MovieChat Forums > Downloaded (2013) Discussion > Well - I just downloaded this.

Well - I just downloaded this.


I download pretty much everything, I have done for the past 15 years. If something is worth watching again I'll go out and buy the DVD, the CD, the Game or whatever format it's on. If it's crap in my own opinion then I won't bother.

I was at a market recently and they were giving out free samples of various continental food i.e cheeses, olives you get my drift.. Anyway I ended up buying around £25 worth ($30-something) - Kind of a prime example of what millions of people do with the way P2P file sharing works these days. We're in 2013 and just as Homosapien evolved in to the "Internet Savvy Pirate Consumer bla bla bla" - What the absolute **** are the record companies/movie companies/theatres/cinemas meant to expect?

We pay extortionate prices to go and watch some half-arsed produced film for £10 and feel cheated for hard earned cash or go and buy an "artists" music for pretty much the same price as a cinema ticket, possibly more.

Time for a new age and these corporations to stop being so greedy.

reply

Thing is, corporations will always try to make money. But I'd say we don't really need them anymore. Artists can promote and sell their own music and find huge audiences online these days, so there's just no need for labels and all these middle-men taking a piece of the cake.
The music industry as a whole might not make as much money anymore, but the actual CONTENT CREATORS will. (Though it'll be shared by much more people, since all artists are able to sell their music. And I think this is a good thing.)

reply

Thing is, corporations will always try to make money. But I'd say we don't really need them anymore. Artists can promote and sell their own music and find huge audiences online these days, so there's just no need for labels and all these middle-men taking a piece of the cake.


Which bands are these? Go ahead, 50 bands in the last 2 years that have sold millions of albums without a label.

Good luck with that. Bands rarely make it big without a label backing them. They may sign with a small label, as opposed to Warner or Universal, but the difference in exposure with/without a label is huge.

Love 'em or hate 'em, Mumford and Sons wouldn't be where they are without Glassnote, which is pretty small label.

I know indie bands, and they struggle. They put out incredibly good albums and when they can afford to, they tour in small clubs playing to small audiences and hope to sell a few CDs to pay for the gas to the next gig. That's INDIE.

I can promise you the ones that are totally independent would generally like to have a label's backing. It'd mean they could quit waiting tables and do nothing but music. They can't, because most people are too cheap to buy the CD, when they can just stream it on Spotify (woohoo they sent a check for $0.75) or simply d/l it off the web and pay nothing.

That's reality. Hell even those that make it without a label (ex: Kopecky Family Band) have an immediate jump when a label is backing them. Suddenly they're on late night TV shows, MTV websites, NPR and so on.

reply

Well... name 50 artists from the last 2 years making more money than their bosses (an artist with a boss... that's sad) at a label (who btw did not create much).

reply

You know what?
I never used Napster, because I'm from a third world country, but I thank them, because now that bands doesn't make any money through records, they MUST tour to have some money, and thanks to that, MILLIONS of people from third world countries are getting the chance to see their favourite artist live (and thanks to reunion tours, too).
Yes, we are ripped-off by some producers (like the ones who put our local version of Lollapalooza), but at least we have the chance to see the bands, and decide if we want to get robbed by the producers of the show.

When the horrible right-wing military dictatorship ended here in my country, I bought all the CDs from the Pixies. I was (am) a HUGE fan. The CDs were all imported of course, and very expensive, but I saved money from my scholarship.
Thanks to the current situation, they played here back in 2010, original line-up.

Please excuse my terrible redaction, english is not my native language IMDb = Catch-22

reply

This is a load of rubbish. DVDs and Blu-Rays are cheap...maybe not in Britain, but that's because of the very high taxes you pay (which pays for all the services your government provides).

Looking at it in the U.S., a typical CD costs between $10 and $14. For reference, that's less than a CD cost 25 years ago. If you adjust for inflation, it's much less.

Movies are more expensive, in theaters, but the price of a movie on disk is the same, or less than it was at any other time (not counting when they're sold as loss leaders, which is what etailers did throughout the late 90s early 2000s).

If you don't like a movie, you have yourself to blame. Read a review. It's not that hard to figure out what movies you'll like and which you won't. Sure there will be an occasional movie where you get it wrong, but using that logic, if you go to a restaurant order some food you've never had and dislike it, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

The reality is that people buy less of the music they like. They do buy from bands they absolutely love, but if you're a band that the person just likes a bit, they'll download your music and never buy it, though they will listen to it every now and then.



reply

How ironic!

In the 90s, under Clinton, the US was in a state of its greatest prosperity since the 50s. There was no mass-downloading in 1995, for example. But that was okay because most people could afford the discretionary spending.

Fast-forward to 2013 (or anytime since those extremists stole the election) and where is the US today? Since 2001, it's been going backwards in many respects -- not just financially.

So in these times of minimum wage being viewed as a blessing, the hide of corporates manufacturing scarcity is doubly ridiculous. They took the artistry out of the art! They're cynically selling us old rope in the form of remake after remake!

And they're still making a killing doing it.

A disc is cheaper and easier to manufacture, duplicate and ship than a VHS tape. Same for CD vs vinyl or cassette tape. Same for software, even more so for DLC. Music, movies or games: these are all just zeros and ones because they chose to cut production costs at every step.

So yes, they SHOULD be much cheaper than 20 years ago!

reply

It's DL hello!

reply

You proudly boast about downloading whatever you please, enjoying whatever products you want, paying only when you feel like it. Then you have the audacity to accuse the industry you're exploiting of being greedy?

Hypocrisy.

Markets may give you free samples of olives and cheese, but you don't get to take a car load of any products in store, free of charge, to eat first and then decide if you want to pay for it later.

Pirating films and music is not the same as sampling olives. Not even close. It's more like if you were to do your week's grocery shopping, and then walk out of the store without handing over a cent, eating and enjoying all of the products you just acquired at your leisure, and THEN contemplating whether or not you feel like giving something back to the people you just stole from.


If you want to sample a film before deciding whether or not you want to see it, there are these things called trailers, some call them previews, and there are written reviews that you can read online as well. You do not have the right to acquire, possess, and view the whole film before deciding whether or not you want to pay (if you feel like it).

Piracy is an abomination and a spit in the face of everybody who works hard creating the content you so recklessly steal. People with bills to pay, families to feed, children to clothe and educate. From production to publishing, catering, to marketing, to distribution, to retail, and everything in between. Your downloading is an assault on every single one of them.

The problem is, people like you seem to think they can take whatever they want, whenever they want, with no regard for the working people behind the products you so willfully thieve. Filmmakers and artists have a right to be paid for their work, just like anybody else in a job, even the workers at your local super market. Do you have a job? I'm sure you expect to be paid for the work you do too, right?

Your own selfish desire to be entertained freely comes at the cost of sweat and tears of others. You're in no position whatsoever to accuse any corporation, big or small, of greed. The next time you're in a furniture store, find a mirror, pay real money for it, and then look into it for a while.

reply

Filmmakers and artists have a right to be paid for their work

-They are. The studios pay them, THEN whatever the product takes in goes back to the studio. And guess what, they make more every year than the year before! Why do you think a movie can lose money (ignoring the shell game studios play with budgets/profit reports) then get a sequel the next year? It's because studios don't look at it as a movie by movie basis, but the year as a whole. Like I said, profit goes up every time.

The most recent study says piracy takes about one third of one percent of profits away, it's such a minimal number they couldn't even attribute it SOLELY to piracy. Also studies show pirates spend more on media than those who don't download material, so the whole argument is invalid anyway. The rest of your post is basically you spouting the same lies the RIAA has been screaming for decades now. and is not even worth commenting on.

Consider this: how the most downloaded AND the most profitable movie of all time be the same movie? Also what about the bands/movies that piracy helps? Music/movies, just like ANY art, is for the people, not profit.

I can google a picture of the Mona Lisa and stare at it for hours without paying the artist or even the museum that houses it. I can test drive a car before purchase. Why shouldn't equality be awarded to different mediums?



"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon

reply

Indeed. Musicians, historically, don't even make much from record sales. The bulk is made from touring/performing. Good music can be monetized easily on the internet. 1 million Youtube hits nets you ~$1000 in ad revenue; I'm not sure about Spotify-- and you get to keep the rights. Unlike, say, Paul McCartney, who has to pay royalties to perform early Beatles numbers.

___
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpUWrl3-mc8

reply

Pirating films and music is not the same as sampling olives. Not even close. It's more like if you were to do your week's grocery shopping, and then walk out of the store without handing over a cent, eating and enjoying all of the products you just acquired at your leisure, and THEN contemplating whether or not you feel like giving something back to the people you just stole from.
It's not like driving off with a truckload of food, because stores tend to notice things like that. A better analogy would be something like the Star Trek replicators. All you need is to get hold of a single olive and scan it. It doesn't matter if you paid for the olive or not; replication without the owner's consent is the definition of copyright piracy.

Also, I wouldn't call piracy an abomination. It may be wrong in most senses but it's also here to stay, so it
s best when artists come to terms with the fact. As for the record labels, well, they provided what was once an indispensable service but now they've become dispensable, and that's the fact that they will have to accept.

And to the OP who is referencing the piracy of movies, all this applies to movies, video games, and all content yet to come.

reply

The thing I always liked about places like Napster and the like was simply that you could get things that you can't get in stores. I'm not talking about pre-releases or leaked copies, that kind of thing. I'm talking about albums from 20 years ago that no one sells anymore that the only way you can get them is places like napster. Napster opened the doorto the internet and let in Itunes, Spotify and Pandora... they took the hit to get music out there that we can't get, it amazes me still that they did so much and yet no one in the industry would probably give them the credit owed

reply

That's true. Pretty much all of my napster downloads were rare or alternative copies of songs that were only released on a B-side in Asia or Australia or live versions of songs.

Pearl Jam played a cover of Mother Love Bone's "Cloe Dancer/Crown of Thorns" in 2000. There was no where to get this song in 2000 other than Napster. No versions were officially released by the band until 2001.

While the version I got off Napster was someone's own recording, it obviously was not professionally recorded, it led me to buying the official live album which contained a higher quality version of the song.

I'm sorry I don't speak computer-ebonics, please type in English.

reply



Back then, we used to copy cassette-to-cassette, that was the only way here in my country to get actual good music. Here we lived under a cruel right-wing military dictatorship, and hundreds of films were banned (even Fiddler on the Roof (1971)!) and most bands wasn't distributed here.
Now is way easier for the young people, they don't have to wait until someone get the cassette or vhs from another country, they just type something on their browsers.

Please excuse my terrible redaction, english is not my native language IMDb = Catch-22

reply