"Troy Steward, another combat veteran, wrote on the blog Bouhammer that while the film accurately depicted the scale of bomb violence and the relations between Iraqis and troops, "just about everything else wasn’t realistic". Steward went on to say: "I was amazed that a movie so bad could get any kind of accolades from anyone."posted by mullingitover at 8:53 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
"The Hurt Locker" has performed well in the home entertainment market. Through Saturday, Summit sold 780,000 DVDs and electronic downloads. In addition, the movie has been rented 5.4 million times by consumers. That's a relatively high number for a movie that has grossed less than $15 million.From that article, it seems to me that the Hurt Locker didn't earn money because the film distributor didn't screen the movie in enough theatres. I would expect piracy to disproportionately affect DVD sales and downloads, not theatre revenue.
Are they running honeypot sites that log IPs?Yes.
Metafilter confuses me. If a t-shirt artist has their design pirated, the Metafilter cavalry comes galloping to their defense. But if thousands of people pirate a movie and a movie company seeks justice, we're "no longer a moral society seeking to improve the common good"? --sharkfuPeople have different views on commercial vs. non commercial appropriation. People would probably get upset about some company actually selling pirated copies.
Some trackers throw in random IP addresses to thward carpet-bombing lawsuits exactly like this one.Interesting. But wouldn't the studio actually have to download from you in order to sue? Listing a random, fake IP wouldn't actually prevent much.
Just checking, is the overall impression that it's OK for you guys to steal the films I make? -- kcalderYes, but by using the word "steal" to describe copyright infringement, you are stealing meaning from the English language, so I don't have too much sympathy :P. If it was up to me, I would have cinema and other artwork currently funded by copyright funded instead by government grants based on popularity (which would be paid for by taxation). I would even set it up to have automated popularity measures, rather then having people picking and choosing. But it's not up to me.
But anybody with any knowledge of criminology, particularly premodern criminology can tell you that deterrence doesn't fucking work. -- Pope guiltyI think you're thinking about this incorrectly 90% of the population doesn't steal things from stores. If 90% of the population is afraid of infringing copyright on the internet, that's a huge market, and the movie studios will have won. A 10% infringement rate isn't nearly as problematic as a 10% pickpocket rate. Even a 20% or 30% piracy rates aren't impossible to deal with. (of course any piracy rate can be dealt with as long as someone pays for stuff. But the more pirates, the less money you have to fund movies)
Hrm. Right, we fall back to the definition of the word "theft" and not its results. So we agree that the current legal definition of theft, since most current legal code does not attempt to quantify digital property and perfect duplication apart from the deprivation of property, can't apply to piracy because no property is being disturbed. But that is not an absolution of the thievery, merely a dodge on semantics from a legal system that has not yet evolved to explicitly to catch the concept of digital larceny. -- cavalierYes, we would rather use the actual words and their actual "definitions". What's wrong with that? Just because you feel some other term is metaphorically similar doesn't mean everyone else should use it. The fact that you personally feel it's licentious is really irrelevant.
The comparisons to a library are confusing to me. Libraries have built in limitations on the number of free copies they have available at a single time, and they usually have geographical limitations. On top of that, copyright holders are compensated for material that is available in libraries. If that were the case with BitTorrent, I'm sure all the copyright holders would have much less of an issue.They don't get compensated any more then they do for copies sold to individuals. And if a library buys the book used, the copyright owner isn't compensated again.
Is it really? If thievery is limited to the misuse or misappropriation of an item due to its physical removal, isn't it ill suited to face an environment where an item can be misappropriated without physical removal?What? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. We have one law that deals with theft, we have another law that deals with copyright infringement. They are different laws because they are different things.
Spain has huge piracy issues. So huge that the foreign value for the territory of Spain has dropped more than half across the board for independent films.What incentive does Spain have to subsidize art in other countries? It's pretty common for countries that don't produce a lot of IP to have weaker copyright laws then countries that produce a lot. If you want to see a lot of piracy look at the third world and developing economies.
delmoi, I admit to not currently being involved in media sales to library and other institutions, but twelve years ago this wasn't the case: Media, depending on the production company, was priced at differing rates depending on the library, the size of the membership, and the number of media being purchased. While this could be less than say your average price at Best Buy, this can also be much more.There's no law that says libraries can't lend copies they buy at a best buy. If they get a discount, obviously they'll take it. I'm not sure why they would pay more. Maybe if they are to lazy to go out and buy it themselves. But anyway
You have left the realm we were orbiting -- talking about the misapprporiation of work without compensationLazy. Like VikingSword, that discussion has been had a million times. Why go over it again? You say "X is theft!" then when I say "Well, if X was theft then Y would also be theft" you say "Well we're only talking about X!" that's just lazy, seriously. I favor a narrow definition of theft. You want a broad definition, and I'm trying to point out the logical inconsistencies in that broad definition.
Maybe those rebuttals just aren't all that convincing. -- me & my monkeyWell, who cares if they're convincing or not? Semantic debates are never interesting. The law doesn't consider copyright infringement theft. So, that's the end of it right? What else is there to discuss? Are you going to answer my question about resale rights? Does the use of DRM locks equate to theft from customers under your broad definition of theft?
And, you know, that's really OK with me. I download all sorts of TV shows and books. But I don't think I can justify it as right action simply because it doesn't correspond directly with some conception of theft as applied to physical items. -- me & my monkeyOkay well, how do you justify stealing from the English language by using the wrong words for things? If you want to say "copyright infringement is as immoral as theft" that's one thing. That's something you can have a discussion about. If you say "copyright infringement is theft" then you're just fucking incorrect.
I acknowledge you've been talking about copyright law but I feel that, as it is currently codified (at least in the US), it does not apply to this problem. Remaking "Aladdin" with the same characters and the same song routines and calling it "Bobby" marketed by "Duckney", that's a copyright issue. -- cavalierOkay first of all, Aladdin is an ancient folktale that would have been out of copyright for thousands of years if copyright law even existed when it was created.
but it sounds like a licensing arrangement where a station pays X amount to Sound Exchange for the performance of songs owned by SE's rights holdersExcept it's not. It's written directly into the law. The only agreement was between members of congress. My point in bringing it up was to illustrate how complicated copyright law is, especially compared to the laws about theft, which are typically state laws and very simple (stealing is always a crime) whereas copyright law is complicated. And yes SE pays the original authors. But the rates are codified by law, not chosen by copyright holders.
I have seen a lot of Nigerian films. I think their industry is fascinating, and I know that they deal with huge huge piracy issues. That's also why the average film budget in Nigeria is $20,000. Even with the increased production value attainable within Nigeria at that budget, it's not even close to the production value that the rest of the world expects from a film.Dude, the average Nigerian doesn't have $9 to blow on a trip to the cinema. Even if piracy was zero, budgets would still be pretty low.
Out of curiosity, can you explain your concept of government funded arts in more detail? It seems pretty untenable and unlikable on the surface, but maybe I'm missing something.Well, first of all it's important to understand that copyright based revenue is dependent on the government enforcing those rights in the first place. I don't think my idea is any more untenable then soundexcahnge today. Basically if you wanted to watch a movie or listen to a song, you would download it from a legitimate site, just like streaming a movie today. Since the media would be free, there'd be no reason for illegitimate sites. The vast majority of downloads would be from these sites, and they would aggregate statistics and pay out funding based on the number of downloads. The money would come out of taxation. In my scenario, the government wouldn't have any control over content. It's no more susceptible to government control then copyright, since the government could refuse copyright protection to content it objects to.
My problem with "copyright infringement" as a moral description is that it carries the implication of a victimless crime. The plain fact is, you're taking some sort of perceived value from the owner of something.There's such a thing as criminal infringement, but for the most part copyright infringement isn't a crime in any sense, much less non-victimless. It's a tort. That means you sue rather then having the government prosecute offenders.
Oh, that's not going to work for me, since I am one. But I do object to the rationalization that goes on about this.This is kinda what makes you a troll though. If you pirate a bunch of crap and also argue that it is theft, then you're not really invested in the argument. You're just being annoying.
(Man bursts in behind the girl downloading the film and point a pistol at the back of her head and a pool of blood is then seen on the keyboard)Sounds like a Nigerian copyright warning. Actually, I googled around to see if I could find one online but I didn't see anything. I did find this though.
It finally came out the end of June, 2009. He saw it in the theatre then as well and took me and 4 other friends to see it. He now also owns it on DVD. He's now scared he's going to get one of these letters from the lawyers even though in total he's paid about $60 to see the film so farI think everyone who's going to get sued has probably been notified by now.
I've been consistent in my messaging -- countering the statement "it isn't theft", saying it does not work simply because the current statutes ascribe theft to the physical removal of property in addition to misappropriation of the property. I'm sorry if this discussion bores you but that's the one I was havingWell, you certainly haven't said anything new.
You are a strange one! "This topic is dead! There is nothing to discuss!That's correct.
Uh, what? You're the one who brought it up, not me. Are you complaining about me responding to something you said now? Odd. You would think that if it wasn't relevant, you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.Completely irrelevant to the debate of theft with regards to electronic piracy. Again you want to attack copyright law, fine, but that's not my angle here.Remaking "Aladdin" with the same characters and the same song routines and calling it "Bobby" marketed by "Duckney", that's a copyright issue. – cavalierOkay first of all, Aladdin is an ancient folktale that would have been out of copyright for thousands of years if copyright law even existed when it was created.
You're rather simplifying larceny at this point in hopes of.. what? You want to talk about a (more) complicated issue? I am really left grasping at what would constitute a debate of this issue for you.No. I brought up soundexchange as an example of how IP laws are not at all like physical property laws. You were apparently confused about what soundexchange was (it's not a voluntary agreement, it's mandated by law and musicians have no choice over whether or not they participate, as far as I know.)
« Older Early 1900s in COLOUR (a sampling).... | New York State is now poised t... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Frankly the punishment for downloading an Uwe Boll film should be death.
posted by atrazine at 6:37 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]