Keep in mind...my focus for the release of my movie for my client is Summer 2002. I know that it will get ripped.

My focus is the 8 weeks prior to the release and getting all the p2p world sharing tidbits of never before seen clips, offers, awareness raising and more.

Now, after the p2p world rips my movie and sees it on the computer...is it reasonable to say that because I got the p2p world all excited about the movie, they ripped it as they do with all movies no matter what, will the p2p world go to the movies to see it on the big screen because of my work the 8 weeks prior to the movie and because I have utilized p2p to raise awareness and create the need to see it on the big screen even though the p2p world can see it for free on their computer...that is is the issue that is ****ing off my studio clients is that they do not know if a dull and lackluster version ripped will stall the user from seeing it again on the big screen and pay to see what they have at home on their computer...that is the whole issue on p2p sharing..will you pay to see what you already see in less quality??

This is food for thought

As I already mentioned: If the movie is good and I like it, I will watch it in cinema of course. Another criteria would be sound effects that you cannot have at home in a ripped version.
Of course this is very dangerous: if the movie is crap I would never go and watch the film in the movies.

If there are trailers on P2P networks first there is a good chance that people like it and it a kind of completes your advertising strategy, so ppl will go to the movies.

Another thought on downloading the riped movie: I think not all of the ppl who download the movie do that because they don't wanna spend 5$ for the movie in cinema. I think many of them download the movie if they liked it to watch it again. I mean a DVD isn't cheap as well and if you are cineastic but not much money available this is a good possibility to build up your home movie collection (for free). Like ppl did with VHS video cassettes in the 90s (or is VHS only a European format? I hope the point came accross).

> will you pay to see what you already see in less quality??

Good question.

I completly agree with hermaf. When will I pay? It depends, hard to say on what. For example the well known StarTrek Episode I. I got it on CD, downloaded from the Internet... in the end the movie was so bad in my eyes (as old Han Solo fan) and I decided not to watch it on big screen. Also I'm looking forward to get Episode II on DivX and propably decide to skip it too... the trailer is already boring IMHO.

Very different was Matrix or Shrek... I have downloaded them, but decided to watch them on big screen first, live and with most fun. Also I bought Matrix on DVD, great surround effects! Then I bought many of my top favourite movies on DVD, because I want to enjoy the big 16:9 TV screen and surround sound pleasure. Sometimes I buy them because you never get them on P2P, e.g. the old b/w Flash Gordon series, awesome but not mainstream.

Well, most movies are not worth the money, €20 or more on DVD. Having them on harddisk with good quality (DivX) is fun. Btw, always fun is downloading trailers and watching them... I remember 'Final Fantasy' trailer.... wow, great teaser!

/Moak

That statement is absolutely false of course. As soon someone "authors" something, it is copyrighted by the author, regardless of any notification of such. That's the law.

-- Mike

I don't see how I can be expected to tell the difference between a freely distributable song and a non-freely distributable song. There is no way I can find out if a random song I download is freely distributable or not. As any average Joe I assume that the distributor has a right to distribute it, so I don’t think (again as the average Joe) that I’m violating any law. Basically what I’m trying to say is that when someone is distributing a song on Gnutella I assume that they have the right to do so. Therefore I don’t think I’m violating any law.

This is exactly the problem why some say downloading should be legal... but others think different. They say offering a song on a file-sharing system is ALWAYS illegal. So downloading is as well ...

Well moose? Are you using Gnutella for viral marketing yet?

The movie and the record companies have been spending a lot of time and effort lately sending out "Cease and Desist" letters and generally harassing ISPs for a while now.

Well, I have downloaded many movie clips and MP3s that WERE NOT what they said they were - most were some kind of advertisement or songs from garage bands - who FAKED the title to get me to download it.

Here's my question.

If the material WASN'T what it claimed to be - then how does any of these legal 'authorities' have any right to complain about me downloading it - when it wasn't their property to begin with?

Just because my IP address downloaded a file that said U2.mp3 - doesn't mean it was, in fact, a U2 song - what if it wasn't.

How would they prove otherwise - I mean if they didn't actually download the exact file that you did - then how can they really know?

In fact - those recent "Harry Potter" files I downloaded didn't have anything at all to do with the recent Harry Potter movie - both files (400 MB) was a documentary about the homosexual mating habits of African Apes. (and damn fine too)

So leave me the Hell alone already!

http://www.bricklin.com/softwarepolice.htm

I think he gets some really important points and I think this is exactly how the situation with all this legal stuff & copyright protection stuff is like at the moment. Probably some ppl from the RIA should take some time considering this article...


BTW: Under the link Writing there are several interesting article on many subjects in the computing area ...