Expendables 3 leaked three weeks before release. What can be done to counter this?

Agent Coulson

Lionsgate has filed a lawsuit against 10 anonymous individuals the studio alleges were responsible for illegally sharing a high-quality copy of “The Expendables 3″ three weeks before its theatrical debut.

The studio is seeking unspecified monetary damages for contributory copyright infringement, and seeks to block the operators of several cloud-storage and torrent-sharing websites from linking to or distributing the poached copy of the action film.

In addition, Lionsgate’s lawsuit demands that the defendants, identified as John Does 1-10, turn over all digital copies of the film, including hardware like servers that contain pirated copies, and that they be barred from continuing to operate the websites.

http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/lionsgate-sues-pirates-over-expendables-3-leaked-internet-copy-1201273600/

Potatoeman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You do realise that pirating a film doesn't hurt the huge stars but rather those who work in the industry and earn a wage. On any given set, there will be very few people earning huge amounts of money. Most, including established actors such as Peter Coyote, Tom Berenger and so on would earn a fraction of what Cruise and Downey Jr. would. A lot was made of the fact that Jonah Hill was only paid $60,000 for his role in The Wolf of Wall Street but that's what most actors would take home for a role. It's those people who suffer thanks to piracy as well as all the technicians who work for a weekly salary. Most people involved in the film industry are not millionaires but rather just people like you and I, they work to put food on the table and if enough people pirate a film that a studio decides not to go forward with a film then they suffer.

Here's an interesting letter that Peter Coyote wrote to highlight the differences in earnings between the A-listers and every other actor on set.

These people get a flat wage. They dont get a share of the profit so its the studio/label that would lose out.
The quote seemed to be more about the lack of power these people have negotiating pay.

I dont feel the slightest bit of sympathy for this industry. They have failed to move with technology and been left behind. Look at examples of other industies that have provided online services and you see that even now they are living in the dark ages.

Potatoeman

Potatoeman wrote: »

These people get a flat wage. They dont get a share of the profit so its the studio/label that would lose out.
The quote seemed to be more about the lack of power these people have negotiating pay.

I dont feel the slightest bit of sympathy for this industry. They have failed to move with technology and been left behind. Look at examples of other industies that have provided online services and you see that even now they are living in the dark ages.

And what happens when productions are put on hold or cancelled due to piracy. It's not Brad Pitt and the like who will suffer but those on a wage. Hollywood has been moving with the times, granted they've been slow but they are catching up. VOD is taking off in a huge way and studios are making smaller, more niche titles available digitally before they hit a cinema.

Potatoeman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And what happens when productions are put on hold or cancelled due to piracy. It's not Brad Pitt and the like who will suffer but those on a wage. Hollywood has been moving with the times, granted they've been slow but they are catching up. VOD is taking off in a huge way and studios are making smaller, more niche titles available digitally before they hit a cinema.

It might be too late as people are used to getting these for free now. Netflix is the type of model they should have gone for.

Look at steam for a good model of online sales.

I dont believe production is being put on hold for anything due to piracy. These studios greatly exaggerate its impact. People download things they would never buy and these companies trot out figures pulled from thin air.

Potatoeman

Potatoeman wrote: »

It might be too late as people are used to getting these for free now. Netflix is the type of model they should have gone for.

Look at steam for a good model of online sales.

I dont believe production is being put on hold for anything due to piracy. These studios greatly exaggerate its impact. People download things they would never buy and these companies trot out figures pulled from thin air.

We all know that the figures often quoted are exaggerated but there's no denying that piracy harms the industry. And the only type of people used to getting thigns for free are scum, to say that the average person expects everything for free is wrong. You use Steam as an example of a model that works but it really only works becuase of other sites offering Steam keys for cheap. I doubt Steam would be as popualr if everyone had to pay Steam prices.

Potatoeman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We all know that the figures often quoted are exaggerated but there's no denying that piracy harms the industry. And the only type of people used to getting thigns for free are scum, to say that the average person expects everything for free is wrong. You use Steam as an example of a model that works but it really only works becuase of other sites offering Steam keys for cheap. I doubt Steam would be as popualr if everyone had to pay Steam prices.

You had two options an illegal free service and an inferior expensive legal service. This has contiued for years now where the industry is trying to still stop pirates and not looking at their own model. Make it cheap, reliable and of a decent quality and people will pay.

Theres a great webcomic where a guy tries to legally download game of thrones. He tries going the legal route and hits wall after wall then goes to an illegal site and gets it immediatley. Its an example of how bad the current legal way of getting certain media is.

Edit: Steam have their own sales too. They just provide a good service though they should be cheaper for new titles as you dont get a physical copy.

Potatoeman

Potatoeman wrote: »

You had two options an illegal free service and an inferior expensive legal service. This has contiued for years now where the industry is trying to still stop pirates and not looking at their own model. Make it cheap, reliable and of a decent quality and people will pay.

Theres a great webcomic where a guy tries to legally download game of thrones. He tries going the legal route and hits wall after wall then goes to an illegal site and gets it immediatley. Its an example of how bad the current legal way of getting certain media is.

Edit: Steam have their own sales too. They just provide a good service though they should be cheaper for new titles as you dont get a physical copy.

If there was a streaming service offering the latest releases then the monthly price would be ridicolous, you'd be looking at 50 euro a month. It simply isn't feasable and even if such a service existed it wouldn't apply to films in cinemas and as such there would still be people downloading leaks such as this. Anyone looking for the latest releases at a good price can find them on amazon, itunes or one of the other services offering VOD but the simple fact of the matter is that a lot of people simply won't pay for it no matter how cheap or easily accessed it is.

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

We all know that the figures often quoted are exaggerated but there's no denying that piracy harms the industry. And the only type of people used to getting thigns for free are scum, to say that the average person expects everything for free is wrong. You use Steam as an example of a model that works but it really only works becuase of other sites offering Steam keys for cheap. I doubt Steam would be as popualr if everyone had to pay Steam prices.

Little confusing here, but the "steamkey sites" only came about, due to the popularity of steam itself as a platform.

It's new releases pricing models arn't very enticing, but the steam sales generate millions of customers flocking to the service and buying what is outragously good bargains, but generating revenue for the developers and publishers, mostly on games well past their sell by date.

Steam key websites, were created and developed to jump on the back of Steams success, and who's operation is based from buying keys cheaper through currency differences, and hoping to sell enough of them onto customers to make profit. So a re-seller website might buy a bulk of keys in say Us Dollar, then being able to sell them cheaper to a Euro customer, and sell in enough bulk to flip a profit.

Steam is an excellent example of a platform that looked at a problem, identified a demand with the customer base, and went ahead an supplied it. It's now a model a number of big publishers are following and copying and Digital Delivery is now very much accepted and the norm in the gaming indsutry ( albeit pricing can leave a lot to be desired). But it's moved the trends on, and brought about a standard, that wasn't there ten years ago.

Also you might want to elaborate on that scum remark. Are you outlining people that get things for free are scum, or that people who expect things for free are scum? "Used to getting things for free, are scum". That's a pretty open ended statement that probably needs more refinement to be fair.

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone looking for the latest releases at a good price can find them on amazon, itunes or one of the other services offering VOD but the simple fact of the matter is that a lot of people simply won't pay for it no matter how cheap or easily accessed it is.

depends what "a lot" is. Of course there are people who will pirate everything and anything because they just won't hand over money for things. Fair enough. But does this portion of the total actually represent a majority, or the minority.

The problem is no one knows, any figures we see are grossly exagerated from whatever type of media organisation are peddling poor mouth. And it doesn't help the situation.

What also doesn't help is the tests they are doing to see if releasing new titles simultanously alongside cinema releases works. The titles being chosen are typicaly low budget, horrible films that have horrendous reviews and critique before they even hit general release, and end up being avoided anyway.

What would be interesting is to see a big title, or eagerly anticipated title, receiving a release same day as cinema, via a Video on demand server, be in amazon, itunes, google play, whatever.

I think they would be pleasently suprised to see the pickup, if they had a simultanous release via a VOD service, with a reasonable price.

When you consider people pay up to €50 for PPV events, and do so in large quantity, I see no reason why people wouldn't spend money to see a film in the comfort of their own home, on the same day release.

Sky release data quarterly on their Box Office stats, and it's normally very impressive. And shows growth year on year. It used to be they would have top titles on the release day of a film simultanous with the DVD release, but now its moving towards being earlier then DVD release, and in some cases only a short while after leaving the cinema.

The pricing has also dropped since it was first introduced, and the varierty and selection has multiplied rapidly. I think it's only like €5 now to grab a film on box office and you've unlimited viewing for like 48 hours or something.


Hulu, Itunes, Amazon, Netflix, Sky now Google with Play. There is quaterly growth year in year out in these services of both revenue and membership numbers. But the film indsutry is too often trying to hold on board the gravy train, and not embrace the change that their customers want. And what they want is competitive pricing, but most importantly choice.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

Little confusing here, but the "steamkey sites" only came about, due to the popularity of steam itself as a platform.

It's new releases pricing models arn't very enticing, but the steam sales generate millions of customers flocking to the service and buying what is outragously good bargains, but generating revenue for the developers and publishers, mostly on games well past their sell by date.

Steam key websites, were created and developed to jump on the back of Steams success, and who's operation is based from buying keys cheaper through currency differences, and hoping to sell enough of them onto customers to make profit. So a re-seller website might buy a bulk of keys in say Us Dollar, then being able to sell them cheaper to a Euro customer, and sell in enough bulk to flip a profit.

Steam is an excellent example of a platform that looked at a problem, identified a demand with the customer base, and went ahead an supplied it. It's now a model a number of big publishers are following and copying and Digital Delivery is now very much accepted and the norm in the gaming indsutry ( albeit pricing can leave a lot to be desired). But it's moved the trends on, and brought about a standard, that wasn't there ten years ago.

Also you might want to elaborate on that scum remark. Are you outlining people that get things for free are scum, or that people who expect things for free are scum? "Used to getting things for free, are scum". That's a pretty open ended statement that probably needs more refinement to be fair.

My scum remark really doesn't need any more refinement. People who have gotten used to getting thigns for free and expect them to be so are scum. If you pirate then you are the problem and no matter how you justify it you are scum.

We're all aware of how Steam works but Steam's monopoly on the market saw them raise prices beyond what anyone was used to paying. PC games traidionally had a lower price point but since Steam grew in popualirty the price of games bought through the service has risen and the sales, which were once one of the services best features are now just a pale imitation of what they once were.

There already exists a number of services like Steam that cater to film. We have amazon and itunes to name but two and yet people still pirate. You yourslef chose to pirate Locke rather than hold off a week or so and legally watch it through one of the services.

TheDoc wrote: »

depends what "a lot" is. Of course there are people who will pirate everything and anything because they just won't hand over money for things. Fair enough. But does this portion of the total actually represent a majority, or the minority.

The problem is no one knows, any figures we see are grossly exagerated from whatever type of media organisation are peddling poor mouth. And it doesn't help the situation.

What also doesn't help is the tests they are doing to see if releasing new titles simultanously alongside cinema releases works. The titles being chosen are typicaly low budget, horrible films that have horrendous reviews and critique before they even hit general release, and end up being avoided anyway.

What would be interesting is to see a big title, or eagerly anticipated title, receiving a release same day as cinema, via a Video on demand server, be in amazon, itunes, google play, whatever.

I think they would be pleasently suprised to see the pickup, if they had a simultanous release via a VOD service, with a reasonable price.

When you consider people pay up to €50 for PPV events, and do so in large quantity, I see no reason why people wouldn't spend money to see a film in the comfort of their own home, on the same day release.

Sky release data quarterly on their Box Office stats, and it's normally very impressive. And shows growth year on year. It used to be they would have top titles on the release day of a film simultanous with the DVD release, but now its moving towards being earlier then DVD release, and in some cases only a short while after leaving the cinema.

The pricing has also dropped since it was first introduced, and the varierty and selection has multiplied rapidly. I think it's only like €5 now to grab a film on box office and you've unlimited viewing for like 48 hours or something.


Hulu, Itunes, Amazon, Netflix, Sky now Google with Play. There is quaterly growth year in year out in these services of both revenue and membership numbers. But the film indsutry is too often trying to hold on board the gravy train, and not embrace the change that their customers want. And what they want is competitive pricing, but most importantly choice.

There have been numerous examples of big films released in theaters and on VOD on the same day and it's generally been that the VOD viewing figures only make up a small percentage. When you factor in the cost of some of the major blockbusters, then it simply doesn't make sense for the studio to offer them on VOD at the same time as theaters. Especially when you consider that if a studio did so then every major theater chain in America would refuse to screen their film.

The film industry has embraced change, that you can get pretty much any film bar the blockbusters on VOD at the same time if not before they hit theaters. What you seem to want is for the studios to offer up something like Guardians of the Galaxy for a couple of euro on VOD the same day it opens in cinemas, that or have a streaming service like Netflix which has all new releases. If they were to do so then you'd be paying a hell of a lot of money each month, it simpy isn't a service that could be sold at an affordable price.

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

My scum remark really doesn't need any more refinement. People who have gotten used to getting thigns for free and expect them to be so are scum. If you pirate then you are the problem and no matter how you justify it you are scum.

Heavy remark, but you can have your opinion on it. I'm sure your not far of calling me part of organised crime

We're all aware of how Steam works but Steam's monopoly on the market saw them raise prices beyond what anyone was used to paying. PC games traidionally had a lower price point but since Steam grew in popualirty the price of games bought through the service has risen and the sales, which were once one of the services best features are now just a pale imitation of what they once were.

Well thats your opinion and feel, and I'd agree that the pricing platform for new releases has indeed increased. But I don't think is specifically down to steam. As many publishers have indicated in the last two years, they feel it's justified retailing PC games at comparable pricing to console games, albeit still holding a lower retail price. Especially for the A grade titles. Steam don't always directly outline the pricing, they have agreements with large publishers to retail at the price they outline.

Especially with most top tier titles being cross-platform, publishers see more logic in raising the price of PC games, to a certain degree I understand that, I dont like it, but from a business sense I can see why they do it, especialyl considering the PC vesions are typically more powerful.

There already exists a number of services like Steam that cater to film. We have amazon and itunes to name but two and yet people still pirate. You yourslef chose to pirate Locke rather than hold off a week or so and legally watch it through one of the services.

There is always going to be people who do. While I have Netflix and make purchases through other digital distribution, I still pirate, for sure. But I'd probably be swayed when offerings become more ample here and in the European market. I used to Pirate music all the time, I havn't done so in years since the arrival of services like Spotify.

I don't pirate in the sense of "two fingers to the man" like some people do, and I don't do it because I can't afford to pay for things. I mostly pirate because I don't want to wait for things.

It's also worth remembering a lot of people illegal download because they dont want to wait. I actually don't download a lot of movies. Most of my downloading is TV shows. In most cases they havnt been picked up by a channel to be shown here, or are a week or in some cases months behind. Thankfully some of the bigger stuff is aired next day, but as I'm sure anyone who has social media can appreciate, you can be best off wathcing ASAP to avoid spoilers.

There have been numerous examples of big films released in theaters and on VOD on the same day and it's generally been that the VOD viewing figures only make up a small percentage.

What examples? The only examples I've seen have been of mediocre films, that have been slated before release, where people just avoided them anyway from their bad intiial reviews.

I don't recall a genuine "big" film, or a film with a good draw in recent memory where I could VOD on theatrical release.

What you seem to want is for the studios to offer up something like Guardians of the Galaxy for a couple of euro on VOD the same day it opens in cinemas, that or have a streaming service like Netflix which has all new releases. If they were to do so then you'd be paying a hell of a lot of money each month, it simpy isn't a service that could be sold at an affordable price.

I don't see why there can't be a model whereby same day release can be had in a style not so dissimilar from PPV. Using Netflix as the distribution method, or even studios making their own platform, giving consumers a choice.

The actual price is subjective and obviously everyone would have their say. But lets just hypothetically say there was a day one VOD available for €10.

Someone in my situation would probably jump on that. I'm not too keen on the film, it looks ropey. The misses thinks it looks dog rough. Now while we debated this above, for us to go see this would be €20 to ticket exlcuding consumables, but who are we kidding for me it comes to €40. Because this doesn't look to our taste, we are going to give this a miss.

If it was available day one for €10 VOD? Happily purchase to watch it. For some it represents no better value then going to the cinema itself, but in other situations it does. But irregardless it would probably generate more passive purchases.

As I said, no interest in seeing this, nor does she. But if we are sitting there struggling to think of what to watch, could be something we could go for since it's new and we could avail of it straight away. Studio generates incomes from somewhere it never would have come from traditionally.

ps3lover

This thread sure got derailed! Can't we just talk about how EX 3 is destined to flop at the box office?

TheDoc

ps3lover wrote: »

This thread sure got derailed! Can't we just talk about how EX 3 is destined to flop at the box office?

It most definitely will. Because of piracy? Definitely.

But is it because the film was available for download and everyone has seen it and won't bother? Or because people saw it, and saw it was ****E, and arn't going to dispense with their money to see it in the cinema?

No doubt piracy is the common denominator, but I think it is more because it's garbage.

No doubt there financial impact when a GOOD COPY is available for illegal downloading, but there has been plenty of GOOD films that had copies avaialble before release, that went on to do well.

I think thought this a rarer occurrence then people realise. Outside of award season, it's rare to get a really good copy of a film online. But even as award season shows you, when there is guaranteed DVD quality copies available, if a film is good, it will get its just deserts.

I'd be interested to know the impact on TV moreso then film when it comes to pirating, and what impact it has. There is HD quality copies of TV shows available within 6 hours of a shows first airing, and yet they go from strength to strength.

The last season of GOT smashed all the numbers for illegal downloads per episode, yet its budget is increasing season on season, it's revenue going up, and new seasons being signed up for.

I'm interested to know why this happens for TV, where illegal downloading nearly pushes a TV show higher and higher, yet for movies it can have adverse impacts.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

Heavy remark, but you can have your opinion on it. I'm sure your not far of calling me part of organised crime


Well thats your opinion and feel, and I'd agree that the pricing platform for new releases has indeed increased. But I don't think is specifically down to steam. As many publishers have indicated in the last two years, they feel it's justified retailing PC games at comparable pricing to console games, albeit still holding a lower retail price. Especially for the A grade titles. Steam don't always directly outline the pricing, they have agreements with large publishers to retail at the price they outline.

Especially with most top tier titles being cross-platform, publishers see more logic in raising the price of PC games, to a certain degree I understand that, I dont like it, but from a business sense I can see why they do it, especialyl considering the PC vesions are typically more powerful.


There is always going to be people who do. While I have Netflix and make purchases through other digital distribution, I still pirate, for sure. But I'd probably be swayed when offerings become more ample here and in the European market. I used to Pirate music all the time, I havn't done so in years since the arrival of services like Spotify.

I don't pirate in the sense of "two fingers to the man" like some people do, and I don't do it because I can't afford to pay for things. I mostly pirate because I don't want to wait for things.

It's also worth remembering a lot of people illegal download because they dont want to wait. I actually don't download a lot of movies. Most of my downloading is TV shows. In most cases they havnt been picked up by a channel to be shown here, or are a week or in some cases months behind. Thankfully some of the bigger stuff is aired next day, but as I'm sure anyone who has social media can appreciate, you can be best off wathcing ASAP to avoid spoilers.


What examples? The only examples I've seen have been of mediocre films, that have been slated before release, where people just avoided them anyway from their bad intiial reviews.

I don't recall a genuine "big" film, or a film with a good draw in recent memory where I could VOD on theatrical release.




I don't see why there can't be a model whereby same day release can be had in a style not so dissimilar from PPV. Using Netflix as the distribution method, or even studios making their own platform, giving consumers a choice.

The actual price is subjective and obviously everyone would have their say. But lets just hypothetically say there was a day one VOD available for €10.

Someone in my situation would probably jump on that. I'm not too keen on the film, it looks ropey. The misses thinks it looks dog rough. Now while we debated this above, for us to go see this would be €20 to ticket exlcuding consumables, but who are we kidding for me it comes to €40. Because this doesn't look to our taste, we are going to give this a miss.

If it was available day one for €10 VOD? Happily purchase to watch it. For some it represents no better value then going to the cinema itself, but in other situations it does. But irregardless it would probably generate more passive purchases.

As I said, no interest in seeing this, nor does she. But if we are sitting there struggling to think of what to watch, could be something we could go for since it's new and we could avail of it straight away. Studio generates incomes from somewhere it never would have come from traditionally.

But would you happily purchase it for €10 on VOD? You could easily have gotten Locke for a couple of euro through a number of VOD services this month but you chose to steal it. Surely if you were a fan of film and looking for a way to legally support the industy as you imply then you would have looked at a low budget film such as Locke and waited.

In the US most films bar the blockbusters are available through VOD at the same time as cinemas. I got Wolf Creek 2 on amazon the week it came out in cinemas and saw Rob the Mob at the same time as it was released in US cinemas, that's a film which has yet to get a release anywher eover here. Blockbusters and hundred million dollar releases don't get such a release due to the fact that if they did, cinema chains would refuse to show the film.

TheDoc wrote: »

It most definitely will. Because of piracy? Definitely.

But is it because the film was available for download and everyone has seen it and won't bother? Or because people saw it, and saw it was ****E, and arn't going to dispense with their money to see it in the cinema?

No doubt piracy is the common denominator, but I think it is more because it's garbage.

No doubt there financial impact when a GOOD COPY is available for illegal downloading, but there has been plenty of GOOD films that had copies avaialble before release, that went on to do well.

I think thought this a rarer occurrence then people realise. Outside of award season, it's rare to get a really good copy of a film online. But even as award season shows you, when there is guaranteed DVD quality copies available, if a film is good, it will get its just deserts.

I'd be interested to know the impact on TV moreso then film when it comes to pirating, and what impact it has. There is HD quality copies of TV shows available within 6 hours of a shows first airing, and yet they go from strength to strength.

The last season of GOT smashed all the numbers for illegal downloads per episode, yet its budget is increasing season on season, it's revenue going up, and new seasons being signed up for.

I'm interested to know why this happens for TV, where illegal downloading nearly pushes a TV show higher and higher, yet for movies it can have adverse impacts.

You think that had people loved the film that they would have gone see it in the cinema? Somehow I doubt that. You see it happen on here every year, people download the screeners and talk about how much they love them but have no interest of paying to see the film again.

You can't compare piracy of TV shows to films. TV shows are made and sold in a drastically different manner to films, TV traditionally makes it's money in advertising and is the reason why a critically acclaimed show on basic cable can be cancelled if people don't watch. Harry's Law did big numbers a few years back but the viewrship was made up of older people and not the coveted 18-40 or so bracket advetisers crave.

With Game of Thrones you have a show that's on a paid channel and customers pay a premium for access. The show is then sold around the world and I remember reading the sales of the show worldwide was quite a bit more than what it cost to make the show. When you consider that then you can understand why piracy isn't that big a deal for them.

ps3lover

I think the bad word of mouth that's coming out from people who have watched the leak will hurt it.
I've seen a few positive reviews for EX 3 but most of them have been terrible.

Potatoeman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But would you happily purchase it for €10 on VOD? You could easily have gotten Locke for a couple of euro through a number of VOD services this month but you chose to steal it. Surely if you were a fan of film and looking for a way to legally support the industy as you imply then you would have looked at a low budget film such as Locke and waited.

In the US most films bar the blockbusters are available through VOD at the same time as cinemas. I got Wolf Creek 2 on amazon the week it came out in cinemas and saw Rob the Mob at the same time as it was released in US cinemas, that's a film which has yet to get a release anywher eover here. Blockbusters and hundred million dollar releases don't get such a release due to the fact that if they did, cinema chains would refuse to show the film.



You think that had people loved the film that they would have gone see it in the cinema? Somehow I doubt that. You see it happen on here every year, people download the screeners and talk about how much they love them but have no interest of paying to see the film again.

You can't compare piracy of TV shows to films. TV shows are made and sold in a drastically different manner to films, TV traditionally makes it's money in advertising and is the reason why a critically acclaimed show on basic cable can be cancelled if people don't watch. Harry's Law did big numbers a few years back but the viewrship was made up of older people and not the coveted 18-40 or so bracket advetisers crave.

With Game of Thrones you have a show that's on a paid channel and customers pay a premium for access. The show is then sold around the world and I remember reading the sales of the show worldwide was quite a bit more than what it cost to make the show. When you consider that then you can understand why piracy isn't that big a deal for them.

Wouldnt the obvious solution be to create a better model. As the price per hour of movies is pretty expensive.

TV in the last few years has passed out many movies in terms of quality but still are looking for premium prices.

Illegally downloading TV is just as illegal as movies. You can argue as much as you want about the impact it has but its just as illegal.

I think part of the problem now is that its easier and free to get things illegally and any service offered will be expensive as these companies wont offer a single account solution. They are fighting to hold onto their own bussiness model rather than adapting. Wouldnt it be better to make even two euro off something online than nothing?

TheDoc

Potatoeman wrote: »

I think part of the problem now is that its easier and free to get things illegally and any service offered will be expensive as these companies wont offer a single account solution. They are fighting to hold onto their own bussiness model rather than adapting. Wouldnt it be better to make even two euro off something online than nothing?

I don't believe that making viable alternatives and solutions would remove piracy. The problem really is there is no accruate data in terms of piracy. It's either inflated or exagerated stuff from the film industry, or purposefully under the mark figures and reasons from piracy groups.

I'm suprised a film studio hasn't had a survey or something actively seeking responses from people who pirate films to gauge what exactly is the purpose of their piracy. While the obvious answer is people wanting stuff for free, there might be large segments with reasons that the film studio can address.

But Darko has made good points in that while the film indsutry is slowly adapting and modernising the way they work and their models, there really isn't a magical remedy or strategy that will simply wipe piracy out of existence. Unfortunately because its become so easy to do, and so widespread, I think it's lost some of the force behind the fact it's an illegal activity. As in people don't take it as serious as maybe it should be.

I could also understand their reluctance to make great strides in terms of providing customers some solutions, that require the studios to make investment, when it might not actually make a difference with people still pirating.

But then I guess that goes back to maybe gathering some accurate data. I don't think it's as clear cut as "want X for free" in terms of piracy anymore. It was once, but I don't think it's as single reasoning anymore, and that there is a host of reasons why people do it.

I do think as a whole there has been a massive misdirection in regards piracy and the actual crime being committed, in that people simply don't accept the illegal task they are performing. I know most people get a good laugh in regards those pre DVD infomercials about " you wouldnt steal a car" or " your directly funding organised crime" and maybe because they are so sensational it simply detracts from the fact there is truth in it.

Not sure how you deal with that either. In all the years I've been on the internet, I've only ever met one person who got any form of legal documentation for illegal downloading. One person. And when he was summoned to court it was struck out.

Obviously the focus has been on trying to strangle at source, but I'd be interested to know the numbers around people who have been successfully prosecuted here in Ireland relating to illegal downloads.

TheDoc

ps3lover wrote: »

I think the bad word of mouth that's coming out from people who have watched the leak will hurt it.
I've seen a few positive reviews for EX 3 but most of them have been terrible.

that seems to be the most damning indication alright. Oddly enough there has been a few reviews done from critics who actually downloaded the copy to get out an early review. Not sure if 100% true, but there was some stories doing the rounds of some critics receiving court summons as they seemed to have a review out before any scheduled press screenings. Silly on their part mind you, but I'm not sure if this is actually true.

IvaBigWun

Deleted User wrote: »

My scum remark really doesn't need any more refinement. People who have gotten used to getting thigns for free and expect them to be so are scum. If you pirate then you are the problem and no matter how you justify it you are scum.

As usual your views on movie pirating are completely and utterly ridiculously fúcking over the the top. May I remind you that you once told me via PM how to watch different regions of Netflix.

But wont this harm this industry and it's inflated income?!

The horror!

The horror! :eek:

Here's what a scumbag is http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/woman-who-stabbed-18-month-old-girl-3841229

And here http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/father-who-sexually-exploited-daughter-on-video-clip-jailed-30476310.html

And here http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rapist-who-wore-womens-underwear-during-attack-in-public-toilet-loses-appeal-30474871.html

ps3lover

TheDoc wrote: »

that seems to be the most damning indication alright. Oddly enough there has been a few reviews done from critics who actually downloaded the copy to get out an early review. Not sure if 100% true, but there was some stories doing the rounds of some critics receiving court summons as they seemed to have a review out before any scheduled press screenings. Silly on their part mind you, but I'm not sure if this is actually true.

I haven't heard this. I did hear Lionsgate where forced to drop the review embargo that was supposed to last until the day of release.
The reviews that appeared this week came from the London press screening, not from online downloads.

constitutionus

ps3lover wrote: »

I think the bad word of mouth that's coming out from people who have watched the leak will hurt it.
I've seen a few positive reviews for EX 3 but most of them have been terrible.

seen it last night with the brother.

i thought it was alright. not great but not crap either. TBH i always liken em to the fast and the furious films.

ya know what your getting goin in.

so even with the leak i can still see it doing similar business to the last one.

SherlockWatson

TheDoc wrote: »

Someone in my situation would probably jump on that. I'm not too keen on the film, it looks ropey. The misses thinks it looks dog rough. Now while we debated this above, for us to go see this would be €20 to ticket exlcuding consumables, but who are we kidding for me it comes to €40. Because this doesn't look to our taste, we are going to give this a miss.

Just on this, off topic I know, but I would definitely recommend GotG if you've liked any of the previous Marvel movies as it is probably the best of them all.

I'd suggest looking at reviews cause its a corker and definitely one to see in the cinema!!

pickarooney

I just had a look at amazon VOD as I'd never heard of it before. It's 20 quid to watch a film on there. Nuts. And it doesn't include popcorn!

ancapailldorcha

Calling someone scum for pirating a film is just pathetic, end of. Mind you, using people who earn millions per film to appeal to filmgoers not to pirate is a fairly daft thing to do.

Distribution has improved greatly recently. One thing I would like to see more of is legal downloads as opposed to streaming which requires a constant internet connection.

Potatoeman

Potatoeman wrote: »

Wouldnt the obvious solution be to create a better model. As the price per hour of movies is pretty expensive.

TV in the last few years has passed out many movies in terms of quality but still are looking for premium prices.

Illegally downloading TV is just as illegal as movies. You can argue as much as you want about the impact it has but its just as illegal.

I think part of the problem now is that its easier and free to get things illegally and any service offered will be expensive as these companies wont offer a single account solution. They are fighting to hold onto their own bussiness model rather than adapting. Wouldnt it be better to make even two euro off something online than nothing?

When you consider services such as Hulu and the ability to access content from the US providers there's really not much point to pirating TV.

Renting a digital version of most new releases costs only a couple of euro, I think I paid 4 euro for the last on demand release I watched and I saw Cold in July can be rented in HD for $6 later this month. When you consider that pricing then you have to accept that the studios are moving with the times. You wouldn't rent the DVD in Xtravision for that price.

IvaBigWun wrote: »

As usual your views on movie pirating are completely and utterly ridiculously fúcking over the the top. May I remind you that you once told me via PM how to watch different regions of Netflix.

But wont this harm this industry and it's inflated income?!

The horror!

The horror! :eek:

Here's what a scumbag is http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/woman-who-stabbed-18-month-old-girl-3841229

And here http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/father-who-sexually-exploited-daughter-on-video-clip-jailed-30476310.html

And here http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rapist-who-wore-womens-underwear-during-attack-in-public-toilet-loses-appeal-30474871.html

Let me again remind you that changing your Netflix region is not illegal. If Netflix wanted to they could put a stop to it pretty easily. And why or how could it hurt the industry? Netflix are still paying the rights holders and you're still paying Netflix. It's kinda like the whole thing with HBO Go and how people share passwords. When it was mentioned to him the CEO of HBO said that it was a "terrific marketing vehicle".

I never understood why it is that people seem to think that stealing something like a film is perfectly okay but if someone was to steal your car or wallet then they are scum. And yes I'm aware that they aren't the same but stealing is stealing, no matter how you try and justify it.

pickarooney wrote: »

I just had a look at amazon VOD as I'd never heard of it before. It's 20 quid to watch a film on there. Nuts. And it doesn't include popcorn!

Were you looking at the price to buy or rent? The US amazon has some great deals, most new releases are between $4-6 to rent for a 48 hour period.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Calling someone scum for pirating a film is just pathetic, end of. Mind you, using people who earn millions per film to appeal to filmgoers not to pirate is a fairly daft thing to do.

Distribution has improved greatly recently. One thing I would like to see more of is legal downloads as opposed to streaming which requires a constant internet connection.

And what are those people then? Theft is theft, no matter how you try to dress it up.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

And what are those people then? Theft is theft, no matter how you try to dress it up.

It's not as simple as that. I'd call it copyright infringement. It's different to the traditional model of theft as the pirate is duplicating as opposed to taking the item in question, in this case a copy of a film/game/whatever. If the pirate has a Netflix account and downloads Star Trek: Into Darkness, for example to watch on a train journey, is it still stealing in your eyes? An illegal download doesn't necessarily equal a lost sale. If someone can't afford a cinema ticket and bus fare but a friend offers them a pirate version then that wouldn't constitute a lost sale in my eyes.

I certainly agree that it is unethical at the very least but hyperbolic insults aren't going to solve anything. I don't think that the services are quite as good as you think either. Amazon UK do seem to be doing legal downloads now which is a big step forwards.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's not as simple as that. I'd call it copyright infringement. It's different to the traditional model of theft as the pirate is duplicating as opposed to taking the item in question, in this case a copy of a film/game/whatever. If the pirate has a Netflix account and downloads Star Trek: Into Darkness, for example to watch on a train journey, is it still stealing in your eyes? An illegal download doesn't necessarily equal a lost sale. If someone can't afford a cinema ticket and bus fare but a friend offers them a pirate version then that wouldn't constitute a lost sale in my eyes.

I certainly agree that it is unethical at the very least but hyperbolic insults aren't going to solve anything. I don't think that the services are quite as good as you think either. Amazon UK do seem to be doing legal downloads now which is a big step forwards.

If you have a Netflix account and download a film that's on there then it's still stealing. There is no two ways about it. You can dress it up any way you want but someone downloading a film and watching it is theft, granted as there is no psychical entity it's not seen as being the same as walking into a shop and walking out with a DVD copy under your jumper but in essence it is the same. If someone can't afford tre price of a cinema ticket and bus fare then that's no excuse to steal, surely they could hold off, save their money and pay for a legal rental of a film when it appears on any of the streaming sites.

The services we have access to is fantastic. That we can use the US amazon video, itunes and other VOD services means that there is no excuse to not support film. You can rent a HD version of pretty much every film being released for less than a fiver and buy it for not a lot more. I just bought a HD copy of Septic Man for $10 on amazon.com. If it was to play in cinemas here you'd be looking at 6-8 euro for a ticket which makes the VOD version a bargain considering that I own it and can watch it as many times as I want.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

If you have a Netflix account and download a film that's on there then it's still stealing. There is no two ways about it. You can dress it up any way you want but someone downloading a film and watching it is theft, granted as there is no psychical entity it's not seen as being the same as walking into a shop and walking out with a DVD copy under your jumper but in essence it is the same. If someone can't afford tre price of a cinema ticket and bus fare then that's no excuse to steal, surely they could hold off, save their money and pay for a legal rental of a film when it appears on any of the streaming sites.

The services we have access to is fantastic. That we can use the US amazon video, itunes and other VOD services means that there is no excuse to not support film. You can rent a HD version of pretty much every film being released for less than a fiver and buy it for not a lot more. I just bought a HD copy of Septic Man for $10 on amazon.com. If it was to play in cinemas here you'd be looking at 6-8 euro for a ticket which makes the VOD version a bargain considering that I own it and can watch it as many times as I want.

I'm not trying to dress anything up, I'm just saying that it doesn't quite fit the traditional idea of stealing. Obviously, you disagree and that's fair enough. I can't remember pirating a game and with my Cineworld card I don't need to do the same for new films. The key is providing better service which content providers are doing. It just took them ages. I do hate the regional catalogue differences.

pickarooney

Deleted User wrote: »

Were you looking at the price to buy or rent? The US amazon has some great deals, most new releases are between $4-6 to rent for a 48 hour period.

It says Purchase but I'm not sure what the difference is; there's no other option on the couple of new releases I looked at.

It's fairly moot for me as Amazon VOD, just like Hulu, Netflix etc. is simply not available in France.

SherlockWatson

Its not even stealing, you aren't physically taking someone's property so comparing it to stealing a car or a wallet is pretty silly to be honest.

Theta

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me again remind you that changing your Netflix region is not illegal. If Netflix wanted to they could put a stop to it pretty easily. And why or how could it hurt the industry? Netflix are still paying the rights holders and you're still paying Netflix. It's kinda like the whole thing with HBO Go and how people share passwords. When it was mentioned to him the CEO of HBO said that it was a "terrific marketing vehicle".

Netflix dont own the rights to licence the content in the region you are in. Either somebody else does which by your mentality you are stealing from them or no one does at the moment but they are up for sale and you are stealing from them.

Theta

Theta wrote: »

Netflix dont own the rights to licence the content in the region you are in. Either somebody else does which by your mentality you are stealing from them or no one does at the moment but they are up for sale and you are stealing from them.

We're aware of that but paying for Netflix and then circumventing regional restrictions is far better than simply downloading a torrent of a film. It's not illegal and is something that Netflix appear okay with given that they could easily put a stop to it if they wanted.

SherlockWatson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We're aware of that but paying for Netflix and then circumventing regional restrictions is far better than simply downloading a torrent of a film. It's not illegal and is something that Netflix appear okay with given that they could easily put a stop to it if they wanted.

Of course Netflix are okay with it, you aren't taking anything from them, your taking the money out of the pocket of the people who licence it.

You're actually screwing over the people that get screwed over when you download a torrented movie.

Theta

Deleted User wrote: »

We're aware of that but paying for Netflix and then circumventing regional restrictions is far better than simply downloading a torrent of a film. It's not illegal and is something that Netflix appear okay with given that they could easily put a stop to it if they wanted.

It is one and the same, you are accessing content you are legally not allowed to view in your region because the owner has not given permission to do so just like the owner of torrented files has not given permission for that content to be shared. The regional content block is their method of putting a stop to it and can be circumvented like any DRM such as DVD regioning or watermarking.

I couldn't give a toss if you torrent it or use geo services to get around netflix's geo block, i am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument.

shruikan2553

Good films still somehow do well and poor films can blame everyone pirating for bad sales figures.

Before I found how to get access to the Canadian Netflix I streamed the wolverine. A week later I got onto the Canadian Netflix.
It wasn't a lost sale or anything. Netflix had it and all I needed to do was make Netflix think I was in Canada. Me and my girlfriend share a Netflix account and its OK, I copy it for her and its wrong.

Agent Coulson

The studio had previously been given a restraining order against torrent sites that provided access to a leaked version of the Sylvester Stallone movie.

They will now ask companies including Google and GoDaddy to find the sharers' identities.

The subpoenas will be sent to "the third parties whom Lionsgate has identified as likely to be providing services to the defendants who operate" websites including billionuploads.com, hulkfile.eu and dotsemper.com.

Third parties include CloudFlare, Incapsula, Google, GoDaddy and Domains by Proxy LLC.

The film was leaked in full two weeks before its release on August 15.

"Through these subpoenas, Lionsgate may demand the production of electronically stored information and other documents and information that is reasonably calculated to the discovery of Defendants' identities and locations," the order reads.

"This includes but is not limited to billing records, website content, server logs and correspondence with any one or more of the defendants."

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a589126/expendables-3-piracy-suit-google-godaddy-to-be-subpoenaed.html?rss#~oMmkoI0R22NAhC

krudler

Theta wrote: »

It is one and the same, you are accessing content you are legally not allowed to view in your region because the owner has not given permission to do so just like the owner of torrented files has not given permission for that content to be shared. The regional content block is their method of putting a stop to it and can be circumvented like any DRM such as DVD regioning or watermarking.

I couldn't give a toss if you torrent it or use geo services to get around netflix's geo block, i am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument.

Good point, getting around region blocks on netflix is basically the same as downloading a movie that has a staggered release from the US to here. Piracy is a big grey area anyway. Is listening to a song on youtube piracy? I use spotify and there's some tracks I cant get on it, so I'd just youtube the song. I dont pay for youtube and plenty of music labels have their own official channels and upload music to it. So why is one piracy and not the other? Just cos money is involved?

SherlockWatson

SherlockWatson wrote: »

Of course Netflix are okay with it, you aren't taking anything from them, your taking the money out of the pocket of the people who licence it.

You're actually screwing over the people that get screwed over when you download a torrented movie.

Theta wrote: »

It is one and the same, you are accessing content you are legally not allowed to view in your region because the owner has not given permission to do so just like the owner of torrented files has not given permission for that content to be shared. The regional content block is their method of putting a stop to it and can be circumvented like any DRM such as DVD regioning or watermarking.

I couldn't give a toss if you torrent it or use geo services to get around netflix's geo block, i am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument.

If you consider bypassing geographical restriction to be the same as pirating then by that logic the package of 4 Blu-Rays I received today from Japan is the same as me downloading the film as technically my purchase means that the licensee here loses out.

Bypassing the regional restrictions is not the same as pirating a film, when you access Hulu or the other regions of Netflix the copyright holder is still getting payed.

constitutionus

krudler wrote: »

Good point, getting around region blocks on netflix is basically the same as downloading a movie that has a staggered release from the US to here. Piracy is a big grey area anyway. Is listening to a song on youtube piracy? I use spotify and there's some tracks I cant get on it, so I'd just youtube the song. I dont pay for youtube and plenty of music labels have their own official channels and upload music to it. So why is one piracy and not the other? Just cos money is involved?

im pretty sure ya can say youtubing songs is piracy. those companys have just given up the ghost and decided joining is better than prosecuting.

i do it myself all the time. as ya said theres stuff uploaded all the time that just isnt available anywhere else.

literally.

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote: »

im pretty sure ya can say youtubing songs is piracy. those companys have just given up the ghost and decided joining is better than prosecuting.

i do it myself all the time. as ya said theres stuff uploaded all the time that just isnt available anywhere else.

literally.

The great thing about music is that there's little need for anyone to pirate it. When you look at something such as Spotify and what it offers you can't but love it. I've been paying for Spotify for the last few years and find myself using little else to listen to music on the go, I don't think I've used itunes on my ipod in years.

There was an idea floated about a few years back in the UK that seemed like the ideal solution to piracy. The idea was that ISP would charge customers an additional £100-150 a year and that would then be divided amongst copy right holders and users would be able to download what they want free from fear of prosecution.

Mickeroo

The free version of spotify just got pretty great in the last while too, they've lifted pretty much all the restrictions on it bar a few minor ones. I've been listening to it on the web browser for about 8 hours straight now and haven't heard a single ad.

Jimbloggs

I would be shocked and stunned if there isn't a movie equivalent of Spotify within the next ten years.
Apart from cashing in on new movies, the movie companies could also stream their back catalogues. They could have a captive audience eating out of their hands.

Ten Euro sounds pretty reasonable to me for a same day release that I get to keep.
Five Euro would be fair for a weekend.

The only certainty in this whole debate is that things will not go back to the way they were.

krudler

Jimbloggs wrote: »

I would be shocked and stunned if there isn't a movie equivalent of Spotify within the next ten years.
Apart from cashing in on new movies, the movie companies could also stream their back catalogues. They could have a captive audience eating out of their hands.

Ten Euro sounds pretty reasonable to me for a same day release that I get to keep.
Five Euro would be fair for a weekend.

The only certainty in this whole debate is that things will not go back to the way they were.

If netflix allowed you spotify style downloads to your device but still just played through the app it'd be great, be so handy to just stick stuff on a phone or table and watch it in places without wifi or not eating into your phone data.

ancapailldorcha

krudler wrote: »

If netflix allowed you spotify style downloads to your device but still just played through the app it'd be great, be so handy to just stick stuff on a phone or table and watch it in places without wifi or not eating into your phone data.

Being unable to play stuff offline is the only caveat with Netflix and the like. My parents just got a broadband connection but a few years ago, I had no way of watching films on the bus short of bringing the laptop and a few DVDs home which was a bit awkward.

pickarooney

Deleted User wrote: »

The great thing about music is that there's little need for anyone to pirate it. When you look at something such as Spotify and what it offers you can't but love it. I've been paying for Spotify for the last few years and find myself using little else to listen to music on the go, I don't think I've used itunes on my ipod in years.

There was an idea floated about a few years back in the UK that seemed like the ideal solution to piracy. The idea was that ISP would charge customers an additional £100-150 a year and that would then be divided amongst copy right holders and users would be able to download what they want free from fear of prosecution.

How do you mange to distribute that money fairly between all the copyright holders in the world? Or do you just throw it at a few big record labels to shut them up a bit?

timetogo

pickarooney wrote: »

How do you mange to distribute that money fairly between all the copyright holders in the world? Or do you just throw it at a few big record labels to shut them up a bit?

How does it work with music?

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

How do you mange to distribute that money fairly between all the copyright holders in the world? Or do you just throw it at a few big record labels to shut them up a bit?

I'd imagine out would work in much the same way as Spotify distributes it. It's not a perfect solution but it seems to be one that could work and make everyone happy.

Jumboman

Copyright is an obsolete concept in the 21st century.

ancapailldorcha

Jumboman wrote: »

Copyright is an obsolete concept in the 21st century.

How so?

Dman001

I was thinking the other day, how funny it is that we must go to the cinema to see the latest movies, and is something that hasn't really moved with the times. We've all the latest technology common in our households to stream/download the latest films, in a variety of mediums (3D, 4K) and quality. Hell, even the studios could deliver them directly to the consumer if they wanted to, and cut out the middle man that is the cinema. Charge €8-€10 for the latest release, with 24 Hour access of the film on multiple devices.

Sure, piracy will be a bigger concern through this method. But CAM version of films, along with DVD rips (such as The Expendables 3 example) are common as it is.

As much as I enjoy the cinema experience, we shouldn't be limited to the cinema to enjoy the latest movies.