AfterDawn: Tech news

'Zombieland' director speaks of piracy, gets angry via Twitter

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 21 Nov 2009 23:57 User comments (38)

'Zombieland' director speaks of piracy, gets angry via Twitter Earlier this week, the writer and director of the popular movie Zombieland, Rhett Reese, lashed out at pirates of his movie, saying it may lead to a sequel not being shot. He even personally attacked a few Twitter members which had posted about downloading and watching the film from their homes.
Zombieland is available as an R5, and was one of the most popular films via P2P of the last three weeks.

Reese has responded to the bad press however, and taken account for yelling at those on Twitter. He makes some interesting points whether or not you are for or against piracy:

Hi all, since Iím the one who unwittingly started this particular firestorm, here are my thoughts.

My two tweet plea (five if you include my three angry tweets to individuals) began after I read tweet upon tweet for hours, days, weeks, in which people mentioned (or often, bragged) openly about having just watched Zombieland at home for free. I largely shrugged this piracy off as inevitable, but it never felt good to read the tweets. Then I saw the 60 Minutes episode on piracy. And then I read an article about the sheer numbers of downloads of Zombieland in particular. Rightly or wrongly, I felt burned. For the record, I may have been over-dramatic, in my emotional state, in suggesting that downloading could kill Zombieland 2. It could. In our case, the greater hope/expectation is that it wonít. The movie has done very well.

No, I donít believe that 1 download = 1 lost ticket sale or 1 lost DVD sale. Certainly, there are many people who both contribute to a movieís legitimate B.O. and also download the movieÖ including, it turns out, the people I singled out on Twitter. There are also many people who download movies who would never pay to see those same movies in any format regardless. But I do believe that there is a significant, non-trivial population of people who might have (in an ideal world with no piracy) paid to see Zombieland, either in theaters or on DVD, but instead chose to watch it for free, because it was easy and didnít cost them anything.

No, I donít subscribe to the Robin Hood argument, which claims that rich, greedy Hollywood studios/actors/writers/etc. have enough $ and donít need more. Nor do I subscribe to the argument that examines positive correlations between downloads and box office and concludes that popularity in the one (downloads) is somehow causing the popularity in the other (box office). Correlation does not imply causality.

Some might argue that an ideal world *should* allow unlimited piracy of copyrighted material. I disagree. And I agree with the reasoning behind copyright law. Copyright law grants the owner of a copyright a window of time within which he/she can make money off the copyright. I hate to say it, but people making money off art, even a lot of money, is a good thing. Itís America. Itís capitalism. Copyright law is important because it provides financial incentive for artists to set aside other pursuits and devote entire careers to creating and innovating. Movies. Books. Videogames. Songs. These things bring us joy. And joy is worth paying for.

I can only assume that lovers of piracy relish the improvements in copying/distribution technology that make pirating all the easier and gradually improve the quality of what is being piratedÖ to where a pirated copy will ultimately be indistinguishable in quality from an original. But take this to its logical conclusion, and it isnít hard to see why everyone should be concerned. Human nature sadly dictates that few people will pay for what they can get for free. In a world where all art is instantly available for nothing, no one will be able to make a living as an artist. Nor will anyone invest any capital in art. SoÖ no more movies. No more videogames. No more albums. TV shows. Etc.

I by no means want to be an anti-piracy crusader, and Iím now going to step away from the debate. Iím not a very political person. On a very basic level, my tweets were just the defensive reactions of an artist who hates seeing people brazenly proclaim that theyíre pirating his work.

I really like the genuine debate that has been inspired by this thread. There are obviously different sides of this issue, and different complexities within it. Iíve been called a lot of things in the last week, a number of which have been pretty crazy, and I just wanted to make the most reasoned response I could. Paying for art isnít the most objectionable thing in the world. In fact, itís a very beneficial thing.

PS, thanks for weighing in, everyone, especially those who supported my point of view. Suicide Taxi, in particular, makes a TON of sense to me!

Previous Next  

38 user comments

122.11.2009 0:27

"Copyright law grants the owner of a copyright a window of time within which he/she can make money off the copyright"

The problem is how long it lasts! Why does it have to be 70+ years? Why not something reasonable like 5 or 10?

222.11.2009 0:35

Originally posted by Amak:
The problem is how long it lasts! Why does it have to be 70+ years? Why not something reasonable like 5 or 10?
I'm a classical musician for a living and the 70 year copyright is perfect for my business. The 'standards' for my profession and what most consider the masters and most popular for performance are over 200 years old. So in this case 70 years isn't even nearly enough. The same can be said for movies. Why shouldn't a film director be able to create a masterpiece and then sit back and retire on his earnings. A shorter copyright wouldn't allow this.

322.11.2009 0:40

"Copyright law grants the owner of a copyright a window of time within which he/she can make money off the copyright"

Key word make money, go after everyone whose trying to make a dime off it and leave the rest of us ALONE.

This is something people in the industry do not comprehend, they that that because something is made it can be automatically protected under some obscure absolutionisim that grants them the right to trample any one any where because they own something.

Tough sht, in most places you are given the right to exclusive profit and little else, some more as time goes on what to make it harder and harder for people to share,lend and distribute which is pointless because you can't stop it the more you try and invent schemes to protect the industry right to rent down to the masses the more the people will fight back by not buying and shearing all they can.

Its simple focus on profit it creates a much healthier and vibrant industry when the people are allowed to make fan projects freely and and be true fans trying to get the word and message and copes out so that people will support whatever it is they like instead of flogging the people for daring to think and question...

422.11.2009 1:45

"The movie has done very well." he said it himself, he just wants golden valve stems on his ferrari

522.11.2009 1:57
jony218
Inactive

All these pirated movie releases to the public (especially the dvd quality ones) are inside jobs. The pirates work within the movie industry. Many people nowadays don't go to the movie theatres anymore. They wait for the dvd to come out so they can rent it, but some want instant satisfaction because of the "me ,I want it now society". Instant of waiting 3 months to release a movie on dvd, it would be more profitable for the studios to release them 1 month after there release. This would "checkmate" the pirates and satisfy the "i want it now" generation.

622.11.2009 2:04

Originally posted by amf0802:
I'm a classical musician for a living and the 70 year copyright is perfect for my business. The 'standards' for my profession and what most consider the masters and most popular for performance are over 200 years old. So in this case 70 years isn't even nearly enough.

What exactly are you going to use all that income for if you aren't alive to collect it? Most people these days do not live 200 years. (Actually there have been several who didn't even make it to 150.)

Quote:
Why shouldn't a film director be able to create a masterpiece and then sit back and retire on his earnings. A shorter copyright wouldn't allow this.

Honestly, I don't think he should. A few years work is not worth a lifetime of income, IMHO. But my opinion completely aside, shorter copyright needn't impede even this. The money made off of one big movie just in the box office alone is enough to sustain a small town's population indefinitely off interest.

722.11.2009 2:36

Quote:
Originally posted by amf0802:
I'm a classical musician for a living and the 70 year copyright is perfect for my business. The 'standards' for my profession and what most consider the masters and most popular for performance are over 200 years old. So in this case 70 years isn't even nearly enough.

What exactly are you going to use all that income for if you aren't alive to collect it? Most people these days do not live 200 years. (Actually there have been several who didn't even make it to 150.)

Quote:
Why shouldn't a film director be able to create a masterpiece and then sit back and retire on his earnings. A shorter copyright wouldn't allow this.

Honestly, I don't think he should. A few years work is not worth a lifetime of income, IMHO. But my opinion completely aside, shorter copyright needn't impede even this. The money made off of one big movie just in the box office alone is enough to sustain a small town's population indefinitely off interest.
I agree even making 1 million dollars of profit for one movie is a redic amount and he made a lot more than that i bet.....do 3 movies and you can retire with ease with solid investing

822.11.2009 4:23

Quote:
No, I donít subscribe to the Robin Hood argument, which claims that rich, greedy Hollywood studios/actors/writers/etc. have enough $ and donít need more.
Just Like drug dealers and pimps never have enough $ and don't need anymore

922.11.2009 9:11
jack0001
Inactive

SPAM removed

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Nov 2009 @ 9:21

1022.11.2009 9:17
mikecUSA
Inactive

All the proud pirates, u nrepentant as they are, are foolish and short sighted. Ignorant too. If you want to watch a movie, go see it in the theatre "first run" or rent it on DVD, or stream it from Netflix or something. As long as where you got it involved some legal financial trasaction, I'm okay with it. If you buy it though you should be able to make a back-up copy. if you rent it you should also be able to make a copy for yourself I think to time shift your viewing when you have time. This financial transaction funds the industry that provides the entertainment VALUE.

Staight piracy? bad deal, ultimately for everyone. Including pirates.

If you don't think straight pirating can't possibly put a stop to Zombieland 2 you are an IDIOT.

I loved Zombieland and hope for a Zombieland 2, and a 2013, and Dupicity2 and hundreds of more movies that haven't even been thought of yet.

Outright piracy will kill many projects.

It's sad that the logic/moral/selfish paradign does not include a hint of "fair play", but lots of lip service to "fair use".

Outright pirates that don't pay for anything and brag are not just stealing form the record/movie/game producing entities (artist,writes, camera operators and directors etc) but they are stealing from consumers too, and ultimately from the priates themselves. That's why they are so rediculously STUPID! I can't believe they brag about what they do so u repentently. L O S E R S.
They are who ruined things for true "Fair use" people.

It why DMCA was thought to be neccessary in the first place. Frickin insane JUVENILE self centeredness.

I do not work in the motion picture or music production industry at all. I'm a mobile disc-jockey who's spend a couple million dollars on music over the past 25 years from which I earn my way through life.

1122.11.2009 10:37

Originally posted by mikecUSA:
All the proud pirates, u nrepentant as they are, are foolish and short sighted. Ignorant too. If you want to watch a movie, go see it in the theatre "first run" or rent it on DVD, or stream it from Netflix or something. As long as where you got it involved some legal financial trasaction, I'm okay with it. If you buy it though you should be able to make a back-up copy. if you rent it you should also be able to make a copy for yourself I think to time shift your viewing when you have time. This financial transaction funds the industry that provides the entertainment VALUE.

Staight piracy? bad deal, ultimately for everyone. Including pirates.

If you don't think straight pirating can't possibly put a stop to Zombieland 2 you are an IDIOT.

I loved Zombieland and hope for a Zombieland 2, and a 2013, and Dupicity2 and hundreds of more movies that haven't even been thought of yet.

Outright piracy will kill many projects.

It's sad that the logic/moral/selfish paradign does not include a hint of "fair play", but lots of lip service to "fair use".

Outright pirates that don't pay for anything and brag are not just stealing form the record/movie/game producing entities (artist,writes, camera operators and directors etc) but they are stealing from consumers too, and ultimately from the priates themselves. That's why they are so rediculously STUPID! I can't believe they brag about what they do so u repentently. L O S E R S.
They are who ruined things for true "Fair use" people.

It why DMCA was thought to be neccessary in the first place. Frickin insane JUVENILE self centeredness.

I do not work in the motion picture or music production industry at all. I'm a mobile disc-jockey who's spend a couple million dollars on music over the past 25 years from which I earn my way through life.
Wow...... and you seem to not only over estimate the effects of piracy but think they matter at all...... you decry the little guy but its just a strawman argument the little guy has already been paid and only a few people get royalties so at the end of the day whos making the most money and changing the rules so they get more money, heres a hint its not anyone who works for a living.



Piracy is a natural part of media due to reasons of popularity,price and availability. And you can't really call the majority of pirates these days "pirates" because they have no interest in making money off the item in question, and that is the separation point the industry should focus on instead of trying to bully and monopolize how the system works to fatten the bottom line. I have said it many times go after those that sell stuff without a license and those who making directly through donations and ad revenue. Hell hell we could see some true innovation if they did that, fan sites could not be touched in terms of take down notices and C&D's NUT the industry could welcome them give them for free or at great discount stuff to sell so they can keep their project going.

1222.11.2009 11:41
Bigtx99
Inactive

To be honest, everyone posting here, for and against piracy are using strawman arguments.

It is wrong to pirate a movie and watch it, no question about it. Yet, it happens. Everyone does stuff they know is wrong, yet still do it. Smoking, drinking, drugs etc. All bad, yet it is done, can't really help it.

If you do it, you do it, just don't sit there and say "i'm not doing anything wrong, its ok to pirate stuff."

1322.11.2009 12:02
mikecUSA
Inactive

Waelth for an individual is not calculated by how much is spent but by how much you retain. Of course "wealth" is a relative term, but by not spending $10 on a CD or $12 on a movie, you save that money hence helped retain ones own wealth and hence help yourself build wealth.

One could argue that those fellas comandeering ships and plundering them they got welath by stealing, and the East India trading company also got a little wealthier by the insurance they may have taken out on their property and goods.

The point is, wealth is a matter of not just goods in possesion, but also money NOT SPENT.

In the mix of your daily pirates life. He retains control of his funds and the $50 he did not spend on CD's he probably might have purchased (based on annecdotal history of the average music buyer in the 70's & 80's) ro the $60 he may have spent either going to the movies or buying a few Betamax of Star Wars or Indiana Jones in the 80's I thinnk it's safe to view pirates of today even the ones who do not make new money off their piracy as bonafide financial beneficiaries of their actions.

The music and movie industries are both in trouble because of this activity, not for lack of decent product that the public will consume. It's the consuming it for free part that is killing the goose that lays the creative egg.

1422.11.2009 12:08

Originally posted by mikecUSA:
The music and movie industries are both in trouble because of this activity, not for lack of decent product that the public will consume. It's the consuming it for free part that is killing the goose that lays the creative egg.
No, they're in trouble for other reasons, inability to keep up with modern technology, ridiculous taxes i mean royalties (i refer to a recent news article where a shop assistant got into trouble for singing, for example), etc etc, but the notion that they are in trouble due to any form of piracy is just that, a notion.
I'm one of those who doesn't like 'added value' on DVD's, ie trailers and adverts, one of the reasons i am not interested in Bluray is that i don't want to buy a 50GB (or whatever size they are) movie disc only to have umpteen gigabytes of fluff. If i could buy a movie that only contained the movie, i'd buy it. That's not me advocating piracy, i just don't want unnecessary crap on my discs, just an example of the industry not providing what i want from a purchase.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Nov 2009 @ 12:19



Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***

1522.11.2009 12:25

who would want to see a zombieland 2 anyway? The movie was stupid, it was like an 80's comedy that just wasn't up to par for the year 2009 almost 2010.
This is why people are not going to the movie theater as much anymore, because people can't rely on a good movie being made anymore.

1622.11.2009 12:31

Originally posted by mikecUSA:
Waelth for an individual is not calculated by how much is spent but by how much you retain. Of course "wealth" is a relative term, but by not spending $10 on a CD or $12 on a movie, you save that money hence helped retain ones own wealth and hence help yourself build wealth.

One could argue that those fellas comandeering ships and plundering them they got welath by stealing, and the East India trading company also got a little wealthier by the insurance they may have taken out on their property and goods.

The point is, wealth is a matter of not just goods in possesion, but also money NOT SPENT.

In the mix of your daily pirates life. He retains control of his funds and the $50 he did not spend on CD's he probably might have purchased (based on annecdotal history of the average music buyer in the 70's & 80's) ro the $60 he may have spent either going to the movies or buying a few Betamax of Star Wars or Indiana Jones in the 80's I thinnk it's safe to view pirates of today even the ones who do not make new money off their piracy as bonafide financial beneficiaries of their actions.

The music and movie industries are both in trouble because of this activity, not for lack of decent product that the public will consume. It's the consuming it for free part that is killing the goose that lays the creative egg.

....that would be true IF the majority did not buy things, but because they still but things from media to goods sponsored by media it is irreverent that things are being consumed for free, as I have said before if they would focused on those who are aiming illicit profit(direct sale,ad rev and donations) the majority of media distribution would be legit leaving only those who want to share and trade stuff further to the fringes.

You think the forest is made out of the industry its not and never was its made out of consumers(paying or not) and the industry always has to find a new way to sale stuff to the consumer if this means competing with free stuff then so be it because frankly media can not be worse than it is now...

1722.11.2009 12:32

Creaky
hey Creaky kaspersky is giving me virus warning over one of the ads here
11/20/2009 5:58:45 PM Detected: HEUR:Trojan.Script.Iframer http://search.extreme-sportsonline.com/g...cUTRm4lDs3.html Firefox

1822.11.2009 12:37

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Creaky
hey Creaky kaspersky is giving me virus warning over one of the ads here
11/20/2009 5:58:45 PM Detected: HEUR:Trojan.Script.Iframer http://search.extreme-sportsonline.com/g...cUTRm4lDs3.html Firefox
I use AVG Zippy, what i do know is that link is loading hundreds of links within the browser (ie all you see at the bottom left of firefox is 'transferring data from <hundreds of links>' before the page is even loaded). In fact the page doesn't finish loading for me, i canned it after a couple minutes of not finishing loading..
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Nov 2009 @ 12:39



Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***

1922.11.2009 13:15

Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Creaky
hey Creaky kaspersky is giving me virus warning over one of the ads here
11/20/2009 5:58:45 PM Detected: HEUR:Trojan.Script.Iframer http://search.extreme-sportsonline.com/g...cUTRm4lDs3.html Firefox
I use AVG Zippy, what i do know is that link is loading hundreds of links within the browser (ie all you see at the bottom left of firefox is 'transferring data from <hundreds of links>' before the page is even loaded). In fact the page doesn't finish loading for me, i canned it after a couple minutes of not finishing loading..
Ok just thought I'd tell someone.

2022.11.2009 13:50

Seems to me this is just the typical confused rubbish and greed-speak that's typical of so many so-called artists these days.

Of course they're not really artists (otherwise they'd be happy to see their art spread as far and widely as possible).

The notion that every viewing of or listening to of music or movie can be monetized is as unworkable as it is laughable.

'Piracy' in terms of producing illegal copies for sale is a crime, I've no problem with that one and I support the fact that we have various law enforcement bodies for that.

'Sharing' in terms of a private individual downloading for his own personal non-commercial use is in fact not a crime, it's merely a copyright infringement.

Not only do the studies show that most who share are most likely to buy the retail version (in which case what on earth is he grumbling about?) but we also tend to have the satellite TV services, game console movie downloading services etc etc.

We pay. Handsomely.

Personally I like to try before buy.
Make the film attractive enough and I'll even spring for the Blu-ray.

Offer me the usual childish brain-dead cr@p and you'll not see a sale.

.....but don't worry Rhett Reese my TV license and satellite TV subscription (all channels inc HD) is a plenty large enough contribution to 'the industry'.
I even pay for films I will never watch on satellite TV and music I will never listen to.

Works both ways.

Dry your eyes, quit your stupid nonsense & get a sense of honest perspective & decency.
As if you aren't staggeringly rich enough
(compared to most of your fellow man on this planet)

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Nov 2009 @ 13:53

2122.11.2009 14:03

Originally posted by Interestx:
Seems to me this is just the typical confused rubbish and greed-speak that's typical of so many so-called artists these days.

Of course they're not really artists (otherwise they'd be happy to see their art spread as far and widely as possible).

The notion that every viewing of or listening to of music or movie can be monetized is as unworkable as it is laughable.

'Piracy' in terms of producing illegal copies for sale is a crime, I've no problem with that one and I support the fact that we have various law enforcement bodies for that.

'Sharing' in terms of a private individual downloading for his own personal non-commercial use is in fact not a crime, it's merely a copyright infringement.

Not only do the studies show that most who share are most likely to buy the retail version (in which case what on earth is he grumbling about?) but we also tend to have the satellite TV services, game console movie downloading services etc etc.

We pay. Handsomely.

Personally I like to try before buy.
Make the film attractive enough and I'll even spring for the Blu-ray.

Offer me the usual childish brain-dead cr@p and you'll not see a sale.

.....but don't worry Rhett Reese my TV license and satellite TV subscription (all channels inc HD) is a plenty large enough contribution to 'the industry'.
I even pay for films I will never watch on satellite TV and music I will never listen to.

Works both ways.

Dry your eyes, quit your stupid nonsense & get a sense of honest perspective & decency.
As if you aren't staggeringly rich enough
(compared to most of your fellow man on this planet)
Being a consumer we consumer constantly and thus are paying constantly because some of what we consumer is free dose not make what we put into the industry invalid. We are able to put money into the the parts of the industry we like and respect while hoping the other parts shrivel off and die no matter how unrealistic and unlikely that will be because the media industry as a whole is very powerful and immune to what millions of people do or say, now when billions act up they stop and listen but a few million freebies is only part of billions and billions of active and legitimate consumership.

2222.11.2009 14:51

Originally posted by Amak:
"Copyright law grants the owner of a copyright a window of time within which he/she can make money off the copyright"

The problem is how long it lasts! Why does it have to be 70+ years? Why not something reasonable like 5 or 10?
Looking at it now, I wonder if something like the DVD and BluRay release of 80s classics would have ever happened if the copyright was only for 10 years. I mean I'm sure there'd be companies that put it onto those formats, but those companies wouldn't have access to the original master copy of the film to do that.

Anyways, piracy vs retail movie theater experience. Right now piracy offers a better experience and it has more to do with than just price. I can stay at home and watch the movie. I don't have to sit in any sticky chairs and sneak in my food. I don't have to worry about the picture being out of focus. I have control over the volume level. I don't have to worry about people talking during the movie. But the thing I love most about piracy vs going to the movies, I can watch the god dang movie whenever I want. Gotta go take a wee? Just press pause. Want to watch half the movie now, and the other half later? NO PROBLEM!

Now the piracy vs owning or renting a dvd doesn't hold up as well. However right now I've only got a standard definition tv and dvd player. One quick advantage of piracy is that the movie is released in dvd quality sometimes months before the film is released on dvd in the retail market. Thanks to piracy I'm able to download and watch a 720p or 1080p movie on my computer. I got a 21in widescreen so pulling up a chair infront of the pc works fine. Otherwise the only other advantage I can think of is that I don't have to physically store the dvd's for years at a time between views. I'm the type of movie watcher where I watch a movie once and then don't watch it again for at least a few years.

Renting works better for me, and again the only advantages with piracy is that I don't have to drive to a store, and that problem is eliminated with netflix. Even then, I live in an apartment complex and it's a good 5 minute round trip walking to and from the mail box. I had netflix before and they do get those movie out to you pretty quick, but sometimes you expect the movie in your mailbox and it isn't that. That sucks and that's something that doesn't happen with piracy. Netflix didn't have the streaming when I was a member with them, but I know the quality of those streams still won't be able to match 720p or 1080p quality. That doesn't mean they aren't ok to watch though.

2322.11.2009 18:17

Quote:
Originally posted by Amak:
"Copyright law grants the owner of a copyright a window of time within which he/she can make money off the copyright"

The problem is how long it lasts! Why does it have to be 70+ years? Why not something reasonable like 5 or 10?
Looking at it now, I wonder if something like the DVD and BluRay release of 80s classics would have ever happened if the copyright was only for 10 years. I mean I'm sure there'd be companies that put it onto those formats, but those companies wouldn't have access to the original master copy of the film to do that.

Anyways, piracy vs retail movie theater experience. Right now piracy offers a better experience and it has more to do with than just price. I can stay at home and watch the movie. I don't have to sit in any sticky chairs and sneak in my food. I don't have to worry about the picture being out of focus. I have control over the volume level. I don't have to worry about people talking during the movie. But the thing I love most about piracy vs going to the movies, I can watch the god dang movie whenever I want. Gotta go take a wee? Just press pause. Want to watch half the movie now, and the other half later? NO PROBLEM!

Now the piracy vs owning or renting a dvd doesn't hold up as well. However right now I've only got a standard definition tv and dvd player. One quick advantage of piracy is that the movie is released in dvd quality sometimes months before the film is released on dvd in the retail market. Thanks to piracy I'm able to download and watch a 720p or 1080p movie on my computer. I got a 21in widescreen so pulling up a chair infront of the pc works fine. Otherwise the only other advantage I can think of is that I don't have to physically store the dvd's for years at a time between views. I'm the type of movie watcher where I watch a movie once and then don't watch it again for at least a few years.

Renting works better for me, and again the only advantages with piracy is that I don't have to drive to a store, and that problem is eliminated with netflix. Even then, I live in an apartment complex and it's a good 5 minute round trip walking to and from the mail box. I had netflix before and they do get those movie out to you pretty quick, but sometimes you expect the movie in your mailbox and it isn't that. That sucks and that's something that doesn't happen with piracy. Netflix didn't have the streaming when I was a member with them, but I know the quality of those streams still won't be able to match 720p or 1080p quality. That doesn't mean they aren't ok to watch though.
If its profitable a company would go to any lengths to buy the masters and re release it if not its a free for all where the competition leads to great deals and ingenious qaulity. Its win win for everyone.

2422.11.2009 18:37

give me a "full satisfaction or your money back" guarantee and I'll stop downloading movies and go straight to the theater... I am tired of wasting my hard earned money on crappy movies, deemed blockbusters by the sold out critics...

2522.11.2009 20:25

Originally posted by mikecUSA:
All the proud pirates, u nrepentant as they are, are foolish and short sighted. Ignorant too. If you want to watch a movie, go see it in the theatre "first run" or rent it on DVD, or stream it from Netflix or something. As long as where you got it involved some legal financial trasaction, I'm okay with it. If you buy it though you should be able to make a back-up copy. if you rent it you should also be able to make a copy for yourself I think to time shift your viewing when you have time. This financial transaction funds the industry that provides the entertainment VALUE.

Staight piracy? bad deal, ultimately for everyone. Including pirates.

If you don't think straight pirating can't possibly put a stop to Zombieland 2 you are an IDIOT.

I loved Zombieland and hope for a Zombieland 2, and a 2013, and Dupicity2 and hundreds of more movies that haven't even been thought of yet.

Outright piracy will kill many projects.

It's sad that the logic/moral/selfish paradign does not include a hint of "fair play", but lots of lip service to "fair use".

Outright pirates that don't pay for anything and brag are not just stealing form the record/movie/game producing entities (artist,writes, camera operators and directors etc) but they are stealing from consumers too, and ultimately from the priates themselves. That's why they are so rediculously STUPID! I can't believe they brag about what they do so u repentently. L O S E R S.
They are who ruined things for true "Fair use" people.

It why DMCA was thought to be neccessary in the first place. Frickin insane JUVENILE self centeredness.

I do not work in the motion picture or music production industry at all. I'm a mobile disc-jockey who's spend a couple million dollars on music over the past 25 years from which I earn my way through life.
You would be right....if you weren't dead wrong.

2622.11.2009 21:00

Creaky said it best. They did NOT keep up with the times. Add in the fact that no orginality is really being brewed. All just remakes from movies, TV shows, or cartoons from our past, and books.
You want me to drop $20.00 for just the tickers, $10.00 for popcorn and a soda. Then sit and listen to babies cry??? (yes this just happened while I watched 2010)
Espcially being that people spend thousands on home theater systems.
Instead why not main stream movies. I believe "Starz" is working on this. Have the movie set as a VOD available via the cable company. I would pay $10-$20 to see a movie from home.
But no. the *MPAA* chose to be stubborn and not realease the raines they have on the industry.

*was my edit

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Nov 2009 @ 21:06

2722.11.2009 21:06

People download movies as a good try before you buy. Many of these movies are not worth watching after 15-20 minutes. Can we get our cash back from the theater? Give us the option to purchase a ticket with the day pass option meaning if our main choice sucks, the next flick is an easy walk next door. That happened to me a few times giving me a good reason to stop going. Waiting a couple months is no problem for a good copy here. A good way to help make a little more money, release the dvd the day of the theater release. If we pay the theater dont count on a second purchase to get the dvd also.

2822.11.2009 21:35

Originally posted by sssharp:
People download movies as a good try before you buy. Many of these movies are not worth watching after 15-20 minutes. Can we get our cash back from the theater? Give us the option to purchase a ticket with the day pass option meaning if our main choice sucks, the next flick is an easy walk next door. That happened to me a few times giving me a good reason to stop going. Waiting a couple months is no problem for a good copy here. A good way to help make a little more money, release the dvd the day of the theater release. If we pay the theater dont count on a second purchase to get the dvd also.
Yup give us more options and perhaps we would not bother with alternatives, 10$ discs at the film launch, 15$ special edition discs with better editing a few months after. Day after streaming of films for 7$ a film without an account with a 5$ a month account you get the film as a rental for the month.

Hell give me a descent SD release of a film for 7$ a stream and I am in, but know they want their old and tired monopolies and nothing else, so to them I say screw off.

2923.11.2009 15:55

ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 22 November 2009 18:35
Originally posted by sssharp:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People download movies as a good try before you buy. Many of these movies are not worth watching after 15-20 minutes. Can we get our cash back from the theater? Give us the option to purchase a ticket with the day pass option meaning if our main choice sucks, the next flick is an easy walk next door. That happened to me a few times giving me a good reason to stop going. Waiting a couple months is no problem for a good copy here. A good way to help make a little more money, release the dvd the day of the theater release. If we pay the theater dont count on a second purchase to get the dvd also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup give us more options and perhaps we would not bother with alternatives, 10$ discs at the film launch, 15$ special edition discs with better editing a few months after. Day after streaming of films for 7$ a film without an account with a 5$ a month account you get the film as a rental for the month.

Hell give me a descent SD release of a film for 7$ a stream and I am in, but know they want their old and tired monopolies and nothing else, so to them I say screw off.

-----------

everyone should read that a couple of times. that, by far, is the best idea yet. In this day and age the AVERAGE consumer doesn't want to shell out big money for a dvd and tons of advertisement or a $20 cd that, after one or two scrathes, is useless.

The heart of the problem is the rapidly changing technology. There are 100s of programs that will rip video from dvds. There are all kinds of burners that copy/replicate dvds. Some of those programs are even free, which sweetens the deal even more. So look at the movies this past weekend and tell me they're hurtin.

How many people pissed and moaned in the 80s because kids were recording music on cassettes from radio stations instead of buying new cassettes from those same artists? That's right, no one was.

Technology will always allow us to do what the suits don't want us to be able to do.

3023.11.2009 16:24

Originally posted by kscogg:
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 22 November 2009 18:35
Originally posted by sssharp:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People download movies as a good try before you buy. Many of these movies are not worth watching after 15-20 minutes. Can we get our cash back from the theater? Give us the option to purchase a ticket with the day pass option meaning if our main choice sucks, the next flick is an easy walk next door. That happened to me a few times giving me a good reason to stop going. Waiting a couple months is no problem for a good copy here. A good way to help make a little more money, release the dvd the day of the theater release. If we pay the theater dont count on a second purchase to get the dvd also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup give us more options and perhaps we would not bother with alternatives, 10$ discs at the film launch, 15$ special edition discs with better editing a few months after. Day after streaming of films for 7$ a film without an account with a 5$ a month account you get the film as a rental for the month.

Hell give me a descent SD release of a film for 7$ a stream and I am in, but know they want their old and tired monopolies and nothing else, so to them I say screw off.

-----------

everyone should read that a couple of times. that, by far, is the best idea yet. In this day and age the AVERAGE consumer doesn't want to shell out big money for a dvd and tons of advertisement or a $20 cd that, after one or two scrathes, is useless.

The heart of the problem is the rapidly changing technology. There are 100s of programs that will rip video from dvds. There are all kinds of burners that copy/replicate dvds. Some of those programs are even free, which sweetens the deal even more. So look at the movies this past weekend and tell me they're hurtin.

How many people pissed and moaned in the 80s because kids were recording music on cassettes from radio stations instead of buying new cassettes from those same artists? That's right, no one was.

Technology will always allow us to do what the suits don't want us to be able to do.
The industry dose not want to change it wants its antiquated technologies and monopolies, just think of all the money the industry could have made if they opened up to the new tech and starting selling stuff to it DRM/piracy be damned, by offering cheap (2-8$) CD/DVD and offering easy to get download at a buck a a song,10$ an album and 5$ DVD they would have made billions instead they put their money into DRM and other organizations they own that do not make money. The industry needs to death to be better and who better to bring it than the consumer!

3125.11.2009 9:56
atomicxl
Inactive

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
The industry dose not want to change it wants its antiquated technologies and monopolies, just think of all the money the industry could have made if they opened up to the new tech and starting selling stuff to it DRM/piracy be damned, by offering cheap (2-8$) CD/DVD and offering easy to get download at a buck a a song,10$ an album and 5$ DVD they would have made billions instead they put their money into DRM and other organizations they own that do not make money. The industry needs to death to be better and who better to bring it than the consumer!
Except new CDs sell for $9.99 and most places sell MP3 downloads for $0.99. Most of what you want is already here. If DVDs were $5 I imagine you'd just pretend that they weren't, similar to your statements about MP3 prices and CD prices, or you'd say DVDs should only be $3.

I think your desire for a $2 album are a bit silly or don't show a desire for quality or to reward quality. A $2 album sounds like one that's crap. If somebody actually put time and effort into making a good CD selling it for $2 seems like a major slap in the face.

3225.11.2009 10:08

Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
The industry dose not want to change it wants its antiquated technologies and monopolies, just think of all the money the industry could have made if they opened up to the new tech and starting selling stuff to it DRM/piracy be damned, by offering cheap (2-8$) CD/DVD and offering easy to get download at a buck a a song,10$ an album and 5$ DVD they would have made billions instead they put their money into DRM and other organizations they own that do not make money. The industry needs to death to be better and who better to bring it than the consumer!
Except new CDs sell for $9.99 and most places sell MP3 downloads for $0.99. Most of what you want is already here. If DVDs were $5 I imagine you'd just pretend that they weren't, similar to your statements about MP3 prices and CD prices, or you'd say DVDs should only be $3.

I think your desire for a $2 album are a bit silly or don't show a desire for quality or to reward quality. A $2 album sounds like one that's crap. If somebody actually put time and effort into making a good CD selling it for $2 seems like a major slap in the face.
The only trouble is I hate 90% of new music its simply not worth supporting, and hell will frost over befor they do that with films.

Also I was suggesting that they had these cheap prices 10 years ago.... so like they would not be losing so much money like they are now.....

3328.11.2009 21:22
rick5446
Inactive

Is it not that Studios are getting greedy that we have more piracy.
Russia gets their DVDs before we do hear in the States,so I've heard.Also that they are produced by Studios on R5 Discs, to sell at a cheaper price.
Many R5 Releases are Available via the internet even before they are out of theatres in the States
The only Quality difference I can see in R5s Vs. a Standard DVD is that R5s have only Stereo,no 5.1. The Video is pretty much the same
Now I could be totally wrong, this is information I've read on the internet
But it is very Strange that there are so many R5s available, way ahead of other releases.

3428.11.2009 23:20

copyright was put in place so a person can try to make make money in a limited amount of time. it has been totally skewed in the past, say 50 years, if not more. the whole "extending it another 20 years, every 20 years" is *bleep* ludicrous. give me a sane system and i will abide, but certain criteria must be met.

first, i would like to see stuff go into the public domain that was made while i am still alive, shorten it to 20-30 years. after that, money can and will be made from it. any true fan, will buy romero's release of night of the living dead over some hollywood classics version.

secondly, i want to see mandatory licensing. if you want it protected, it must be offered for licensing. and i want the licenses to be global. the internet was supposed to fix this. go global or go home.

thirdly, nothing EVER goes out of print, especially in the digital age. no bullshit false scarcity. no going back to the vault. stick to supply and demand economics. if the supply is virtually endless, the value is near zero. live with it.

lastly, i want full fair use. my ability to exercise this far outweighs them blocking my access at every corner. that means if i buy the bluray, i can transcode it to play on everything i own.

additional point #1: sell it to me how i want it. sure blurays are nice for the hd, but how about all that space? sell me a season of sd tv shows on 1 disc or the entire star wars saga on 1 disc. or *bleep* the discs. sell them to me on ssd media.

additional point #2: i want all dvrs to be able to dump the data onto my computer. this should in no way ever be locked out. i can make my own dvds, tyvm. this was ok in the 80s with videotapes, so it is ok now. just because they took awhile to find 'an additional revenue stream' via tv shows on dvd, gives them no right to lock this out. if it is the case, they can get rid of the commercials, the filthy whores.

additional point #3: dlc. this has been discussed before and some think of it as an incentive to buy retail, but it is actually a scam if the goods are purchased. fine, they can give away dlc to people with retail bought goods, but the moment they sell it to you, first sale doctrine must apply. the same should apply to mp3s, steam games, and itunes purchases. it is up to the merchant to facilitate the mechanism to do so, but it must be done

additional point #4: i always wonder what they will do when full scale replication of nearly everything comes to fruition. i know it will turn everything we know on its head in regards to supply and demand and the supposed value we put on things. personally, i think this should be applied to every sector as it becomes available. that is why i said earlier that when something is in almost endless supply, the value is near zero. for some reason, people want to apply a different set of rules when they really shouldn't. okay, if only one person made movies (due to only one camera in the world) and shown once a year, on the one projector in the world, then the value of movies would be ginormously high. however, if movies could be copied instantly via magic into our minds and shown via mind-meld to anyone, the value would be pretty much nothing. or maybe other industries should start this sort of stuff. you sell the house and the builders, architects, electricians, etc get a royalty, hell maybe even a monthly one for just living there. you know they would do that if they could get away with it, but "no, those are tangible goods so its different". bullshit.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 29 Nov 2009 @ 7:33

3529.11.2009 10:39

Originally posted by six60six:
snip

I love you man =^^=

I think copy right should be treated more like a patent/trade mark IE you got a 5 year period where you can sell it any way you want and make direct profit off it after those 5 years if you can not keep it in the public eye and easily sale it it becomes public domain. But if one could repackage it and create a new thing to sale (say they take 1-3 movies and put them together on a disc, or revamp it ect) that becomes a new product that's protected, but anything old and forgotten by the majority of the public can not be protected.

Other wise copy right should be 10-25 years no more than that and then default to public domain, qaulity and fanship will determine what sales well after that.

Mandatory licensing is good and I want that licensing based on the percentage of the item price IE 50-90% of the items sale price goes to the CP owner. Make this global and everyone will be trying to sell stuff as cheap as they can to make a profit and since every one will be trying to make it cheap it will be easy to find.

Fair use should always trump whatever protection scheme they come up with and do so legally as bypassing hardware and software crap for more features is a legitimate practice.

I always considered media to be thought and as thought easily transferred via word and communication, its information and information on any level or scale should not be blocked or hampered when decimated to the masses IE you can sell it and secure anyway it makes money but that's it.

3629.11.2009 13:18
ianroyal
Inactive

Quote:
Originally posted by six60six:
snip

I love you man =^^=

Thanks!
The moderators got a little zealous when an adult used adult language, so my account was banned. wtf! (hint that f is a swear word and masquerading it in wtf makes in no less safe/mature)

edit by moderator- account in question was only TEMP banned. Adult language it my be, but keep it off our forums.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 29 Nov 2009 @ 15:00

3713.12.2009 20:28

it use to be that you'd have a conversation at the water cooler (or on lunch break) about the new movie of the week. In about 10 mins time, that would determine 1) if you wanted to see it, should you now 2) is it a waste of money if it sucks, but you might have seen it
So what's the difference between dL'ing it & the conversation? I still say the MAFIAA should consider downloads the week OF release, legally, and with a $2.50 purchase price in iPod format. That would get more eyeballs in the theater, and cut down on online piracy of movies.

Two dollars and 50 freaking cents.

Guess Hollywood would rather the house be burned down rather than try to see the firemen have not put out the fire (piracy) yet.

3813.12.2009 23:48

Originally posted by Ducky04:
it use to be that you'd have a conversation at the water cooler (or on lunch break) about the new movie of the week. In about 10 mins time, that would determine 1) if you wanted to see it, should you now 2) is it a waste of money if it sucks, but you might have seen it
So what's the difference between dL'ing it & the conversation? I still say the MAFIAA should consider downloads the week OF release, legally, and with a $2.50 purchase price in iPod format. That would get more eyeballs in the theater, and cut down on online piracy of movies.

Two dollars and 50 freaking cents.

Guess Hollywood would rather the house be burned down rather than try to see the firemen have not put out the fire (piracy) yet.
The problem is they don't want to change they wold rather waste all their time money and effort keeping their old broken monopoly going rather than changing and meeting the needs of the time.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive