who on tw claimed they wrote zombieland?

Super-Grover said:
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
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your point of view on this SG! I agree with most of what you say above.

I only have one additional point to make about all of this. I think the percentage of those who pirate, and would purchase a copy instead if piracy was not an option, is rather small...say %15. Now, I just completely pulled that number out of my ass, but that's my guess. I don't know what the real number is, and I'm not having any luck with Google. If anybody knows of any studies that came up with a number, I'd love to find out what that number is...

(btw, google "percentage copyright pirate would pay not an option", this thread is #4, and the summary is my post... lol)

I guess I don't see much benefit in chasing down that %15. I don't understand the expected return on investment the movie studios hope to recoup by spending millions of dollars on DRM schemes that are repeatedly proven not to work.

SG, I feel bad for you that people are freeloading, and watching your movie for free. I think that people should pay. But the reality is that you just can't stop piracy. I'm not suggesting piracy not be fought, though you do need to compete with it.

If you find somebody infringing your copyright, by all means sue them for copyright infringement. However, make sure you offer a legitimate service to your customers before you start chasing down people for copyright infringement. Right now my only legitimate option is to visit the theater. That's the restriction that was placed on Zombieland. You can't legally watch it at home right now.

I'd love to pay right now to watch it....at home...on my computer....but can I do that? What website can I go to and pay just the one time cost of the movie (say $15-$20?), download a DRM free version, and maybe burn a copy to DVD for safe keeping?

I'm not going to immediately share it. Sure, somebody will, but how is that different from what there is now? (Remember, you can't stop piracy, you can only compete against it). Would you rather pay for a legitimate safe copy, or would you rather risk getting a copy with French subtitles that you can't get rid of, and risk getting sued for copyright infringement?

I'd rather pay. Please give me that option. /soapbox
 
I don't think any of the people calling Grover a shitbag know what it was that he meant by his "tweet" in the first place. He doesn't call the shots on whether or not a sequel gets made; I doubt he wouldn't write it because the first had been pirated.

But he was being emo, knowing he has written the highest grossing zombie-movie to date means that he also knows there is a 100% chance that a sequel will be made. He pulled a 16-year-old girl move and used twitter as his livejournal
 
i'm sure every single song on grover's ipod was purchased and is legal. I would also like to see Grover's original T1 CD.
 
Prophecy said:
SG, I saw your movie twice. Once with my cousin the other with my girlfriend. I think that a major point is being missed, or maybe not didn't read the whole thread, but I truly believe that as some of us age, the propensity to pirate becomes less. The unfortunate aspect is that you are targeting a demographic that is of a pirating age. I am 38, pay to go see movies and pay to rent and purchase dvds. I will be buying your DVD when it comes out, because I can afford to. Not because of my stance on piracy. I think disposal income plays more of a part in this than anything else.

If there was a way to establish a sliding scale in entertainment for payment I trulybelieve there would be less piracy. Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this pragmatic view on the matter.

I pirated stuff in high school and college but I have stopped now that I have the a lot of disposable income. I still feel strongly about pirating laws (beng retarded), but regardless of how I feel its still illegal and its just easier, now, for me to buy stuff rather than pirate it.

I paid to watch Zombieland. it was my favorite zombie movie, and I will most likely buy in on blu-ray when its released.
 
Bughead said:
Holy crap, it's $1.50 a ticket where I live. How the hell can they get away with charging that much? :psyduck:
Click to expand...

Yes, where do you live where it's $1.50 a ticket for new releases? Even with a student / military around here is around $5, normal ticket is $7.50.

x4

With a drink ($5) and popcorn ($6) you're over 40 bucks. If the kids want anything, there's that cost x2. Sure we could eat at home, but then we could also stay home and watch a giant library of on-demand content that we didn't see in the theater 6 months ago.
 
I think the last thing I pirated was the second lord of the rings movie because I wanted to see the beginning again, but I also planned to buy the extended version of the movie which I did.

I go to the theater or rent movies, we can also rent movies through our cable box at home, the cost is small, I could download all the movies I want but I don't, not everyone that can steal movies does steal them.

At 31 I am old enough that I didn't have the option of downloading my favorite albums or movies when I was younger, I grew up having to buy albums that I wanted and I am still fine with that. I am sure if I was younger I would be in the habit of downloading music and movies all the time, right now if I don't have the money to buy a new album I don't, I am not out looking for a option to steal it.
 
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.
Click to expand...

This is bullshit.
There are tons of creative artists and film makers who give their content away for free simply for the pleasure of sharing and being praised for their creativity.

Places like mp3.com for example where you can find literally millions of songs that are free to download. The authors usually just ask that you lave a comment about it if you liked it.
Places like DeviantARt are another great example.

Not everyone is profit motivated about their art.
In fact most of the free content surpasses the stuff made for commercial profit simply because there's no need to alter the content to appeal to a certain group, or pander to some share holders.
 
I think Super Grover should sell exclusive Zombieland DVD's to TW members with his signature... not his bullshit real name but with his alias.
 
luvz2spooge said:
This is bullshit.
There are tons of creative artists and film makers who give their content away for free simply for the pleasure of sharing and being praised for their creativity.
Click to expand...

Because they suck and know no one would actually shell out a penny for their art.
 
I've got a question...

I haven't paid to see a movie since the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Reason being is that a friend is a manager at a movie theater.

Soo... am I stealing? I'm confused.
 
luvz2spooge said:
This is bullshit.
There are tons of creative artists and film makers who give their content away for free simply for the pleasure of sharing and being praised for their creativity.

Places like mp3.com for example where you can find literally millions of songs that are free to download. The authors usually just ask that you lave a comment about it if you liked it.
Places like DeviantARt are another great example.

Not everyone is profit motivated about their art.
In fact most of the free content surpasses the stuff made for commercial profit simply because there's no need to alter the content to appeal to a certain group, or pander to some share holders.
Click to expand...

Individuals creating art in their spare time are quite different than movie stuidos that spend $24 million to make a movie. Sure, there's lots of people who give their art away for free, but if you want to enjoy movies like Zombieland, you are going to have to have copyright to protect such a large investment.
 
I use to buy stamps all the time from the post office. Now I use emails and pay my bills online, am I stealing from the government?!
 
luvz2spooge said:
This is bullshit.
There are tons of creative artists and film makers who give their content away for free simply for the pleasure of sharing and being praised for their creativity.

Places like mp3.com for example where you can find literally millions of songs that are free to download. The authors usually just ask that you lave a comment about it if you liked it.
Places like DeviantARt are another great example.

Not everyone is profit motivated about their art.
In fact most of the free content surpasses the stuff made for commercial profit simply because there's no need to alter the content to appeal to a certain group, or pander to some share holders.
Click to expand...

A lot of people that post free art are doing it to get work being paid to do it, or they failed at making money with their art but still won't to keep creating while working their day job.

Making claims about most free content surpasses commercial releases is funny, I would like to see the free Lord of the Rings fan made movie that surpasses the Peter Jackon movie versions.

People that make their little shows on Youtube end up trying to make money off it if they become popular.

Getting paid to create art allows people focus completely on their art instead of working a day job, a lot of artists don't care about being rich, the want to be able to make a living off doing what they love.
 
Pip said:
I use to buy stamps all the time from the post office. Now I use emails and pay my bills online, am I stealing from the government?!
Click to expand...

No but I'd say the tax dollars that were spent educating you were clearly wasted, so that's a kind of theft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top