stealing.

ScumLord

Arghus wrote: »

My opinion is that if people want to produce an independent film in the more traditional sense, it's still hard and probably will, in all likelihood, remain hard. Next time you watch an indie movie you should try to count how many production companies or financial backers that get their logos on screen before the credits begin; usually it's quite a few, which tells me that getting financial backing to make a professionally made movie is increasingly complex and difficult.

I also wouldn't sniff at the distribution and marketing opportunities afforded by working with studios. I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound to get your own work out there and promote without some backing or help, and oftentimes the more traditional methods of raising peoples awareness of your "product" are still the most effective.

I agree, studios are the experts with experience. That's often invaluable. Buth they come with an awful lot of bloat too. When a handful of operators would have sufficed before going to the studio, once they get involved they bring unions with them and a guy for every specific task and you can't even turn the equipment on until they say so. It's a very contrived way of making films.

We have more media than ever before, way more than any person can realistically go through. The problem I find with the entire industry is they're painting by numbers at this stage, they're very much stuck in a rut and unwilling to take any risks. they keep making bland and suppressing anything that won't definitely make money. Every story follows a formula and anything that does get attention for being different gets aped so much it becomes old before you know it.

The art of it is dead, replaced by a profit chasing media producing machine. They've nothing worth while to tell us and are just cynically appealing to the most base in society. So generally I have no sympathy for the industry.

mikhail

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The horse has bolted, you're not going to get the Irish to stop stealing.

Oh, that's cute. You've swallowed their years of propaganda. When you steal something, like a horse, the original owner no longer has it. Copyright infringement isn't theft.

I don't stream things illegally, but the studios have abused their artificial monopoly for long enough. I say we enforce their rights only after we cut the term of copyright on entertainment media to five years.

VinLieger

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The horse has bolted, you're not going to get the Irish to stop stealing.

Please point me to the piece of legislation that could be used to prosecute me for stealing by streaming a tv show

hatrickpatrick

VinLieger wrote: »

DVD boxsets of new shows do not come out for a good few months after the last episode of the show has finished, They get to watch new series and shows on demand in the US in the vast majority of cases immediately after the episode has aired, the only thing stopping that service coming over here is archaic regional distribution that the industry is not bothered changing and instead would prefer to waste money on prosecuting all its potential paying customers

Literally this.

I remember last year when every Cloverfield fan under the sun was hyped for the release of 10 Cloverfield Lane, which as fans of the Cloverfield series will know involves a protracted, cryptic marketing campaign shrouded in total mystery. Paramount almost totally blew it by deciding to release it in Ireland and the UK a full month after the US release - which would of course have meant that fans would have had spoilers shoved down their throat and lost interest long before the movie was available to watch for them.

I emailed Paramount to this effect, and they actually responded in agreement and moved the release date up to match that of the US, to my amazement. Lobbying by the little guy does sometimes work.

But the question is, why the f*ck were they going with staggered regional releases to begin with? In the age of piracy and 24/7 spoilers, nobody was going to wait an extra month to see it for fear of having the story ruined. Super 8 was released in 2011 by the same Paramount studio (Bad Robot) after a year-long mystery marketing campaign, but because they released it in America June 2011 and in Europe August 2011, everyone who had even the slightest interest in it and didn't choose to disable all of their internet enabled devices over the summer knew the ending long before it was released here.

I have no sympathy whatsoever with the victims of piracy as long as they keep up this asinine living in the past. The world is no longer divided by borders as far as information goes, so neither should the media.