Right. Exactly. Because most copyright holders closely monitor the pirated Youtube copies of their holdings, and use those statistics as a guide to releasing DVDs of their most-stolen titles. So that all the people who already watched them for nothing can buy a copy.

I mean, really?

You are quite right Perkins Cobb! Stroszeck is obviously trying to pass-off his libertarian attitude towards copyright theft as some form of paternalism.

I'm not saying its ok or legal or anything I'm just, as a true film fan, excited to at least have ANY kind of access to movies which have been long lost from my reach for ever. I neither condone theft or fraud but I get so excited in seeing some of these films posted it lifts my hopes for a proper re-issue/restoration at least. I mean there are SO many films that have never even made it onto VHS let alone dvd and probably won't just because the assholes that possess the rights think these films won't garner the proper attention of the movie watching audiences and therefore will not buy a video edition and therefore they will not turn a profit on those particular movies should they decide to go all out and do a restoration or anything of the sort. But again I absolutely do NOT condone illegal activity I just, in my "dream world", imagine that such actions might get the attention of someone somewhere who will realize that THERE IS A DEMAND for such small forgotten older films. Thats all.

The outrage is hard to understand? You linked to illegal copies of films released by Criterion on the Criterion message board. Things like that make rare online copies of otherwise unavailable films that much more at risk of going away

Domino ur right...i'll shut up and keep it to myself.

Well, I concur with stroszeck on the YouTube-posting of classics subject, Criterion or not. It's too bad that one has to be clever to evade the Tube police but great classic films should be widely available to the public. Copyright issues, notwithstanding, more prospective filmmakers (as well as the general public) need to increase their knowledge of international and "obscure" domestic classics. In addition, not everyone has the money for the average price of a Criterion disc or has access to a library which keeps a large collection of Criterion (or other art-house label) dvds in circulation. Posting links to copyright material may be bad form but I think this kind of access is, nevertheless, wonderful.

UK Film and copyright theft

Good. Hopefully the nature of movie-making will change with this perceived loss; especially "big event" films.

Right, so that more small, independent films will be made instead, and the content you steal from Youtube and torrent sites will be more to your liking. That's a plausible, sustainable business model for sure.

Soon/pocket change < Now/Free

Only nothing is really free--you're paying for hard drive space, you're taking a risk of infecting your computer with a virus, you're probably "paying" substantial megabytes for a noticeably inferior rip (or else paying even more for hard drive space if you're downloading full BD rips), and you're also paying creative capital in that you are directly limiting, in this case, Paul Thomas Anderson's ability to continue to make the films he wants to in the future.

i dont want to start the cumstain thing again, but are you referring to some pay-as-you-go hard drive space? It's already paid for and what else is he going to "spend"/allocate it on if not films he wants to see? I'm not sure of incidence of virus on mainstream movies (isn't that a porn-download thing?) but isn't the likelihood equal to a car wreck driving to RedBox or some abstract risk correlating to physical consumption? Is the streaming quality of Netflix (should Master even be available for streaming once it comes out, and i won't be) also a "noticeably inferior rip"? Or is he waiting for a snail mail disc to come, presumably not cracked or scratched? If the pre-sales are already established w/ RedBox or Netflix for discs, how does that stop him from making the films he wants in the future more than an overall box-office and pre-sale rejection based on the film's hit/flop status?

Are there studies yet about %ages of downloads which effect actual sales? If something is already available through illicit means online, what are the copyright holders' actions? Can they up the release of their digital copies on itunes? Can they flood the torrent sites with dummy copies (or viruses?).

It just seems like appealing to wishywashy consumers who most likely wouldnt be spending money on the copy in the first place to not download is the wrong tack, whereas making it a waste of their time to find an illegitimate copy when the legit copy is easier to get. These people aren't film library connoisseurs or manufacturers themselves, so it's ridiculous to appeal to them in those terms. Understand your customer and what they want: immediacy, convenience, and the film istelf, quality and cover art and steelcases to look pretty on shelves aren't as important, so price it differently/competitively. To what level are they effecting bottom line/profitability? Are they pronouncedly worse than passing around screeners or VHS recording in olden days? What about my copy of Margaret I bought as soon as it came out, haven't watched since and will sell to a used bookstore which also won't benefit the manufacturer or Lonnergan's future projects? How big is the difference? (I understand there is one.)

For context: I saw The Master opening weekend in the theater, downloaded a copy this week to study all the theories i'd had and read about, which I deleted after I was done (is the assumption that downloading means a physical copy is burned and kept in a library?) and eagerly await renting the BluRay when it comes out, mostly for the extra features.