'Sith' Already Found Online 788
ScentCone writes "Of course it was bound to happen, so now it's mostly a matter of discussing why Lucas does or does not deserve to make the proceeds, or whether people would or would not have gone to see it now that the usual path has been carved around the opening weekend box office." I've yet to find a blockbuster movie that isn't readily available on the net after it opens, but somehow this is still news. It's still usually worth shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.
Go see it in theaters (Score:5, Insightful)
Story posted by MPAA/RIAA member TIME WARNER (Score:2, Insightful)
Cam-rips are usually unwatchable (Score:5, Insightful)
But from the number of people I've heard are downloading it, it seems pretty popular -- I wonder if the MPAA is watching them...
News? (Score:2, Insightful)
News? Yeah right. (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't news, it's thinly veiled marketing.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me just like the MPAA pumping the press to make it look like a huge deal. It's not.
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the young bastards with the laser pointers and cell phones? Or the Tall Guy sitting in front of you? Or the uncomfortable seats? Or the fact that you can't pause the movie?
Yeah. You're right. My computer isn't like that.
Re:Why Lucas does not deserve the proceeds (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Get real (Score:5, Insightful)
If they dont do anything about it, it will happen more often, and in a more accessible way. Sure they can never eliminate the sharing of their movies, but they can ensure that the punishment is painful enough that the common citizen cannot easily get at it.
If you dont believe me, just look at Napster. I had totally computer illiterate friends who were able to use Napster to get free music. After that was shut down, they simply dont know how to use the other more complicated file sharing systems. (Not to mention they are aware that downloading is illegal now, so some stay away for that reason alone.) Shutting down Napster didn't stop music sharing, but it did curb it immensely and stop other Napster competitors from popping up and making it even easier.
So not all legal battles are immediately profitable, but the money spent can be an investment to prevent future infringement.
-David
I have to agree... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. Somebody showed me the bootleg of Hitchiker's Guide the other day, and I was really sorry I saw it that way. I wasn't planning to see it, but I ended up enjoying it immensely; the only problem was that the low quality of the rip was a big distraction.
But come on, a movie like Star Wars was made to be seen on the big screen, and most of the public knows that.
Both sides need to get a grip. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know which is funnier:
I'm tired of both sides taking absolutely ridiculous, unsupportable positions...
Re:Both sides need to get a grip. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate." Are you trying to say that HTTP and FTP aren't legitimate because they can be used to transfer illegal copies of things? Is the US mail system not legitimate because you could mail someone a DVD-R of Star Wars?
Nobody's claiming that BitTorrent isn't used for illegal things (I hope), but that doesn't mean that it's not "perfectly legitimate."
Already?! (Score:4, Insightful)
I left for Japan on Wednesday and now I don't get to see it until I get back (in two weeks). If I wanted to download it, I would... but frankly, and I think many people will agree with me on this point, I don't want to see it until I can see it in its full glory. Seeing it compressed and trashed and tiny isn't the way to see it the first time.
Now if I enjoyed it, I might download it and keep it until the DVD is released... then I'll buy he DVD when it comes out.
I wish the jackasses at the MPAA would just figure it out too.
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:1, Insightful)
Personally, my theatre has a great sound system, stadium seating (tall guy not a problem, seats wide and comfy), never seen a laser pointer in my life, and I haven't heard a cell phone in ages (think that most people are clueing in these days).
As for pausing the movie, get an attention span.
Definitely see it on the big screen (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, after seeing it on the big screen I've got noproblem with going and downloading it to watch it again (although I've sheepishly got ot admit that I've seen it in the cinema twice - once at the midnight screening (which we Aussies got before the U.S. - go time zones!) and once with my partner.)
I really loved [illuminatingscience.org] the movie, and definitely think it was worth it - a truly memorable conclusion to the Star Wars saga.
Re:Get real (Score:1, Insightful)
News? (Score:1, Insightful)
Then don't post it, idiot. Geez.
So whats the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
From the site:
"At least two copies of the film, which was first shown in theaters in the early hours of Thursday, have been posted to the BitTorrent file-sharing network -- a new and increasingly popular technology that allows users to download large video files much more quickly than in the past."
First, I love the spin the article gives on BitTorrent. The spotlight on its seedier (no pun intended) elements seems to completely negate any legitimate [mybookmarkmanager.com] uses [mybookmarkmanager.com, blizzard.com].
Second, I know this a widely arguable reality, but 16,000 times $8 (a generous ticket price) is $128,000. A drop in the bucket considering the pile (any) movies make. Its an interesting statistic, but a flawed argument (on both sides, I know the number is really a lot greater in this instance) for the proposed "loss in quintillions the movie industry suffers from pirating movies".
A few more opinions (I'm really pissed at this article):
- Yea, pirating is a problem, but like music CD's the people that pirate movies might not have the money or the means to begin with that it takes to go see the movie, or buy the music, legitimately.
- The people that can afford to buy the music and see the movies are the real pirates, but a lot of the folks that do download first, often go out and buy the legit copy afterwards, myself included.
- Perhaps theres something to be said about the expansive overhead that all aspects of movie production have. Nothing like someone poking a hole in your business scheme to provoke some creative thinking. Their solutions thus far, not creative (Read "Sue first, ask questions later, lets attack innovation and defend our archaic business models!")
This argument is tiring. BitTorrent isn't going anywhere, developers continually change how they do things to adapt to the new environment these lawsuits and spun news create, while these businesses still claim to be losing money on all fronts.
Re:Lucas might be peeved... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lucas might be peeved... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My Naive Boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:5, Insightful)
Lucas deserves the proceeds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Was that remark based on the fact that people are mad at Lucas because they didn't like the last 2 movies?
Or is it that people really dont think any creator deserves proceeds from their work? I'm not talking fair use or anything like that - I understand those arguments - they don't seem relevant here.
Well if you want to be a stickler that way (Score:5, Insightful)
In BT's case it's quite clear to see that it has very,v ery widesperad legitimate use. If you are getting a Linux distro, it's hard not to get it via torrent these days. Whenever any download gets slashdotted, someone throws up a torrent and people come in droves (I've done over 5mbytes/second seeding those, that's about a DS-3's worth of bandwidth). Or go to 3dgamers.com and download something. They do have some direct download servers, but the method they push is Bittorrent.
You can argue till you are blue in the face about how much of it is legal vs illegal, point is it wasn't created for the intent of breaking the law and there is a substanital amount of non-infringing use. That's why it's legit.
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:5, Insightful)
With the pop-corn (covered with unsalted grease - no more butter here) and a bottle of water, I'll end up paying the price of a DVD. Just to see the movie once. And no, it's not a discount cinema -- but however big and American it wants to be, it'll be overcrowded and not as comfy as my house.
I also want to point out that I'll be seeing the movie in FRENCH, because 1) my friends prefer it this way (stupid, I know) 2) it's hard to find a cinema around here that has the original English version, unless I'm willing to go downtown and cope with the traffic jams (I'm in Montreal).
As for pausing the movie, get an attention span.
Because I feel like taking a piss, I am lacking attention span? What about the luxury of pausing the movie for whatever reason I want? Can I do that without having some moron telling me to get an attention span? Thank you very much.
The movies aren't cheap, the popcorn/candies/beverage cost way too much, then you get the extra ads in the hope you go get more of the expensive stuff, then you get 15 minutes of preview, then you get to see the movie. I don't see any reason to pay for that, unless your TV realy sucks. Or unless you're doing it for your kids or someone else -- like I do.
I voted "my own couch" in the poll, if you're wondering... There just is no place like 127.0.0.1
Re:Go see it in theaters (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Both sides need to get a grip. (Score:5, Insightful)
CowboyNeal's reasoning? (Score:3, Insightful)
CowboyNeal: It's still usually worth shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.
I'm not trying to be a shill for the movie industry here or anything, but whatever happened to "it's still usually worth shelling out the cash so that the people that worked on the movie get the money that they're owed?" You're not supposed to pay for stuff you watch because it's higher quality, you're supposed to pay for it because it's the right thing to do.
Re:I refuse to see it in the theater (Score:2, Insightful)
I've disliked going to the cinema since 16 I think. The people suck, I can't pause it, I refuse to watch adverts, it costs too much and it's not a good social event (what's the point of going with your friends if you have to sit in a dark room in silence for an hour and a half?).
This film was daaaaark. It should have been a 15. I think I'm going to cry everytime I see Darth Vader now.
Worth watching in the cinema? Probably more so than most films, but that's not saying much in my opinion.
Re:Get real (Score:3, Insightful)
In my country (Poland, but I can imagine it is the same somwhere else) some titles are not distributed at all -
For the case for BitTorrent downloads, consider too that in nations with severe cultural controls (China, Saudi Arabia, et al), not only would most movies have to be heavily censored for whatever ruling class is in place (don't want any dangerous ideas getting around), if they're actually imported at all.
Now say user "X" watches a movie that his or her government censored. Later, said user manages to download a rip of the movie sometime later, and notices the parts that were cut from it.
Or, for that matter, a movie that is run uncut first, and then has some scenes cut because the current ruling party doesn't like the message said scene provides.
What ideas do you think that user would get from seeing what his or her country doesn't want them to see/know?
So in essense, if anyone's against file trading, they're really infringing against a wider reaching freedom.
Re:What ever happened to intermissions? (Score:2, Insightful)
Theatres apparently make little money off the actual movies... hence why the food and drink is so damn expensive.. (as another poster stated)
You say that an intermission would waste time and time means money yet you forget about the (up to) 45 minutes of adverts beforehand. fortunately living in the uk, I dont believe we have so many adverts as the Americans do... but that doesnt mean I go to the cinema dead on time -- more like 20 minutes or so after to miss the crap on before.
So why not split these adverts in the middle? I mean the advertizers wont admit it but few of us enjoy sitting on our asses watching the damn things.. so why cant the cinema owners make some money out of selling icecream, drinks etc
It kinda makes sense to me that way than the current setup they have.. I hate the idea of both personally.. I dont want any adverts period ! but what can you do? I guess this way I might actually have to watch one or two lol.
The people to blame I feel is the MPAA.. If they sold the cinema reels (licenses) at a reasonable price to the theatres then they wouldnt have to bump up the price of the food and drinks... people would buy more consumables (and tickets!) and the *Cash flow* for everybody would be much higher... Sadly this is not the case and the film consortiums ripp the pish out of everybody involved.
but thats just my opinion..
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly! (Score:3, Insightful)
The movie industry... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway for a flick like this one I'd much rather find a THX equipped movie with a wide screen and pay the price of a ticket than watch it with my kids in the family room on the boob tube. (We usually sneek our own M&M's in rather than get ripped off at the concession stand!)