Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley No, they wouldn't. With good reason. It would be a nice idea, but they would draw up the same conclusion I would: it would defeat the purpose in the long run.

You could read such a thing as an admittance of defeat on the part of the studios. But who cares about the long run? Piracy will win. Bringing the theater to the Internet would at least level the playing field some. There's always going to be people who want more than they're offered, no matter what. But don't tell me studios offering the ability to watch their films at home while they're still in theaters wouldn't appeal to some people.

Good arguments here, though I'll confess to only skimming through this thread. I think I'm most closely aligned with Rick's comments.

I think the studios and major indies will be okay, as will the screenwriters who can, once they make a name for themselves, ply their trade either on spec or for hire.

And the guerilla filmmaker is not getting pirated, and the A-list talent does not have to worry either because their payday is usually front-loaded...

I see the real victim of piracy as the B to D list actor. The film industry just about considers the domestic market a throwaway these days - theatrical release is never a certainty, and DVD sales are off, and filmmakers know that they have to go the digital route sooner and sooner in the cycle, thereby reducing profits.

So they turn to the foreign market which, from what I read, is just as if not more lucrative for filmmakers than the domestic.

How does this hurt the B-D list talent? Because they'll never appear in anything other than low or micro-budget guerilla stuff, regardless of their level of talent. You need a face or a name to sell the film overseas, and that's why you see the same 100 or so actors in every movie, studio or indie, big budget or small...

A very interesting perspective AJR.

From all of our points of view, and those B to D actors...the reality is that we need to make more noise about ourselves.

Piracy might even be a way of doing that as Brett's example above shows.

Some B to D actors become cult names. I'm thinking of the likes of Tony Todd...people who are famous for certain roles/genres and get recognised and get work forever on a certain level.

There's a list of the most pirated films of last year knocking around. One of them was Hurt Locker. The Production company is apparently filing lawsuits trying to get money back.

The thing is this: Hurt Locker was a war film. It came out when the public was sick to death of war and so didn't do very well at the BO. It came to prominence because of the Oscars.

At that point people downloaded it out of curiosity. They haven't stolen anything in real terms, because their decision NOT to pay had already been made....they didn't fancy seeing it at the cinema.

IMO the line of attack from the Prodcution Company's point of view should have been to hire Bigelow for another film....leverage the goodwill of Hurt Locker and get a new film out there and maybe some of the people who downloaded the Hurt Locker and enjoyed it would buy that.

Have to say, reading this thread (and debating the issue with Phil) has changed my mind on this issue.

For the last year or so, I've been a regular user of a few torrent sites - catching up on classic films that I never got around to seeing.  I consider myself a libertarian politically, and fully believe in the sanctity of property rights.  I've justified myself up until now via two internal arguments (which I still contend are valid complaints, at least on some level):

1) With films, people buy a product sight unseen.  You've got commercials claiming (usually falsely) that a film is terrific - watch it, and it'll be the best thing you've seen all year!  Alternatively, you've got critic reviews, which are often off-base.  It's a situation that dangerously approaches fraud, IMHO.  Yet, I dare anyone to go to a movie theater, or pay for a downloaded rental film, and then successfully argue for their money back because the film sucked.  IE: it's buyer beware, at the expense of the consumer.

2) I've researched Itunes, Netflix, Amazon Prime, hoping that they would offer reasonably priced legal alternatives to the torrents.  In each and every case, the selections were woefully less adequate than the illegal sites.  If I paid for a Netflix (or another) service, I wouldn't be getting the selection that I needed to make it worth my while.

BUT - having reviewed the argument - and debated back and forth on the matter, I have to admit...that downloading illegal content is simply inherently wrong.

Having worked so hard with the Bad Penguin project really drives it home.  The amount of work that's gone into the script, pre-production design and marketing...not to mention the tons of work ahead in the future as the project continues.  That's a gamble that any independent film maker takes.  But if it pays off...the artist DESERVES to reap the benefits.  Yes, it's true that a majority of people who download a film probably wouldn't have paid for it.  But equally true - unless they're willing to, they do not have a RIGHT to view it.  And some people probably *would* have paid for the  download, if the alternative wasn't available.  Even if it's not much, that's still stealing from the artists' mouth.  

I'm also not arguing that there aren't surely better business models to be developed than classic distribution, which may eventually alleviate a portion of the piracy problem.  But using an intellectual property without permission from the owner - that's just flat out wrong (even if money isn't actually involved.)  Refraining from piracy may be a symbolic gesture.  But it's honest.

Now Netflix - dammit, PLEASE improve your streaming selection!!

"If I had to pay for it, I wouldn't see it so the studio wouldn't get the money," is bullshit.  With a venue to see them for free, you are seeing a lot of movies you wouldn't pay to say, but you are also seeing some that you would if you had to pay.

There's probably people out there that catch 150+ movies a year illegally because they can.  And because they justify it with this defense.  If they couldn't do it from the torrents, I'm willing to bet they'd catch a few movies a year in the theater.  Or on cable.  Or, as Darren pointed out, the library.


Phil

My first foray into this clusterfuck:

For some people, that's true. But, I have this crazy notion in my head that I wouldn't go see a movie in the theater. Instead, I'd pay for HBO and Starz at about $25/month (give or take) and be saving money watching movies at home than paying to see three or four movies in the theater where the studios force the theater owners to overcharge by a hefty margin.

In that case, Phil, cable and the library are different than going to the theater. The library is funded by taxes (us) and cable is paid for directly by us. You cannot compare those two to going to the theater. Cable's a little easier to compare but you're not paying for a movie directly. You're paying for the advertising as cable was free, back in the day.

Along similar lines, just found this article regarding copyright law and used bookstores.  Similar issues here, and simliar problems.  Handled differently, from country to country.  As with films, the issues are deeper than they might first appear....  If you REALLY think about it, isn't it wrong that an artist or writer doesn't get royalties on used books and DVDS, too?

Telread

It's amazing how much the human mind is capable or rationalization. This thread is beautiful evidence. The extraordinary and even sometimes effective lengths people will go to create justifications for a behavior they benefit from and therefore don't want to think of as wrong is impressive.

When I ran my bar, I downloaded music illegally. It was easier to get, to be honest. At the time, Itunes was limited, and there was no one stop place to get songs customers were demanding. Plus, often a song was popular for months before it was available to be purchased, especially remixes. So I had shareware like Napster. Someone asked for a song, if I didn't have it, I could get it in minutes. For free.

But I refuse to justify that action. It was theft. The artists were not rewarded for their work. Future artists received less compensation because their material had less value.

In the end, the industry adjusted, and learned to make legal downloads more effective and therefore more profitable. But to justify my theft with this argument is quite simply a rationalization. That's like saying I rob banks so they can build better safes.

Most of us have used torrents or watched unlicensed material on Youtube. I don't think it means we're going to hell. Not for that anyway. But the fact that we do it doesn't make it right, and certainly should not be the basis for protecting pirate websites that are making millions off others work.

I am a libertarian myself. I am a huge believer in freedom and entrepreneurship. I love the way the internet contributes to that. As anyone who knows my politics will attest, I am suspicious of government power and regulations. But having a free internet does not require justifying or rationalizing intellectual property theft.

Leitskev,

I don't think anybody's going to dispute that downloading a movie (or any media) is stealing. What they're disputing is the effect it has, if I've read through this thread properly.

What I'll dispute is it doesn't matter if piracy is right or wrong. It is wrong. But it's inevitable. And it always wins. You only lose working yourself up about it.

It's fair to say a free internet shouldn't justify/rationalize piracy. But I've yet to see any anti-piracy advocates come up with a solution that lives up to that. The people who want to end piracy either can't come up with solutions or have solutions that are actually worse than piracy.

James -

Granted, dealing with piracy issues are like trying to plug a hole in a sieve - a multi-headed problem, that won't ever be completely stopped. Doesn't mean that as a society and individuals that we can't:

* Cease to download things ourselves, just on general principle (and refuse to give moral/verbal sanction to friends and acquaintances who continue to do so.)  Not saying berate anybody - but don't pretend it's "okay", either...

* Lobby for international treaties so that we *can* go after the big torrent sites that do most of the damage.

* Continue to work toward new technology that will make piracy more difficult (understanding that it will never disappear 100%)

* Work with the legitimate distribution channels to see if they can't come up with a business model that does provide the full-fledged services that make illegal torrents so appealing at times...

IMHO.  

I'm more worried about the power of the major international media empires than I am about a few people downloading stuff...something that no-one has ever managed to prove has had an actual effect, as this thread has witnessed.

The people have decided.

There's been plenty of instances where I go to see a movie because of piracy.
I've checked out some cam torrents of a feature while it was in theaters.
A title I was unsure if I wanted to go to a theater and shell out $20 to see.
If I liked the first act, I'd shut if off, go to the cinema and pay to see it.

Piracy is illegal, but while it's here, I'd be a fool not to use it.
I can expand my knowledge base at little cost to me.
I'm sure other budding amateurs living hand to mouth do the same thing.

E.D.

Quoted from wonkavite James - Granted, dealing with piracy issues are like trying to plug a hole in a sieve - a multi-headed problem, that won't ever be completely stopped. Doesn't mean that as a society and individuals that we can't: * Cease to download things ourselves, just on general principle (and refuse to give moral/verbal sanction to friends and acquaintances who continue to do so.)  Not saying berate anybody - but don't pretend it's "okay", either...

I don't download films. I'm a firm believer in supporting good films (and not supporting bad films but that's got nothing to do with piracy).

I have on occasion watched feature films on YouTube but only because I could find no other means to watch them. I've probably only done this four or five times.

As for friends using piracy to watch films, I don't condone it but I wouldn't say anything to them about it. It's not my business and frankly, it'd be akin to telling someone their meat eating or pot smoking is wrong.

Besides, none of my friends pirate films either. Most of us are avid DVD enthusiasts.

Quoted from wonkavite * Lobby for international treaties so that we *can* go after the big torrent sites that do most of the damage. * Continue to work toward new technology that will make piracy more difficult (understanding that it will never disappear 100%) * Work with the legitimate distribution channels to see if they can't come up with a business model that does provide the full-fledged services that make illegal torrents so appealing at times... IMHO.

That's fair, I suppose. I personally don't care enough to get involved but it seems like there's plenty of people who do.

Like Rick though, I'm concerned as to how the powers that be go about combating piracy. They've yet to come up with any solutions that aren't utterly threatening and repugnant.

Pretty soon we'll get to see the effect of piracy on Kick Ass 2.

The first film made $100M at the BO...not a huge sum for such an impacting film.

It was also the second most pirated film of the year behind Avatar.

This is because the demographic for the film...teenage boys...are the ones most likely to download content.

Why? Because that age are the most involved in film, music, computer games etc. And they also have the least expendable income.

Now you can argue that those people have stolen momey from the filmmakers.

However it's become a huge cult hit, and piracy has played its part in that.

I reckon the sequel will bring in considerably more at the BO because numerous of those kids who enjoyed the first film for free will go with their friends to watch it at the Cinema.

I totally hear what Janet is saying about the work that goes into Bad Penguin and completley empathise.

We've seen on this thread already, however, that piracy is able to save independent films from obscurity....look at the example of Ink.

Hypothetically, piracy may be a boon to a film like Bad Penguin. Major distributors might be worried that it's too dark for children, or some other spurious reason, you only get a small deal, they don't market it much, no major TV interviews or press interviews etc etc. The majors own all the rights, so it languishes in relative obscurity (as I say this is purely hypothetical!!!!).

Then some young kid downloads it illegally, tells everyone on 4Chan about this wicked new animation about this Penguin with a gun who hates Christmas, tells everyone that it's well better than all that Disney crap. Others watch it. Suddenly it has a sizeable following talking about it...some of whom seek it out and buy it.

Then you have an established user base for Bad Penguin Hits Hawaii, or whatever.

The point being, piracy is here to stay...whatever your moral/political views on it, there's nothing you can do about it...except use it to your advantage as a free marketing platform.

The Swiss Government recently did research into the problem and concluded that the heavy handed measures necessary to tackle piracy would cost so much and be so brutal that action would actually harm the industry and the economy far more than just leaving it as it is.