Support NeoGAF

[atomsk]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i82a006de3290b1a69fc47780cb674ecd

AMSTERDAM -- Consumers downloading free pirated movies are no longer Hollywood's worst nightmare, but that's only because of a new, more dreaded menace: cheap, and equally illegal, subscription services.

Foreign, often mob-run, businesses aggregate illegally obtained movies into "cyberlockers" similar to Internet storage sites used by individual consumers to squirrel away pirated video. But the for-profit version of this phenom has spawned an array of sophisticated and seemingly reputable sites selling unlimited digital movie files for as little as $5 a month.

"Cyberlockers now represent the preferred method by which consumers are enjoying pirated content," Paramount COO Fred Huntsberry said Monday.

Huntsberry detailed the evolution of professional piracy methods for hundreds of European movie theater operators attending an opening-day seminar here at the four-day Cinema Expo.

Commonly, Hollywood movies are made available via illegal for-profit sites within days of theatrical release, while the advent of global releasing now allows the proliferation of individual titles into an array of language dubs within the first month of a theatrical debut, he noted. When movies are released on DVD and Blu-ray Disc, the sites upgrade the quality of video offered from camcorded images to pristine digital copies.

Cyberlocker-based businesses operate from Russia, Ukraine, Colombia, Germany, Switzerland and elsewhere, with several selling digital ads to mainstream, often-unwitting advertisers such as Kentucky Fried Chicken and even Netflix.

"Sometimes these sites look better than the legitimate sites," Huntsberry said. "That's the irony."

Advertising agencies often place digital ads on behalf of companies, which order the banners pulled when notified by studio reps, he added.

Consumers increasingly are streaming pirated digital video directly onto living room TVs, the Par exec noted. But the public needs to know that with such pirated convenience comes the risk of having credit card information ripped off, and problems with spyware contamination are even more common.

On a grander scale, the motion picture industry is combating the situation with country-by-country campaigns for tougher laws against video piracy. But the effort has a long way to go.

"In the U.K., we are hamstrung by the fact that we have very weak legislation," Cinema Exhibitors Assn. chief Phil Clapp said.

 

[RedShift]

First thought on title:

DEEEELLLEETTE DEEEEELLLLETTTE

 

[Desiato]

That sounds like a really cool title for a movie actually.

 

[Wads]

I wish that these companies would come up their own solution rather than just trying to avoid change. I don't pirate movies myself, but instead of so vehemently fighting piracy perhaps they could give people want they want so that they wouldn't want to pirate.

fake edit - of course if netflix had more movies for streaming online there would be a legitimate solution, but of course the selection on there is pretty much shit since the movie companies don't put them available for the service...

 

[JetBlackPanda]

Netflix + Redbox + Zune marketplace = how I watch movies these days

its not very often I go to a movie unless its a date with my wife or I know its a movie that must be seen in the theater, Whats the point of paying for pirated movies? that just seems strange to me.. just don't do it all if you are going to pay anyways.

edit: Hollywood is so out of touch

 

[Lord Error]

They are talking about sites like ninjavideo right? Yeah those are kinda scary. How do they continue to operate for so long is puzzling to me. Then again someone told me that links to anything interesting on there are always broken.

 

[atomsk]

They are talking about sites like ninjavideo right? Yeah those are kinda scary. How do they continue to operate for so long is puzzling to me. Then again someone told me that links to anything interesting on there are always broken.

nah, not video streaming sites.

more like Rapidshare, Megaupload, Mediafire, etc etc

 

[kame-sennin]

Foreign, often mob-run, businesses aggregate illegally obtained movies into "cyberlockers" similar to Internet storage sites used by individual consumers to squirrel away pirated video. But the for-profit version of this phenom has spawned an array of sophisticated and seemingly reputable sites selling unlimited digital movie files for as little as $5 a month.

So, they're charging for content? Before, Hollywood was upset about internet piracy because "you can't compete with free". But now pirates are actually selling a product to willing customers. What's Hollywood's excuse for not meeting this demand?

 

[panda21]

jesus, every single word of that is practically screaming THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY SELLING YOUR FILMS ONLINE TOO, yet they seem to be completely oblivious

how can they not see this?

 

[kame-sennin]

jesus, every single word of that is practically screaming THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY SELLING YOUR FILMS ONLINE TOO, yet they seem to be completely oblivious

how can they not see this?

I like giving Hollywood a hard time about this (as I did in the post above yours), but there are good financial reasons for being against digital distribution in the short term. For one, profit margins are a lot lower. Digital products tend to be sold more cheaply than physical ones, and the same seems to hold true for digital downloads versus theater viewing. If digital distribution is supported, there is a very real risk that it will replace the current business model, which will gut Hollywood's profits. The other issue is that their business partners would suffer as well. Movie theaters, the company's that press and ship DVDs, DVD retailers, all of these businesses would begin to see their margins erode if Hollywood embraced digital distribution. These are partners the studios can't risk alienating.

 

[Salazar]

That sounds like a really cool title for a movie actually.

I was vaguely expecting news of Gary Whitta being signed up for this.

 

[Dude Abides]

So, they're charging for content? Before, Hollywood was upset about internet piracy because "you can't compete with free". But now pirates are actually selling a product to willing customers. What's Hollywood's excuse for not meeting this demand?

What? Publishers have never liked people making copies of their shit and selling it. It's not "can't compete with free" it's "can't compete with people who can make copies for virtually nothing when it cost me a lot more than nothing to make the original." They don't like those knock-off DVDs that you can get for $3 in Chinatown either.

 

[Sblargh]

It was the same with the music industry, no?
First cries about piracy, then someone manages to show the men in suit that online distribution can be proffitable, next thing we know, we'll have websites with free, legal movies.

Can there be a kind of last.fm for movies?

 

[MCX]

If this means the RIAA starts pursuing "cyberlockers" and leaves BitTorrent users alone, fine by me.

 

[Meesh]

I really think Hollywod should just go digital...it's been on my mind a lot more now that so many brick and mortar stores are going out of business. Movie Gallery and Video HQ stores have shut down, Rodgers and Blockbuster are still kick'n but for how long I don't know...most of my friends burn, plunder, pirate, or rape what they can for free.

This may sound nutts, but I think the next big entertainment explosion is going to come from the basement of a group of small time guys with a camera, a good story, and a little make-up know how. (Just to be clear, not porn.) This shit is going to be huge,(Porn pun not intended.) and it'll be download only. I can't forsee much in the way of any real cash to be made, but with sooo many plugged into their computers these days, anything's possible. All it takes is a passion for the arts.

 

[panda21]

I like giving Hollywood a hard time about this (as I did in the post above yours), but there are good financial reasons for being against digital distribution in the short term. For one, profit margins are a lot lower. Digital products tend to be sold more cheaply than physical ones, and the same seems to hold true for digital downloads versus theater viewing. If digital distribution is supported, there is a very real risk that it will replace the current business model, which will gut Hollywood's profits. The other issue is that their business partners would suffer as well. Movie theaters, the company's that press and ship DVDs, DVD retailers, all of these businesses would begin to see their margins erode if Hollywood embraced digital distribution. These are partners the studios can't risk alienating.

i agree but i guess to me it seems like no one buys DVD's anymore, or at least not for the usual retail price, so if piracy is such a big problem perhaps they could start offering proper streaming services?

afaik netflix only exists in the US so far, despite the fact that people in the europe are just waiting to give them their money. if anything they are helping to drive piracy by failing to offer the more convenient alternative now that people are used to watching everything on iPlayer and similar.

a reasonable monthly subscription to watch films would easily eclipse what i have spent on blu-rays/dvds recently, and the only actual cost is bandwidth so they could potentially make a bigger margin on it surely?

they seem to be obsessed with charging people a fixed price for a film, rather than using a model where for a subscription you can watch an unlimited amount, where I might watch more films than i am paying for in terms of dvd prices, but i also end up spending far more, and the films i am watching cost the producers next to nothing anyway, except as an entirely theoretical lost dvd sale.

not that this is anything new, just seems they are really going out of their way to bury their heads in the sand in the article in the OP

 

[kame-sennin]

What? Publishers have never liked people making copies of their shit and selling it. It's not "can't compete with free" it's "can't compete with people who can make copies for virtually nothing when it cost me a lot more than nothing to make the original." They don't like those knock-off DVDs that you can get for $3 in Chinatown either.

When the content was first being pirated and distributed online, people suggested that Hollywood attempt to build a business around digital distribution. The response tended to be that piracy was not indicative of a potential market. I.e. just because people will download stuff for free, doesn't mean they will pay money for that service. Further, even if Hollywood did try to charge for their movies online, they wouldn't be able to compete with pirates giving it away for free.

With the advent of these cyberlockers, both of those arguments have been dismantled. The issue I was referring to was the debate about whether or not Hollywood should embrace digital.

i agree but i guess to me it seems like no one buys DVD's anymore, or at least not for the usual retail price, so if piracy is such a big problem perhaps they could start offering proper streaming services?

afaik netflix only exists in the US so far, despite the fact that people in the europe are just waiting to give them their money. if anything they are helping to drive piracy by failing to offer the more convenient alternative now that people are used to watching everything on iPlayer and similar.

a reasonable monthly subscription to watch films would easily eclipse what i have spent on blu-rays/dvds recently, and the only actual cost is bandwidth so they could potentially make a bigger margin on it surely?

they seem to be obsessed with charging people a fixed price for a film, rather than using a model where for a subscription you can watch an unlimited amount, where I might watch more films than i am paying for in terms of dvd prices, but i also end up spending far more, and the films i am watching cost the producers next to nothing anyway, except as an entirely theoretical lost dvd sale.

not that this is anything new, just seems they are really going out of their way to bury their heads in the sand in the article in the OP

Everything you said is true. But you've got to open up the weekly box office thread and look at the billions of dollars theatrical films bring in every year. Can the netflix streaming model match that revenue now or in the very near future? If it can't then Hollywood can't risk going digital because it has the effect of cannibalizing the core business. The value proposition is so great on the digital side that customers start making the switch en mass, and the bottom falls out on the core business before digital revenues are big enough to replace it.

The switch to digital seems so obvious to us on the outside, but these financial concerns are very hard to get around for the studios. If they weren't, we wouldn't see this happening over an over again with music, movies, television, comics, ect.