LucasArts closed, Star Wars 1313 and First Assault could be cancelled

[Necromancer]

Well yes, they have costs. I'm not denying that. But those costs will demand the same amount of money from them whether I'm inside without paying or not. It really isn't different that downloading a movie. Both situations can be seen as stealing. Both situations do not cost entertainment companies money. It simply decreases their profits. And both situations can be justified by saying that entertainment companies have more than enough money in profits already. They're essentially the same thing.

 

[Walker]

Dude, you're a dick.

 

[Tsuyu]

No they are not the same. You copying a movie doesn't cost anyone money. They showing you a movie on the big screen does cost them money. It is really only comparable to stealing a physical DvD because there you also have them losing money from production costs. You can't justify it by saying it is just like pirating a movie, because it is not.

 

[Necromancer]

Dude, you're a dick.

I just don't care about big corporations and their rich executives. I don't care if they lose money because they've got plenty more of it. Most of us don't.

No they are not the same. You copying a movie doesn't cost anyone money. They showing you a movie on the big screen does cost them money. It is really only comparable to stealing a physical DvD because there you also have them losing money from production costs. You can't justify it by saying it is just like pirating a movie, because it is not.

It costs them money by making and distributing the DVDs that get ripped and put on the internet for pirating. And in both cases, it cost money to make the movie. They both have costs. You're really not convincing me that they're any different. And even if they are, they're both justified in my mind without comparing one to the other.

 

[Tsuyu]

You're not getting it.

Stealing a DvD in a video store costs the store money.

Sneaking into a movie theater costs the movie theater money.

Having one .avi file that you copy doesn't cost anyone money.

The first two examples involve actual profit loss while the second is only potential profit loss if you can even call it that. There was no production or maintenance cost to cover.

 

[TRA Rotid]

Edit: actually, screw this; I was bored and thought I'd have a little conversation, but this topic ain't rustling my jimmies enough to care. Sorry if you're already responding.

Though if you want to steal from/get back to Disney, Necromancer, sneaking into a movie theater is not going to be very effective.

 

[Walker]

I just don't care about big corporations and their rich executives. I don't care if they lose money because they've got plenty more of it. Most of us don't.

Exactly! You're robbing them of the service they're trying to sell you out of vindictive jealousy! Glad we agree.

But you are admitting that you're robbing them now, no? Or is this still "that big 'ol building with all the equipment and seating is totally public property?"

 

[Dark Drakan]

Having one .avi file that you copy doesn't cost anyone money.

Most things I do this with is because of the gap between airing on UK TV & US TV. Its almost impossible in an age of social networks & friends overseas to avoid spoilers when the shows air 5+ days apart. So I would either stream the episode or get an AVI. However at the same time I have series linked it on TV to record on my Sky+ box to watch after it finally airs here as I have paid for the channels to view it. Then I also buy the DVD boxsets too if I like the series that much, something which I have also done with 90% of the shows I watch that I have also recorded on Sky+ & watched online.

 

[Necromancer]

You're not getting it.

Stealing a DvD in a video store costs the store money.

Sneaking into a movie theater costs the movie theater money.

Having one .avi file that you copy doesn't cost anyone money.

The first two examples involve actual profit loss while the second is only potential profit loss if you can even call it that. There was no production or maintenance cost to cover.

Alright, let me go into some more detail. I'm going to use unlikely and simple situations and numbers to avoid unnecessary complexities.

Let's say a movie theater company plans to show a movie. It costs $100 to show it, and 50 people buy tickets for $10 each. The theater has then made $400 in profits. However, a 51st person snuck into the theater without paying. If this person had paid, the theater simply would have had $10 more in profits, but no money or physical objects were lost.

Let's say a movie is being released on DVD. A store buys some of these DVDs from a distributor for $5 each and sells 100 copies for $10 each. They've then made $500 in profits. However, one of the customers that bought a DVD ripped the movie from the DVD and put it online for others to watch for free. One person watches this movie online instead of being the 101st person to buy it at the store. If this person had bought a DVD at the store, the store simply would have made $5 more in profits, but no money or physical objects were lost.

Please explain to me how these are different in a practical sense.

Though if you want to steal from/get back to Disney, Necromancer, sneaking into a movie theater is not going to be very effective.

Right, I'm aware of that, though the conversation has shifted away from that.

Exactly! You're robbing them of the service they're trying to sell you out of vindictive jealousy! Glad we agree.

But you are admitting that you're robbing them now, no? Or is this still "that big 'ol building with all the equipment and seating is totally public property?"

Let's get something straight: this is not about me. There is no jealousy involved. And I wouldn't use the word "robbing" because of its negative connotation. I don't view this situation as negative. Rich corporate executives have more than enough sh*t already. Someone who has much less money taking from them (or in this case, not contributing to their profits), especially on this small of a scale, is completely justified.

 

[Quistrix]

In all fairness, you could sneak into the movie but what use would that be after just spending a f*cking FORTUNE on delectable popcorn and 7UP? And don't tell me you can sneak in your food. I've been strip-searched in a cinema before and believe me; hiding an entire bottle of Dr. Pepper up my glory hole was not the best strategy.

Pay for the damn movie, Necro. Be a man.

 

[Necromancer]

I don't bother with food at the movies. Like you said, it costs a f*cking fortune. There's no way in hell I'm paying for that. But my parents used to sneak popcorn and soda in when they brought my brother and I to the movies when we were little kids.

 

[Dark Drakan]

In all fairness, you could sneak into the movie but what use would that be after just spending a f*cking FORTUNE on delectable popcorn and 7UP? And don't tell me you can sneak in your food. I've been strip-searched in a cinema before and believe me; hiding an entire bottle of Dr. Pepper up my glory hole was not the best strategy.

Pay for the damn movie, Necro. Be a man.

They never check you for snacks here, I take my own in all the time. Not paying those crazy prices for drinks & popcorn.

 

[Quistrix]

They never check you for snacks here, I take my own in all the time. Not paying those crazy prices for drinks & popcorn.

Guess it must just be Scottish greed. The reason they used was that they didn't want all the different kinds of outside rubbish lying around the cinema or something ridiculous like that. As if I'd litter anyway.

 

[Tsuyu]

Please explain to me how these are different in a practical sense.

I've done so repeatedly:

There is no cost to reproducing a file. There is a cost to showing a movie.

When you download a movie in .avi file you're using a free service free of charge. When you sneak into the movies you are using a paid service for free.

 

[Necromancer]

I've done so repeatedly:

There is no cost to reproducing a file. There is a cost to showing a movie.

When you download a movie in .avi file you're using a free service free of charge. When you sneak into the movies you are using a paid service for free.

I would argue you haven't done so convincingly. Sure, downloading a movie is a free service, but it's still illegal and still takes away from DVD sales. The legitimate legal service (buying DVDs and whatnot) is not a free service. Sure, it might be different, but not in any practical way. It'd be really helpful if you could address this:

Alright, let me go into some more detail. I'm going to use unlikely and simple situations and numbers to avoid unnecessary complexities.

Let's say a movie theater company plans to show a movie. It costs $100 to show it, and 50 people buy tickets for $10 each. The theater has then made $400 in profits. However, a 51st person snuck into the theater without paying. If this person had paid, the theater simply would have had $10 more in profits, but no money or physical objects were lost.

Let's say a movie is being released on DVD. A store buys some of these DVDs from a distributor for $5 each and sells 100 copies for $10 each. They've then made $500 in profits. However, one of the customers that bought a DVD ripped the movie from the DVD and put it online for others to watch for free. One person watches this movie online instead of being the 101st person to buy it at the store. If this person had bought a DVD at the store, the store simply would have made $5 more in profits, but no money or physical objects were lost.

Please explain to me how these are different in a practical sense..

 

[Tsuyu]

Thing is that it is not direct profit. It is potential profit, which is still there even if you don't buy the DvD. DvDs do not become worthless just because you pirate the movie. Nobody goes around smashing DvDs just because you pirate the movie. The DvDs still retains its value and can be sold to someone else. Nor do the DvDs decrease in numbers. They can still make just as much profit. No money is lost, only a potential sale.

As such pirating a movie does not mean you automatically make the industry lose money. You can't compare it to stealing a physical copy of the DvD which is obviously going to cost money to replace.

 

[Lenop]

Got two cents I want to throw in here.

Taking isn't stealing. Difference between stealing and taking is simply a matter of legality. If it's a quarter on the ground, you're taking it. If it's a quarter in someone else's pocket, you're stealing it, because taking it is illegal. If a service is providing something legally, you're taking it. Whereas stuffing a DVD down your pants and walking out of the store is stealing, because taking it (without buying it in this case) is illegal.

 

[Necromancer]

Thing is that it is not direct profit. It is potential profit, which is still there even if you don't buy the DvD. DvDs do not become worthless just because you pirate the movie. Nobody goes around smashing DvDs just because you pirate the movie. The DvDs still retains its value and can be sold to someone else. Nor do the DvDs decrease in numbers. They can still make just as much profit. No money is lost, only a potential sale.

As such pirating a movie does not mean you automatically make the industry lose money. You can't compare it to stealing a physical copy of the DvD which is obviously going to cost money to replace.

Exactly. In both cases, the only thing that is lost is a potential sale. And I'm not comparing anything to physically stealing a DVD.