Worse, they support the mechanisms that distribute the experience freely and easily, further degrading the value of the original movie file.
You're assuming that the people who commented downloaded the movie illegally. That's a big - and wrong - assumption. Some of them did, I'm sure, but I feel pretty safe in saying that most of us did not. Most of us are big media consumers and we consume music and movies in a variety of ways that cost us money. In other words, we pay the bills.
Next, what you're saying could be applied to Netflix just as easily as illegal downloading. Film makers don't make as much money when people use Netflix as when people purchase individual DVDs. So they're getting the experience at a discount price. Are Netflix users morally wrong as well? Are they deserving of the insinuation that what they're doing is wrong?
How about people who view films at the homes of their friends, as opposed to building their own collection? They're certainly not guilty of breaking any laws, but they're not paying the bills, either. Are they morally wrong as well? Are they deserving of the insinuation that what they're doing is wrong?
How can moviemakers (and musicians and writers) earn a living when their hard work is distributed freely?
Ask Nina Paley and all of the other artists who are doing just that. Also, feel free to read this blog more often. In essence, there are a million models that do just that.
Remember, idea of the masses paying for art is a relatively new one in society. Yet art has been created as long as history has been recorded. How was it done before the idea of mass payments? The model that's dying now is a new one, and a failed one.
I was just moving in so I had boxes and stuff on my lawn, including a couch, and it makes me look like white trash (and I'm not even white!). Can I sue them, too?
Chartier was 'robbed' or 'deprived' of the opportunity to make a sale to interested parties who might have purchased his movie if a free copy were not made available to them.
Ahh, another difference.
Logically, a potential sale lost to an illegal act isn't any different than a potential sale lost to a legal act. Your sentence could apply equally to an illegal download of the film, and to watching a Netflix-owned copy at a someone else's home. (That's like a double loss, there, by the new definition.) Even the free copies given to award judges (and there were alot for this movie) were lost sales.
In all of these cases, the film maker was deprived of the opportunity to make a sale to interested parties for that viewing. But remember that the watcher may have already given the film maker money at the theater, may have already purchased the DVD, or may follow up their viewing by purchasing the physical DVD.
Regardless, I don't think that the original criminal act (the illegal download) makes the following act (potential lost sale) illegal. Further, lost sales, both award-related and download-related alike, should be accounted for in the business plan.
...the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, providing a very good income source to song writers and original artists, who profit when someone else uses their songs to make a living.
Your statement didn't add to the discussion. If, however, you prove the above assertion, that would add to the discussion and make Mike look bad.
Remember, it's not run by musicians. It's run by attorneys.
So they're doing what they do best, and running billing as high as possible. If they screw things up for their clients, oh, well! Their pools and SUVs are paid for.
I'm reasonably sure that we're mostly in agreement, and the parts where we're not involve logic and some nitpicking. I'm going to try and go back and see if I can better express what many of us are trying to say, in a way that makes more sense. Hopefully, you're still reading this...
Okay, first, it seems like you think that we're supporting the people who illegally downloaded this film. You may not think that, but, either way, I want to be clear. We don’t support illegal downloading. So we're in agreement there. :)
Okay, that being said, logically, copyright infringement is not theft. If I steal a couch from you, you no longer have a couch, but if I copy your movie, you still have a movie. That doesn't make it okay to copy your movie, but it does make it different than theft.
Hopefully, you've understood that point, and you're still with me. I'm not saying that I think you magically agree, but that you can understand the point that I'm making. (Since you're not actually a moron.)
Okay, next: I understand that this guy feels like he was robbed. He was not robbed, because being robbed involves physical property, but I understand that he feels that way. I agree that how he feels is important. So I think we're in agreement there as well...
So, I think you've been using certain words that don't fit, logically, but do fit emotionally, and we keep running into a place where we don't agree when you use those words. So let's switch words.
Let's use the word violated. This filmmaker feels violated. When those people illegally downloaded his film, his rights were violated, and that is both illegal and wrong. The word violated is both logically and emotionally correct, and hopefully, by using it, we can agree and move on.
Okay, so far, we (hopefully) agree that, although different than theft, copyright infringement is still illegal and wrong. We agree that this director is a victim, and that he has been violated.
Next, I want to state that I understand that he has a right to seek legal redress for those violations, and I agree that he is not only legally entitled to do so, but also morally entitled to do so.
So now, we (hopefully) agree that, although different than theft, copyright infringement is still illegal and wrong. We agree that this director is a victim, and that he has been violated. We agree that he has a moral and legal entitlement to redress.
Okay, next we have some disagreements about the money. I agree that there is no way to gauge the impact of those downloads.
I believe that some people downloaded the movie, and never gave the film maker any money. Some of those people never would have, even if the download were not available. Some of them may have. So let's say that there are x many lost sales. That's a negative impact.
I believe that some people downloaded the movie, and did give the film maker money, like theatre-goers and people who also purchased the DVD. Some of those people would not have purchased the DVD if the download were not available. Some of them may have. So let's say that there are y many found sales. That’s a positive impact.
At the end of the day, there isn't any way to know, or even guess, whether the total impact of these downloads was positive or negative. The best you can do is to understand that, like the weather, you don’t have any control over this, and film makers should allow for that in their business plan, just as travel agents allow for the weather.
To be clear, morally, he shouldn’t have to allow for that, but it’s not a perfect world. In the real world, department stores have to allow for shoplifting, travel agents have to allow for bad weather, and film makers have to allow for illegal downloads.
So now, we (hopefully) agree that, although different than theft, copyright infringement is still illegal and wrong. We agree that this director is a victim, and that he has been violated. We agree that he has a moral and legal entitlement to redress and that it is likely that those downloads have a negative and positive impact on his finances, that should have been allowed for in his business plan.
Okay, next, let’s address the idea of ‘lost sales’. Traditionally, a lost sale refers to profit that’s foregone because an order could not be fulfilled, for whatever reason. In this case, there were no orders. You know what that means? There were no lost sales.
But I understand that you’re using an updated version of the term. In this case, you mean profit that’s foregone because people choose not to place an order, for whatever reason. That’s fine. We can go with your definition. :)
I agree that some people who downloaded the movie may have purchased it, if the download were not available. Those people represent lost sales. Lost sales suck, from a business perspective. I understand that they matter and that the film maker is and should be concerned with minimizing lost sales, and maximizing actual orders.
So now, we (hopefully) agree that, although different than theft, copyright infringement is still illegal and wrong. We agree that this director is a victim, and that he has been violated. We agree that he has a moral and legal entitlement to redress and that it is likely that those downloads have a negative and positive impact on his finances, that should have been allowed for in his business plan.
We agree that lost sales are a cause for concern, and that it would be smart, from a business perspective, to minimize lost sales and to maximize actual orders.
So now here comes the kicker, and where our largest difference occurs. This film maker has been put into the same unfortunate position as sales people everyone. He has to attempt to make money from asshole customers who have treated him badly and will continue to treat him badly. That sucks for him, just as it sucks for all salespeople everywhere.
Unfortunately, he has to choose between redressing the violation, which makes moral sense, and maximizing orders, which makes financial sense. In a perfect world, he would be able to do both, but this is not a perfect world. (The choice is confused by the fact that moral redress has a financial component to it, but not so much as to be hard to understand, I think.)
So now, we (hopefully) agree that, although different than theft, copyright infringement is still illegal and wrong. We agree that this director is a victim, and that he has been violated. We agree that he has a moral and legal entitlement to redress and that it is likely that those downloads have a negative and positive impact on his finances, that should have been allowed for in his business plan.
We agree that lost sales are a cause for concern, and that it would be smart, from a business perspective, to minimize lost sales and to maximize actual orders. We should also agree that, realistically, he had to choose between maximum financial realization and moral redress.
So the main difference between our stances is that you seem to think (just as he probably thought) that he could and should do both. Well, I agree that he should be able to both, but he can’t. Most of the posts here acknowledge that fact, and are criticizing his choice of seeking to redress the violations, rather than taking care of his creditors and employees.
Do you see the point that I’m making? In this imperfect world, he had to choose between money and ego, and he chose ego. That seems really dumb to most of us and we’re criticizing him for it.
Where is this evidence? The studies I've seen show that the biggest downloaders are also the biggest purchasers, which indicates the opposite of what you state.
Assuming that none of these people who illegally downloaded this film would have purchased this movie is illogical. I agree with you there. In addition, assuming that none of the people who illegally downloaded this film did not also purchase the film and/or see the movie in theaters is equally illogical.
There are many reasons why someone might purchase the film, and illegally download it. Some people see it in theaters, and then want to watch it again during the window before release on DVD. Some people may have used the download to preview the movie, and then purchased it. Some people may already own the physical DVD, but want a digital copy to watch on hardware without a DVD player, such as a netbook.
So, not every download is a lost sale, and a lost sale is not money from a pocket... Hehe, I've written a longer reply above, and I hope you read it, because we're really not very far off in our stances.
...these people were never 'potential customers'...
Why not? Some studies have concluded that the same people who pirate media are the biggest spenders on media.
I rarely pirate anything (I have actually never been to a torrent site, and don't have the right codecs to view torrented files, anyway) but I've watched several pirated House episodes this season since they've let a seven-year-old with ADHD schedule new episodes.
I'm still going to buy this season as soon as it comes out on DVD, just as I have with every other season. :)
Did you read the post? It's not about the downloads and his lawsuit. It's about his crazy response to a polite letter.
No one has stated that it's okay to illegally download films.
No one has stated that he shouldn't be allowed to sue people that he believes illegally downloaded his films.
We have stated that it's dumb to sue potential customers (and probably real ones) and that he responded to a polite letter from someone who did not illegally download his film in a crazy, overblown manner.
Are you a stupid moron who barely makes sense? Probably.
He's not the bad guy because people illegally downloaded his film.
He's the bad guy because he wrote a horrible letter in response to a polite one.
He didn't just 'express emotion'; he told someone who didn't illegally download his movie that he wished his children would be put into jail. You think that's okay?
If he had written back and said, 'I think your point of view sucks. If you feel that way, then don't buy my movie. That's fine. You know, I feel like I've put a ton of work into this thing, and everyone is just out there taking it without paying for it. That sucks, and I'm doing what I can to be recompensed for their illegal downloads.', then we wouldn't be here discussing his response. If we were, we would be saying that it was a reasonable emotional response.
Further, no one's said that he doesn't have the right to sue. Of course, he has the right to sue.
That doesn't make it smart, and it doesn't obligate us to call it smart.
On the post: Paper Industry Wishes You'd Ignore Environmentalists, Print More
Re: Re: Re: I agree with this man in every way ....
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re:
You're assuming that the people who commented downloaded the movie illegally. That's a big - and wrong - assumption. Some of them did, I'm sure, but I feel pretty safe in saying that most of us did not. Most of us are big media consumers and we consume music and movies in a variety of ways that cost us money. In other words, we pay the bills.
Next, what you're saying could be applied to Netflix just as easily as illegal downloading. Film makers don't make as much money when people use Netflix as when people purchase individual DVDs. So they're getting the experience at a discount price. Are Netflix users morally wrong as well? Are they deserving of the insinuation that what they're doing is wrong?
How about people who view films at the homes of their friends, as opposed to building their own collection? They're certainly not guilty of breaking any laws, but they're not paying the bills, either. Are they morally wrong as well? Are they deserving of the insinuation that what they're doing is wrong?
How can moviemakers (and musicians and writers) earn a living when their hard work is distributed freely?
Ask Nina Paley and all of the other artists who are doing just that. Also, feel free to read this blog more often. In essence, there are a million models that do just that.
Remember, idea of the masses paying for art is a relatively new one in society. Yet art has been created as long as history has been recorded. How was it done before the idea of mass payments? The model that's dying now is a new one, and a failed one.
On the post: Class Action Lawsuit Launched Against Google, Because Some Woman Didn't Secure Her Own WiFi
Re: I Gots Class
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re:
Ahh, another difference.
Logically, a potential sale lost to an illegal act isn't any different than a potential sale lost to a legal act. Your sentence could apply equally to an illegal download of the film, and to watching a Netflix-owned copy at a someone else's home. (That's like a double loss, there, by the new definition.) Even the free copies given to award judges (and there were alot for this movie) were lost sales.
In all of these cases, the film maker was deprived of the opportunity to make a sale to interested parties for that viewing. But remember that the watcher may have already given the film maker money at the theater, may have already purchased the DVD, or may follow up their viewing by purchasing the physical DVD.
Regardless, I don't think that the original criminal act (the illegal download) makes the following act (potential lost sale) illegal. Further, lost sales, both award-related and download-related alike, should be accounted for in the business plan.
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
Re: Lawsuits are expensive
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
Re: Re: Why
Your statement didn't add to the discussion. If, however, you prove the above assertion, that would add to the discussion and make Mike look bad.
In other words, proof or GTFO.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Gets Politicians To Advertise File Sharing Sites
Re: Obvious Incompetence
Remember, it's not run by musicians. It's run by attorneys.
So they're doing what they do best, and running billing as high as possible. If they screw things up for their clients, oh, well! Their pools and SUVs are paid for.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
@McBeese
Okay, first, it seems like you think that we're supporting the people who illegally downloaded this film. You may not think that, but, either way, I want to be clear. We don’t support illegal downloading. So we're in agreement there. :)
Okay, that being said, logically, copyright infringement is not theft. If I steal a couch from you, you no longer have a couch, but if I copy your movie, you still have a movie. That doesn't make it okay to copy your movie, but it does make it different than theft.
Hopefully, you've understood that point, and you're still with me. I'm not saying that I think you magically agree, but that you can understand the point that I'm making. (Since you're not actually a moron.)
Okay, next: I understand that this guy feels like he was robbed. He was not robbed, because being robbed involves physical property, but I understand that he feels that way. I agree that how he feels is important. So I think we're in agreement there as well...
So, I think you've been using certain words that don't fit, logically, but do fit emotionally, and we keep running into a place where we don't agree when you use those words. So let's switch words.
Let's use the word violated. This filmmaker feels violated. When those people illegally downloaded his film, his rights were violated, and that is both illegal and wrong. The word violated is both logically and emotionally correct, and hopefully, by using it, we can agree and move on.
Okay, so far, we (hopefully) agree that, although different than theft, copyright infringement is still illegal and wrong. We agree that this director is a victim, and that he has been violated.
Next, I want to state that I understand that he has a right to seek legal redress for those violations, and I agree that he is not only legally entitled to do so, but also morally entitled to do so.
So now, we (hopefully) agree that, although different than theft, copyright infringement is still illegal and wrong. We agree that this director is a victim, and that he has been violated. We agree that he has a moral and legal entitlement to redress.
Okay, next we have some disagreements about the money. I agree that there is no way to gauge the impact of those downloads.
I believe that some people downloaded the movie, and never gave the film maker any money. Some of those people never would have, even if the download were not available. Some of them may have. So let's say that there are x many lost sales. That's a negative impact.
I believe that some people downloaded the movie, and did give the film maker money, like theatre-goers and people who also purchased the DVD. Some of those people would not have purchased the DVD if the download were not available. Some of them may have. So let's say that there are y many found sales. That’s a positive impact.
At the end of the day, there isn't any way to know, or even guess, whether the total impact of these downloads was positive or negative. The best you can do is to understand that, like the weather, you don’t have any control over this, and film makers should allow for that in their business plan, just as travel agents allow for the weather.
To be clear, morally, he shouldn’t have to allow for that, but it’s not a perfect world. In the real world, department stores have to allow for shoplifting, travel agents have to allow for bad weather, and film makers have to allow for illegal downloads.
So now, we (hopefully) agree that, although different than theft, copyright infringement is still illegal and wrong. We agree that this director is a victim, and that he has been violated. We agree that he has a moral and legal entitlement to redress and that it is likely that those downloads have a negative and positive impact on his finances, that should have been allowed for in his business plan.
Okay, next, let’s address the idea of ‘lost sales’. Traditionally, a lost sale refers to profit that’s foregone because an order could not be fulfilled, for whatever reason. In this case, there were no orders. You know what that means? There were no lost sales.
But I understand that you’re using an updated version of the term. In this case, you mean profit that’s foregone because people choose not to place an order, for whatever reason. That’s fine. We can go with your definition. :)
I agree that some people who downloaded the movie may have purchased it, if the download were not available. Those people represent lost sales. Lost sales suck, from a business perspective. I understand that they matter and that the film maker is and should be concerned with minimizing lost sales, and maximizing actual orders.
So now, we (hopefully) agree that, although different than theft, copyright infringement is still illegal and wrong. We agree that this director is a victim, and that he has been violated. We agree that he has a moral and legal entitlement to redress and that it is likely that those downloads have a negative and positive impact on his finances, that should have been allowed for in his business plan.
We agree that lost sales are a cause for concern, and that it would be smart, from a business perspective, to minimize lost sales and to maximize actual orders.
So now here comes the kicker, and where our largest difference occurs. This film maker has been put into the same unfortunate position as sales people everyone. He has to attempt to make money from asshole customers who have treated him badly and will continue to treat him badly. That sucks for him, just as it sucks for all salespeople everywhere.
Unfortunately, he has to choose between redressing the violation, which makes moral sense, and maximizing orders, which makes financial sense. In a perfect world, he would be able to do both, but this is not a perfect world. (The choice is confused by the fact that moral redress has a financial component to it, but not so much as to be hard to understand, I think.)
So now, we (hopefully) agree that, although different than theft, copyright infringement is still illegal and wrong. We agree that this director is a victim, and that he has been violated. We agree that he has a moral and legal entitlement to redress and that it is likely that those downloads have a negative and positive impact on his finances, that should have been allowed for in his business plan.
We agree that lost sales are a cause for concern, and that it would be smart, from a business perspective, to minimize lost sales and to maximize actual orders. We should also agree that, realistically, he had to choose between maximum financial realization and moral redress.
So the main difference between our stances is that you seem to think (just as he probably thought) that he could and should do both. Well, I agree that he should be able to both, but he can’t. Most of the posts here acknowledge that fact, and are criticizing his choice of seeking to redress the violations, rather than taking care of his creditors and employees.
Do you see the point that I’m making? In this imperfect world, he had to choose between money and ego, and he chose ego. That seems really dumb to most of us and we’re criticizing him for it.
The End. Whew.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Black Kettle
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're Missing a Point...
Assuming that none of these people who illegally downloaded this film would have purchased this movie is illogical. I agree with you there. In addition, assuming that none of the people who illegally downloaded this film did not also purchase the film and/or see the movie in theaters is equally illogical.
There are many reasons why someone might purchase the film, and illegally download it. Some people see it in theaters, and then want to watch it again during the window before release on DVD. Some people may have used the download to preview the movie, and then purchased it. Some people may already own the physical DVD, but want a digital copy to watch on hardware without a DVD player, such as a netbook.
So, not every download is a lost sale, and a lost sale is not money from a pocket... Hehe, I've written a longer reply above, and I hope you read it, because we're really not very far off in our stances.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I totally agree. :)
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re:
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Black Kettle
Why not? Some studies have concluded that the same people who pirate media are the biggest spenders on media.
I rarely pirate anything (I have actually never been to a torrent site, and don't have the right codecs to view torrented files, anyway) but I've watched several pirated House episodes this season since they've let a seven-year-old with ADHD schedule new episodes.
I'm still going to buy this season as soon as it comes out on DVD, just as I have with every other season. :)
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Re: You're Missing a Point...
There is no proof that anyone who downloaded the movie would have given him money if the download were not available.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: You're Missing a Point...
There is no proof that everyone who downloaded the movie would have given him money if the download were not available.
In addition, there is no proof that everyone who downloaded the movie did not also pay to see the film, purchase the DVD, or both.
Even a moron like you should be able to understand that concept.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
So does that mean that he doesn't care if pirates don't pay him for his movies? I mean, by his definition, they're definitely dishonest... :P
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Black Kettle
No one has stated that it's okay to illegally download films.
No one has stated that he shouldn't be allowed to sue people that he believes illegally downloaded his films.
We have stated that it's dumb to sue potential customers (and probably real ones) and that he responded to a polite letter from someone who did not illegally download his film in a crazy, overblown manner.
Are you a stupid moron who barely makes sense? Probably.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Black Kettle
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Been There, Done That
He's the bad guy because he wrote a horrible letter in response to a polite one.
He didn't just 'express emotion'; he told someone who didn't illegally download his movie that he wished his children would be put into jail. You think that's okay?
If he had written back and said, 'I think your point of view sucks. If you feel that way, then don't buy my movie. That's fine. You know, I feel like I've put a ton of work into this thing, and everyone is just out there taking it without paying for it. That sucks, and I'm doing what I can to be recompensed for their illegal downloads.', then we wouldn't be here discussing his response. If we were, we would be saying that it was a reasonable emotional response.
Further, no one's said that he doesn't have the right to sue. Of course, he has the right to sue.
That doesn't make it smart, and it doesn't obligate us to call it smart.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: You're Missing a Point...
Next >>