cheers wikipedia!

[DrDawkinstein]

So how does doing what they're doing make them any more moral than the people their hacking? So their stealing from people to give to charity? Yeah, good move.

 

Im not talking about the morality of it. Im saying that they have the ability to do more than "throw a snowball".

[Chef Jim]

Im not talking about the morality of it. Im saying that they have the ability to do more than "throw a snowball".

 

I'm not saying you did say it was moral. I was responding to the links you posted about what they're doing with people's credit cards. I just have a major problem with people protesting what they feel is bad behavior by doing something very illegal. I can't stand hypocrisy.

[DrDawkinstein]

I'm not saying you did say it was moral. I was responding to the links you posted about what they're doing with people's credit cards. I just have a major problem with people protesting what they feel is bad behavior by doing something very illegal. I can't stand hypocrisy.

 

I dont disagree, but the other side of me also appreciates having a check and balance. Especially when it's giving them a taste of their own medicine.

[Chef Jim]

I dont disagree, but the other side of me also appreciates having a check and balance. Especially when it's giving them a taste of their own medicine.

 

Taste of their own medicine?? So these companies are stealing money from people?? Explain to me how they're doing that.

[DrDawkinstein]

Taste of their own medicine?? So these companies are stealing money from people?? Explain to me how they're doing that.

 

Well, I guess it could be perceived that Stratfor, as a security company that billed its clients, didnt really do its job and therefore stole from all of its customers as well.

 

Again, Im not defending the morality of it. Just offering some perspective.

 

Back to the Megaupload thing... http://i.imgur.com/v1hrU.png

Edited January 20, 2012 by DrDareustein

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Well, I guess it could be perceived that Stratfor, as a security company that billed its clients, didnt really do its job and therefore stole from all of its customers as well.

 

Again, Im not defending the morality of it. Just offering some perspective.

 

Back to the Megaupload thing... http://i.imgur.com/v1hrU.png

 

I take it you're a redditor?

[DrDawkinstein]

I take it you're a redditor?

 

not quite, as i think that means id have an actual account. but killing time on a friday waiting for our company lunch, for sure

[CosmicBills]

With regard to "Piracy hurting Artists" vs the fact that it's really just about record labels/movie studios/publishing companies worried about becoming obsolete, it should be pointed out that the CEO of Megaupload is an actual RECORDING ARTIST, Swizz Beatz.

 

A big LOL to this... http://i.imgur.com/TiBxo.png

 

And a bigger lol to the MPAA in this article: Story

 

 

 

Oh, Avatar? You mean the HIGHEST GROSSING MOVIE OF ALL TIME?!?

Piracy DOES hurt artists. If Avatar loses 21 million sales that does more than just impact Fox. But it's only used as an example because it's a movie everyone has heard of. Look at the trend in Hollywood over the past decade -- less movies are made per year, which limits consumer choices at the box office. People on this very board have complained to no end about why Hollywood only makes sequels, remakes, reboots etc ... there's such a thing as cause and effect and piracy is a tremendous threat to the entertainment industry and everyone it employs.

 

Despite that, movies aren't going away -- with or without piracy. There is something about seeing a movie as it was meant to be seen (on a big screen) in a crowded theater that is magical. Comedies are funnier with more people. Scary movies are scarier -- it taps into something innate. It's why people went to the theater in ancient Greece. People will always go to movies. What piracy does is ensure that the movies we'll have to choose from are Transformers 34, Avatar 12, and Spider-man rebooted 1234.

[DrDawkinstein]

Piracy DOES hurt artists. If Avatar loses 21 million sales that does more than just impact Fox. But it's only used as an example because it's a movie everyone has heard of. Look at the trend in Hollywood over the past decade -- less movies are made per year, which limits consumer choices at the box office. People on this very board have complained to no end about why Hollywood only makes sequels, remakes, reboots etc ... there's such a thing as cause and effect and piracy is a tremendous threat to the entertainment industry and everyone it employs.

 

Despite that, movies aren't going away -- with or without piracy. There is something about seeing a movie as it was meant to be seen (on a big screen) in a crowded theater that is magical. Comedies are funnier with more people. Scary movies are scarier -- it taps into something innate. It's why people went to the theater in ancient Greece. People will always go to movies. What piracy does is ensure that the movies we'll have to choose from are Transformers 34, Avatar 12, and Spider-man rebooted 1234.

 

 

isnt this the same argument that was made when the industry freaked out about VHS and cassette tapes?

 

edit: also, im pretty sure there are still thousands of independent/smaller movies being made every year. and they are being played in the same small movie houses, and have even found a way to evolve by embracing the new technology and releasing on the internet or via On-Demand. it seems like you are talking mostly about the large Studios. they are the ones that rehash the same crap and cram it down the consumer's throats since they have the backing money. same way that Nickelback is still getting plenty of radio play. it's not the consumer choosing. it's the studios saying "we're gonna make this crap and youre gonna like it".

 

and now the studios see they are going to become obsolete as it becomes increasingly easier for artists to get their work to the masses. but instead of evolving, they are going to do their best to keep us in their antiquated age.

Edited January 20, 2012 by DrDareustein

[CosmicBills]

isnt this the same argument that was made when the industry freaked out about VHS and cassette tapes?

 

edit: also, im pretty sure there are still thousands of independent/smaller movies being made every year. and they are being played in the same small movie houses, and have even found a way to evolve by embracing the new technology and releasing on the internet or via On-Demand. it seems like you are talking mostly about the large Studios. they are the ones that rehash the same crap and cram it down the consumer's throats since they have the backing money. same way that Nickelback is still getting plenty of radio play. it's not the consumer choosing. it's the studios saying "we're gonna make this crap and youre gonna like it".

 

and now the studios see they are going to become obsolete as it becomes increasingly easier for artists to get their work to the masses. but instead of evolving, they are going to do their best to keep us in their antiquated age.

It's not the same argument. The BetaMax vs VHS argument (which predates my involvement in this industry by a couple of decades) had to more to do with the fact the studios originally thought so little of the home video market they gave artists "too large of a cut" of the profits. Then, when that market exploded, the studios realized they were missing out on millions of dollars and tried to change the game. There wasn't an issue of piracy or theft, people were being paid for their product, it's just the studios screwed up their own deal. This lead to several WGA strikes until the issue was finally resolved.

 

You clearly have no idea how exhibition works in the entertainment industry. There are not "thousands" of independent movies being made and exhibited a year. That's just false. The amount of movies produced each year has dropped across the board in the past 10 years -- studio movies AND indies. There are even less avenues for indie films to find distribution and exhibition because exhibitors aren't going to tie up their screens with Blue Valentine when the DVD is on the street before the movie is even delivered.

 

It has very little to do with the studios cramming it down your throat. It's about RISK. Pirates 4, Dark Knight, Transformers 3 -- they have far less risk for the studio than The Descendants or the Artist. And, since they're big spectacle movies, there's less of a chance of piracy hurting their bottom line (like the Avatar example you used earlier) because these movies are built to be seen on the big screen. But smaller movies that are devoid of a brand or big VFX? Those are riskier because you don't "need" to see those on the big screen. They work on smaller screens.

 

Piracy LIMITS the consumer choice. The loss of profits force the studios to limit the amount of movies they make per year and move that money from riskier, unknown films to more stable, big budget movies. Movies cost millions of dollars to make -- even small ones. They cost double that to market.

 

You're beyond wrong. You have no idea what is really at stake when it comes to this stuff.

[boyst]

what happens when the movie studios release Hamlet? Pride and Prejudice? TinTin? All of these began before copyright yet they can use them and make millions?

 

why does Avatar cost so much money? I know it has a lot of special effects, but ok... Then Dark Knight and Transformers 3 costs a lot...why? The ticket sales support the cost of paying Shia LeBouf millions and millions because he makes them billions. Charlie Sheen is a huge risk yet they keep hiring him in Hollywood. Lindsay Lohan will work again, too. Hollywood takes the risks. If I buy stock in Kodak tomorrow I am taking a risk - if I lose out who is at fault?

 

YouTube does more to promote movies and songs then anyone. The best example I can give is Blazing Saddles. Anyone who's not seen it can watch a few scenes and realize they are missing out. They will watch it.

 

People can argue that NetFlix is proof of failing video rentals. Well, RedBox is easier and cheaper, as well as VOD.

 

Movie companies are not stealing money or even overcharging people. They are overpaying and those that see movies are not capable of supporting movies when the bill of cast cost $200 million and the movie is a Julia Roberts playing a shy girl next door in her 30's trying to find love. Perhaps if Hollywood took some original thoughts and composed them with some fresh faces and new approaches they would take more of a risk but to me it's not business smart to keep beating a dead horse. Who needs to see Meg Ryan fall in love with Tom Hanks again?

 

Should people be allowed to download movies for free? Many disagree but you will never stop piracy. Piracy provides just another option to expose the masses to the media. There is a reason it is thriving.

Edited January 20, 2012 by jboyst62

[Just Jack]

The Most Amusing Images from the SOPA Strike

 

 

Read the full text here: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/114068#ixzz1k1gBcTO2

--brought to you by mental_floss!

[The Poojer]

ding dong SOPA is dead!!!

[CosmicBills]

what happens when the movie studios release Hamlet? Pride and Prejudice? TinTin? All of these began before copyright yet they can use them and make millions?

 

why does Avatar cost so much money? I know it has a lot of special effects, but ok... Then Dark Knight and Transformers 3 costs a lot...why? The ticket sales support the cost of paying Shia LeBouf millions and millions because he makes them billions. Charlie Sheen is a huge risk yet they keep hiring him in Hollywood. Lindsay Lohan will work again, too. Hollywood takes the risks. If I buy stock in Kodak tomorrow I am taking a risk - if I lose out who is at fault?

 

YouTube does more to promote movies and songs then anyone. The best example I can give is Blazing Saddles. Anyone who's not seen it can watch a few scenes and realize they are missing out. They will watch it.

 

People can argue that NetFlix is proof of failing video rentals. Well, RedBox is easier and cheaper, as well as VOD.

 

Movie companies are not stealing money or even overcharging people. They are overpaying and those that see movies are not capable of supporting movies when the bill of cast cost $200 million and the movie is a Julia Roberts playing a shy girl next door in her 30's trying to find love. Perhaps if Hollywood took some original thoughts and composed them with some fresh faces and new approaches they would take more of a risk but to me it's not business smart to keep beating a dead horse. Who needs to see Meg Ryan fall in love with Tom Hanks again?

 

Should people be allowed to download movies for free? Many disagree but you will never stop piracy. Piracy provides just another option to expose the masses to the media. There is a reason it is thriving.

You're not only wrong, you're missing the point.

 

The reason piracy is thriving is because the studios (TV and Movies) have no idea how to monetize the internet. They were too slow to realize the power of the web and stumbled out of the block. They are attempting to course correct right now and as always happens, they're over-correcting. SOPA is a bad bill. It's not going to pass in it's form, but that doesn't mean piracy isn't a problem for the entertainment industry -- not just the studios.

 

Right now, feature films (and TV) make a huge sum of their money from international markets. Countries like Germany and China account for a huge portion of a studio films' profit. Only certain genres translate internationally -- big, SFX driven tent pole movies. American comedies don't translate well, neither do dramas. So you've seen Hollywood shift from these types of movies to the Transformers/Avatars of the world. If they can combine these franchises with a mega star like Johnny Depp (who has made for BILLIONS of dollars for Disney alone), all the better. Stars aren't dummies. They know what they're worth in movies like this, so they have a high price tag. VFX are also expensive. Then there's marketing. If a movie has a budget of 150 million, they're going to spend AT LEAST another 150 million marketing that movie. That's 300 million right there. Once you take out people's back ends, those films need to make close to 700 MILLION just to turn a PROFIT.

 

So if you don't have a script with huge VFX or a mega star attached in a genre that translates internationally, it's going to be impossible to find financing for your picture. Studios won't take the risk to spend hundreds of millions in production, distribution and marketing on a movie unless the risk is low. This thinking, right or wrong, has KILLED the medium sized movie (40-60 million dollar movies). In today's world, films like Casablanca, Double Indemnity, American Beauty, Shawshank Redemption would never get made.

 

Hollywood takes ALL the risk. Which makes your Kodak example silly. They're not claiming they don't take risks when they make a movie. Studios used to make 100 movies a year. They'd have medium to large budgets and hope for 5 of those movies to be hits to cover whatever loses they took on the other films. Today, that number has been cut in half. Studios make less movies, putting more eggs into less baskets. This has a ripple effect throughout the industry. With less movies being made there's less work for above and below the line people. With less movies being made, there's less creativity. With less movies being made, the consumers are given fewer choices.

 

You want more creativity and more choices? You need TALENT to do that. Piracy cuts into a studio's profits and the first thing a studio does to correct that is take opportunity away from their talent (actors, writers, directors) and giving those opportunities to the established stars who they know can make a dent on the international market.

 

Piracy is stealing. It's that simple. It's no different than walking into a store and taking a candy bar off the shelf and not paying for it. It may seem inconsequential, but it's a product that cost money to make.

[Chef Jim]

Piracy DOES hurt artists. If Avatar loses 21 million sales that does more than just impact Fox. But it's only used as an example because it's a movie everyone has heard of. Look at the trend in Hollywood over the past decade -- less movies are made per year, which limits consumer choices at the box office. People on this very board have complained to no end about why Hollywood only makes sequels, remakes, reboots etc ... there's such a thing as cause and effect and piracy is a tremendous threat to the entertainment industry and everyone it employs.

 

Despite that, movies aren't going away -- with or without piracy. There is something about seeing a movie as it was meant to be seen (on a big screen) in a crowded theater that is magical. Comedies are funnier with more people. Scary movies are scarier -- it taps into something innate. It's why people went to the theater in ancient Greece. People will always go to movies. What piracy does is ensure that the movies we'll have to choose from are Transformers 34, Avatar 12, and Spider-man rebooted 1234.

 

I haven't set foot in a movie theater in over 5 years. Maybe I need to go back.

[CosmicBills]

I haven't set foot in a movie theater in over 5 years. Maybe I need to go back.

I don't blame you ... and I'm not trying to defend the studio's blindly here. They bear a share of the blame for being too slow to adjust to the threat they're facing from the internet (not just piracy). Nor do I support SOPA as it's currently constructed. But the fact remains that piracy is NOT a harmless crime. It has ramifications far beyond taking a few pennies from the studio's coffers. It impacts the consumer as much as it impacts the artists.

[DrDawkinstein]

It's not the same argument. The BetaMax vs VHS argument (which predates my involvement in this industry by a couple of decades) had to more to do with the fact the studios originally thought so little of the home video market they gave artists "too large of a cut" of the profits. Then, when that market exploded, the studios realized they were missing out on millions of dollars and tried to change the game. There wasn't an issue of piracy or theft, people were being paid for their product, it's just the studios screwed up their own deal. This lead to several WGA strikes until the issue was finally resolved.

 

Wasnt an issue with piracy or theft?!? Then why did Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA, appear before Congress in 1982 and tell them:

"...the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

 

"This is more than a tidal wave. It is more than an avalanche. It is here. Now, that is where the problem is...We are going to bleed and bleed and hemorrhage, unless this Congress at least protects one industry that is able to retrieve a surplus balance of trade and whose total future depends on its protection from the savagery and the ravages of this machine."

Link to Testimony

 

Puh-leeze

 

You clearly have no idea how exhibition works in the entertainment industry. There are not "thousands" of independent movies being made and exhibited a year. That's just false. The amount of movies produced each year has dropped across the board in the past 10 years -- studio movies AND indies. There are even less avenues for indie films to find distribution and exhibition because exhibitors aren't going to tie up their screens with Blue Valentine when the DVD is on the street before the movie is even delivered.

 

It has very little to do with the studios cramming it down your throat. It's about RISK. Pirates 4, Dark Knight, Transformers 3 -- they have far less risk for the studio than The Descendants or the Artist. And, since they're big spectacle movies, there's less of a chance of piracy hurting their bottom line (like the Avatar example you used earlier) because these movies are built to be seen on the big screen. But smaller movies that are devoid of a brand or big VFX? Those are riskier because you don't "need" to see those on the big screen. They work on smaller screens.

 

Piracy LIMITS the consumer choice. The loss of profits force the studios to limit the amount of movies they make per year and move that money from riskier, unknown films to more stable, big budget movies. Movies cost millions of dollars to make -- even small ones. They cost double that to market.

 

You're beyond wrong. You have no idea what is really at stake when it comes to this stuff.

 

And my point is that movies will continue to be made and distributed, but the business of doing such will no longer require the Studios to act as the middle man.

 

Industries constantly evolve. And more often than not, it is to cut out a middleman in order to reduce costs and increase profits.

 

The Studios know that they are the last middleman remaining and are scared because they have no idea how to adapt. They are stuck in the drak ages which they created.

 

YOU as a writer will still have work. People will still make movies and make money off of them. People will still watch movies and pay to do so. They just wont need the Studios to broker it.

 

I don't blame you ... and I'm not trying to defend the studio's blindly here. They bear a share of the blame for being too slow to adjust to the threat they're facing from the internet (not just piracy). Nor do I support SOPA as it's currently constructed. But the fact remains that piracy is NOT a harmless crime. It has ramifications far beyond taking a few pennies from the studio's coffers. It impacts the consumer as much as it impacts the artists.

 

I am in no way trying to say that piracy is a harmless crime. It totally harms the Studios, and therefore the artists, under the current business model.

 

What I AM saying is that the artists are finding they no longer NEED the Studios, and all this SOPA crap, and MPAA/RIAA lawsuits are because the Studios dont know how to adapt, and are quickly becoming obsolete. They are standing in the way of progress because the Studios alone stand to lose millions for doing nothing other than fronting the money.

[CosmicBills]

Wasnt an issue with piracy or theft?!? Then why did Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA, appear before Congress in 1982 and tell them:

 

Link to Testimony

 

Puh-leeze

 

 

 

And my point is that movies will continue to be made and distributed, but the business of doing such will no longer require the Studios to act as the middle man.

 

Industries constantly evolve. And more often than not, it is to cut out a middleman in order to reduce costs and increase profits.

 

The Studios know that they are the last middleman remaining and are scared because they have no idea how to adapt. They are stuck in the drak ages which they created.

 

YOU as a writer will still have work. People will still make movies and make money off of them. People will still watch movies and pay to do so. They just wont need the Studios to broker it.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

The studios are NOT middle men. Studios produce the product. Studios distribute the product. They are not middle men. You cannot get your movie exhibited without a studio being attached in some way unless you plan on exhibiting it yourself on the net. You won't get a release in a theater. You won't get any exhibition on TV or VOD without a studio.

 

If studios disappeared tomorrow, there would not be a sudden renaissance of feature films. To think otherwise is insane. Do you realize how expensive it is to make a movie? Even a cheap one? Even Clerks cost over 40k to make and without Miramax Kevin Smith would never have seen a dime of that back.

[Chef Jim]

I don't blame you ... and I'm not trying to defend the studio's blindly here. They bear a share of the blame for being too slow to adjust to the threat they're facing from the internet (not just piracy). Nor do I support SOPA as it's currently constructed. But the fact remains that piracy is NOT a harmless crime. It has ramifications far beyond taking a few pennies from the studio's coffers. It impacts the consumer as much as it impacts the artists.

 

Oh I'm not watching movies at home or pirated on line either.

[DrDawkinstein]

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

The studios are NOT middle men. Studios produce the product. Studios distribute the product. They are not middle men. You cannot get your movie exhibited without a studio being attached in some way unless you plan on exhibiting it yourself on the net. You won't get a release in a theater. You won't get any exhibition on TV or VOD without a studio.

 

If studios disappeared tomorrow, there would not be a sudden renaissance of feature films. To think otherwise is insane. Do you realize how expensive it is to make a movie? Even a cheap one? Even Clerks cost over 40k to make and without Miramax Kevin Smith would never have seen a dime of that back.

 

Well, it looks like we have nothing to say but "Disagree". You say I have no idea what Im talking about. I see you as a pawn for the Studios since they sign your check. Only time will tell, but you've already agreed with the fact that the Studios blew it by not figuring out how to adjust.

 

I do think that the artists should be able to profit from their product, and people shouldnt steal from them. I just think they would have an easier time doing so if it wasnt for the studios.

 

I guess we're on opposite sides of the chicken/egg argument since I dont believe artists need studios and record labels nearly as much anymore. And that will soon be not at all.

 

As a footnote, here are a couple of successful artists talking about how the MPAA and Large Studios screw the small studios and independent film makers.

 

http://thechive.com/2011/03/22/trey-parker-and-matt-stone-discuss-why-the-mpaa-is-bulls-these-are-my-heroes-video/

Edited January 20, 2012 by DrDareustein