Malcolm
Grimlock
Wanted something done about the color of his ring.
Eternally Confused
Posts: 13,481
|
Post by Malcolm on Sept 20, 2014 1:17:46 GMT -5
Also I believe piracy is great, and I have hundreds of games on steam(I don't watch movies so much), even if some abuse it, I don't want to live in a world where people have less access to knowledge of any kind just because they're poor. ($2.73 into Magic's checking account) Yes. What a cruel world where not everyone can access the video games they so desperately need to live a meaningful life. It's madness! Piracy is a double edged sword. Yes, it can be used for stealing, but it's also a great way to preserve games, movies, DLC, magazine scans, and other whatnots that could otherwise end up becoming either rare or lost forever.
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Sept 20, 2014 1:38:35 GMT -5
This is a much better solution than finding the guy that leaked it. Well played.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,079
|
Post by Mozenrath on Sept 20, 2014 3:45:28 GMT -5
The next one, the gang must conquer competitive eating, recruiting Kobayashi, Ryback, and more. The series will be renamed "The Expandables".
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hawkfield no1 NZ poster on Sept 20, 2014 3:56:40 GMT -5
LOL good luck with that one.
I really wish actors/producers would stop tying to scapegoat pricey as excuse for a shitty film that did badly at box office because it was shitty film.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Sept 20, 2014 11:59:33 GMT -5
I believe there was a report stating that, had those who pirated the film paid to see it, "The Expendables III" would've only grossed an extra $4 million. If this is true, then piracy can't be blamed for its low box-office gross. Series fatigue & the PG-13 rating scaring fans away are to blame.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 20, 2014 12:22:51 GMT -5
"Budget $90 million Box office $189.6 million" So making 100 million dollar is not enough? Also I believe piracy is great, and I have hundreds of games on steam(I don't watch movies so much), even if some abuse it, I don't want to live in a world where people have less access to knowledge of any kind just because they're poor. Yeah, they didn't make nearly 100 million on it. They probably lost money on it, since, well, the studio doesn't exactly take 100% of the box office gross.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,970
|
Post by chazraps on Sept 20, 2014 12:28:59 GMT -5
($2.73 into Magic's checking account) Yes. What a cruel world where not everyone can access the video games they so desperately need to live a meaningful life. It's madness! It's not just about video games, I just wanted to point out that I don't really do that, but I believe having access to a plethora of medias is a great way to learn, discover and become an overall better person, because knowledge is power! How about paying people who worked hard to create something? You have more access to anything ever thanks to the internet, and thus, you have more access to reimburse the people who create the things that make your life worthwhile and bring you think "knowledge." Your posts seem to be coming from a weird sense of entitlement.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,589
|
Post by khali on Sept 20, 2014 13:08:19 GMT -5
I know this isn't a popular opinion, but piracy sucks and people shouldn't take part in it. It's easy to dismiss it in this case since it's a big studio but look at it from a smaller group's perspective and it's a lot different.
There's a guy on YouTube that makes great informative videos for FREE. He's talked about he researches and works on the videos for about a month each. He makes money off the ads before the video. People then upload this already free video to their channel, and now he gets no money for the thousands that may view his video elsewhere.
If you wanted to subscribe to the Wrestling Observer newsletter but it was posted in full on this board, you wouldn't pay money to get it. And if enough people interested read it for free instead of paying for it, it eventually wouldn't exist.
All creative content cannot be free. For one thing, if the financial gains for creating content are lessened, there is less incentive to create something. And in the case of movies in particular, if significantly less people are willing to pay for it, producers will be less likely to put a lot of money into a film project.
With the internet, we have more access to free and legal information/content than ever before. But if someone says "I've put a lot of time and work to complete this, so I think you should pay ____ dollars for it" and you say "nope, I'm gonna take it for free," that's just wrong.
|
|
jagilki
Patti Mayonnaise
Nobody notices him; No, we noticed him
f*** Cancer
Posts: 33,594
|
Post by jagilki on Sept 20, 2014 13:39:37 GMT -5
Hmmm. this gives me an idea.
Make a crappy movie.
"leak" movie to internet.
Sue EVERYBODY in the world
? ? ?
Profit.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 20, 2014 13:41:28 GMT -5
I wouldn't even pirate The Expendables. There are just movies that look so crap, they aren't even worth watching for free.
|
|
543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Sept 20, 2014 13:43:37 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 13:51:50 GMT -5
How about paying people who worked hard to create something? You have more access to anything ever thanks to the internet, and thus, you have more access to reimburse the people who create the things that make your life worthwhile and bring you think "knowledge." Your posts seem to be coming from a weird sense of entitlement. On the flipside, just because someone works hard on something doesn't mean that they automatically deserve to be rewarded if what they worked hard on still isn't considered to be good (and yes, I recognize that 'good' is a highly subjective term). Students tell teachers all the the time that they deserve an A on an assignment simply because they tried hard. I don't doubt that the piracy of the film hurt its box office to some degree (and how would one go about proving damages when that assumes that every person out of 10 million people had the film not been pirated would have actually paid for it in theatres overdetermines any notion of the motive of piracy), but this sounds more like the people behind the film trying to wring out every dollar they can on a flick that performed lower than expected. The brutality of the corporate capitalist logic in which we find ourselves today is that if you want to compete with free (say, piracy), you have to make a better product for which people are willing to pay. Shifting more and more financial risk to consumers only serves to alienate them further. You're right that just because someone worked hard doesn't mean we owe them anything, and honestly I'm sure that if piracy didn't exist the Expendables 3 would still tank, it's essentially the Hollywood version of WCW's twilight years. But I don't think that really justifies stealing it. If you really believe the movie's not worth money, you contradict yourself by giving it your time.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 20, 2014 13:55:06 GMT -5
How about paying people who worked hard to create something? You have more access to anything ever thanks to the internet, and thus, you have more access to reimburse the people who create the things that make your life worthwhile and bring you think "knowledge." Your posts seem to be coming from a weird sense of entitlement. On the flipside, just because someone works hard on something doesn't mean that they automatically deserve to be rewarded if what they worked hard on still isn't considered to be good (and yes, I recognize that 'good' is a highly subjective term). Students tell teachers all the the time that they deserve an A on an assignment simply because they tried hard. I don't doubt that the piracy of the film hurt its box office to some degree (and how would one go about proving damages when that assumes that every person out of 10 million people had the film not been pirated would have actually paid for it in theatres overdetermines any notion of the motive of piracy), but this sounds more like the people behind the film trying to wring out every dollar they can on a flick that performed lower than expected. The brutality of the corporate capitalist logic in which we find ourselves today is that if you want to compete with free (say, piracy), you have to make a better product for which people are willing to pay. Shifting more and more financial risk to consumers only serves to alienate them further. It's not really a flip side though, because you're talking about something different. Your point doesn't work as a defense of piracy, it's a defense of free-market economics, which was already the natural state. If someone produces something and it's not good, then people have the option to not buy or view it. No one is saying every creative endeavor deserves compensation. But piracy doesn't abide by that notion, it abides by the notion that everyone deserves access to everything for free, and creators are just greedy if they want compensation for their work. The second argument is right as well, but ultimately, not really relevant. Whether a person would have seen something in theaters at a certain cost doesn't matter as much as the fact that they still saw it. I know those who defend piracy shrink at the comparison because we're talking physical vs. intellectual goods (despite the fact that the movie is the result of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of physical work put together), but if someone shoplifts an item, if they are required to pay for it, they're required to pay what the store priced the item at and not what the would have been willing to pay. The real issue in regards to the compensation question isn't whether they should have to pay the cost of a item (in this case a ticket price), because that's already understood. It's whether it's appropriate to add punitive fees to that and, if so, how much. The fact that the movie was doomed to be a festering pile of garbage doesn't decrease the cost of consuming it legally. The only real caveat I see to piracy, beyond those situations where a content creator is fine with their work being distributed without their knowledge, is for those who listen/watch and then go buy it. But I'd wager that we're dealing with a fairly small percent in that case.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,589
|
Post by khali on Sept 20, 2014 14:39:18 GMT -5
On the flipside, just because someone works hard on something doesn't mean that they automatically deserve to be rewarded if what they worked hard on still isn't considered to be good (and yes, I recognize that 'good' is a highly subjective term). Students tell teachers all the the time that they deserve an A on an assignment simply because they tried hard. I don't doubt that the piracy of the film hurt its box office to some degree (and how would one go about proving damages when that assumes that every person out of 10 million people had the film not been pirated would have actually paid for it in theatres overdetermines any notion of the motive of piracy), but this sounds more like the people behind the film trying to wring out every dollar they can on a flick that performed lower than expected. The brutality of the corporate capitalist logic in which we find ourselves today is that if you want to compete with free (say, piracy), you have to make a better product for which people are willing to pay. Shifting more and more financial risk to consumers only serves to alienate them further. It's not really a flip side though, because you're talking about something different. Your point doesn't work as a defense of piracy, it's a defense of free-market economics, which was already the natural state. If someone produces something and it's not good, then people have the option to not buy or view it. No one is saying every creative endeavor deserves compensation. But piracy doesn't abide by that notion, it abides by the notion that everyone deserves access to everything for free, and creators are just greedy if they want compensation for their work. The second argument is right as well, but ultimately, not really relevant. Whether a person would have seen something in theaters at a certain cost doesn't matter as much as the fact that they still saw it. I know those who defend piracy shrink at the comparison because we're talking physical vs. intellectual goods (despite the fact that the movie is the result of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of physical work put together), but if someone shoplifts an item, if they are required to pay for it, they're required to pay what the store priced the item at and not what the would have been willing to pay. The real issue in regards to the compensation question isn't whether they should have to pay the cost of a item (in this case a ticket price), because that's already understood. It's whether it's appropriate to add punitive fees to that and, if so, how much. The fact that the movie was doomed to be a festering pile of garbage doesn't decrease the cost of consuming it legally. The only real caveat I see to piracy, beyond those situations where a content creator is fine with their work being distributed without their knowledge, is for those who listen/watch and then go buy it. But I'd wager that we're dealing with a fairly small percent in that case. This is 100% accurate. If a person decides to sell a movie, song etc at a certain price and you decide to take it without paying, that is stealing. Just as with any physical item in a store, you don't have to buy it. But if they require you to pay to have it, then it is illegal if you don't pay.
|
|
|
Post by captaincheapshot on Sept 20, 2014 15:07:05 GMT -5
This is a reenactment of what happened:
|
|
xCompackx
Wade Wilson
Posts: 27,258
Member is Online
|
Post by xCompackx on Sept 20, 2014 15:28:54 GMT -5
It's not really a flip side though, because you're talking about something different. Your point doesn't work as a defense of piracy, it's a defense of free-market economics, which was already the natural state. If someone produces something and it's not good, then people have the option to not buy or view it. No one is saying every creative endeavor deserves compensation. But piracy doesn't abide by that notion, it abides by the notion that everyone deserves access to everything for free, and creators are just greedy if they want compensation for their work. The second argument is right as well, but ultimately, not really relevant. Whether a person would have seen something in theaters at a certain cost doesn't matter as much as the fact that they still saw it. I know those who defend piracy shrink at the comparison because we're talking physical vs. intellectual goods (despite the fact that the movie is the result of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of physical work put together), but if someone shoplifts an item, if they are required to pay for it, they're required to pay what the store priced the item at and not what the would have been willing to pay. The real issue in regards to the compensation question isn't whether they should have to pay the cost of a item (in this case a ticket price), because that's already understood. It's whether it's appropriate to add punitive fees to that and, if so, how much. The fact that the movie was doomed to be a festering pile of garbage doesn't decrease the cost of consuming it legally. The only real caveat I see to piracy, beyond those situations where a content creator is fine with their work being distributed without their knowledge, is for those who listen/watch and then go buy it. But I'd wager that we're dealing with a fairly small percent in that case. This is 100% accurate. If a person decides to sell a movie, song etc at a certain price and you decide to take it without paying, that is stealing. Just as with any physical item in a store, you don't have to buy it. But if they require you to pay to have it, then it is illegal if you don't pay. It's not really that cut-and-dry, though. I could go to my local library and check out pretty much any movie or album I'd want and I don't have to pay for it. Is that stealing? Music especially is a sticky issue since you could go on YouTube and listen to whatever you want without paying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 15:48:31 GMT -5
But, in seriousness, why go through all that trouble in lawsuits over loss of revenue? I mean, if you're just gonna do dumb explosions, stick to dumb explosions instead of trying to develop a story.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,589
|
Post by khali on Sept 20, 2014 15:58:08 GMT -5
This is 100% accurate. If a person decides to sell a movie, song etc at a certain price and you decide to take it without paying, that is stealing. Just as with any physical item in a store, you don't have to buy it. But if they require you to pay to have it, then it is illegal if you don't pay. It's not really that cut-and-dry, though. I could go to my local library and check out pretty much any movie or album I'd want and I don't have to pay for it. Is that stealing? Music especially is a sticky issue since you could go on YouTube and listen to whatever you want without paying. The library is one example where you're right in that most wouldn't consider it piracy. But most cases are cut and dry, like in this Expendables situation. If you download something for free that is only available legally by paying for it, there is no grey area there. The funny thing about music on YouTube is the "disclaimers" people put on their videos that they think we legally protect them. Just putting "no copyright intended" or pasting the fair use doctrine doesn't make it legally okay. I understand companies pulling songs off YouTube, as it probably hurts sales.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 20, 2014 16:09:17 GMT -5
It's not really that cut-and-dry, though. I could go to my local library and check out pretty much any movie or album I'd want and I don't have to pay for it. Is that stealing? Music especially is a sticky issue since you could go on YouTube and listen to whatever you want without paying. Libraries (and radio stations) pay for the rights to be able to distribute it, so there's not really a gray area there. Youtube is the same way, certain channels have the right to broadcast songs. Generally, those that aren't authorized are the ones taken down.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,970
|
Post by chazraps on Sept 20, 2014 16:22:18 GMT -5
How about paying people who worked hard to create something? You have more access to anything ever thanks to the internet, and thus, you have more access to reimburse the people who create the things that make your life worthwhile and bring you think "knowledge." Your posts seem to be coming from a weird sense of entitlement. On the flipside, just because someone works hard on something doesn't mean that they automatically deserve to be rewarded if what they worked hard on still isn't considered to be good (and yes, I recognize that 'good' is a highly subjective term). Students tell teachers all the the time that they deserve an A on an assignment simply because they tried hard. I don't doubt that the piracy of the film hurt its box office to some degree (and how would one go about proving damages when that assumes that every person out of 10 million people had the film not been pirated would have actually paid for it in theatres overdetermines any notion of the motive of piracy), but this sounds more like the people behind the film trying to wring out every dollar they can on a flick that performed lower than expected. The brutality of the corporate capitalist logic in which we find ourselves today is that if you want to compete with free (say, piracy), you have to make a better product for which people are willing to pay. Shifting more and more financial risk to consumers only serves to alienate them further. You're kind of missing the point that if someone is selling their art for a set price, and you take it without their consent, it's stealing. Whether you liked it or not doesn't matter. Besides, we live in a world where if people can get something for free, they'll take it.
|
|