Best Anti-Piracy advertisement ive seen

Quote:

Original post by boolean Every time you pirate a movie, Hitler gets closer to rising from the hell

Roofle

I know someone that works in a cinema, so I could theoretically see movies for free.

Boolean, that's why I go to the movies. My little sound system can't possibly give me the experience I get in the theaters.


Not like I could pirate anything either, pitiful small connection that I have.

Quote:

Original post by boolean When I went to see Spiderman 2 the other night, they had an advertisement where they were showing some scenes from an upcoming movie (I was thinking it was just an ad for the cinemas themselves) and made sure that they were the most eye popping visuals with the most ear exploding sounds that the cinema could possibly throw out. Once it finished, im sitting there going 'whoah, that was sweet'. Well once the screen goes black, the words 'You dont get this at home...' come up. It took me a few moments to relise that it was actually an anti-piracy ad. I must say that it was by far the best reason ive ever been given to not pirate a movie. Instead of ads cramming 'every time you pirate a movie, Hitler gets closer to rising from hell' messages down your throat, this one actually came up with a valid reason to compete with piracy. Do you think this is a new way of looking at piracy that might catch on? Do you think this would have as much effect on other people as it did on me?

I'd say that's a pretty crappy anti-piracy ad, considering the fact that the only people who are seeing it are people who aren't pirating the movie in the first place.

The intended audience won't see it.

Quote:

Original post by Mithrandir I'd say that's a pretty crappy anti-piracy ad, considering the fact that the only people who are seeing it are people who aren't pirating the movie in the first place. The intended audience won't see it.

I'm kind of curious if there is an "intended audience" at all. Does anybody know of a single person who pirates movies, but would pay to see them if they couldn't pirate them? The entertainment industry likes to believe that every single person who pirates a copy of a film is a person who would have otherwise bought a ticket - this is obviously false, but I'm curious how false it is. I lived in a university dorm with a T3 internet connection for 3 years. Never once did I once witness a person downloading a movie, that would have otherwise paid for it.

Some of the most popular movies people downloaded and shared on the network included The Matrix or The Lord of the Rings movies. People downloaded them, but only after watching them at the theatre a dozen times. I really think piracy in the movie industry is extremely overstated.

Quote:

Original post by Mithrandir Quote: Original post by boolean When I went to see Spiderman 2 the other night, they had an advertisement where they were showing some scenes from an upcoming movie (I was thinking it was just an ad for the cinemas themselves) and made sure that they were the most eye popping visuals with the most ear exploding sounds that the cinema could possibly throw out. Once it finished, im sitting there going 'whoah, that was sweet'. Well once the screen goes black, the words 'You dont get this at home...' come up. It took me a few moments to relise that it was actually an anti-piracy ad. I must say that it was by far the best reason ive ever been given to not pirate a movie. Instead of ads cramming 'every time you pirate a movie, Hitler gets closer to rising from hell' messages down your throat, this one actually came up with a valid reason to compete with piracy. Do you think this is a new way of looking at piracy that might catch on? Do you think this would have as much effect on other people as it did on me? I'd say that's a pretty crappy anti-piracy ad, considering the fact that the only people who are seeing it are people who aren't pirating the movie in the first place. The intended audience won't see it.

The intended audience does hear about it, however, and how kick-ass it is. *winks*

Quote:

Original post by haro Quote: Original post by Mithrandir I'd say that's a pretty crappy anti-piracy ad, considering the fact that the only people who are seeing it are people who aren't pirating the movie in the first place. The intended audience won't see it. I'm kind of curious if there is an "intended audience" at all. Does anybody know of a single person who pirates movies, but would pay to see them if they couldn't pirate them? The entertainment industry likes to believe that every single person who pirates a copy of a film is a person who would have otherwise bought a ticket - this is obviously false, but I'm curious how false it is. I lived in a university dorm with a T3 internet connection for 3 years. Never once did I once witness a person downloading a movie, that would have otherwise paid for it. Some of the most popular movies people downloaded and shared on the network included The Matrix or The Lord of the Rings movies. People downloaded them, but only after watching them at the theatre a dozen times. I really think piracy in the movie industry is extremely overstated.

this is the absolute worst argument for piracy I have ever heard. I will probably never be able to afford a lamborghini, so why don't I just steal one?

Entertainment is not a right, it's a privelage. This "each to his own ability to pay" idea is crap, it's communism. You pay the same amount for your movie regardless of whether or not you can afford it. If you can't afford it, then you don't get to see the movie PERIOD. Maybe that'll be a little incentive for you to earn a little cash. I've known PLENTY of people that could more than afford to see a movie at the theater, but still they choose to download. I have a friend, his father is a merchant marine ship inspector. They own a $300,000 house in Miami. He still pirates movies. I have another friend who's father is involved in government IT work. His father chooses to live in Thailand, and sent my friend to an elite boarding school here in America. He still chooses to pirate movies. I have a friend, works as a PC Technician, constantly has the latest cell phones or whatever, still chooses to pirate movies and games. The people that are pirating are NOT those that can't afford the movies. It is specifically those that CAN afford the movies, because they can afford the broadband access to get them, wether it is cable internet at home or college tuition for access to the network.

Besides, who CAN'T afford a movie every once in a while? Noone is SO destitute (other than the homeless) that they can't save a few quarters here and their and go see a movie at the matinee or late release theater. "The people that pirate are those that can't afford" is bullshit, they CAN afford, they just choose not to pay because they don't want to. Don't want to pay $8 for a movie ticket? Wait a month and see it at the late release theater for $5. Order it off your cable box for $4. Rent it from the movie store for $3. Don't want to pay $18 for a CD? Go on Half.com and buy it from someone else for $3.

I'm particularly opposed to senior citizen discounts. If senior citizens are entitled to discounts because of their "fixed income" (who doesn't live on a fixed income? like I have some magical ability to expand my income at any given moment), then why not young people as well, who earn far less than the elderly take in off of their retirement plans and social security checks.

If you can cut one group of people a break, why not cut everyone a break?

Quit making excuses, you know it's wrong, stop doing it. So what if it does or doesn't hurt the movie industry, it's still wrong. It doesn't matter if everyone else is doing it, or that you think the prices are exhorbitant, you are still wrong by stealing. The logic employed to rationalized piracy is at best a fool's logic.

capn_midnight, you completely missed the point haro was making. it has nothing to do with not being able to afford watching films, which is what your entire argument is centred around.

I've only ever downloaded 2 films (omg warez), which I only did because I was unable to see them in the cinema. If I was unable to download them, I would still never have paid to see it and the movie industry still doesn't get its extra few quid, I would have patiently waited until they came out on TV, which is what I usually do.

Quote:

Original post by Mikasa capn_midnight, you completely missed the point haro was making. it has nothing to do with not being able to afford watching films, which is what your entire argument is centred around. I've only ever downloaded 2 films (omg warez), which I only did because I was unable to see them in the cinema. If I was unable to download them, I would still never have paid to see it and the movie industry still doesn't get its extra few quid, I would have patiently waited until they came out on TV, which is what I usually do.

at no point did he say the willingness to pirate the movie is based on the unavailability of the movie at the local theaters. Quite the contrary, his arguement is completely centered around the viewer NOT paying for the movie even if they don't pirate, whether this is due to lack of funding or lack of desire.

In regards to the Matrix and LotR (movies people paid to see and then downloaded to watch over and over again), how soon after they left the theaters did they come out on DVD? Very shortly. This act of piracy may not be cutting into box-office sales, but certainly cuts into DVD sales. And again, if you don't want to pay $15 for the DVD, then go onto Ebay and pay $5.

Quote:

Original post by boolean Once it finished, im sitting there going 'whoah, that was sweet'. Well once the screen goes black, the words 'You dont get this at home...' come up. It took me a few moments to relise that it was actually an anti-piracy ad.

While not a completely true ad, I do think it serves it's purpose well.

I actually don't go to the theatre much anymore (used to go about once a month or so, now only 4-5 movies a year), because I would much rather watch a movie at home (which I probably watch 1-2 movies a week or so).

At home I get comfortable seating, better food, better quality screen, and ten times better sound.

Although I wouldn't pirate a movie if you paid me to, I only watch store bought DVDs. I am highly against piracy, but also the fact that the I like to have the highest quality while watching movies, etc I could never watch ripped DVDs or Divx movies.

Quote:

every time you pirate a movie, Hitler gets closer to rising from hell' messages down your throat..

LOL!!11

I have downloaded a few movies, but the movie industry has not lost any money because of that. The only time I have downloaded them is in the period between them being in theatres and being released on DVD. I have never failed to rent or buy a movie that I have downloaded and a couple of them I saw in the theatre as well. Now, I know that it doesn't make it right, it is still illegal, but I don't consider it immoral.

Another thing is foreign language movies. I am currently learning German and Polish and therefore it would be nice to have movies in those languages in order to improve my listening and comprehension skills. Even if I buy a DVD in those languages, though, I can not play it in my DVD player and I don't want to buy two more DVD players. I can, however, find movies in those languages online, to download. Again, it is illegal, but I can't consider it immoral to download these movies, especially since I own the English versions of them.

Piracy is illegal, it is not always wrong.

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight this is the absolute worst argument for piracy I have ever heard. I will probably never be able to afford a lamborghini, so why don't I just steal one?

That is the absolute worst argument against piracy I've ever heard and yet I hear it over and over again. Downloading a movie is totally different from stealing a physical object and no matter how many times the MPAA and RIAA try and tell us otherwise that won't change. The reason it's totally different is that if you steal a lamborghini, it is an actual physical loss to somebody else. If you take my lamborghini then you gain an lamborghini but more importantly I lose a lamborghini. If I download a movie there is no physical loss for anyone else. If I download a copy of the Matrix then you don't lose yours. The only 'loss' is the potential loss of revenue to the people who would sell the movie to you in some other format. That's the fundamental difference between information and physical property and until the entertainment industries really understand that difference and start to build their business models around that fact they will never make any progress.

I don't download movies and I only very occasionally download music to check out a song before I buy a CD or because I can't find it on CD. I despair of the entertainment industry though because they just don't get digital media. Given that their entire business is based on information you'd think they'd be a bit smarter but they persist in perpetuating a bogus analogy between information and physical property because of the historical accident that has tied the message to the medium. As the movie and music industries drag their heels and fight tooth and nail against the inevitability of digital distribution they're left looking stupid because the free illegal alternatives look ever more attractive than the products they offer every time they introduce some dumb new copy protection scheme or draconian limitation on fair use.

Quote:

Original post by Mikasa capn_midnight, you completely missed the point haro was making. it has nothing to do with not being able to afford watching films, which is what your entire argument is centred around.

Sorry capn, I too think you missed haro's point.

I don't think he was trying to justify priracy at all. He was simply asking a question. It's "Would the people who pirate movies really have payed to see them if they hadn't pirated if?"

He points out he doesn't think most of them would, and also that he knows people who have pirated movies but still payed to see them, implying having a pirated copy of a movie isn't going to stop you seeing it.

I tend to agree with him. Both with my own experiences, and from what I've been reading lately, it seems alot of people who pirate something wouldn't have gone to see it even if they hacn't pirated.

That said, in contrast, piracy isn't all bad. To use a personal example, take the anime .hack//SIGN. It's not on TV here, and I had never even heard of it. Infact I had stopped watching anime ages ago. My girlfriend goes and downloads the first episode (omg pirate!!1~). After watching it I'm pretty hooked. We download and watch the second...

Over the next two months we bought the rest of the series on 4 DVDs. That's $160NZ of ours Bandai now has that they wouldn't have touched if we hadn't pirated an episode to see what it was like. After doing the same thing with the first couple of episodes of Chobits, I think I know what series I plan to buy next. Considering I had previously seen the Chobits DVD boxes in store and thought they looked crap, this is again a case where, had we not pirated an episode, I would never have considered splashing out out money on it.

The real issue here is trust. Both sides of the argument have almost equally good points.

Everybody who supports it knows someone who's pirated a movie who wouldn't have payed to see it otherwise, and everyone against it knows someone who pirates movies all day despite the fact that they could easily afford it.

Sure, you could "borrow" the content until it comes out on DVD, and you could preview something online until you decide to buy the full version, but there is no way that those reasons can ever be applied to every single person in the world. Period.

No matter how many good excuses, the industry will not trust the entire world to do the right thing. They can't just ignore the fact that if people really wanted to, they could all get the movie for free. There would be too much depending on what the public will decide to do that day.

That's why there are steps being taken to stop piracy in all forms. If it remains possible, it's a potential vulnerability. The only real, complete solution would be a complete change in the way movies and other media is presented, to accomidate everyone's unique needs.

*GASP* OH MY GOD SOMEONE ACTUALLY TRYING TO SHOW THE BENEFITS OF NOT PIRATING. END IS NIGH, REPENT.

Gee... I wonder why so many game development studios keep laying people off or going out of business. It's very sad to see all these creative, hard working people lose their jobs. I wonder why that is? It seems that so many people are playing their games that they should be making a lot of money. But they are not... how odd...





Fucking morons...

It's funny how right-wingers would love to have a perfect laissez-faire policy, and let the free market battle everything out. After all, natural selection is always right isn't it?

when piracy is a "i'll try it and see how it works. then DELETE IT!" then i think it's fine.

but when you pirate software (of any kind) and are determined to use without any sort of compensation (as in buying that same software later, when you can of course) then it's wrong.

problem is... how do you tell the difference among users [sad]