Jackskeleton

the problem with the idea of the movies studios embracing the technology is that they are in a sense doing it for movies.. though it's tougher to do so because of the varied amount of people's connection and the matter of how big in size the files would be.

Music has a few minutes on a pretty good quality. Movies on the other hand take lots of storage room to keep on a cp. Not to mention what do you show? and the size and so forth.

You can say that the trailers that are all over the net are in a sense the studio's attempt to embrace this format. they are small and they tease you. Go to apple.com and look in the quicktime section. Thats how studios release a "preview" of the movie in a decent quality to the public.

Studios have embraced this format. they just don't want it to Replace a theater experience.

Besides, they don't want to do the streaming because of the factors that well, you want to watch a movie on a screen. they don't figure the family will sit around a 15-19 inch monitor to watch a movie.

RichC2

The piracy issue is way overblown, do you really think the internet rips of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets or Star Wars: Attack of the Clones will have/had any effect on the actual box office numbers or DVD Sales? me neither.

Think about it, you have bigger than life movies with loads of special effects. While they're in theatres - the rips are ass, watchable, but they definitly detract from the entertainment. So what about SVCD based DVDRips? I know some people who would choose those in place of a DVD, because - oh wait - they've never bought a DVD before in their lives nor watch movies that much. Truth be told, there's generally a huge incentive to buy DVDs.

It may scare studios that they have competition - and won't be able to put out crappy barebone discs with subpar audio and to a lesser extent video. But aside from the crappy dvds, I really don't see why anyone is worried about it in the least, especially now - that Box Office Records are being shattered and DVD Players and software has shot through the roof.

Dvdsky

Actually, you'd be surprised at the kind of quality you can get from a camcorder. Not great, but sometimes better than you would think. And then there's a DVD rip when that comes out, which is very close to DVD quality.

And I don't think anyone's watching movies on a computer monitor. The movies are out in VCD (for in-theater releases) or SVCD (for DVD rips, usually), which many DVD players can play. I just pop it in the DVD player, sit back on the couch, and no one would know it wasn't a DVD (except for the swapping discs in the middle).

I think a lot of the people who try downloading a movie and say "wow, that sucks" are just looking on P2P networks where you find music. The current movies on there tend to be low bitrate divx re-encodes of the real VCD releases; those you can't watch on a DVD player, and tend to be much crappier.

But I also don't think it's damaging their sales. I see a lot more movies since I started downloading the DVD rips, but I've just gotten more into movies and DVDs because of it. I've bought DVDs of many movies that I already had high-quality DVD rips of.

For other movies, watching the DVD rip is taking the place of catching the movie on HBO a year later. For me, I get to see it sooner, and I get to watch it widescreen instead of pan&scan. And given the high compression of my digital cable, in some cases the SVCDs even look better. And truthfully, I'm considering cancelling HBO because of it. Most of the movies they have that I want to see, I've already downloaded in widescreen, so what do I need HBO for, besides the original series? The pay cable channels might be the ones who need to worry more, at least from my point of view.

Jackskeleton

You know, movies like Sw and HP are many things, Critic proof is one of them, as for uneffected by bootleg. thats something they are not. infact because of there status they are more marketable because of there high ranks. But you know the bootlegging does effect one thing. Repeat viewing, Which films like this strive at. and if you have the VCD of it, that means you don't go in for repeat viewings. Considering the studio gets a larger precent of the box office in the frist few weeks. The movie houses get the butt end of all this.

How many times did you see star wars? I saw it about 3 in theaters, I also saw it about 5 more times on a bootleg. Sure I bought the dvd when it came, but it might have been 5 more viewings of it in the theater. Not many movies now a days has much repeat viewings. Could this be a big connection. I'm not even sure. it's just an idea that hit me.

lesterlong

I'm on cable and downloading movies is super-easy. Get Kazaa, search, and download. I've downloaded so many movies, whereas I would of wasted money seeing them in theatres. It is a real threat to the Hollywood box office but DVD sales shouldnt be affected.

RichC2

I absolutely hated episode 2 - and still saw it twice in theatres (damn you obligations!) in DLP so at least it wasn't a complete loss. I also had the bootlegs (like 3 versions), never bothered watching any of 'em. Bought the DVD to demo my sound system with (thanks TRU), was worth while. Movie is still horrible though

I see where you're coming from, but I still don't think it's the huge problem they're trying to make it out to be - yet or anytime in the near future.

$300m+ is about $120m+ more than Episode 2 should have made to begin with.

-Rich

zuffy

I have downloaded several korean and japanese movies that I end buying them on DVD because I like it so much. These are movies I would have never consider buying in the store or rent if it wasn't for the downloads.

tygloalex

Kazaa? :


Ewwwwwwwww.

Moogz

At the top right hand corner of this page is a banner that says

"We Support the DVDA"

With a little "DVDA" logo... I'm sorry if I'm ignorant of what the significance of it is in this context, but I've been laughing for the past 10 minutes thinking about Orgazmo. Therefore, I had to post about it, to hope that someone else might get at least 5 minutes of fun out of it.

Degreaser

Okay..not a tech-head.
I D/L movies for three reasons....

1. I will D/L a questionable film and watch twenty minutes of it to see if it is worth my time and money.
If it isn't (Master of Diguise,anyone?)..I don't feel I owe them ANYTHING...
If it IS good, I will D/L the whole thing...and then see it at the movies 2 or 3 times...I only resort to viewing them in crappy quality or VCD while awaiting the oppurtunity to PURCHASE the DVD...which I will probably get 2 of..I like to turn people on to cool movies.
I've watched Red Dragon the night before I saw it in the theatre..NOT the same thing..it just hyped me up MORE.....then I saw it 8 times, all evening shows.
I have invested about $140 plus into this film in theatres,(wow...sobering..)

Then it left, so I burned a VCD, which I have enjoyed immensly 5 times.

I am planning on buying both versions of the DVD (Or is it three?), and am getting my Brother one, and my Mother.

So, they are getting about 6 DVD purchases off of me.
I'll also be there for the three pack.
And the Ultimate Edition.

I don't feel an ounce of guilt, as these artists gave me a good product and I am happily paying them....

If you directed or starred in Juwanna Man and want to bite my tail about me d/l'ing your film and never paying...take that lack of reward and write a better film..and you will open my wallet.
And lastly, what about the hour and a half you stole from me? I get paid more than two adult tix to Juwanna Mann!
End of Rant

2. I D/L a film to see it before it hits the theatres..just silly fun, then I pay to see it and sweep that tiny box off my HD.

3.Lastly, as so many have pointed out, does Lucas REALLY believe people will D/L his DIGITALLY filmed brilliant landscaped films with THX soundtracks and uh....
Just watch them on a 17 inch moniter?
Man, even Star Wars HATERS have to go to the cinema, pay up and see this stuff the way it was meant to seen.

My only rule on d/l'ing is this:
If you keep it, you BOUGHT it. Pay for it by buying two copies of the DVD..enjoy the boot until the real DVD comes out.

And remember, boot quality is subjective, but at these Forums we talk about our expensive HT systems and lack of DTS or incorrect OAR on a DVD with fists raised...how many of you could live with a bootleg quality collection?

Oh, and last Q-
Since people started D/L'ing so horribly, hasn't there been a LOT of 100 Mil hits?
Hasn't DVD purchasing become impulse...
HOW many people own DVD players, and buy these films 'damaged' buy evil D/L'ers?
A lot.

My solution and end of this opinion is this:
You go to the movie...you pay your $10 per person.
At the end of the film, the usher comes in and sells OAR , No Extras DVD's of the film for $15. Inside there is a coupon for a rebate when you buy the 'Official Version'...
They have you at $20 admission and $15 for the DVD....
Which you woul dhave bought or D/L'ed in the time span for the regular release.
You get tou enjoy the film perfectly.
When it hits stores, you buy all the goodies and packaging and commentary, send in your coupon, and get $10 back from that original 'placeholder' DVD.
Ergo, you paid $5-$7 for a LEGIT cut of the film to watch for 6 months and enjoy..about the price of seeing it twice or renting it twice.

Not bad.

Peace!

$tarr

It's great how people try to justify downloading movies when it all comes down to one thing: YOUR STEALING. I don't care how many times you saw it in the theatre or how bad the movie is, both are just excuses. Why don't you just go to the store and shove a few DVDs in your jacket so you can watch 20 minutes of each to see if it's really worth your money or not and then go back to the store and pay for the ones you want to keep...? Nobody here would even think of doing something like this, yet it's the same thing as downloading a movie you don't own.

darkflounder

How is downloading a DVD rip any different than taping a movie off network TV? They usually end up being approximately the same quality? You didn't pay for either?

Downloading some movies has exposed me to movies that I would probably have not known about before. Memento and Fight Club are two movies that I have purchased on DVD (both of them twice for the single and 2 disc sets) that I probably wouldn't have known about if I hadn't pulled them off the net.

Now I use these boards and Netflix to see movies I never would have seen before.

calhoun07

Advertisers pay for network TV, nobody pays for what you download off the Internet. So it's the advertising dollar that's being "stolen" here, and that's the main reason studios want to stop you from downloading. Personally, I think that it's time movie studios and record companies realize the market potential for allowing such downloads and have these options available legally and for free to the consumer at their websites. Do like IFilm or something and have an ad before the actual download starts, let the advertisers pay for it, and everybody is happy. But noooo, we have to get people who just want to say it's stealing instead of being creative and searching out for ways to make it good for both parties.

TheAllPurposeNothing

Ironically, this time of year, the studios go extrememly out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot.

In an effort to get their films promoted for Oscar consideration, they send out DVD screeners of their flicks to Academy voters. And, so, if you know where to look, you can find high quality SVCDs of just released films (Gangs of New York, the Two Towers, Adaptation, etc.). No framing issues...no sound or picture issues. Only a little disclaimer every once in a while popping up on the screen.

But Chuck Heston doesn't want to have to go to the movies...so all the downloaders out there benefit.

From my personal point of view, I pay to see every movie out there, whether I want to or not. If I pay for cable, satellite, or internet access, just about all of the money ends up in the same hands that would get my money if I had just paid to see a movie.
Time Warner collects mucho bucks from me just for HP&TCOS, whether I see it or not (advertisements, cable fees, internet fees, concession stand fees, etc.)

I don't d/l movies (at 56 k, its just not feasible). But would I? You best I would! In my opinion, I'm due it for everytime I have to see that brain-draining, life-draining Fandango ad before a movie.

JMHO, even if its wrong.

PolloDiablo

I have upwards of 150 full length DivX movies on my harddrives, and I'm downloading more at all times. I also go to the movies at least once usually twice a week and purchase between 3-4 DVD's a week. So I think between my frequent trips to the theater and Best Buy the studios are getting more than their fair share of my money. Most of the movies I have downloaded are films I would never pay to see anyway, and if by chance it is a film I enjoy then it is pretty much a sure thing that I'll buy the DVD. I usually don't even attempt to download the movies that are still in the theaters because I know the quality will be horrible and if its a movie I really care about I'd rather have the big screen experience anyway.

teorema

I've been downloading movies for over a year now and LOVE it. The selection is endless, although the time it takes to complete downloading a film can take anywhere from an hour or two to a few weeks. Never mind the films - missed a TV series that you always wanted to see? Just about everything is on the net. I have almost all the episodes of MST3K. Anime, music videos, audio books, computer programs, games, passwords for adult sites - what is offered is endless, but I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this.

As for quality, I don't really care. Mostly I preview films and if I like them then I'll buy them on DVD. I spent many years watching atroctious VHS dubs of European horror films not released in North America so I'm used to horrendous quality.

The big studios probably couldn't care less about me because I'm not interested in 90% of what Hollywood has to offer - whether it's free or not. Well, I did download Battlefield Earth though, just because I wanted to see if it was really as bad as everyone said it was - and it was.

I download mostly foreign or obscure films that the average film buff isn't into anyway. Maybe I'm making excuses for breaking the law but in this case I don't care.

WiccanPagan

it doesn't matter what you download or how much you download. the bottom line is it is illegal. if something isn't on dvd yet, if you missed an eipsode, you are sol. or find a means of getting it legally. almost everything is available on the evil vhs. as well is much of the stuff discussed available in other regions. there is no justification for downloading illegal, yes illegal, content. people who argue tv shows are, they aren't. you know those annoying parts, yeah the commercials, they are paying for those tv shows, and by not suffering through them you are breaking the law. sure you don't have to watch them on tv channel surfing, video tape, but this does not give anyone the right to distribute the material. it is all copyrighted, and yeah copyright violation is a form of fraud (read: felony). bottomline, there is no justification for this act.

Jackskeleton

So what your saying is using Tivo is pretty much the same as doing it illegal.. since you could skip the commercials (and those ad's) and watch it later without owning it on VHS or DVD... right?

I would assume that Downloading a tv show would be the same as taping it or tivo'ing it. You download/tape/tivo it to watch it later. The Illegal activity only comes in play when you try to make a profit off it. So I don't see why mean downloading last weekend's simpsons because I missed half of it (Note I watched half of it on tv..thus getting half the ad's) would be considered an act of illegal activity. I'm not selling or making a profit from it. Not to mention it wont last long on my computer.

Not justification, but just throwing an example out to you that there is a difference between recording/downloading/tivo the program opposed to SELLING it to others. I see no Illegal activity in the what I am doing. Wish to point out a law to me.

Brak55

Interesting news report from today...Hillary Rosen of the RIAA is now making noise that it should be the IP's responsibility to pay for what their customer's do...they should pay for music downloads. It will never fly, but she'll try just about anything. Can Jack Valenti be very far behind?