SirBatesAlot
Veteran X
Nope, but still trying to make sure it was the take home message of the thread.
who on tw claimed they wrote zombieland?
- Thread starter Nail Bomb
- Start date
Regardless of your opinion of the legality of pirating... don't beat on Super Grover. How does the saying go? You don't shit where you eat.
We all know which side of the coin Hollywood is generally on with this issue. Since Hollywood is the one putting bread on Super Grover's table, it's hard to be critical of the guy for publicly towing the party line. Nothing like using your first big break to piss on the industry who gave it to you.
We all know which side of the coin Hollywood is generally on with this issue. Since Hollywood is the one putting bread on Super Grover's table, it's hard to be critical of the guy for publicly towing the party line. Nothing like using your first big break to piss on the industry who gave it to you.
I can't understand how these arguments turn into a battle of theoretics and semantics...
Everyone keeps trying to associate creative works with physical products, only because creative works sometimes come as physical products, but it's apples and oranges.
The creative work, (for example let's say a song or album), isn't just protected by the usual laws of "theft", as in the theft of a physical item. Stealing a DVD is the same as stealing a pack of gum, and the comparison means absolutely nothing. If you steal a pack of gum, nobody gives a good fuck about how Wrigley's fits into the picture.
Copyright issues boil down to the creator of the work being justly compensated for those being entertained by their work. In the extreme case, you can't use a creative work in... let's say a bar without paying royalties to the artist/label/studio. The reason is that the bar is using the creative work to generate an attraction, and thus creating income without the artist/label/studio being compensated for supplying the attraction. So music, movies, performances, even pay-per-view events can't be played in a public setting without financial arrangements being made to compensate the creators of the work. General piracy is on the exact same lines, to where people are listening/viewing/being entertained by the work without compensating the creator. People, (and by "people" I mean mostly losers who have no concept of fair play) always mention "BUT IF I BUY A MOVIE AND INVITE MY FRIENDS OVER TO WATCH IT WHATTAYA GONNA DO ARREST ME?? NAH NAH!", the answer is obviously no, (duh?). The FBI disclaimer states "intended for the private home viewing of our audience, and is not to be duplicated..." which sums it up in a nutshell. You and your friends, whether it's 2 or 200, can watch the movie at your home. However, if you had a party where you charged an admission, and those 200 friends saw the movie you bought, guess what? That's copyright infringement and subject to legal action.
Filesharing is simply enabling people to view/listen to copyrighted works without paying for them. Period. It's theft from the artist/label/studio, regardless of "well I would've never gone to see it anyway" or "I wouldn't have bought it anyway".
The end result of all of this is that music labels and movie studios have not grabbed hold of new digital technologies the way they should have. Had they any sense at all, they would realize that the entire matter is simply one of convenience - most people don't want the hassle of driving/parking/paying/standing in line/finding a seat/etc of going to the movies. (Ditto for going to buy a CD.) It's much easier to punch some buttons on a keyboard, and then come home from work to relax on your own couch watching the movie you downloaded. If the lables/studios had any sense, they would take all the money they've put into fucking lawyers and instead put it into facilitating this new technology and making it more convenient for the consumer to get their product. That way all the people who say "Well... I wouldn't have gone to see it anyway...", all those people would probably be convinced to pay $5.99 for the rights to a high-quality download of the same movie. The end result would be more people paying for their product and a lower cost for everyone.
Everyone keeps trying to associate creative works with physical products, only because creative works sometimes come as physical products, but it's apples and oranges.
The creative work, (for example let's say a song or album), isn't just protected by the usual laws of "theft", as in the theft of a physical item. Stealing a DVD is the same as stealing a pack of gum, and the comparison means absolutely nothing. If you steal a pack of gum, nobody gives a good fuck about how Wrigley's fits into the picture.
Copyright issues boil down to the creator of the work being justly compensated for those being entertained by their work. In the extreme case, you can't use a creative work in... let's say a bar without paying royalties to the artist/label/studio. The reason is that the bar is using the creative work to generate an attraction, and thus creating income without the artist/label/studio being compensated for supplying the attraction. So music, movies, performances, even pay-per-view events can't be played in a public setting without financial arrangements being made to compensate the creators of the work. General piracy is on the exact same lines, to where people are listening/viewing/being entertained by the work without compensating the creator. People, (and by "people" I mean mostly losers who have no concept of fair play) always mention "BUT IF I BUY A MOVIE AND INVITE MY FRIENDS OVER TO WATCH IT WHATTAYA GONNA DO ARREST ME?? NAH NAH!", the answer is obviously no, (duh?). The FBI disclaimer states "intended for the private home viewing of our audience, and is not to be duplicated..." which sums it up in a nutshell. You and your friends, whether it's 2 or 200, can watch the movie at your home. However, if you had a party where you charged an admission, and those 200 friends saw the movie you bought, guess what? That's copyright infringement and subject to legal action.
Filesharing is simply enabling people to view/listen to copyrighted works without paying for them. Period. It's theft from the artist/label/studio, regardless of "well I would've never gone to see it anyway" or "I wouldn't have bought it anyway".
The end result of all of this is that music labels and movie studios have not grabbed hold of new digital technologies the way they should have. Had they any sense at all, they would realize that the entire matter is simply one of convenience - most people don't want the hassle of driving/parking/paying/standing in line/finding a seat/etc of going to the movies. (Ditto for going to buy a CD.) It's much easier to punch some buttons on a keyboard, and then come home from work to relax on your own couch watching the movie you downloaded. If the lables/studios had any sense, they would take all the money they've put into fucking lawyers and instead put it into facilitating this new technology and making it more convenient for the consumer to get their product. That way all the people who say "Well... I wouldn't have gone to see it anyway...", all those people would probably be convinced to pay $5.99 for the rights to a high-quality download of the same movie. The end result would be more people paying for their product and a lower cost for everyone.
To be clear, my point was about paying fair compensation after receipt of service. Using your spare set of keys to drive off without paying was not what I was suggesting. In fact, what I was saying was that, if your mechanic decided to charge you $800 for an oil change, typically you have the expected right to renegotiate the price to what is considered reasonable....say $30?
Also, my use of the video camera was intended to be analogous to a file copy. It's not like you have to be able to write 1's and 0's on your hard drive, when you can just "right-click -> save as -> select folder -> click save as...". I think most of us posses at least that amount of talent. As for the video camera, I think most people can watch TV and learn. Sure, there will be those who know nothing about cars, and if that's the case, the analogy would equate to not being able to work on a computer in the first place, therefore having no further point in this discussion.
I have absolutely no idea what Teflonatron is saying.
Sup Taxi, it's been a while!
Can you tell me how you made that leap? You say it's cool to have 2 or 200 friends over at your place for free, and that would be ok. But then you say that Filesharing, which is like having your friends over, is theft. Is theft ok? Or is having your friends over somehow stealing?
Tef you're arguing something that makes no sense to me...
You're quibbling over something that's incomparable. A) Everyone you share a movie with while filesharing isn't your friend, B) The numbers involved are incomparable, C) You're completely disregarding any sense of fair play and common sense.
By your rationale, musicians and movie studios should just work for free, or at most sell ONE COPY of their work because hey, you can share their works with your millions of "friends", so they shouldn't complain!
wtf?
You're quibbling over something that's incomparable. A) Everyone you share a movie with while filesharing isn't your friend, B) The numbers involved are incomparable, C) You're completely disregarding any sense of fair play and common sense.
By your rationale, musicians and movie studios should just work for free, or at most sell ONE COPY of their work because hey, you can share their works with your millions of "friends", so they shouldn't complain!
wtf?
Neither do I.
Seriously though, my point is:
- that copyright should be respected.
- that copyright holders should be fairly compensated for distribution of their work.
- that being copyright holders, they aren't guaranteed a return on investment, let alone a guaranteed profit.
- that copyright holders are compensated in return for providing the public domain with their artistic works.
- that the public domain should obtain those artistic works, to be freely distributed without charge, within a reasonable time frame, and that a reasonable time frame is maybe 25 years, if not less (imho).
- that purchasing a copy of a copyrighted work does not imply or confer that you will infringe upon that copyright (i.e., we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around pls thx
)- that digital copyrighted works should be distributed without DRM, period, end of story.
Nice, I get to repost!Sup Taxi, it's been a while!
Can you tell me how you made that leap? You say it's cool to have 2 or 200 friends over at your place for free, and that would be ok. But then you say that Filesharing, which is like having your friends over, is theft. Is theft ok? Or is having your friends over somehow stealing?
Though technically you're not supposed to allow anybody to watch a movie that didn't purchase it, those laws are more in place to give people that are major violators no loopholes in the rare cases that they prosecute
I will say that I have bought movies before by virtue of watching them at a friend's house and their being good. The difference between that and piracy is that:
1.)You are dependent on the friend to make the movie available (ie. it does not have unlimited convenience)
2.)When you watch a movie with friends, you're there to hang out with them, not watch that specific movie.
3.)Any time you borrow a movie, the original owner is ceding his ability to watch it so that you can
These are kinda sorta important distinctions for why watching it with a friend isn't the same as piracy
Due to points 1 and 3 you are much, much more likely to buy in this scenario than if you pirate
Tef you're arguing something that makes no sense to me...
You're quibbling over something that's incomparable. A) Everyone you share a movie with while filesharing isn't your friend, B) The numbers involved are incomparable, C) You're completely disregarding any sense of fair play and common sense.
By your rationale, musicians and movie studios should just work for free, or at most sell ONE COPY of their work because hey, you can share their works with your millions of "friends", so they shouldn't complain!
wtf?
What if the 200 people I'm filesharing with ARE my friends? Is that impossible? I'm not saying it's likely....just possible. I'm not disregarding fair play or common sense, and I'm certainly not suggesting that artists sell only one copy so I can distribute it for free to everybody in the world. (How exactly did it go from 200 to millions anyhow?)
Making physical copies of the DVD you bought would be illegal, too
see above post for the distinction that makes one okay (viewing with friends) and the other (piracy) not
Hi all, since I'm the one who unwittingly started this particular firestorm, here are my thoughts.
My two tweet plea (five if you include my three angry tweets to individuals) began after I read tweet upon tweet for hours, days, weeks, in which people mentioned (or often, bragged) openly about having just watched Zombieland at home for free. I largely shrugged this piracy off as inevitable, but it never felt good to read the tweets. Then I saw the 60 Minutes episode on piracy. And then I read an article about the sheer numbers of downloads of Zombieland in particular. Rightly or wrongly, I felt burned. For the record, I may have been over-dramatic, in my emotional state, in suggesting that downloading could kill Zombieland 2. It could. In our case, the greater hope/expectation is that it won't. The movie has done very well.
No, I don’t believe that 1 download = 1 lost ticket sale or 1 lost DVD sale. Certainly, there are many people who both contribute to a movie's legitimate B.O. and also download the movie… including, it turns out, the people I singled out on Twitter. There are also many people who download movies who would never pay to see those same movies in any format regardless. But I do believe that there is a significant, non-trivial population of people who might have (in an ideal world with no piracy) paid to see Zombieland, either in theaters or on DVD, but instead chose to watch it for free, because it was easy and didn't cost them anything.
No, I don't subscribe to the Robin Hood argument, which claims that rich, greedy Hollywood studios/actors/writers/etc. have enough $ and don't need more. Nor do I subscribe to the argument that examines positive correlations between downloads and box office and concludes that popularity in the one (downloads) is somehow causing the popularity in the other (box office). Correlation does not imply causality.
Some might argue that an ideal world *should* allow unlimited piracy of copyrighted material. I disagree. And I agree with the reasoning behind copyright law. Copyright law grants the owner of a copyright a window of time within which he/she can make money off the copyright. I hate to say it, but people making money off art, even a lot of money, is a good thing. It’s America. It's capitalism. Copyright law is important because it provides financial incentive for artists to set aside other pursuits and devote entire careers to creating and innovating. Movies. Books. Videogames. Songs. These things bring us joy. And joy is worth paying for.
I can only assume that lovers of piracy relish the improvements in copying/distribution technology that make pirating all the easier and gradually improve the quality of what is being pirated... to where a pirated copy will ultimately be indistinguishable in quality from an original. But take this to its logical conclusion, and it isn't hard to see why everyone should be concerned. Human nature sadly dictates that few people will pay for what they can get for free. In a world where all art is instantly available for nothing, no one will be able to make a living as an artist. Nor will anyone invest any capital in art. So… no more movies. No more videogames. No more albums. TV shows. Etc.
I by no means want to be an anti-piracy crusader, and I’m now going to step away from the debate. I’m not a very political person. On a very basic level, my tweets were just the defensive reactions of an artist who hates seeing people brazenly proclaim that they’re pirating his work.
I really like the genuine debate that has been inspired by this thread. There are obviously different sides of this issue, and different complexities within it. I've been called a lot of things in the last week, a number of which have been pretty crazy, and I just wanted to make the most reasoned response I could. Paying for art isn’t the most objectionable thing in the world. In fact, it’s a very beneficial thing.
PS, thanks for weighing in, everyone, especially those who supported my point of view. Suicide Taxi, in particular, makes a TON of sense to me!
SG
My two tweet plea (five if you include my three angry tweets to individuals) began after I read tweet upon tweet for hours, days, weeks, in which people mentioned (or often, bragged) openly about having just watched Zombieland at home for free. I largely shrugged this piracy off as inevitable, but it never felt good to read the tweets. Then I saw the 60 Minutes episode on piracy. And then I read an article about the sheer numbers of downloads of Zombieland in particular. Rightly or wrongly, I felt burned. For the record, I may have been over-dramatic, in my emotional state, in suggesting that downloading could kill Zombieland 2. It could. In our case, the greater hope/expectation is that it won't. The movie has done very well.
No, I don’t believe that 1 download = 1 lost ticket sale or 1 lost DVD sale. Certainly, there are many people who both contribute to a movie's legitimate B.O. and also download the movie… including, it turns out, the people I singled out on Twitter. There are also many people who download movies who would never pay to see those same movies in any format regardless. But I do believe that there is a significant, non-trivial population of people who might have (in an ideal world with no piracy) paid to see Zombieland, either in theaters or on DVD, but instead chose to watch it for free, because it was easy and didn't cost them anything.
No, I don't subscribe to the Robin Hood argument, which claims that rich, greedy Hollywood studios/actors/writers/etc. have enough $ and don't need more. Nor do I subscribe to the argument that examines positive correlations between downloads and box office and concludes that popularity in the one (downloads) is somehow causing the popularity in the other (box office). Correlation does not imply causality.
Some might argue that an ideal world *should* allow unlimited piracy of copyrighted material. I disagree. And I agree with the reasoning behind copyright law. Copyright law grants the owner of a copyright a window of time within which he/she can make money off the copyright. I hate to say it, but people making money off art, even a lot of money, is a good thing. It’s America. It's capitalism. Copyright law is important because it provides financial incentive for artists to set aside other pursuits and devote entire careers to creating and innovating. Movies. Books. Videogames. Songs. These things bring us joy. And joy is worth paying for.
I can only assume that lovers of piracy relish the improvements in copying/distribution technology that make pirating all the easier and gradually improve the quality of what is being pirated... to where a pirated copy will ultimately be indistinguishable in quality from an original. But take this to its logical conclusion, and it isn't hard to see why everyone should be concerned. Human nature sadly dictates that few people will pay for what they can get for free. In a world where all art is instantly available for nothing, no one will be able to make a living as an artist. Nor will anyone invest any capital in art. So… no more movies. No more videogames. No more albums. TV shows. Etc.
I by no means want to be an anti-piracy crusader, and I’m now going to step away from the debate. I’m not a very political person. On a very basic level, my tweets were just the defensive reactions of an artist who hates seeing people brazenly proclaim that they’re pirating his work.
I really like the genuine debate that has been inspired by this thread. There are obviously different sides of this issue, and different complexities within it. I've been called a lot of things in the last week, a number of which have been pretty crazy, and I just wanted to make the most reasoned response I could. Paying for art isn’t the most objectionable thing in the world. In fact, it’s a very beneficial thing.
PS, thanks for weighing in, everyone, especially those who supported my point of view. Suicide Taxi, in particular, makes a TON of sense to me!
SG
Last edited:
SniperOmega
Veteran XX
they should just let us pull off stream off an HD library for buying an online digital copy for $2 per dvd, 1 stream per copy bought and i can invite an infinite amount of people to watch max 1 stream to each single movie/copy at a time.
tribalwar gets 10 copies of every good movie, set.
tribalwar gets 10 copies of every good movie, set.
Hehe, Columbus = me.
KryandArturo
Veteran X
I saw it in the theater so don't look at me.
Super-G,
I said earlier in this thread that your movie is almost a cult classic except it has done very well. So I'm thinking(along with a few others on here) that the DVD will sell like hot cakes.
I know if there is some special edition DVD loaded with goodies I'll be all over it. And If not I'll get the regular one. It would be kick ass if you and your partner in writing this were on the commentary though.
I said earlier in this thread that your movie is almost a cult classic except it has done very well. So I'm thinking(along with a few others on here) that the DVD will sell like hot cakes.
I know if there is some special edition DVD loaded with goodies I'll be all over it. And If not I'll get the regular one. It would be kick ass if you and your partner in writing this were on the commentary though.