Hollywood ruining film prints on purpose (those red dots you're seeing) (1 Viewer)

[Glenn Overholt]

I agree. Let's see who can make the longest run-on sentence!

Anyway, some people never go to the movies. They might download so that they can discuss it with their freinds. That could be the loss of a ticket, but if the movie turned out to be crap, they'd be losing a loss less then the price of movie tickets today. What are the chances of getting a refund because you didn't like it? This is no potential sale here. One is just trying to keep with with his/her friends.

I can also see some doing it because they really can't afford to go to the movies every week. I could assume here that we are talking about students, but some adults are in this same boat. It is so nice that they reduce the prices while almost everyone is at work (including most of the minimum wage earners). If there are weekend discounts they will have to put up with the noise created by children. This discount tells me that the differences in prices is all padding for someone's wallet.

And some do it just for kicks, and probably don't watch half of what they download, or wait until some friends discuss it. No lost sale here either.

And what if you missed a part of a movie, or just had to see it again? Wouldn't a second screening be like multiple use and you could get a discount? Should we pay $40. and up to see the same movie five times?

Something like with the music, it would be nice if we could legally download movies. They could cut the quality down and they would never look anywhere close to what we get on a big screen, or even a DVD, but I, for one, would be seeing a lot more of the new releases if they did that.

Glenn

 

[Gui A]

Is this is the company responsible?
http://www.sarnoff.com/news/index.asp?releaseID=116

The dots are VERY noticeable in Kill Bill prints, as they occur at least twice in a black and white sequence.


So what now? Do we complain to the theater manager every single time we go see a movie?
It's bad enough that there are theaters out there that don't care about proper framing and sound.
Some don't even care about their appearance or hygenic quality.
Will they care when 12 out of 172800 frames have a few dots on them?

 

[Glenn Overholt]

If enought people complained to the managers, don't you think that they'd complain too?

Glenn

 

[MarkHastings]

If I'm going to complain about the dots, I might as well complain about some of the horrible presentations as well. How many times have there been audio 'hick-ups" or flickering frames, etc.

The way we watch movies in theaters (besides the digital ones) seems so archaic. The audio has made massive amounts of improvements, yet the flickering video still has it's flaws.

Theatrical releases have to do something drastic if they are going to compete with the Home Theater. The fact that the movies are in the theater before the DVD is released isn't enough incentive for me to put up with the crap shoot I take in lousy presentations.

 

[Lew Crippen]

So Glenn, do all of your arguments as to why it is OK for people to download mean that you too feel that it is OK?

IIRC, in similar discussions about music, you suggested that if the industry provided mechanisms for purchasing individual songs via the internet, a lot of the illegal activity would cease. There are a lot of various ways for people to watch movies on a pay basis (and in HD, as well). Plus movie rentals are pretty cheap.

Something like with the music, it would be nice if we could legally download movies.

PPV

 

[John_Berger]

Oh, here we go.

Step 1: Take RIAA thread.
Step 2: Change RIAA to MPAA.
Step 3: Start the accusations.
:rolleyes

PPV

At least most downloaded movies are OAR, even if everything else is crappy.

 

[MarkHastings]

The biggest offenders of the "Downloading for free" issue are the ones who can't afford it or the ones who don't care too much for movies. They think that just because they could care less about a movie (or not afford it), they aren't doing anything bad (or damaging) if they get it for free.

If you want to know why I'm so vocal about this, I once worked with a guy who made the same amount of money as I did. He had just bought a house and couldn't afford it so he asked our boss for a raise. He honestly believed that he deserved more money because he couldn't afford the house When I approached him about it, his comment was "Well, you don't have as much responsibility as I do!" Meaning that since his bills were bigger than mine, he deserved more money than me to be able to pay them. I was SO amazed at his thinking process. The same can be said about the ones who download movies.

Some people think that they deserve free stuff based on the fact that they can't afford it. That is just SO wrong.

People have brought up many reasons why downloading music and movies can actually be considered a good thing, but it's the ones out there who abuse this system that I have issues with.

 

[John_Berger]

it's the ones out there who abuse this system that I have issues with.

As do all of us. But the simple truth is that they're always going to be there no matter what we do. So, what should be done is to find a way to increase the appeal of movies so that the rest of the people will be more willing to go to the movies and buy the DVD. Adding blatantly visible dots that will be viewed by everyone is not one of those methods.

 

[Lew Crippen]

John I was trying to determine Glenn’s view. He seemed to be defending the illegal downloading, even though he did not ever state that it was OK.

But I also did not read where he thought that it was not. Just a bunch of excuses as to why people downloaded and a very strong implication that it did not harm the industry.

At least most downloaded movies are OAR, even if everything else is crappy.

I was unaware that most HD PPV (which I mentioned earlier in my post) was non-OAR. And even when it is, it is still available.


I have read most (probably all) of your posts regarding the RIAA and this issue and I know that you do not condone illegal downloading. However, I am unsure as to why there is such passionate defense of those who chose to act illegally. Especially in the case of movies where there are many inexpensive avenues of seeing films that one wishes to see.

Unlike the RIAA arguments, where the price of CDs was mentioned as a factor for illegal downloading and where the inability to select single songs was another, these are not factors that appear to pertain in the case of illegal downloading of films.

Yet the practice continues and we see a rush to explain with sympathy, if not defend those illegal practices.

 

[John_Berger]

Yet the practice continues and we see a rush to explain with sympathy, if not defend those illegal practices.

Come on, Lew. You know better than that. We can all understand the reasons why people would want to download without empathizing with them.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

No, I am totally against downloading, and just hoped to cover all of the bases.
I should explain a little more. You usually don't get the crying babies on the weekends. Rather, you get all of the kids that are now not in school, some of which won't shut up until you show them that your brought along a roll of duct tape.

A problem too with movie releases and downloading them. I wasn't talking about downloading vrs being able to buy a DVD X months after it is released - when you can't really see it at a theater then anyways, (hey,here's my run on), but rather those that download when a movie first comes out, or even beforee that.

At this time, the movie can only be seen in a theater, and cannot be obtained any other way (legally). You've got a 1 week releaae window to se it.

For example, what would you do if while you were on the way to see ROTK, you got hit by a car and ended up in the hospital for a few weeks. Window gone. You have to wait until what, next Auguest to see it? Would you be tempted?

I don't think that it can possibly stop, but it is almost like thinking that if you drive really fast in your car, the bugs won't hit your windshield.

What comes after the spots? Audio drop-outs? How is this going to reduce the downloading?
(two idiots, talking)
Did your copy have spots on it?
Yeah, yours?
Yeah, mine too, but Jeff said that they had the spots at the theater too.
And he paid $8.50 for it?

I can see their logic. The last line could read - What an idiot!

Glenn

 

[Lew Crippen]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm tired of (A) the continual mentioning of how illegal it is as though we're being told something that we don't already know, (B) the attitude that downloading is meant specifically for the purpose of robbing the studios, and (C) only those of low moral and ethical fiber would ever want to download. There are numerous reasons why people download, and I get fed up with the same broad brush being used every, single time the topic of music or movie piracy is discussed.

I can’t speak for everyone else either, but the reason I continually write illegal is because of the continual justification of these acts. And a good many (go back and read the RIAA thread) claim that the acts are not illegal (and I know that this is not your position). And I’m sure that you are aware of the many posts to this effect without me going back and pulling the direct quotes.

I do agree that there are numerous reasons that people download, but none of them are because those downloading have high ethical and moral standards. For me, those who engage in such activities routinely and frequently do not have very high ethical standards. Obviously we disagree on this.

And on the broad-brush, I get tired of the same old excuses being trotted out to defend illegal practices.

 

[MarkHastings]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm tired of (A) the continual mentioning of how illegal it is as though we're being told something that we don't already know, (B) the attitude that downloading is meant specifically for the purpose of robbing the studios, and (C) only those of low moral and ethical fiber would ever want to download. There are numerous reasons why people download, and I get fed up with the same broad brush being used every, single time the topic of music or movie piracy is discussed.

John, I think you are getting hung up on terms here.

I think the big problem is you are seeing the movies as "Free". The fact is, they aren't FREE at all, you are "Stealing" them. Because people associate the word "Free" with the downloading of music and movies, they feel it is ok because it seems like no physical loss of money is going on.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Good. Now that we're past that....

Ok, I think we can all agree that the studios are going about this the wrong way, and even if they did offer them on the net, some would still be exchanged for free, but why couldn't a studio put a marker in their file that would send an IP address back to them?

The downloader plays it, and the IP address goes back to them. I know this could be done with just a line of code or two. Then they could persue it just like the RIAA did.

Early in this thread, the thought came to me that maybe all of the prints that go to the theaters aren't blobbed up. Maybe one chain is getting them unmarked - just to drive the rest out of business.

Glenn

 

[Lew Crippen]

Thanks for the clarification Glenn, it really clears up my confusion.

Personally I think that deliberately releasing a substandard product to first run theaters is a sign that the studios (or at least one) are completely out of ideas on how to best address the problem. And in the end, it must be self-defeating.

But it also seems clear that they must be very concerned as to significant profit erosion or they would not be taking such a drastic step.

 

[John_Berger]

, but why couldn't a studio put a marker in their file that would send an IP address back to them?

This would facilitate the need for a proprietary DVD player that will read the code and report back to Big Brother. You'll find very few people open to the concept of being forced to abandon their favorite software DVD player, which will just about be guaranteed to have more features and stability than any proprietary code the studios can make.

 

[John_Berger]

But it also seems clear that they must be very concerned as to significant profit erosion or they would not be taking such a drastic step.

The best way for them to stop profit erosion is to make movies that will make people want to go back to the theaters and experience them as the entertainment centers that they one were.

 

[MarkHastings]

What I am seeing is the opinion that all people have the money and means to fork out said money for theaters or DVD under all circumstances. Obviously, that's not an absolute.

No one has that opinion, but we do have the opinion that if you don't have the money (or means) to see it, then you don't deserve to aquire it for free. It shouldn't matter that the studio doesn't lose money...you have no "right" to aquire it.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

For example, there was a span of - what - five months between when the LotR movies were not in theaters in this area and the DVD was to be released. When it was in theaters, I paid twice to see it. My only two options for this five month period: download from the Internet (which was at least OAR) or watch a MAR pay-per-view. As far as I'm concerned, downloading was the lesser of two evils. Yes, I would rather download a low-quality OAR version than a MARed PPV. The MAR for me would have been a far worse annoyance than a grainy, theatrical cam picture. The legal options that were given were absolutely not acceptable to me. So, your statements as though there are always viable options that everyone has are not totally correct. I'm not saying that this example doesn't have its flaws, because clearly the always-viable option is to do without. But I'm just explaining why your statement cannot be applied to all individuals.

Third option: you could just wait until the movie is released legitimately on video (home Pay-Per-View comes *after* the video release, BTW). Just because it's not available to you RIGHT NOW in the form you want does not mean that you are entitled to participate in an illegal activity (downloading). Sorry if the legal options aren't to your liking, but too bad.

 

[Lew Crippen]

My point is that not everyone has access to any or all of those options and not all of those options are viable. You are asserting that every person has at least one other viable option and that's not the case. For some, downloading really might be the only option as wrong as that might be.

You are correct that not everyone has every option available to them. But I would submit that most have at least one (such as rental). And even those who do not live within reasonable distance of a rental store have the Netfilx option available. Of course it might be argued that they cannot afford Netfilx, but so long as they do have the available money, it is an option. Just as having a few dollars for a single rental is an option. True, you can make the choice to spend the money another way, and that is fair enough, but it is not fair to spend discretionary money on some other form of entertainment, such as dinner out or a six pack and then plead lack of funds. The funds were there—a choice was made.

As long as one option is available the only issue is the five-month gap you mention. And to be sure if one is so addicted to a particular movie, that seeing only that movie and no other will do as entertainment (and the addiction is so strong that it cannot be deferred for five months), then I admit there is a real problem.

The fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves

Besides which, once that movie has hit the DVD market, the addiction will have been satisfied. Or will there now be a new movie which is even more addicting than the last? Sort of like going up the drug chain.