Film Piracy - Does Anyone Care?

[TheSpade]

I watch lots of films at the cinema as I enjoy the cinema experience. I mainly watch films which aren't big Hollywood releases (mostly foreign but not exclusively) so I'm not sure that even if I wanted to download them from the internet that I could. I am also a lovefilm.com member and I find that service amazing plus has tons of benefits not gained from downloading films.

I've never downloaded a film, for me it seems like more hassle than it's worth and would spoil the experience. I need to find the film online, be sure it's the actual film I want to see, take time to download it and then watch it on my PC monitor (no chance) or burn it to DVD (hassle and expense).

For me the cinema or renting the DVD wins every time. I'm probably not totally against it though (I guess its just not practical for me) as I have downloaded music in the past so it's the same concept.

Someone mentioned earlier something along the lines of if it stopped films like Transformers etc being made it would be a good thing. If these big blockbusters were not made and released would the more obscure, independent and less well known film makers still be able to make and release films? I would imagine there'd be some knock on effect on the smaller guys in the industry.

 

[Coolio]

That's just the kind of reasoning the big studios hope everyone keeps with Spade, that they're too big to fail and everyone would suffer if they do. Fuck em. Cinema was around before blockbusters, and will be around forever probably in some form.

 

[TheDeceased]

Real art isn't made for money, LL. Real art gets made in spite of the market.

This doesn't really apply to a lot of mediums including film-making and animation/ 3D- animation. There are stories that cannot be convcingly brought to screen without an enormous amount of money. The artists cannot be expected to provide any of this money themselves, especially at the beginning of their careers. So they need investors and/or a big studio to support them. This is the way the film industry works. People will not invest millions of dollars into films (and I'm not talking about blockbusters here, the average australian film costs around 3-5 million) if there is little possibility of getting some sort of return on their investment.

A world where art and money are completely seperate is a world without cinema.

Is 'The Godfather' an example of what you would consider real art?

That's just the kind of reasoning the big studios hope everyone keeps with Spade, that they're too big to fail and everyone would suffer if they do. Fuck em. Cinema was around before blockbusters, and will be around forever probably in some form.

We would suffer.

These studios have brought us a lot of our favourite films, haven't they?

The vast majority of people who post in F&T make complimentary comments about films that come from these very studios. And now such contempt for them.

I really don't get it.

i don't see how the above (loss) figure could be even remotely quantified

Yeah but what do you think the figure really is? At least 50 million? 75?

It's impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy but obviously it's a lot, right?

 

[Finder]

hey finder, where can i download your new album, bro? :D

I'm going to release it onto the torrent sites myself once it's done in addition to making it available via commercial means (itunes, emusic, amazon) and at shows. Something tells me some dude downloading it Australia because they can't get to a show to buy it on CD isn't going to cause me any harm. I would rather someone download the record and decide to come see us when we tour through their town than not listen at all.

Were you trying to make a point?

 

[alasdairm]

BULLSHIT. Real art isn't made for money, LL. Real art gets made in spite of the market.

that's a bit of a binary argument. it also ignores the fact that there are artists who make 'real' art for the 'real' reasons (whatever that means) but who still would like to make some money from their talents to, you know, eat and shelter themselves. "it can't be art if you're not starving" seems a little harsh, no?

i guess the thing i continue to struggle with is why people feel that they're entitled to this enjoyment for nothing. perhaps it's just a hot button for me because i feel it's indicative of a more widespread problem in society generally.

thanks

alasdair

 

[L2R]

Yeah but what do you think the figure really is? At least 50 million? 75?

It's impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy but obviously it's a lot, right?

It's really hard to say. It may not be much at all, in fact, there is a chance that there is a net gain for the industry.

As mentioned a few times in this thread, illegal sharing of art has the ability to expose artists to those who may not have forked over the dough to watch them in the first instance, but may subsequently go to their films or buy their dvds.

Not all downloaders are insatiably greedy pricks, and i think those who are will inevitably find that such an approach does indeed reduce one's enjoyment of the medium.

I gotta wonder though, both you and i aspire to be professional filmmakers one day. Do you think we would feel different had this not been the case?

I'm going to release it onto the torrent sites myself once it's done in addition to making it available via commercial means (itunes, emusic, amazon) and at shows. Something tells me some dude downloading it Australia because they can't get to a show to buy it on CD isn't going to cause me any harm. I would rather someone download the record and decide to come see us when we tour through their town than not listen at all.

Were you trying to make a point?

yes, and you followed through just as i had hoped. :D

 

[Pander Bear]

i guess the thing i continue to struggle with is why people feel that they're entitled to this enjoyment for nothing. perhaps it's just a hot button for me because i feel it's indicative of a more widespread problem in society generally.

And yet when you walk by a well-manicured garden, or remember a joke somebody told you, you don't feel any guilt. I don't see why pirated art as exceptional, other than the copyright holder wishes he was being paid for your enjoyment.

That's a moot arguement anyway, since I don't enjoy 90% of what I download. The ten who do benefit more from me dragging my friends to their shows than they would from the half-assed marketing they would get from their record companies.

that's a bit of a binary argument.

It was a natural response to the argument LL made.

it also ignores the fact that there are artists who make 'real' art for the 'real' reasons (whatever that means) but who still would like to make some money from their talents to, you know, eat and shelter themselves. "it can't be art if you're not starving" seems a little harsh, no?

A "real" reason would be to express one's self. Patronizing the arts allows for an artist to live more than comfortably. I'm just not interested in paying for the songwriting team for the Jonas Brothers next album.

A world where art and money are completely seperate is a world without cinema.

Patently false statement. Its a world bereft of *some* cinema.

Is 'The Godfather' an example of what you would consider real art?

Yes, and so is the great wall of china. It doesn't mean the slave labor used to construct it was wrong. Media adapt and evolve alongside civilization over time. The era of the big budget blockbuster may be drawing to a close, and there may be nothing anybody can do about it.

We would suffer.

These studios have brought us a lot of our favourite films, haven't they?

The vast majority of people who post in F&T make complimentary comments about films that come from these very studios. And now such contempt for them.

I really don't get it.

I think most posters in this forum are insulted by Hollywood's business model and pricing structure-- and they would prefer art and entertainment that was mediated by fewer beancounters. Maybe its just because I know some people who count those beans for paramount, but I'm remorseless about it. They're fuckheads who judged Biker Boyz's worth by its international gross. I'd be happy to watch films with less green screen if it cut away all the empty calories from the medium.

 

[Cyc]

Well said, pander.

 

[alasdairm]

I don't see why pirated art as exceptional, other than the copyright holder wishes he was being paid for your enjoyment.

and rich people are exactly the same as poor people other than the fact that they have more money...



alasdair

 

[TheDeceased]

Coppola made the Godfather for the money to fund further projects. He has repeatedly stated in interviews that he was willing to take any project that came along to make some quick cash. He did not want to make the sequels. The Godfather films exist because of profit, pure and simple. Which is why I used it as an example. Because you do regard it as real art. Which proves that good things can come of this system that everyone supposedly despises.

The 'era of the big budget blockbuster' is not drawing to a close. The impact of piracy on the industry means, if anything, less independant films rather than less blockbusters (as TheSpade and a couple of other people have already said). The sure-fire, money in their pocket, dumbed down, made for the masses bullshit is never going to go away - because the world is largely populated by idiots and that is what they want to see.

Patently false statement. Its a world bereft of *some* cinema.

Name a film that you like that had no budget whatsoever.

I think most posters in this forum are insulted by Hollywood's business model and pricing structure

6 out of 10 films don't profit.

I'm repeating myself but people have to invest millions of dollars in these films, knowing that they only have a 40% chance of getting their money back.

How poor are you? Are you all unemployed or something?

Because cinema prices weren't that expensive last time I checked, considering the huge screen and great speakers. How much do you think they should charge? Maybe enough so that they profit from 3 out of 10 of their films?

 

[Pander Bear]

Name a film that you like that had no budget whatsoever.

Why would I name a film without a budget. None exist. Film stock costs money, cameras cost money. That's an entirely different question from "name a film made for under a million dollars". Psycho cost 800,000, Easy Rider cost 375,000. Ereaserhead, and Pi were made for under 100,000.

I guess I can kiss waterworld goodbye.

6 out of 10 films don't profit.

I'm repeating myself but people have to invest millions of dollars in these films, knowing that they only have a 40% chance of getting their money back.

A fool and his money are soon parted, as they say.

Of course I am disinclined to trust any stats coming out of hollywood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Because cinema prices weren't that expensive last time I checked, considering the huge screen and great speakers. How much do you think they should charge? Maybe enough so that they profit from 3 out of 10 of their films?

They've gone up 4 dollars since I was a boy. If you know anything about the distribution system, you know that theater companies see a few pennies for every box office dollar.

I'd like to see them reevaluate why they got into this business in the first place.

 

[TheDeceased]

Based purely on inflation, in todays terms that would mean that:

Psycho cost $4,438,480 and Easy Rider cost $1,704,675
(http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflateGDP.html)

It's still a lot of money.

And four dollars isn't.

I guess I can kiss waterworld goodbye.

Yeah along with the rest of Aronofsky's films.

He may have made a couple of low-budget films before he became recognized, but would 'The Fountain' have really been possible on a low-budget?

Maybe you didn't like that film, but that's not the point. It was something that he wanted to express on film and if you like and respect him as an artist, then why suggest that the world would be better off if he was unable to complete his work?

Waterworld is a convenient example that in no way represents high budget Hollywood films on a whole.

Don't you like some high budget movies?

Money doesn't make films bad, you know.

And yet when you walk by a well-manicured garden, or remember a joke somebody told you, you don't feel any guilt. I don't see why pirated art as exceptional, other than the copyright holder wishes he was being paid for your enjoyment.

People who tell jokes socially and care for their gardens don't rely on your financial support.

What you're saying is kinda like: there's no difference between sneaking in to a concert that you were supposed to pay for and going to a free concert?

One of them expects to be paid for your enjoyment.

But fuck them, right?

You deserve it for free.

 

[Pander Bear]

Waterworld is a convenient example that in no way represents high budget Hollywood films on a whole.

You don't think? A compromised script, mundane acting, extravagant excess-- basically just a money-making venture.

Don't you like some high budget movies?

Of course I do, and I pay to go see them.

It's still a lot of money.

Its an amount of money easily raised and recooped without the current hollywood structure.

Maybe you didn't like that film, but that's not the point. It was something that he wanted to express on film and if you like and respect him as an artist, then why suggest that the world would be better off if he was unable to complete his work?

Prove to me that it would have gone unmade under different circumstances. Its an interesting example of a labor of love, given its troubled history (financial backers and talent pulling out, nearly wrecking the project).

Money doesn't make films bad, you know.

no, and it certainly doesn't make them good either-- which is why "they need the money" is not an argument that resonates much with me.

People who tell jokes socially and care for their gardens don't rely on your financial support.

for the sole reason that it isn't customary to extend that support. Yet gardens are still planted, and jokes are still told. Why are you making my points for me?

You deserve it for free.

Because you know what I'm thinking-- right?

 

[TheDeceased]

Its an amount of money easily raised and recooped without the current hollywood structure.

Have you ever tried to raise money for a film budget? Because I don't think you know what you're talking about. With or without Hollywood, it's not easy to raise 4.5 million dollars.

Prove to me that it would have gone unmade under different circumstances.

The scenes where he is floating through space in the bubble with the tree of life would not have worked without expensive modern technology. If he could have done it on a budget similar to that of Pi, then why wouldn't he?

Shooting on a low budget creates an enormous amount of limitations. You need a fairly small cast and crew. Your locations are limited. Your equipment is limited. Your time is limited. Pi worked around a lot of those limitations due to the limited number of sets, tiny cast, single camera set-up, etc.

Stephen Spielberg made 'Duel' with a practically invisible budget. Again, the project suited a low-budget indy production. Then he went on to make Jurrasic Park, Indiana Jones, Schindler's List, etc - because money gave him the ability to tell more elaborate stories.

for the sole reason that it isn't customary to extend that support.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Yet gardens are still planted, and jokes are still told. Why are you making my points for me?

I don't think you have a point.

You deserve it for free.

Because you know what I'm thinking-- right?

Ummm. No. Because you said yourself (in different words) that you deserve it for free.

 

[TheDeceased]

I downloaded a cam rip months ago, and deleted it because it was clear that picture quality was going to be an issue. I saw a DVD rip last night, and despite going in with some worries about the story, I was pleased.

If the alternative wasn't available I presume you would've paid for it because you obviously like the director and were anticipating it's release.

The film lost close to 20 million dollars at the box office.

It cost roughly 35 million to make and raked in less than 16.

The point is that you contributed to it's failure, didn't you?

I know I did.

I watched a pirated version of it as well. I bought it on the side of the road in Mauritius for a couple of rupees.

Maybe the film wouldn't have lost so much money if nobody pirated it at all and people like you and me, who are fans of the director and his previous efforts paid for it rather than stealing it.

It's impossible to say with any degree of accuracy, but at the very least they would've got my money (assuming that there is no-one on the entire planet aside from me who would've paid for the film had they not downloaded it).

 

[Pander Bear]

^^
why should I pay for a movie I didn't even enjoy? FWIW, I'd have probably paid 3.99 (and regretted it afterwards) if it had been released same-day on cable. The biz is entirely uninterested in changing their tiered release schedule though.

but, since we're on The Fountain

Originally to be filmed in 2002 on a budget of $70 million with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in the lead, The Fountain shut down production as a result of Pitt's departure. Aronofsky was able to resurrect the project in 2005 with half the budget. The director incorporated visual effects into The Fountain by using minimal computer-generated imagery; he reduced the use of computers by using inexpensive footage provided by a macro-photographer. The Fountain was commercially released in the United States on November 22, 2006, to divided reviews. The Fountain was originally rated R for some violence by the MPAA, but was re-rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of violent action, some sensuality and language for its final release.

The cost of doing a polished, professional job is falling every year with the advent of new techniques. It helps to be innovative. I don't think a studio that can coordinate 300 million worth of investment dollars-- only to fuck the creative and technical team, afterwards-- is a necessary evil anymore. They're just superfluous now.

 

[TheDeceased]

The point is that you contributed to it's failure, didn't you?

You avoided the question.

why should I pay for a movie I didn't even enjoy?

According to the post you made about 'The Fountain', you did enjoy it and you didn't pay for it...

 

[Pander Bear]

According to the post you made about 'The Fountain', you did enjoy it and you didn't pay for it...

You seem to know how I feel better than I do. I've not watched it since, and I don't remember enjoying it.

The point is that you contributed to it's failure, didn't you?

Exactly as much as people who didn't go see it, full stop.

 

[TheDeceased]

You seem to know how I feel better than I do.

I was just refering to something you said in another thread. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

Exactly as much as people who didn't go see it, full stop.

You would have paid to see it if you didn't download it, wouldn't you?

The reason I say that is you made a thread about the film prior to it's release and you were obviously anticipating it.

The people who didn't watch it all didn't contribute to it's failure, because they didn't deprive the film of profits that it rightly deserved.

 

[Pander Bear]

You would have paid to see it if you didn't download it, wouldn't you?

Somebody who downloads a cam rip, is disappointed in the quality, waits for a screener, and watches it once isn't the ideal candidate for that kind of criticism. It was released 22-07-06, I posted 18-05-07.

To whom, exactly, do I owe money-- and how much, for watching a movie once and deleting the file?

The people who didn't watch it all didn't contribute to it's failure, because they didn't deprive the film of profits that it rightly deserved.

Until you moderate the position that I would have gone to see the film, this is a pointless discussion. You can't quantify the loss, because you can't predict contra-factual behavior. At least in this case, all evidence points to me never watching this were it not freely available to download.