|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' Leaked Online
|
|
|
|
|
Janusz Antkiewicz
Film Handler
Posts: 40
From: Wroclaw, Dolny Slask, Poland
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 04-16-2009 12:03 PM
Please, let's not make it a discussion about grammar/linguistic(al?) mistakes because I admit there are plenty of them in my posts. However much I care about everything I write (in both grammatical and ideological sense ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) I know there's a lot to be learnt. If you come across any mistake (and I'm especially interested in phrases/idioms like "to have law at one's back" instead of "to have law behind one's back" which is direct translation of the same phrase) fell free to let me know. I'd really appreciate that.
quote: Chad Souder
Thus far, you've alluded to these devil's advocate stances, but you have not plainly stated you believe them. I am just looking for clarification.
I'm sorry but I'm not gonna do that. I would somehow feel that I'm going back on my words-I'm sure that there would be those who would pick that up and we would find ourselves off such a vital topic. Thanks for actually reading what I wrote.
However I'd be happy to clarify my ideas. Like this one: quote: Mike Blakesley
ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL meaning "AGAINST THE LAW" meaning it's a CRIME and if you do it, you are a THIEF.
I haven't written that downloading stuff (for lack of a better word let me by "stuff" mean movies, music, programmes, books etc.) is legal because it's not (actually if words like "the Intenet", "download" and "music"/"movies"/"programmes" are used near each other they are more than often accompanied by "illegal(ly")). That's how law states. Period. But bearing that in mind, I allow myself to think that generally law is not perfect. (Actually it sometimes can be so far from perfection that we think to ourselves: "What kind of !@#$% came up with that regulation! I'd do so much better than that!.) There may be cases where some regulations can be interpreted quite differently and at times act in favour of something (someone) that in light of facts (not opinions!) should be punished.
So I wonder is it not the case with downloading stuff? And I ask myself these controversial questions: Can something good come from something bad? Can downloading illegal stuff be considered OK (though still not in line with the existing law) in some cases? If I know that a downloaded (and watched) movie helped somebody (Can you can think of any such situation?) would it be fair for me (in other words: Do I have a moral right?) to condemn this person knowing that I'm no angel in other aspects of life?
Is there a way to improve the law?
Some question from different angle; that how Chad put it: quote: Chad Souder
Are you saying that after illegally downloading a movie, that person is more likely to either go buy a ticket or buy the same movie on DVD?
That's a bold one Is it even remotely possible that a person download illegal stuff and then actually buys a legal version? Have anyone tried estimating how many such peope are out there? Is it at all measurable? You're right to say that common sense tells you it's rather improbable but still not impossible to find many of such people. But, like I previously claimed, the economy is, by it's sole idea, something uncontrollable since you cannot govern certain variables (for example consumer moods i.e. are they going to buy a particular good or not).
These all are broad statements; fundamentals to think over and have a discussion about.
That sort of thing I had originally in mind: quote: Carl Martin
stealing is not necessarily stealing. there are different senses of the word. if i steal your shoe you don't have it anymore. if i steal your idea you probably still have it. if i steal your girlfriend you don't have her anymore but the law has nothing to say about it.
Instead of saying "stealing is bad" Carl choose to look at the word and its meaning from different side.
I'd give more hardcore example: You are drawn to a caption in your local newspaper: "A women murdered a men!" Now all sorts of emotion come to you; you're appaled that such an act have been done by one person to another; you're angry and maybe frightened that the murder took place in your vicinity; you want a quick trial and a punishment so hard that she would never actually have a chance to be close to you and the ones you love. Then you decide to read more. It turns out the men from the title was a husband of a murderess. The sort of that had no problem with abusing her phisically and mentally. Police, though they had previously been informed of his behaviour, decided to do nothing.
Now, it's sure is a crime. Probably the most appaling thing one person can do to another. But how many of you would go to her and say: "You did the right thing."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Slycord
Film God
Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 04-16-2009 03:20 PM
quote: Janusz Antkiewicz
You know what bothers me: the fact that we (as humankind) are able to set foot on the Moon but we (and I mean large powerful companies) fail miserably trying to come up with an idea to put an end to piracy? Come on, there are so many computer/technology geeks around the world; we're so technically advanced so where's the problem?
It bothers me more that this is considered a reasonable argument.
But I'll bite:
How many people actively try to circumvent anti-piracy methods? It's at least hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. Now how many people actively try to circumvent our ability to land on the moon? Not very many; I'd say it's close to 0. In fact, I'd say even terrorists don't really care about the astronauts and aren't focusing on stopping them.
Also, for us to succeed in landing on the moon it only really needed to be done once. Once we do it, we could forever say "we did it." But if we make an anti-piracy method, it has to work repeatedly over many, many trials.
And since you ask "since we're so technically advanced, where's the problem?" The problem is that EVERYONE is technically advanced... not just the people making anti-piracy technology. If the people working against the anti-piracy technology were all a bunch of idiots with no understanding of computers, you'd have a point. But since there are "computer geeks throughout the world" working against the technology, your point fails.
This analogy fails big-time.
And to take your analogy further,
We were able to go to the moon but unable to cure cancer. We have lots of doctors/pathologists throughout the world. Where's the problem?
Obviously, the problem is that "curing cancer" and "removing all forms of piracy" is a lot harder than you might've thought.
Or we can fly to the moon and not cure HIV/AIDS. Now what's the problem? Well, the moon doesn't mutate into forms that make it impossible to fly to whereas HIV mutates a lot.
[ 04-16-2009, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Chris Slycord ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-17-2009 07:35 AM
I just came to this thread this morning and am on my third cup of coffee to get to page six, and my thinking as I am reading is, "Lawdy lawd, they've all gone crazy."
That aside, my only comment would be that I think a person could have his own ethical stance regardless of the law, as in, I want to download this particular movie because, as in this case, I am very interested in the movie from the get-go and being able to see a rough cut is enticing, but not exclusive of my wanting to to do what I planned on doing in the first place, i.e., paying the ticket price and seeing in the theatre. I KNOW my downloading it will not change that. Indeed, it may very well motivate me to want to see it all the more, so PERSONALLY, I know I am not stealing anyone's intellectual property....they are gonna get my money (and it seems that money is all this argument hinges on...i.e., who's getting ripped off by the action of someone downloading an unauthorized copy). This doesn't, however, stop me from being labeled "thief" and I will be the first to admit that because technically, that is correct -- I am a statutory thief. And it doesn't bother me. I would also ponder whether my action would in some way encourage more piracy and that would make a BIG difference, but since I am not paying anyone for this illegal download, that would be unlikely. BUYING a bootleg DVD would finance bootlegging and that would be a totally different set of ramifications. But my personal act of downloading this particular title, no. Thievry, it is by definition; unethical on my part, no. I think that is where this argument got entangled.
For me, this kind of statutory breaking the law would be the same as if I am driving on an open road country road at 3am and I come to a stoplight and I can see in all directions that there are no other cars as far as the eye can see; do I stop and wait for an dumb stop signal to turn green to tell me I can go, or do I use my reason to determine that it is perfectly safe to proceed, regardless of what the inanimate device says. If I ignore the red light, sure, I am breaking a law. Am I uncomfortable with that? No. In fact, I would be VERY uncomfortable thinking that I made my own powers of reason and deduction subservient to a mechanical device. It would be a act against humanity.
Uh-oh, what is it about this thread.....now I am going crazy too. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-17-2009 11:15 AM
Excellent post, Frank. I think the thing that puts the wind into Janusz’s sails is that the copyright protectors have gone a bit overboard in trying to claim “damage” for the slightest infraction.
Example: I made a silly monster movie with my friend and his kids. We made it even goofier by using music and sound effects from Hollywood movies. We put it on YouTube and, presto! A few months later it was flagged for copyright violation for a 30-second clip of music from Outland. How in the world did we hurt the copyright holder? If anything, we were bringing more publicity to Outland than it’s received in decades! And I doubt anyone would say, “Oh, good. Now I don’t have to buy that soundtrack CD myself because I can get this 30-second clip of music from YouTube!”
So we took it off of YouTube and now we just enjoy our “illegal infringement” in the privacy of our own homes. I didn’t want to “appeal” the issue to the powers-that-be at YouTube (but, yes, there appears to be a process for that). And that’s another point. Those who engage in “civil disobedience” have to be willing to be arrested for what they do. I’m not. I quickly surrendered based on a simple warning. But I still thought it was unfair and I wasn’t hurting anyone. If anything, I was helping the copyright holders.
Some people in Hollywood “get it.” You’ll find countless tributes to Star Wars or Star Trek on YouTube using pictures, sound effects and music from the copyrighted material. And some copyright holders realize that this kind of derivative, fan appreciation is a good thing.
Meanwhile, I oppose the unauthorized distribution of a Wolverine work print online. But make no mistake. The blame for this goes squarely on the people who were responsible for the movie in the first place. They were in charge of keeping it secure. If the people who downloaded it and then sent it to their friends are punished more than the real culprits, then this is the end of civilization! …or something like that.
And I just had another thought. What's the difference between letting your friend into your theatre to see a movie for free and giving him an official pass to do so? What if there's no rule to limit the number of passes you can give out? What if there is a limit but you never reach it? Lots of people see movies without paying to see them... sometimes at your theatre with your knowledge! But they aren't theives because "it's who you know." Either way, the studio lost money.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anslem Rayburn
Master Film Handler
Posts: 476
From: Yuma, AZ, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 04-17-2009 12:32 PM
quote: Frank Angel
Indeed, it may very well motivate me to want to see it all the more, so PERSONALLY, I know I am not stealing anyone's intellectual property....they are gonna get my money (and it seems that money is all this argument hinges on...i.e., who's getting ripped off by the action of someone downloading an unauthorized copy).
We fundamentally disagree. You have no right to see the film in its present state. You ARE stealing someone's intellectual property. Money is not the only factor, the factor is ownership. The people at Fox could decide to give a free copy of "Wolverine" to every man, woman, and child on planet Earth and it doesn't change the fact that they were ripped off.
quote: Greg Anderson
And I just had another thought. What's the difference between letting your friend into your theatre to see a movie for free and giving him an official pass to do so? What if there's no rule to limit the number of passes you can give out? What if there is a limit but you never reach it? Lots of people see movies without paying to see them... sometimes at your theatre with your knowledge! But they aren't theives because "it's who you know." Either way, the studio lost money.
The difference is the method. There are proper ways to do things, and improper ways to do things. I am authorized by the theater owner to issue passes, and that is in agreement with the studios. Their is a limit, though I have never reached it. Sometimes the studio says we may not issue said passes, and we honor that. People do not simply take whatever they want, whenever they want.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janusz Antkiewicz
Film Handler
Posts: 40
From: Wroclaw, Dolny Slask, Poland
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 04-17-2009 12:32 PM
Chris,
First of all: quote: Chris Slycord
The problem is that EVERYONE is technically advanced... not just the people making anti-piracy technology.
That would somehow imply that there's kind of balance of power between the two opponents (here we have clearly defined adversaries)-the idea that doesn't necessarily appeal to me. It seems the entertainment industry (allow me to use this broad term to include various people connected with music/film as well as companies e.g. distributors) has a lot more resources (both creative and financial ones) than illegal downloaders (also those who share it, burn it on DVDs etc.). However the first ones are probably outnumbered. There's really nothing the rest of the people (that is those who aren't part of any of these two groups) can do to prevent the illegal activities other than preach and reason with them.
Second, treating illegal downloading as an incurable disease in terms of our technical advancement and our effort in putting an end to them is not fair, however good it might at first appear. (As far as I know there's a cure that helps in some cases of cancer e.g. breast cancer and it's surgical operation.) From time to time there's some news that new medicines are discovered that make a breakthrough in this anticancer/AIDS war. It shows that it's time and money well-spent as they give a chance of winning it. (I'm certainly no medic but it seems to me that an uncurable disease is the kind of enemy whose steps cannot be predicted, figuratively speaking.).
What I really claim is that maybe certain parties in this anti-dowloading war are, at the core, not so much interested in succeeding.
Frank, thanks for you insight-it shows you've actually read what's been written in this thread.
quote: Frank Angel
I think a person could have his own ethical stance regardless of the law
I like this idea. I would go as far as to say that he shouldn't keep his ethical stance for himself but he's morally obliged to challenge the society with it. If an individual wants to be a part of society he has to meet certain requirements, one of them being: working to make the situation of society (all the people living around) better (as in improving existing law).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-17-2009 01:17 PM
quote: Chris Slycord
That's like saying that if I have a weapon that I'm supposed to secure and some guy breaks in, takes it, and kills people with it that the only person to blame is me.
No, I didn't mean to say that the online participants shouldn't receive any blame. Sorry for the confusion. But if you had that weapon and you knew that you already had a major problem with people trying to steal it and part of your business model required you to pass it around to a lot of people to work on it, then -- oh, forget it. I don't think it's a very good analogy.
But, hey. If people who download unauthorized media from the Internet thought that it was as bad as murder I'd bet most of them wouldn't be doing it. And that's part of the problem. Movie and music fans who are downloading this stuff can't understand who they're hurting and "the industry" isn't handling the situation very well nor educating their potential customers very well either. Instead, they immediately jump to the position that this is a serious, horrible crime. They sue people for hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading one album's worth of songs, for example. That seems rather extreme to the downloaders and it further erodes "the industry's" credibility on these matters.
(And, again, I'm not in favor of the fact that this movie was illegally released.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-17-2009 03:11 PM
I think we agree. If you released an unauthorized copy of a U2 album to the whole world, you should be punished accordingly. But should the person who downloaded it from you be sued for many thousands of dollars too?
That gets back to the point of this topic. Your U2 example seems to imply that it would be the same thing as the eventual, authorized release. But in the case of Wolverine it's just a rough draft. Serious movie fans won't be very interested. We'd rather see the real thing after the post-production guys have embedded every ounce of coolness into it.
This also points out the hypocricy of web sites like Aint It Cool News. They have no problem posting reviews from test audience screenings or even reviewing a script! But they suddenly found "standards" when they refused to review this particular work print. Oh, I admire them soooo much!
Edit:
quote: Mike Blakesley
What is the industry supposed to do? If they DON'T portray it as a major crime, then people would develop a ho-hum attitude about it.
Too late. Treating it as a major crime now just antagonizes the customer. The average consumer is thinking, "Wait a minute! The music industry is just part of "Big Business." Big Business created the CD, the Internet, MP3 files and the iPod. I'm just using what they made for me to use, and I'm being creative about how I use it!"
Today's average teenager thinks absolutely nothing of sharing music with his friends. That kid's going to grow up and still think very little of it. And then that kid's going to be elected to legislative positions and, well, I wonder how copyright laws will look after that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic