What is Digg?80 Comments
- Kyan, on 11/02/2009, -7/+64I just want to say it is clear they are not going far enough. Sure, John and Jane Doe are the main criminals because they are the users. And Google, Bing, and the other search engines and the sites hosting the torrents and the p2p software are all at fault.
But if one looks closely at the article, the first link was the cinemas and the original pirates in the cinema with their evil camcorders - and a great many of those evil camcorders were no doubt made by Sony. Therefore, Paramount must go tooth and nail after Sony, a corporation which provides the tools necessary to make bootlegged, bowlegged copies of movies.
Again, and I repeat - the main offender here is Sony. Once Sony is stopped in its tracks, piracy will certainly decrease. So, everyone who cares anything about stopping the piracy of movies - join together now and fight Sony.
Drop by my AdSense-supported website www.piracybeginswithsony.com to pitch in. - Ninh, on 11/02/2009, -2/+43Actually all those 5 million copies mean is that Paramount was once again asleep on the wheel when it came to releasing the movie on DVD and Blu-ray in a timely fashion.
- buddamus, on 11/03/2009, -1/+30Worldwide gross = $384,953,778
Budget = $140,000,000
Proof that if you make good movies people pay to see them - localzuk, on 11/03/2009, -4/+21Yes, but they want that total to be $700million! They want their gold plated hummers and parties with hookers every night. Obviously $248million is not enough for that!
- malfourmed, on 11/03/2009, -0/+17Silly Paramount. Doesn't it know that the seeds of the many outweigh the needs of the one?
- theuniversal, on 11/03/2009, -1/+17You have to wonder if people running these studios are retarded. The people who can stomach sitting through a camcorder version of Star Trek would not go to the theater or buy a DVD anyway. They should really forget about this nonsense and focus on selling a better product to their real customers - the people who may actually WANT to see it in the theater and WANT to own it on DVD.
- digghasnoethics, on 11/03/2009, -1/+16This business model is deceased. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late business model. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't propped it up with paid-for laws it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex business model.
Honestly, 5 million slaps about the head and they STILL don't get it.
Simultaneous releases Paramount - artificial scarcity in a world of immediate copies is never going to fly. - Konformitee, on 11/03/2009, -0/+11Not if I can get it at a Redbox for $1 a night rental or buy it for a reasonable price ($15 or less).
- hemsedal, on 11/03/2009, -0/+10I downloaded the CAM, took a look and liked the movie, so now I have it on Blu Ray.
I cant understand why the MPAA only cares about cinemas. Its like meat only being sold to restaurants and not consumers.
Maybe the age of the cinema is over? How about launching movies on both HD and Cinema at the same time, so we can choose.
Its not about piracy, but about availability. iTunes got quite a hold on my wallet and I have no problem with that.
- mindcrime83, on 11/03/2009, -0/+7Only 5 million pirated copies? Considering how good the movie was, i would have expected way more.
- fragomatik, on 11/03/2009, -0/+6Yes but only in North America...for the rest of the world it's "The video you have requested is not available in your geographic area...".
Not nice treating us like pariahs because of where we live in the world. This is the *internet* for *****'s sake, and it's the 21st century, and in the case of ST:TOS we're talking about a TV series that is 42 years old! Copyright restrictions based on geographic location, placed on "classic" TV series is just plain bloody-minded. It's no wonder people torrent this stuff... - psion01, on 11/03/2009, -0/+6That's an interesting hypothesis, but unfortunately, Paramount's okudagraph doesn't extend into the present, so we can't see what happens to all those pirated downloads once the DVD comes out. They're definitely tracking interest in the movie, though. How much of that chart actually measures piracy and how much of it demonstrates an unresponsive business model needs to be determined before governments start stepping in.
- spworm, on 11/03/2009, -0/+5Dugg for the picture of a star trek pinball.
Seriously though, if you can rent star trek for next to nothing - why are you pirating it?
Pirate the rare stuff you can't find anywhere else. Pirate new stuff that isn't out yet, and buy the dvd later. I always torrenting it a last resource. - 5thdigg, on 11/03/2009, -0/+5the movie studios have freaked out about every new piece of technology in the past 40 years. This is a broken record, playing the same jingle over and over again. They've been wrong every single time.
- tgc1, on 11/03/2009, -0/+5The fact of the matter is the studios want to maintain their once iron grip on the distribution cycle of their movies, now known as "media." They want it so that they can release ***** movies that even a retarded chimp wouldn't identify with, but still make you pay up the ass to see it.
The internet knows the MPAA and RIAA have no ability to stem the tide. And them appealing to government to intervene is not going to suddenly make the problem go away. I mean we all know how drugs being illegal made drugs go away right? And how because robbery is illegal there are no robberies.
- ldkronos, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4Oops, I just noticed you are from Norway, but still...from what I can find it appears not to come out on BluRay in norway until Nov 7th. The earliest I can find it anywhere is France, which is Nov 4 (tomorrow).
- ldkronos, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4"I downloaded the CAM, took a look and liked the movie, so now I have it on Blu Ray."
Uhhh...we're talking about Star Trek here, right? The 2009 version of Star Trek? The one that comes out on Nov 17th? - 0tis, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3I had to open a window while reading this article. The Stupid got too much for me.
- DaviDTC, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3Not my hypothesis. Just going off of what Ninh said. I probably should have added a /s tag now that I read it over again.
- Orbital101, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3Wolverine, of which a decent production print was leaked (as opposed to a crummy cam version), hit the #1 slot the week it came out.
Goes to show that if you make mediocre movies that people can download a decent copy of, it can still make money in the theater. - Tarkaan, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3It wasn't me. I bought mine fair and square from a guy at the street market in Daegu. Korea, Fighting!
- djruden, on 11/03/2009, -1/+4The whole series is viewable on CBS.com
Some eps are even in the new HD releases. - inactive, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3No it's proof if you market the ***** out of anything people will pay to see it. That is why ***** movies like Transformers 2 made millions and good movies like The Hurt Locker barely scratch a million.
Hell Slumdog Millionaire only made 250,000 in US theaters until it won the oscar and suddenly all the publicity jumped it up to make 250 million. - Kevin108, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3Paramount and their ilk are stupid. Their customers aren't leaving just because of the price. Sure, free is great, but most of their customers are leaving DVDs on the shelves because a quick, easy download of a file that works on virtually any computer or handheld device is a BRILLIANT distribution method.
The way to win the game is not with legislation or regulation but through innovation. They just have to setup a web site better than what's out their now, charge a fair price and ditch DRM. The customers are making it obvious what they want. Give it to them and profit. - ole1kanobe, on 11/03/2009, -1/+4Yes, search engines _could_ remove all torrent related links from their database, but that would take a huge chunk of man hours as well as drop the 'total indexed page' count that they try to out do each other with, unless there is a court order, their is no real benefit for them to do so. It's all business in one way or another for search engines.
- bshock, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3Because, you know, "Star Trek" was such a disappointing box office failure, piracy must be the cause.
Oh, wait... - tinkafoo, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Let that be a lesson you "sophisticated criminal syndicates!"
...also known as "internet users." - salinungatha, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2"The flood of stolen content currently available online," the studio warns, "including every major theatrical film within hours of release—poses an immediate threat to the motion picture industry"
Hmmmm, immediate threat? Does that mean if the motion picture industry is still around in 3 years and just as strong or stronger (which it will be) you'll admit you were wrong, embrace new technology as new ways of making even more money and stop trying to make criminals out of your best customers? - localzuk, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2I rent movies - both in DVD form, and on legal pay per view download services (BT Vision), but I'll still download a movie occasionally before DVD release because I can't justify the £10 return journey cost to the cinema, 40 minute walk from the bus station to the cinema, £8 entrance ticket, and high priced junk food costs. Effectively, they want me to pay £20 to watch a movie once.
Instead, I'll watch a crappy version of it, and if I like it, I'll wait for the DVD and rent or buy that.
I probably spend around £400 a year on movie rentals, and about £300 on purchases. So, they still get money from me... - zer0mass, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2I went looking for four movies the other day. First at Best Buy, none were there. Then went to a very popular local store chain that always has hard to find movies and lots of previously owned, still couldn't find them. Searched online, took about six hours and a few failed downloads but I did find them all. I gave two good attempts to purchase these DVD's and I couldn't get them, so in their perfect world I would have to just find something else to watch rather than enjoy some films that were made less then ten years ago.
- Sirlolalot, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2So instead of innovating they complain, here's just 2 ideas off the top of my head.
1. release films worldwide simultaneously rather than spreading the release date over several months for different countries, this may possibly reduce the damage cams do to theater sales.
2. Have a system like BBC iPlayer & sell people the movie via the internet, but charge less than a movie ticket, not more!
(BBC iPlayer has DRM so its difficult to copy, or even play on another player, also deletes itself after a given time)
gee wow, ***** me that was hard coming up with ideas..
/s - Steeple, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2then they should sell the bloody dvd in the lobby-so i can buy it right after i've seen the movie-at my peak of movie buzzines!
- Iceman21, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Including every major theatrical film within hours of release—poses an immediate threat to the motion picture industry.
Can someone find the sales figures for the most recent big film and weigh it against cost of producing and distributing?, or find an estimated profit figure so we can see if this is really a threat, i am doubting it. - opticwind, on 11/03/2009, -2/+4Well, no it doesn't. That's ridiculous. You never pirate a movie that is out already on DVD?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Sell Star Trek movie on i-Tunes for $5 without DRM, and you will make far more money with almost zero distribution costs and the piracy will go to almost zero.
The people who can spend two days to download a crappy pirated movie are NOT going to give you $5. This target market never have and never will. Strangely enough, however, studies have shown that the #1 pirates are also the top purchasers of content. I guess they only have so much money for entertainment, and it doesn't increase because you paid for lobbyists to congress.
The Music industry was so successful, they got people to spend their dollars on movie DVDs. If you stop movie piracy completely, then likely all that money will be spent on comic books and the theater. Everybody wins. You can't magically make people spend more.
The Feds just want more laws and excuses for intruding on our lives, and the executives want to control distribution -- irrespective of short term profits. They want to be able to sell you the same movie about 5 times. Once in the theater, once as a rental, and then again at $14.99 until you scratch the DVD. Then as part of a stream on HBO -- which strangely enough, I could record about 80 movies a month and I fail to do so, because I've got 80 more next month. You also pay for it when it comes on TV because for some reason, that commercial TV I get with the wonderful adds for DieTech 2nd mortgages is not making my cable subscription free. - NeoTechni, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2He's saying it would HELP if they'd release them faster.
I wouldn't have pirated the futurama movies had the bluray versions been available at my local store when the dvdrips were posted
I hate waiting - Kyan, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Geez, or is just being sarcastic maybe?
The point being that Paramount is jumping to quite a few conclusions themselves. Duh. - BoneheadFarker, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2The only problem with that is the studios want to double dip. Release it in theaters only so that it's the only option for people who really want to see a movie, then release the DVD when the theater money dwindles. People who saw it right away are more likely to rent or buy the DVD 6 months later. With a simultaneous release, fewer people will see it in the theater since they can just buy the DVD for less than the price of 2 tickets. In some cases, less than 1 ticket.
It's not about sales. It's about greed... - bbqribs, on 11/03/2009, -0/+25,000,000 pirated copies - and most of the original ones were from FOREIGN COUNTRIES. But now the FCC wants to stand up and slap Americans with more laws?
Wait a second.... clearly the answer is just to ban foreign countries, since the facilitate movie piracy.
I don't want the FCC regulating the internet. This is the same group that was run over by the "Parents Television Council" or whatever they were after Janet Jackson's floppy boob. Now everything their Christian bible thumping group doesn't think is wholesome is 'obscene.'
Nah. Keep that crap off the internet, plz. - javakah, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2I had a similar situation. I wanted to watch a particular movie on my main television. I went to two local stores and they didn't have any copies. Amazon had it for video on demand, but were charging pretty much the same price as they were charging for the dvd (wtf?), and I wouldn't have been able to watch it out in my living room on my television anyway.
Just out of curiosity, I looked around a bit, and quickly found that I could download pirated copies of the movie without problem. And I could even have my choice of formats (hi-def, etc). And if I went with the pirated copy, I would be able to burn it onto a dvd and watch it in my living room. In the end, it was getting late and I just decided to say screw it, skipped getting the movie, and just played a video game.
It did make me think though. I had money in hand, and just wanted to watch this movie in my living room. The pirates were the ones who were willing to make this happen. The article talks about sleek websites and such. It's called service. It's a wake up call that your model just isn't working any more. The best thing they can do to stop piracy is just provide better (or at least comparable) service than the pirates (see Hulu for example). - theuniversal, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Bury.
- hiroshima23, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Actually I sat through the camcorder version of it, enjoyed it so much that I Went to the theaters to see what I had missed, and I'm now on Pin's and needles waiting for the Blu Ray version to be released.
I believe that Bootleg movies actually HELP the movie companies by providing FREE advertising. I watched several movies that I had absolutely no intention on going to the theaters to see, and liked them so much that I either went to see it on the full screen or bought the blu ray/dvd later or both. - HtomSirveaux, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Peerguardian doesn't work if the trackers know what they are doing. I stopped bothering with it after I was caught by HBO four separate times while it was running. If you are downloading something that you shouldn't be, they will find you if they really want to. The best defense I found was to just throttle your upload speed. They really only go after people that open their entire bandwidth to seeding. They always have bigger fish to fry.
- andrejhoward, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1gold plated ... ***** you!! .. platinum baby ... and they want to buy 11 year old boys ... hookers are so 2007
- Yage2006, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1I download but I go see the movies I really want to see in theaters and I go like 30 times a year at least.
I don't download cam's though I dont even know how people cant stand to look at that it ruins the whole experience for a movie. Watching a movie with 100+milllion budget re-cam'd with a 500 camcorder with crap audio and blurry picture whats the point. - VitriolAndAngst, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1And to bolster my claims that piraters are the #1 purchasers of AV content;
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/29016/53/ - penguinofspades, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_python
- NeoTechni, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1"okudagraph"
Dugg. Okuda is the man. - seandfeeney, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1The war on piracy is the new war on drugs. Looks great on paper to the government but it will eventually cost billions in tax dollars and accomplish nothing.
- Ninh, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1There's a number of questions nobody seems to care to get answers to, the studios in particular:
1) How many of those who download movies end up buying them when they discover they like them?
2) How many more copies would the studios sell if they offered them closer to launch at cinemas?
3) Where are the price points where users would rent/buy movies instead of/after downloading/test driving them? -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is