I went to a movie a little while ago, and before the movie, they showed one of those anti-piracy advertisements. It was the one with some sort of construction foreman talking about how the effects of piracy on the producers is miniscule, but on guys like him, and the grips and lighting and sound blah blah blah are tredmendous. Isn't that a load of crap? They don't generally pay a lighting guy with points in the movie do they? I guess they realized that trying to make people feel sorry for Steven Spielberg was not going to work, so they wanted some average joe to shame people into stopping the downloading.
i hate having to watch that while i'm at the theater obviously having paid to get in. those ads actually make me want to download movies more.
I assume the point is that if producers lose money through piracy, they'll make fewer movies, and hence, there will be fewer jobs. Of course, producers lose more money by making big, expensive, but not very good movies all the time, but where are the ads decrying that? The thing that always got to me about these ads was the fact that the biggest drain on production jobs like these is runaway production. Moving film production to Canada or other, cheaper, right-to-work parts of the U.S. or Eastern Europe takes far more jobs away from guys like the one in the anti-piracy ads than piracy ever will.
Also, hasn't the motion picture industry been booming these last few years? Seems like it would be difficult to cry about piracy taking food off someone's plate when if the industry has done nothing but improve.
I especially enjoy those anti-software piracy ads they play on the radio with the stereotypical two 'average guys' having a 'normal' telephone conversation about how one of them reported his company for using unregistered software. It was all fairly reasonable dialogue until they have to throw in the "So how about those Texans, think they can bounce back?" "Yeah, what a game!" It is the most ridiculous and unnecessary propaganda ever. What, do they now expect us to side with them at the end? I presume their logic is for us to now be thinking: "Well, those guys seemed like total squares, until they mentioned their interest in the Texans at the end. That part caught my attention, because interestingly enough, I too am a Texans football fan, and any fan of the Texans is a fan of mine. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go report my company for piracy!"
You know, even though I'm against downloading anything unless the artists give their consent, I can somehow understand and believe the argument that people who download music do so to see if they like a song, then if they do, they go out to buy the entire CD. However, how in the world do you argue for downloading movies? Do you seriously expect people to believe that you watch the movie for free once, then go out to the theatres to watch it? Or are you simply going to argue that going to the movies has become too expensive? BTW, the "you" is referring to no one in particular in this thread.
I don't download movies or anything real [hell i have dialup] however I am getting tired of paying 8$ to see commercials I remember when the idea of going to the movies was to NOT see commercials. . . . Previews. . . fine commercial for the front counter. . . mmmm ok. . i'll let that slide but the other random commercials. . . i'm sick of it a 3:00 movie doesn't really start til about 3:15 AT BEST!! In a few more years you will be in the theater and they will have a commercial breaks in the movie Hell this is if the whole movie isn't some product placement entermercial Rocket River
I work at a movie theater (making 5.15 an hr, so not like I'm some corporate big wig), but shouldn't you be complaining about how people here love to watch movies that cost $100 million to make, therefore forcing the movie theaters to have high ticket prices (almost all of which goes to the movie companies)...Therefore making the movie theaters charge high prices on popcorn to pay their bills? I work for Cinemark, and they could definitely lower their prices a lot, but it seems to me people should realize that the movies that people go to see today are ones that cost over a hundred million bucks to make and the companies have to recoup their investment somehow. Oh, btw, I absolutely *HATE* the anti-piracy ads. My stomach turns everytime I see the one with the guy that says he met his wife on the set of Father of the Bride...Every downloaded movie I've ever seen can't even compare in quality to pirated music in mp3 format. Plus, even on broadband, movies can take a long time to download...
And I guess you don't think actors should make $20 million plus for 3 months work? And we complain about basketball players?
All the movies I download are movies that I did see in the theater, that are no longer showing in theaters and have not yet come out on DVD. I generally just buy the DVD when it comes out and delete the movie from my hard drive. More than that though, I don't have a problem with people who decry downloading, but I don't want to see a bullcrap sob story about how "I'm not a million dollar employee, and when you download movies it is taking food out of my babies mouth." The people most affected by piracy are those whose income is directly related to how the product sells. The guys who work lighting and construction are probably going to be paid the same amount no matter how well the movies do at the box office, and even at its peak, piracy is not going to stop movies from being made.
Except these days, the theatrical release is more of an advertisement for the eventual DVD release. Only 10% of movies are profitable on theatrical alone. Plus, when I saw Memento, they didn't charge me less even though that movie only cost $5 million. And who's to say that charging $5 for a movie wouldn't make more money than charging $8. People do take price into consideration when they go to movies. The fact that to watch a movie at a theater once with a date often costs more than buying a DVD and watching it with a date makes a lot of people think that the price point for theatrical movies is a little higher than it needs to be. And I can't believe you only make $5.15 at the Cinemark. They were starting out people at $8 last month. You need to go ask for a raise. But the few ads before the movies don't bother me. There are rarely more than two, and sometimes there aren't any at all. But with $46.2 million in net income before taxes over the nine months ending September, I don't think Cinemark is really hurting. Even if the eliminated all their "other revenues" (which includes everything other than admissions and concessions. Certainly more than just the ads before the movies), they'd have cleared $10 million in net income before taxes. So you can't tell me that the ads before movies are what's keeping them in business.
Do you know for a fact that grips, etc. are paid a set amount rather than a % of a movie's gross? Also, like mrpaige pointed out, if movie priacy gets out of control, there's a good chance that less movies will be made, essentially taking food out of these people's babies' mouths.
I will usually download a movie to watch in order to judge whether I want to buy it on DVD. It's not like the video quality makes it worth keeping on my computer. But I hate the idea of "blind buy" DVDs. I don't want to waste $10-20 on a movie I haven't yet scene. And no I don't rent DVDs. I only buy them.
Why don't you rent? At least one can argue that you can't rent CDs, but for a minimal price, you can rent a movie to judge whether or not you want to buy them later.
Mainly because I have a buttload of late fees at Hollywood Video and Blockbuster and Randalls. Why? Because I'm a shut-in who hates venturing out in public unless its to the gym or work, thus I never return movies on time. I stopped renting 3 years ago because I hated driving to a video store. If I can do something from the comfy confines of my own home, I will.
