Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why are the movie and music makers b*tching about piracy?

2

Comments

  • #32
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Eventually no one will bother committing art to a media, and you'll have to go to an art gallery to see a painting, to a live performance to hear music or see a script acted out and so on. At some point someone has to protect the artist/creator and their endeavours.

    Whether the latest "big idea" is that point is another matter.

    Something for nothing can't continue forever unless you like the idea of all arts being funded out of the general tax take and shown "free" thereafter.


  • #33
    davet82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,753 ✭✭✭davet82


    They need to re-think how to charge for their talents, imo music should be free...

    Why not setup website and let their music be downloaded for free, viewing advertisments as you wait for it download. Free music would chart well on the downlaod charts. Most real fans want hard copys that could be ordered from the website aswel as official mechandise. You have concerts and gigs... endorements if you make it big. No fees for music distubtion companies. The internet for music is the way its going. I think bands starting out would benefit equally, somethin has to change cause file sharing wont.

    It was recordable tapes, then cd burners and now file shares music goes on

    as for films, personnally if i wanted to see a film i go the cinema regardless if it was free online but thats just me


  • #34
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    hooradiation wrote: »
    ok kid let me ask you how does this

    square with this?

    and this

    because on one hand you're perpetuating this idea that "good" work will get paid for, then listing reasons where that doesn't apply simply "because" and people should be happy for the scraps they get and grateful that people got the full value from a product without paying a penny.

    It is the most idiotic, disgustingly over-entitled, spoilt, bullshit I've read today. Well done.

    We seem to have created the idea that entertainment has no monetary value, which is so fucking wrong that it makes me want to puke blood.
    No one becomes a successful and rich film maker, artist overnight and those who wish/dream of become one need to step into the real world.

    Its a long hard road becoming known and successful.

    Firstly indie film makers don't get enough marketing to be able to screen their films in popular cinemas for long. One needs to head over to those niche cinemas like IFI to watch these movies which not many people bother to.

    If people read on the internet the movie is good and they can watch it online, they'll watch it online for free. This way the film maker gets recognised.

    Then if his work was really good, he'll gain more of a following from among the people who watched his work on the internet for free. So when he releases his next movie, he'll have a larger following and more people will go to the cinema to watch his movie than just watching it online because a cinema experience will be superior to watching a lower quality stream online. And hence slowly he'll gain more recognition and more following based on the quality of content he provides and not because some big film studio like universal or fox has spent millions marketing the movie which they only do for the big film makers like Cameron, Spielberg, Ridley Scott etc. Film studios only exploit small and unknown film makers.

    For musicians its similar. Musician makes a great single or hear the song featured in a popular video/game which goes viral on youtube. Then people want to check out his other work, they like his work. They go to his gigs, his ticket sales increase, he makes more money all while not being bound to a horrible record contract which exploits him.

    Yes this way musicians and film makers will not be making millions overnight, but then no one ever does. Though this way at least they gain recognition and popularity without being exploited by film/music studios.


  • #35
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    mike65 wrote: »
    Eventually no one will bother committing art to a media, and you'll have to go to an art gallery to see a painting, to a live performance to hear music or see a script acted out and so on. At some point someone has to protect the artist/creator and their endeavours.

    Whether the latest "big idea" is that point is another matter.

    Something for nothing can't continue forever unless you like the idea of all arts being funded out of the general tax take and shown "free" thereafter.

    But that is not true!

    This is an argument people in favour of these SOPA/PIPA acts keep coming up with and it is just not true.

    People are and will continue visiting art galleries, cinemas and concert halls not because they visit these places as they can't view/experience the content anywhere else apart from in these places, but because these places given them a better quality experience of the content than they can anywhere else.

    I can watch a picture of monalisa by googling it but nothing will equate to seeing the actual painting in front of you at the Louvre.

    Similarly I can listen to an album of my favourite aritist on my ipod but it won't equate to watching the artist live in front of you with many other people experiencing the same music.

    And the same for cinema. As long as cinemas provide superior viewing experience than what can be found anywhere else, people will continue to flock to the cinema to watch their favourite movies or movies made by their favourite film makers/actors etc.



    I don't think entertainment content should be free but piracy/sharing of content cannot be stopped and in many instances it actually helps the content creator gain more recognition. We are not socialists but we cannot control people's liberties and freedom either. If people want to download your music for free, you need to find another way of making your living which a lot of content creators do.

    Back in the vinyl days people loved buying vinyl not because that was the only way of getting your music but also because you could get the amazing artwork on the vinyl covers for a more modern example Tool's 10,000 days album comes to mind. Now days game publishers do this a lot with special edition sets which comes in cool packaging and some extra toys etc.
    And then there's the whole gigs and cinema experience thing where the artists make their living from.


  • #36
    Yakult
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,944 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    Its the industries fault that they wont swing with this new trend. They have plenty of ways to get on top of it and benefit just as well as they did.


    The only thing that has to change here is the way film/music industries do business.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    SOPA and PIPA are not needed and anyone who says otherwise is imho delusion, as current law already protects them from piracy:

    Why the feds smashed Megaupload

    The existing laws already protect them, but the MPAA, RIAA, and ESA etc want to do away with stuff like actually having to prove piracy is actually take place, and essentially they can take down entire sites on accusation alone.

    It should also be noted that the US DMCA has also been abused by members of the content industry, to for example take down a someones home video, that just so happens to have a copyrighted song audiable in the back ground for example. Such existing laws imho should be scaled back as they are being abused.

    Then, there are other fair use right that have been taken away via DRM, where when you buy something your use is limited, but someone who pirates get a nice unencumbered version of the file. The content inudustry has been treating its paying customers like criminals, all the while pirates have a better product, as they don't have to deal with DRM.

    These laws are not needed, and they will destroy innovation on the web, and limit people freedom of speech. SOPA and PIPA is just the US version of what China and Saudia Arabia does imho. There is no need for SOPA or PIPA, the laws that exist already protect the content industry, and whether they like it or not, they need to prove piracy etc, and not just have sites taken down on there say so.


  • #38
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,152 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    af_thefragile wrote: »
    No one becomes a successful and rich film maker, artist overnight and those who wish/dream of become one need to step into the real world.

    Its a long hard road becoming known and successful.

    Firstly indie film makers don't get enough marketing to be able to screen their films in popular cinemas for long. One needs to head over to those niche cinemas like IFI to watch these movies which not many people bother to.

    If people read on the internet the movie is good and they can watch it online, they'll watch it online for free. This way the film maker gets recognised.

    Then if his work was really good, he'll gain more of a following from among the people who watched his work on the internet for free. So when he releases his next movie, he'll have a larger following and more people will go to the cinema to watch his movie than just watching it online because a cinema experience will be superior to watching a lower quality stream online. And hence slowly he'll gain more recognition and more following based on the quality of content he provides and not because some big film studio like universal or fox has spent millions marketing the movie which they only do for the big film makers like Cameron, Spielberg, Ridley Scott etc. Film studios only exploit small and unknown film makers.

    For musicians its similar. Musician makes a great single or hear the song featured in a popular video/game which goes viral on youtube. Then people want to check out his other work, they like his work. They go to his gigs, his ticket sales increase, he makes more money all while not being bound to a horrible record contract which exploits him.

    Yes this way musicians and film makers will not be making millions overnight, but then no one ever does. Though this way at least they gain recognition and popularity without being exploited by film/music studios.
    You had this information all along and you failed to pass it on to all the struggling musicians and film makers?????


  • #39
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    You had this information all along and you failed to pass it on to all the struggling musicians and film makers?????

    They already know it and they're doing what they can. One needs to be seriously naive to believe the entertainment industry is a pretty place to work in.

    Its only the ones who dream of becoming millionaires just because they went to film school or managed to put a band together, who are the ones complaining. They're the ones who as teenagers dreamed of "making it big" by playing their guitar or filming something cool but then realised their dreams getting shattered the moment they stepped into the real world.


  • #40
    Voodu Child
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,706 ✭✭✭Voodu Child


    Piracy is a service problem, the way to fight it is to offer a better service.

    I paid for a Bluray TV series recently and it freezes and skips at multiple places on the first disc. It's watchable but it stutters and then skips forward about 30 seconds.

    Went and checked online and its a known problem since 2009. Every single disc that gets sold in the UK/Ireland has this problem. Warner have known about it but couldn't be bothered recalling it. If I bought one 2 years later they must be still manufacturing and shipping the defective disc :rolleyes: You can supposedly get a replacement if you contact them but I have tried multiple times in a period of about a month with no reply.

    You tell me that's a good service that makes you want to keep buying legit content and lining the pockets of these clowns. If a scene release has a technical problem its nuked and propered within a few hours :pac:


  • #41
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    Well I have bought many blu ray discs in the past few months. Mostly BBC documentaries and such. Only had a problem of blown contrast in two discs of Planet Earth special edition which is a known problem and I can return the discs to 2 entertain and they'll send back the fixed discs.

    Anyway, I can watch planet earth or any other documentary I have on blu ray online but I chose to buy the blu ray cuz of the superior video and audio quality you get on blu ray compared to on anything you can get online for free.

    Going back to, if its good, people will pay for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,203 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    They're bitching about it because the Internet has provided people with an easier way to buy, store and watch their content.

    Their efforts to compete have been, frankly, crap. Bluray with restrictions, ads, warnings before you get to see your movie. DRM on downloaded mp3s. Restricting where you can watch content you've bought. No wonder people are turning to downloading this stuff.

    Ireland is a good example - where is the Pandora radio in Ireland? Or Spotify? The Netflix content library is tiny because none of these services can afford to buy the rights.

    The music industries today are like the stagecoach industry in the late 1800s trying to get the nascent car industry shut down. If they don't want to keep pace with the times we live in, they don't have a right to have their stance enshrined in law.


  • #43
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,316 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    If someone doesn't have money, and doesn't buy a CD all year, ah well.

    If the same person downloaded an album, even though the person wouldn't have bought it anyway, the industry sees it as a lost sale.

    IMO, iTunes is a great tool for battling piracy: it allows people to get music quickly, and use it on their devices.

    The same with netflix: people will use it than download the thing they wish to watch.

    =-=

    Oh, and you only see the piracy warnings that you can't skip if you buy the movie. Same goes with the music you buy: you can listen to it on one device, but if you obtain it illegally, you can play it on multiple devices.


  • #44
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    hooradiation wrote: »
    because studios won't fund as many small projects anymore, because of losses due to piracy.

    Source?

    Not an opinion piece now - actual evidence.


  • #45
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    af_thefragile wrote: »
    Its not like they've all become bankrupt and homeless because of megaupload and youtube!

    The film makers are still making millions and billions in some cases through ticket sales at cinemas. Avatar grossed $2.7 billion, the awful 3rd Transformers movie grossed over $1 billion. Music artists are still making millions through ticket sales and concerts and licence fees paid by TV, radio channels etc. and its not like people have stopped buying films and music because we can get it all for free now. People are still buying DVDs and CDs of the films and albums they like. If you just take a walk into HMV this becomes very apparent.

    Then why the hell do these people want to pass stupid legislations which has worldwide implications on the internet and then later go on MTV and show off their huge opulent homes and cars they own while bitching about how online file sharing is making them bankrupt.

    This is completely retarded and just another aspect of USA trying to control the internet which is a global network, not a local american network.

    Sorry if this topic is being beaten to death right now but this really makes no sense! We cannot let the film and music industry get away with this nonsense!

    Well the music industry is a shadow of what it use to be over piracy and you are forgetting the loss of tax revenue to governments. Each piece of media sold in Ireland is charged 23% VAT. So I will speculate that piracy is costing our government at least 50 million that figure is probably a lot more.

    Besides its getting worse, as our BB speed increases and the process has become so easy this is a problem that will get a lot worse. I am new to piracy, I like my films, I have not set foot into extravision in at least 3 months. That is a lot of revenue out of the system.


  • #46
    Mickjg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 100 ✭✭Mickjg


    As a film student, I am well aware of the amount of work and stress that goes into making a film. 10-15 hours days are common. Making a short film can take several months from pre-production to the end of post-production. On feature films this can be anywhere from 1-2 years.

    A lot of people put a lot of work into these films. The only ones making the big money are the leading actors, director and producers. The rest of the crew make much smaller incomes. Also, these people tend to go from job to job rather than being employed by a company on a normal basis like in other industries.

    These people put in tremendous amounts of work and deserve their money. I know I'm not going to be wealthy from the work I do but I do deserve to be paid fairly for the work that I do just like anyone posting on here. If I or anyone I know comes by a way of making a lot of money fairly then why shouldn't they be entitled to it? This sounds like typical Irish begrudgery, being angry with people who have made money. Film makers aren't the same as bankers who may have made money through means that have brought the country and world to it's knees. They are ordinary people who had a dream, reached for it and were fortunate enough to make it.

    Just because you enjoy it doesn't mean it should be free. If you enjoy having a few pints on a Saturday night do you think they should be free just because you enjoy them? No. The bar tender needs to be paid. The person who delivers the beer from the factory needs to be paid. The people working on the factory floor, in the offices and other areas of the production process need to be paid. Thinking otherwise is ridiculous.


  • #47
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,315 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    44leto wrote: »
    Well the music industry is a shadow of what it use to be over piracy and you are forgetting the loss of tax revenue to governments. Each piece of media sold in Ireland is charged 23% VAT. So I will speculate that piracy is costing our government at least 50 million that figure is probably a lot more.

    Besides its getting worse, as our BB speed increases and the process has become so easy this is a problem that will get a lot worse. I am new to piracy, I like my films, I have not set foot into extravision in at least 3 months. That is a lot of revenue out of the system.

    Where does that money go to then? People don't squirrel away money that they would've spent on pirated stuff.


    As was said above, make the product better. Netflix and the like will still be a waste of time for me til they start offering everything at the same time as it's available in America and elsewhere.


  • #48
    Media999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭Media999


    Rumour has it Megaupload were about to launch a record label that gave the stars a huge share of the money unlike iTunes and Universal music etc...

    Thats a lot of Tax shifting to Hong Kong rather than USA. Theres always **** going on in the background that we dont know about.

    Theyll be years going through courts. Dont expect this to end anytime soon.


  • #49
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    44leto wrote: »
    Well the music industry is a shadow of what it use to be over piracy and you are forgetting the loss of tax revenue to governments.

    Efficiency is what that's called in the free market. Downloading an album/movie/pizza from a server costs a fraction of the amount it cost to make and distribute hard copies.

    That's an incredible amount of time and energy saved on production of discs, transporting them, middle men etc.

    It's pure green I tells ya.


  • #50
    Standman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    hooradiation wrote: »
    You fail at reading comprehension, well done.
    It took him three years to put together the money to shoot the movie, because studios won't fund as many small projects anymore, because of losses due to piracy.
    They will fund however, stuff like Jack And Jill because it's a safe bet.

    I know this might be tough to grasp, but the money you think Greg Carter makes has precious fucking little to do with this.


    And to answer your banal question, I've a better one. Why do people think they have the right to view the film he created, or indeed any one, without paying for it?

    I think the simple answer to your question is quite obvious, people like free stuff. I don't think most people who download movies give much thought to it. I'd liken it to people labeling themselves as an "animal lover" and then sitting down to dinner with a lovely roast chicken on the table, the hypocrisy is similar. On top of that you have the attitude of the average person where they see these rich actors, movie producers and corporations and think well fuck that they've got enough money and I could do with saving mine, so that justifies it to them.

    Anyway, my point was that he is being compensated for the work he does. I understand what you are saying is that piracy is apparently killing "edgy, creative movies", although what constitutes "edgy and creative" is completely subjective. Just using the example in the article you posted, "a gritty, urban retelling of 'Romeo and Juliet'". Is that edgy and creative? Maybe it was the first time.

    People complain a lot about the quality of tv shows and movies these days but I think some of the best ever tv and movies have come out in the last decade. You go to the cinema and are bombarded with ads for ****ty movies like Jack and Jill and Mr.Poppers Penguins, these films are being marketed more and seem to be the big money spinners. However, it doesn't mean the great films and t.v. shows aren't there, it just means you have to look for them instead of being spoon-fed.


  • #51
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Media999 wrote: »
    Rumour has it Megaupload were about to launch a record label that gave the stars a huge share of the money unlike iTunes and Universal music etc...

    Linky please?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Underdraft
    Closed Accounts Posts: 323 ✭✭Underdraft


    Mickjg wrote: »
    As a film student, I am well aware of the amount of work and stress that goes into making a film. 10-15 hours days are common. Making a short film can take several months from pre-production to the end of post-production. On feature films this can be anywhere from 1-2 years.

    A lot of people put a lot of work into these films. The only ones making the big money are the leading actors, director and producers. The rest of the crew make much smaller incomes. Also, these people tend to go from job to job rather than being employed by a company on a normal basis like in other industries.

    These people put in tremendous amounts of work and deserve their money. I know I'm not going to be wealthy from the work I do but I do deserve to be paid fairly for the work that I do just like anyone posting on here. If I or anyone I know comes by a way of making a lot of money fairly then why shouldn't they be entitled to it? This sounds like typical Irish begrudgery, being angry with people who have made money. Film makers aren't the same as bankers who may have made money through means that have brought the country and world to it's knees. They are ordinary people who had a dream, reached for it and were fortunate enough to make it.

    Just because you enjoy it doesn't mean it should be free. If you enjoy having a few pints on a Saturday night do you think they should be free just because you enjoy them? No. The bar tender needs to be paid. The person who delivers the beer from the factory needs to be paid. The people working on the factory floor, in the offices and other areas of the production process need to be paid. Thinking otherwise is ridiculous.

    I'm not having a go at you in particular but I don't see why you automatically feel you deserve to be paid for your work? For example I could make the finest typewriters in the world from my garage and try to sell them, but if nobody wants to buy them their value is 0.00. You've chosen a volatile career where at its essence you're producing a product that is not a necessity to human living. It's worthless in real terms and is only priced by whatever discretionary income you can glean out of people for it. If your entire entertainment industry disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't really make any great difference to the world. Basically if the music/cinema industry was destroyed by piracy you'd be out of a job now and have to find work doing something else (just like many in the current climate). It's just market forces and the value of entertainment is currently at an all time low. This is as much due to the fact that thanks to piracy people have finally been able put a real value on what is being produced as it is due to piracy itself.

    Hope that doesn't come across the wrong way anyway. It's fine to follow your dream and all but if nobody wants to finance your dream or will not miss the results of your labour were it not to exist then I'd reckon you'd just have to accept that.


  • #53
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    hooradiation wrote: »
    See, when piracy hit Hollywood, they didn't stop funding blockbusters -- they stopped funding edgy, creative movies. They're going with safer and safer bets.

    From your link.
    Greg Carter spent the last three years scraping together $250,000 to write, direct and produce "A Gangland Love Story," a gritty, urban retelling of "Romeo and Juliet."

    Shouldn't Shakespeare, or at least his descendants, get royalties and profit from this 'creativity'?

    Hilarious.


  • #54
    OctavarIan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭OctavarIan


    Underdraft wrote: »
    You've chosen a volatile career where at its essence you're producing a product that is not a necessity to human living. It's worthless in real terms and is only priced by whatever discretionary income you can glean out of people for it.

    You've just defined 99% of product industries.


  • #55
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    OctavarIan wrote: »
    You've just defined 99% of product industries.

    He has?

    Music and film can be copied essentially for free so the cost of reproduction is zero.

    This is not the same for, say, a car. The metal must be refined and manufactured as is the case with rubber for tyres, cloth for seats, glass for windows, plastics for fascia. Cars have a tangible cost to produce when they're being replicated which gives them real-world value.


  • #56
    ressem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,427 ✭✭✭ressem


    Underdraft wrote: »
    This is as much due to the fact that thanks to piracy people have finally been able put a real value on what is being produced as it is due to piracy itself.

    Hope that doesn't come across the wrong way anyway. It's fine to follow your dream and all but if nobody wants to finance your dream or will not miss the results of your labour were it not to exist then I'd reckon you'd just have to accept that.

    I take it that you are not self employed.
    Many people ask for your services, and if they are reduced, they will complain.
    But when it comes to paying, unless you have an enforceable contract or ongoing requirements some will pull every whine out of their vocabulary to justify not paying today.

    This thread reminds me of this...

    If the content isn't good enough, then there's no need to complain about it's removal from the internet.
    Failing that, creators should be unashamed to follow the advice given to fellow small businesses...
    http://vimeo.com/22053820?utm_source=swissmiss (mild cursing)
    You've chosen a volatile career where at its essence you're producing a product that is not a necessity to human living. It's worthless in real terms and is only priced by whatever discretionary income you can glean out of people for it. If your entire entertainment industry disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't really make any great difference to the world.
    Ugh. We're so sorry for disturbing your precious time on earth with our meaningless, valueless communication and expressions of emotion and experience.
    Personally, I'd value even a radio hosts efforts to compile a playlist with a coherent mood, let alone the music.


  • #57
    Lone Stone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭Lone Stone


    I have never pirated some thing that i would actually pay money for, they dont loose a dime. If anything i might download some thing watch a bit of it then go go buy it or see it in the cinema if i think its good.

    The only thing i hate is that if i want to watch my Favourite tv show, when i want i have to download it and thats a loss of ratings for the show. But thats down to who ever runs the website's of the shows that have their on-line player region locked. So i would download it.

    Anyway i signed up to netflix for my pirating days may be over yarr. But i find this a worry thing, if the Entertainment Industry can take away our freedom of choice some thing is going very very wrong even more so considering its a decision being made in a foreign country that will affect the world.

    Thiis is all part of a stepping stone to privatize the internet and prevent freedom of expression. /tinfoil hat.


  • #58
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Lone Stone wrote: »
    I have never pirated some thing that i would actually pay money for, they dont loose a dime. If anything i might download some thing watch a bit of it then go go buy it or see it in the cinema if i think its good.

    You are the type of valuable customer they should be focusing on instead of trying to freeze frame their failing business model and attempting to curtail freedom on the web.

    No doubt some innovators have learned this and the dinosaurs will die out.


  • #59
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Standman wrote: »
    I think the simple answer to your question is quite obvious, people like free stuff. I don't think most people who download movies give much thought to it. I'd liken it to people labeling themselves as an "animal lover" and then sitting down to dinner with a lovely roast chicken on the table, the hypocrisy is similar. On top of that you have the attitude of the average person where they see these rich actors, movie producers and corporations and think well fuck that they've got enough money and I could do with saving mine, so that justifies it to them.

    Just so we're on the same page, people who pirate are cunts?
    Right
    Awesome
    glad we got this sorted.
    Standman wrote: »
    Anyway, my point was that he is being compensated for the work he does.

    So, if you earn 'enough' money by your nebulous definition of it, then he has no point complaining when people take something he's worked on without bothering to pay for it.
    Explain to me how that actually works, because I find this concept of an arbitrary cut-off point of earning money means that content creators really should just live on our sufferance and that their right to be rewarded for their work is at an end, to be fucking absurd.


    Standman wrote: »
    I understand what you are saying is that piracy is apparently killing "edgy, creative movies", although what constitutes "edgy and creative" is completely subjective. Just using the example in the article you posted, "a gritty, urban retelling of 'Romeo and Juliet'". Is that edgy and creative? Maybe it was the first time.

    And yet people love it by all accounts....Just not enough to actually fucking pay for it.

    Standman wrote: »
    People complain a lot about the quality of tv shows and movies these days but I think some of the best ever tv and movies have come out in the last decade. You go to the cinema and are bombarded with ads for ****ty movies like Jack and Jill and Mr.Poppers Penguins, these films are being marketed more and seem to be the big money spinners. However, it doesn't mean the great films and t.v. shows aren't there, it just means you have to look for them instead of being spoon-fed.

    Yes, that's lovely.
    Has it occurred to you that having to go "look for" great films and TVs is a really suboptimal way to do things?
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    From your link.



    Shouldn't Shakespeare, or at least his descendants, get royalties and profit from this 'creativity'?

    Hilarious.

    Given that Romeo and Juliet is not exactly an original work itself, if you really want to get into it, then no.

    You may return to being an irrelevance.


  • #60
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    What I dont understand is, why dont the movie companies make a megaupload of there own, people are paying for this, I myself have an account with filesonic and I get my TV from that. Why dont these companies make a filesharing program themselves?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    hooradiation wrote: »
    You may return to being an irrelevance.

    Are you getting emotional?

    Prediction.

    I think time will tell who's views will turn out to be irrelevant on this issue, that is, yours.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Source?

    Not an opinion piece now - actual evidence.

    I see you've failed to answer the above so far.


Advertisement