To Pirate or Not To Pirate - The Pirate Bay - Is Pirating Movies Really Killing The Industry?

I came across the above picture on the internet somewhere and it got me wondering about movie and cd piracy and whether it really is having as devastating effect on the movie making industry as the industry claims.

And yes, I have watched movies where the above description in the picture is so true. You stick the dvd in and it just takes ages and ages to finally get to the actual movie after you are forced to watch message after boring message, but I don't think that is what makes people pirate movies.

I saw a study published some time ago which found that a typical movie 'pirate' would most likely not buy the movie that they had just downloaded. Based simply on that premise, the act of downloading appears to be one of opportunity - the opportunity is there to download something for 'free' and so "lets do it".

Taking only this into consideration, it would seem to suggest that the movie making companies wouldn't lose much money because the pirate is unlikey to purchase the movie anyway. But I'm sure it would certainly get on their goat that someone had obtained one (or more) of their movies for free.

However, the movie companies may lose money if the downloader makes copies of said movie and distributes it to one or two friends. It's possible that those friends may be avid purchasers of movies and so giving them a copy for free, or minimal cost, will probably deprive the movie companies of some revenue. The dollar value of that lost revenue would be anyones guess. You could estimate it, but in reality, no-one would have any real idea.

The movie companies will of course, give the worst possible scenario and tell you that losses run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, but I'm not so sure. And at the end of the day, have the movie makers made their own beds and now have to sleep in it. I mean to say, is any actor worth $10 or $20 million per movie? No way. The cost to produce movies has blown out of all proportion, and maybe if the movie dives, they blame it on piracy... "So that's why we made a loss".

I think Hollywoods Movie Makers and Actors need to have a real big reality check, but of course, it's America, and as usual, if everything is not over the top and blown out of proportion, it's not worth doing. Start paying actors $1 million per movie, and then maybe the actor can spend $2 million on a house instead of $25 million. Start reigning in with a bit of common sense. The movie industry has created this monster "bigger than life" movies and pay packets and production costs and we, the general public are expected to fund it all.

What does this have to do with pirates who download and copy movies... everything. As far as the pirate is concerned, they know an actor(s) has been paid millions, and the movie companies often expouse how expensive the movie was to make, and then of course, the press report that the movie has taken $150 million in its first week after release. Plus, don't forget down the track, there's DVD rentals and sales to be made. It really is no wonder that the pirate thinks the industry is overflowing with money.

Like I said before, the industry created this "monster", now it has to deal with the backlash when people start to say "enough is enough" and seek cheaper ways to see a movie.

With everything going digital, and high end large screen home entertainment systems becoming the norm, will people start demanding to have new releases piped to their homes via the internet? Invite 15 friends around and pay the $10 for a new movie release. Now that will hit the pockets of movie producers more than piracy.

It's only a matter of time till the movie industry starts to change. The movie industry will still want cinema releases all over the world because this is where they make all the money, but I see this as dying out in favour of home entertainment. Will the movie industry resist change just as the music industry did for years? Digital download of songs are just about the norm these days, so eventually the CD makers and retailers of music will see their industry shrinking.

Eventually DVD rental shops will disappear as well as (legal) downloading and watching of movies becomes the norm. I can see a time in the future when you download an encrypted new release movie from Foxtel or maybe on Warner Bros website and it never gets released in a cinema any more.

You'll never stop the pirating of movies. As soon as some new Blu Ray encryption is introduced, it doesn't take long for a hacker to decrypt it. The movie industry I think will eventually go the way the music industry has gone. The music industry resisted introducing digital downloads whereby people could 'design' their own albums and only download the songs they wanted - why ? because people got sick of paying top dollar for CD's to find 4 or 5 really good tracks on the album and the rest were crap.

If you can "rent" an encrypted new release movie for $10 on-line and let as many of your friends watch it as you want, that must surely help to put a dent in piracy, but of course, that would mean Hollywood would have to totally re-address production costs and what actors are really worth so that movies can be made with a $30 million budget instead of $250 million.

Ahhh, but then, what will happen to the extravagant life all these movie producers and stars lead? Maybe it might be better to keep the extravagant life, keep the cost of movies high, charge heaps for cinema tickets and maybe the pirates aren't having such a big dent after all....

Get Real

The Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc etc Scandal

This story is still unfolding in the UK.

Call me cynical, but why has it taken for Jimmy Savile to pass away before people start coming forward to make complaints to police?

It seems it has become popular to "come forward" and join the throng of complainants - especially after they find out there is a reasonable deceased estate fortune they might get a part of as compensation.

Out of the 300 or so people that have come forward, I find it hard to believe only a few scant complaints were put forward, to BBC management, as I understand it (an informal complaint as against a formal complaint to police).

It will be interesting to see how the police will wade through the sheer volume of complaints and try to work out who is legitimate against those who are out to get a slice of compensation through deceit. The time difference between the alleged offence occuring and official complaint are surely going to make things difficult for police.

"He groped me sometime in the mid 70's when I went to a BBC broadcast of Top Of The Pops". This unintentional vagueness could be the difference between an offence towards a child or an offence toward an adult. And let's face it, there is huge potential that alleged criminal conduct by Savil could be blown out of proportion, or embellished, to make a more sound case.

I'd like to know what sort of offences we are talking about ? a grope of a bum ? sure it's maybe not nice, but hardly newsworthy or even worth a police complaint. Are we talking outright rape of girls and boys? OK, this is far more serious, but again, if it suddenly is important now, why wasn't it important when the offence occurred many years ago?

It's like me reporting a home invasion and physical assault twenty years after if happens. The police would say to me "If this was so serious and important to you, why didn't you report it twenty years ago? Why do it now"?

I think it's wrong that allegations are made against a person (Jimmy Savile in this case) who is unable to defend himself (because he's dead!). If the 'sexually abused' person can't come out and make an allegation against a person while that person is alive and can defend themselves, they should forgo any right to do so. In my books, to come out and 'join the throng' of complaints, a 'victim' could potentially say just about anything and no-one can dispute whether it really happened or not. Sure, a girl may have been in Savil's dressing room, and he may have pinched her bum or kissed her inappropriately, but that could turn into full rape if there's potential for a civil claim against his amassed fortune. I'm not saying we should dismiss all claims against Savil, but there has to be a reasonable degree of responsibility by the victim. In my book it's plain and simple, laws should be enacted that you can't lay allegations of criminal conduct against a deceased person, as that person is not there to defend themselves. How can a balanced investigation ever be carried out when you can't investigate both sides? The police should be saying, "We understand your wanting to report an offence from 20 years ago, but we are no longer able to do a balanced investigation. It's a pity you didn't come forward when the offence occurred". I understand a victims reluctance to report an offence. But maybe if the victim knew they had a 1 year window to report an offence such as this, then Jimmy Savil may have been arrested years ago and be paying for his crimes?

Get Real

Addendum:
30/10/2012

I note the trashy on-line media is pulling out all the old clips of Savile and Glitter from the early days. All I've seen is a pervy Savile having a bit of a grope and holding onto a girl a little longer and closer than what he should. Big deal. It's hardly deadly perverted stuff. Get over it!

Get Real

Poor old Gerry Harvey gnaws like a dog with a GST bone

I see Gerry Harvey is bitching again about GST not being paid on items valued under $1000 and purchased overseas from various websites.

Get over it Gerry.

What you are saying is that you want the Australian government to implement GST collection on everything purchased, irrespective of value.

You're obviously a smart businessman, and you would well know that it would cost the government more to implement this collection than what it would make in the collection of GST. But deep down what do you care? You're only interested in your empire and your profits. You might disguise that as "speaking for all retailers", but I'm not so sure.

 

"Oh, that GST pain is getting worse"

 

Whether you like it or not, the face of retailing is changing. Some shoppers are getting savvy and are moving away from traditional sources to make purchases. Not everyone mind you - I'd never buy clothes over the internet. It's not worth the hassle if they don't fit etc etc. There are some things you have to put your hands on before spending your hard earned money.

 

Retailers like Harvey Norman make good profits, and profits are still being made, but lets face it - Harvey Norman retailers aren't exactly the cheapest in the market, so do you blame shoppers becoming more savvy and shopping around?

 

Take this example: I went to buy a new computer monitor a few years ago. I checked out a nice LG 17" at Harvey Normans and it was valued at $799 (yes, a few years ago!!). I didn't buy immediately and decided to hum and ha about it for a while. By pure chance I dropped in to a small computer shop just around the corner a day or so later and picked up a pricelist on their counter. Damn it, but there was exactly the same monitor for $550. I double checked the model to make sure it wasn't a lesser 17", but no, it was the same. I went back to Harvey Norman with said pricelist in hand and asked if they could match or better it. No, he couldn't. I think the best he could do was $599. Needless to say, I ended up back at the small computer store. OK, they had to get the monitor in, but next day, I picked it up and parted with $550.

 

Maybe the business model of Harvey Norman is starting to date. Gerry has had it good for a while, but franchise arrangements may not be the way of the future. The store has to make a profit for itself, and they have to give some of that profit to Gerry, so overall, their competitiveness is not as good. That's not the consumers fault, that is just the way Gerry's business model works. Why should the consumer have to pay more to support Gerry and his empire? Where Gerry does do it well is with all the promotions they have "24 months interest free, no repayments till blah blah". Even I have taken advantage of this system, and given I'll have 24 months to pay something off, don't mind paying extra for it.

 

Take another example of how things are changing. I have to buy a new set of cutters and foils for my Remington razor. I checked with a few retailers of shavers in Adelaide; my replacement would be around $45 irrespective of retailer.

 

A quick check on eBay revealed the following (copied and pasted at end of email):

 

If I purchase through eBay, It'll cost me around AU$24.50, that's 50% less than what I can buy locally. It also includes postage, and even if I had to pay GST, would only push up the cost to around $27, still much less than what I can buy it for locally. Good ol' Gerry seems to think people are only saving 10% or so buying from overseas or on-line.

 

What do I do? Fork out my hard earned money and pay the $20 extra and support local business, or buy wisely, wait for 10 days and get my item off eBay and save $20?

 

In time, I think the whole retail industry will be forced to look hard at how they do things. Maybe one day, the importer will sell direct to the retailer and cut out the wholesaler? I don't know how it will pan out. And, even if GST were charged, I still don't think it would make a lot of difference.

 

CD and DVD retailers are in the same boat. Many consumers are starting to watch movies streamed from various internet sources and slowly sales and movie rentals will die off. It's sad, but that's the way it's heading. Adapt and make changes or slowly see your sales ebb away.

 

Get Real

 

Remington RS4400 Foil & Cutter Combi Pack SP69 - REMSP6...

Location: United Kingdom

Store: PentagonGPS

Seller User ID: burrowsgps

Feedback: 60,174 | 99.5%

Watch this item

 

AU $17.95

+AU $6.50





SA Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi - Is this the most stupidest comment a politican has made?

I cannot believe the comments made by one of our politicians - SA Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi.

He pathetically includes same sex marriage, bestiality and polygamy in the same paragraph.

In other words, if society accepts same sex marriage, it's just about a given fact that in time, we will soon accept sex with animals and multiple partner bedroom romps. Can you believe that? And this bloke is a Minister in our government for gods sake.

I have never heard so much bullshit. It's like me saying that having male clergy in the churches will lead to pedophilia.

I'll bet you anything Cory Bernardi is some sort of religious nut who tries to masquerade his religious undertones with his version of reasoning.

I think that Cory Bernardi has to realise that the very institution of marriage is changing. This is not being led by the gay community, but by the heterosexual community. People are realising these days that there is no need to get married to enjoy a happy and fulfilled life. I personally know of many couples that live and exist together and are unmarried. They feel no need to have a piece of paper that supposedly binds them. Some people may need that piece of paper, some not. It's their choice.

Picture courtesy of The Advertiser

And to think this bloke is in our government!

Shame Bernardi, Shame

 

SACK CORI BERNARDI

 

Get Real

 

UPDATE 19/09/2012

 

CORI BERNARDI HAS QUIT HIS ROLE AS PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO TONY ABBOTT ... YAY.. PEOPLE POWER CAN SOMETIMES WIN........... GOOD RIDDANCE!!

 

Get Real



Rape accused Joey De Mesa life destroyed in NSW police stuff up



Picture c/o The Telegraph

As a result of a botched police investigation, a wrongful arrest and charge was made against Joey De Mesa which resulted in destroying this young mans life.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/rape-accused-my-life-is-in-ruins/story-e6freuy9-1226474720728

Check out the above story at the Daily Telegraph website to see the level of incompetence shown by the police.

This bloke should have the right to sue the NSW Police Force for big bucks after the stuff up. But of course, the government always protects itself from potential litigation when it stuffs up things. What do the police care if they have the right person or not? Arrest poor Joey, throw him in some hell hole cell for two days, say "Oops, wrong person", "Off you go". Now it's been splashed over all the newspapers in the land, and Joey's stuffed.

Someone, give this bloke a chance and give him a job.

And like I've pointed out previously in this blog, laws should be changed to protect the names of people accused of certain offences until the charges are proved and they are convicted in a court of law. Police are all too willing just to jump in and arrest people willy nilly and don't give a hoot either way whose life they destroy. Laws should be changed to allow the police force to be held accountable for arrests where there is no evidence and the accused ends up being released. You see this all the time in reports where police suddenly drop charges against an accused because there is not enough evidence (or alternatively, it gets thrown out of court). It happens more often than you think.

Police have this tendency to arrest first, then try and find evidence to fit. A bit of a dangerous thing don't you think?

Get Real