Firefly Sets Yet Another Record!

POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Friday, February 23, 2007 02:07
VIEWED: 52370
PAGE 9 of 16

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DonCoat:

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

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

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

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

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

Basically, a lot of the cost is artificial.

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

...snip...

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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

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

Not really.

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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

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

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

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

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

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

SEAFORT32

Monday, January 22, 2007 3:47 AM

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

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

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

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

MICJWELCH

Monday, January 22, 2007 2:14 PM

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

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

CEDRIC

Monday, January 22, 2007 7:59 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KJ

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:46 AM

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

PONGLUVER

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:37 PM

So fail to realize several things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

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

And they've said as much.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Seafort32:

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

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

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

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:11 AM

@Pongluver:

My god, where do I start.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE