Well, with dvd ripping software, you can set the quality, choose whether or not you want extra features. When I backup my movies, I don't choose the menus, or extras, and I set the quality at about 65 -70%. All that keeps the file size down to under 4 gb.
One of the first things I was taught in college concerning research is to look at who paid for the study. Money talks. I'm also loathe to believe that officials and policies in our "reputable" government (please don't argue that) can be "bought", but it happens, and of course they claim a complete lack of bias. That doesn't mean the consulting firm deliberately faked the study. But it looks like we don't get to see the study. The MPAA gets to feed it to us, and they get to choose what information to present, what to omit, and what spin they want to put on the data. Good luck explaining in what way the MPAA doesn't have a bias or an agenda here or why they wouldn't fiddle with how the data gets presented. I'd say odds are the complete study presents a range of possible figures with a certain margin of error. It's impossible to come to a single definite figure like the one we're being presented here. Since they're picking one specific figure, my bet is that the MPAA is going to choose the largest one. If it was a non-profit study, we'd have better odds of seeing how the study was conducted, what the margin of error is, etc. We don't get any of that, so we can't trust the end figure we're given. There's nothing hard to believe about that. Oh yeah, and the media industry has always assumed in the past that one pirate copy equals one lost sale, so I really doubt they'd change tactics now, especially since it wouldn't help their figures look scary. As for the ethical aspects of piracy, I think it all depends on the situation. Copyright infringement isn't at all the same as physical theft, so the law and the morality of it don't always line up. In cases where potential sales are actually lost or where someone is making money they're not entitled to I do see it as immoral and bad, but that doesn't include all cases of piracy. Furthermore, how much I care depends on who's getting hurt, how badly, and how they respond. If a rich man gets mugged, I don't have to applaud the mugger to not feel much sympathy over the tiny fraction of his fortune that was in his wallet. "Are you okay? Are you still filthy rich? Yes? Okay, then stop whining about it." You don't have to agree, but that's how a lot of people feel, and there's not much of an objective standard to argue about it from. When actors aren't getting overpaid and major film studios are going out of business, then I'll worry about it.
I'm going home from work so I regret not being able to reply in greater detail. Research in the context you are using is not the same thing as a study done in the business world. I am hired to do audits and reviews because I am an independent party. I couldn't do audits or reviews otherwise. Should I not be paid for my work? And it's important to note that I am not ethically able to charge contingency fees for my services. By your rationale, because I am independent and I get paid, I am biased and cannot be believed when I issue my audit report. It simply just doesn't work this way. Further, you've totally ignored the credibility the consulting firm has (i.e. worldwide firm, consults for Fortune 500 companies, obvious excellent quality - they wouldn't be in business otherwise - I'm looking at you Arthur Anderson). What proof do you have that they "faked" the study? What incentive would they have to do so? What does the government have to do with the discussion at hand? The MPAA is not the government. Hollywood is not the government. The consulting firm is not the government. I'm not the government. You're not the government. Lastly, if it were my study, I'm not sure I would want you to see it. You didn't pay for it, I did. I'm the client, not you. That would be like asking to see my audit workpapers. Sorry, no way.
You've obviously not read what I just wrote. Let me post it again for you with some emphasis added. This isn't an audit of the movie industry. It's a study of the piracy habits of the public. There aren't any trade secrets here, the data is all about outsiders. If it was done strictly for private analysis, then they could just as well keep all of it private, but they're choosing to release data that is convenient for thier agenda to the public. So then my question is that if the actual study says exactly what the MPAA wants us to believe it says, why would they hide the rest of the data? Unless we know how the data was collected and how far it's likely to be from 100% accurate, it is absolutely useless to anyone as anything but MPAA propaganda, and that's what it's being used for. The responsibility is not on me to demonstrate that they're giving skewed data or misrepresenting the results of the study, it is on the MPAA to demonstrate that they aren't. Even you've admitted that without knowing exactly how the study was conducted you can't know if the figures we're given are accurate. The study itself may be fine, but the MPAA owns the results, they're the ones filtering it, and that's what I think would be foolish to trust , especially based only on the reputation of the group that conducted the study--a study we don't actually get to see.
So, in other words, you're saying the following: 1. An independent, world renowed company, performs a study, prepares a report, and then presents it to its client. 2. The client subsequently releases information of the report to support its position ("filtering" as you put it) and the firm stands idly by not disputing the "twisting" of their findings released to the press even though it's supposedly erroneous and totally misrepresantative of the facts? I used to get called a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist for less. (Ah the good ole N&P days.) So when my audit report is released saying my client's accounting records are materially correct and in compliance with GAAP, and they (the client) announce it, that's misrepresantative as well? You will never, ever, get to see audit working papers of any company unless you work for the auditing firm. Audits may not be the exact same thing, but they are definitely in the same ballpark.
"Facts" get spin on them all the time. The fact that this is not an exact figure makes this easier. More on that... I'd go so far as to say that in at least one aspect, this is practically the opposite of an audit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but auditing is about exact accuracy. You're checking internal records for veracity and making sure all the facts and data are in order. This kind of study is by nature an educated guess, based on a chaotic external sea of facts that can never be exactly known. There are few to no records to follow here. Perfect accuracy is utterly impossible. The best they can do is conclude that the loss of potential revenue falls within a certain range and that certain kinds of piracy appear to occur more often in certain places than in others. We're not given a range. We're being given a set value without being told a margin of error. As long as the values the MPAA is giving us fall within the range suggested by the study, they are not contradicting it. The MPAA's sole purpose is to keep the movie industry making as much money as they possibly can, and they'll do anything in their power within the law (or at least usually within the law) to do so. "Spin doctor" is effectively part of their job description, and they will do that job without fail. They are an interest group. There is nothing to them except agenda. If they can get away with it, they will paint whatever picture they want within the numbers they've been given, and it's nobody else's fault or responsibility. So--we know they're giving us a set value instead of the full possible range. Which side of that full spectrum are they going to lean toward?
Actually, no, auditing is not about exact accuracy. We don't have the time or money to be exact about everything. We have a thing called materiality. Basically, as long as we're ballpark, we're good. For example, my current 401k plan audit has a materiality level of $25k. If my staff person finds during the course of her testing (only samples, not populations) that there was a $20k mistake made, we don't really care. If it's more work to fix things than leave it, we will. That's somewhat of an oversimplification, but you get the idea. And of course materiality shifts with each individual client. Materiality for one client could be $1k while for another $10,000,000. Thanks for the debate. I'm bowing out I think.
You know, if Hollywood would produce a much better entertainment value for your buck, there would be a lot less piracy. At that point it would merely be those out there who do it to be a dick. I don't even go to theaters anymore. I wait for video. Hell, $3.00 for a rental to see if I like the movie, and $7.00 for a ticket comes out to $10.00...if I like the rental, might as well spend the extra and buy the DVD. I get to keep it, and I didn't waste time dealing with idiots in a theater. Piracy is a waste of time, and yes it does cost plenty of money to combat, etc. However, when you take away one's reason, they usually stop doing what they do. So come on Hollywood, put your money where your mouth is and give the public something that makes 'em wanna run right out and *have* to buy it. It's not that hard.
Honestly, the only true reason is that as consumers, we strive to get the lowest price and best deal possible. You can't get much lower than free. We can try to justify and make excuses, but the bottom line is, we are a materialistic based society. We want and want and want, and there is no way we can have it all, at the price it costs. We either accept that fact, or find ways around it, even if it is illegal. It is not the industries fault, or the government's fault, or anyone elses fault but the person doing it. It is a gamble that they hope they never got caught with, and most will not. We as Transformers collectors should realize that many of us are caught up in the hoarding ritual that borders on OCD. We have to realize that we don't need everything. Same goes for music, movies, etc. Piracy is a byproduct of our unquenchable desire for "stuff."
Quoted for truth I know whenever I downloaded a movie I did it for 2 reasons 1)Because I previously saw the movie and wanted to see one particular part w/o paying or 2)Because honestly I DIDN'T WANT TO PAY Like Funk said it just boils down to people wanting something for nothing
Hey, if I feel that Ford makes crappy cars, does that mean that I'm entitled to a stolen one? People make a living out of stealing cars and selling them for cheap- if a car company makes a vehicle that I don't like, would I be right to go buy one that I know to be stolen for cheap? Maybe I could just go onto a lot and take one for free; its their fault not making one that meets my personal tastes. And hell, you guys don't need movies and music and crap- nowadays, you do NEED a car.
Excellent point. I haven't gone to see a movie at a theatre in over a year. Most of them have unoriginal plots or are pure crap. Its a complete waste of money as Hollywood regurgitates stuff from previous eras to make as much money as possible with having to do as little work as possible. Has anyone actually realized the lack of new and original ideas coming from Hollywood? X-men, Spiderman, and now Transoformers? Look at all the copycat movies that totally ruined a previously great mythos: Hulk, Punisher, Daredevil, Starsky and Hutch, Dukes of Hazzard, etc. Seriously, they keep re-using old stuff over and over again. Now Mission Impossible is coming back and Superman Returns. I'll go pay for the Transformers movie but thats about it. The future of entertainment is in free, shared movies. Check out www.youtube.com. Its great. Users make the videos, rate the videos, and police the videos themselves. All for free. Bye bye big entertainment. I am fed up with programming that is built around advertising. Growing up in the late 80s/early 90s, I got so accustomed to having a set of commercials every 5 minutes. 5 minutes of show, then some commercials. I also got accustomed to the crappy 1 hour to 1 1/2 hour movie. Its time to break all those molds. New creative ideas. No advertising. Thats the future, and I'd bet money on it.
Is anyone saying they're entitled to free movies? No. We want free movies and seeing as it's practically impossible to get caught we're going to do it. Hell if I could steal a car and get, totally scot free, away with it I would. If there was a totally fool proof way to get a car for nothing I'd be right in there. If people can get something for bugger all they will take it. The only exception is taking from other people but people have no trouble stealing from companies because they're faceless.
Um, yes, they are; not in those exact words, but I've seen numerous people in this thread use "movies these days suck" as their logic for why they pirate. They feel this claimed lack of quality is what justifies them not paying for the movies. If they aren't claiming that it entitles them to steal, then why use it as a defense for doing so?? Yeah, the reality is they want something for nothing, and they're probably never going to get caught, and the companies are faceless, etc. I can buy all that- its this mentality (which has very clearly surfaced in this thread) that "if movies didn't suck, people wouldn't feel the need to pirate" that doesn't make any sense to me.
I can't speak for everyone else but I've used that same reason. I don't think it entitles me to anything, it's what makes me want to pirate though. It's basically the same as shopping around or haggling with someone, if I don't feel a movie is worth whatever price the cinema is asking then I'll either get it somewhere else for cheap or wait for the dvd.
Well every movie or show I've pirated I actually bought the original once/if it became available. So it's not a matter of getting it for nothing...it's a matter of being impatient while shows I like and would certainly buy on DVD get passed over for tripe like "The Simple Life" and "Good Times". When Batman or Addams Family come out on DVD I will certainly be right there to upgrade...just like I did when the Mel Brooks set came out, and I already had Dinosaurs on pre-order once it was announced. In the meantime the only reason they aren't getting my $$$ is because they haven't offered me the product
1) People don't go to see movies for new and original ideas. If they did, the art houses would be packed, and the cineplexes empty. So long as people tell Hollywood this is what they want to see (and they do with every ticket or DVD they buy), they'll think that's what they should make more of. And pirating doesn't escape this - they have a pretty good idea of which films are pirated the most, and I promise you they are not the type going to win awards for creativity. 2) Someone has yet to explain how the quality of Hollywood films justifies pirating - that is, why would someone want to purchase and illegal copy of a film that they don't want to see. 3) How exactly would people know about merchandise if it wasn't advertised?
