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.
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.
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.
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?????
hooradiation wrote: » because studios won't fund as many small projects anymore, because of losses due to piracy.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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...
Mickjg wrote: » 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.
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.
Greg Carter spent the last three years scraping together $250,000 to write, direct and produce "A Gangland Love Story," a gritty, urban retelling of "Romeo and Juliet."
Underdraft wrote: » You've chosen a volatile career where at its essence you're producing a product that is not a necessity to human living. It's worthless in real terms and is only priced by whatever discretionary income you can glean out of people for it.
OctavarIan wrote: » You've just defined 99% of product industries.
Underdraft wrote: » This is as much due to the fact that thanks to piracy people have finally been able put a real value on what is being produced as it is due to piracy itself. Hope that doesn't come across the wrong way anyway. It's fine to follow your dream and all but if nobody wants to finance your dream or will not miss the results of your labour were it not to exist then I'd reckon you'd just have to accept that.
You've chosen a volatile career where at its essence you're producing a product that is not a necessity to human living. It's worthless in real terms and is only priced by whatever discretionary income you can glean out of people for it. If your entire entertainment industry disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't really make any great difference to the world.
Lone Stone wrote: » I have never pirated some thing that i would actually pay money for, they dont loose a dime. If anything i might download some thing watch a bit of it then go go buy it or see it in the cinema if i think its good.
Standman wrote: » 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.
Standman wrote: » Anyway, my point was that he is being compensated for the work he does.
Standman wrote: » 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.
Standman wrote: » 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 wrote: » From your link. Shouldn't Shakespeare, or at least his descendants, get royalties and profit from this 'creativity'? Hilarious.
hooradiation wrote: » You may return to being an irrelevance.
Chuck Stone wrote: » Source? Not an opinion piece now - actual evidence.
