das Monkey

Things to consider (a rehash of what some have posted already):

1) No matter how much "security" you put on data, people will break it. The only protection you have is to accept that you have no protection and act accordingly.

2) Bootlegging -- while illegal and possibly immoral -- rarely, if ever, detracts from the monetary gain of the product being bootlegged. Those who pirate it, in almost all cases, aren't going to purchase it anyway. Yes, it's unfair that they get it free while others pay, but it's not hurting the company. That doesn't make it "right," but it's also not the problem they make it out to be.

3) Conversely, bottlegging increases exposure, and there are many very popular bands who have tried to show that mp3-sharing has HELPED their sales figures. Citing #2, there are plenty of things I randomly download that I'd never go buy in a store. I trash 95% of it, but when I come across something new and interesting, I head to the store and buy it. Whether it's the megaplex or the corporate radio stations stopping the flow, artists are creating art that we have little or no access to without bootlegging. The real concern of those like Luca$ is not that they'll directly lose money on their product from the bootlegging; the concern is that the megacorps won't be able to control the flow of information (yeah, Di$ney, I'm looking at you), and consumers will be exposed to independent products of higher quality, which indirectly takes money from the megacorps.

For reference, I have very high quality bootlegs of FOTR, TPM, and SPR among others. I also paid to see them in the theater and own the DVDs (both sets in the case of FOTR). I represent the majority, not the minority of bootleggers - hardly anyone (if at all) downloads instead of purchasing (i.e. without the download, there would have been a purchase). These concerns are just a veiled attempt to control the information flow of the industry.

das

Verbal Gorilla

Possibly not directly related to the point...but proof that das monkey's third point is more toward the truth is to look at the actions of some media companies and their stifling of "professional/consumer" level video cameras. Sony, in paticular, has prevented cheap, high quality hi-def home video cameras and the ONLY apparent reason is that it scares the crud out of them that just about anyone will be able, in the future, to make a high quality movie...Wouldn't want the consumers to be able to choose actually quality films! That sounds too much like...capitalism!!

sherm42

Personally, I shed a tear for every dollar that Lucas is losing. It pains my heart to know that somewhere, there is a dollar being spent on Star Wars that is not going into his pocket.

Gdrlv

Alright, sarcasm is practically dripping off your post, but it's completely unfounded and unfair. Lucas created Star Wars. He created the mythology; he created the characters; he wrote the stories; he wrote the majority of the screenplays and directed the majority of the films (at least he will have by the time all is said and done). Why should anyone else be entitled to profit off of his creation? Yes, the man is rich, but he's rich because he's ambitious, talented and managed to create one of the most enduring tales of the 20th Century. Like it or not, Star Wars is Lucas' baby as it rightly should be. And if you don't like it, don't go see the next film, don't buy any of his merchandise and don't watch his movies. I'm sure he won't shed a tear knowing you don't like him. But don't bitch that Lucas is profiting off of his own creation. It's unfair and it's ignorant.

Gdrlv

I guess he doesn't know that New Line announced this set from the beginning?? I hope someone calls him on this. But, then again, this is Rolling Stone magazine... [/QUOTE]

Oh, he's taken plenty of heat for his comments...all of which are much meaner than what I wrote here. Go to rollingstone.com and check out what people thought of his review. Some comments are pretty scathing.

C-Mart

The funny thing is that bootlegging has been going on since music/movies have existed. If there is a way to copy something, then it is surely being done. If anyone goes to a Saturday swap-meet then you seen boots of just about everything known to man... from DVDs to VHS to CDs and tapes, and even cheap knock-offs of sunglasses and spiderman toys. I guess what they are freaking out about it the ability of broadband to distribute digital media faster than the corp. can distribute the media legally. I am not going to attempt a moral high ground... as I cannot. I have participated, as everyone else has... and don't say that you never downloaded an mp3 or mpg file... you're lieing. I bet even Lucas has downloaded mp3s. I am not saying that it is right, but as is painfully obvious, it will NEVER stop! For every Napster that they shut down, 20 new services take its place!

-CM-

Playitagainsam

I was listening to the crew commentary on Gremlins 2, and Zach Galligan said he had just downloaded a Gordon Lightfoot album (!)... this goes to show how much this technology has gained acceptance even from people in the industry.

Personally, I admit freely that I don't go to theaters anymore. The last time I went to a theatre, it was for the Lord of the Rings, last year, which I wanted to see in "full cinematic glory". Well, it was a bad experience - almost as bad as seeing "Saving Pivate Ryan"...

1) the film was blurry
2) the people in the theatre were noisy, munching on popcorn, squishing soda glasses
3) some small children were yelling their brains out
4) the commentaries some adult people were making...

So, I've decided that I'm not going to theatres anymore. I'm downloading movies, and if I like them, I buy the DVD. Period. Mind, you, there haven't been many recent movies IMHO that are worth buying, anyway. But I'm surely glad that I didn't pay a dime (except electricity) to watch that horrible junk called "Spiderman", which, according to some critics and many other viewers - even on this board! - was one of the worse films I've ever spent my time with...

So tell me, can you blame people like me for being disillusioned with the industry?

One last point - I'm not sure where the original poster found this article, but the person/outlet responsible is definitely advocating the Hollywood point of view. The language used in and the implications of some of the verbs clearly betray this subjectivity. Lame.

sherm42

Oh boohoo. I never said that bootlegging was right or that I don't like him or Star Wars. But hearing any multi-billionaire bitch about how he losing money is just too funny to take seriously. If Bill Gates was rattleing on about losing money because of people sharing Microsoft products, I have no sympathy. Life sucks. People steal. It's part of the game. But once again, hearing Lucas complain about it just holds no weight with me.

I also agree with others here that there are steps he could take to combat the demand for bootlegs. He's not willing to take those steps for several years, so there's not much he can do.

calhoun07

A few points I want to touch on:

Regarding people who would be stupid to think bootlegs are better: The average guy on the street who gets taken by the bootlegger selling bootleg DVDs probably won't be burned again. Yes, bootleggers may be able to snare some people who are looking to save a buck, but it's not because that person researched that movie on the Internet and at DVDtalk.com and at all these different sites and concluded, "Gee, that friendly young man on the street corner has a better deal that Deep Discount DVD!" It's because he doesn't know any different. There are MANY people out there who don't give a rats ass about this site, nor any other DVD news site for that matter, they don't keep up on the new movies in the theaters, nor do they read Ebert's reviews every week. These are the same people who go into Blockbuster the day Spider Man hits the theaters, rents the Spider Man cartoon, and brings the cartoon back bitching because that wasn't the live action movie. But just because they don't slave over dvdtalk and every other site out there known to man to learn about this stuff doesn't make them "too stupid." Now, if they get that five dollar DVD home and see the horrible quality and the heads of the movie patrons walking back and forth and think, "Wow, this is pretty good, I think I will go and see what else that nice young man has for sale" then there is no hope for him, but likely they will realize they got taken and will take steps to prevent being frauded in the future.

Regarding bootlegging increasing exposure: I will agree whole heartedly about this one. There are bands I am into today that have WinMX to thank for their exposure. I don't think I would have gotten into bands like the Magnetic Fields and the Handsome Family and others if I wasn't able to sample tracks first from their CDs. If the product is good, the exposure the bootlegging gives them WILL increase sales in the stores. Again, I am not defending bootlegging, nor do I want to get in a debate about downloading stuff for free and who should get the money for it (advertisers, by the way, not the artists, are facing more to loose with downloading) but I think it's nigh time for studios and law makers to notice what potential is out there for exposure online with downloads, and rethink many of their marketing plans and restructure how they do things. That cannot be done over night, obviously, but in the mean time, they need to not worry so much about people downloading stuff as they need to find a way to help people get this stuff for free AND still get money to the studios. This is the greatest marketing tool ever, and they are trying to discourage it and whine about revenue lost and shut it down, and they are missing the point of why people download in the first place. If the stuff they download is good, they will be in the store buying the complete and official products.

I probably have more to say but hate long posts myself, so I will leave it at this for now.

Gdrlv

I don't care if Lucas has made $1 or $1 billion off of Star Wars. It's still his creation, and he has the right to expect that only he will profit off of it. Yeah, life sucks, and people steal. I know that. I just don't get why you don't feel he has the right to be upset about it.

Would you be upset if people were stealing from you and making money off of it? Of course you would, and you'd be looking for some way to stop it. Would your opinion of Lucas be different if Star Wars wasn't as successful and he didn't have as much money as he does? I'm guessing it would be. Just because Lucas is rich doesn't make him any less right.

das Monkey

He's already said it twice. He never said Luca$ doesn't have a right to be upset or fight back. He just said he doesn't care.

das

sherm42

Thank you.

jarsim

"years of robbery in broad daylight and copyright losses of around $8 billion a year."

I always love reading the numbers the music and movie industries say they lost. What's this number based on?
I'm assuming the estimated # of CDs, DVDs etc etc that
were illegally downloaded/copied.

There's then a assumption that if downloading/copying
didn't exist that year, that their revenue would have
increased by $8 billion? No, I don't think so. Most people
who download/copy do so because they don't want to
spend money.

Are they losing money? Yes. But not anywhere near what
they say they are. There's a whole intangibility about the
value of intellectual property and it's highly exaggerated
when it comes to the ACTUALITY of what is stolen. Their
$8 million is nothing more than fairy dust.

It would have more interesting if Lucas would have spoken
about the bootlegging of his own work. But of course, he
would have then had to respond to why he hasn't released
those movies in the first place . . . again revolving around
to the "excuse" of bootlegging. I guess he was intelligent
enough to stay away from that issue because he's part
of the problem in terms of Star Wars being bootlegged.

Do I have sympathy for the industry? Not in the least,
I have well over 800 CDs (original not copies) and over 300
DVDs (original not copies) . . . plenty of money has gone
out of my wallet into artists. And when I hear whining
by baby millionaires like Lucas and Lars Ulrich of Metallica
about how richer they could be if it wasn't for those damn
bootleggers, it just makes me want to

UKingdom

George Lucas is rich enough. yay for bootlegs. (My Star Wars DVDs are originals, BTW) I've heard from Harvard econ professors (using the similar arguments raised above) that a little bit of bootlegging is always desired by the industry (stress on the "a bit" part), the problem is it is uncontrolled and often backfires. My personal opinion is I think the two complement each other. I'd be remiss to say I didn't have a couple.

One thing about bootlegs that you don't get is the special features and fancy packaging. I think savvy studios know this, and one way they try to combat the problem is pack in a lot of bonuses to entice the viewers to buy the originals. Either in the form of lots of extras, or really nice packaging and booklets. When you can price this right, I think this makes the difference.

For example, Star Wars Ep II went on sale opening week for 9.99 at many places. It FLEW off the shelves. Same with Monsters Inc and Spider Man. All were 2 disc sets. Granted, bootlegs abound for this movie, but for a few bucks more they could have gotten the real deal with a special features disc, loads of supplements, and nice packaging. Same argument for LOTR 4 Disc EE version.

Bottom line, if prices were cheaper, people would be more inclined to buy originals. Same for CDs, and you're seeing this trend too; CDs packaged with music videos, bonus DVDs, etc. Who wants to buy a $15-16 "regular" CD anymore? I'm not going to even touch the "right" or "wrong" issue, because to a vast majority of consumers that's irrelevant.

calhoun07

Excellent points. I guarantee you that many of the songs I've downloaded and put on compilation CDs are singles that I could live without, but since I can get them, I got them. I don't think I stole anything, nobody was going to be getting my money for those songs anyway, and because I downloaded them instead of taping them off the radio doesn't make me an immoral person. Just because advertisers pay for radio and WinMX is free, I could care less, that's between WinMX and the advertisers who lost their revenue, not me as a downloader or taper off the radio.

And if anybody wants to claim I am not doing my part to help the economy and claiming I am doing the same thing as shoplifting from Blockbuster, come to my home and tell me to my face while I stand in front of my 1200 legitimately purchased officially released CDs and my 800 legit officially released DVDs. If anything, downloading has given me reasons to buy MORE because I find new stuff I never knew about previously. Damn those MP3! They made me loose hundreds of dollars last year to the cockroaches!

BTW: I work part time in a video store, and I have to deal with shoplifting as a reality, not as some vague concept in Lucas Land. The reality is the people who shoplift games and movies and memory cards DO NOT and NEVER WILL come back to my store to buy the same products, or anything else for that matter. People who download WILL buy the products of the artists they are fans of and WILL support the stores that carry those products. Never compare me to a shoplifter, Luca$.

calhoun07

Original what? The movies were never officially released on DVD by Lucasfilm.

bboisvert

I only hope that one day I can reach a level of success where some random person on the street decides I'm "rich enough" and takes what's mine without paying. Sounds like a great plan.

Five Cent Deposit

Who profits from the trade of music mp3s? Who profits from the ftp-ing of "divx" encoded movies? Your argument is pretty irrelevant, unless I'm giving money (without realizing it) to the guy on the other end of whatever file-sharing system I'm hooked into. You know, I don't think I ever got a dime from using Napster.

You are pretty hung up on the issue of who deserves the money, and I do understand your argument. But historically, a LOT of "pirating" hasn't really been pirating- when you were young and broke, did your friends ever copy a music tape for you? Did they charge you for it? If I can't afford to go out and buy a LaserDisc player and LD copies of the SW original trilogy, but my friend decides to burn VCD copies of his for me to watch in my DVD player, is anyone "profiting"? I don't even know if this example is possible- I don't follow the technology, so I guess maybe you need a ton of hardware to pirate movies, and that's why the boots are sold rather than given away. But I'll add another issue- LaserDiscs aren't manufactured anymore... there is a finite number of SW lasers out there, and every one of them has been paid for- money that went right into Lucas' pockets. So even if I *had* the cash to buy the OT on LD, the ebay seller (or whomever) would be the one profiting, not Lucas. Lucas has already made as much as he EVER will off of the LD sales.

Sorry to have rambled, but I want to know what your stand is on the ethics of copyright infringement when money and "profit" are removed from the picture.

You might mention that makers of file-sharing software are profiting, or that manufacturers of blank media are profiting. They're taking Lucas' money away from him, right? Not really. As I see it, they make products which have all kinds of uses, and they can't be morally accountable for everything that people do with those products.

UKingdom

My Star Wars DVDs are EP 1 and 2, so they're originals. But still, yay for bootlegs in general IF there were genuine versions of 4, 5, 6, people wouldn't buy the bootlegs...granted, Lucas is waiting so they will get the special edition treatment (which is totally understandable, I have nothing against George, I'm talking about bootlegging in general). It is likely at any rate that folks who own the bootlegs of the original trilogy will buy it again when it's officially released. I particularly don't care either way.

And for all you haters out there (lol) who want to preach about the evils of bootlegging then feel free...as I've been reading, you can bash all you want of the practice, but you'll never get rid of it nor will you be able to convince the vast majority of consumers who do it either. It's a futile effort. The best way to combat it is to think of alternative ways of improving the product (packaging, nicer extras, etc, lowering the price)

Jackskeleton

Even if there was legit version of the trilogy out people will always try to find some way to Justify stealing.

"Oh, greedo shoots first!"

"It's not original"

I find it funny that these people complaining that the originals are not on dvd want it now and have no patiance for the trilogy to be done right. they want a half arsed bare bones version out and they will complain about lucas double dipping.

In this case, there is no win situation for lucas. no matter what he does people will bash on him because it's trendy to bash on luca$

Coral

Lucas does have a right to be concerned about potential loss in sales due to piracy, even though I think he's overestimating how much REAL revenue he's losing.

In any case I wish Lucas would just shut up already.

There's nothing I hate more than seeing/hearing an extremely wealthy man whine, moan and b*tch about lost profits.
Sorry, but there are millions of other people in this world who deserve my sympathy more than Lucas.

das Monkey

• Quoth Jackskeleton •<HR SIZE=1>In this case, there is no win situation for lucas. no matter what he does people will bash on him because it's trendy to bash on luca$ <HR SIZE=1>

Fans have been bashing on Luca$ for decades (he has consistently and repeatedly chosen $$ over the fans and ego over quality). It's his "right" to do so, and it's their "right' to get pissed about it.

The only thing that's "trendy" is to now start complaining about the love/hate relationship fans have always had with Luca$.

das

nice_skis

No matter how bad George Lucas' latest films stinked, I still thinks it's bad to promote piracy.

I despise the new trilogy and I while I don't feel like I have a right to moan all the time about it, I still think Lucas should give his fans and/or the fans of his first films, a way to accede them.

And don't tell me that I should buy a laserdisc player and try to win a lottery so I can buy one of those good old Laserdisc collections. I won’t do that. And be reasonable, who would really do that today apart from a bunch of real freaks?

I know Lucas doesn't owe anyone anything. If he wants to, he can tear off all the negatives to the original trilogy, drop a load of sh*** on them and burn the pile to ashes.

While I know this, I find it sad to see that he doesn't care for us, fans of the original trilogy. Not insulting, not revolting, just sad.

But what can I do? What can we do? We can stamp the man's name into mud (or worst substances) through Internet forums, we can whine all we want, we can organize a "Walk-Across-America" to inform the population about the lack of Star Wars DVDs. But we cannot force Mr. Lucas to release his films if he doesn't want to.

Now, does this make it right for a bunch of hackers, small-time crooks and losers to say they own the right to the material? No. Not even in your dreams. People worked to create movies, they are the ones who own the rights to their works of art.

Ok, so, some of you say we can buy bootlegs and still buy the real stuff afterwards. Some of you are even pretending like everyone who buys bootleg material is just doing so while the products aren't available. I don't believe this. There is no way you're going to convince me or anyone who's working in the movie or music industry that this is what's happening in reality. Because it's not what real people do. Real people download whole records from the Internet and burn them on CDs. Real people buy bootlegs on street corners while the movies are available in a store next door. Real people don't want to spend twice on the same product. Only real collectors do. And I won't believe anyone who tells me otherwise.

When I hear people saying that bootlegs are ok since Lucas and his friends make enough money anyway, don't they know that the bastards who create and sell bootleg material are making even more profit out of it? 100% profit. Because they don't spend a penny to sell what other people have created. And even if the pirates don't do it for money, they still do something that is hurtful to someone else's interests and that's also reprehensible. Someone asked who profits from the downloading of divx files. Cheap people with no morality do. Cheap people who think there is nothing hurtful in doing so.

And who suffers from it you may ask? Well, let's see: first, people who create movies and don't get profits out of it. Then there are the people who buy movies and music and who'll see the price tags raise over every year since there is no way the producers and studios will keep on producing movies and records unless they make profits out of it. Would you work for nothing? I sure wouldn't. Then, there are the honest people like me who are really waiting for some stuff to be released since we did not buy bootlegs. Should we be forced into waiting forever beacause some other people have no respect for intellectual property? I don't think so.

And what about special features? I'd rather get an official released DVD of Raiders of the lost Ark with documentaries, audio commentaries, interesting features and all than to get a barebone badly transferred copy from Kaaza. Who's going to pay for those special features? The numbskull teenager who transferred his VHS copy of Raiders on his desktop computer? Once again, I don't think so. If someone does it, it will be the studios and the producers.

So please, stop pretending like piracy is a non-hurting crime. Because it isn't.

Five Cent Deposit

Hmmm... I, on the other hand, find it funny that you post the exact same thing over and over again. In this thread and in any other similar or relevant thread.

You completely dismiss people's preferences. I'm not happy that the originals are MIA on DVD. But I'm not in a rush to buy boots, either. If Lucas releases the OT as a bare bones set, I'll be happy- I can buy them when I feel like it, when I have the cash. I really don't have any idea why you insist that a bare bones OT would not be "done right". Abvoiusly, for a LOT of fans, it would be perfect. Philosophically, I support the bootleg market for products that are not available anywhere else. So if Lucas never releases the OT again, I'll want boots to still be available. Eventually, I'll probably buy whatever Lucas puts out, and whatever else I can get my hands on. I'm not impatient. As far as I am concerned, Lucas can take 20 more years figuring out what to release, trying to get it all "done right".

If you can find some posts on this board of people complaining about having to buy more than one version of the film ("double-dipping"), let's see them. I don't recall ever reading one. It really seems to me that you are oblivious to the vast majority of opinions expressed here.The posts that *I* read (and I do try to read all of them) are overwhelmingly interested in owning multiple versions of the film. If Lucas released a bare-bones OT, I think a LOT of the Lucas bashing would vanish overnight.

Sorry, I just don't recognize any "trend" emerging other than the one that has always been there: people love Star Wars and want to own it. Is it suddenly "cool" to bash Lucas? Nope. Are most of the criticisms aimed at him legitimate? Yes. People here criticize everything... it just happens that the Star Wars films are more interesting, to a much broader audience, than for example Kevin Smith or P.T. Anderson films. There will be far more voices wanting to be heard.

You're obviously a huge fan. You're going to have to start dealing with the fact that most of the rest of the world is, too.

Five Cent Deposit

I'm a cheap person with no morality for copying my friend's Metallica tapes in seventh grade because I didn't have enough allowance money to buy them for myself?

I was asking about who profits monetarily in a situation like that. Nobody does. And as has been pointed out, nobody LOSES money, either. Metallica never lost a cent on me. Why? Because I never would have BOUGHT the albums at that age, since I had NO money! It isn't like I had $7.98 in my pocket and chose to spend it on something else, so that I could "steal" from Metallica. Again- a finite # of copies of their albums were manufactured on cassette. All of the ones that *could* sell DID. They got as much money from the format as possible. Likewise, I'd buy a boot of a "Limited Edition" dvd in a heartbeat. Why? Because there is no other way. If an LE was remarketed by the artists/studios, I'd give them my money.

Here is an example: The LE Director's Cut of Army of Darkness. I never bought one off ebay. Why? Because I don't want to give some asshead $200 dollars in "reward money" for getting into the format earlier than I did. I didn't want some schnook to profit off of Raimi and Campbell- even though Raimi and Campbell had already made as much as they conceivably could have from the sale of the LE dvds (every copy sold). Now, why did they rerelease the LE? Because they saw the demand, realized more $$ could be made, and wanted their rightful cut of it. What did I do? I bought the officially re-released "Bootleg Version". Everyone walked away happy. Filmmakers have the right to milk every cent out of their product... and they have every ability to.

The Star Wars issue is, in effect, similar to this. Essentially, the Original Trilogy is a "limited edition". When was the last time you saw Lucasfilms and 20th Century Fox trying to make money off of the OT? If they wanted to, they could make more. I can't pretend to know why they don't... it would be speculation and I'm not gonna jump to conclusions that give me any reason to bash Lucas.

Explain how *I* am cheap, and how *I* am hurting Lucas. (For the record, I don't own any boots of the OT. Nor do I plan on buying any pre-owned copies. I am going to wait. If Lucas wants to sell it to me, I'll buy it from him. If it eventually becomes 100% cleart that he doesn't want my money, or money from the millions of fans who want the OT... at that point I'll have no problem giving the $$ to someone who does want it.)

If Lucas hasn't made any profits off of SW, that is news to me.

Let me ask you something:

How much had the price of a music CD increased to *prior* to the emergence of file-sharing software and high-speed internet access?

In 1997, I was working at Tower Records, and the high profile releases were tagged at $16.99, $17.99, and even $18.99.
Have the labels increased the prices since then as a response to the "rampant piracy". Nope.

A couple of years later, several Stevie Wonder albums from the 70s were reissued with new 24 track remastering, fancy packaging, and they were priced at $11.99. They sold out very, very quickly and I am totally confident that they turned a fine profit. How can that be?

I have many friends who work in the recording and film industries here in NYC. I can assure you, the reasons that prices go up has NOTHING to do with piracy.

Explain how the bootleg market further delays the official release. I can't see how this follows logically.

I'd rather have a package put together by the studios, too. So would a LOT of people. Who's going to pay for the official releases? MILLIONS and MILLIONS of consumers just like you and me. And believe me, if the studios and producers think that they are losing potential $$ because of the higher prices of special editions, they'll release bare-bones editions at cheaper prices for those consumers who don't want to pay for them. Look at all of the Fox 2-disc dvds that are now being repackaged as one disc versions at a lower price point. (Fight Club, et al.)

Again- these huge corporations have been successfully in business for decades. They KNOW exactly how to make as much money as they can, and they do everything they can to ensure the highest possible profit margin.

I'm not pretending anything. *Some* piracy hurts people. Not all of it does. The realm of morality is rarely, if ever, shaded in black and white.