Bandwidth for Online Piracy Grows 160% in 2 Years

[silentmovies742]

I don't think it matters what format we get the Warner Archive titles in. This is the only way that it can be done to make it financially viable.

I think it DOES matter. DVD-r's are WAY more susceptible to scratches, and sometimes fail on their own because they're burned, not pressed. If you want to spend $20 on such a thing, be my guest, but I think it's absurd to call people "selfish" who only expect some real value (and a quality product) for their money.

I've never had any problems with them. You have a choice of either getting access to hundreds of films in a way that makes it financially viable for Warner to do so, or no access at all - which is the clear alternative. These items would, for the most part, not be viable financially for Warner to factory press. They are a business, not a charity. As far as I'm aware, you can also choose to stream them in America now as well - so that's a second option.

[boblipton]

Indeed. My choice would be to see them at Radio City Music Hall with Ben Model at the organ with a stage show featuring the Rockettes -- for free, of course. But since that isn't going to happen, I'm very pleased that they're being made available on any terms.

Bob

[Doug Sulpy]

You keep saying, over and over, how it's not "financially viable" for them.

I'd love to see some proof of this.

And then explain how much, much, MUCH smaller companies such as Twilight Time and Olive Films (not to mention Milestone and Kino) manage to survive offering REAL pressed DVDs to THEIR consumers, without having to resort to garbage DVD-R's and ink-jet covers.

[silentmovies742]

You keep saying, over and over, how it's not "financially viable" for them.

I'd love to see some proof of this.

And then explain how much, much, MUCH smaller companies such as Twilight Time and Olive Films (not to mention Milestone and Kino) manage to survive offering REAL pressed DVDs to THEIR consumers, without having to resort to garbage DVD-R's and ink-jet covers.

Milestone and Kino are offering films that have some commercial value for the most part - more often than not key films in the canon, or films starring or directed by key figures. Releasing Nosferatu, Caligari, Birth of a Nation or Metropolis is one thing. Releasing The Smart Set starring William Haines or Ramon Novarro in The Red Lily is another thing entirely. I admit that there are some titles in the series that I'm surprised are not being released "normally", but if the Archive series means that hundreds more films are being made available, then I can live with that. I don't see any other major studio releasing their back catalogue at the same rate as Warner, and certainly no other have released more than a handful of silents from their vaults.

The fact remains that you don't have to buy them, but without the Archive series you probably wouldn't get them at all.

As for people who say they scratch easily or don't play, I would suggest not using them as frisbees!

[Daniel Eagan]

I've never had any problems with them.

Warner Archive DVD-R's won't play on Apple DVD drives. At least not mine, either desktop or laptop.

[moglia]

You keep saying, over and over, how it's not "financially viable" for them.

I'd love to see some proof of this.

And then explain how much, much, MUCH smaller companies such as Twilight Time and Olive Films (not to mention Milestone and Kino) manage to survive offering REAL pressed DVDs to THEIR consumers, without having to resort to garbage DVD-R's and ink-jet covers.

Milestone and Kino are offering films that have some commercial value for the most part - more often than not key films in the canon, or films starring or directed by key figures. Releasing Nosferatu, Caligari, Birth of a Nation or Metropolis is one thing. Releasing The Smart Set starring William Haines or Ramon Novarro in The Red Lily is another thing entirely. I admit that there are some titles in the series that I'm surprised are not being released "normally", but if the Archive series means that hundreds more films are being made available, then I can live with that. I don't see any other major studio releasing their back catalogue at the same rate as Warner, and certainly no other have released more than a handful of silents from their vaults.

The fact remains that you don't have to buy them, but without the Archive series you probably wouldn't get them at all.

As for people who say they scratch easily or don't play, I would suggest not using them as frisbees!

You last comment was not very helpful. No need for that type of snark. I've had some WAC arrive unplayable and had to return them. A useful comment would have been something like be sure to make a back up of your WAC disc just in case. I know it's the first thing after receiving them that I used to do.

[silentmovies742]

I've never had any problems with them.

Warner Archive DVD-R's won't play on Apple DVD drives. At least not mine, either desktop or laptop.

On the one hand we have people moaning about the quality of dvd-rs, and on the other we have people who want to watch them on their computer. It's not like Warner don't tell us they won't play on some computers, in fact it tells us on every entry for these discs on amazon, and on the back cover of the artwork for each title. So, the fact they won't play on desktops or laptop is not a problem with the disc, they are simply behaving in the way we were told about in advance.

[radiotelefonia]

This thread has somehow drifted from the original discussion...

Taringa! (http://www.taringa.net/" target="_blank) arrived a few years ago and changed everything. Although the site is no longer what it used to be, it has cloned into other websites in different languages that offer a lot. Despite site like this one are blocked, restricted, etc., they are not going away.

[Doug Sulpy]

I've never had any problems with them.

Warner Archive DVD-R's won't play on Apple DVD drives. At least not mine, either desktop or laptop.

On the one hand we have people moaning about the quality of dvd-rs, and on the other we have people who want to watch them on their computer. It's not like Warner don't tell us they won't play on some computers, in fact it tells us on every entry for these discs on amazon, and on the back cover of the artwork for each title. So, the fact they won't play on desktops or laptop is not a problem with the disc, they are simply behaving in the way we were told about in advance.

So, just to get this straight, if one doesn't appreciate paying (more than) the full price we're used to paying for a DVD and receiving inferior product that won't last as long, has no guarantee, is produced with no more quality than what we can burn ourselves AND isn't able to be backed up on many people's computers, we're "moaning."

And they fact that they TELL us we may not be able to back up the inferior media just in case it craps out on us somehow makes that all okay. Uh, huh.

[missdupont]

You should just be thankful you have any access to this stuff, 40 or more years ago before the advent of vhs, dvd, laser, streaming, etc., the ONLY WAY to see this material would have been to go to Library of Congress, Eastman House, UCLA, or the studios and see a print, so you have nothing to bitch about.

[Doug Sulpy]

Ah, I love posts that basically say nothing but: "Shut up! How DARE you have an opinion that isn't mine!"

[silentmovies742]

You should just be thankful you have any access to this stuff, 40 or more years ago before the advent of vhs, dvd, laser, streaming, etc., the ONLY WAY to see this material would have been to go to Library of Congress, Eastman House, UCLA, or the studios and see a print, so you have nothing to bitch about.

Exactly. While I'm the first one to bemoan the ridiculous situation where Warner refuse to ship outside of America, forcing those of us who do not live there to miss out on their often rather generous discounts and sales, Warner Archive has been a real blessing. And considering other studios are following suit with such series, it appears once again that Warner were way ahead of the game. Nobody anywhere is forcing anyone to buy anything. No other studio/label has released as much material from their archives during the entire DVD era as has occurred with Warner Archive - and again this suggests that Warner stumbled upon the burn on demand method as the one that enabled them to do this.

I'm sure that if this label never existed, we would have people today bemoaning the fact that this material hasn't been released and asking why Warner couldn't try a system such as burn on demand in order to get the films out there....

[WaverBoy]

You should just be thankful you have any access to this stuff, 40 or more years ago before the advent of vhs, dvd, laser, streaming, etc., the ONLY WAY to see this material would have been to go to Library of Congress, Eastman House, UCLA, or the studios and see a print, so you have nothing to bitch about.

But times have changed, Dupont. I see no problem with people expecting good product for their money. 40 years ago, the studios weren't selling home video product to consumers for $$. But now they are, and if they're charging full price for an inferior product (which DVD-Rs are, compared to pressed DVDs, and that's a fact), then consumers are well within their rights to point that out and are justified in taking issue with it. You yourself might do well to quit bitching.

I personally am OK with the Archive, as long as they keep having their five-for-$50 sales with free shipping, which is the only time I buy from them.

[silentmovies742]

You should just be thankful you have any access to this stuff, 40 or more years ago before the advent of vhs, dvd, laser, streaming, etc., the ONLY WAY to see this material would have been to go to Library of Congress, Eastman House, UCLA, or the studios and see a print, so you have nothing to bitch about.

But times have changed, Dupont. I see no problem with people expecting good product for their money. 40 years ago, the studios weren't selling home video product to consumers for $$. But now they are, and if they're charging full price for an inferior product (which DVD-Rs are, compared to pressed DVDs, and that's a fact), then consumers are well within their rights to point that out and are justified in taking issue with it. You yourself might do well to quit bitching.

I personally am OK with the Archive, as long as they keep having their five-for-$50 sales with free shipping, which is the only time I buy from them.

It's nothing to do with bitching. According to the Warner website, there are now somewhere around 40 Archive titles from the 1920s, for example. Find me another studio label (Universal, Sony, Fox etc), that have currently in print a similar number of titles from the same period and I'll reconsider my own stance. As it is, I'd rather have the titles this way rather than not at all - and as no other studio label is providing us with factory-pressed films from this era, the archive series remains a total blessing. If people don't want to buy the films my understanding is that they can stream many of them, and the number of films given that option will no doubt continue to grow.

What I find quite odd is there are people moaning about the archive releases being on dvdr, and yet not the same issues being raised about a label such as Grapevine which are also dvdr and roughly the same price!

[Doug Sulpy]

It's probably because someone hasn't come on this board and called people "selfish" who won't buy Grapevine product, and accuse them of "moaning" because they don't like paying $20.00 for a title which costs pennies to manufacture.

You love the things. Clearly. In fact, I hereby nominate you as President of the Warner Archive Fan Club. Other people DON'T love the things and, yes, it IS bitching to tell us to shut up because we're unhappy being charged a premium price for inferior product.

What if Warner followed the old VHS model and charged $90 per film? Would we be allowed to complain then? How about $200? At what price point are people actually allowed to have an opinion without being attacked for it?

[Jim Reid]

You're not paying for the technology, you're paying a premium price for the rareity of the title. If that's not enough for you, then don't buy it. But! You would never see these titles as pressed, old fashioned DVDs that you find at your local Best Buy, WalMart, etc. This is the ONLY way these films would be made available. Plus, it's a moree sophisticated burning technology than we have on our home computers. I have over 200 of the discs. A handful had problems, and were promptly replaced without even having to send back the bad disc. I'm satisfied.

[Mike Gebert]

Okay, this is getting way too shrill and nasty again.

Surely, without getting sarcastic, we can recognize that there is some validity in all these points of view. You couldn't see The Red Mill at all for half a century, now you can, but on a DVD that may not be as well made as other DVDs. All the points that anyone could make about that have some validity. I fall on the "Better than not seeing it at all" side generally, but I will admit that lesser durability remains a bit of a factor in purchasing decisions.

There's no need to bludgeon others if their calculation of the same factors comes out a little different. Relax and keep the tone civil, please.

[silentmovies742]

It's probably because someone hasn't come on this board and called people "selfish" who won't buy Grapevine product, and accuse them of "moaning" because they don't like paying $20.00 for a title which costs pennies to manufacture.

You love the things. Clearly. In fact, I hereby nominate you as President of the Warner Archive Fan Club. Other people DON'T love the things and, yes, it IS bitching to tell us to shut up because we're unhappy being charged a premium price for inferior product.

What if Warner followed the old VHS model and charged $90 per film? Would we be allowed to complain then? How about $200? At what price point are people actually allowed to have an opinion without being attacked for it?

Actually I called no-one selfish for not buying a product, I said we were being selfish if we picked holes in a series of products that hand us rarities for $16 a throw (and often cheaper as double and triple bills are being utilised more often for the B-movies) that we would otherwise not get to see. I also told no-one to shut up ANYWHERE. I'm not quite sure who you have been conversing with me, but it certainly wasn't me.

[silentmovies742]

You're not paying for the technology, you're paying a premium price for the rareity of the title. If that's not enough for you, then don't buy it. But! You would never see these titles as pressed, old fashioned DVDs that you find at your local Best Buy, WalMart, etc. This is the ONLY way these films would be made available. Plus, it's a moree sophisticated burning technology than we have on our home computers. I have over 200 of the discs. A handful had problems, and were promptly replaced without even having to send back the bad disc. I'm satisfied.

We're not just paying for the rarity of the title but, often, for the fact that it even survives today thanks to the long-running preservation program at Turner/Warner.

[radiotelefonia]

This is no longer the original thread.

[Rick Lanham]

So:

1. More old movies are available to us (outside an archive) than at any time in the past.
2. In handy to use formats.
3. Viewable in better quality, on equipment of increasing quality.
4. The prices of which are in a general decline.
5. And yet we still complain.

Sounds normal to me.

Rick

[silentfilm]

According to Wikipedia, Taringa has been prosecuted several times for copyright violations.

And here's an article on bit torrent download of movies where scammers use bit-torrent sites to download viruses on your computer and steal your personal information.

[radiotelefonia]

According to Wikipedia, Taringa has been prosecuted several times for copyright violations.

And here's an article on bit torrent download of movies where scammers use bit-torrent sites to download viruses on your computer and steal your personal information.

Yes, the owners of Taringa! are facing a public trial right now... but their damage is unavoidable, there are a lot of very similar sites. And the reason why these sites prosper are not so difficult to understand.

[silentmovies742]

The prosecution and closing of the sites seems almost ridiculous as others just spring up in their place. The way forward, I would suggest, is for studios to provide legal ways to obtain the most sought after material at a reasonable cost at the time when audiences want to see it. With three or four months between transmissions of TV programmes in America and most other countries there is a lot of work to be done.

[radiotelefonia]

The prosecution and closing of the sites seems almost ridiculous as others just spring up in their place. The way forward, I would suggest, is for studios to provide legal ways to obtain the most sought after material at a reasonable cost at the time when audiences want to see it. With three or four months between transmissions of TV programmes in America and most other countries there is a lot of work to be done.

It can be even more complicated... outside the United States, certain shows on pay-per-view are shown in broadcasting stations and people here know about this. I vividly remember certain boxing events but there are others. Most TV Stations outside from our country are no longer showing American TV shows, for the most part (a few fifth rate channels would play some worn series from the eighties). The reason is because they are dubbed and they are more than two years old, being shown in cable channels in their original versions, where they also lift pay-per-view shows many times. Some of those shows make no sense outside the States which can explain why they appear there.

There is also a website called rojadirecta.com in which you can access all live sport events from all over the world. Companies from Spain (where it is originally), Argentina and the United States have been trying to shut it down for years. But the owner faced legal conflicts in Spain and he won them all which explains why it is still online. I remember watching a number of soccer events that were originally in pay-per-view for free... but the matches were so boring that I stopped doing that altogether.

[boblipton]

This is no longer the original thread.

Well, it is in the sense of people advocating positions for and against pirating.

One of the ways of looking at it is in terms of property rights. Those with property are far more likely to believe in property rights than those without. I'm reminded of a story I heard about the Occupy movement in which a reporter was speaking to a member of the movement, who was saying there should be no such thing as private property. "So you don't mind if I take your Iphone?" asked the reporter. "No, that's personal property," explained the budding socialist.

I have been fortunate enough to have accumulated some property and am largely in favor of property rights, although, like so much of Federal laws, I think it needs a thorough recodification, which hasn't been done in about sixty years.

Final note for now: people complaining about the poor quality of the Warner Archives discs reminds me of the old joke about two women at a Catskills Hotel complaining about the food. "It's so bad, so bad," says one. "Yes," says the other. "And such small portions."

Bob

[Doug Sulpy]

Interesting, in the same post where you speak about mindlessly following the herd, you seem to take the position that, as far as the Warner Archive is concerned, anyone who "complains" about the inferior media should just shut up, be thankful we're "given" anything, and hand over our money.

[Jim Reid]

I think your complaints are somewhat valid, although in my opinion you are overdoing the "inferior product" deal. I don't find the discs inferior at all. Other than the ones I have noted, they have all played just fine. Warner would never have made the investment in pressing these discs nor should they have. It would have been bad business and there's no way we would have had this many titles released. Plus, you've complained about the same thing since the WA started and it's tiresome.

[Mike Gebert]

anyone who "complains" about the inferior media should just shut up

Honestly, you keep saying that and all I see is other people having a different opinion.

Movies are clearly just one example of many many kinds of media and other things which are adjusting to a new world in which people expect constant access. I'm sure being a film distributor is suddenly harder in many ways, but so is being an advertising copywriter and food writer. Or maybe they're all easier since there are all these new channels to participate in, like, say, online discussion sites devoted to silent films. Mainly it's just different. But we expect a certain access now and that's just the world. I was thinking about the first version of The Sound of Music the other day that no one knows about-- the mid-1950s German (non-musical) film about the Von Trapps that established the semi-fictional plot that R&H followed. Two seconds later I was watching a clip of it. That's film, 2013.

What complicates the audience's understanding of media property rights is that it's so different in different circumstances. If a radio station plays an album and I hear it for free that's fine and dandy, if a site does it that's stealing, if I invite friends over to a broadcast of a movie that's broadcast TV and a-ok, if I invite too many people over to watch my blu-ray, I'm past the point of "fair use at home" or something and apparently Interpol will be after me. I know there's an underlying logic there but it's far from obvious to the average joe and, shocker, they will tend to do what is most convenient to them.

Anyway, WA seems a smart step in the right direction, but unlikely to be the final one, so if you don't like it, just wait.

[mndean]

I think your complaints are somewhat valid, although in my opinion you are overdoing the "inferior product" deal. I don't find the discs inferior at all. Other than the ones I have noted, they have all played just fine. Warner would never have made the investment in pressing these discs nor should they have. It would have been bad business and there's no way we would have had this many titles released. Plus, you've complained about the same thing since the WA started and it's tiresome.

I have one that went bad already and I see no surface damage. It can't be more than two years old and it wouldn't play correctly a year ago on any of my three machines (all different brands). I stopped buying MOD disks after that. The same thing happened to one of my pressed disks (Footlight Parade), I asked for a replacement from WHV which didn't even garner a response, let alone a replacement.