Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
Well companies still get money if it's out on TV which probably means Cable. Just not as much as say box office or even DVD. Pirate they get zero. So how is that even a question?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Piracy Could Cripple Indie Film Business In Five Years
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Its gotta be worse for actual indie movies. A lot of the time these things are floating around online for months or even a year or more before they get distribution.
I don't see how it could be financially viable to make smaller budget films, but the good news is that it doesn't have to be financially viable.
The people who should be making them will do it anyway.
I don't see how it could be financially viable to make smaller budget films, but the good news is that it doesn't have to be financially viable.
The people who should be making them will do it anyway.
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
Those production companies get dick for putting a movie on cable. Everyone is whining about streaming music services should have a look at movies that were indie and now are on cable.
Cable is not an incredibly profitable revenue stream anymore concerning just airing movies. That's why all of cable now pushes you towards "On Demand" so they can charge you a flat rate that makes it easier to split the pie so to speak.
The problem with the industry is it counts piracy as a "lost" sale. This kind of failed logic is absurd as there was no way to predict with certainty that these individuals would have gone to the theater or bought the movie in the first place. Same goes for music. You can't attempt to rationalize something like that. Its why you see studios claiming "90 percent" losses due to piracy which is nuts.
Indie studios are more open to distro and generally manage to make their money back sometimes with a tidy profit. Its not all about the box office in the US anymore its international box office that drives sales. Its why you see big budget franchises like Transformers going to China to incorporate that growing audience. Frankly US Box office numbers mean jack shit now. They are a yard stick from a bygone era.
The #1 reason for piracy is lack of availability
cost is #2 not #1
In many countries the pirated version is available before its legal to watch due to the ancient obselete regional staggered release policies.
Another problem is the greed of course.
If every movie ever produced was always on netflix and netflix stayed at its current price, piracy would plummet, it wouldnt go away of course, it never will but it would plummet. The problem is they dont want that, instead hbo make their own online service, amazon have another, sky have their own, and of course is the horrid PPV market. Consumers may sign up for netflix, but they not going to sign up to 5+ services 'and' pay for PPV.
cost is #2 not #1
In many countries the pirated version is available before its legal to watch due to the ancient obselete regional staggered release policies.
Another problem is the greed of course.
If every movie ever produced was always on netflix and netflix stayed at its current price, piracy would plummet, it wouldnt go away of course, it never will but it would plummet. The problem is they dont want that, instead hbo make their own online service, amazon have another, sky have their own, and of course is the horrid PPV market. Consumers may sign up for netflix, but they not going to sign up to 5+ services 'and' pay for PPV.
steakman1971
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,433
This years selection of movies has not been that great. I saw Captain America - nothing else. My kids didn't even ask to see any movies this summer.
I see some movies raking in lots of money (Avengers, Captain America, Disney movies, ..). I guess others are more hum-hum or losing money. Is piracy to blame? I don't think so.
I see some movies raking in lots of money (Avengers, Captain America, Disney movies, ..). I guess others are more hum-hum or losing money. Is piracy to blame? I don't think so.
The first one was good because it was an R-rated movie containing all the old R-movie rockstars. It made no appolgies for exactly that and was exactly what you expected. It wasn't award winning but it was good entertainment.
2 followed much the same formula but felt awkward as they really rehashed #1. It wasn't bad but it wasn't exactly original either.
3 repeated number 2 (likely - I've not seen it) and then alienated the core audience by going PG-13. Bruce Willis says "Yipee Yi-Yo-Ki-Yay Mother FUCKER!" not some lameass PG-13 equivalent. It completely changes the movie and makes it pretend to be something it's not. We want to see and hear what these characters said back in the day. We don't want to see them all pussified but that's what we were given and also why the movie didn't do as well as the others.
I believe the movie was leaked early as a copout so that when it bombed they could point the finger at piracy rather than selling out for a PG-13 rating.
2 followed much the same formula but felt awkward as they really rehashed #1. It wasn't bad but it wasn't exactly original either.
3 repeated number 2 (likely - I've not seen it) and then alienated the core audience by going PG-13. Bruce Willis says "Yipee Yi-Yo-Ki-Yay Mother FUCKER!" not some lameass PG-13 equivalent. It completely changes the movie and makes it pretend to be something it's not. We want to see and hear what these characters said back in the day. We don't want to see them all pussified but that's what we were given and also why the movie didn't do as well as the others.
I believe the movie was leaked early as a copout so that when it bombed they could point the finger at piracy rather than selling out for a PG-13 rating.
steakman1971
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,433
Didn't catch the indie part. I will admit I don't have an understanding of their budgets or usage. I also do not watch many indie movies except on Netflix or similar.
First off: Passing additional laws isn't the answer. Criminals don't follow the law. The law only outlines what actions can be taken to punish the behavior.
Secondly, who cares about independent films? I thought they were all about gay cowboys eating pudding.
Secondly, who cares about independent films? I thought they were all about gay cowboys eating pudding.
Exactly...the only thing more laws will do is make lawyer's richer by suing someone's grandma that accidentally downloaded a trojan which turned her pc into a torrent seeder. Grabbing the low hanging fruit won't solve the issues.
I don't think 4:3 is an option anymore, but when DVDs first came out the only available version was theatrical 4:3, then 2-4 months later you'd get theatrical widescreen, then another 2-4 months they'd release 4:3 director's cut, then another 2-4 months they'd release widescreen director's cut.... All so they can sell you the SAME MOVIE up to 5 times.
To me, I'm sick of every movie going to the ratings board as an R then getting edited over and over until you lost half an hour of footage and a PG13 so it can be "family friendly."
So I always wait for the unrated director's cut before I buy the disk anymore.
Maybe it makes a bigger difference in horror and action movies.
"The movies weren't even that bad"
Well, that's a ringing endorsement if I've ever heard one...for revising movie pricing at the theatre. If your product sucks, shouldn't it be cheaper? I don't pay the same price for hot dogs as I do for steaks. I had to pay the same $12 to watch Gravity as I would have if I'd watched Expendables 3. That's messed up.
Theatre owners should be able to lower the price of a movie until the price generates some minimum attendance level. If that means Expendabelles (a real upcoming movie) has to drop to $3 a seat to fill the room to 15% capacity (or whatever, I have no idea what a fair average attendance level would be), so be it.
SS_Wehrwolf
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2005
- Messages
- 632
All laws are simple when you are a politician. You just have someone from a lobby firm write it all up for you to sign and you dont even miss a fuck session with a high class hooker.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Sorry, there's already laws on the books stating that it is illegal to steal from someone.
And, with the DMCA, it's possible for the MPAA and RIAA to basically fuck someone's life up enough that they live in poverty for the rest of their days.
What more do these cockbags want?
More laws aren't going to make this any "more illegal".
And, with the DMCA, it's possible for the MPAA and RIAA to basically fuck someone's life up enough that they live in poverty for the rest of their days.
What more do these cockbags want?
More laws aren't going to make this any "more illegal".
interesting concept
as NFC payments entrench themselves in US commerce, it's conceivable that we'll have rolling ticket prices based on availability like we currently do with airliner tickets and hotel pricing.
DreamTheater36
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 615
99.9% of illegal downloaders weren't going to pay to see the movie anyway...so this is all BS
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
That's funny, I thought Gravity was a steaming pile of shit and was pretty pissed I paid the $10 or $12 for it.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2006
- Messages
- 13,000
The unrated cut is usually the same watered-down crap but with some added CG blood.
SS_Wehrwolf
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2005
- Messages
- 632
Id like to think reason number 3 would be privacy. Im not sure why some people pirate movies and music but honestly its no ones business what i watch, when, or for how long. If i want to watch a good tv series like person of interest, then delve into some serial killer documentaries, while finishing off with a Harry Potter movie, how creepy does that advertising profile make me sound? is it good? bad? Based on some cash troll working for Nielsen, what exactly does that mean about my viewing habits?
We are advertised too 24/7, id like to think in my own home i wouldnt have to deal with any of that horse shit. So to me its not 1 or 2, its all 3 reasons i torrent things. Make it affordable, or cheaper, and you still have someone infringing on what i believe is my right to privacy. But ultimately, you STILL leave a trail with your ISP, and i dont care what talking head you listen too, they are watching and recording you as well, they just havent gotten it down to a science yet.
This is certainly an issue, though I don't now if some poorer countries have digital theaters in most places. If they have them, then they should just release them all within a week or so. They could do it all same day, but I suspect there's some marketing reasons that they stagger the release.
Netflix can't afford to have every movie for 10-15/month. As for signing up for multiple services, I know people with HBOGO, Netflix, Amazon and Hulu Plus, so apparently they will sign up for 4 services. I'm pretty sure if Showtime offered a separate service, people would sign up. I think $15 each is a bit much, since I'm paying about $10 for HBOGO right now. 10-12 is probably the right price, but if the market will pay 15 each, then 15 it is.
privacy, or at least getting media privately, wouldn't surprise me as a significant reason for piracy given that the major pirating places also have significant censure.
but I don't think any of the information gathered about you, and while it's currently supposedly general data it's not inconceivable that personalized will become worth more as targeting tools get more precise while marketing, is going to be creepy. It's just commercial. It doesn't matter what you do or don't watch as long as it can be monetized. All that matters is what sells, there is no moral this or that about it, which is why I laugh when people characterize entire structures, like mainstream media, as being politically oriented...no, they're interested in dollars.
but I don't think any of the information gathered about you, and while it's currently supposedly general data it's not inconceivable that personalized will become worth more as targeting tools get more precise while marketing, is going to be creepy. It's just commercial. It doesn't matter what you do or don't watch as long as it can be monetized. All that matters is what sells, there is no moral this or that about it, which is why I laugh when people characterize entire structures, like mainstream media, as being politically oriented...no, they're interested in dollars.
I didn't jump on DVD until early '98, but I don't recall a delay between 4:3 and OAR for the vast majority of movies, and absolutely no delay between Directors 4:3 (if such things were released) and Widescreen.
I don't know how different unrated versions are. Whenever I go to Video review sites, they typically say there's almost no difference between the movies and in most cases the original cut is better. The opposite is true for directors cuts.
Truth is I rarely feel the need to double dip. I think I did it with a a double disk version of Wrath of Khan and I did it for the LOTR DVDs, but I still think 30 bucks for the Original cut + the extended cuts was a bargain. I have no regrets. I've bought some disks on BD, but I don't think they're different from the DVD cuts in most cases.
on top of that is also the staggered releases.
initially cinema only
then PPV
then DVD
then cable/sat channels
then probably last streaming and free channels, the streaming also usually is subject to status, they tend to remove if they find a better revenue strea, option or may be time limited.
People who love the movies can end up paying to watch 10 times over, thats their business model, its obsolete and immoral.
netflix can afford it if the movie studios ask for less money.
Ciniema is one release
PPV and DVD/BD are almost always same day release, but even if they're not, if you're planning on buying a movie, there's no need to get the PPV.
Premium channels are where you watch movies that saw and don't own or maybe you just go for the original content.
Streaming is what it is. A cheap way to get a lot of content.
If you've already seen everything that HBO is offering, then quit subscribing. Same goes for Netflix.
Staggering releases is a reasonable method. The monthly charge for netflix is about the same as a movie single ticket. A month of HBO is about the price of 1-2 tickets (depending on where you live) for a movie.
A DVD/BD is more than a movie, but you could just rent it for a buck if you want to own it. Personally, I typically buy movies that I already know I like (though there was a time that I bought a lot of DVDs for movies I hadn't seen.
I could afford a Ferrari if they'd sell them for less. The price is what it is. Movies cost a lot to make and many of them don't make money in theaters. Thus, DVDs, PPV, Premium Cable and Streaming are all a part of their business plan.
And with that said, there's absolutely NO WAY that netflix could have every movie for 10 bucks a month.
so basically you agree with the old men at the movie studios, you see no problem with it, meanwhile the millions that disagree with you will continue to torrent them
so basically you agree with the old men at the movie studios, you see no problem with it, meanwhile the millions that disagree with you will continue to torrent them
You think they should be cheaper, because you can torrent them for free. If there was a place where you could get Ferrari's for free, nobody would be willing to pay several hundred thousand for one.
And I'm supporting their right to have a business model of their choosing. Movies hit DVD/BD, in most cases, within 6 months of the Theatrical release. Often it's less than that. If you need to see it right now, then play 10 bucks (or whatever). If you don't like that wait 3-6 months and pay a buck at Redbox.
no I think they should be cheaper because I think what they doing is deterring people from buying the products as such.
Basically their policies are anti consumer.
A future I would like is one online streaming service that has all movies, Conveniant, affordable and consumer friendly.
Sort of like steam used to be with pc games before some publishers e.g. EA took their games off again for greed.
Basically their policies are anti consumer.
A future I would like is one online streaming service that has all movies, Conveniant, affordable and consumer friendly.
Sort of like steam used to be with pc games before some publishers e.g. EA took their games off again for greed.
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
Bingo. Romcom's and Prequels and Sequels are not enough to drive box office. The sooner Hollywood joins the rest of the modern day filmmakers the sooner this out cry towards piracy being the great evil of all time will drive away.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,814
wait the Expendables was an indie film? I think this guy doesn't know what an indie film is...
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
People don't even know what your shit is, to then pirate. Who is this idiot trying to snow?
Streaming is great for cheap low quality viewing, but we're not close to Blu Ray quality streaming. Most people probably don't even have enough bandwidth to stream a full bandwidth 1080i network broadcast. I do, but if I actually used that much bandwidth, I'd definitely hit a bandwidth cap.
The EA analogy makes no sense. You don't pay a monthly fee for EA's service and the prices on Steam are set by the publishers. If anything, EA's move makes it possible for the games to be sold for less, since they don't pay anything to Valve for the sale.
I like Netflix, but I'd rather watch a Blu-Ray than Netflix. Plus, if I watch a movie on my PC, Netflix isn't in 5.1 (though Windows 8.x apparently has an app that supports 5.1).
The bottom line is you want something at a low cost when it's brand new. That's not going to happen. Content isn't free. People bitch about music and video prices, but the fact is they're cheaper now than they've ever been (with the exception of DVDs before the dot com bust, when everyone sold them at a huge loss online).
Star Wars on VHS sold for roughly 100-150 dollars the early 80's. In real dollars, that's $230-$390 2013 dollars.
Quit bitching. This shit is cheap (though apparently not as cheap as you
)Asking for one streaming service is asking for a monopoly.
Monopolies are almost never affordable and consumer friendly.
What you ask for is not a realistic outcome.
depends on your view really.
I think 5+ services will never be cheaper than one, for netflix to cost more it would have to increase its prices at least 5 fold maybe 10 fold. Also I have no issues still with bluray's been sold separately, my issue is with all the different online services.
I have a real life example.
A few years ago sky sports had all the EPL football rights in the UK, it had the main sky sports channels and a extra EPL channel. The extra EPL channel was really cheap. So the combined cost of both wasnt much more than just having sky sports.
Then the regulator decided sky had a monpoly and forced there to be at least 2 EPL tv suppliers. Initially setanta won the rights, then it went to ESPN and now BT sports has them. In all 3 cases the combined cost of paying for all the EPL channels is higher than when sky had the monopoly, consumers lost. Competition doesnt always work.
I think 5+ services will never be cheaper than one, for netflix to cost more it would have to increase its prices at least 5 fold maybe 10 fold. Also I have no issues still with bluray's been sold separately, my issue is with all the different online services.
I have a real life example.
A few years ago sky sports had all the EPL football rights in the UK, it had the main sky sports channels and a extra EPL channel. The extra EPL channel was really cheap. So the combined cost of both wasnt much more than just having sky sports.
Then the regulator decided sky had a monpoly and forced there to be at least 2 EPL tv suppliers. Initially setanta won the rights, then it went to ESPN and now BT sports has them. In all 3 cases the combined cost of paying for all the EPL channels is higher than when sky had the monopoly, consumers lost. Competition doesnt always work.
I don't completely disagree with this, but there's no way one streaming service is going to over all the latest movies and TV shows as well as original content for 10 bucks a month.
There's still a thing called OTR, or in layman's terms "over the air" free TV.
I completely support their right to choose their business model, even if it is stupid and is the real source of their problems. What I don't support is them being able to sue people out of the rest of their lives because they felt waiting 6+ months to have access to it was and is completely unreasonable. It's a movie, not a heist on Fort Knox and in most cases it isn't even a Good movie.
Very little actually hits Redbox in 3-6 months. If it did we would probably see most piracy just disappear. It really should be 30-45 days theater exclusive. Available for purchase after 60 days, and then available to rental type deals after 90. This gives Theaters plenty of time to make their money, and encourages people to buy it before it becomes widely available. All the while not having an entirely unreasonable window where people just can't wait anymore and just pirate it.
So you think they should be able to pick their business model, but if someone circumvents that model, and doesn't compensate them for their work, they shouldn't be able to sue them either. Furthermore, you think the movies suck, but you need to see them 45 days after the premiere? There's not a movie I can think of that I won't pay to see in a theater, but I must see it 6 weeks after it's released.
I definitely don't feel that way when I think, "[it] isn't even a Good movie."
I'm not sure how Redbox works, but given that they've shut down their streaming business, I'd think they could have movies the day they're released on BD/DVD. While putting movies on my amazon wishlist, I couldn't help but notice that the release dates of many movies are less than 3 months. Even Captain America made it to Video in 5 months.
Frozen made it in less than 4 months (and as I recall was still in theaters when it was released).
But those were blockbusters. Let's go with semi-popular films like "The Fault In Our Stars"
Theatrical Release: June 6th
Video: Sept. 16
Edge of Tomorrow (under-appreciated by audiences):
Theaters: 6/6
Video: 10/6
And back to a fairly popular movie
22 Jump St
Theaters: 6/13
Video: 11/18 (and I just checked and it'll be at Redbox that day too).
The 2nd Hobbit hit video within 4 months (extended versions dont' count, since they don't exist prior to the fall release).
So yeah, I think it's safe to say 3-6 months is the rule, not the exception.