Why did movie rental streaming prices increase?

[Towen7]

Is it only other people's "potential revenue" that doesn't matter?

Let's say you're an author. You self-publish your book that you spent 4 years writing and sell 1000 copies in the first week for $10. Then another publisher copies your book and literally gives it away. They give away 10,000,000 copies and everywhere you go people are reading "your" book. It changes pop culture but you get almost nothing for your work. Are you okay with that?

 

[Botch]

What is the difference between downloading it off a torrent and recording it off cable? What is the difference between downloading it off a torrent and borrowing it from a library of a friend? There is no difference. "Intellectual property" is not property at all. Copying is not stealing. When you steal someone, you deprive them of the use of the thing. Copying does not do that. It only deprives someone of the potential for revenue, not even real revenue. It is not even morally similar to stealing.

You're correct, there IS no difference; it's ALL stealing.
"...not even real revenue???" Tell that to Flint.
Haywood, if everyone in the world adopted your view of "intellectual property", art would stop, except for hobbyists who do it/distribute it for their own amusement. And by "art" I mean music, movies, tv shows, paid commentaries, news, software, photography, on and on.
Maybe that's a viable world situation. Maybe you're okay with settling in at night and watching the latest viral cat video on Ewetube, instead of Game of Thrones, or the CBS News.
I'm not.

 

[hawk52]

Haywood, I need to respectively disagree as well as respect your position. Lets leave there.

 

[Haywood]

Is it only other people's "potential revenue" that doesn't matter?

Let's say you're an author. You self-publish your book that you spent 4 years writing and sell 1000 copies in the first week for $10. Then another publisher copies your book and literally gives it away. They give away 1,000,000 copies and everywhere you go people are reading "your" book. It changes pop culture but you get almost nothing for your work. Are you okay with that?

Let me give you a more realistic scenario. I self-publish a book and sell the first 1000 copies for $10, because I cannot get a book deal. Then my book ends up going viral. I don't make money on the illegal copies, but I do get publicity and exposure. This leads to getting the book published in print, which is how most people still read books. I go on a book tour and sell many more copies than I would have sold had it not gone viral on the torrents.

Why do you think some bands actually give away their music? They use the recordings to create demand for shows, which is how they make their real money.

The problem we have is that our current idea of intellectual property and copyright is very outmoded and expansions to it are designed to prop up obsolete business models.

There are some people who certainly do download all their movies off the torrents and never buy any, but there is substantial evidence that many of the people who pirate music and movies are also people who buy a lot of music and movies. Why do you think music sales finally rebounded? People are perfectly willing to pay a reasonable price for an individual song that they can download NOW. It took piracy to drive the music industry to adopt a business model people would accept. Now the music business is making money again. I think the movie business is going through a similar thing, but the movie business learned from the mistakes of the music business and it moving in the right direction to head off the worst of the damage. Now if publishers would just get their heads out of their asses with ebooks...

 

[Haywood]

What is the difference between downloading it off a torrent and recording it off cable? What is the difference between downloading it off a torrent and borrowing it from a library of a friend? There is no difference. "Intellectual property" is not property at all. Copying is not stealing. When you steal someone, you deprive them of the use of the thing. Copying does not do that. It only deprives someone of the potential for revenue, not even real revenue. It is not even morally similar to stealing.

You're correct, there IS no difference; it's ALL stealing.
"...not even real revenue???" Tell that to Flint.
Haywood, if everyone in the world adopted your view of "intellectual property", art would stop, except for hobbyists who do it/distribute it for their own amusement. And by "art" I mean music, movies, tv shows, paid commentaries, news, software, photography, on and on.
Maybe that's a viable world situation. Maybe you're okay with settling in at night and watching the latest viral cat video on Ewetube, instead of Game of Thrones, or the CBS News.
I'm not.

No, it would not. Did you read my post on the concept of patronage. I've spent well over $20,000 on CDs, DVDs, BDs and UV movies over the years. I understand completely that art survives on patronage. That's why I buy the overwhelming majority of the content I consume.

 

[Haywood]

What is the difference between downloading it off a torrent and recording it off cable? What is the difference between downloading it off a torrent and borrowing it from a library of a friend? There is no difference. "Intellectual property" is not property at all. Copying is not stealing. When you steal someone, you deprive them of the use of the thing. Copying does not do that. It only deprives someone of the potential for revenue, not even real revenue. It is not even morally similar to stealing.

You're correct, there IS no difference; it's ALL stealing.
"...not even real revenue???" Tell that to Flint.
Haywood, if everyone in the world adopted your view of "intellectual property", art would stop, except for hobbyists who do it/distribute it for their own amusement. And by "art" I mean music, movies, tv shows, paid commentaries, news, software, photography, on and on.
Maybe that's a viable world situation. Maybe you're okay with settling in at night and watching the latest viral cat video on Ewetube, instead of Game of Thrones, or the CBS News.
I'm not.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that borrowing a CD from the library, listening to it and then returning it is stealing?

 

[hawk52]

Oh when will I ever learn to shut up! Buying 20 cars at whatever paid, doesn't give you the right to copy/steal the 21st. If someone wants to lend you their car that's up to them. You copy something you should have paid for and keep it, it's theft.

IP is a whole different subject IMO. Being part of a mult billion '$$ enterprise, IP is real important. Not for this subject.

 

[Haywood]

Simplistic, but true:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4[/youtube]

 

[Towen7]

Reasonable people can disagree.

 

[Haywood]

Just to clarify my position:

No, I do not think that copying is stealing any more than going to the library is.
Yes, I do think we should support the arts and artists by paying for content.

We are mostly quibbling over semantics. I spend a TON of money on content, at least a thousand dollars a year (usually more). I am certainly not suggesting that it is okay for people to pirate all (or even most) of their content. If they did that, we would have no movies to watch and no music to listen to. That is why I buy the movies and music that I enjoy and want to keep long term.

 

[Haywood]

I'm not taking this conversation personally. I think we're having a pretty civilized discussion. I respect where you guys are coming from, I just don't agree with you. Which is fine. At the end of the day, the practical result of my position is not that different from that of yours. I spend money to support art I care about.

 

[hawk52]

What is most ironic I refuse to purchase hard media. I haven't bought a movie in years or a CD. I use Netflix for physical and streaming. Meets my needs. Netflix new show Orange is the new Black is lets say nice. Mad Men is also there. I only have 62 of the 64 episodes to go. For less than $20 a month I get what I want for entertainment.
Watched China Town the other night. Its stuff like that which separates and provides value. Yea no new stuff but that's OK. I'll just borrow it from someone on this forum :music-rockout:




..

 

[Haywood]

We have Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime and Drama Fever. We used to also get HBO and Crunchyroll, but it was getting a bit out of hand.

 

[Rope]

GREED!

Rope

 

[Kazaam]

GREED!

Rope

It's like they're trying to make lots o' money or somethin'???!!! Hmmm... I wonder: Would I get a discount on rental fees if I took a job at either of the Hollywood studios or perhaps one of the movie distributors? And whose benefit package would give me the biggest discount? What about a job as a Walmart greeter? Walmart owns Vudu, right? Any discount there, by chance?

I'm still just ranting, of course.

What sucks is that often when I rent a movie it's just me watching it. Not always, but often enough. And $6.99 for HDX streamed to my home kind of sucks when I can catch a new-release matinee at the local AMC for close to $5.00 and enjoy the film in a real theater, which I guess is what I've pretty much done this past year. Heck, it's still only $7.50 at the AMC even if it isn't a matinee.

 

[MUDSHARK]

Things must be cheaper in Minnesota. Movies here are 8-10 not even including IMAX or 3-d.

 

[MatthewB]

I pay a fee of 7.99 for a website called "Iwannadownload" they have DVD quality movies not out yet as well as movies still in theaters. Now is it stealing if I'm paying to use this site? Some say yes some say no. I will say that I have bought a ton of Blurays I normally wouldn't have bought because I watched the movie on this site first.

Now the flip side. I was thinking of buying "Oblivion" with Tom Cruise because the trailer looked good. So I watched the movie on the website above and found out the movie sucked the high holy one. It was bad. Now imagine I've spent 25.00 on the Bluray to later find the movie sucked. So now Tom Cruise has more of my money (which he surely doesn't need) but yet I who live on a fixed income is now out 25.00 of hard earned money for this POS movie. Now if I had loved the movie I would buy the Bluray but am glad I saw it free so now I can make an informed decision.

I feel no guilt for watching a movie for free. It's obvious the Bugatti driving Tom Cruise doesn't need anymore of my money and if he ever does come out with a descent movie I'll give him my money. In fact I recently bought "The Firm" on Bluray after I owned it on DVD (so Tom and company get paid twice by me for the same product) but I'd be pissed if I gave him money on tripe like "Jack Reacher" or "Oblivion". In fact Tom should pay me for wasting two hours of my life on "Oblivion".

It's quite simple if you make a quality product I'll buy it if its shit I won't and I prefer to make an informed decision by watching it free first. Well not free I pay 8.00/ month to test the waters.

 

[Towen7]

I pay a fee of 7.99 for a website called "Iwannadownload" they have DVD quality movies not out yet as well as movies still in theaters. Now is it stealing if I'm paying to use this site?

If you have to ask...

 

[Flint]

Here is a better example of what is being touted as not illegal, immoral and unethical than the car copying gun.

Imagine you walk into a gallery to see an amazing piece of art made by a living artist who has personally created 1,000 numbered copies of that piece using the same methods to sell. You then pull out your phone, a device you already own and use for other purposes, and point the camera at it and take a photo of the art. Then you use freeware software (that doesn't exist today) to take that photo and turn it into an absolute perfect duplicate of the original at no additional cost to you at all. You then put the art on your wall to enjoy as if you purchased it. Is that legal, moral, or ethical?

To take the analogy further, next you go online and upload the data from the phone and the tools for everyone in the world to make copies of the art for themselves for free - with no cost to each person who creates a copy. If the art is semi-popular, there could be 10,000 copies hanging on people's walls all over the world within a week. Meanwhile the artist hasn't sold a single copy of his hard work.

This is what happened to the music industry and is very close to happening to the video content industry.

You say artists now have to give their music away and tour to make money. Well, the best albums ever made were not made for touring, they were made from the sheer genius of what could be done in the studio when the concept of playing the music live is no longer a concern. Take every single great Beatles album, for example. Do you think Sgt. Pepper's or Revolver would have been produced if the band wasn't going to make money off the album and instead had to earn a living off touring? Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, Edgar Winter Group, Supertramp, Jethro Tull, Porcupine Tree, Thomas Dolby, Talking Heads, Jellyfish, and hundreds of amazing bands knew their albums would sell, so they did things in the studio for sole purpose of creating the most amazing listener experiences which could never, ever be recreated live. Why develop amazing albums at massive costs in studio time if you cannot make money off sales?

There is a market for bands who play live and earn most of their income from live gigs. But there was also once a market for recorded music which didn't require a tour for the artists to make money. I believe we need both.

But look at what it takes to go on tour. It is a terrible experience for 95% of those who do it. Can you imagine driving a van or two from town to town, not seeing your wife and children for months at a time, staying in cheap hotels to maximize take home pay, worrying about the cost of every guitar string, drum head, or blown amp tube that naturally occur when working your equipment hard. Do you think the best and most talented people in the world would choose that lifestyle for themselves knowing that it will never get much better? Touring is not glamorous, not even for Taylor Swift or Coldplay. It is hard, lonely, depressing, and sad. Go tell all the young song writers and musicians that if they want to make a living at music that they have to choose not to have healthy family lives, a home they get to sleep in each night, a home cooked meal more often than not, and good consistent friends and neighbors to visit with regularly. Tell them that the lives most of us take for granted and love isn't for them.

Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter how good your intentions are or why you think you are justified. It is stealing. It really doesn't help the artist to have millions of illegal listeners. You may think it is good, but it isn't. Free music from artists is tracked, they get your information and can try to court you into buying tickets, shirts, bumper stickers, or CDs. Free music from a Torrent doesn't benefit the artist at all.

Back when I had my own band in Las Cruces we sold cassettes, five albums in total. Well, one day in 1997 after I retired from making music, I was walking through the Mayo Clinic offices in Scottsdale and I heard my band's music in one of the cubicles. Naturally I stuck my head in and asked who that was. I got this "superfan" style response that it was an amazing band from NM which disappeared. He went on to tell me he never understood why the band never came to Phoenix because he had made hundreds of copies of the cassettes he bought at a show in Albuquerque and distributed them to friends. He claims the local college stations had a small hit with one of the songs. He said the fan base in Phoenix was huge and the band could have easily sold out a club.

Well, I didn't know there was a fan base in Phoenix or we would have played there. How would we know? The band hadn't handed out free cassettes with a mail in address for a newsletter. We didn't track what was played on the local college stations. We were desperate to make it big and during that time bands like the Gin Blossoms and the Refreshments were getting their big breaks out of Phoenix. How did it help my band that someone was illegally duplicating music and creating a fan base? Of course things are different today with the internet and the virtual elimination of distance between people, but not many genius songwriters and musicians are also tech genii who know how to track everything online. So the record companies are still needed and an unsigned band without business or internet knowledge is screwed.

 

[MatthewB]

But Flint what about those people who play in bands just for the enjoyment of playing in a band. I have a buddy who plays awesome guitar in a band and he doesn't give two shits about making money. His enjoyment is seeing people dance to his music.

You mentioned artwork being copied. I own several framed posters of Monet that were dirt ass cheap sold at college campuses. Granted they are copies but I still enjoy looking at them and i seriously doubt Monet got one red cent from it.

Movies are played on Netflix all the time. What your saying is its wrong for me to pay one site 7.99 a month to watch the movie now or pay Netflix 7.99 to watch it six months from now. I still will see the movie and if good enough I'll buy the movie. Your upset that I get to watch now instead of later.

Now lets take Pro baseball for example. At the turn of the century players played for love of the game and just enough money to eat and they loved playing the game. Now players get Multi million dollar contracts and sit on the bench. Only difference between the two was the era they were born in.

Do I care that Justin Beiber drives Ferrari's and lives in a mansion. No and his music sucks I can't help it that millions of pre teen girls can't tell good music from bad. Justin is a no talent hack who uses "voice synthesizers" and lip synchs his concerts. Some would say he is stealing from his fans by faking his singing. Hearing artists bitch about their music getting torrented but sing about robbing and raping and stealing themselves is irony at its finest all the while driving cars that cost as much as my house. Hey more power to them but I will not care if they get richer because they already have way too much money.

I do feel for the struggling artists but don't feel people bootlegging their music is the problem. It's the studios who would rather sign some cutesy boy band with no talent than hire the true musicians working the clubs who deserve a shot. I used to have to buy whole albums for one or two good songs meanwhile the other eight tracks were shit. Now the artists are pissed because iTunes is only selling the two tracks instead of the whole album well boo friggin hoo tough titty I say. I love that I only have to spend 2.00 for the two songs I like rather than 10.00

I see no difference between listening to new music free on my XM radio (I say free because I signed up for the 300.00 lifetime membership which my GF paid for and don't have a monthly charge). I still hear the music for free and it didn't cost me anything. Same as if I had a buddy give me 128GB of music at the last gtg. I'm introduced to music I like and hate. The music I like I'll most likely buy a song or two on iTunes when they come out but I'm sure as shit not wasting my money on the music that sucks.

I'm sorry your band didn't make it but it sounds like you were born in the wrong time. Just think of what could've happened had your band come out two years before the Gin Blossoms and Refreshments. Much like when I chose to watch my movie "timing is everything".