Cyber Dog Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Hollywood's major movie studios filed a new round of lawsuits across the United States on Thursday against people who trade illegally copied films and TV shows on the Internet.The civil suits against unnamed "John Doe" defendants seek up to $150,000 per downloaded digital file and come as the U.S. film industry prepares for its annual Oscar telecast in Hollywood where awards for top films and stars are given out. The studios, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, took the opportunity of the Oscars to again press the case that the illegal copying of films and their black-market distribution on the Internet is costing them millions of dollars a year in lost revenue. The studios claim they lose $3.5 billion worldwide in annual revenues from sales of illegally copied movies on video and DVD formats in street bazaars and black markets. The studios argue that the lost revenue means fewer artists will work to create movies or TV shows. Traditionally the films that are rewarded by Oscar voters at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are those that take thematic and commercial risks. "When rampant online theft occurs, these films become that much harder to finance...we cannot and will not let that happen," MPAA Chief Executive Dan Glickman said in a telephone conference call with reporters. MPAA officials said "several" of the Oscar nominated films had illegal copies on the Internet that could be downloaded, but they named only comedy "Sideways," which is nominated for best picture. "Sideways" is a low-budget movie but was considered a financially risky one for its backers at Fox Searchlight because of its offbeat subject matter. Fox Searchlight is a division of News Corp Ltd's Twentieth Century Fox movie studio. MPAA officials declined to say how many suits it had filed or whether the illegal copies were made by video camera taping in theaters or by copying videos or DVDs that are given away by the studios this time of year to win Oscar votes. Earlier this month, the MPAA filed lawsuits against computer networks utilizing a software technology known as BitTorrent, but these new suits were against end users, or people who actually downloaded the films. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...src=rss/topNews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted March 2, 2005 Veteran Share Posted March 2, 2005 Instead of tackling movie downloaders, they should maybe tacke movie sellers in the streets of big cities. I see at least 3 movie sellers on my way to school with hundreds of pirated DVD's on display. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~clean Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Yep every comp fair I have ever been to has had 3 or more guys selling dvds and vcds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal2002 Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Internet pirarting is truely a bigger problem then the guy on the street. Where do you think they are getting the content? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted March 2, 2005 Veteran Share Posted March 2, 2005 Internet pirarting is truely a bigger problem then the guy on the street. Where do you think they are getting the content? 585555282[/snapback] You are correct, it is big, but they are the ones causing the industry money selling it on the streets, not the ones who download it to watch it by themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal2002 Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Generally, no. Just b/c they are making money from a sale, doesn't mean much at all. The "download it to watch it by themselves." isn't a good point, by "download it to watch it by yourself" most of the time you are helping other do the same. In return, your not doing it for youself. BT works way. Most P2P oes too. Downloading via IRC means you have a single person supplying the content to more people. In some cases a single IRC bot pushes more copyrighted content in a single day, then theguy on the street does all week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejn Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 I just find it hillarious how far off their projected losses are. Do they not realize that most people who download movies, if they didn't have the opportunity to do so, just wouldn't bother buying them in the first place? A downloaded movie does not constitute a lost sale. The sooner they get that into their heads, the sooner they'll be able to come up with some real strategies for fighting piracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Dog Posted March 2, 2005 Author Share Posted March 2, 2005 I just find it hillarious how far off their projected losses are. Do they not realize that most people who download movies, if they didn't have the opportunity to do so, just wouldn't bother buying them in the first place? A downloaded movie does not constitute a lost sale. The sooner they get that into their heads, the sooner they'll be able to come up with some real strategies for fighting piracy. 585555440[/snapback] Agreed and doubly agreed. Furthermore, any time I do download any piece be it movies or music, and I actually enjoy what I got, I buy it. Otherwise it's just deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal2002 Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 (edited) I just find it hillarious how far off their projected losses are. Do they not realize that most people who download movies, if they didn't have the opportunity to do so, just wouldn't bother buying them in the first place? A downloaded movie does not constitute a lost sale. The sooner they get that into their heads, the sooner they'll be able to come up with some real strategies for fighting piracy. 585555440[/snapback] It's clear that your really are a college student with no real life experience of how business works. :whistle: Say you own a business that is selling fast food, okay? Now, you have a number of employees that just come and take whatever they want, without paying. You know they would not pay anyway, because they are only coming in because they know that they can get it free ether directly themselves, or indirectly through a friend working at the time. You are still losing money for the goods that they would have never paid for in the first place, right? Just because they would have never come in the first place doesn't get back your $0.15 worht of pickels, $0.20 of lettuce, $0.05 of mustard, $0.05 of mayo, and $0.45 patty of beef that you paid in the first place to be able to just make that. ;) Edit: And wait, not only do you lose the cost, you lose the $0.25 extra you change to make a profit. Now, take all of that and x it by the number of films that get pirated. How much of a lose? a hell of a lot! :yes: It's easy to claim that the numbers might be off from what they would rally be making if all those people had planned on purchasing it if they could not get it free, but it doesn't change the big picture. btw, make sure you are taking eco some time in your college experience. :yes: Edited March 2, 2005 by cal2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennyout Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 "When rampant online theft occurs, these films become that much harder to finance...we cannot and will not let that happen," MPAA Chief Executive Dan Glickman said in a telephone conference call with reporters. i have an idea.....stop financing idiots like Uwe Boll and letting **** movies be made, then maybe you will actually have money instead of loss of revenue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hexlord Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Its hard to compare fast food with movie downloads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted March 2, 2005 Veteran Share Posted March 2, 2005 Well, if they stop financing movies that barely make $1m in ticket sales, then they would be saving lots of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kak Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 It's clear that your really are a college student with no real life experience of how business works. :whistle: Say you own a business that is selling fast food, okay? Now, you have a number of employees that just come and take whatever they want, without paying. You know they would not pay anyway, because they are only coming in because they know that they can get it free ether directly themselves, or indirectly through a friend working at the time. You are still losing money for the goods that they would have never paid for in the first place, right? Just because they would have never come in the first place doesn't get back your $0.15 worht of pickels, $0.20 of lettuce, $0.05 of mustard, $0.05 of mayo, and $0.45 patty of beef that you paid in the first place to be able to just make that. ;) Edit: And wait, not only do you lose the cost, you lose the $0.25 extra you change to make a profit. Now, take all of that and x it by the number of films that get pirated. How much of a lose? a hell of a lot! :yes: It's easy to claim that the numbers might be off from what they would rally be making if all those people had planned on purchasing it if they could not get it free, but it doesn't change the big picture. btw, make sure you are taking eco some time in your college experience. :yes: 585555503[/snapback] That arguement doesn't worth since food is not a replenishble source in the same sense that digital media is. You can download a movie and still go see it. They have lost no money. Me eating your hamburger and paying for the second makes you lose money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal2002 Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Its hard to compare fast food with movie downloads. 585555548[/snapback] Actually, it's not. I just did it. :p The same pricciples apply to a hamburger and films. In fact, I didn't even touch on the fact you have to pay rent, maybe it's a McDonalds and you have to pay them to use the name and logo. You have to pay labor for the people you have working. You might water, electricity, etc. At this point not only did you lose > then $2.00 for what you might have chaned for that hamburger, you factor in the time it took the college kid you are $6.00 an hour to make that. By itself it's only a cents, big deal right? Now, think on a bigger scale. How many replies do the latest torrent threads get around here from people who are ****ed they can't pirate stuff anymore using there favorite site to collect the torrents? That's just a small fraction of the people stealing your hamburger, and the cost is MUCH greater!!!! That arguement doesn't worth since food is not a replenishble source in the same sense that digital media is. You can download a movie and still go see it. They have lost no money. Me eating your hamburger and paying for the second makes you lose money. Lost no money, are you crazy? While you might download a film, watch it, like it and then go buy a ticket--others have already bought two tickets and seen it twice! Your point is not valid at all! At the same time, i paid to see a movie in the theather upon release, does that entitle me to download the DVD for free when released?? I already paid to go see it!! No. Incorrect, the same logic applies to hamburgers as with digital media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kak Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Again, no they don't. You can reproduce something digital since it is not tangible (on computers). Food is. Your logic is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal2002 Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Acutally yours is, replied to above.. :D Your logic is flawed, just becuase it can be reproduced doesn't mean you didn't lose money on it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivand Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 they want to justify their lack of quality (hence, lack of profits) with the movie downloads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kak Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 How often to people really go see a movie twice? The actual amount of people do it for the 'experience' that you get from the theater, which is absent from any (S)VCD you download off of the net. You just can't get it. No rip is perfect (audio or video). Not to mention the audio can't be taken in with any seperation since its done with a camera usually. Trying to include those people into your equation doesn't work. I'm not condoning this at all, but you're making it out FAR worse than it is. Compare the amount of people who download movies compared to those who buy them off the streets. I can't even name a dozen of my friends who know where to get the files, let alone burn the images/files correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellBender Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Acutally yours is, replied to above.. :D Your logic is flawed, just becuase it can be reproduced doesn't mean you didn't lose money on it already. 585555618[/snapback] Your logic is completely flawed. Food has a significant cost. Assume I'm an employee at McDonalds, and I just had lunch from Burger King. I'm full. But I decide to grab a hamburger for free and eat it. If it wasn't free, I wouldn't take it. Here we have a loss of about 50 cents, which is how much it cost McDonalds to make that burger I just ate. However, there is a potential loss of zero. If they stopped my hamburger piracy, they would make nothing; they would just save the 50 cents that they lost. Switch to the movie industry. I download a movie. Here, their loss is zero. They did not have to pay for the DVD I burn the movie on, they did not have to pay for the internet connection I used to download it. Nothing. Their potential loss is also zero, because I wouldn't have bought the movie anyway. Total loss: zero. The reason they are going after filesharers is because they feel that in a large number of cases, their potential loss is not zero. They feel that the guy who will post after me would buy their movie if he couldn't download it. For most of us here, that isn't true. Back to your logic. It is fundamentally flawed because you are comparing something with a material loss of 50c to something that has no material loss, all possible potential losses aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doli Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Again, no they don't. You can reproduce something digital since it is not tangible (on computers). Food is. Your logic is flawed. 585555604[/snapback] It is not about the food its about the service. So you didnt want to see the movie so its ok to download it, that doesnt make sense, you downloaded it cause you wanted to see it. Doesnt make sense to say that their not losing money cause i would have never bought the movie cause i didnt want to see it so i downloaded it. :pinch: It really not so hard: buy the movie/music CD/software = $ dl the movie/music CD/software = no $, which would have counted as a $ if you bought it, so it is a loss for the studio/company/people who worked to make it happen. let say i steal from you, but i really never wanted what you have so its not stealing...the cops will let me go if they catch me, thats right if they catch me ill be like wha-chaa( waving hand in air signifying that i would disappear like a ninja :pinch: ) You dont have to buy movies you can always rent if you dont want to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellBender Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 So you didnt want to see the movie so its ok to download it, that doesnt make sense, you downloaded it cause you wanted to see it. Doesnt make sense to say that their not losing money cause i would have never bought the movie cause i didnt want to see it so i downloaded it. :pinch: 585556262[/snapback] Sure it makes sense. It isn't that we don't want to see it at all... It's that we don't think the price is worth seeing it. For example, a movie like Resident Evil 2. It got horrible reviews, practically nobody liked it. I would never pay $7 to see it in the theater or $5 to rent it. Just isn't worth my money. My bandwidth, on the other hand... I can download it for free, watch it in all its stupidity, and delete it. No loss to them, no loss to me. (footnote: I actually paid to see RE2 in the theater on opening day, but it was a really good example of a crappy movie...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doli Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Sure it makes sense. It isn't that we don't want to see it at all... It's that we don't think the price is worth seeing it.For example, a movie like Resident Evil 2. It got horrible reviews, practically nobody liked it. I would never pay $7 to see it in the theater or $5 to rent it. Just isn't worth my money. My bandwidth, on the other hand... I can download it for free, watch it in all its stupidity, and delete it. No loss to them, no loss to me. (footnote: I actually paid to see RE2 in the theater on opening day, but it was a really good example of a crappy movie...) 585556280[/snapback] You knew RE2 was going to be a bad movie....everyone did. A movie poster with the girl in nothing on but a towel with a gun walking around??? Oscar stuff there :p So you saw the movie and still wanted to download to "watch it in all its stupidity"? doesnt make any sense i think you liked it a lil cause why would you watch it again? for its "stupidity"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kak Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Who said anything about me downloading a movie and watching it to justify whether it is worth my money or not? To be honest, I buy most movies I have on my computer. DVDs cost more than movie tickets do, I'm just not much of a theater guy. I'll get the experience of 5.1 and dvd quality in my living room, not with 300 strangers surrounding me. But you're still wrong. And your post made no sense. Would you pay for a bad product? I know I'd be ****ed if I went in and spent $200/yr going to the theaters and didn't enjoy over half the movies I saw. I'd rather pay for the ones I like on DVD so I can keep them, not go pay $7-$10 area to see them once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doli Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 its a part of life...get over it everything cant be your way dont go to the movies then, thats the risk you have to take when it comes to movies/games/ect.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kak Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 You're preaching to me that its a part of life. There are far worse things than this. Like you not worrying about petty things like this and the MPAA/RIAA catching the real people BEHIND the scenes and not the people who still pay for their products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts