Record DVD Sales and Piracy

[Gazorgan]

Finding Nemo sets record DVD sales:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104419,00.html

A very highly pirated movie since it's cinematic debut, has record box office sales and record DVD sales.

So, does Piracy affect sales or is it the fact that the movie is just plain good?

A counter example is the movie Giglio (however you spell the J-Lo/Aflack bomb) was never pirated.

So, is the hollywood releasing the usual crapola and blaming the Internet for failures? I smell scapegoat!

Disclaimer: No, I didn't download Nemo. I simply looked on some sites that people 'brag' on. There's an amazing number of versions floating around.

[SLICK RICK]

To me it does not matter how many copies of a movie are floating around. I dont care about the quality of these pirated copies because it is never going to be like the original dvd. I will always buy a movie I like when it is released on dvd for simple reasons, better quality, menus, special features and I do not want any bootleg movies mixed in with my collection of dvd's.

SLICK RICK

[VCDHunter]

Finding Nemo sets record DVD sales:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104419,00.html

So, is the hollywood releasing the usual crapola and blaming the Internet for failures? I smell scapegoat!

'fraid so. Look at the new Lord Of The Rings movie - 100,000 people turn out just to watch the stars attend the premier

You just can't compare a cam filmed download to a 4 disc extra packed DVD like LOTR2. I can understand d/ling a movie as a curio or to see if it lives upto the hype but as a replacement for the cinema or DVD, never ! I recently watched Kill Bill in the cinema and it was superb - no comparison with a crap cam recording. Only about £4 too

[allaboutduncan]

Totally agree. No bootleg stuff for me (unless it's a TV show or something I captured myself).

I don't see how Hollywood (or the consumer) could honestly compare the quality of a downloaded movie (legitimate or otherwise) to the actual DVD release.

A similar situation applys to the music industry. They complain of flailing sales and blame the Internet, but 9 out of 10 times the music quality of something you illegally download is horrible and I can't imagine it for anything other than trying before you buy. They download the song, see that it's crap and don't buy the CD. Simple.

[cplevel42]

All these statements are true about movies and music. The difference though is with software. Downloaded CRACKED software from p2p CAN be just as good as the retail versions and in many cases the softwares are retail vesions.

If you download some software from a p2p and you like it; BUY IT!!! Especially if it's from a small company. It can mean a world of difference to a smaller company.

[VCDHunter]

A similar situation applys to the music industry. They complain of flailing sales and blame the Internet, but 9 out of 10 times the music quality of something you illegally download is horrible and I can't imagine it for anything other than trying before you buy. They download the song, see that it's crap and don't buy the CD. Simple.

I'd would've thought d/led music should be of a fairly good quality. Unless people are going into Virgin and taping them of the listening posts OK MP3s ain't gonna be as good as a genuine CD but I'm sure the average consumer would be hard pressed to tell the difference, especially as these are the people who buy kylie minogue and britney spears CDs. My MP3s that I rip for use with my MuVo sound OK - and no britney or kylie involved.

But yes - you can't blame people for not buying crap.

[allaboutduncan]

Downloaded music can be good, but more often than not it's ripped at a rate of 128kbps, which I find sounds pretty bad. If it's at 192kbps or higher, it's pretty good, but most often go for the smaller file size.

[i am x]

A counter example is the movie Giglio (however you spell the J-Lo/Aflack bomb) was never pirated.

Actually, it was.

[i am x]

You just can't compare a cam filmed download to a 4 disc extra packed DVD like LOTR2. I can understand d/ling a movie as a curio or to see if it lives upto the hype but as a replacement for the cinema or DVD, never !

Your above statement hit the nail on the head. Pirated cams simply CANNOT COMPARE in terms of quality to the same movie when it's released on DVD or shown at the theater. That's about all I can say on THAT subject without incriminating myself , but I CAN say that I FAITHFULLY plunk part of my hard earned paycheck into [commercially released] DVD's as well as going to the movie theater. In addition, the VAST MAJORITY of computer users do NOT know how to go about downloading movies, or where to get them from. Contrary to what the MPAA is saying, movie piracy is NOT something that the "average" computer user can do. They are really making a mountain out of a molehill on the issue. I'm not trying to say that it's NOT happening, because it IS. I'm just saying that there are many more music downloaders than movie downloaders, and the MPAA is not actually losing much money. They're basically projecting the money loss, speculating on how much money they MIGHT lose of every Tom, Dick and Harry knew how to download movies, so they're getting ahead of themselves by making consumers believe that the movie industry is losing lots of money because of movie piracy. But as of NOW, such is not the case. Nothing will take the place of original DVD releases and going to the theater in terms of quality, unless they come out with virtual reality movie viewing or something.....

[VCDHunter]

A counter example is the movie Giglio (however you spell the J-Lo/Aflack bomb) was never pirated.

Actually, it was.

What a complete waste of bandwidth

[mazinz]

as far as boots go the only time i would go after them (being the movie collector i am) is if the one version thats booted happens to be different in someway then the released version (aka workprints). But even then i just cant sit there for like 3 hours and dl a film, not for me.

i stll buy dvds commerically when they come out, the prices on most of them are pretty reasonable

[housepig]

here's the study I'd like to see.

Let's take Kill Bill as an example.

what is the percentage of people who downloaded a bootleg of it, but also paid for a ticket to see it in the theater?

how many people who downloaded it will buy it once it's available for legal purchase?

the junkies who want to see movies enough to spend hours finding and downloading a screener are the same junkies who will buy the 2 disc extended release once it's out.

the people the MPAA should be concerned about are the ones who are downloading, running hundreds of copies, and then selling them at the flea market for $5 - because those people are cutting out a tangible part of the revenue stream - people who are probably unlikely to buy the movie, but would have rented it, if they hadn't found it at the flea market for the price of a rental.

and that's the same kind of piracy that they haven't been able to fight for 20+ years. they need to go more with changing the game - add value to the discs, and price them so that they can compete.

[Gazorgan]

I've seen in my research 47 versions of Finding Nemo. That includes people that convert SVCD to DivX for the bandwidth impared. I saw zero copies of Giglio. It's an imperfect search, and somewhat subjective based on re-naming conventions.

My point is this: A crappy cam doesn't compared to stadium seats and THX sound. I saw Matrix 3 on opening weekend (and was greatly disaapointed, but that's plot/story and not cinematic quality). I can't imagine that movie on my sub 30" TV in stereo......it would lose so much!

The same applied to my prior comments of LOTR2 (which had the DVD Screener released weeks before the theater premiere, searh AP news for the story). It's a definate big screen movie. I already have tickets for LOTR3, because that's the way to see it.

Now the real question becomes: Does a crappy cam of a great movie encorage you to buy the DVD and/or go see it in a proper theater? The flipside is does a DVD Screener of a terrible movie (giglio) cause you get up and turn it off in the middle and never watch it again?

And ultimately (get ready, it's a biggie): Could a studio release of a low-res (320x240/Stereo) version of a film encourage people to go to the theater; ESPECIALLY if you payed say $3 for it off the net but got $3 off on your ticket at the theater?(who goes alone, and think of the popcorn revenue) YES!! but only if it doesn't suck. Or maybe not, seeing as how many people watch prime time TV (which just mostly sucks). I'm thinking of the Radio station equivalent for movies.

[i am x]

the junkies who want to see movies enough to spend hours finding and downloading a screener are the same junkies who will buy the 2 disc extended release once it's out.

That would be
ME!

[VCDHunter]

here's the study I'd like to see.

Let's take Kill Bill as an example.

what is the percentage of people who downloaded a bootleg of it, but also paid for a ticket to see it in the theater?

how many people who downloaded it will buy it once it's available for legal purchase?

I'll certainly be buying it but like LOTR I'll be waiting for the box set before I part with my cash. May do the same for Kill Bill, if I can wait. I've been to watch some dross in the cinemas over the years Blair Witch, that Star Wars travesty and the bloody matrix pt2 to name but a few.

So where's my commercial ? If the MPAA and RIAA can get more press coverage than starving Africans and the World Aids epidemic together because they are only making 200 billion dollars a minute rather than a second shouldn't I be allowed a commercial asking film studios to stop producing 9 turds for every gem ?

[mijman]

here's the study I'd like to see.

Let's take Kill Bill as an example.

Ok, let's.

I went to see Kill Bill in the theater on it's first weekend.

I liked it so much, I did what I only do in the most rare of cases: I bought a bootleg cam version for $12.
The pic was ok, but the sound was awful.
SO, I bought a DVD screener from ebay for $20
Great Picture, and great sound.

When it is released commercially, I fully intend to buy it its first week.

please explain to me how the MPAA is losing money? Because they aren't getting a piece of the bootleg?

I don't download movies, because I have no patience for it. Either the picture is crap, or I spend hours downloading a movie that isn't what the filename says it is.

If it seems interesting, I'll see it in the theater, if I don't, there is always rental and cable to look forward to.

[mijman]

[shouldn't I be allowed a commercial asking film studios to stop producing 9 turds for every gem ?

Preach it, brother!

I've often said that Hollywood would save a lot of money (and make more also) if they'd run these scripts past me first.

[Roundabout]

In addition, the VAST MAJORITY of computer users do NOT know how to go about downloading movies, or where to get them from. Contrary to what the MPAA is saying, movie piracy is NOT something that the "average" computer user can do.

You're right about that, but the attention the MPAA is bringing to this issue will lead more people to start looking that otherwise may have not even known they could download movies. I remember, when was it, two or three years ago, when Napster was just starting to become more mainstream, and the cover of Newsweek had this headline with a picture of a PC: "NOTHING CAN STOP NAPSTER!" About that time I turned to my wife and said,"that's the beginning of the end of Napster". Sure enough, within a few months after that article, they were being sued out of existence. But a lot of people that otherwise wouldn't have known probably started looking to d/l Napster after that article.
The same could happen to DC, Bittorrent, eMule and others, even if the "mainstream" PC user doesn't know how to set it up or use it, they can usually find someone to help them. But they have to know about it first. The MPAA, by making such a huge deal out of it, will make more people interested that probably wouldn't have known otherwise, IMO.

I noticed there are already people selling what appear to be bootleg copies of DivX encoded movies on EBay, and they try to sell a lot at a time (AFAIK, none of the studios are releasing any movies on DivX, correct me if I'm wrong). Look at this listing:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3370173306&category=2296
Does anyone think these are legit copies of movies? Maybe they are and I'm mistaken, but I don't think so. 66 movies for $10?


Is this a legit disc? If not, why isn't the MPAA going after these people, who really are pirates, they are profiting off the sales of this stuff. Where is the Ebay police? Do a search for "divx" on ebay and you'll see more of this stuff, and I've noticed more and more appearing recently, as more people buy DivX-capable players that they don't have to reencode the movies. So it could become a big problem for the MPAA, if it isn't yet.

[jaxxboss]

Ya wanna know how I myself found out that you could download movies still playing. I was taking a dump one day and reading my favorite zine..TVGUIDE. I had just got my computer about 2 weeks earlier. I read the article and pinched it, wiped it and flushed it before I headed off to find a lil site called SCOUR. Actually it mentioned that and ime$h. Scour is long gone(at least free scour is) and the other is still hanging around as it is in Israel and outside any us jurisdiction. Funny how I found out about it tho, TV Guide, go figure.

PS, I NEVER D/L anything from these sites. hehehehe

[troyvcd1]

All I gotta say is that these DVD burners are the best things to every happen to the dvd industry. Now after I got my DVD burner I rent 3X as many movies then before I got it. I know I would never rent these movies twice anyways so who loses. Maybe I will not watch the move when it comes out on tv.

[Addix]

I can see both sides of the issue here. I don't condone the downloading of movies that you can buy at your local Best Buy or something. I admit that I do download movies, but...and here is the important part...I only download movies that don't have an official US DVD release yet or won't be released in the US. These are movies that I can't buy. I'm not talking about movies that are still in theatres or anything like that, but foreign films. I am obsessed with Asian movies and many of them don't ever get a release here. The only way I can get some of these, especially with subtitles (I can't learn Japanese overnight you know...although I am working on it), is to download them. I am an avid collector of DVDs and, if they ever get a DVD release, I still buy them even if I already have a copy. A CD will never replace having the real thing to me.

I will also sometimes download a "hold me over" movie. For example, I saw Once Upon a Time in Mexico in the theatre and absolutely loved it. To hold me over until it is released on DVD, I found a good screener copy. The day that movie is released on DVD, it will be added to my collection. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I am also a "try it before I buy it" kind of person. I can't imagine shelling out possibly hundreds of dollars for a piece of software without knowing if it both works and does what I need it to do. If it is a quality program, I will then pay for an official copy (especially if it is a small company). Hell, I even pay for the "donation" type programs if they are good even though I don't have to.

I don't see how anyone is losing money over people like me. In the end, as long as they put out quality product (software, movies, etc.) they will still get my money. I guess all I'm saying is that not all "pirates" are bad. It depends on the situation.

[i am x]

I don't see how anyone is losing money over people like me. In the end, as long as they put out quality product (software, movies, etc.) they will still get my money. I guess all I'm saying is that not all "pirates" are bad. It depends on the situation.

It's not that we......er, uh.....THEY are bad. It's that the MPAA cannot STAND the thought of pirating, even if no money is actually being lost. It's really stupid. Suppose all pirates on the face of the earth didn't download movies for one month. If they were to tabulate movie theater losses/earns during that month, they would notice virtually NO decrease/increase. The profits would remain the same. Movie pirates are cinefiles. They MUST see movies, and also, they believe in QUALITY. If you ask cinefiles if they paid to see "The Matrix Reloaded" in the movie theater, most would say YES. If you ask any cinefile if they plan on seeing "Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King" at the theater, they would say YES. Cinefiles are ALWAYS going to see movies in their best quality. Now granted, pirates will download movies that they wouldn't normally go to see at the theaters, but think about it, is any money being lost when they do that? If those same pirates wouldn't be willing to go to the theater to see the movie ANYWAYS, then not pirating isn't going to change that. As a matter of fact, pirating indirectly creates PROFIT. How many of you pirates out there have downloaded a movie that you weren't willing to pay to see at the theaters, but after seeing the downloaded version, you ended up renting, or buying it when it came out on DVD, because you in fact ended up LIKING the movie? If pirates were interviewed and asked that question, you'd be surprised at how many of them ended up renting/buying the movie when it was commercially released, even thogh they originally had no intentions of ever adding that movie to their collections.

[i am x]

All I gotta say is that these DVD burners are the best things to every happen to the dvd industry. Now after I got my DVD burner I rent 3X as many movies then before I got it.

Uh, you might want to think about wording your posts a bit more carefully. A certain insinuation popped up in my head when I read it, and I know that if it popped up in my head, then it might also pop up in the heads of others, some with a negative result. Not trying to be a nag, just looking out for the best interests of the board, and the people on it.

[xtreemkareem]

Downlaoded movies often have a s#!t loa of problems, whether bad frames, poor quality of video/ audio etc., downlaoded is never like the DVD. I like movies, but I (and other people) only buy movies that we plan on watching more than once. If it's a good movie, you buy the DVD. If not well you cna just as easily delete it. But I think that dloaded movies/bootleg etc. probably have a positive effect on DVD sales. Especially with decent prices on many DVDs these days (god bless walmart $6 DVD bib specials!) people who don't plan on buying the DVD anyway wonb't be effected by bootlegs... except for perhaps moving them in the direction of purchase.

[LanEvo7]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... egory=2296

I was looking at this link and noticed that many of the titles are old. Maybe its not DIVX, but the other divx that circuit city marketed. I think it was watch once or something and you needed a special player. Never took off though.

[elmotheteapot]

I agree that cams are NEVEr any where near a dvd but dvd pirates are supposdely good, youre able to buy pirates ripped from the studio master disk (created before they go into cinema). Juinioreditiors at studio who get paid around 30k a yr are given 5-7k for a copy of the dvd by pirating gangs.