Anti Piracy Advertisement in Cinemas...

[Cefca]

But that's irrelavant, they've still seen the movie for free thus the film company loses money.

[Riverlution]

Originally Posted by Cefca

How so? They're watching the film for free rather than paying to watch it. How is that not losing money?

It depends on what side you look at it from.

People aren't stealing physical goods which cost lots of money to produce (yes a film costs a lot to produce, but the price of making media a file on a computer is nothing) and the high price of tickets covers the company's back when they create the film. Basically, I see it as this: As long as the company breaks even, they aren't losing money. Sure, they might not be making much, but they haven't LOST any. When people download these films, it costs the studio nothing, unlike how stealing from a shop would mean they have to order replacement stock (obviously costing them more money).

The studio is losing some of their potential profit... but as Larkino said, lots of people who download some films for free are only interested since it is free and they wouldn't contribute to the studio wether piracy existed or not.

[Garyl2k]

What gets me, if they are losing money, how are they then able to break box office sales figures?

The irony is, even though we can get almost any movie for free of the Internet the movie industry is still profiting and making massive block buster movies... How is that even possible as they claim that downloading these movies damages industry and they can't afford to make these movies.

[Riverlution]

Well, it's obviously not damaging it much, but if you think that piracy was somehow eradicated (won't happen in real life), that cinemas would lower the film prices?

[eonbar]

Will Smith earns $20 million a movie.
Hitch brought in $350 million at the box office.
...theres no way in hell that im going to pay to watch Hitch.

I could go and watch my friends down the road at his house, or i could get my GF's sister to send it in the post, or i could get it from a random over the internet. Either way Smith is still raking in $20 Million, the movie company hasn't lost any money by me not paying to watch it, and an advert at the beginning telling me that I'm effectively stealing a handbag is bull.

if anything i've seen a lady with a handbag which i don't really like, gone up to her, looked at it for two hours, thought it was **** and then walked off feeling glad that i didn't pay to look at a handbag i didn't like, knew nothing about, and wouldn't have seen had i not accidentally bumped into her....

[Cefca]

Actually, it's more like stealing a handbag, using it for two hours then returning it.

[dhine31]

ACTUALLY it is more like walking up to the old lady, taking a picture of the bag and the duplicating the handbag at home, wearing it for a couple of hours and then only being left with the memory of holding it and the opinion of it being a good or bad experience. The old lady doesn't lose any money unless you were going to offer to pay her to hold it for a while or to buy one of her infinite copies of the bag.

If it is worth anything, and I know we arent discussing this, but I think it is wrong to copy something someone has made just out of principle. BUT saying that I also think it is wrong to profiteer. Which is exactly what PIXAR do when they expose kids to the film they HAVE to see and then charge you a RIDICULOUS sum of money to see it. If I was a drink vendor at a charity celebrity marathon I would charge a fortune and see how they like it.

[cono1717]

Originally Posted by Cefca

How so? They're watching the film for free rather than paying to watch it. How is that not losing money?

Well take office 2010, it doesn't really matter because my computer can't handle it but that's beside the point.

I would in no way shape or form ever pay £249 (or w/e it is) for office 2010 absolutely no way, so Microsoft would never get that £249 off me, weather or not I download it is irrelevant, I would not justify paying £249 for it.

[Cefca]

Originally Posted by cono1717

Well take office 2010, it doesn't really matter because my computer can't handle it but that's beside the point.

I would in no way shape or form ever pay £249 (or w/e it is) for office 2010 absolutely no way, so Microsoft would never get that £249 off me, weather or not I download it is irrelevant, I would not justify paying £249 for it.

I don't see how people aren't getting this. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether you would have bought it or not, if you've downloaded something (especially in the case of movies, games, etc) and watched/played/used it, they've still lost out on money by you watching/playing/using without having to pay to like you were supposed to.

The only way this doesn't happen is if you download it and don't use it.

[Zazizizou]

Originally Posted by cono1717

Well take office 2010, it doesn't really matter because my computer can't handle it but that's beside the point.

I would in no way shape or form ever pay £249 (or w/e it is) for office 2010 absolutely no way, so Microsoft would never get that £249 off me, weather or not I download it is irrelevant, I would not justify paying £249 for it.

Can't agree, this is a bit different from movies. I take the example of Maya, the commercial 3D software costs some $4,099,000 ! And most teenagers are using it. The thing is the company is not really bothered by that as their main target is professionals, universities and animation studios who can't produce a movie with an invalid software..
With Microsoft, it is not very different with the premium and pro versions but when it comes to the Home and Basic versions, things get a bit more complicated

[chigley]

Whether the company you (are supposed to) buy from earns billions or not, that will never give you the right to steal from them.

You wouldn't fill up your car with £40 of petrol and drive off, would you? Yet the oil companies behind companies like BP are beating their profit records every year.

Companies like Universal, Adobe, Microsoft (whatever...) produce products such as films, music and computer software and each of these products has a price tag. Can't afford it, can't have it - it's as simple as that. It doesn't matter whether you're using it for business reasons or personal (focusing more on software like Photoshop here...) - you still have to pay for the product.

Justify it to yourselves however you want, but no matter what state of mind you kid yourselves into, you're still stealing from these companies at the end of the day.

[Garyl2k]

Originally Posted by Riverlution

Well, it's obviously not damaging it much, but if you think that piracy was somehow eradicated (won't happen in real life), that cinemas would lower the film prices?

I actually feel they use piracy as an excuse to increase prices, there is no shadow of a doubt that piracy damages the pockets of these millionaires but it's been that way for years.

Chigley, if I could still £40 worth of petrol from BP I would, I doubt they care at all about the thousands of sea life they have killed off so why should they care about £40?

Poor nimo...

[Garyl2k]

Originally Posted by Zazizizou

Can't agree, this is a bit different from movies. I take the example of Maya, the commercial 3D software costs some $4,099,000 ! And most teenagers are using it. The thing is the company is not really bothered by that as their main target is professionals, universities and animation studios who can't produce a movie with an invalid software..
With Microsoft, it is not very different with the premium and pro versions but when it comes to the Home and Basic versions, things get a bit more complicated

Sorry for double post but missed this one, anyway the issue I get with Microsoft products is that they never actually bring anything out that new from each upgrade.

From Office 97 to 2007 (Not tried 2010 yet) the only difference is the design... We actually still use Access 97 where I work as the upgrades have no benefits to us what so ever.

In fact, this is how crap everything is, we upgraded to Vista on most of our training rooms simply because Ofsted will give us better ratings... Even though the software is a pile of crap.

[Cefca]

Originally Posted by Garyl2k

I actually feel they use piracy as an excuse to increase prices, there is no shadow of a doubt that piracy damages the pockets of these millionaires but it's been that way for years.

Chigley, if I could still £40 worth of petrol from BP I would, I doubt they care at all about the thousands of sea life they have killed off so why should they care about £40?

Poor nimo...

This pretty much explains your stance in this thread. As long as the company is rich, you wouldn't think twice about stealing from them, right?

[Garyl2k]

Originally Posted by Cefca

This pretty much explains your stance in this thread. As long as the company is rich, you wouldn't think twice about stealing from them, right?

Yeah if thats what you want to think and it suites your agenda then by all means please think that, I couldn't care less to be honest as I'm not hear to win people over or to win a price so... Boo hoo.

Back to topic...



Great article.

Piracy Isn’t Killing The Movie Industry, Greed Is | TorrentFreak

[Cefca]

Originally Posted by Garyl2k

Yeah if thats what you want to think and it suites your agenda then by all means please think that, I couldn't care less to be honest as I'm not hear to win people over or to win a price so... Boo hoo.

I don't have any agenda, you're the one justifying piracy any way you can.

[bmh16]

Originally Posted by chigley

Whether the company you (are supposed to) buy from earns billions or not, that will never give you the right to steal from them.

You wouldn't fill up your car with £40 of petrol and drive off, would you? Yet the oil companies behind companies like BP are beating their profit records every year.

Companies like Universal, Adobe, Microsoft (whatever...) produce products such as films, music and computer software and each of these products has a price tag. Can't afford it, can't have it - it's as simple as that. It doesn't matter whether you're using it for business reasons or personal (focusing more on software like Photoshop here...) - you still have to pay for the product.

Justify it to yourselves however you want, but no matter what state of mind you kid yourselves into, you're still stealing from these companies at the end of the day.

Like the debate about illegal music downloading that is bollocks. Stealing actual physical copies and stealing a copyrighted thing is completely different and the petrol thing is in no way related.

[Garyl2k]

Originally Posted by Garyl2k

Stealing others work is wrong, I know that we all know that, its the claims which really get me annoyed and the "Poor old us" act from the actors.

Yes Cefca, I have totally stated piracy is cool and ok to do...

If you had read the OP you would know that this thread is about "Piracy Adverts" and how non-beneficial they actually are and also on how I hate actors acting like poor victims in all of this while getting paid massive amounts of cash.

In no way have I portrait piracy to be a cool thing and a legal thing to do, maybe actually read what I have said before making statements.

[Cefca]

Reading what you've said is exactly what brought me to that conclusion.

[chigley]

Originally Posted by bmh16

Like the debate about illegal music downloading that is bollocks. Stealing actual physical copies and stealing a copyrighted thing is completely different and the petrol thing is in no way related.

How on earth is it different?
Theft is theft.

And the petrol was simply an analogy directed towards Garyl2k, as he suggested that stealing's fine as long as you're stealing from a rich company.