14 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
14.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 2, 2004, 05:15
14.
Re: No subject Jul 2, 2004, 05:15
Jul 2, 2004, 05:15
 
I think you let out one factor, Ray, and that is the fact that people downloading these shaky cam movies:

1) Often don't even watch the movie once downloaded.

2) Aren't usually "fans" of the movie, and probably wouldn't affiliate with it in any way if it wasn't free.

Fans of a movie (and this goes for music, too, btw) won't put up with a poorer quality, free version of that movie. If they're truely fans they'll shell out some cash to see it in all it's glory.
I eat pasta!
13.
 
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2
Jul 1, 2004, 22:53
13.
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2 Jul 1, 2004, 22:53
Jul 1, 2004, 22:53
 
So what, they caught a small fish? It is already on the 'net. You can't stop them all.

But I don't care, I prefer watching on the big screen instead of watching some crappy telesync.

12.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 1, 2004, 22:18
12.
Re: No subject Jul 1, 2004, 22:18
Jul 1, 2004, 22:18
 
I do recall the one for Harry Potter:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/31/britain.potter/index.html

Edit: Note that part of working in the theater is keeping an eye out for pirates. At least that is normal for the theaters around here.

Thinking Microsoft mice are made for....ALIENS! %),
Ray

-----
Yay, look at me! I am a terrorist and I have proven that I can be a total ass. Er...wait...
http://users.ign.com/collection/RayMarden
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=ANF&id=ray_marden
I love you, mom.
This comment was edited on Jul 1, 22:20.
Everything is awesome!!!
http://www.kindafunny.com/
I love you, mom.
Avatar 2647
11.
 
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2
Jul 1, 2004, 22:10
11.
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2 Jul 1, 2004, 22:10
Jul 1, 2004, 22:10
 
You go after the "one" to work against the whole.

Let us say that there are three illegal recordings per theater.

Looking at 4,152 theaters, that comes to 12,456 illegal recordings.

Say...those recording are watched by 6 people that decide to watch the illegal recording rather than pay to see the movie in a theater.

That comes to 74,736 admissions that were not purchased in place of watching the illegal recording.

Presuming there is an average ticket price of $9, you can estimate a loss of $672,624 from "just" three illegal recordings (per theater.)

$500 to catch a thief seems like a steal at that point. The numbers are actually quite larger than those listed above and that does not take into account the secondary items like international releases, pay-per-view, DVD or VHS rentals/purchases, etc. Heck, looking at just curbing pirating and spending that entire sum in rewards, that is will over a thousand caught pirates.

For the studios, it can be seen as a win-win situation either way.

Personally, hating when people steal from me,
Ray

Edit: Num'bah typo.
-----
Yay, look at me! I am a terrorist and I have proven that I can be a total ass. Er...wait...
http://users.ign.com/collection/RayMarden
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=ANF&id=ray_marden
I love you, mom.
This comment was edited on Jul 1, 22:11.
Everything is awesome!!!
http://www.kindafunny.com/
I love you, mom.
Avatar 2647
10.
 
No subject
Jul 1, 2004, 19:56
10.
No subject Jul 1, 2004, 19:56
Jul 1, 2004, 19:56
 
Hadn't heard about that. That's a big investment to stop bottom feeders, though. People just download the screeners anyway.


9.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 1, 2004, 19:49
9.
Re: No subject Jul 1, 2004, 19:49
Jul 1, 2004, 19:49
 
I'm more disturbed by the projectionist ogling the crowd with goggles. I doubt he bought them to look for tapers. I wouldn't be surprised if he called the MPAA then went back to wanking to people fooling around in the dark.

Wasn't there a tech bit a few weeks ago saying the MPAA was issuing theater employees nv goggles to spot pirates?

"The only way anyone can live in peace is if they're prepared to forgive." - The Doctor
Avatar 17277
8.
 
No subject
Jul 1, 2004, 19:14
8.
No subject Jul 1, 2004, 19:14
Jul 1, 2004, 19:14
 
I'm more disturbed by the projectionist ogling the crowd with goggles. I doubt he bought them to look for tapers. I wouldn't be surprised if he called the MPAA then went back to wanking to people fooling around in the dark.


7.
 
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2
Jul 1, 2004, 19:03
7.
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2 Jul 1, 2004, 19:03
Jul 1, 2004, 19:03
 
Leave town? Why? Do you think anybody other than you really cares that some 16 year old putz tries to do a shaky-cam job and gets busted? Hell if I were a projectionist I'd be investing in a pair of goggles (hey I've always wanted a pair anyhow )and go hunting. Not that I care about piracy that much but I find shaky-cam movies so bad as to be an affront to viewers everywhere, they suck so much that to get me to watch any feature film in shaky-cam you would have to pay ME!

Avatar 16312
6.
 
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2
Jul 1, 2004, 15:48
6.
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2 Jul 1, 2004, 15:48
Jul 1, 2004, 15:48
 
the projectionist at the Pacific Winnetka theater in the Los Angeles suburb of Chatsworth
wonder what the bounty is for payback on this weasel? : Evilgrin :
if he's smart he'll take his $500 and leave town.

5.
 
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2
Jul 1, 2004, 15:15
5.
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2 Jul 1, 2004, 15:15
Jul 1, 2004, 15:15
 
You know in the philippines you pay about $1.50 for the good seats

And this is relevant how? The arrest was made in LA, not the Philippines. The $500 offer was from the MPAA, which doesn't even have a presence in the Philippines. The average ticket price in LA is $10.

Say the industry made 50% from the ticket

For the first two weeks of a major blockbuster the studio's take is closer to 100%. It scales down after that weekly. This is why most movie theater chains will not honor coupons of any form for "special engagements" (e.g. - the first 2-4 weeks of a movie which is when they're having to fork over 70-100% of the box office take). It's also why food and drinks are so ridiculously priced -- it's the only way they make money.

Note that it's the studios that are rolling in the money. Look at most cinema chains and they're struggling to stay in the black.

All that said, yeah, it was a stupid, stupid campaign from the MPAA. Anyone who will watch a shaky cam of the movie instead of the movie itself isn't someone they're ever going to get to pay to see it. The real copies (near DVD quality) are coming from people in the industry or just some guy who has access to the film reel at any one of the thousands of theaters playing the movie.

4.
 
Viperlair
Jul 1, 2004, 14:13
4.
Viperlair Jul 1, 2004, 14:13
Jul 1, 2004, 14:13
 
Those ViperLair guys are a little protective of their pictures huh? Stretching their logo across every single image like that even though they are just (probably copyrighted) screenshots of XP installations? Maybe i'm just being a bitch though.

3.
 
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2
Jul 1, 2004, 13:20
3.
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2 Jul 1, 2004, 13:20
Jul 1, 2004, 13:20
 
Yeah, no kidding. I guess some poor projectionist really wanted the $500 though. That is probably many times more then the silly little bootlegged copy would even hurt them. I for one wouldn't watch a bootleg and call it good.

And to think, all that money the kid would have made off the recording. Probably a net of -$20. Look how prowd the industry is.

You know in the philippines you pay about $1.50 for the good seats, in a good theater and get to stay and watch the movie till the theater closes if you want? So that $500 reward they just spent could have sent about 330 Filippio's to the theater all day. Say the industry made 50% from the ticket. It would take over 660 tickets sold in the Philippines to pay for that reward.

2.
 
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2
Jul 1, 2004, 13:11
JM
2.
Re: Piracy of Spiderman 2 Jul 1, 2004, 13:11
Jul 1, 2004, 13:11
JM
 
By making all forms of unauthorized recording illegal it avoids the problem of those who will try to exploit the loopholes in any law that puts conditions on when a recording becomes illegal. Bottom line is the kid had absolutely no right whatsoever to be recording the movie regardless of how crappy the quality may have been.

1.
 
Piracy of Spiderman 2
Jul 1, 2004, 12:24
Jim
1.
Piracy of Spiderman 2 Jul 1, 2004, 12:24
Jul 1, 2004, 12:24
Jim
 
I don't understand the big deal about this. OK, I understand that its bad to make copies without authorization, but to have a crappy "shaky-cam"-esquea feature-length film, with the screen somewhat askew and poor definition, mono sound (some camcourders can record in stereo- but its doubtful you'd get any differential unless you have professional recording equipment) is amost useless.

How much can shaky-cam video actually be hurting the industry? I'd rather wait the few months and spend the 15 bucks for the dvd. If I'm that in a hurry to see it, or more likely want the big screen experience, I'll go pay 9 bucks at the cinema.

Jim
14 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older