DivX ethic (bisexual :-))

[ppera2]

Is ethical to make collection of movies what you rented, sharing them with others etc ?

Instead answer, questions of ordinary people:

Is ethical to sell DVD's for 20-40 $ and more, when production of media, cover etc costs only couple dollars ?
Is ethical to have monopol in one country and sell poor quality DVD's for 25-30 euro. In my country is little war between distributers for exclusive right.
Is ethical that some actors ask 20 and more M$ for acting in one movie ? OK, they are still poor in compare to M. Schumacher, I know..
Is ethical whole World today, when for same job people in one country earn 20 or more times more money than in other ?
Someone wrote somewhere: why should I concern about that will someone in Hollywood have enough money to buy another Lamborghini, another pool, another 20 M$ house ?
Is ethical to get money for one movie 3 or more times ? Theatre, DVD, VHS, then after 10-20 years new version and all again...

I know, it is entertainment. Nobody forces you that watch movies. Or maybe it is not entirely correct... ?

[Kedirekin]

Spot on. Free market is one thing, but the entertainment industry is out of control. IMHO, each movie or CD is it's own mini-monopoly. You want to buy Breadkfast Club - only one manufacturer makes that and for the most part they set the price.

[Ookami]

IMO, the main problem of the people is *pause, for big effect :D *
that there is this "I must have it all" mentality. Do you really need all the movies out there? Do you need x movies, n songs, z PCs , 2 girlfriends --heterosexual, this time-- (whoa, a real number, LOL)?

Whatever...

"(...) You ask me where the hell I'm going
At a thousand feet per second

Hey man slow down, slow down
Idiot slow down, slow down (...)"

Cheers,

Mijo.

[HotSpur]

true the actual production of the dvds themselves may be little, but how much does it cost to produce the dvd - transfer, etc... not only that but to make the actual movie? millions more likely, so $20 to own on dvd is relatively cheap IMHO

[Kedirekin]

I'm sure this is an argument without end, but...

How much does it cost to produce a DVD? A few 10's of thousands? A few 100's? Heck, there are people here that are doing a fairly good imitation of producing DVDs all by their lonesome.

Are the studios selling just a few thousand copies? Or millions? What is the per-unit price of production? The math is pretty easy.

How much does it cost to make a movie? Do those same movies turn a profit in the theatres? What about movies from 10, 20, 30 years ago? And why are VHS tapes so much less expensive?

I don't need everything, but I want a lot. Even more than that, I value a good value, and I don't like being raped.

[DigDub]

I download movies because some of them are not available in my country, not that I do not want to pay for them. I will buy the DVDs if they are worth the price. I do buy movies that I like a lot. If the movies are average, then I just rent and rip them and store on my hardisk. I think DVDs now are way over-priced, considering that most movies profits nowadays are drived from theatre screenings. Video sales only come in when the theatre release has dismal performance. Basically, the situation now is the same as with mp3. Movie studios are still lagging behind in terms of technology. Everytime, it takes some big piracy thing that eats into their profit margins before they will wake up to what the rest of the world wants, just like what happended to mp3.

[Bugs Bunny]

>Is it ethical...

Before you ask if something is "ethical," then you should answer what does "ethical" mean for you.

[Taric25]

The foillowing is taken from the DVD Demystified FAQ:

[5.1] How much does it cost to produce a DVD? Isn't it more expensive than videotape, laserdisc, and CD-ROM?
Videotape, laserdisc, and CD-ROM can't be compared to DVD in a straightforward manner. There are basically three stages of costs: production, pre-mastering (authoring, encoding, and formatting), and mastering/replication.

DVD video production costs are not much higher than for VHS and similar video formats unless the extra features of such as multiple sound tracks, camera angles, seamless branching, etc. are employed.

Authoring and pre-mastering costs are proportionately the most expensive part of DVD. Video and audio must be encoded, menus and control information have to be authored and encoded, it all has to be multiplexed into a single data stream, and finally encoded in low level format. Typical charges for compression are $60/min for video, $20/min for audio, $6/min for subtitles, plus formatting and testing at about $30/min. A ballpark cost for producing a Hollywood-quality two-hour DVD movie with motion menus, multiple audio tracks, subtitles, trailers, and a few info screens is about $20,000. Alternatively, many facilities charge for time, at rates of around $400/hour. A simple two-hour DVD-Video title with menus and various video clips can cost as low as $3,000. If you want to do it yourself, authoring and encoding systems can be purchased at prices from $400 to over $2 million. Prices for software and hardware will drop very rapidly in the next few years to where DVDs can be produced on a desktop computer system that costs less than $20,000.

Videotapes don't really have a mastering cost, and they run about $2.40 for replication. CDs cost about $1,000 to master and $0.50 to replicate. Laserdiscs cost about $3,000 to master and about $8 to replicate. As of the beginning of 2000, DVDs cost about $1000 to master and about $1.60 to replicate. Since DVD production is based mostly on the same equipment used for CD production, mastering and replication costs will drop to CD levels. Double-sided or dual-layer discs cost about $1 more to replicate, since all that's required is stamping data on the second substrate (and using transparent glue for dual layers). Double-sided, dual-layer discs (DVD-18s) are more difficult and more expensive. (See 3.3.1.)


So, discounting actual production cost, physical cost for making a movie on DVD runs ~$20,000 to master and $1.60 a disc to replicate. This is an extreemly small in comparrision to actual production cost.

For example, let's take Final Fantasy. The movie took $137,000,000 to produce, ~$20,000 to master and ~$1.60 to replicate. The DVD retails for $30 in stores. To see where the break even point is, we have to account the amount it made in the theatres: $61,328,000 (Worldwide). If we formulate a simple algebra equation from out data P = $28.4x - $75,672,000 where P is the profit and x is the ammount of DVDs sold. The breakeven point would be where P = 0, so 2,664,508 DVDs would have to be sold just so they would make absolutely nothing. However, I have not even calculated other extranious costs (eg. advertizing, shipping to stores) which, by themselves may cost next to nothing, may cost millions together.

Conclusion: Yes, Final Fantasy was a major economical loss for Square Pictures, but my conclusion stays the same: just because DVDs don't cost a lot of money to physically produce, that doesn't mean a lot of money and hard work doesn't go into making them.

I hope this will put this in perspective for you and more of you will buy DVDs and not so be so cheap, and foolish, to think that just because that peice of plastic you stick in your DVD player costs $1.60 to make, you shouldn't pay $25 for it. I have Terminator 2 on DVD which retails for $50. I can tell you that, for me, $50 comparred to the ammount of work put into the movie and the ammount it cost to make is a bargain.

P.S. ppera, what does bisexuality have anything to do with what you posted? I don't mean to sound contemptious, but I am going to be rather offended unless I get a moderately reasonable reason.

[den_RDC]

Originally posted by Taric25
The foillowing is taken from the DVD DVD Demystified FAQ:




So, discounting actual production cost, physical cost for making a movie on DVD runs ~$20,000 to master and $1.60 a disc to replicate. This is an extreemly small in comparrision to actual production cost.

For example, let's take Final Fantasy. The movie took $137,000,000 to produce, ~$20,000 to master and ~$1.60 to replicate. The DVD retails for $30 in stores. To see where the break even point is, we have to account the amount it made in the theatres: $61,328,000 (Worldwide). If we formulate a simple algebra equation from out data P = $28.4x - $75,672,000 where P is the profit and x is the ammount of DVDs sold. The breakeven point would be where P = 0, so 2,664,508 DVDs would have to be sold just so they would make absolutely nothing. However, I have not even calculated other extranious costs (eg. advertizing, shipping to stores) which, by themselves may cost next to nothing, may cost millions together.

Conclusion: Yes, Final Fantasy was a major economical loss for Square Pictures, but my conclusion stays the same: just because DVDs don't cost a lot of money to physically produce, that doesn't mean a lot of money and hard work doesn't go into making them.

I hope this will put this in perspective for you and more of you will buy DVDs and not so be so cheap, and foolish, to think that just because that peice of plastic you stick in your DVD player costs $1.60 to make, you shouldn't pay $25 for it. I have Terminator 2 on DVD which retails for $50. I can tell you that, for me, $50 comparred to the ammount of work put into the movie and the ammount it cost to make is a bargain.
I think that if the prices would be lower, more people would buy the DVD (and not pirate it)and that in the end, the profit would be the same... But why don't they do that? Simple answer : greed... They think that if they make somehow piracy dissapeer by fighting it, more people will buy the dvd at the same high price, so they make more money. What they fail to realise is that to make a problem dissapear, you have to solve the cause of the problem, wich is the high price. Conclusion : piracy and high prices go hand in hand, where there's smoke, there's also fire... and you cant make smoke dissapear without killing the fire.

[ppera2]

Originally posted by Taric25

P.S. ppera, what does bisexuality have anything to do with what you posted? I don't mean to sound contemptious, but I am going to be rather offended unless I get a moderately reasonable reason.

Well, it was here very similar post couple days ago, with some guy jokes (?) .
This 'bisexual' was just note for different approach here. Actually I think that it's best always thinking and talking about things looking from both sides.


I think that Ookami has best point here. Human greed moves us.
It stays for both sides- costumers and production/distribution people.

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

Originally posted by den_RDC

Conclusion : piracy and high prices go hand in hand, where there's smoke, there's also fire... and you cant make smoke dissapear without killing the fire.

By your logic, the most popular titles pirated would be Criterion DVDs, and the ones least pirated are budget DVD's that go for less than $15 at most stores.

A casual glance at a site that lists new daily divx releases in "the scenes" proves that to be far from the case. Criterion DVD rips are nary to be found. Most of the rips are from $10 B-Movie DVDs that no-one really wants to watch.

You were saying?

[Ceronian]

They think that if they make somehow piracy dissapeer by fighting it, more people will buy the dvd at the same high price, so they make more money.

Thats the point where they are definitly wrong. I wouldn't buy more DVDs, because of not having the possibilty to get a rip of them. If a movie is really good, I'm gonna buy it. Doesn't matter which quality the rip can have.
If am not able to get a rip of a (more or less) bad movie, I won't buy it and watch less TV :)

[Kedirekin]

That's the falacy of the common piracy argument like the ones raised against Napster. They claim that since X people stole something, they're out X*$Y. They conveniently ignore that fact that very few of those thieves would have ever bought it at the price they charge (who're the real thieves here), so the figure is more like (X/100,000)*$Y (in other words, pretty close to squat).

[Taric25]

Actually, a study was done arround colleges that banned Napster and colleges that did not. The music sales actually decreased by 12% where Napster was banned. Why? People think about it more so they are more inclined to buy music when they hear it more often.

Also, about music being stolen: Napster is hosted on their own servers, using electricty that they pay for, downloaded of off the user's computers with their own electricity and connection. Digital information is not like a physical good. If it is stolen, no one has to pay to replace it. Also, the music is not sharred, like Metallica said on the MTV awards, it is copied. So it does not cost the music industry anything to replace what they have lost. As for the song's monetary value, if sales for music go up and people because buy more music, then the music industry is actually making MORE money because of Napster.

The most important thing has nothing to do with the industry, but the artists. If you were an artist, and you were making more money because sales have increased, you may be pleased. However, if you're a good artist and not a money-thirsty one, I think what would be WAY more important is that A LOT MORE people are listening to your music. Napster exposes your songs to a larger audience.

Practically, unless someone has a ultra fast connection (I mean faster than DSL), not many people are going to sit on their computers downloading one song after the other just to get the whole CD.
People are going to:
A. Only download the songs they like
B. Go out and but the CD

Am I in support of Napster? Yes and no. I like what Napster used to be, but after, when it had advertisements etc, it went all downhill. Unfortunatley, I don't think any program will have the glory that Napster had. Everybody knew what Napster was, and it was very easy. Yes, their are alternatives, like Morpheus and KaZaA, but those have spywear and slow down you connection with advertisements. People always have to be greedy with those. Also, not as many people know about it and it is divided up. I use a clean (and fast) alternative: WinMX, because you can share all kinds of files, not just music.

Ah well, that's my 2 pents.

[ppera2]

All this file sharing is in fact illegal. But not just illegal. It started with MP3, now people shares 700 MB long DivX movie files.
What is next ? Whole DVD's ?
I have worse Internet access because of it. It's true, I know couple people which work at providers, and they do this sharing all time.

Sad is that Internet is currently biggest piracy channel. Also it's sad that most of traffic and load is on such contents, porno and similar.

Yes, sharing can cometimes increase sale. I'm sure that Microsoft knows it, and uses it. They know that important is not how many people has illegal copy, but how many people buying at the and their products.

So, why we have law ?

[Kedirekin]

Indeed, why is there this law?

In the land I come from, the addage is 'goverment for the people, by the people'. Part of what this means to me is that the laws should reflect what the majority of people want. To some extent they do (fair use for example), but to a larger extent they do not (dcma for example). More laws are made, not for (or by) the people, but for (and by) the corporations. The law goes where the money says it goes. That is why so many laws go astray of the public ethic.

And though making copies of movies and CDs you don't own is illegal, this thread is intended to be about what is ethical. Do you personally feel it is unethical to make illegal copies? If you do, why do you think it's bad? (not illegal, but actually bad - like harmful). If you think it is ethical, why do you thing it's okay?

IMO, the argument is simple; the movie studios have an unfair advantage (the mini-monopoly thing I mentioned in my first post) and they're profitting by it more than is reasonable. I haven't seen anything yet to disabuse me of this opinion. The movie studios certainly don't seem to be forth-coming about how much they're making on DVDs. As long as they appear to be charging more than is fair, I feel that I'd be within my ethical rights to make illegal copies if I wanted to.

[LotionBoy]

to Reply to the Final Fantasy post above. That is not a good example because Final Fantasy was a complete flop and it cost significantly more than most movies do. Therefore, it is not a good measure of break even points for DVD sale. So lets take a look at a better example.

X-Men was a fairly high grossing summer movie that didn't set any box office records or anything. It was a movie that did well by summer standards and nothing more.
Cost to make: 75 million
Domestic Gross: 157 million
Domestic Gross to Fox: 78.5 million
International Gross: 137 million
International Gross to Fox: 68.5 million
So, total theatre gross that Fox gets (remember that Theatres get about half the total gross of a movie): 147-75= 72 million
Alrightie. Now, to break even in the DVD thingie, since the movie made a profit


20,000 + 1.6n = 20n n = 1086 @ $20 a DVD
20,000 + 1.6n = 10n n = 2381 @ $10 a DVD
20,000 + 1.6n = 5n n = 5882 @ $5 a DVD


Now, Shrek sold 2.5 million DVDs. Snow White broke 1 million. I would bet that X-Men sold at least 400,000 copies on DVD. So
Profit = (Price)(400000) - 660000
660000 = 20000 + (400000)(1.6)
Assume Profit to equal 0, for breakeven.
660000 = (Price)(400000)
Price = 1.65
So what does this say? Basically, if Fox charged 2 dollars for the X-Men DVD they would make a profit. Do they need to have a mark-up of $23.35. Uhm, no. That is called fucking the consumer in the ass because the consumer has no choice.
By my moral system, marking up a product by over 10 times the cost of production is not ethical. Period.

LotionBoy

All movies grosses and production costs from www.boxofficemojo.com
DVD sale info from http://www.medialinenews.com/issues/2001/news/1125/1125.3.shtml

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

Looks like someone was sleeping during Business 101 again. Do you honestly think they are going to price all goods at the "break-even" point so that Final Fantasy is $30, and X-Men sitting right beside it is $2? You wouldn't happen to be wearing Birkenstocks and have dreadlocks would you?

[Bugs Bunny]

Dudes, all of this piracy is right/wrong beeswax is totally old and totally useless. If you want to have your fill, just get onto Google and search for "piracy is wrong" in their Usenet archive. Have fun reading for the next couple of years. You blokes ain't saying nothing that hasn't been beaten to death before. It's like arguing about abortion, or the death penalty. Total waste of breath.

At this point in your lives, you all have a firm opinion on the subject, and nothing on this earth will change your mind--or the next guy's--so don't try. You cannot use logic, because it's not logical. It's personal conviction, and we all have our own.

[Kedirekin]

I don't think anyone really thinks DVDs should be priced $2. I think the point is that we are justified to feel outraged at a >1,000% markup.

As for this argument being old and not worth talking about - you must want to live on a very quiet planet. Why even bother to mention it? I'm sure pointing out the futility of discussion has been done to death too.

[LotionBoy]

@Rhaegar Targaryen

First off, I wasn't asleep during Business 101 and I never said that DVDs should be 2 bucks. I said that Fox could charge $2 for the X-Men DVD and turn a profit off it. And I never said that DVDs should be priced according to how well the movie did in the theatre. What I did say was that movie companies are charging outrageously marked-up prices for DVDs, a point which I think I backed up very well. Why don't you get your head out of your ass and actually take the time to read what I said before making accusations about my personal character.

If you want my opinion on DVD pricing, I think DVDs should range from 10 to 15 dollars, which the average price being around 12 bucks. I would gladly pay that for DVDs, and it would still be easy for movies companies to turn a profit, since once they sell more than 2500 DVDs at $10, everything else is profit. Is it going to happen? No. Should it? Well, no. Why? Because there is no reason for movie companies to drop their prices. They are going to charge what the market will bear and DVDs are the fastest growing comsumer electronic ever. And if people are willing to pay 30 dollars a movie, they are going to charge that. Now if everyone starts pirating movies, then they might have to change their pricing scheme. Which is not saying (for the slow of mind among you. no names need to be mentioned) that piracy is a good thing. Just that massive amounts of piracy and declining DVDs sales would force movie companies to reconsider pricing schemes.

LotionBoy
who is surprisingly dreads free. sorry to disappoint

[elgan123]

Very interesting thread, but I have to agree with Bugs Bunny that we can't logically make an argument about ethics. Funny thing ethics, they mean different things to each person. There is no 'agreed upon' definition of ethical behavior. That being said...

Is ethical to make collection of movies what you rented, sharing them with others etc ?

My personal opinion is that it is ethical to share these movies. Is it ethical for movie houses to charge $30 for a DVD. Sure it is. Will I PAY $30 for most DVDs? Absolutely not. But for some I will. By choosing to buy certain titles I am exercising the only power I have as a consumer over the movie producers.

You blokes ain't saying nothing that hasn't been beaten to death before. It's like arguing about abortion, or the death penalty. Total waste of breath.

Bugs Bunny, under this logic children shouldn't engage in debate about ethical issues just because their parents already have a firm opinion. Is that what you meant to say?

You wouldn't happen to be wearing Birkenstocks and have dreadlocks would you?

What does this mean?

[Taric25]

I agree with our Canadian friend. ;) However, I would like to point out on thing no one has so far: imports.

At a shop that sells movies near me, most of their revenue is from Animé (commonly referenced as Japanese animation, or Japanimation). An anime feature film will usually cost $25. I believe this is a fair price due to the fact that the ideas behind the movies, or at least the way the plot develops is, is usually very original. However, if one wants to buy an anime series, which is almost always 26 episodes, it is $130 for the 6- disc box set on DVD. Call me crazy, but why does something that was broadcast on TV, which one can view or record on VHS for free, the very high price of $130?! Also, the industry *claims* that 5 episodes is the maximum that can fit on a DVD disc, yet some animes have 7 episodes on 1 single-sided disc! If the anime series has both English and Japanese spoken languages, English captions for the hearing impaired, and English Subtitles, then more than 3 or 4 episodes can fit each DVD layer. If 2 double sided, dual-layer DVDs (and a disc separator [like in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace] so it would fit) were used, then all 26 episodes could fit in one DVD case. The problem is that no one would pay $130 for one DVD case, but when a 6-disc DVD box set is presented, the idea becomes so much more appealing.

The average anime fan, like the average movie fan, does not like one or two animes, but many. Also, many animes are never released in the USA. So, many anime fans resort to fansubs, or in rare cases, fandubs. Fansubs are when the fans take it upon themselves to subtitle an anime using their own equipment, and distribute it without any profit to other fans. A fandub is the same thing, except, instead of subtitles, fans provide their own voices to dub over the anime. A fansub usually costs $17 for three tapes. Some of that money goes towards shipping, some of that money goes toards the actual cost of the VHS (or VCD, etc.) medium, some of that goes towards VCR maintenence, and none of it goes in the fan's pocket. The way fans get away with copying fansubs/fandubs is since the copyright is only in Japan, as long no profit is made, it is substantially legal. However, once (if ever) the anime is released in the USA, fansubs may no longer be distributed.

The problem is that sometimes the fansub is better than the actual US anime release. For example, Slayers has two main parts: The TV show (which has 78 episodes), and the movies and OAVs (OAV/OVA means Original Animation Video/Original Video Animation. OAVs are never broadcast on TV, never shown in the theatre, yet go directly to home video) (which consists of 4 movies and 6 OAVs). Software Sculptors handles the TV show, while ADV handles the Movies and OAVs. All 78 episodes of Slayers TV are available on Video or DVD in English, English with captions, Japanese, and Japanese with English Subtitles. The English version of Slayers TV is wonderfully done and the voice actors are superb. I also like the direct and literal translation available when Japanese with English subtitles is selected.
However, ADV is a different story. ADV has the history of buying the rights of animes, then sitting on them and not coming out with them for many months, or even years. This makes fans especially angry because they can not distribute the anime, and they can not purchase it at the store, so there is no way to see the anime unless you pay the ridiculous import cost and understand Japanese. ADV did a horrible English version of Slayers, and the translation is awful. For example, Lina, the main character, in the Japanese version, speaks English occasionally, and, on one occasion, says "GAV FLARE!!". ADV, for some reason, decided to translate this to "Chaos Dragon Infernal Flame". This is absolute nonsense. The point is that in the fansub the translations are correct and the subtitles are many fancy (and easy to read) fonts and colors (to distinguish when two characters are talking simultaneously). In fact, all the movies and OAVs have been fansubbed, yet, an official American company has only released 1 movie and 3 OAVS.

As far as region encoding goes, I'll be brief, and use The Patriot starring Mel Gibson as an example. The DVD uses RCE (Region Code Enhancement), which does not allow it to be viewed on Region 0 mode on DVD players without a very special firmware. This is against world trade laws, but it seems the MPAA doesn't care. The European version is a completely different DVD with nowhere near the amount of special features contained on the American DVD.

In conclusion, the way imported parcels are handled increases piracy, whether it is for profit or not.