Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Film Priates and 670-million dollars

This is topic Film Priates and 670-million dollars in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005425

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-02-2008, 02:34 PM:

In a speech to Showest the president of NATO John Fithian said the following.

“if our 2007 glass had 9.6 billion record-breaking dollars in it, there was a 670-million-dollar empty space at the top of that glass. Somebody else’s straw is in our milkshake, and they’re drinking it up. That straw is movie theft. According to numbers from a study commissioned by the MPAA, we would have sold an additional 100 million tickets last year but for piracy. Dan Glickman has eloquently described the impact of movie theft on his studio members and the Herculean efforts they are undertaking to combat this scourge. Now I want each cinema person sitting in this room to focus clearly. Our industry can make a lot more money if we get that straw out of our milkshake. We must continue waging war against the criminals who profit by stealing from our industry.”

The speech is included in an article (or rather is an article) on Boxoffice. The complete text can be read here http://boxoffice.com/blogs/chad/2008/03/the-last-straw-for-exhibitors.php . My question is how accurate is the dollar figures? How do we know what the loss is ... could it be greater or less? Is it just a % of the business done and that is how we arrive at the figure?

I know that priates do steel the movie and put it on the next on DVDs and sell it it. How big a problem is it does it affect us as operators, or owners?

I feel it does but what is to be done? On one hand they urge you to inform people it is against the law and on the other hand they make strong argument against the government regulation of the Internet.

What is everyones idea's on this. I'm curious.

Adam if I have duplicated another thread please close and move to proper place!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-02-2008, 04:30 PM:

There's no way to accurately estimate how much movie theft costs the industry. They figure each illegal DVD is worth "x" number of tickets not sold, but there's no way to know if all the people who acquire the illegal DVD would have bought a ticket.

However, the illegitimate viewer IS receiving value and getting the same content (albeit possibly in crappy form) that he would get if he bought a ticket, and on top of that he might be showing it to a dozen loser buddies....none of whom might have bought a ticket, but some might have.

So bottom line, the estimate of actual $ lost is a wild guess at best.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-02-2008, 04:48 PM:

I'll see your measly 670 million dollars and raise you 4.6 TRILLION dollars that stimulated the economy due to fair use of copyrighted media.

Link

Excerpt:

quote:

Fair Use Economy Represents One-Sixth of U.S. GDP
File Under: News, 2007, Copyright, CCIA
Sep 12, 2007
WASHINGTON D.C. - Fair Use exceptions to U.S. copyright laws are responsible for more than $4.5 trillion in annual revenue for the United States, according to the findings of an unprecedented economic study released today. According to the study commissioned by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and conducted in accordance with a World Intellectual Property Organization methodology, companies benefiting from limitations on copyright-holders’ exclusive rights, such as “fair use” – generate substantial revenue, employ millions of workers, and, in 2006, represented one-sixth of total U.S. GDP.

[ 04-02-2008, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-02-2008, 05:18 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
However, the illegitimate viewer IS receiving value and getting the same content (albeit possibly in crappy form) that he would get if he bought a ticket

I disagree. Compressed audio/video usually looks and sounds better than most movie theaters can present these days. If I am going to pay for something, I had damn well better get a good presentation. Give me a reason to exit my home theater and go to yours. What? You can't? Well OK then. Oh, you got digital cinema which solves the apathy problem most theaters have? But you want me to pay $13 a ticket for that? LOL @ theaters. They fail.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-02-2008, 05:54 PM:

Our tickets are $6.50.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-02-2008, 07:11 PM:

You're one of the few. Your prices will likely increase when you add digital projection.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-02-2008, 07:32 PM:

There's a lot of Carmike locations equipped with digital projection whose ticket prices are at or under $6.50. Some have prices as low as $4. Of course, these locations are often in smaller cities and towns, but they do exist. Here in Lawton the price is $6.25 for matinées and $8.50 in the evening.

As for the audio/video compression quality, the JPEG-2000 format for "D-cinema" is definitely superior to anything available to consumers on home video, including the Blu-ray format. But that doesn't address the factor of how well the projector is set up or, worse, how the sound system is maintained.

The AVC and VC-1 formats allow for lots of harmful techniques on compressing video. No limit on how much a video image can be tiled and transformed. No limits on inter-frame compression either.

DCI-compliant Motion JPEG 2000 files for D-cinema do not allow interframe compression at all (and it isn't even possible for JPEG2000 anyway since each frame is a fully separate, discrete image). Of course, the file sizes for D-cinema movies are typically much larger than what is stored on a Blu-ray disc.

quote: John Fithian
According to numbers from a study commissioned by the MPAA, we would have sold an additional 100 million tickets last year but for piracy.

What a crock of shit.

What makes this guy believe the downloaders out there would bother to go to a theater and pay to watch a movie (much less even bother to rent it from a video store) if the pirated version wasn't available?

For one thing, viewers of pirated content are watching crap they probably wouldn't normally watch if it wasn't freely, conveniently available right on their computer.

Fithian should do a Hans Gruber impersonation when citing that fictional $670 million figure. It sounds like something from a Die Hard installment.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-02-2008, 08:18 PM:

I think there is no way to measure what is lost or not lost over the illegal sale of DVD's the Internet has no value to anyone well no income. The problem with DVD's sales is the same as any other criminal activity there is no income tax or sales tax paid on it. That is where the real theft takes place, we lose the government income and therefore we pay more in those taxes because others do not pay their fair share!

Mike there is no way to know how many units of DVD's of a film are sold since it is illegal no one reports it. No one puts on their tax return "Sold 100 copies of bootleg videos" the same as no on puts in that they sold cigarette's that were bootlegged in that is the whole point of doing it illegal you don't have to pay the proper taxes. So they have made a guess and nothing more.

I don't think that video pirates are a real threat to the theater industry. In fact only if the product is stolen at studio is the quality any good at all. If it stolen in a theater the quality takes a big nose dive and you have talking recorded, the person in front of the guy doing the recording gets up to go the bathroom there is someone with a cold near by and the recording of the sound from the screen is at best puny in comparison.

I'm not trying to say that Joe is full of shit but he is no one in their right mind would prefer a bootleg video to seeing it in a theater. The few I have seen are absolute terrible, poor focus shaky sometimes, and just plane bad. Yes I have friends that are dumb enough to show me one when they just can't help but say “look I got before it left the theater”.

Bobby they attach a $$ figure to it so that everyone understand that someone is hurt by it. You can't be against something because it is wrong someone must be harmed and pretty seriously for anyone to care anymore. 670 million is pretty serious don't you think? You also can't be against it because it robs the local, state and federal government of money and makes the average joe pay more in taxes (not our Joe he isn't average)! You know it is just something that is wrong and sometimes it would be nice to be able to say HEY DIP SHIT DON'T DO THAT IT ISN'T RIGHT!

Well that is my opinion!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-02-2008, 08:32 PM:

quote:
The problem with DVD's sales is the same as any other criminal activity there is no income tax or sales tax paid on it. That is where the real theft takes place, we lose the government income and therefore we pay more in those taxes because others do not pay their fair share!

So... if all piracy was eliminated, we'd all pay lower taxes? Right. Since murder is also a criminal activity, should it be taxed?

Sure, some downloads look like ass, but lots of them come from people in the industry with screener DVDs. Nothing wrong with the sound and picture. Even though the sound is limited to stereo when watching on the computer, it is usually still better than the poorly equipped and maintained audio at 99% of theaters these days. And even though the picture is small and you sometimes have to see text at the bottom of the screen saying "OMG pleez don't copy dis, this be 4 private use only" or some such nonsense, at least the picture is evenly lit side to side, top to bottom and corner to corner. Oh, no dirt or scratches, either. I couldn't give two shits about watching a movie with an audience. They distract me more than enhance the moviegoing experience. There have been links from this very website to high quality bootlegs before a movie's release (not from me). I assume you missed that post.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-02-2008, 09:21 PM:

I guess Joe I'm old fashioned I don't speed, I don't take drugs, I don't kill anyone, I don't cheat on my wife or my taxes. Those that do should have harm happen to them because it is wrong. I don't condone anything that is illegal and I don't participate in it. That is not to say I'm overly moral or that I have always been this way. I grew up getting more and more conservative where right and wrong are concerned and it matters to me.

You know I don't piss on my neighbors lawn or let my dog do so! I feel people should do what is right and not what is wrong for no other reason than that is right to do the right thing.

I would expect that when you do work for someone you expect to be paid it is the right thing for them to do but you know maybe they can save money having you work for nothing guess that is okay with you. Or is only wrong when it affects you personally?

And No Joe I have never followed a link from anywhere to download a movie illegally it would be breaking the law and that would make me a law breaker and I don't do that! If you do that is your business for you to answer to yourself or a greater power for more power to you but I don't condone it and will not say it is right for anyone to do so.

Yup I'm on the soap box I apologize and get down now sorry for all those that this offends just do what you want.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-02-2008, 09:45 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Even though the sound is limited to stereo when watching on the computer, it is usually still better than the poorly equipped and maintained audio at 99% of theaters these days.

Where do you get that 99% figure?

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-02-2008, 09:52 PM:

Mike he pulled out of thin air or a convenient body opening!

Randy it would appear that fair use exception has something to do with copies of your own software and taping a broadcast movie to watch at a later time and about anything to with home use as opposed to public exhibition but it seems a bit vague to me it doesn't define what fair use is.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-02-2008, 10:59 PM:

quote: Ron Funderburg
Bobby they attach a $$ figure to it so that everyone understand that someone is hurt by it. You can't be against something because it is wrong someone must be harmed and pretty seriously for anyone to care anymore. 670 million is pretty serious don't you think?

I don't condone movie piracy.

I think the problem of Internet downloading pirated movies is a negligible problem. I even think the MPAA could be padding that $670 million claim.

Let's also not forget the MPAA is doing next to nothing at all to control proliferation of screener DVDs. That's the biggest "hole" in the entire situation. It leads to mass produced pirated DVDs overseas, which is the biggest money making product for movie piracy. It isn't from people downloading or videotaping a screen.

The vast majority of the general public doesn't know how to download pirated movies. They don't know where to find such content. They don't know how to reconstruct all the downloaded pieces in a multi-part file and put it together so they can watch it on their computer. Most don't know how to burn it to a DVD either.

There's a lot of people, such as myself, who know how to do that sort of thing, but don't feel like bothering with it. Basically, it's a giant pain in the ass to waste hours of time scavenging for movies. And then it really sucks the poo out of an oily ass to see how shitty the movie looks after all that time spent finding and downloading it. Maybe others feel different. But my time is a little more valuable. It's actually cheaper for me to just go to the theater or video store and watch it legally.

I believe the MPAA really knows all about what I just described. Yet they're choosing to "beat a dead horse" anyway. And that raises some red flags of suspicion.

I think the movie industry is going on and on about this downloading shit because they are constantly pushing to have all sorts of sneaky circuitry built into every movie watching device and then turn that technology against the general public, the vast majority of which is made up of honest customers.

Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray were designed to have infrastructure put into place to potentially turn the device into a "pay per every view" movie player. The combination of new copy protection schemes and LAN/Internet connections make this a distinct possibility. Lots of new cable and satellite DVRs have LAN connections and similar potential.

Circuitry may already be in place within some players to give a movie studio the ability to "brick" your machine if you're playing something illegal. More likely, they'll acquire information about your viewing habits and spam the hell out of you over it. But they really want to slowly progress to a pay per every view business model. They believe it will improve profit margins and greatly improve positive cash flow.

Hollywood really wanted DiVX to succeed back in the 1990s, but got nowhere with it because it was just too obvious what they were pushing. With new Blu-ray players and HD-quality cable/satellite receivers and DVRs such a thing can be accomplished in a much more subtle way.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-02-2008, 11:10 PM:

I agree with what you are saying Bobby and hollywood knows that the screener DVD is the biggest source of the pirate material and they do nothing. The member's number is right there to be seen and they do have them arrested why because they pay their dues! They are one of them.

The real problem in all this isn't all the pirate material or the loss of income it is a justification to take away someones rights. You buy it once and pay for it and have the right to watch when and as often as you want. Your absolutely right if Hollywood gets their way you will have to pay every time you watch and that is pure shit!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-02-2008, 11:39 PM:

Ron, while it is true that I have murdered 4 people, you are assuming that you are paying higher taxes because of it. Show me proof where if I didn't murder those 4 people that your taxes would be lower. Same goes for pirating movies.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Where do you get that 99% figure?

My eyeballs and ears. I appreciate good, powerful (when needed) sound and a nice, steady and clean picture. I also hate sitting with audiences. Usually I wait for the DVD to come out and rent it if I have any interest whatsoever. If it is good, I'll buy the movie on DVD or Blu-ray (I haven't purchased a new release Blu-ray yet, though). However I never pay more than $15 for a DVD and never more than $20 for a Blu-ray. But if I go to a theater with a friend it cost more than that here at local theaters. So it makes no difference to me what you are charging. I'm not driving 589 miles to save a few bucks. Another thing I hate is paying to gain entrance and then being assaulted with lame advertising. It is ALWAYS lame and I have a hard time dealing with paying to see ads. I guess with the sub-par mentality of cable TV subscribers they can get away with this nonsense.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-03-2008, 12:19 AM:

quote: Ron Funderburg
Randy it would appear that fair use exception has something to do with copies of your own software and taping a broadcast movie to watch at a later time and about anything to with home use as opposed to public exhibition but it seems a bit vague to me it doesn't define what fair use is.

Basically the report says that the manufacture and sale of computers, iPods, DVD burners/recorders/players, copiers and other equipment that are used to exercise the privilege of Fair use adds 4.6 trillion dollars to the economy.

I'm sure there are just as many untrue assumptions in this report as there are in Fithian's speech but there is a downloadable copy of the report on the site I linked to and it gives some pretty detailed statistics and the rationale for using them. The writers do point out flaws in their own works, pointing out assumptions and things like that.

I don't remember everything in the report. It's been a while since I read it. I only posted the link because I remembered it was in my bookmarks folder.

Whether you believe everything or not, it's still safe to say that there are a lot MORE good, provable arguments to counter Firthian than there are to back him up.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 04-03-2008, 12:58 AM:

I just find it interesting the president of NATO was using an anology from the movie There Will Be Blood. "I will drink your milkshake!" [Smile]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-03-2008, 01:50 AM:

That's common at ShoWest speeches, to work tag-lines and other dialogue from movies into the speech. I guess it makes everyone feel all show-bizzy.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 04-03-2008, 09:26 AM:

Film Piracy, my favorite topic:

The dollar figure attributed to Film Piracy will never be able to be calculated. Considering that 99.9% of all pirated films are available FOR FREE off the Internet. Most of the people involved are young people who are more interested in being able to say "I uploaded it first" than money. Because it is pertinent to my livelihood I monitor the availability of certain films over the 'Net. It is ridiculous how many films are able to be downloaded before the actual film comes out in theatres AND they are usually high quality digital versions of the films (not cams).

What has happened, is that it has already gotten OUT OF CONTROL. Neither the people in the government or the NATO/MPAA people can really do anything about it. They hold seminars and print speeches about it to make you think they know what the hell they are talking about. But they don't. I have had conversations with John Fithian himself and his film pirate cronies. They don't have a clue how bad it is.

Different than VHS, Home Theatres, or DVDs - instant gratification over the Internet may be the thing that brings our industry down the most.

I'm done.

[Mad]

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-03-2008, 12:34 PM:

Dennis; I could not agree more!

I do not have much faith in anything John Fithian says or writes. Louis

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 04-03-2008, 12:41 PM:

The fallacy in any argument against piracy is even that assuming you could irradicate the downloading, how many of those people who are downloading would then actually buy a ticket to the movies.

I made the same argument many years ago at Showeast in a panel discussion which was dealing with the effects of discount priced theatres. At that time many of the studios were moving to per-capita and other pricing strategies to discourage the growth of chains like Super Saver Cinemas and others (which were then building brand new state of the art multiplexes and charging only $1.00 admission). At that time it was truly scary to talk to some studio representatives who actually believed that discount theatres were (as one fellow put it): "taking bread out of our mouths". Those studio executives were convinced that if the discount market did not exist that a majority of the patrons who went to discount theatres would then go to higher priced first run theatres. I could not convince anyone discount theatres were providing revenue which the studios would have not otherwise received and that if you eliminated the discount market it would not necessarily mean a significant increase in first run higher priced ticket revenues.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-03-2008, 12:42 PM:

Is that guy as much of a self-serving pompous jerk as he appears to be in his Boxoffice articles? He comes off as being a clueless politician, willing to say or do anything in order to get more votes (err...NATO members), without really having any actual knowledge of the issues at hand.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-03-2008, 01:03 PM:

Scott he comes off much better in person than he does reading him or hearing his speeches; however, if you push to get a qualifying statement on how this stat is achieved or that figure is arrived at he becomes a circle talker and talks all around the question without ever actually answering it.

The thought that discount houses hurt attendance or that pirates are actually doing harm is rather silly when the Studio has shortened the amount of time I movie can make money all on their own. The ever shorting window until DVD release is testimony that the studios really hate theaters but they can't do with out them. Direct to DVD doesn't make money and they know it. 90% of films make more money on the original release than in the subsequent markets and it pains them that they still have to use the theater to get out the word for those other streams of income where they share less!

Studios God love them because someone needs to me I don't even like them.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-03-2008, 01:26 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
What has happened, is that it has already gotten OUT OF CONTROL. Neither the people in the government or the NATO/MPAA people can really do anything about it.

Oh, those guys can damned sure do something about it and get very reliable, effective results.

My suggestion: stop making DVD screener discs.

Really. It is that easy. THAT is the solution.

I've mentioned this before in film piracy discussions. I find it very strange this idea hasn't gained any traction. If Hollywood is really losing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars every year due to film piracy simple, plain logic would suggest they would plug the hole most responsible for the losses: those damned DVD screener discs.

The DVD screener discs are made solely for the convenience of film critics, snobby actors and other snots who can't bother with watching a movie in an actual movie theater or private screening room. They want to be able to watch the movie, in a reduced state of quality on DVD, whenever or wherever they feel like watching it. That probably means sitting on their couch at 2:00am dressed only in their underwear and stained tee shirt, munching on a bag of Doritos™ and belting straight shots of Crown.

The price of the convenience extended by those DVD screener discs is the vast majority of losses due to film piracy. Since Hollywood keeping making lots of screener discs for each new movie, obviously Hollywood thinks those losses due to piracy are acceptable.

I clearly identified the problem. Hollywood is doing nothing about it. So their continued wailing about this problem must have ulterior motives -like fucking up the various ways we can watch and record movies at home.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-03-2008, 01:32 PM:

Bobby it makes you wonder if the studio isn't getting a back end cut of the bootlegs doesn't?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-03-2008, 02:16 PM:

Maybe the DVD screeners do more good than harm. I saw George Clooney on Letterman last night, talking about "Leatherheads." Letterman said he'd seen the movie last week and really enjoyed it. Since the film wasn't even out at that time, he can't go to a theatre to see it, and he probably doesn't have a movie theatre in his house, so they probably sent him a screener disk which he probably watched at home or in his office. (Granted, he could have seen an advance screening at a theatre, but schedules for that kind of thing can't always be worked out.)

Anyway, for that one screener disk, the film company got an endorsement to Letterman's millions of viewers and a minutes-long promotional spot on the show, with a clip aired. Of course, if not for the disk, Letterman still could have talked up the movie, but anyone in marketing knows that an endorsement is much more effective if the endorser has used the product.

So if they stopped making screeners, they could lose untold millions of dollars worth of publicity. And they'd still have the problem of theatre camcords and post-release bootlegs.

I'm sure (well, I hope!) that there aren't stacks of these screeners sitting around film company offices. They are probably only sent to people they perceive as "trustworthy." That distribution list is probably where the REAL problem lies!

When estimating the cost to the industry, they are not talking so much about actual DOLLARS lost as they are about VALUE. If a guy watches a movie he downloaded, then by golly, to the suits, he's gotten $9 worth of value because he's seen the movie, quality notwithstanding. This is flawed logic at best, but what else is there, when they ignore the REAL problem of the screener disks.

It's definitely an unsolvable problem when you consider all the angles.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-03-2008, 03:30 PM:

Mike they have had industry screenings of Leatherheads for showbiz people, critics and the like, so maybe he went to one those. Then I'm sure they have had sneaks of the movie and New York has a lot of sneaks. I mean sneak previews! I'm sure they have a lot sneaks and snakes and all everything!

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-03-2008, 03:51 PM:

I've never bought into the "piracy is the root of all of the problems in the movie industry" position. Every industry has its black market, grey market, and used market. Most industries are glad that there's a market at all, because it represents potential sales.

If people are buying bootlegs and/or downloading movies for free, it at least means that they're interested in watching movies. The "first posters" wouldn't have anything to brag about if they were uploading content no one wanted.

The trick for the studios is to figure out how to tap the market that they're not currently profiting from. Take for an example Leatherheads, which is opening this week. Say that it's already on the popular download sites, and one could go down to Times Square and buy a copy for $4.

How can the movie industry capitalize on this? Might it build buzz that could result in theater attendance by those not wishing to see it in a compromised format? Could it increase sales in merchandise, such as the movie soundtrack, games, or other tie-ins?

Instead of whining about it, they should either cut it off at the source, or figure out how to capitalize on the activity that they can't seem to stop no matter how many years they've tried.

I don't think the real issue for movie theaters is piracy. It's not a witty movie quote or reference, but Fithian could have, and should have, started his speech by referencing Pogo:

quote:
"we have met the enemy and he is us"

Most movie theaters are their own worst enemy. Whether caused by apathy, ignorance, incompetence, or greed, most movie theaters have sucked the fun out of going to the movies. Customers react by not going, waiting until the home video release, or getting it via other means.

Still not a movie quote, but an entertainment icon at least, comes this from Madonna in the recent Variety magazine:

quote:
"There's one thing you can't download and that's a live performance. And I know how to put on a show."

I love this quote! People spend thousands of dollars trying to replicate a movie-going experience at home. From a couple grand for a plasma on the wall to tens of thousands to create a full home theater environment with all the fun touches, people want to enjoy watching movies.

Every theater should ask themselves the question: "It is fun to see a movie here?"

If not, they are contributing to their own demise, and encouraging piracy and downloads.

Movie theaters should give people an experience they can't get at home. If the experience is poor or not special in some way, no rational theater owner can blame audiences for staying away.

Fix that problem, and I'll bet piracy isn't as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-03-2008, 04:44 PM:

Scott being the first poster I'm not sure what you meant in the comment

quote: Scott Jentsch
The "first posters" wouldn't have anything to brag about if they were uploading content no one wanted.

As I didn't think I was bragging about anything. I do think that piracy does affect the industry, I'm not really sure if it is a negative for the operator or the industry in general for that matter. I still see the greatest harm being in the criminal element of the issue.

With that said, I think that most of the illegal downloads tend to help promote the movie not necessarily take away bucks from it.

All I was trying to do was stimulate discussion on the issue. It would appear that at least that goal has been accomplished.

The biggest problem I see with Hollywood is bad product there is a reason that opens are down this year a lot of the stuff just stinks!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-03-2008, 05:14 PM:

I agree with Bobby. If Hollywood wants to whine about piracy, then they need to stop sending out screener discs. Otherwise don't whine! Nobody who is in to piracy will listen or care. It'll just make them happier that they are getting away with it. Nobody NEEDS screener discs. I think Leno talks about seeing his movies at a theater. Studios do that a lot before a movie's release. They're called press screenings and I thought we were all familiar with those. I've shown more of those than I can possibly count, sometimes in the morning, sometimes in the evening in a theater reserved for the event (no, not a "sneak preview"). Sure, cams would still be available on the internet, but most people have been so spoiled by screener quality that only a select few could possibly bear the much lower quality and later release of a cam bootleg (even though they are all using DVX100's now, it seems, which eliminate the screen flicker).

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-03-2008, 05:25 PM:

I don't think screener discs are a/the problem. They are all well tracked and accounted for.

All of the screener discs I get from the Academy have a visible and unique ID code burned into the picture area.

Any dumbass that would copy them (or allow it to be copied) would easily be identified and shot on sight.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-03-2008, 05:28 PM:

That area could easily be masked or cropped off unless they put it dead center in the picture.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-03-2008, 05:28 PM:

From what I have read if they wanted to stop the screener DVD from being a problem all they have to do is get a copy of the internet movie from it, get the watermarked serial number off it and have the SOB arrested and prosecute his ass to the fullest extent of the law.

I remember when bootlegs of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones was bootlegged, George Lucas was going to find the violator and prosecute them to the fullest extent. That is until it was discovered the thing was copied at his lab at skywalker ranch then it just went away. Probable a friend and he didn't think he wanted to hurt the friendship or the employee had something on George!

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-03-2008, 05:40 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
That area could easily be masked or cropped off unless they put it dead center in the picture.

As mentioned, don't forget about the hidden watermarks.

I think the bigger problem is with the "Joe Video/Computer Geek" that wants to video a film... including a "projectionist" that will allow and/or do it from the booth...for an easy buck.

Most modern camcorders will allow a pirate to flawlessly record from a projected image.

The problem is with the dishonest low-lifes that want to circumvent paying for the product...no matter how bad the product is...there will ALWAYS be a market.

Money and sex makes the world go 'round...sometimes interchangeably! [Wink]

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-03-2008, 06:05 PM:

Well there was some guy who was in the Godfather that got busted for the screener issue, but he claimed he lent them to a friend of his, and someone stole the screeners from his friend, I think. I dont know if he was busted or not in the end but at least it got it out to the public that piracy comes from inside the industry too.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-03-2008, 06:06 PM:

quote:
Mike they have had industry screenings of Leatherheads for showbiz people, critics and the like, so maybe he went to one those. Then I'm sure they have had sneaks of the movie and New York has a lot of sneaks. I mean sneak previews! I'm sure they have a lot sneaks and snakes and all everything!

Ron, if you would just read my frickin post before going off half cocked, you'll see I said exactly what you said, but in less words:

quote:
(Granted, he could have seen an advance screening at a theatre,

People who promote stuff for a living (celebrities) are busy people. They might not be able to fit a screening into their schedule, or maybe they would rather not go out and get mobbed or whatever. So I can totally see why the studios would want to accomodate their viewing needs considering they are promoting their product for them. That doesn't excuse all the screeners that go home with random suits, janitors, secretaries, DVD replication plant employees, people like that.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-03-2008, 06:15 PM:

Mike H, you sorta shot yourself in the foot...he GOT busted!

BTW: I'm sure there are dishonest POS's in the industry too.

I think that's a rare case compared the low-lifes outside of the industry that intentionally bootleg.

I just cannot buy into the hypothesis that the majority (or any) of the actors and trade people in general are willing to forgo their lucrative residuals for the sake of a quick (illegal and risky) buck.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-03-2008, 07:25 PM:

Phil, I realize they caught him, obviously, but I didn't know if anything really happened to him or if he got a slap on the wrist.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-03-2008, 07:43 PM:

I don't know either, Mike. But I heard he was sharing a prison cell with the 6'8", 250 lb homo "Bubba" as his love-child.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-03-2008, 08:04 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Anyway, for that one screener disk, the film company got an endorsement to Letterman's millions of viewers and a minutes-long promotional spot on the show, with a clip aired. Of course, if not for the disk, Letterman still could have talked up the movie, but anyone in marketing knows that an endorsement is much more effective if the endorser has used the product.

That sort of backs up my point about Hollywood studios bitching about piracy, but the logic of their bitching being extremely hollow and suspicious.

Truth be told, a movie production will probably make a lot more than it loses from the use of DVD screener discs. Actors in the movie, film critics and others in the media can see the movie in advance and promote the finished product more effectively -thus translating into better ticket sales. Did I mention most movie studios spend tens of millions of dollars to promote each major movie release? Those screener discs enhance marketing strategy. Even with the losses to piracy, the movie production actually may end up farther ahead by using those screener DVDs.

quote: Phil Hill
As mentioned, don't forget about the hidden watermarks.

Who's going to prosecute? Who is willing to have their good friend and collegue thrown in jail?

Hell, for all we know, it could be the "name above the title" actor mailing his disc off directly to China for the mass production pressing plants to dupe in mass. Is the studio going to break a multi-picture deal with this guy over an issue that may not "cost" the production more than a few hundred grand in unrealized American DVD sales?

As for the camcorder bootlegs, those things are laughable. IMHO, they are also a very insignificant part of the piracy problem. For one thing, they're not available to download from the Internet before the movie is released in movie theaters. Pirated versions culled from screener DVDs are available before the movie is released in theaters.

I know quite a few Army people who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan with lots of pirated DVDs. Nearly all use screener DVDs as the source for the mass duplication. It sure isn't any dopey camcorder footage.

quote: Scott Jentsch
Most movie theaters are their own worst enemy. Whether caused by apathy, ignorance, incompetence, or greed, most movie theaters have sucked the fun out of going to the movies. Customers react by not going, waiting until the home video release, or getting it via other means.

Commercial movie theaters need to re-invent themselves in certain aspects. Obviously movie presentation quality has to be a priority as well as the ambiance of the venue.

However, more creative thinking must be done to "socially engineer" a better movie going environment. Something has to be done to convince the various cretins out there not to do shit that disrupts a movie, be it mobile phone misuse, feet on the back of the seat, crying infants or whatever.

The video gaming industry has been trying to tackle this problem in recent years. It turns out that the vast majority of the general public doesn't want to have the first thing to do with online Internet gaming because so many other anonymous trolling assholes just live to ruin the experience for everyone else. The video game industry has realized they are losing quite a bit of money over this situation. It may even be a very significant factor on why the Nintendo Wii has been so much more popular than XBox360 and Playstation3. Anti social assholes can't be seen putzing around with a Wii. So that platform seems like a safer, more friendly choice.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-04-2008, 03:46 PM:

quote:
Scott being the first poster I'm not sure what you meant in the comment

quote: Scott JentschThe "first posters" wouldn't have anything to brag about if they were uploading content no one wanted.

As I didn't think I was bragging about anything. I do think that piracy does affect the industry, I'm not really sure if it is a negative for the operator or the industry in general for that matter. I still see the greatest harm being in the criminal element of the issue.

Ron,

The "first posters" I was referring to are from the message from Dennis:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
Considering that 99.9% of all pirated films are available FOR FREE off the Internet. Most of the people involved are young people who are more interested in being able to say "I uploaded it first" than money.

His point was (in my understanding, anyway) that there is a cachet to being the first to have something that others want. Being able to provide something in demand provides some satisfaction for the person providing it. The fact that this condition exists means that people want the product being provided, and that means that people still want to watch movies, but on their terms.

Can studios figure out which terms are more important? Is it price? Is it availability? Movie theaters have a built-in window of exclusivity, so if you want to see Leatherheads today, you have to go to a theater to see it. Maybe the theaters nearby are all unworthy of their admission price. Maybe their showtime schedule isn't compatible with the person wanting to see the movie. Maybe that person is just a cheap SOB that wouldn't pay two cents to see any movie and expects everything to be handed to them for free.

Instead of whining about piracy and blaming it for their problems, studios could be taking that energy and applying it to addressing the needs of their customers. That could extend to the theaters showing their movies, as they could be encouraging, monitoring, rewarding good theaters, and disciplining theaters that are doing a poor job of presenting the movie studio's content that they invested so much money and effort to complete.

Those things don't grab headlines like the "piracy" buzzword, though.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-04-2008, 04:12 PM:

Scott okay well I agree with you. I also think that what is lost to piracy at least in the domestic side of things is offset as it actually is a kind of free advertising. It it is a good show that is.

Okay shutting now not getting on my soap box!

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-04-2008, 05:43 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Who's going to prosecute? Who is willing to have their good friend and collegue thrown in jail?

Ya know Bobby, that's a real problem in today's "cover thy ass and my friend's ass as well!" attitude.

It's no longer an issue of the right thing to do, but "how can I protect myself and my friends!"...How f*cking sad!