Firefly Sets Yet Another Record! by 6ixStringJack

Wow. I couldn't disagree more. Hacker cred and counter culture acceptance is all cool and all, but that is it. It doesn't get movies made. No suit sitting in the boardroom is going to say "Let's make a movie so it can be downloaded." Sure it shows it is super popular. Say everyone on the planet downloads it. Still won't make a movie, since all that proves is that fans of the material aren't willing to pay for it. I offer it will acutally have the opposite affect. Wouldn't it be more productive to say that HD-DVD Serenity drove actual HD-DVD hardware sales? That would get a movie made. How will downloading content encourage the makers of the content to make more?

Am I Browncoat? I say I'm a Browncoat and download sites are Badger. Didn't Mal have honor among thieves that Badger didn't have? Didn't he return the medicine at the peril of his life? Shouldn't we buy the movie at the peril of our wallets?

I'm not a hater, and I'm sure none of us are. We all just want more Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:24 AM

GRONIGER

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptainJosh06:
My personaly experience being every DVD I have works fine with me, as I have a multi region DVD player and do not use the PC to watch films.

But I honestly believe that the bringing out of Serenity for Pirates to use will be a blow against Universle who us Browncoats like!

Now us as a Browncoat Community, think long and hard, if we want this planned MMORPG to be released, or maybe to change Joss's mind and bring out another film or TV episodes to finish the Firefly story, then copy right and reducing the pay to Universal and the Serenity/Firefly Actors is not the way.

One thing I have noticed in glancing through this, is there are people out there in the 'verse that will follow the rules - whatever they may be - because they are there. And then there are those that 'Aim to misbehave.'

I would have to be the latter. I won't down load a lot of stuff off the net because I am rather stupid when it comes to that stuff. But, there are plenty of time that I refuse to follow the rules just because they are stupid.

I think that pirating Firefly/Serenity stuff off the net is a tribute to all Browncoat and a stand against an overbearing gov't that has to put rules on every gorram thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:
Wow. I couldn't disagree more. Hacker cred and counter culture acceptance is all cool and all, but that is it. It doesn't get movies made. No suit sitting in the boardroom is going to say "Let's make a movie so it can be downloaded." Sure it shows it is super popular. Say everyone on the planet downloads it. Still won't make a movie, since all that proves is that fans of the material aren't willing to pay for it. I offer it will acutally have the opposite affect. Wouldn't it be more productive to say that HD-DVD Serenity drove actual HD-DVD hardware sales? That would get a movie made. How will downloading content encourage the makers of the content to make more?

Am I Browncoat? I say I'm a Browncoat and download sites are Badger. Didn't Mal have honor among thieves that Badger didn't have? Didn't he return the medicine at the peril of his life? Shouldn't we buy the movie at the peril of our wallets?

I'm not a hater, and I'm sure none of us are. We all just want more Firefly.

Seafort:

Again, folks keep missing the point here. Peer-to-Peer file sharing actually increases sales of entertainment media. Here are some articles about studies made when Napster what at it's height:

http://news.com.com/Study+Napster+users+buy+more+music/2100-1023_3-243
463.html

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-522383.html

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/07/biztech/articles/21naps
ter-study.html

This article:
http://news.com.com/Study+finds+Napster+use+may+cut+into+record+sales/
2100-1023_3-241065.html
actually gives the strongest evidence that this is so, yet the article headline "Study finds Napster use may cut into record sales" makes it sound like just the opposite is true. From the article istelf, I quote:

Quote:
As reported earlier, SoundScan division VNU Marketing tested the theory by looking specifically at sales in stores near universities, where online music has been more widely adopted than in the general public. In those stores, SoundScan data shows that record sales have actually dropped 4 percent in the past two years. In stores near the 67 colleges that have banned Napster, citing an overload on their internal networks, sales have dropped 7 percent in two years.

According to the recording industry's own study, stores located near campuses where Napster was allowed and widely used were better than those at stores near campuses that banned the use of Napster. How can this be if as the article title says, "Napster use may cut into record sales"?

I maintain, that the vast majority of people who use peer-to-peer file sharing are actually very good spending consumers as well! In fact, access to a greater variety of media and a network of like minded people with simliar tastes makes you more likely to spend your money on something than less likely if you ask me. That's just common sense. We are a bandwagon society like it or not.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptainJosh06:

Now us as a Browncoat Community, think long and hard, if we want this planned MMORPG to be released, or maybe to change Joss's mind and bring out another film or TV episodes to finish the Firefly story, then copy right and reducing the pay to Universal and the Serenity/Firefly Actors is not the way.

Sophistry!

We need the game servers to play the MMOG so the risk of putting out a DVD is radically different to that of a MMOG.

Joss is also not pursuing anything on a screen (big or little) with regards to FF/S. So, there is no mind to change when it comes to Joss. All the companies care about it profit. Even if it is a small profit, all they care about is profit. As long as they get it, they're happy. Risk is a very bad thing these days for the movie industry and we've proven to them, even with downloading, they'll make some (or do you honestly think that no-one has downloaded the DVD version of the series or movie?). Now the ball is in there court.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:41 AM

@Seafort32:

Hyperbole can be used to make a point, but it absolutely cannot be used as an argument. Try again.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:47 AM

MACAVITY

. . . Heh, I was just about to post a similar article from El Reg (which can be seen here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/hd-dvd_crack/ ) in the News section. Good thing I checked over here first!

Now, while I pwersonally don't think pirating movies is a good idea - and especially not the Big Damn Movie - I still think that the cracking of the HD-DVD's encryption is extremely shiny.

Just goes to show that no matter how hard you try . . . you can't stop the signal!

"First come smiles, then come lies. Last is gunfire." - Roland Deschain, gunslinger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:49 AM

@Razza:

And as I recall, total sales actually increased after Napster was widely adopted. But, total sales started to go down after the industry took a heavy hand. Apparently they haven't learned a lesson from this. Namely, that you don't bit the hand that feeds.

IMO, they are just pissed that after having a monopoly on distribution for as along as they've existed, the consumer now has the power to make that monopoly to go away. And now those aged bastards are fighting the only way there narrow little minds know how, legally. Well, as the consumers have shown, they can sue and sue and sue, and we'll keep downloading.

I pity them.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I pity them.

I agreed with every word until here. I cannot find it my heart to pity anyone this stupid and obstinate.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:29 AM

Ok, so I'm trying to make a point I guess...

I'm just not a fan of taking something that you should pay for.

If Napster and such actually increase sales then why is the record industry trying to prosecute the biggest offenders? Why am I now getting anti-pirate advertisements on some of my DVD's? If peer-to-peer is good for business, why aren't they promoting it? My uncle is a musician and is is PRO downloading. He wants the record companies to go out of business. Anecdotal, I admit.

A big difference between the music industry and the movie industry is the cost. If the record industry goes down the tubes, we will all still have music. It takes almost next to nothing to make music and post it. Movies take $100's of millions (depends on if it is a romantic comedy or Star Wars, true). So if you can show me how the movie execs think that pirating movies is a way to get a return on their investment, then I'll see how that'll get us another Firefly flic. Until then I'm not to keen on it.

I don't want this to devolve into a flame war. So if this starts to get hot I'm out, btw.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:
I don't want this to devolve into a flame war. So if this starts to get hot I'm out, btw.

Seafort:

We all hate (well most of us anyway) flame wars, so I'll promise not to let it devolve into that.

I'm afraid I can't convince you that "..movie execs think that pirating movies is a way to get a return on their investment..." because they don't. That's the problem! They are so blind and stupid to what is virtually staring them in the face that have stuck their head in the sand rather than deal with it. The movie entertainment business is a billion dollar industry. The industry is not in any trouble of going broke because a small minority of peer-to-peer users don't spend money on movie products. As I've said, people who use peer-to-peer networks do in fact buy movies and DVD's. There is evidence to support the supposition that they buy more than non users in fact. I have a large DVD collection and I have also downloaded movies online. Why is it so hard to believe that someone would download a movie, enjoy it, and then want a DVD of it? Is the movie company worried that if they get it free and don't like it they won't buy it? That speaks more to the product they produce than anything else. If they provided us an opportunity to download it as a rental at a reasonable price and let us watch it once you might have a case. They don't give us this option, however, and why is that?

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:
...No suit sitting in the boardroom is going to say "Let's make a movie so it can be downloaded."

because these empty suits sitting in a boardroom are blind to a distribution model which costs virtually nothing and widely desired by consumers. Doesn't make that distribution model invalid, just the empty suits stupid.

Quote:
Sure it shows it is super popular. Say everyone on the planet downloads it. Still won't make a movie, since all that proves is that fans of the material aren't willing to pay for it. I offer it will acutally have the opposite affect...

Except this makes the assumption that people who download the movie for free will never in fact purchase the DVD. What evidence do you have to support this huge assumption?

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:59 AM

MACAVITY

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I pity them.

I agreed with every word until here. I cannot find it my heart to pity anyone this stupid and obstinate.

Myself, I pity them because they're stupid and obstinate.

If they weren't so blinkered, we wouldn't have had the hoo-ha with the original Napster and all the file-sharing services that sprang up when Napster went down - instead, they would have said something like "We like your idea, but the way it's executed leaves something to be desired. Would you mind if we formed a partnership to make this a profitable enterprise?"

Instead, though, they went and sued, which got people's dander up and led to the whole DRM-DMCA-CSS-AACS-etc. mess.

There are very few things I'll buy from mainstream entertainment companies - and Doctor Who, Torchwood, and just about anything related to Firefly and the BDM top the list - so most of my money goes to indie groups and labels.

Part of the reason is that the independents in the business are more concerned with keeping their customers happy than they are with the bottom line (because, after all, the happier your customer is, the more likely you are to keep him, and the more likely he is to give you his money).

Another part of the reason is that most of the mainstream stuff is . . . well, to call it trash would be an insult to the trash.

But mostly . . . well, what kind of browncoat would I be if I didn't support the independents?

"First come smiles, then come lies. Last is gunfire." - Roland Deschain, gunslinger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 12:06 PM

MOONSHINER

Well, I don't even possess an HD DVD player, nor an HDTV. The market for HD DVD hasn't really kicked off yet. I don't see any danger in this release leaking onto the internet

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PM

Razza,

Ah! Ok, here we get to the root. We are talking about two different things, I think. Reality and Perception.

You are talking about Reality. Do downloads help or hurt? I browsed through the study you cited and that made it seem to even out or be slightly positive in favor of downloads. Napster did get shutdown at least for a while, so there are probably studies supporting the suit's point of view. I'm not going to argue that one way or the next.

I'm talking about Perception. The suits perceive that downloads are bad, they will cut into profits, and so they will not make a movie that won't make tons-o-cash. They will ignore Reality no matter how much it makes sense. We've all met those kind of people, eh?

Until someone banks on Reality and builds a movie studio around the idea that free downloads are a good thing, we need to deal the Perception that they are a bad thing.

So that's why I won't download that HD-DVD version of Serenity. As a Browncoat who wants to see more sequels I need to be sensitive to that Perception...at least until you start up a movie studio ;) Then I'll download your movies for free!

Thanks for the discussion!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:52 PM

69RDRNR

How many HD-DVD owners didn't buy Serenity? Serenity was the first I bought! My real question though is why pirate the HD-DVD...to watch it on your computer? I think that the benefit of HD is somewhat lost on smaller screens. How many people are willing or able to connect their PC to a bigscreen TV. Honestly if you want a "free" version of the movie you are probably better off with the SD version which most people would be capable of watching on whatever display they have. I seriously doubt that someone would watch the HD version and like it without liking the SD version. If you want to argue that it might make HD-DVD more accessible and encourage people to buy into the format, I could see that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:26 PM

IVY

We can connect our PC to our big HDTV. We do not own a HD DVD player yet - because we are sitting it out to see what format "wins". As soon as we purchase a HD DVD player, you can be sure Serenity will be purchased the same day.

As I said earlier in this thread, I've purchased about 10 copies of the regular Serenity DVD.

If the movie industry wants to sell more HD DVDs, maybe they should stop all this nonsense with 2 formats.

ugh - I'm too old for all of this. I remember the VHS/Betamax wars....

Ivy

I've been sane a long while now, and change is good...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 11:35 PM

DARKFLY

Quote:
Originally posted by MightyRoar:
Quote:
Originally posted by babywiththepower:
Well, considering Serenity already made the money Universal said was required to consider a sequel,

Did it? How much has it made, and how much were Universal after?

Serenity made $39,000,000,000(39 million) at the world box office the budget was $40,000,000,000(40 million) & about 5 months ago I heard Serenity on DVD had sold around 700,000 DVDs so by now its probably sold closer to 800,000 DVD's so if you roughly cacualute the cost of a DVD then on DVD Serenity has made about 10-12 million dollars so the movie has made roughly 50-51 million dollars plus then you got merchandise which will probably add another million.

Serenity came out on the first week of being able to buy HD-DVDs & came the no.1 selling HD-DVD that week

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Things are about to get interesting...Define interesting...Oh GOD oh GOD we're all going to die.

Go to

to see my cool trailer.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 19, 2007 9:40 PM

DISCLAIMER: It's 2:40am, I'm tired.

@Seafort32:

You seem to be strangely obsessed with totally free downloading as a business model. No-one here is advocating this. What people are saying is that having the downloading going on that is going on today is (arguably) not actually harming anything. Once you accept that, the discussion will take on a very different colour.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

If Napster and such actually increase sales then why is the record industry trying to prosecute the biggest offenders? Why am I now getting anti-pirate advertisements on some of my DVD's? If peer-to-peer is good for business, why aren't they promoting it? My uncle is a musician and is is PRO downloading. He wants the record companies to go out of business. Anecdotal, I admit.

It wasn't the recording industry that started the ball rolling on the Napster deal. It was Lars Ulrich of Metallica. And he has said some things regarding this issue that... well... he doesn't know what he's talking about. This then raised a "red flag" for the recording industry and they took over from there. Needless to say it went wildly out of control.

You see, these execs have no clue how tech works. They stopped listening at the point in which people said that people could get the music for free. They didn't study the effects of what was going on, nor how prolific it was to see if it was worth going after. They even ignored every study that showed that it may have been a good thing for sales (which it was). They just started suing. After Napster, they went after similar companies and then started suing individuals.

And now after having done all of these things the recording industry would look pretty stupid if they admitted that they were wrong. That and the fact that if they admitted defeat/wrongness/etc, they probably think that it would give the impression that they were giving the ok for downloading.

Basically, they've made such a big deal about it, they can't stop now.

The problem is that every single tactic that they've used has had zero effect of slowing downloading down. In fact, it's arguable that it has increased. Or in other words, the recording industry has widely published a method of "rebelling against the man" to every pissed of teenager that there is.

Oh, and one piece of fud that they recording industry has used to support there conjecture that downloading is hurting sales is that in the past years they've had to lay off employees and there profits have gone down. This certainly is true, but the causes are far from what they say they are. Basically, all you have to do is normalize the economic depression and compare the recording industry to other industries. The results are that the recording industry has actually done the best out of all of them.

Regarding to anti-piracy messages on your DVD's... they've always been there in one form or another. Nothing has changed except for the presentation. And that tends to change over time regardless so this development is rather insignificant.

Your uncle probably wants the recording industry to go out of business because they screw artists. The contracts are always wildly in favour of the label. A good example of this is when TLC filed for bankruptcy shortly after a very successful album release.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

A big difference between the music industry and the movie industry is the cost. If the record industry goes down the tubes, we will all still have music. It takes almost next to nothing to make music and post it. Movies take $100's of millions (depends on if it is a romantic comedy or Star Wars, true). So if you can show me how the movie execs think that pirating movies is a way to get a return on their investment, then I'll see how that'll get us another Firefly flic. Until then I'm not to keen on it.

You're posing the question in a way that tells me that you aren't really willing to listen. But, I'll assume that I'm wrong and give you an answer.

To get the level of sound quality it required 10's of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, with maintenance and monthly rent costs. But, at that level, I'm probably very much low balling it.

If you don't want to spend money on building a recording studio yourself (really who does this?), you're probably looking at about $100/hr as a low figure for studio time. Though with expertise comes a much higher price.

Then there's the people who make "suggestions" to the artistes to change there music, the advertising, the people who setup interviews, etc. In the end, it takes millions to get a album out the way the recording industry is currently doing it. So, an album in actuality comes at a much higher price ten what you're implying.

Also, do you not think that downloading music is rather more an issue with them than just one guy/gal spreading a couple copies of one album. There entire way of doing things is under attack. They are fighting to stay in the dark ages with regards to distributing music. The sad thing is that they've already lost, they just don't know it yet.

Another thing that has exasterbated this "problem" is the "music" that is being produced today.

I remember when I heard a song on the radio, liked it and bought the album. I remember when it was rare that I didn't like most of the other songs on that same album. Bang for my buck so to say.

Today, I like a song on an album, and chances are, that one song is going to be one of the few songs on the album that I like (if not the only one). Basically, no bang for my buck.

The consumer is now demanding to try before they buy. This is something that isn't going to go away. This is something that the recording industry is just going to have to accept. No amount of suing and/or new laws and/or harsher punishment is going to make people stop. The recording industry is just going to have to suck it up and make this model work for them. Otherwise, they'll die.

Other companies have made it work and people have seemed to take to it e.g. iTunes.

Movies are somewhat different but also the same.

The movie industry has produced crap for years which has resulted in people not going to the theatre as much. There has also been a surge in home theatre systems which has further reduced profits (btw, the movie industry has lobbied for an extra tax on home theatre systems, custom or otherwise) as people are just waiting for the DVD to come out.

There's also the whole fact that if this "problem" was as bad as you're saying, or the industry is saying, it would have collapsed years ago.

With regards to cost of making a film, it isn't as much as you might think. You see, a lot of movies are made in California which has ridiculous fees when it comes to shooting locations. Also, companies that work out of California charge ridiculous fees because they have to pay ridiculous rent and pay ridiculous salaries because homes/appartments cost a ridiculous amount of money. You might note that movies save millions by shooting not in California.

Basically, a lot of the cost is artificial.

You also don't seem to realize that a bunch of friends can make a cheap movie that is actually pretty good. To Know A Jedi is a fan film which I believe was made for about a grand. You can view it in its entirety here:

Basically, it's again the try before you buy as the consumer now has the power.

But in both cases it is clear that the industries no longer has a monopoly of distribution, etc. The consumer is now the one with the power.

Now if you were an aged company that feared change and had your monopoly taken away, how would you react? You would do exactly what they are doing right now. That is, to convince (read: brainwash) everyone you can so that they are on your side. Problem is, too little, too late.

All I know is that we are needing large industries (e.g. recording, Hollywood) less and less and they don't seem to like that idea. And that is what you are seeing today.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 20, 2007 2:59 AM

Ok, I think we are at the agree to disagree part of the conversation.

I don't agree or disagree with anything you are saying regarding actual or potential damage to any industry.

I'm not trying to argue that downloads "actually" hurt or help. I'm just trying to point out that the suits "perceive" that they hurt, and make decisions based on that perception. It is that perception I worry about as a Browncoat.

You are arguing reality, and I'm arguing perception. Though some say that perception is reality...whatever.

For fear of opening up another can of worms, I have heard CDs made by a guy in a 10x10 shack with a few thousand dollars of equipment. Indistinguishable from pros. Age of the digital and all that.

But any hoo. I concede that you just may be right about downloads having no actual or material hurt. Do you see my point that the suits think it hurts and make decisions based on that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:39 AM

What the movie industry and recording industry needs to do is hire virus hackers to sabotage pirated materials, then when everyone who downloads would get a little 'bonus'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 21, 2007 6:34 AM

PINBALLWIZARD

I'm not a fan of piracy, especially in the case of the BDM. But I think the fact that someone has already broken the newest anti-piracy code is

hilarious.

No, I am not insane, I am crazy. Thank you for asking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 21, 2007 6:58 AM

DONCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by KJ:
What the movie industry and recording industry needs to do is hire virus hackers to sabotage pirated materials, then when everyone who downloads would get a little 'bonus'.

Ironically, Sony/BMG did the exact opposite. They placed a rootkit (virus) on their legitimate CDs that infected legitimate users. What's more, when they got caught they released an "uninstaller" for it that was, itself, a virus. Google "Sony rootkit" for the full story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm pointin' right at it!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 21, 2007 7:35 AM

CEDRIC

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

To get the level of sound quality it required 10's of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, with maintenance and monthly rent costs. But, at that level, I'm probably very much low balling it.

If you don't want to spend money on building a recording studio yourself (really who does this?), you're probably looking at about $100/hr as a low figure for studio time. Though with expertise comes a much higher price.

With regards to cost of making a film, it isn't as much as you might think. You see, a lot of movies are made in California which has ridiculous fees when it comes to shooting locations. Also, companies that work out of California charge ridiculous fees because they have to pay ridiculous rent and pay ridiculous salaries because homes/appartments cost a ridiculous amount of money. You might note that movies save millions by shooting not in California.

Basically, a lot of the cost is artificial.

You also don't seem to realize that a bunch of friends can make a cheap movie that is actually pretty good. To Know A Jedi is a fan film which I believe was made for about a grand.

Sigmanunki,

I agree with you that downloading actually increases sales, even though this seems counterintuitive.

However, your comparison of the movie and music industries is way off. For one thing, you compare big studio recording with fan films--the two are not equivalent. A more accurate comparison would be to compare independent music with independent film. I know by experience that making a sellable indy album is far less expensive than making a sellable indy film--Done The Impossible cost far more to make than On the Drift. And I believe both are typical in terms of production cost for indy products.

As for who builds their own studio--a lot of musicians do. The Brobdingnagian Bards sell thousands of CDs a year, all produced at their home studio. My own band rents a studio that is in a friend's house. It's not that uncommon.

*rant warning--not directed at Sigmanunki*
By the way, while we're all talking about how piracy is noble because it strikes back at big industry--let's remember that data pirates do not discriminate: My own indy music is on Limewire, without my permission. It's not there because someone thought, "Man, those Bedlam Bards are getting rich off of overcharging for their music; I'm gonna take them down." If they thought that, they need to be locked up for insanity. It's not there because someone thought, "People should be able to sample this music before they buy." After all, I've made it possible to download nearly half the album for free anyway, and you can hear samples of every song online. Hell, I want people to hear my music for free; it increases sales. What bothers me is that the folks at Limewire didn't even ask permission. It's not noble; it's rude.
*rant over*

"Some things stay with you, 'til the day you die."
On the Drift: Music Inspired by Firefly and Serenity, now on sale at
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bedlambards/from/celtic

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:42 AM

SAMEERTIA

At 19.6 gig?
Okeee... doing the math...
I can...
a) rent from Blockbuster for $3.00
b) buy from Amazon for $14.99
c) buy on special order from my local video store- $19.95

OR I can take forty-five minutes to download a 19.6 gig pirated movie...

My regular salary as a manager comes to about 18.50 an hour... at forty-five minutes download at average connection speeds with my laptop...that means that I'm 'spending' roughly 15$ salary to get a pirated copy of a film that I could order off of Amazon for the same price, or could rent from Blockbuster five times over.

I'm not seeing the monetary benefit here. But then, I'm wierd that way. Plus, I have issues with stealing. *shrug*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

I'm not trying to argue that downloads "actually" hurt or help. I'm just trying to point out that the suits "perceive" that they hurt, and make decisions based on that perception. It is that perception I worry about as a Browncoat.

But, suits only care about the bottom line. So, in suit language:

Suit 1: Ug, movie make money.
Suit 2: Ug, you right, make money
Suit 1: Make more money. Make more movie.
Suit 2: Ug.

Basically, when it comes down to the decision to make a movie, they only care about the bottom line. If it's in the black, more movie. If not, no more movie. As Michael Moore has said, they only allow him to continue making movies because he makes them money. What else would fund him to make movies that are actually fight /against/ the industry.

The downloading issue is a side issue that they deal with separately. And arguably, they don't have the mental capacity to keep all these things in mind when considering whether to green light any particular movie.

So, as long as enough people buy it for it to be profitable, all is well and good with the world.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

You are arguing reality, and I'm arguing perception.

But, in this case they aren't even an approximation; they are pretty much opposites. Sure suits make decisions based on there perceptions, but in the case of downloading those decisions are not really linked to green lights. Though they are linked to the lawyers that will sue the downloaders if they are caught. But, that's pretty much the extent.

Basically, if they make money they are happy. If they perceive something is taking away money, they will go after the people that they think are "costing" them money regardless of the reality of the situation.

They are pretty much separate issues in the industry.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

For fear of opening up another can of worms, I have heard CDs made by a guy in a 10x10 shack with a few thousand dollars of equipment. Indistinguishable from pros. Age of the digital and all that.

Shiny, what album?

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

Do you see my point that the suits think it hurts and make decisions based on that?

As basically stated above, yup

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by KJ:
What the movie industry and recording industry needs to do is hire virus hackers to sabotage pirated materials, then when everyone who downloads would get a little 'bonus'.

Are you aware of how many laws this would break? A wrong + a wrong does not equal a right.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DonCoat:

Ironically, Sony/BMG did the exact opposite. They placed a rootkit (virus) on their legitimate CDs that infected legitimate users. What's more, when they got caught they released an "uninstaller" for it that was, itself, a virus. Google "Sony rootkit" for the full story.

For that matter, it actually damaged people's PC's. Which, as I recall, how they got caught in the first place. At any rate, very illegal.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

With regards to cost of making a film, it isn't as much as you might think. You see, a lot of movies are made in California which has ridiculous fees when it comes to shooting locations. Also, companies that work out of California charge ridiculous fees because they have to pay ridiculous rent and pay ridiculous salaries because homes/appartments cost a ridiculous amount of money. You might note that movies save millions by shooting not in California.

Basically, a lot of the cost is artificial.

You also don't seem to realize that a bunch of friends can make a cheap movie that is actually pretty good. To Know A Jedi is a fan film which I believe was made for about a grand.

...snip...

However, your comparison of the movie and music industries is way off. For one thing, you compare big studio recording with fan films--the two are not equivalent.

I actually wasn't comparing them. I only made mention to show that we can make pretty good movies for VERY cheap i.e. technology is making the industry less and less viable. At least less viable they way it is currently being run.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

A more accurate comparison would be to compare independent music with independent film.

Not really.

It's all about in industry A it cost X money to do what industry A does. Then, some Joe makes what industry A does for ridiculously little money, especially by comparison. When considering the quality of Joe's work, it's pretty damn good even compared to what is produced by the industry.

That's really that the litmus test is for whether it's worth it or not.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

As for who builds their own studio--a lot of musicians do. The Brobdingnagian Bards sell thousands of CDs a year, all produced at their home studio. My own band rents a studio that is in a friend's house. It's not that uncommon.

Not that uncommon, and prolific are two very different things. What I was getting at was that comparing how many bands there are v.s. how many people build there own studio, the ratio is rather low.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

What bothers me is that the folks at Limewire didn't even ask permission. It's not noble; it's rude.

Are you sure that they had a choice? Perhaps some guy using there software put it there. I doubt they check every file that gets put on there network. They probably don't even know it's there.

It might be the same problem that Napster came into after the recording industry got after them. Namely, that it is impossible to filter songs when the upload is use controlled. So, they might not be trying.

A friendly email might go a long way if you really want to get those songs taken down.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:47 PM

As far as the album, it was a children's album done for charity. Done by the front man from the "Presidents of the United States of America" Chris Ballew. They had a few hits a few years ago (Kitty, Peaches). I have a copy, but I won't burn it ;) at his request. Wants all the money to go to charity. Pretty good stuff if you have kids and are sick of the Disney stuff. He also did the theme song to the Drew Carey show, "Cleveland Rocks" in the same little studio, and produced some other bands' music. He says the hard part isn't quality recording, it is who you know to get it distributed, and the Internet really evens out the playing field.

Anyhoo. I was arguing exactly what you said that the perception and reality could very well be opposites. I can't buy that the suits don't care about downloads, and only the lawyers do. If the music industry is against it then the movie industry will be too. The difference is the download size and access to broad band. Music is very small, and people download just a song at a time. Fast, easy, lots of volume. A movie is huge! 10+gb for a HD version. The movie industry probably isn't as vocal because people just aren't doing it...yet. More broadband, more movie downloads, more noise and lawsuits from the movie industry. I think that perception (wrong as it may be) that downloads cut into profits is real. That perception will have a real affect on what movies will be made if it is thought nobody will buy it, just download it.

This is getting really far off from actual reality at this point, and veering way into the hearts and minds of people who run a business that I really can only make guesses about.

My personnel choice is to pay for anything I care about to make sure they make more of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 4:14 AM

MICJWELCH

I never would have bought Firefly if I hadn't been able to download it first.

"We may experience some slight turbulence, and then... explode."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 9:59 AM

CEDRIC

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B
Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

What bothers me is that the folks at Limewire didn't even ask permission. It's not noble; it's rude.

Are you sure that they had a choice? Perhaps some guy using there software put it there. I doubt they check every file that gets put on there network. They probably don't even know it's there.

It might be the same problem that Napster came into after the recording industry got after them. Namely, that it is impossible to filter songs when the upload is use controlled. So, they might not be trying.

A friendly email might go a long way if you really want to get those songs taken down.

Hmmm. Do they have a choice about hosting illegal copies of copyrighted material? Yeah, I think they do. And the people who put it up there definitely had a choice about it.

And as for a friendly email to Limewire--no one at Limewire responded when I contacted them. So do you think the sites where we can download the HD Serenity would stop making it available if someone at Universal wrote them a polite email? Interesting theory.

"Some things stay with you, 'til the day you die."
On the Drift: Music Inspired by Firefly and Serenity, now on sale at
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bedlambards/from/celtic

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:46 PM

If someone found a way to remove 1/10th of a cent from your paycheck, how many 1/10th's could you afford to overlook?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:37 AM

So fail to realize several things:

a) Joss doesn't make a lot of money, true he ain't starving, but you not stealing from Ben Affleck either.

b) This DOES hurt the chances of a sequel or anything else Joss wants to do. If movie executives believe his fans are not just pirates but pioneers of piracy, they will be even more unlikely to OK a project he might want to do.

c) I manage a video store, and i can see first hand that piracy does effect sales. For instance: When "The Benchwarmers" finally showed up on pirate bay, our sales dropped 20% in the subsequent 3 weeks.

I polled random customer at my store (boredom sets in quickly).

Say 500 people DL Serenity. Only about 10% are likely to still buy that movie. 20% say they would have purchased the movie anyways but see no point in it since they already have it. So instead of selling 150 copies you sell only 50 copies. Now imagine that on a large scale. Is that hard proof that pirating this dvd is gonna ruin Joss? No. That was a little poll at one blockbuster over about a weeks time. But it shows from peoples own mouths the possibility that it could. What REAL fan would want to chance that? A real fan could buy a copy of the movie and GIVE it to someone, and ask, if you like it, do the same. Thats what i have done. I have purchased 11 copies, and about half of those people purchased extra copies and gave it to someone else. That is helping Joss. Not DLing it.

Im not againt piracy, let me repeat, I AM NOT AGAINST PIRACY.

I am just against pirating Joss' work. I would think any of his true fans would think that too. To say not paying for Joss's work really supports it is stupid, especially when it make so little money to begin with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

I can't buy that the suits don't care about downloads, and only the lawyers do.

I never said that they didn't care. I only said that downloading and green lighting movies were separate issues. It's that the front lines of the battle is not done by the execs, but by the lawyers. And it's the execs that command the lawyers.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

If the music industry is against it then the movie industry will be too.

And they've said as much.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

The difference is the download size and access to broad band. Music is very small, and people download just a song at a time. Fast, easy, lots of volume.

Actually that's not true. People do not download a song at a time. In fact, not only do they download whole albums at a time, but whole discography's are common on BT sites.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

A movie is huge! 10+gb for a HD version. The movie industry probably isn't as vocal because people just aren't doing it...yet. More broadband, more movie downloads, more noise and lawsuits from the movie industry.

Again wrong. Movies are not huge by any stretch of the imagination. Common sizes are 700MB and 1.4 GB. This isn't big.

Also, it is common to have shrunk DVD's available for download (4.37 GB) and it's becoming more and more common to see full DVD's available (7-8GB). People don't really blink at these sizes anymore as HDD sizes are getting quite large (as in 250GB+) for cheap.

There is also the fact that the more people in the swarm that are uploading/downloading, the faster people get the files. Bittorrent is very scalable. There's also the little fact that one can start a torrent and walk away. All that needs to happen is for the computer to remain on and connected to the internet. So, what does it matter if it takes 10 minutes or a couple weeks or more?

For that matter, the whole point of this thread is that people are doing it now!

I would imagine that the movie industry isn't being very vocal on the issue because they are letting the recording industry take the lead. Not only does this let the recording industry take most of the legal fees on this issue, it also allows the movie industry to largely avoid the... negative public opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

I think that perception (wrong as it may be) that downloads cut into profits is real. That perception will have a real affect on what movies will be made if it is thought nobody will buy it, just download it.

I never said that the perception that downloads cut into profits wasn't real.

But, risk analysts will largely decide what gets made and what doesn't. And they take into account history into the equation. If movies of a certain type, with a certain audience, have shown to be profitable, and the historical profit margin shows that it will make money, then the movie will be made. Or at least it would be put into the "not really a risk" category and the execs get to choose which ones they think will make the most money.

In all honesty, I really think that you are putting way too much emphasis on the impact on downloading. It has been going on for years with very little impact on what gets green lit or not. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

My personnel choice is to pay for anything I care about to make sure they make more of it.

That is my opinion as well. My only question that I have to you is, how do you know what you care about unless you take a look first?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

Hmmm. Do they have a choice about hosting illegal copies of copyrighted material? Yeah, I think they do. And the people who put it up there definitely had a choice about it.

Actually, if they don't know about it the asking if they have a choice in the matter is moot. To make a choice, one must know that the question exists.

And we aren't talking about the people who put it up there, we are talking about Limewire itself.

I know that this is probably an emotional issue for you, but we do have to look at it rationally. Otherwise, the conversation will degrade rapidly.

So, how exactly does Limewire work? Is it like Napster so they actually host the files themselves? Or is it like Kaaza, so they don't? A quick google says it is the latter (Limewire is Gnutella compatible):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnutella

Limewire doesn't actually host the files themselves, it is the user that does that. Also, how searching works, Limewire servers might not even be contacted and even if they are, the file transfer is negotiated between the node that has the file(s) and the node that wants them. So, Limewire is "out of the loop" again.

Technologically speaking, Limewire can't really stop what's going on aside from banning users if they find copy-righted material on there computer(s). But, again this isn't really possible as who's to say what's copy-righted or not? One cannot determine this by purely examining the file. It takes someone to point it out.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

And as for a friendly email to Limewire--no one at Limewire responded when I contacted them. So do you think the sites where we can download the HD Serenity would stop making it available if someone at Universal wrote them a polite email? Interesting theory.

Interesting. You're inferring that what I've asked of what you've done, applies to others as well. This is not the case. Every situation is different.

First off, are you sure you contacted the correct department? Did you call them personally? Did you contact them or did your lawyer? Companies seem to react better to lawyers than "just some Joe." How many contact attempts were made? etc.

Secondly, any BT site that might host HD Serenity is a very different beast. As in, they are NOT a company. Though from time to time, there are a great number of these sites that get shutdown. Companies like Universal are actually quite hard at work.

Basically, they aren't asked. Those sites get a cease and desist with the threat of getting sued. We all remember the whole t-shirt fiasco from just a couple months back, right?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:11 PM

@Pongluver:

My god, where do I start.

You fail to realize something, where you work is quickly becoming an antiquity. Or do you think that things like NetFlix don't have an impact on your bottom line? Also, what other factors what there beside a movies showing up on a BT site that might effect sales? Because, I got to tell you, as soon as a movie becomes available to the general public, hours later it's on the net.

I got a question for you. What kind of math are you using? 30% of 150 is 45 not 50. What kind of stats are you using? Likely are probably do NOT translate to an actual sale. The actual hit to the industry is not decided by what people think they'll do, but what they actually do.

Basically, a poll done over a week at a store where people have gone to rent a movie is hardly representative of the population in general. Not to mention that only a percentage of that 30% would actually buy it IF you take what they say at face value. That's just stats 101.

"""
A real fan could buy a copy of the movie and GIVE it to someone, and ask, if you like it, do the same.
"""

Bullshit! A real fan loves what they are a fan of. This typically goes along with buying merchandise from whatever they are a fan of, but not necessarily. Some people just don't have the money to spend.

But, to say that because I didn't buy copies to give away to other people makes me not a "real fan" is ludicrous and, quite frankly, offensive.

"""
That is helping Joss. Not DLing it.
"""

It only helps Joss IF Joss gets money from each sale. And even then, only if the DLing replaces a sale. An argument can be made that it would help the series, but if that was true, we'd have season 2 (the DVD sales are quite impressive).

"""
To say not paying for Joss's work really supports it is stupid, especially when it make so little money to begin with.
"""

Actually, since no-one here said this, it makes you stupid for say this.

EDIT: It actually does support it in a way. It lets people know that it is popular. Please note that one can support someone in more than one way.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:40 PM

Lets pay attention instead of barking out stupid comments.

Sales of dvd's make studios money which in turn makes them more likely to fund any projects Joss if they view him as being someone who can make them money. TO help Joss doesn't mean it has to go directly in his pocket.

Its 30% of the 500 people who download it. Read the WHOLE paragraph next time. And i believe i stated that it was not a scientific poll, but it WAS from the mouths of actual people and does represent to a degree (albeit small) what an average person might do.

SO before making asinine statment's you should finish you homework.

also....

6IXSTRINGJACK said and i quote "Piracy gives you a choice to support what you really like. Piracy of CDs and DVDs is like giving people a vote as to what they like and support".

So before calling someone stupid, make sure you aren't making yourself look stupid.

btw

Quote:
"Bullshit! A real fan loves what they are a fan of. This typically goes along with buying merchandise from whatever they are a fan of, but not necessarily. Some people just don't have the money to spend.

But, to say that because I didn't buy copies to give away to other people makes me not a "real fan" is ludicrous and, quite frankly, offensive."

Any REAL fan can find a way to save up 13 dollars for a DVD. And i didn't say you HAD to buy other people copies to be a real fan, don't put words in my mouth. I said a real fan COULD, as in find another way BESIDES pirating to pass the word on. Hell, you could bring your own copy of it and let someone watch it. The same purpose is fulfilled. There is always another way other than possibly hurting sales of something you are supposed to be a fan of. THAT is my point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:04 AM

LOCRAY

had it not been for piracy, I would not be here and would never have seen serenity in the first place and would then never have BOUGHT firefly (after I downloaded and watched it).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:33 AM

Locray, in response to you, i believe that piracy will bring in some people, like yourself. Those people are in the 10% i eluded to earlier. There are several shows i fell in love with through piracy i'd have never seen otherwise (Roswell, Veronica Mars, Dead Like Me). I bought them all. My Concern is the others who would not follow the same path you apparently have. I myself have several friends who have (to my chagrin) downloaded Buffy and Angel, and Dig them, but see no point in buying them now that they have them on server. Be honest, THAT is far more common with the average pirate that what WE have done. THAT kind of thing is why i don't support this. I know for a fact, that my friends would buy the series if they couldn't download them. Like i said, i'm NOT against internet piracy. I AM against pirating the work of someone we are supposed to be fans of and who needs every DVD sell possible as it is. The main point most here seem to say is, "There is NO PROOF Piracy Hurts DVD Sales". True, but there is also no proof that it doesn't either. MY point is, we are supposed to be the most loyal fans in existence right now, how could we support something that could POSSIBLY hurt the very thing we are supposed to be fans of?

I'm not saying don't pirate. Hell, pirate to your hearts content. I am DL-ing music as i type this. I am saying that perhaps we shouldn't promote pirating "OUR" verse, because it might bite us on the ass later. If it can POSSIBLY, even a fraction of a percent, hurt Joss or his future projects, as a fan i have to say its not worth it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pongluver:
Locray, in response to you, i believe that piracy will bring in some people, like yourself. Those people are in the 10% i eluded to earlier. There are several shows i fell in love with through piracy i'd have never seen otherwise (Roswell, Veronica Mars, Dead Like Me). I bought them all. My Concern is the others who would not follow the same path you apparently have. I myself have several friends who have (to my chagrin) downloaded Buffy and Angel, and Dig them, but see no point in buying them now that they have them on server.

Pong:

Would have bought the "several shows" you fell in love with had you not found them through piracy? Maybe, but probably not because you wouldn't have known about them. Okay, your cheap friends didn't buy once they pirated. I got news for you! They never would have bought in the first place! Even if they had been given a copy of the DVD's by a friend and pirating were non-existant. The net result of your own arbitrary poll is that sales were increased from consumers who never would have otherwise wasted their time thinking about the shows in question.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Pong:
Would have bought the "several shows" you fell in love with had you not found them through piracy? Maybe, but probably not because you wouldn't have known about them.

You see i was agreeing that in SOME CASES piracy CAN open people up to new shows they wouldn't see. Had i ever saw them in a non-piracy setting, yes, i would have still purchased them. Once again, for the THIRD TIME, I am not against piracy. I was conceding that point so i don't understand where you are going with that. You aren't pointing out anything that wasn't covered.

Quote:
Okay, your cheap friends didn't buy once they pirated. I got news for you! They never would have bought in the first place! Even if they had been given a copy of the DVD's by a friend and pirating were non-existant.

I got news for you, they would. I actually KNOW them. My friends liked those shows BEFORE they dl'd them, those were just SUPPOSED to tide them over until they could buy them. Now they see no point in buying them. So i dont understand your basis for this asinine statement.

Quote:
The net result of your own arbitrary poll is that sales were increased from consumers who never would have otherwise wasted their time thinking about the shows in question.

And in reading my arbitrary poll, you are assuming that none of them had ever heard of the movie. That was never said, in fact all of the people i counted in the poll has SEEN the movie. So your deduction of the sales increase is once again, wrong. 3 for 3, good job.

I am frankly amazed by the comments made by people here without fully reading (or at least comprehending) the posts they are commenting on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pongluver

You see i was agreeing that in SOME CASES piracy CAN open people up to new shows they wouldn't see. Had i ever saw them in a non-piracy setting, yes, i would have still purchased them. Once again, for the THIRD TIME, I am not against piracy. I was conceding that point so i don't understand where you are going with that. You aren't pointing out anything that wasn't covered.

For someone who isn't against piracy, you sure seem to have a problem with it! If you aren't against it why are you insulting me and others in this discussion so vehemently? Is Joss' work somehow more sacred than every other artists work out there?

Quote:
I got news for you, they would. I actually KNOW them. My friends liked those shows BEFORE they dl'd them, those were just SUPPOSED to tide them over until they could buy them. Now they see no point in buying them. So i dont understand your basis for this asinine statement.

Since your friends didn't in fact buy them, perhaps you didn't know them as well as you thought. Sorry for calling them cheap, but if the shoe fits... No need to call me asinine :(

Quote:
And in reading my arbitrary poll, you are assuming that none of them had ever heard of the movie. That was never said, in fact all of the people i counted in the poll has SEEN the movie. So your deduction of the sales increase is once again, wrong. 3 for 3, good job.

I am frankly amazed by the comments made by people here without fully reading (or at least comprehending) the posts they are commenting on.

Actually, you never said they had seen it before, so I'm not sure how I was suppose to divine that fact from your post, but no biggie. I suspect that the 20% that said "..they would have purchased the movie anyways but see no point in it since they already have it.." wouldn't purchase even if they didn't have it. In any case, since they had seen it before downloading it, the poll isn't very indicitive of some of the assertions that myself and Sigmanuki have been proposing.

Namely, that people who would never have otherwise watched and fallen in love with the show did so as a result of DLing it, and then unlike your friends, actually purchased it. Posts by Micjwelch and Locray earlier in this thread, my own personal experience, as well as some of the research I posted earlier support that assertion.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:25 PM

I have a problem with calling yourself a fan of someones work then actively interfering with its success. And i never called you asinine. I said your statement was. Considering i know my friends spending habits and know that movies/shows they haven't been able to download they have purchased in the past. I have no problem calling them cheap. They are. And the was no need to divine....... or perhaps derive is the word? IT was relevant only if the argument you tried to bring was brought. I am not waging war on piracy. I am waging war on people who call themselves fans, but aren't dedicated enough to spend 13 bucks on a DVD. That's not a fan. Thats not respectful to the verse. Thats not a Browncoat.

You ask is Joss' work more sacred than everyone else's?

Yes. I am a fan. In the truest sense if the word. I watched Buffy/Angel/Firefly from day one. I truly believe if you a really a fan of someones work, then you have no right to steal it. Especially in the Jossverse, where things get canceled so easily. When every DVD sale counts SO MUCH. I cannot fathom how a real browncoat would ever support it. Do i care if you pirate from George Lucas. Hell No. But on a site dedicated to someones creation, to openly support STEALING IT!?

That is insane.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pongluver:
I have a problem with calling yourself a fan of someones work then actively interfering with its success. And i never called you asinine. I said your statement was. Considering i know my friends spending habits and know that movies/shows they haven't been able to download they have purchased in the past. I have no problem calling them cheap. They are. And the was no need to divine....... or perhaps derive is the word? IT was relevant only if the argument you tried to bring was brought. I am not waging war on piracy. I am waging war on people who call themselves fans, but aren't dedicated enough to spend 13 bucks on a DVD. That's not a fan. Thats not respectful to the verse. Thats not a Browncoat.

You ask is Joss' work more sacred than everyone else's?

Yes. I am a fan. In the truest sense if the word. I watched Buffy/Angel/Firefly from day one. I truly believe if you a really a fan of someones work, then you have no right to steal it. Especially in the Jossverse, where things get canceled so easily. When every DVD sale counts SO MUCH. I cannot fathom how a real browncoat would ever support it. Do i care if you pirate from George Lucas. Hell No. But on a site dedicated to someones creation, to openly support STEALING IT!?

That is insane.

Ahh, now I understand. You are a TRUE fan and everyone else who disagrees with you are low life scum who couldn't possibly be fans. How very self righteous of you. I see now that piracy isn't the issue at all, only your belief in your own superiority over all other fans of Joss' work. As a fan, I humbly disagree with you, but since I'm not a TRUE fan it doesn't really matter does it?

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:54 PM

OPERATIVE1985

as much as I love Serenity and Firefly, i really am not going to even try to download a 20gb rip of Serenity in HD. I plan on buying the HD-DVD drive for the xbox 360 and buy serenity. Does anyone know what special features are on the HD version of Serenity?

"I already know you will not see reason" - The Operative
_________________________________________________
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature
_________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:51 PM