Cool News
In Regards to the alleged print of THE TWO TOWERS that leaked online!
Folks, Harry here... Well after Drudge made his premature declaration on his site that the 2nd LORD OF THE RINGS film had leaked online - without checking it out for himself it seems - I contacted various unsavory barbarians in the cyber trenches. The folks that are the scourge that traffic in this sort of travesties. In my line of work... Movie Spying, I happen to meet all sorts of types, not all of which stay on the side of Truth, Justice and the American Way.
I personally am against the pirating of films online, but that doesn't stop folks from mailing me VCDs and emailing me locations of files. Just because I don't like these things, because I don't traffic in these circles doesn't mean I don't stay on top of what is happening in the field. To anyone that has been scouring the shires in search for this flick, they'll attest that it is not online. There are files of enormous length purporting to be TWO TOWERS - but they are garbage files that do not contain mediocre video and audio for the upcoming epic. These are 'false echoes' tar baby's placed to trap unsuspecting fools that think this thing is online.
After consulting with these folks, I came to the conclusion very quickly that Drudge had no clue what he was talking about.
However, the bug had been put in my ear... Would it be possible to get a print of TWO TOWERS now? So I began contacting my sources that know the exact state of New Line's greatest treasure and where every single bit of the film may be. Yes... I do have sources that good (remember, I'm the guy that saw Episode 2 early)!!!
Right now - as we speak - this is the state of what is going on with THE TWO TOWERS. In the United States there are currently two video tapes (in two different formats) containing the first 5 reels of THE TWO TOWERS. These copies have intense burn ins - and they are being used to work up and get a head start on Subtitles. The MPAA saw a check print of THE TWO TOWERS recently, but it was sent back to New Zealand on Labor Day.
Now that Print is Handcuffed to a human being that entire journey and the cannister is marked with a title (NOT TWO TOWERS) that I won't mention here, because that'd be laying down the cards for all the players to see.
So... What does this mean? If you were to get a print of TWO TOWERS at this point, you'd have to get it from 3 FOOT 6 in NEW ZEALAND. You'd have to pull it out of their computer system, which has INTENSE log ins and security checks. Is it impossible? No, but are the pirates that good? No. Am I that good? ... Not yet, but I'm in training.
Fact of the matter is this though. I've seen some of TWO TOWERS - some that I saw in New Zealand two years ago when I was there, some at Cannes, some at the tail end of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and some in the trailers and some... that I shouldn't have seen.
If there was a print that had escaped, I would have seen it. I'm not trying to see it early, because frankly... Unlike any other series in the known world, I have total faith in THE TWO TOWERS and the crew making this film. I don't worry that they're fucking it up, that the writing is bad, that it will have a character that will burn hatred into the very souls of fandom. I don't feel the urge to check the homework or second guess the filmmakers. There is no doubt in my mind that Peter Jackson and his crew are making a pure and total classic.
That means I'd love to see it early. But that also means I want to see it one way only. On the big screen, lit from behind on celluloid and in digital sound. Would I watch a work print? Only if screened for me in a theater with at least 75 other people. Is this going to happen? Not bloody likely.
So for now, put away your greedy thoughts of acquiring your precious in a semi-precious state. It doesn't exist. And if it does, then somebody's kung fu is better than mine... And frankly... when it comes to movies like THE TWO TOWERS - I'm the Kung Fu Master!
-
+ Expand All
-
All this feels like Sensory Overload, rushing to get hold of the next Star Wars film early or The Two Towers. Man, life's too short for this. We've got to think of other things to do. Get drunk. Have a laugh. Read a book. But this race to find the latest thing all the time is killing me. It's out in 12 weeks or something. It's not that long to wait. I just spent $40 getting the Night Skies script. I've got to fucking chill out.
-
Its sad how many news sites jumped the gun on this story. Goes to show that you can't believe everything you read.
-
Not even with 75 other people would I go and see some rough cut of TTT. I don't want some half ass impression of what TTT will be like, I want the fucking Gauntlet (owners of the "Tarantino Connection" album will know what I mean). I don't do piracy and neither should you. ASS. Also -- and this is in no way related to the article -- a big fuck you to all the Tolkienites who think FOTR was Peter Jackson's first or only good film. Oh, what I wouldn't do to force some Legolas fangirl(s) to watch Bad Taste, Braindead and Meet the Feebles...
"Oh, FOTR is sooo poetic and intellectual!"
"Sure, toots, written by the same people who wrote 'I like Sodomy'!" -
The "Ass" or "Neither should you" wasn't intended for you, Harry, it was to those who like to download movies. Represent that.
-
"I have total faith..." I wonder what you're alluding to? I bet if Lucas flew you up to the Ranch and let you give him a backrub(and by that I mean something else but there are preschool toys present.) you'd still be hyping Ep II or have already started hyping Ep III. You're the Kung-Fu master alright, the Kung-Fu master of kissing balls.
-
That's the funniest thing I've read for ages.
-
If studios released films on the same day in every country around the world, the piracy issue would not be as big as it is. You will find in many markets, people selling VCD copies of a lot of the new releases. The quality of these are close to abysmal and anyone who watches these, are not seeing the film. They are watching a third rate picture which is not even in sync. If you want crap, you get it with bootlegs. Given the choice over a cinema with great picture and sound compared to a film cammed by a retard, there shouldnt be a decision to make. You cannot claim to have seen the film, if you have not seen it in the cinema or when it is released on DVD. It not only affects your judgement of the film but it also takes away the greatness. The thing is, that as long as there is a market for these crap bootlegs - people will still make them. It wont kill the film business but it will kill your enjoyment of the film. The Two Towers is made for cinema and after the brilliant first installment, you owe it to Peter Jackson to watch it there. He created the celluloid monster, now its up to you to give your money and give something back to Jackson for having the balls to make it. If you watch the bootleg, you disrespect not only Jackson but yourself.
-
Hah! Balls! Balls balls balls balls balls! Yummy yummy balls! Sorry, it's early.
-
These work prints may not have that title, but I'm guessing the release prints of "Two Towers" will. If they wanted to keep the code title a secret, perhaps they shouldn't have it on the DTS trailer discs shipping to theatres nationwide. Fox/Lucasfilm had the worst kept secret title for Episode II when they put "Black Eyes" on every trailer (ie. Version A "Black Eyes"). When the prints arrived at the theatre labelled as such instead of "Star Wars Episode II", I wasn't surprised that the film was leaked before release.
-
I think we safely say it's much bigger than his bulbous ass!!
-
harry your kung-fu master highness, you're but a planet in a universe of stars. nonetheless a good writer.
-
....i remember somebody seeing AOTC on a small screen in a hotelroom and then reviewing it on this site, i wonder who that was....if this thing had smilies, :rolleyes:
-
I believe part of the qualifications of being a "kung fu master" is that one can extricate themselves from off a wet bathroom floor without rolling around like a newborn. Let's not abuse the term.
-
Screw anyone that pirates and "steals" movies or music. The cost of movies and music will only go up because of your selfishness that ends up fu@king every honest consumer. I will vote anyone into government, that will commit to locking you up with Big Joe, so you will finally get it in the end. I'm glad so many morons are coming out here and claiming they pirate material. It's like revealing yourself to a sniper. Bang!!! Good bye!! You have no civil rights on this issue. You will be sought out. You will be prosecuted, and the people you like to show off your big penis too will eventually turn you in when the time comes. And the part that you'll cry about... is that you won't have a keyboard in jail.
-
TTT comes out in four months !!!! Thats not very long to wait . GET A GRIP !!!!!!
( Please note that the rant featured above was intended for the white - livered rascals in the talk backs ONLY . If you are offended by this rant you must be one of these white - livered rascals in question . If you take no offense to this post , then I presume you are a well adjusted member of our fine society who spends there time wisely and not foolishly like one of these white-livered rascals that post ever so frequently . I believe it was mr. shatner who once said " people .... get A life ! " - I bid a happy day to each and every one of you!!! ) -
I find it somewhat hypocritical of people to complete claim innocence in what we now refer to as "piracy" - but prior to internet technology we called "making a blank tape". If intellectual property is the end all and be all of copyrights, then how come we can buy recordable CDs and VHS tapes and VCDs and the like? Why do stereos have two tape decks? Where is the line drawn? According to some of the zealots on this site - who I cannot for the life of me understand why they are so bent on sending downloaders to jail - if you engage in any active short of going to the theatre and paying the outrageous ticket price (which they'll claim as the fault of pirates - oh, sing the corporate fight song) and then subsequently buying the DVD/VHS when it comes out - then you're stealing - Ok, fine, shouldn't that then extend to tapeing a rented movie, or making a mixed CD or tape? Aren't you stealing anything when you don't engage in the actual retail experience? Aren't you just drawing lines in the sand that are just a little self-serving? I put it to you this way - corporations have the right to make profits from their intellectual property, but the corporations that manufacture recordable technology (VCRs, CD burners, etc.) also have a right to make profits - so am I, in fact, supporting the company that I think manufactures the best technology? Are movie productions studios and record compaies just dinosaurs that have seen technology render the old ways moot? Who should have to adapt here?
-
Why is the dude still bragging about seeing aotc early ? It's not like he's impressing anyone ... well . aside from the five year olds .
-
Ever notice how Harry seems to brag himself up a lot. Half of this post is Harry talking himself up and the other half is bullshit. "I'm the guy who saw Episode II early" blah blah blah. Most of his reviews are the same way. You have to wade through piles of BS, many times written with the crudest, sexual, non-humor available on the net to get to the information.
Just post the news. This story could have been written in three sentences:
The Drudge Report said The Two Towers is available for download.
I went and checked it out at site a and b and talked to person c and d.
It is highly unlikely it could be available for download, and the Drudge Report's story is a lie. -
how can anyone be so pissed off about internet "piracy" when we're surrounded by such massive corporate and government corruption? please, a little bit of perspective.
-
In defense of Harry, while this site is for everyone, it is still his site. Harry is a fan, that plays critic, but he isn't really a critic. If he wants to gush about something or brag about something (and I don't think he was bragging about it, merely using it as an example to prove his point that the real download isn't out there) so be it!
As for Drudge reporting on piracy, as a myself being a newspaper reporter, I can tell you that Drudge is as much a reporter as Harry is a professional critic. Drudge is just someone who wants to be the first in everything. Trust the links on his site to real news sources, not his reports.
As for piracy, I don't get it. The only reason I can imagine anyone wanting a rough cut is so they can see all the junk that ends up on the cutting room floor.
Thanks for a great site Harry. -
Sep 04, 2002 11:35:06 AM CDT
1. How could there possible be a copy of TTT out on the internet
by iamlegolas
2. If it's not even finished yet, who the hell would want to watch this movie sans music, special effects, etc? Especially as your first time viewing it? Certainly not any REAL movie fan and certainly not any REAL Tolkien geek. GEEZUS, might as well open your X-mas gifts in July..... PATIENCE MOTHAPHUCKA! LEARN IT.
-
Of course NONE of us would run out and buy a pirate version of TT before (or after) it comes out. Of course we'll be checking AICN and TORN every day, at least twice a day; cruising past the official LOTR site at least weekly; catching every tidbit on crappy entertainment shows; buying whatever magazine has a big TT spread that week; and downloading teasers and trailers galore and watching them repeatedly. So we'll be completely spoiled as to all changes from the book and significant action sequences. More importantly, we'll have seen at least a third of the movie before we actually see it. What the hell, we didn't pay a pirate for any of our copious sneek peaks. But we will pay with our disappointment for having greedily ruined the cinematic experience, all over again. (Well, I expect to repeat my obsessed media surfing again this year, don't know about you.)
-
Why does the response of the kids to Cartman pop to mind? (See http://members.xoom.com/philovax/epbimages/candymaster.wav if you don't get the reference.)
"Beefcake!" -
Yeah, I get the whole Private Use thing, I just fail to see the difference between borrowing and copying a tape (which, because not purchased is sort of techincally illegal) and borrowing and copying a file - its sharing - no one is selling. If you try to sell someone else's shit, then you're in an actionable position, but if you engage in sharing, then I don't see how your not law-abiding - the difference is that the medium allows for mass sharing on unprecidented levels - In terms of buying bootlegged DVDs and the like, I agree with you, who wants those? But if the print was from a friend who owned the DVD and subsequently burned a copy and gave it to me (in so many words) then I'm merely engaging in Private Use. Anyway, its neither here nor there, Corporations will continue to crow about projected lost revenue and tell us that it is the reason for the increase in ticket price, and morons will continue to believe them.
-
I just want to say that I was aware of the law, I was just approaching it from an ethical perspective. Don't want you thinking I'm an idiot :)
-
this guy toots his own horn more than anyone. why are u so jealous of drudge for scooping u and then going around saying u wouldn't print it?
ur a spy site! -
what the hell are you doing trying to pretend you have morals at this point...?
-
Geeze I thought it would take forever before someone finally brought up Private Use and Intellectual/Copyright Law. You've both put up some good arguments and positions. My main comment is for Weedy though. Private use (although a bit of a vague term) I do not believe extends to distribution. Just because you do not charge money for a copy doesn't change the fact that it is illegal. The owner of the copyrighted material still receives zero compensation from the individual who received the copy. Prior to the digital revolution tape trading probably had only a minor effect on profits. The internet though has now simplified and magnified the problem to the point that it probably is having an effect (though I agree the record companies are overblowing it a bit). What's the solution? probably a mix of some copyright protection and/or options to burn your own copy of an album at a discount rather than buying a version produced by the distributor. In any case, a good discussion, Thanks.
-
"Well after Drudge made his premature declaration on his site that the 2nd LORD OF THE RINGS film had leaked online - without checking it out for himself it seems." There's a saying about living in glass houses and not throwing stones somewhere that could be applied to this statement. I'm not going to drag out mistakes that were 'confirmed' by AICN's 'crack team of spies' before that turned out to be completely wrong, but they definately have happened. It's part of what happens with rougue psuedo-journalism. I know you have personal issues with Drudge, but the way that this article is written is petty and childish.
-
Sep 04, 2002 12:42:17 PM CDT
What no one seems to realize about the cost of movie tickets...
by miramax_
For the most part, tickets aren't increasing because of the budgets of the film. They are increasing because of the abundance of 20 screen megalaplex's. This huge theaters (which ya know, show Pokemon 4 on three screens) have huge bills to pay and in doing so cost the average movie goer more. Sure, the budget of the movie, as well as inflation goes into it, but the primary factor of the huge cost of tickets are these big theaters. And don't think that just because you go to an AMC 8 that the rule doesn't apply to you. The entire theater chain has to increase their ticket prices to pay for those few huge theaters they own. As for the piracy debate: 1) I do not download any movie I haven't legitmately seen in the theater nor do I endorse it. 2) However, I do hate that waiting period between when the film leaves theaters and when its on DVD... so I have downloaded a film I've seen and kept it until the day it came out on DVD (where upon I bought the DVD) and 3) Put bluntly, and vulgarly, FUCK THE RIAA. I support small bands as well and I buy cd's when I can, but I spent 30 bucks every Tuesday on music during this summer? How fair is it to charge consumers 18.99 for 30 min. of music (i'm looking at you punk bands!). So I download music, although I do eventually replace the burned cd's with regular cd's when I have the funds. If the RIAA would drop cd costs, I prolly wouldn't burn at all.
-
Sep 04, 2002 12:45:05 PM CDT
Harry's absolutely right - what this is all about is TRUST
by empyreal0
When the public trusts that a movie will be good when it hits the theatres, I think fewer of us will be tempted to download it and watch it for free, especially when the quality is difference is so glaringly huge. Of course there are always the few pirates out there who don't want to toss their money into anything they can get for free, but most movie-goers and movie-lovers I know won't go blowing the experience just to nab a viewing a couple months in advance. But when movies are questionable - people flock to previews and stolen video like nothing else. It's the same reason people visit AICN - because we want to know how a movie is going to be before we throw our money into it.
-
Sep 04, 2002 12:51:19 PM CDT
I think it's funny reading "not bloody likely" from an artic
by empyreal0
-
I admit it. I can't wait until the Two Towers. I watched my copy of the Fellowship on DVD, and it didn't feel nearly as long.
-
so i steal music from internet.
-
HAHAHAHAHAH "Piracy" is ethical? What the fuck are you people smoking? Ahhh... that's where all your money is going these days. What is being done today is not ethical. Borrowing is much different than distributing and stealing over the internet. Those copies were stolen without the consent of the studio. It is being downloaded when a movie hasn't been released or just hit the movie theaters. If anyone here based their income on selling a "PRODUCT" and I took and used that "PRODUCT" without paying for it, you would be pissed. So don't go preaching to me about ethical values here. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word. As long as people can type and download on their computer without knowing the ramifications of how it affects people around the world... you are a "Loser". Stealing is a criminal act. See you behind bars!!!! AHAHAHAHA!!!
-
For all of you who want the Big Corporate Fish to fry, think again. They will probably have enough $$$ to pull out of this. It's the small budgeted film makers who rely heavily on investors, who will get screwed when they can't convince anyone to invest in their stories because of internet piracy. If this form of criminal behavior is not stopped, then everyone will think "It's okay" and you can say bye bye to both Big Budgeted films and great independent films. As technology improves and more people have PC's, illegal downloading will continue to rise. The arguement that this currently has no effect on the movie business is both naive and self centered. I can't wait to see "illegal downloaders" get the shit kicked out them. "Your time is coming very quickly" :)
-
Sep 04, 2002 2:28:15 PM CDT
Weedy - Stealing is stealing - Your attitude of entitlement coul
by dagan
It's not for you to decide what the price of something should be. I agree that movie star's salaries have gotten out of hand and are partially responsible for jacking up the price of movies, but that doesn't give me the right to do something illegal because I don't agree. If you don't like the price, don't watch the movie. That's your choice. If people want to make that choice, then market forces will drive the prices back down. Stealing will only keep the prices up. Yes, this IS true. Pirating films in a much less insidious form has already been proven to kill film industries - it happened to Hong Kong with VCDs. And these were always horrible quality copies that you had to go out and physically buy - putting you and the seller at much more inconveinence and risk. With this internet piracy, the situation will be much worse if it's allowed to get established like it did with music because both the downloader and distributor basically have zero risk(as it stands now), and the transaction can be made easily from the comfort of your home. If a less-insidious form of piracy has already been shown to wipe out profits and parasitacally kill a film industry, why won't the more dangerous brand of it have the same effect here? It's simple economics - if money doesn't come in for these things, then these things won't and CAN'T be made. If you guys are allowed to continue pirating and the problem gets worse with the advent of recordable DVDs, more storage and broadband availability and increased awareness, then without a doubt you will destroy the film industry. No big films will ever be made because the money won't be there, and there'll be no hope to make back money on these big budgets. Remember, if a film costs $100 million then a studio has to make back at least $300 million(in total profits) JUST TO BREAK EVEN. Prints and advertising add tremendously to the cost, and then the studios only get about 55% of the gross(shared with the theater chains). Same kind of thing happens on aftermarket distribution. And Fair Use has nothing to do with piracy. The laws of Fair Use are very simple - if you BOUGHT something, then you can do whatever you want with it YOURSELF - you can put it onto a CD with other tracks of your favorite songs from various sources, make a backup copy, whatever - but that's just because YOU ALREADY SHELLED OUT FOR IT. If you haven't paid for a product, you don't have any entitlement for Fair Use. That's very simple and "fair", I think. Making a tape and giving it to a friend is illegal, too - but has been overlooked until recently becuase it would be too hard to enforce and was an inconsequential problem until the advent of digital copying and file sharing. One person giving one-thousand people a movie or a song is NOT Fair Use, obviously. So just bite the bullet and pay for what you play. If you don't want to pay those prices, then don't - just don't steal and justify it to yourself by saying that their prices are too high - that's not your right. Let market forces do the talking. They can't have any effect as long as you jerkoffs keep stealing products. People work VERY hard to make movies - it can take years off your life to make a film, and years from your life during the making. When some little punk then distributes that hard work for free over the internet - well getting them thrown in jail seems like the least they deserve.
-
while i agree that there are people who most definitely abuse the benefits of file-sharing and the ability to burn copies of movies and music, please tell me who is being hurt by all of this? yes it may be illegal, fine. just because something is illegal doesn't mean those who violate said law are going to hell. who are all these middle men and women anyways? people pushing the product on the masses? who gives a shit?! i shead no tear for these middle-people losing profit (if they truly are). i don't care about justifying any behavior because that would imply that people who share files actually feel guilt.
"It's much harder to play by the rules and actually aspire to be a good person."
whatever that means, what rules are you talking about? those set up by the government or corporations? gimme a fucking break. -
Way to go Dagan. You've got my support!! Anyone hear of the P.M.S. Virus? Well... keep downloading those movies and you'll love it when your hard drive goes by by. Oh and go ahead and blame the studios for that as well. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!! "They are so unfair! Ticket prices are too high!!" BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! I don't see you complaining about your dope being too high.
-
I'm alwys somewhat dumbfounded at the allegiance people have to the idea of "products" and "property". There legal terms, not natural occuring events - we, as a society, have left it to the braintrust that governs our nations to come up with definitions that fit the continued flux and exchange of capital. The purpose - to maintain the equilbrium of wealth distribution. This is why people are allowed to say, take your picture and sell it to newspapers as a freelance photographer without your permission. But, times change, existing technology has allowed us to enter into a free exchange of information transnationally and frankly, the idea of property - which differs from nation to nation (and which the US is seeking to coax other nations to fit its definition) is becoming more opaque. Personally, I feel these lines - what is property and what is not - are poorly drawn at best, and certainly don't fit today's climate. I'm not advocating that filesharing and the like isn't illegal - it is - I'm just trying to figure out why doing this act is illegal and this isn't, and what, if any rational challenges to that are around. You know, you can walk into a book store and read a book - cover to cover - in the store and walk out - you didn't buy it, you didn't leave with the book but you "stole" the information or story - you didn't support the author, or the store, but while I might consider this to be stealing, you don't because the law says its ok. If you apply the logic to other mediums you end up in handcuffs. Where does the line between information and property start and stop? Who sets the agenda and why is it important to follow this? - I know that property is a cornerstone of capitalism, but things sometimes need to change - and its the pursuit of capital that drives the change - so relax Mako, fettastic and the rest - there is more corruption of property (which is a value you hold so very high) in the offices of those that purport to be protecting it then there is in my little brain. It might interest you to know that I don't actually engage in piracy - short of burning a few of my friends CDs (I don't have a burner) and I'm too lazy to go hunting for free movies - that's why I come here. Its just food for thought. Last thing - You fuckers are quick to jump. Bunch of holier-than-thou pricks. Tell me you never broke a law - you lie. You've just rationalized it your righteous little minds that its somehow different for you. What makes you so fucking right? We're all criminals in some way. Embrace it.
-
Then how in the hell did you get the computer and the internet service to be able to download music illegally? Huh? Is this another illegal act in the making?
-
Weedy... well here's another topic that you and I can't seem to come to terms with. (Much more relevant than another movie like TR2). I have a pretty good feeling though, that if you were in my shoes, you would think differently. And maybe if I were in yours I would too. I see the downloading of movies/music without having the concent of the maker an "illegal" act. Sure things need to change. I think the government and the entertainment industry have fallen asleep to a waking giant. People (maybe you in fact) are now questioning who has the rights to ownership now? This "piracy" has alreay gone to far, because so many people are believing that they have this right. Yet when you play a DVD, there's a warning that specifically tells you it's an "illegal" act to distribute and copy to anyone else other than yourself. The rules are in place. Everyone feels safe in their own homes, downloading what ever they want without paying a price for the "product" Movies are a "product". Music is a "product". Anyone who downloads a movie to their hard drive and has the capability to play it time and time again (or burn a DVD), is not the same as walking into a bookstore and reading a book off the shelf. If you walk out of that book store without paying for the book, you have stolen the book "illegally". See I didn't cuss did I?
-
Sep 04, 2002 3:00:46 PM CDT
Um... you guys do realize that music artists make more money..
by miramax_
For live shows then they do with cds? Yes, they are losing money, but remember there making like 2 cents to the cd here. (unless there a small time band - then by the cd!)
-
This is my fault - I'm not really bring clear enough, and this probably isn't the forum for it - but anyway - I'm not arguing that it isn't illegal, I'm just questioning the validity of the legal. Do movies cost $100 million because of piracy? Do market forces really determine the price of products? Is supply and demand real? If a $100 million dollar film needs to take in $300 million to braek even, then why is it being made? You seem to be placing the blame on the marketplace for not meeting the criteria set out by the manufacturers. That's hardly right. I have my own personal answers to these questions, I won't bore you with them, but I think that any debate about the international exchange of information and products (again, who is responsible for the distinction) is incomplete without examining them.
-
The music industry is tanking not because of piracy, but because it's rife with corruption and because like Hollywood, the industry is run by suits who care only about their profit margin. Unfortunately for them, the public has begun to wise up to how shitty and overpriced mainstream music is. See Salon.com for a series of great articles. BTW I've heard some interesting things about record stores; if they're indicative of the norm, record stores are as corrupt as the rest of the music industry. (Example: scanning a particular CD title over and over as if it were being sold, to help it jump up the Billboard charts. The label pays the store owner for this
"service.") -
Sep 04, 2002 3:11:23 PM CDT
Not only I won't see TTT in cinema, I'm not even conside
by burp fartman
Just an opinion.
-
Hi how are ya. The warning - at the beginning of movies - you speak of is also of interest to me. That's the realm of international law, something that also seems to be a little conflicted, because, frankly it has no grounds or forum for prosecution. It is up to the individual states to prosecute offenders, but as we all know from watching the news, international law doesn't mean shit (oops a cuss), when it suits the whims of certain nations in the face of certain circumstances (ah,ah,ah -*Iraq*CHOO!). INTERPOL which is supposted to be the governing body in all this is as toothless as the UN, if it is decried that the law no longer is in the best interest of a particular nations people. Oh, and music is not a "product" - records, CDs, et al are products, music is just expression - just an example of how easily it is to slip from applying labels to ideas to having labels define the ideas themselves. I just think about these things sometimes, I grant you that it's easy to find fault than fix, but you have to see the cracks first.
-
Sep 04, 2002 3:44:36 PM CDT
now when you`Re back harry...you`ve to push up your ego a bit ag
by drjones
however...thanx for asking around and clearing it up. i`m myself also rather an enemy of these film file sharings. with music it`s something else i think...but the film sharing isn`t really worth so much. well...maybe i just don`t understand it because my computer technic is soooooo bad and slow and....
-
Tell me they don't do that! We haven't gone that insane yet, have we? Remember the guy who spied on Batman and Robin? I heard he went to jail for five fucking years! Geez. Just put things in perspective.
-
Weedy - not meaning to flame at all, and it's actually refreshing to see a talkback where people are actually talking back to each other in a meaningful and productive way. As far as market forces go - "do they really work"? - Right after I made my last post I went on pro.imdb.com and saw a news story about the Hong Kong film industry - film distributors in Hong Kong are lowering their ticket prices to $3.20 from $3.85 - $9.00 now because theater attendence was down 39% from last summer. So there it is, just like I said. Stop going if you don't like the price, and the market will adjust - there was just a real-world example of it. As far as the rest goes, I say the legality in this case is completely fair. I'm a filmmaker. When I make a movie, it takes about six month to write, six months to put together, and six months to make, then another six with issues of promotion. That's two years of my life, working VERY hard, and I'm not the only one. Hundreds of people work extremely hard to put a movie together. It IS art, but it is also a product, because unlike writing novels or painting, filmmaking is an INCREDIBLY expensive art form/hobby/business. You can't just go out and create something grand on your own with no money. It takes many people working their hearts out over a long period of time with lots of money. At the end of the day, only if money keeps coming in and encouraging people to put up financial backing on a product(because of potential for big profits), will these products keep being made. It's do or die here - either these people get paid or movies just cannot be made. Aside from the pure survival issue, is the ethical one. Doesn't the artist who spent two years of his life making something have the right to be rewarded for his efforts instead of just having them stolen? And reward is not only personal financial gain, but also in the numbers of tickets sold, DVD's bought, etc. - that's gain that applies not only to the ego(proud that what you've done is worth being paid for and enjoyed), but it also matters for the future - If you, the filmmaker, make a movie that makes a lot of money, then you're gonna get to make another one. If your movie doesn't make much money, then it's an uphill fight to get money to create again. And it's a big slap in the face for somebody to spend two years making a film and then see it stolen en masse and spread around for free. That's ultimate disrespect for the artist, and it's threatening the artist's ability to create more art. I don't see how this issue is so complicated to people. A movie is a product. It's not "information", it's a piece of art that somebody has spent a long time making - in the end packaged and sold as a product, just like a house or a car. You don't steal things. It's just wrong. If you watch a movie, then pay for it. It's not only the right thing to do, but it's necessary to pay people back who put up the money to make the movie, and to reward the filmmaker who made it both financially and on the business end so he will have the opportunity to go out and make another film.
-
When intellectual property is shared unequivocally throughout all social classes, it can have bifurcated results: A.) The intellectual property will be perpetually imitated, virtually destroying the evolution of music, literature, etc. (i.e. Post-revolution France); or B.)By sharing intellectual ideas with a social class unable to purchase said material will allow a vast majority of the population to analyze certain trends in culture then produce their own additions that further a arts and humanities. It doesn't really matter, though. Unless some landmark precedent is set by the Supreme Court curtailing internet piracy, it will continue. But think about this: Why do people buy bottled water when they can get free tap water? Packaging? Maybe. Ease? Okay. Personally, I think it's because we don't see the makers of Aquafina in the pages of Entertainment Weekly or People Magazine driving around in Bentleys that cost more than most of us will make in 50 years. Artists, actors, and record executives make millions of dollars a year. This isn't going to change--even if we continue stealing from the internet. Digital socialism, baby. Deal with it.
-
Star Wars: Episode VII.
-
Don't have time to dive full-on headfirst into this debate, but I hate to see sloppy poorly thought-out metaphorical arguments. No offense, whoever it was, everyone does it on occasion. Tap water--I guess this person isn't a homeowner. Doesn't get a water bill every month (or quarter, whatever it is in your locale). Remember why your parent would scream at you for those 20 minute showers? Wasn't because they were jealous of your free time. And the Public Library is supported by public funds, aka your tax dollars. ...Were there other "free" arguments I missed? Cause, really, almost nothing's free 'less it's a gift or you steal it, the cost is built in there somewhere.
-
Hey you're right - movies are expensive as shit to make, if you want to make them that way (the movies I make, don't cost much, but we're clearly talking about movies for consumption). Anyway, I'm not be-laboring the point, but as you are an artist, I say this - I would not consider it a slap in the face to have my movie want to be viewed by the public for free- I would consider it a slap in the face of your distribution company, you industry and your wallet to wake up. You are now in an industry where there ain't a lot of art left, and one that in going down a painful road trying to adjust itself to the growing demands of technology. Loads of people work their hearts out for their jobs (at some point its a job right?) and they get put outta business because of other hard-working folk coming up with new ideas, or just pull the rug out from under them - life ain't fair - what makes filmmakers immune? I've worked on movies before too - I got paid $23 a hour to make sure lights didn't turn out. The industry sets its own standard - if it rails against change then there are consequences - the record industry is facing that now, and failing - too many folk used to getting too much money, essentially. And as for your example of marketplace forces at work - price dropped cause people stopped going, that hasn't happened here yet - what potentially would drive that? maybe its the ability to see films without going to the theatre, maybe its government intervention, maybe its a shitload of other factors - but I would investigate further before I chalked it all up to the good ol' never fail market forces (the low rates at the box office are likely buffered by higher rates elsewhere - concessions, schwag, parking). Anyway, for the record, I'm not interested in putting you or your films out of profit or business, I still believe that if you put the effort in, the cream will rise to the top, and you should thusly be compensated - I just never think the issue is cut and dry, there are other forces at work.
-
Sep 04, 2002 4:28:05 PM CDT
Let's Hang a Double Quarter Pounder With Cheese and a Supers
by mightycolonic
and tell him not to grab @ it... Now this is my first post of what I am guessing will be many to this site. I was discussing the issue of internet piracy, bootlegging, and other illegal distribution manner of film with an ad exec for WB, just being curious as to what his two cents were on it. We both came to the conclusion that it is wrong, it is THEFT, but WHO are we persecuting in this matter? The Fanboys who just want a taste to tide them over until release day? Or the filthy leches that stole the studio property and duplicated it? Something that I failed to see mentioned more than twice on a past talk back regarding this issue, was One Hour Photo... It has apparently been on the web for a couple of months. This film, being one of my most anticipated releases of the year, and not willing to lodge itself in a theatre within a days driving, I decided to do what any person would do if they had the material to suffice, I searched it, found it, and viewed it. In crystal clear VHS quality. I can understand why people look down on it, but lets face it, if you throw a quarter bag at a junkie he is gonna have a field day... Just like if you gave a dildo to a gay man... Do you seriously think he ISN'T gonna shove it up his ass??? That is what I thought... I think I have strayed past topic slightly, but FUCK it... I just wanted to throw thoughts at you... And hopefully all y'all preaching here and there can look at the reflection in your computer screen and not call yourselves hypocrites... I think that's it.
-
That was hilarious. A genuine thank you for the chuckle.
-
Hi sorry, I have to go now- work to do, I hope to read your response tomorrow - incidently, I re-read my last post and its ounds a bit harsh - that was not my intention, I agree with you on virtually all points, specifically about how hard it is to fund, shoot and complete a movie and how frustrating it would be to be essentially punished for doing it, but i just feel that these days, its the consumers who are getting fisted all the time, hell even employees get fisted - and not the other way around - the system of capital exchange protects the top-feeders and basically moulds the marketplace to spit out the desired results - competition, supply and demand, social mobility - all these cornerstones of capitalism are complete fallacies, they may have existed once (arguable), they no longer exist today.
-
I think everybody everywhere needs to see Meet the Feebles.I think they need to show it all day long on the huge screen in times square.The sickness and wrongness that is that psycho-muppet movie should scar every individual alive.Imagine the kids today watching a deranged hippo destroying everyone and everything with a machine gun.Or a walrus having an affair with a pussycat(man im not going to sleep well),or a tabloid repoting fly that eats the shit of the stars to learn what they,ve been eating......thats right times square baby...america needs this
-
I have to admit, you are just as stubborn as I am. And I commend you for knowing your stuff. I have no idea if it's an age diference, but I am amazed at the constant justification I am reading over downloading content through illegal means. And that "music" and "movies" are not a "product". This is where I really do feel our country is in deep trouble with all of the new internet "freedom's" that people are getting used to having. What's next? Anyone is allowed to read my thoughts because they're not a "product" of me but an "expression"? I mean.. come on. Weedy, do you live in the U.S.? What kind of movies do you make? What studio have you worked for? Why do I have a feeling you have built up a lot of anger towards Hollywood? We all have agendas. And mine, as a filmaker, is to make sure that I have a job doing what I like to do. Tell stories. So yes... I am going to fight this debate 'til the day I die (or until I'm out of a job, can't afford my internet service, and AICN goes down because there are no movies to talk about). Just like any company, there are the few who make millions, and the many that make much less. It enrages me that everyone is being target over a few stars and execs that make $20 a film. Where's the logic in that? I do agree that with the introduction of the internet, our world has gotten incredible smaller. There are so many good things about the internet, and yet there are those who abuse it for their own selfish acts of cowardice (like downloading music or movies without paying a dime for it) Hollywood and the U.S. Gov't need to be proactive and act on the future of cyberspace. So far, they've done a pretty bad job. Let me just say to anyone who is thinking of posting and bragging about pirating movies on the internet, be careful, although you may think you have every right in the universe to do so, you don't. You could be the one of the many scapegoats (Napster anyone?) that could turn up on CNN tomorrow. Cheers Weedy... it's always fun :)
-
jesus christ fettastic... maybe if we all shared your exact views on the world and lived by your strict moral "code" the world would be a bright sunny place where everyone is happy all the time and nothing "bad" ever happens.
and way to go with generalizing groups of people in each of your posts, make sure you don't leave any room for people who don't fall into your nice neat categories. and i'm sorry but i'm not a "whimp that can't hack the real world, so they find shortcuts and make excuses." again your use of terms makes YOU seem the most self-centered, ie. you are the one who has it all figured out, including the "real world." and for all your insults, i don't even utilize file sharing you fucking idiot. you're comparing me with someone who fences stolen goods? and you know drug dealers wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the structure in which they exist. and again that's such a large generalization, lumping someone stringing out prostitutes with a college kid selling weed out of his dorm room.
and seriously, enough with the "this country is headed to hell in a handbasket" shite! gimme a BREAK!!!! -
Why is everyone on such a band wagon as to go after music and movies? Why is there no mention of the great music or movies that are made each year? There is no ethical not moral justification for distributing/downloading a movie or song without proper consent. That's it. I don't care if you hate the ticket prices or currupted suits. That's not justification to do it!! You may hurt 1 suit out of 500 crew members. You may be the cause of a great film not being greenlighted because the studios can't stop piracy and make no money. No money means no labor. No labor means no film. Get it? I have not heard one reasonable argument by anyone that gives you or I the right to download music or movies when ever we damn well feel like it... and for free. None.
-
and to mightycolonic, get over your fascination (perhaps curiousity) with getting fucked in the ass, so you can stop reciting idiotic stereotypes about "gay men shoving dildos up their ass" are you 12 years old or what?
-
Ooopppsss... I meant to say 20 million dollars. Not $20. If movie stars only made $20 a film, we wouldn't have any stars what-so-ever. They'd make more money working at McDonalds than making a film. DOAH!!
-
I am a top you fucking ass...
-
wow, mightycolonic, i'm a bottom, maybe we should hook up! regardless of your status as a top, don't you find humor based on race, gender, etc. incredibly trite?
-
................
-
Do you know how stupid you all sound? Like you've never bragged about shit. Just because you people have nothing to be happy about (besides those large balls you have to post your bullshit) doesn't mean no one else can enjoy themselves. Jesus F. Christ..Let the man brag. MAYBE, just MAYBE will a time come when you can actually boast about something. And when you do, who'll you tell it to? Your cats? My dog listens to me all the time, come on over here. It's a party...
-
I have a "friend" who I once got into a very heated argument with over this issue. He was all up in arms over Metallica making their case against Napster and to my astonishment, he thought their (Metallica's) point of view was completely invalid because essentially, he though they had already made enough money off of their music.
The common thread I've seen in almost every pro-piracy argument is the same - the companies that "distribute" the art/entertainment that we all like so much deserve what they get when people take from them. Never mind that people like you and me work there. Some of them are better than others and some are a lot greedier than others but in the end we decide who to reward through our decision to purchase or not purchase.
And all of this spacey new agey garbage about the socialization of access to entertainment media vis a vis the internet is so much hogwash I could just vomit. If the internet is the harbinger of a new and better socialistic shift in free society, why don't we check in with China and North Korea and see how the internet is being embraced there....
Just because this amazing thing (the internet) allows us to do so many things, it doesn't follow that any and every use of it is acceptable in a free and yes, capitalistic society. Sure, some onus is on the corporations to figure out how to embrace the internet as a mechanism of delivery for those that want it, but outside of music the technology isn't even acceptably adequate yet. Pirating via the internet has probably done more to hinder the positive development of internet delivery than speed it up.
It's all about how you choose to live. Just because I CAN go 90 in my car on a stretch of road I know the cops never patrol I don't because I CHOOSE to obey the laws that most people agree are designed for our mutual benefit. In this case it is protecting an artist's (or the company's that help establish them) right to derive fair compensation for their efforts. This is so if you or I or someone in the future decides to create something - they too can realize a gain from it. Expression is noble and I'd concede that art isn't the best bedfellow with business but if you really want to "punish" a company or person for some perceived evil, don't buy their product and don't, given any opportunity, steal it - which only broadcasts to the greedy bean counters how much more they can charge given the demand.
Corporate greed is out of control and that translates to the media companies (see the versions of the LOTR on DVD as a prime example) but being as greedy and cynical as the person conspiring to separate you from a buck doesn't make you any more a crusader than a common thief. Simply wanting something NOW isn't enough to justify stealing because you can get easy access to it.
As for the "they've made enough money" people - I'd sure like to see these people stand there and admit that if someone was telling that to them or telling their families they are no longer entitled to royalties because they've sold enough. -
What this really boils down to is getting a fair compensation for one's labor. The simple logic of this is far greater than some convuloted, postmodern talk about the imprecise definition of the word "product". To enjoy the fruits of another man's labor (where he works for the expressed purpose of being compensated)without compensating him is basically theft. This isn't about living some "strict moral code" where people live "sunny" lives, like one post said. Its a question of what's fair. If that, to you, sounds like evil, conformist reactionary-speak, so be it. *** On a related note, why would one even bother to watch an unfinished film that's in an unreleasable condition? Its far worse than some beta version of software. People in other posts have noted the awful quality of these bootlegs. Do you really want to watch an uncompleted, second-rate Two Towers on some 19 inch monitor?
-
Your assumptions about the current dire state of America are also one of the main factors of the problem. You complain about the ignorance factor of teenagers or how all of them are sexually rambunctions fools, but your derogatory remarks do nothing to calm this tide, in fact they encourage this. I don't know, maybe you've seen the film Kids one too many times, or have seen one too many Columbine specials. Here's the news flash: Not all kids shoot up or fuck around or are egocentrical idiots. In fact, downloading is shared by all age groups now. Furthermore, you continue this entirely archaic veiwpoint rhetorically called the slippery slope. You say first we download music and then rape becomes okay - Society declines. I have four responses for that and you: 1) Society as a whole has always thrived on "information piracy" and while it may not be right and may harm some people at the present moment, it certainly has not led to the decline of anything. For example, all the ancient Greek writings we have and our Shakespearen plays were unauthorized copying. Point 2) You argue that the egocentric culture of today sees no harm in stealing intellectual media, yet fail to ever acknowledge the reverse factor. When something such as the RIAA has total control over CD prices, the consumer is actually harmed. The perfect arrangement - alegitimate balance (in which cd supply and cd demand actually effect each other) - has not been achieved. 3) If the actual harms on the industry you state were true, then how come more cd's are sold now then ever? and 4) How the hell can you ask people if they have no soul or no morality when you steroetype the masses? Stereotyping is actual a proven mental harm that you are recycling into the Market Place of Ideas. Instead of preaching from your nihilistic soapbox, maybe you and everyone like you should step down and actually encourage intellectual growth. You mention guys can describe blow jobs, but not 15 states. Is that not the fault of both their parents and thier schooling? Where does morality come into it? If I know more than you, am I more moral? Do negative life experiences make me immoral? You only attack and never offer help. You're a reactive strike and reactive strikes always fail.
-
Okay, here's the situation oh-so-often with me when it comes to downloading music. You have a song, one song only, that you love. However, it's not available in single form at all, and the album it's on is absolute shit save for that one song. Is it wrong for me to download it just because I don't want to pay a full $18 for one song that I really freakin' like. And how is downloading any different than taping songs directly off the radio? Am I evil for that, because I've done that since I was a child, and still do to this day. Let me know! Lead me, all-knowing ones!!!
-
First of all, I'm a musician, and I NEED file sharing to get my music out there. Without it, nobody has the chance to hear my stuff, and they certainly won't pay me $8 for a CD if they haven't had access to any of the music. With the RIAA controlling ALL the radio stations, I and other small indy artists like myself will NEVER get radio play unless we fit the big corporate mold and sign our rights away. I don't want that. I don't want my music to become the property of some big corporation, and I don't want to be a work for hire. I am an artist, and I want my art to belong to me and my decendants, like ALL other artworks. Check out this link- It explains the way the industry works: http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html There are similar articles by Prince, George Clinton, and other musicians who are sick of the companies fucking them. The kids swapping music online aren't the thieves... As for movies, I can't think of anybody who downloads these little grainy movies and keeps them without buying the DVD. Who's going to rely on a 320x640 image as a way to watch a favorite movie??? If only the media would come with a money-back guarantee, people wouldn't feel the need to sample it for free. Fool us once, shame on RIAA. Fool us twice, shame on us!
-
I understand the concern over piracy, but think about it. If someone goes online and spends a ridiculous amount of time downloading what must at this stage be a work print, and then either watches it on their crappy monitor or burns it to a VCD and then watches it...after all that effort, you're teling me that they're going to turn around and NOT buy a ticket when it's released? I don't know anyone, even the most casual moviegoer of the bunch, who is going to think a crappy downloaded, unfinished boot is EVER going to replace seeing it on the big screen. The idea that someone is NOT going to see a movie in the theatre because the film is readily available (if you're willing to spend a few hours downloading it) to anyone (who doesn't mind shitty, shitty quality) who cares to get it is silly. Early downloads are for geeks who want more, more, more, and the idea that someone, somewhere is losing money because of it is patently absurd. What the industry IS doing is protecting their intellectual property, which means that if they let this one slide, it's going to be harder to nail someone who really IS pirating (i.e. selling their product for profit.) Early downloading might be shifty and a little uncool, but the whole lock 'em up and throw away the key thing for individual downloaders is preposterous. Maybe in the future, when quality improves, (and even then, it's pretty questionable,) but now? Come on. A study was recently released which confirmed my suspicions concerning Napster: the more people download, the better the industry does. I understand that this is a bit counterintuituve, but that's no excuse to go barelling over reality in your haste to be "right" about something. Case in point: Radiohead's KID A was readily available on the net for MONTHS before its release, so much so that I literally didn't know anyone who wasn't intimately familiar with it several weeks before it's official release (excluding the people I know who hate Radiohead, of course.) So Capitol lost money on KID A, right? Nope, KID A was the number one album upon its release. Why? Because relatively speaking, MP3s sound like shit, and everyone wanted a "real" copy to get the full experience. Now, the gap in quality between MP3s and CDs is CONSIDERABLY narrower than the gap in quality between 35mm film and downloaded MPEGs, and even then, people still coughed up the cash. Piracy is costing in overseas markets, yes, but that's because of mass production from counterfeit merchants and scant availability of the "real" thing, not because one guy somewhere would rather watch a shit version for less. Snagging someone's work and intentionally not giving them financial recompense for their effort is bullshit, fine, but how many people do you know who are willing to go through the clusterfuck of downloading a full movie and aren't going to pay $$$ for it at some point? ------------ Admittedly, Harry does name drop a bit too much, but the line between "bragging" and simply talking about your life is profoundly unrealistic in here, methinks. His comments here were directly relevant and, yes, necessary in emphasizing the point he was trying to make. Not everyone is crippled with the severe social retardation that many members of this site seem to be afflicted with, y'know. I nearly got my head bitten off for mentioning (tangentally) that I had a girlfriend in a TB a few weeks ago...JEEZUS people, defensive much? When you have something resembling a life, it comes up in conversation. Sorry. Y'all end up saying more about yourselves than your targets.
-
Congrats, Harry! This is the best article you've ever written! Not only is the writing clear and (mostly) succinct, but the spelling is nearly perfect! Only two errors, and minor ones at that. Grammatically, the following sentence, "The folks that are the scourge that traffic in this sort of travesties", needs to be changed to either "these sort of travesties" or "this sort of travesty". Only 1/2 point off, since the solution is twofold. The only other error is the word "cannister", which is spelled with only one "n". This mistake might be made by anyone, however, and thus we have Harry's most impressive article to date. Bravo Harry! Keep this up, and assholes like me will have our Harry-bashing material halved. Ahem. On second thought, just go back to the old way ;-).
-
Destino, Ya In the neighborhood??? I am looking for an ass advocate in my neck of the woods... Humor based on race, gender, sexuality, and other peculiarities is not funny unless it insults somebody. Obviously it did, so therefore I am pleased with the results. Any response to this will further antagonize your situation... BTW How do you feel about fisting???
-
but what the fuck is that ego comment supposed to mean? I think the only one here with an ego is you, you moron. I didnt even learn you name, it wasnt worth my time. When i stumbled on this website, I was in heaven. Harry is the most kicken ass geek i know. You dont know fuckin Elijah Wood. You didnt see epiosode two before it came out. and you were'nt in the fuckin faculty! So fuck off and leave the Kung Foo Master alone!!!!
-
the reason is that there were no videos, no marketing, really. No one could hear the songs, but I got them on a webpage and then helped to make it the number one album by purchasing it ASAP. The movies people watch are ones they probably never would have seen anyway, I'm 17 and hardly see new films, so they're losing nothing while I'm gaining culture, if I do actually like it, I'll buy it, but generally Hollywood sucks and doesn't take chances, therefore, should I?
-
The financial incentive to being the first to get a run of pirate vcds/dvds on the street in HK is signifcant. The warez groups also want to be the first, cause they would get massive street cred. The warez groups have some kick ass individuals working for them, they have managed to pull off some crazy stuff in the past. They probably are better than the HK pirates. The HK pirates have financing. They can bribe/pay their way in. Only takes one guy to get something out of there.
-
Sep 04, 2002 11:56:47 PM CDT
Oh yeah, Orlando Bloom must get more women than any 500 other gu
by thematarife
All the chicks love this legolas stuff. Dude must get fking laid all the time. Must be neck deep in chicks.
-
Okay. So I think it's obvious that waiting those coupla extra months to see a fully fledged masterpiece in all it's full screen cinematic glory is going to be far more entertaining than watching a dodgy copy someone nabbed off of the internet. I'm not going to get into the whole piracy morality issue becaue frankly, I don't care. I'll be more than happy to fork out my thirteen dollars come December and wouldn't want to see it any sooner. And so what if Harry is so proud that he saw AOTC early? It wasn't the best episode any way. Certainly no Empire Strikes Back!
-
Yo ho ho and a bottle o rum, but if all this piracy talk dont stir up the pot! Anyone who actually believes that by admitting youve pirated files at AICN, youve revealed yourself to the FBI and are thus going to jail needs a reality check. So Im gonna write one. Call the cops. Tell them that someone you know has taped the last big Pay Per View boxing card, and if the cop DOES NOT ask for a copy of the tape, then consider me SHOCKED. Downloading music is different than downloading movies. Music industry basically TELLS radio what it should be playing, thus dictating what you can and CANNOT tape off your boombox. When the world started downloading tunes, the industry saw that they were losing control. Panic buttons were slammed. I say, if you want to be exposed to different bands that arent signed to a major label,(thus, are not on the radio) then go for it. If you want to tape your favorite videos off MTV, then go for it. If you think its right that you pay for the CD, after youve checked it out, then go for it. Thats what I do. If Harry Knowles would just let us all view his early prints, rather than just telling us what hes seen, what would this discussion sound like? would you be clamoring for the dude to be sent to prison? I wouldnt.
-
Heard that the Make-A-Wish Foundation granted a kid's wish to see the rest of the trilogy.
-
First off, water is not free. The only free water you're going to get is in the local river. The homeowner or landlord is paying the water bill and you are paying for it through your rent. Also libraries aren't free. You pay for them with your local taxes. And it is not the "stealing" to read a book in a bookstore. The bookstore bought the book and they are letting you sample it the same way a CD store lets you listen to certain CD's before you purchase. But everyone who has no problem stealing. It doesn't matter if it is a big, greedy corporation. If you steal from them then you are stealing from everyone who works for them, everyone that spent days, weeks, months, and years producing what they needed to sell so they can afford to produce more. It's the same exact thing if you went into a grocery and stole eggs and cookies. You are taking money away from the farmer who spends all his time working to produce food to sell. If people are taking what he spends his money producing without compensating him with money, he will not be able to afford to continue to produce. That goes for everyone on down the line. The supermarket, the workers, the truckers, his farmhands, etc.
Same goes if you pirate a movie or music. If too many people pirate a movie it can affect opening day which can affect total sales which means less money for everyone from the theatre owners to the camera operators to the directors gofers to the kid that loses his job at the movie theatre. Same goes for the greedy record companies. It is not for any of us to say someone else makes too much money. The market decides as a whole (that means ALL of us) how much everyone makes. The bottom line is, if it's not yours, don't take it. That should help you in all walks of life... -
Shows being piped through your TV are getting royalties back to the original artists and you are OK to tape them. They are getting money through ads, or in the case of HBO through the paid service. It is also OK to tape a pay-per-view event just as long as you are not charging someone else to see it.
-
there: "Look! Over there!"
their: "I like their music."
they're: "I think they're losers."
-
Harry, then how was the music scored - wasn't that in Watford? And hasn't the British Film Ratings people seen it too? I'm curious.
-
Quoting here: "If too many people pirate a movie it can affect opening day which can affect total sales which means less money for everyone from the theatre owners to the camera operators to the directors gofers to the kid that loses his job at the movie theatre." First off, can you give me one example, in the vast pool of released films that have come out since digital copies have existed, where this has happened? Yeah, I'm sure you could argue the "well, who knows?' arguement, but in this day of Limbaughs and O'Rileys, I don't think I can take yet another "Just trust me on this one" with something I disagree with on such a fundamental basis. Second, I think it's obvious here that everyone (and I do mean everyone...if I'm wrong please, point this out to me) on this board would still buy tickets (over and over) to a film they cared enough about to download in the first place. It is simply too much of a pain in the ass to download a film for the casual moviegoer...hence, the only people doing this fit into two categories: people who have already made up their minds to spend, spend, spend, and people who are doing it to sell bootlegs. The second group are criminals, and there are already many, many mechanisms in place to deal with them. If I take PHANTOM MENACE, for example, and reedit it for my own pleasure, is that stealing? If I market it without proper renumeration, yes. If I do this for geeks all over the world to check out, just because I wanna? Not really, IMHO. Why? Because I would be shocked into catatonia if a single one of the people who saw this would end up thinking "well, I've seen that, I don't need to pay to see the real one." In this way, downloading movies off the net are the same as bootlegs in the late 60s/early 70s: absolutely not one person is going to pick this stuff up and think "well, I don't need the official version now, I guess." Not one. I understand the impulse to fight "stealing," but stealing implies that someone lost something, and I have yet to hear of a single example where this is genuinely the case. I think it's extremely likely (to the point of certainty) that the only people who engage in personal (not professional) movie "piracy" are the very same people who spend more than their share of $$$ when the official versions are made available. NOT ONE CENT of revenue that would realistically exist is actually lost (keep in mind, this is within the narrow definition of movie downloaders, not music. Although, it should be pointed out that a recent study by Boston's Yankee Group has confirmed the suspicion that Napster, et al, seem to have spurred a big upswing in CD sales during their reign...consequently, CD sales have lessened since Napster has been taken out of the picture.) Having said all this, the studios do have to fight this, if for no other reason to protect the legal integrity of their copyright. But that's no excuse to lose perspective on the individual downloader. Yes, it's frustrating, when you live in a world of people who assume that the laws don't apply to them, but save it for the situations where something's actually being lost/stolen. ----------- Oh yeah, and as an irrelevant aside: fuck grammar posters. Fuck them up their stupid asses. Yeah, we know, you "just care about good grammar." Well, no one has ever paid any attention to these individual whines, and you're just adding to the already voluminous bitch static. Bad grammar has been, and always will be, an integral part of internet communication, so don't clog up the bandwidth, 'kay?
-
I agree with a number of people here that say some people who "steal/download" movies will buy the DVD or see it in a theater anyways, because of the quality. But how long will this really be a problem? Technology keeps getting better and faster. And before you know it, you'll be able to download a movie at a 2k resolution and burn your own DVD that will look better than the consumer DVD's that are out now. I can't believe the naivity and stupidity of anyone that thinks government or Hollywood isn't looking over some of these talkbacks and doing some investigative work over the very issues were talking about. You think you're safe inside your warm house with your bottle of Jack Daniels? What a joke!! That's a lack of intelligence that separates the criminals from the law obiding civilians. Bye bye...
-
Sep 05, 2002 11:04:06 AM CDT
John Murdock, profit protection, dosey-do and away we go...
by weedymcsmokey
Hi John, thanks much for the insight, admittedly my understanding of the specifics of copyright law are limited. I completely agree with the summation provided, copyright law is intended to benefit both the creator and the society in which he/she creates - through encouragment and protection. However, in the modern incarceration, law makers seem more interested in profit protection for large companies - copyright legislation like the Mickey Mouse case you presented are not necessarily important because of license infringement, but are to insure that those profitable licenses will keep generating the same dollars for the same folk- not necessarily an "evil" thing, but one that does essentially contribute to the solidfication with the status quo. Thus, corporate malfeasance, pork barrelling and all these great traditions of corrupt behaviour continue unabated and are in fact encouraged - basically because companies have one responsibility - make shareholders money. I think that we are seeing some of the more negative effects of a system that needs this to operate - and there's where artists and creative people are now being completely screwed along with consumers - any musician, or music lover will tell you that talent, skill and even a fan base are not enough to be promoted by a record company, or played on the radio - its basic collusion between media conglomerates that generates profit, the marketplace is simply dictated to. Artists don't merely rely on the large media corporations to have their art or "product" seen or heard, it's the only way to go about it. Choice, both in terms of what artists and creative people can do to succeed, and in what the consumer is presented with is fastly becoming a victim. This extends to film, TV, car maufacturing, newspapers, food production, clothing - you name it. Those that actually produce the clothing, or make the movies or sing the songs are employees of the system - In the case of film and music the imbedded cultural need for celebrity insures that when one vehicle for these mass-marketed profit machines falters, or tries to do something different from the corporate line - read: tries to be creative - they are easily replaced - careers are treated as financial quarters and are milked for every penny then discarded. Basically, my point is this - People who support the copyright laws et al intend to protect the rights of the creators, the artists - I think in the end though, the result is they unknowingly, or unintentionally engage in the protection of profits for those entities that lord over the creative forces. Its not an excuse to download free stuff - I don't do that because much like the employees of any company - if profits are threatened then they are the first casualty- but the reason is certainly not because I find any value in the law. Frankly, I don't find a lot of value in many laws. I'm just asking questions.
-
A copyright cannot be "stolen." If you download a movie or a song, you haven't "stolen" anything from anybody. A copyright may be "infringed" by copying something without permission, but that doesn't result in a theft. Moreover, copying without permission does not automatically equate to infringement. As some posters here have pointed out, there are circumstances where copying without permission is not infringement. Basically, whether file-sharing infringes on a copyright depends on the circumstances, and there are many "grey areas" where the law remains unsettled. The moral absolutists on this TalkBack would have you believe otherwise, but don't listen to them. It's not that they are 100% wrong, but they so exaggerate their arguments as to lead to logical absurdities. They remind me of an interview in which Jamie Kellner of AOL/Time Warner claimed that people who go to the bathroom during tv commericals are guilty of theft! I'm afraid it isn't that simple.
-
Look at the stupidity of these wankers. We're talking about PRODUCTS!!! Like your sofa!! Or your TV!! Or your Computer!! Or your freakin' OS system. When has it become your right to get these things for free? I like how you are making up the rules to make yourself feel like you're not a criminal. YOU ARE!! You are a criminal if you steal!! Mr. Banned!! Music is made into a product. It is made into a CD (A product that you buy) in which people take the .aiff files off of the CD and start sharing or uploading or downloading. A movie is a product. You pay for a ticket when the movie is released to see it. It is made into a negative print film, and 2,000-3,000 copies are made for people to pay and watch inside a theater. It is then packaged as a DVD for people to buy and have at home. The studios nor record companies did not intend that "FILES" would be created of their "product". Adobe and Microsoft are also fighting this battle over illegal copying of their software and "files". Saying copying a "file" is not a copyright infringment is such a diluted argument that most people will laugh when they read it. I'm a musician and a filmaker. Anyone on this talkback that has the naivity to think that there is no consequence from "stealing" a product needs to have their brain analyzed for gross neglagence. Think you have the right to download movies and music for free? Then why be afraid to let the world know? Why are you so fu@ckin hesitant to come out and claim your new rightiousness? I dare anyone of you... right now!!! Claim it!!! Let us all know who you are, your home address and telephone number. What movies and music you download!! Because somewhere deep inside that unethical skull, you know that you might just be in the wrong and screwing the honest consumer and creators of these "products". You are cowards!
-
"It's stealing, you know it, I know it." Well, if someone takes an official product without ever paying for it, yes, it is. But if you think I'm "clouding the issue," consider the forum we're posting in here: this is a talkback about what could only be a work print, downloaded (theoretically, since it doesn't seem to actually exist) by people who could only concievably be doing it to get MORE MORE MORE information on their little geek obsession. Sorry, I don't consider sneaking a peek at something you're unquestionably gonna buy in the future stealing. Yes, there are going to be the occasional goofballs who do it because it's the "wrong" thing to do, but frankly, if we base our policies on those people, we're all screwed. Maybe a line should be drawn here: BOOTLEGGING is nasty, wrong, slimy, etc. No arguement from me there. DOWNLOADING/SHARING is a very different beast. Not a totally squeaky clean beast, but you can't paint 'em both with the same brush. I'm not going to argue the "morality" about this, 'cause this TB has already gotten unmanagable, but I think in the strict confines of this issue, you're talking about a victimless "crime" here. Once something is released in an official format (i.e. once the maker starts trying to make money off their efforts,) this effectively vanishes. Poof. You'll always be able to find freaks who stop going to movies (or whatever) because they can see 'em for free, but I think that these people are not only extremely rare, but trying too hard to say "Hey, look at me!" 'Cause there's no WAY you can tell me the crap-ass copy that was flying around on the net of SIGNS can take the place of seeing it in a theatre. Not unless you didn't give a shit about the movie in the first place, and are doing it to show off to your buddies. Also, how about this? I was given an "advance" copy of SIGNS, which I dutifully watched (I've seen it in the theatre three times since, in case you're wondering.) I then passed it on to some friends of mine, because they had their first child two weeks earlier, and therefore there was no way in HELL they were gonna go to a movie anytime soon. Well, they watched it, and loved it so much, that they decided to go see it INDIVIDUALLY, while the other one watched ol' Baby X. Absolutely no way in God's green Earth they would have done this without seeing it at home first. Yes, this is an isolated incident, and highly unusual, but nevertheless indicative of what happens when people see advance copies of stuff. So look at this: no money changed hands, nobody got ripped off, and an extra two tickets were sold. Odd, situation, yes, but still...My ultimate point is, this is not the cut and dried issue many here are trying to make it out to be, and while I don't think downloading films off the net qualifies anyone for sainthood, painting all downloaders with the "WRONG!" brush is extremely short sighted and seriously over generalized. I look at it this way: downloading movies, whether the filmmakers in question approve or not, serves a similar function to sneak previews. I've downloaded exactly two movies in my life: both were crap, and didn't even make it to the burn a VCD stage. Both were films that have since gotten my money many times, and will again, once the DVDs come out. I've never downloaded ANYTHING, be it music or otherwise, without intending to buy the official product if/when it becomes available. ----- Also, Mako, with all due respect, the odds that the FBI are monitoring this site with a view to busting individual downloaders is so far into naive territory that I don't know where to begin. First off, it would be infinitely more effective to go after Usenet and/or the servers providing the films, which they haven't really done to any great effort. And if prosecuting individual downloaders wasn't done with Napster (which, to my knowledge, it wasn't,) there's no concievable way in Hell they're gonna start doing it here. It's just blatantly ineffective. Some high speed ISPs have started monitoring customers that have massive downloads, but that's all that's happened so far. If you think anyone's getting their leads to bust AICN posters, etc, then I hope you're prepared to see about 30% (at least) of the internet population go to jail. Sorry, not gonna happen.
-
I never claimed that copying a file without permission is not infringement. I specifically said that whether such copying is infringement depends on the circumstances. For example, it is generally not infringement to copy a TV show using your VCR, although the TV industry attempted to argue that it was, and lost. I anticipate that many of the similar arguments being made today against file sharing will eventually be discredited also. Moreover, you sir, are the one clouding the issues, by misrepresenting my arguments. Is that a moral thing to do? I think not. In your desperate attempt to defend your absolutist opinion, you have ceded the moral high ground by revealing your hypocrisy.
-
Unless you're talking about a very, very select group of atrocities (rape, murder, etc,) then absolutist=idiot. There are grey areas here, and no amount is soiled Depends is going to change that. Mako, Fettastic, etc, you have some valid points, and I sympathise with your frustration, but this no grey area/you're wrong and you know it thing is complete bullshit. (What? Intelligent people came to a different conclusion than MEEEEE? IMPOSSIBLE! They're hiding something!) Life is not, never has been, and never will be as simple as you make it out to be, and, pardon my frustration, the next moron who equates downloading with drunk driving desperately needs a steamroller driven up their way too tight sphincters. The more worked up you get, the more likely it is that you're glossing over something very important. People are not disagreeing with you because they're "cowards" ("cowards?" Jesus H Christ, pretentious much??!?! Would you be as much of an asshole if they were within physical range of you? Now who's the coward?) They are disagreeing with you because they disagree with you. They're allowed. It shouldn't automatically make them evil, unless you want to count yourself in with the Fundamentalists and Talk Show idiots. Life's got some disagreements, and rarely, if ever, is anyone as right as you think you are, or as wrong as you think your detractors are. I know we all have the occasional lapse into didacicism, but you guys both have a string of 'em going here.
-
Hi Harry! ....Been awhile since i have posted anything.But when i read these posts its all the same shit.Come on people,lightenup!!You all tend to be way too critical of Harry,and take him to heart to often. Harry,dear,i look forward to your writings and enjoy the format you write in immensely.Your straight-to-the-point attitude is warming and brings a smile to my face always.Though,you are rather serious when you right,the context is always humorous to me.I'm with you,tho'...i really want to see TTT,terribly much so,HOWEVER I don't want to see a mucked up fucked up recording,nor do i wish to see it raw.Unless I'd have had the same priviledge as you,and saw it as it was being filmed.I ,also,have total faith in Peter Jackson and crew.This series of movies in any others hands would concern me gravely. So people,please...this is neither here nor there when it comes to "piracy"..we ALL do it in some fashion or format everyday,all day long.With that said,i must return to my adoring public.Much love to you Harry,maestro ^_^ ...Keep up the great work dude,the Diva loves ya and to the rest of you,get over it already!Oh and Harry? Call me ^__^(lmao)
-
From JUSTICE: "If you think anyone's getting their leads to bust AICN posters, etc, then hope you're prepared to see about 30% (at least) of the internet population go to jail. Sorry, not gonna happen." Thanks for the stats. Just goes to show how many criminals must exist on the internet. I think I need to make a few phone calls.
And people... please read all of my talkbacks and exactly what I said before you slam me with your arrogant self absorbed mistakes. I'm referring to criminals, not people who have different opinions. -
...I don't have any desire to read this whole talkback, but I do want to state this file sharing of any copyrighted product IS stealing. It is theft, and you are a theif if you do it (which makes me a theif as well, so calm down). But with any product be it software, music, movies, and in some cases even photographs that you share via a peer to peer file trading format or via ftp, someone is loosing money. It doesn't matter if it's any evil coporation, you are still stealing their product. Anything that you download, anyway you download it, if you are not paying for it, it's theft. I do this all the time, and I feel no guilt. What I don't understand is why everybody is so agro about it. This is the age we live in. Soon, technology will advance to the point that there will be ways to stop us from sharing by pretty much any means other than a direct ftp from ONE pc to another. And that will probably be stopped as well. Then we'll find a new way to steal what we want, then they'll find a new way to stop us. But we ARE stealing. And in some cases from people that really need the money.
-
Actually, the bottled water example isn't mine; the theory is Jonathan Potter's, executive director of Digital Media Association. http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/ns/story.jsp?floc=FF-PLS-PLS&id=404944009&dt=20020826190800&w=RTR&coview=
Of course water isn't free, Jeff Batt, you wiley internet zealot. However, do you think the internet connection these pirates use is free? How 'bout their computers? What about the media they use to burn the stuff after they download it? Answer me that, you fiend. By that rationale, we seem to be taking money from one place in our brobdingnagian economy and putting it somewhere else: from the hands of the greedy recording industry into the hands of the greedy computer and computer accessory manufacturers. The thing is, Jeff Batt, we can argue infinitely--and circuitously--about the inherant faults and strengths of capitalism and the sharing (or stealing--which ever nomenclature you prefer) of intellectual property. The point is: Until purveyors of said property make their merchandise interesting enough to provoke consumer spending, then guess what, Jeff Batt? People like me will download it while people like you won't. Oh yeah, BTW: My hat goes off to people with good chat room and internet grammar. The rest of you can suck my dangling modifier. -
You want as yes or no, black or white answer as to whether file sharing is stealing? Fine, I'll give you one just as soon as you throw out your VCR for making unauthorized copies of TV shows. Come back here and challenge me again after you've trashed it, plus any cassette recorders you happen to own.
-
No, I'm not wrong. fettastic's argument isn't that file-sharing is wrong because it is illegal. Rather, his/her argument is that it is wrong because it is immoral. As I pointed out, the legal argument for file-sharing is not black/white or either/or. Legally speaking, there are areas where file sharing is legal and other areas that are currently in dispute. The final legal status of filing sharing has yet to be decided. However, according to fettastic, all my legal arguemnts are irrelevant, because unauthorized copying is, according to him, inherently wrong and immoral. Following that logic, copying a TV program using your VCR is just as morally wrong as downloading an MP3 or movie from the internet. I don't agree with that argument, but if fettastic does, then it follows that fettastic is committing immoral acts every time he copies a TV show with his/her VCR.
-
A calm intellectual debate on the Internet? On AICN, no less? With no trollers piling on a TB with a LoTR theme? Someone get Q on the horn and tell him the human race is worthy of existence after all.
-
Excellent post. There is a legal concept called "unjust enrichment," which more accurately describes file sharing than "stealing." When you download a copyrighted song without permission, for example, you are unjustly enriched because you received something that has an economic value without paying for it. It doesn't matter if you would have ultimately payed for the song or not, as long as the song has an economic value. It isn't the same thing as stealing, however, which as you correctly note is the act of depriving someone else of something which they have a superior right of possession to. Simply put, file-sharers are not thieves, but they do unjustly enrich themselves, although as you also correctly pointed out, this enrichment may or may not come at a cost to someone else.
-
...that the various Ivy League law reviews and their ilk aren't going to come beating down the doors of this Talkback looking for new ideas and keen insights. But keep typing at each other, please, makes for an amusing read.
-
Sep 05, 2002 4:59:01 PM CDT
fettastic has conceded that there are shades of grey to file-sha
by you are banned
First, fettastic argued that file-sharing is wrong because it is immoral. Then, when questioned on the difference between say, making a copy of an MP3 and copying a TV program using a VCR, he concedes the argument and says that copying with a VCR is OK because it is legal. Not because it is moral, mind you, but simply because it is legal. In fact, the television industry continues to object to the practice of recording programs using VCRs. In an interview, Jamie Kellner of AOL/Time Warner, said the Supreme Court decision which legalized VCR copying was "highly questionable" and expressed a desire to challenge the decision again. See http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php name=News&file=article&sid=198 and http://slashdot.org/article.pl? sid=02/05/02/0550214&mode=thread
(Delete the spaces after the question marks in the links. If the links still don't work, figure it out yourself.)
In other words, by copying with a VCR, not only are you copying a program without permission, nut you are actually doing it over the objections of the TV industry. Simply because it is legal doesn't make it right. -
You also make some good points about copyright law. However, ownership of a copyright does not give the owner the EXCLUSIVE right to make copies. Generally, copyright law attempts to balance the interest of the copyright owner in being rewarded for his/her efforts and the public's interest in unfettered access to information. The laws and the courts have achieved this balance by NOT giving the copyright owner the exclusive right to make copies. For example, see the Supreme Court's Sony decision, which I see you are already familiar with. My point is that the public policy interests in this debate are not yet settled, and where the line is ultimately drawn remains to be seen. In the meantime, there are grey areas where file-trading is occurring. I do not simply accept, at face value, the assertion by those in the media that file-sharing equates with "stealing," because those arguments have been made before, unsuccessfully, and I anticipate that at least some of the claims being bandied about by the music and movie industries will likewise prove unsuccessful over the long term.
-
Isn't the Ninth the most reversed federal court? At any rate, it appears unlikely that the Napster case will proceed to any kind of usable precedent that may be cited as authority. Moreover, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that some courts have issued injunctions against enforcing certain provisions of the DMCA. What impact will all of this have on file-sharing? It is far too early to tell for certain. The Internet is still in it's infancy, and only time will develop this debate to maturity. Also, for the record, it is possible to make almost perfect copies off regular radio, not just digital radio. Granted, a copy made from radio won't be an EXACT copy, but assuming good reception and a DJ who isn't chattering over the music, an almost perfect copy can be made and converted into MP3 format. It is also possible to convert music from LPs into MP3 format, which is how many out-of-print albums have been distributed over the 'net.
-
To those like the Walrus that argue about the markup of a CD and producing titles (trying to justify giving Ripped Music away). You are forgetting that there is a lot more to the cost of producing a CD than the cost of stamping the CD and Recording the Music. There is the cost of promotion (Yes, I know these guys suck at promotion) overhead (the cost of Facilities, Equipment, Agents, Personel), and all those loser bands on the catalog that don't recoup their album costs. It is not a black and white issue. The same also applies to movie studios. For every success (Star Wars, LOTR, Spiderman) there are just as many bombs (Town and Country anyone). Please remember that each of these companies ultimately have to stay in business, and if you've managed to watch the economics of most studios and theater chains their revenues are mostly in the gutter. Back from a long absence - The Ranger
-
So all file sharers should go to jail, huh? Let me tell you something which will probably give you a heat attack: I DOWNLOAD A LOT OF MUSIC!!! That's right, I do. Lots and lots of music. And I sleep like a fuckign baby afterward. I've found hard to find versions of some of my fave songs that I never would have had access to before. I've also been able to replace some of my musical library. Tell me Mako, why should I pay AGAIN for an album I like when I can download the songs and make the album myself? I've already spent my money on the product and done my part to pay the artist, are you saying I should do it again? I have over 3,000 songs that I've downloaded the last 2 years and I don't sorry for it at all. Conversely, I could've downloaded the latest Sting CD but since he's one of my fave artists I actually SPENT THE MONEY and bought his CD (which was pretty good, BTW). When Duran Duran releases their new CD, I'll buy it no questions asked. See the diffrence? Mako, you're acting like a Gestapo-loving jackass. You must love Pat Buchanan. See what all your government ass-kissing will get you when you're 65 and that same government won't give a rat's ass about you. Can you also explain why cd sales were UP during Napster's heyday and why they are DOWN after Napster fell off? As for movies, I don't download them b/c movies are not meant to watch on a fucking computer screen. I pay for the movies I want to see and buy the DVD when they come out. I always buy them when they come out b/c Best Buy has them on sale for good prices ($25.99 gets you BLADE & BLADE II together). I don't waste my money at the movies b/c I don't pay to watch shit. I know which films I like and which films will be crap, so I hardly ever regret paying to see a movie. Fact is Mako (and fettastic too), we all cheat here and there. The governemnt does it, coporations do it, and I do it. Government and big business don't give a fuck about us so I don't give a fuck about them. And yes, I pay $50 a month for DSL so I can download stuff, but the money I save for not having to buy these CD's again is more than worth it. Put THAT in you pipe and smoke it, son. As always, my opinion is the truth.
-
So you're a muscular tattoed long haired biker type. Big fucking deal. I'm a 6 ft 2 270 lb solidly-built ghetto-thug type. I wouldn't be scared of your sorry ass. This is a totally unecessary point but you brought it up. As for downloading stuff, guess what..I DON'T CARE!!! That's right, I don't give a flying fuck if what I'm doing is illegal. Legality and morality are NOT the same thing, just like religion and God. Just b/c something is legal does not make it right. Have you ever drank an alcoholic beverage, biker boy? Have you? Well, guess what, that act was illegal for a time. it was called Prohibition. Now tell me, was it morally wrong to drink acohol during Prohibition but morally right after it was declared legal again? When slavery was legal 200 years ago, was it morally OK then? I'd love to see your pseudo-tough guy self answer that question. Stop playing with your hair and answer my question, tough guy. You say we're all stupid. No, it's just that we who download media files are taking advantage of what we have available to us. We hear what you're syaing, we just don't give a fuck that's all. As always, my opinion is the truth.
-
Mako, you're going to make a few phone calls? BWAHAHAHHAAAA!!! Oh, that was funny. Ladies and gentleman, John Ashcroft in person on the AICN TalkBack. Get a grip, you fucking loser. I'll be waiting for the police to come arrest me anyday now. And fettastic, thanks for the suggestion. I think I'll go to the local record store and tell the manager that I no longer buy CD's b/c I download songs and burn them myself. Myabe he'll kick my ass!!! WOO HOO!! Jeez, you're self-importance is beyond funny. Thanks for the laughs, guys. Have fun searching for us bad ol' file-sharers. To quote Kirk from STAR TREK II, "I'm laughing at your superior intelligence." As always, my opinion is the truth.
-
It's simple. If you didn't create property and/or have any ownership or licensed interest in it, then to you've no right to sell for profit or copy and distribute.
What is so difficult to understand about this? -
If you don't believe file sharing is stealing, then one of you try photocopying and distributing the next Stephen King or J.K. Rowling novel to hundreds of people. I'll bet my retirement savings that I know how the courts will rule.
-
I don't need to fuck me Joey, you've already got that one covered. Oh... no... having another heart attack from reading... a post... from a pile of... shit... Hey Joey, hope your having fun butt screwing everyone. Cause we all know that's what you really like.
-
you guys need to hook up right quick. you both have such a need to bring up anal sex, i think you could satisfy your mutual curiousity together. and "your" doesn't mean "you are." dude that's so gay, totally dude.
-
i think in a very round-about way fettastic is getting at something important issues, but if artists (as filmmakers in this case) didn't want their work to be viewed under the circumstances you're talking about (shitty quality, watching at home where there are lots of distractions) then why the fuck is there such a large market for vhs rentals?! because usually it's all about the money, not the art (OBVIOUSLY). so i'm not sure that arguement has ANY relevance to the topic of downloading movies. and seriously you're telling me that certain filmmakers are "beautiful points of light?" so now we should base morality of downloading certain works based on the directors abilities or vision? what?!
-
dumbass, piracy doesn't cost you shit. Do you know how much it costs to make a cd or dvd? Fucking less than $1 for a cd and fucking $7 for a dvd. I know this as fact because a friend of mine works at one of the biggest manufacturers of those products in the world. Thats fucking $1 for the cd and fucking $7 for the dvd. We are talking a shitload of pure profit. Btw, the $1 and $7 INCLUDES shit like royalties and such. Internet Piracy, specially for movies, doesn't cost them shit. They see it as a loss of potential profit, thus the source of the industry complaining. They will have to settle for stainless steel showers in their homes rather than gold plated ones.
-
Sep 06, 2002 12:48:45 PM CDT
why do people feel a need to boast about the specifics of their
by defino
fettastic, i think we're talking about two different things, because what you're talking about becomes a non-issue when you realize how many movies being downloaded are close to dvd quality (or maybe are?). i'm not talking about an instance where some idiot's shooting with his handy cam and the only sounds you can hear are the voices of people sitting next to the camera-person. so in this instance no more injustice is being done to the film (as a downloadable file)as is done with video rental copies. so but as you said maybe this isn't relevant... as to you bringing up the whole "in my day people respected cinema" issue, ENOUGH! stop whining! things change, the way movies are made has changed, and these are such ENORMOUS generalizations that they don't make any sense. regardless the point you're trying to make is contradictory because people who want to see a movie badly enough to watch a horrible quality bootleg obviously don't view the film as disposable, they are probably the type of person most likely to buy every version of said film on dvd.
-
Are frickin liars. Guess what - if you aren't going to buy it - it means that you aren't entitled to have it! How is that lost on people?
Copying something that you've purchased and mixing and matching it and doing all manner of things to manipulate in pursuit of your own private use is not and will never be intruded upon, but how people can make the leap from burning a CD for a friend or family member to anonymously posting a nearly 100% perfect digital copy for the whole world to grab for free whenever they want is patently ridiculous.
Sharing with a friend or neighbor is not even the same galaxy as file sharing on the internet. As for movies - people write it off as a non-issue but let's see how people feel when you can basically download a file, burn it to a DVD and have a copy as good as that you buy in a store? Do people really think that this is that far off as a possibility?
As for the guy that posted above that making money on his screenplays is just "icing on the cake" and that he really just "wants to be read/seen/etc." please let me know where you live because these bill things are really getting annoying.
Whatever job you do, whatever it is that you produce (anyone here - I'm assuming at least some of us work) - just pretend for a moment that someone is circumventing the process for you to get your product/service/etc. to customers and try to pretend that it wouldn't affect your business' or employers bottom line. It's not a stretch of the imagination. It's not a leap. Just because in this case we're talking about what people do (listen to, watch) while their lazing on their couches doesn't mean someone (or more likely, several people) didn't work to bring it to you. File sharing among true peers (i.e. known individuals or acquaintances) is vastly different than anonymous distribution/sharing across a world wide network. That's the only "grey area" I see. -
The studios should set up their own service which allows people to download movies for a reasonable fee, say $3. This way it will be an alternative distibution method for the studio. The studio will not have to pay the overhead cost of the theater house, nor the cost of film reel duplication. It will be a direct distribution method, with low overhead, and hence a lower price (half the theater price). If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. The studios should just embrace the concept and make movies available for download on opening day for half the price of a theater ticket. = end of piracy.
-
First of all, as I always say (which nobody remembers-me or my posts), why do you people think that insulting, cursing and namecalling is going to get your point across more clearly? Hmmm?
This talkback is a gift. We don't pay for it. We just enjoy it. So if it makes you all happy to look like immature morons, feel free. But all of your points would be much clearer if you could state them WITHOUT the insults. Having said that, I will say again, whay are you all arguing about? It's stealing. Unless the copyright holder on the film, piece of music, software or picture that you are "sharing" has given their permission, you are stealing. Sometimes they do. Some artists don't care that people fileshare their work, even if it's screwing the copyright holder. Which is a distinction that needs to be made. With most music, the artist DOES NOT EVEN OWN THE RIGHTS TO THE SONG. Do you think Peter Jackson owns the rights the the LOTR movies? No! New Line does. And still, this is all semantics. If you download ANY copyrighted material from ANY unofficial source that has not recieved permission from the copyright owner, it's theft. Once again, I do this all the time. It is simply the age we live in. Technology and Law are on 2 different sides here and this has not all clearly been sorted out yet, but it will be. So while you all have many intelligent and insightful things to say, it doesn't change the fact that it's theft. If you actually copy a whole cd and give it to a friend, it's theft. It's REALLY EASY, but you have still taken that $9.95-$18.95 out of the hands of the retailer, the artist, the label, all the people that will get there one half of one percent from that cash. Record labels, artists, and lawmakers (including congress) are going over all the same things we are right now! Some are for filesharing, some against. There are already labels that are encoding CD's so that you can't rip them, they screw up your PC. But this does nothing to stop you from recording it as a wave and converting that file to an MP3 to file share. Now knowing that there are soundcards and software that allow me to do this (I like to record my records so as to preserve them for later playing) makes me informed. But if I take the file of that song from a record that the artist could only afford to print 1000 of until he sold that first 1000 to get money for a second printing, and I file share it (which I have a couple hundred times), can you honeslty say that I am not hurting that artist. That I have not stolen from him many times over. Instead of someone hearing about a record they want and using the internet to find some mom and pop store to buy it from (there for supporting both the mom and pop store and the artist), they just search until they can find a place to download it. That is the extreme, but it works the same way for copying whole cd's and filesharing songs (or anyhting else) by even the most major of major artists. You are stealing. -
Nice thought, and I like it. But you have to keep in mind that the studios would have to have a server big enough to store possibly hundreds of HUGE files and enough bandwidth for possibly a couple hundred thousand people at a time to be downloading those files. Plus full time support and programming staff. The cost would be more like $14.95 (at least) per film, not $3.00. Plus, the "artists" that make these films really don't want you to see it on your little computer screen, or watch it on a shitty burned VCD on your huge TV screen...it would still look terrible. The same with music. People put a lot of effort into writing, arranging, producing and recording the music. Then they have to design the packaging, or pay someone to do it. They are expecting their "product" to be looked at as a whole. Not one song at a time downloaded with the 50 others you wanted to check out that day.
-
Sep 06, 2002 4:23:12 PM CDT
Absolute Good and Evil are myths created by the strong to contro
by malik23
All this moral posturing is getting a bit old. If you want to say that it is more practical that people abide by certain moral standards (for example, that society as a whole benefits from people behaving decently), then I can accept your argument. But the "stealing is just wrong" argument is based on . . . what exactly? WHY is stealing wrong? Sure, I can see the practical reasons (e.g., mutual respect makes life better; I don't want you to steal my stuff, etc.). But there is no fundamental, absolute law of Nature that prohibits theft (I ignore all arguments based on any mythological belief system -- fairy tales aren't arguments). Another thing I'm sick of: "Corporate greed is out of control." Hey, if you don't like some CEO getting rich off of your money, then stop giving it to him!! No one forces you to buy their products. Once you turn over your money at the cash register, it is not up to you to decide how it is distributed among the company that produces it.
-
Jaka, artists want their work to be seen on the big screen, but remember that the studios are a *business* and primarily want to make money. If there is a demand for watching movies on a computer, then they should satisfy it in a legal and profitable way. ******* As for the network infrastructure, I don't think it would be too expensive, since the people who want to download are just a niche market of geeks. If the service is too popular, they can just raise the price until demand balances the cost of supply. If they do not insist on an outrageous profit margin, I believe the final cost would be very reasonable, that is, cheaper than a theater ticket. ******* There are already networks who specialize in making files available for download, such as akamai.com Check out the major companies who use the akamai.com network for distributing content: http://www.akamai.com/en/html/about/customers.html All the movie studios should enlist their services today.
-
i think i speak for more than a few people when i address that comment to you, fettastic. you sound like a 10 year old on the playground "go back to china!" and c'mon "we don't want you here!" who, who doesn't want these "filesharing commies" here? you? i'm glad you feel important enough to speak for the entire county of over 200 million people. a little modesty never hurt anyone. and god bless this capitalist system. i don't advocate one structure or the other, but all capitalism is is corruption with a set of "rules" to follow. i hope you realize how incredibly over the top your posts are, maybe you should stop comparing "when your uncle stole your virginity" to filesharing and people might listen to what you have to say instead of dismissing it as the ravings of someone who desperately needs to be heard.
-
fettastic, allow me to respond in a polite manner. Seems we have something in common; a pure love for movies. I belive that great films should be seen at the theater. There's no other experience like it. Unlike some younger people, I was fortunate to watch STAR WARS on opening day May 25, 1977 in a theater. No matter how this digital thing comes out, the theater experience will never go away. There will always be people like you and me who enjoy seeing a good film at the theater. John Murdoch, I read that article you talked about and I don't agree with what the studios are saying. If you make a product that grosses $200 million or more, and you're saying that it's barely making you a profit, then you're doing a fucking horrible job of running your business. A movie doesn't have to cost $100 million to make. Studios should cut costs in marketing and advertising, and hire good actors instead of so-called "stars". And most importantly, put the majority of the money where it will do the most good and costs the least amount...THE SCRIPT!!! The big reason so many studios are not seeing a profit from these blockbusters is because they are pieces of SHIT. People are not going to se a movie over and over again if it sucks. Maybe if the studios concentrated on putting out risky, creative mined fare that challengend our minds and hearts as well as entertained us, they would see more of a profit b/c people would see the films over and over, then buy the things when it comes out on DVD. Same reason why the music business is hurting now, b/c most mainstream music sucks ass. And the audience over 14 years of age can see that. Feel free to respond, fellas.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts