Here's SICKO

[Nbadan]

Part 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=fx_2iEsynPM)

[Nbadan]

Part 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9C30gQWaWEI)

[Nbadan]

Part 3 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=hgq2q6-a2mw)

[Nbadan]

Part 4 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=getEnpW96ac)

[Nbadan]

Part 5 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=YishF-gbbnw)

[Nbadan]

Part 6 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EXIMEKx1NOw)

[Nbadan]

Among other things, there is one good example of how the M$M will deliberately deceive you and me about what is really happening in this world. A small example, even on a very late night show, but the truth was not allowed to be told.

On "TV Nation," in the '90's, he did a health care comparison between the US, Canada and Cuba. Here is the transcript of what happened when Cuba won that contest:


AMY GOODMAN: ... I began by asking Michael Moore what inspired him to make the film.

MICHAEL MOORE: Well, I actually -- I had a TV show on back in the ’90s called TV Nation, and one day I just -- I thought it would be interesting to have like a race. So we sent a camera crew to an emergency room in Fort Lauderdale, a camera crew to an emergency room in Toronto, and then one to Havana. And they would each wait until someone came in with a broken arm or a broken leg. And then they were going to follow that person through and see how good the quality of the care was, how fast it was and how cheap it was. And I convinced Bob Costas and Ahmad Rashad, sportscasters, to do the play-by-play of what we called the Healthcare Olympics. And so, it was a race between the US, Canada and Cuba. And to make a long story short, Cuba won. They had the fastest care, the best care, and it cost nothing.

We turn the show in to NBC that week, and we get a call from the censor. They’re not called “the censor,” they’re called Standards & Practices. And so, this woman calls. She’s the head of Standards & Practices -- Dr. Somebody. I don’t know they -- she actually had a “Dr.” before her name, but I forget her last name now. But she calls, and she says, “Mike, Cuba can’t win.” I said, “What?” “Cuba can’t win.” “Well, they won. What do you mean they can’t win? They won.” “No, we can’t say that on NBC. We can’t say that Cuba won.” “Well, yeah, but they won! They provided the fastest care. They were the cheapest. And the patient was happy, and the bone got fixed.” “No, it’s against regulations here.” I said, “Oh, well, I’m not changing it.”

Well, they changed it. They changed it. Two days later, when it aired, they changed it so that Canada won. And Canada didn’t win. Canada almost won, but they charged the guy $15 for some crutches on the way out. So it’s bugged me to this day that anybody who saw that episode, you know, where it said, you know, “and Canada won the Healthcare Olympics,” and in fact it was Cuba, but that couldn’t be said on NBC, because God knows what would happen.

Linky (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/18/1326235)

[Nbadan]

Here is the falsified version of TV Nation from NBC:

TV Nation - National Healthcare Olympics (http://youtube.com/watch?v=y755IP5R8Hg)

[gtownspur]

Good videos. I hope this will rather wake up the lazy HMo's rather than bringing on socialized medicine.

Btw, fatass could have laid down 15 dollars for crutches but he wanted to make a political statement by choosing cuba over canada. This is the kind of shit that makes me very suspicous about "Sick"o himself.

[gtownspur]

IF i was a senator, i'd put this topic to rest by brokering a pact where if we privatize education, we'll socialize medicine.

Then we'll see where Bouton's heroes hearts lie, with the teachers unions, or little timmy at the childrens hospital, you know the one where you know you're screwed if you start recieving clown visits and a trip to disneyland. Which with those kinds of promises, Michael moore will show up and you'll get a free ticket to cuba.

[Nbadan]

Looks like the Weinsteins got to YouTube, but the links are continuiously being refreshed by concerned americans, so do a search.

The full video is also available on bit-torrent and on usenet groups.

Alt.binaries.xvid.movies
Alt.binaries.multimedia

[medstudent]

blasphemy. socialization will cut my future earnings in half!

[Mr. Peabody]

blasphemy. socialization will cut my future earnings in half!

Yeah, the British NSH doctor they interview in Sicko only has a one-million dollar home and a $400,000/year income.

[medstudent]

Yeah, the British NSH doctor they interview in Sicko only has a one-million dollar home and a $400,000/year income.

:rolleyes you think thats enough? thats weak sauce

[Thunder Dan]

IF i was a senator, i'd put this topic to rest by brokering a pact where if we privatize education, we'll socialize medicine.

Then we'll see where Bouton's heroes hearts lie, with the teachers unions, or little timmy at the childrens hospital, you know the one where you know you're screwed if you start recieving clown visits and a trip to disneyland. Which with those kinds of promises, Michael moore will show up and you'll get a free ticket to cuba.

So in a couple of years when my generation (20 somethings) can't get jobs becuase we don't have the education of other countries are we supposed to just go work in the steel mills that have already moved out of the U.S.? Or are you just saying that only the wealthy can go to college? Our country's biggest threat is lack of knowlege in the competative global market. The people in college and graduating now are what will either propel our diminish the quality of life in our country for future generations.

[Mr. Peabody]

:rolleyes you think thats enough? thats weak sauce

Well, he wasn't a specialist. He just had a family practice. Not too bad of an income, plus I am assuming that the government covers all of the overhead for these physicians.

I do agree that it would be unfortunate for doctors who are accustomed to earning as much as they can.

[Yonivore]

...see you when you get out.

Michael Moore Assists In Entrapping Internet Downloaders

After the Saab Socialist claimed he didn't mind if people downloaded his movie for free, we learn this (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06192007/gossip/pagesix/piracy_buster_pagesix_.htm):


"I hired Kroll Securities, and we started flooding the zone," [SiCKO producer Harvey] Weinstein crowed to us. "We created lots of phony sites, and people had to input their private information to gain access to 'SiCKO.' We are turning over all the information to the police and prosecutors and are stopping Internet piracy."
Will "Friend of the Common Man" Michael Moore, who explicitly authorized fans to download the movie, intervene?

Doubtful.

You'll be missed. Say hey to Paris, will ya?

[Nbadan]

Yeah, too bad neither bit-torrent nor Usenet require you to register to use their service.

:rolleyes

I'm not condoning illegal downloading.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, too bad neither bit-torrent nor Usenet require you to register to use their service.

:rolleyes

I'm not condoning illegal downloading.
Just doing it.

[Nbadan]

Just doing it.

Yeah, cause I, like Gore, started the Usenet and Torrent.


:sleep

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not condoning illegal downloading.Of course you are.

[Nbadan]

Of course you are.

No, your confusing condoning with reporting. For an example of condoning see the club thread...

[ChumpDumper]

No, your confusing condoning with reporting. For an example of condoning see the club thread...So you don't want us to watch this video.

Why did you post the links?

Did you watch them yourself?

[Yonivore]

No, your confusing condoning with reporting. For an example of condoning see the club thread...
If you viewed it without paying for it, you've committed a crime. Deal.

[Nbadan]

So you don't want us to watch this video.

Why did you post the links?

Did you watch them yourself?


Cause I'm just reporting what and where people are downloading SICKO. I'm not saying go out and do it...but if you enjoyed the clips then support the movie.

[ChumpDumper]

So you don't want us to watch the video.

Did you watch them yourself?

[ChumpDumper]

Why can't concerned Americans just spend $10 to see it at the theater? The producers put up $9 million for Moore to make this movie just so you can "report" how to rip them off?

[Nbadan]

If you viewed it without paying for it, you've committed a crime. Deal.

I've only viewed the Youtube clips and half the stuff on Youtube is copy-write protected and thus under your definition 'a crime', but whose going to prosecute web-surfers for clicking on a Youtube video, right?


(Paging Alberto...) :oink

[ChumpDumper]

Why can't you just encourage people to pay and watch the movie or "report" when it it actually released?

[Nbadan]

Why can't concerned Americans just spend $10 to see it at the theater? The producers put up $9 million for Moore to make this movie just so you can "report" how to rip them off?

Showing clips on Youtube creates a buzz about the movie in the general public. Downloaders aren't ever going to pay anyway, and they don't download off sites that make you register to do so.

[ChumpDumper]

Showing clips on Youtube creates a buzz about the movie in the general public.Yeah, they're called trailers. Why not post links to those?
Downloaders aren't ever going to pay anyway, and they don't download off sites that make you register to do so.So are you going to download this movie and never pay to see it?

[Nbadan]

Yeah, they're called trailers.

You like for families to spend $60-$90 to go see shitty movies? Like them or not downloaders provide a service, they screen movies and create buzzes, forget shitty trailers.

[Nbadan]

So are you going to download this movie and never pay to see it?

I'll think I'll wait for the book.

:nerd

[ChumpDumper]

You like for families to spend $60-$90 to go see shitty movies?Is SICKO a shitty movie? Would you prefer it or movies like it never be produced?
Like them or not downloaders provide a serviceYeah, a copyright violation service.
they screen moviesThey illegally distrubte copyrighted material
and create buzzesBuzz for what? They show the whole movie!

[Nbadan]

Is SICKO a shitty movie? Would you prefer it or movies like it never be produced?

Nah, Moore rehashes the same ole' kamakazi techniques he's used in other movies, but this story needs to be told....

[Nbadan]

Buzz for what? They show the whole movie!

Take the movie Knocked Up for instance. Making good money at theaters, but been available on the web since distribution...why? It's a good movie. Downloaders created a buzz, people are paying to go see it....

[Nbadan]

Great Moore piece....

Funeral at an HMO. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4sNMKp0Mw)

[Yonivore]

I've only viewed the Youtube clips and half the stuff on Youtube is copy-write protected and thus under your definition 'a crime', but whose going to prosecute web-surfers for clicking on a Youtube video, right?


(Paging Alberto...) :oink
So, it's only a crime if you (can) get caught? I see.

Nice moral compass there, Dan.

[SA210]

Great Moore piece....

Funeral at an HMO. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4sNMKp0Mw)
Wow. Michael Moore is awesome. I will be there in support for the opening of Sicko.

:clap

[leemajors]

Showing clips on Youtube creates a buzz about the movie in the general public. Downloaders aren't ever going to pay anyway, and they don't download off sites that make you register to do so.

plenty of downloaders register on private torrent sites. i don't think you could be any more wrong.

[Spurminator]

Sure sounds like condoning to me.

[Spurminator]

Hell, I'll condone it too. If Michael Moore's documentaries have any social merit or value, they should be free to the public. News as a money-making enterprise gets you things like Fox News and Fahrenheit 911.

I intend to see it since it will likely be a topic of discussion but I'll be damned if I'm giving a penny to Michael Moore or the Weinsteins. When a documentary has the potential to spur a national dialogue that could impact our health care system, we're all movie critics. And movie critics get their copies for free.

[Mr. Peabody]

Wow. Michael Moore is awesome. I will be there in support for the opening of Sicko.

:clap

Yeah, I am wondering what kind of reaction the movie will get upon release. I remember seeing Fahrenheit 911 in Houston the day it opened and the movie got a standing ovation. I wonder if there will be a similar reaction for this movie.

[Mr. Peabody]

Hell, I'll condone it too. If Michael Moore's documentaries really had any social merit or value, they should be free to the public. News as a money-making enterprise gets you things like Fox News and Fahrenheit 911.

I intend to see it since it will likely be a topic of discussion but I'll be damned if I'm giving a penny to Michael Moore or the Weinsteins. When a documentary has the potential to create a national dialogue that could impact our health care system, we're all movie critics. And movie critics get their copies for free.

I agree the movie should be free so that everyone has the opportunity to see it. However, if the movie doesn't turn a profit, it makes it less likely that the studio will support similar movies in the future.

[Spurminator]

That's a catch, but I've seen some damn good documentaries on PBS.

I think the studio is an unnecessary middle man.

[gtownspur]

I love the resident libtard response, "Yeah, Michael Moore is a propagandist and a manipulator, but you should go see the movie because it will raise your awareness..."

Then they get their placenta all out of place when anyone mentions O reilly.

[PixelPusher]

I love the resident libtard response, "Yeah, Michael Moore is a propagandist and a manipulator, but you should go see the movie because it will raise your awareness..."

Then they get their placenta all out of place when anyone mentions O reilly.
Jon Stewart gets free food stamps from the liberal government and gives them away to illegal immigrants. (gtown's placenta ruptures...)

[gtownspur]

Jon Stewart gets free food stamps from the liberal government and gives them away to illegal immigrants. (gtown's placenta ruptures...)


Chumpdump is posting nude pics of himself in the troll forum.(Pixel is wetting her tuna flaps..)

[SA210]

Yeah, I am wondering what kind of reaction the movie will get upon release. I remember seeing Fahrenheit 911 in Houston the day it opened and the movie got a standing ovation. I wonder if there will be a similar reaction for this movie.
It got a standing ovation here when I saw F911 too. Didn't they air it on tv though? i'm not sure but i think they showed it on like nbc or something, of course this was after the theatrical release, but none the less.

[Yonivore]

Teaser on Drudge:


SICKO director Michael Moore pulls out of health care debate against former House Majority Leader Tom Delay that was set happen Sunday morning on ABC'S THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS. According to Delay's office, Moore instigated the event but at first withheld a preview copy of SICKO and now has dropped out of the debate completely... Developing...
:lmao

Can't have the opposition preparing for the debate now, can we?

[Yonivore]

i kind of lean toward the stance that information should be free....
It is free.

It's acquiring, assembling it into a entertaining package, and disseminating information that's costly and people who do so, for profit, have a right to be paid. Including Moore's financial backers in SICKO!

[Mr. Peabody]

It is free.

It's acquiring, assembling it into a entertaining package, and disseminating information that's costly and people who do so, for profit, have a right to be paid. Including Moore's financial backers in SICKO!

I agree. There won't be anymore Sicko or Slicko-type films if there aren't any financial backers willing to support such films. Just a hunch, but I think most of them would like to realize a profit on such investments.

[Yonivore]

looks like these financial backers will just have to figure out an alternative way of making money than charging users...
I'm sure they will. I'm just as sure it won't be by providing financial support to any future Moore Mockumentaries.


for example, many newspapers get the majority of their revenue through advertising, not subscription fees
And advertisers only buy space if you sell newspapers.

[Yonivore]

or if people visit the newspaper's website online

that's where the advertising dollars are going
Whatever. The provision of that information isn't free.

[Jamtas#2]

I agree. If you are of the mindset that these movies which are made for entertainment value (Knocked Up) or information value (Sicko) that are the results of someone else's labor should be free, you are mistaken.

Dan, I highly doubt that you would mind putting in your 40 hour week and not be paid for it because someone decides that you should provide your service for free.
You can try and justify that the industry is greedy and shouldn't cost so much, but you are still breaking the law and stealing.

[Spurminator]

Look, there's still money to be made in documentaries that are shown to the public for free. Otherwise PBS wouldn't be putting out so many quality programs. Of course there are costs for making a film like Sicko. But you don't need Weinstein type clout to present it to the public.


There won't be anymore Sicko or Slicko-type films if there aren't any financial backers willing to support such films.

Depending on its merit, this may be a good thing. We all know what happens to fictional movies when the goal is to make $100 Million at the box office. I would expect the same depreciation in quality for socio-political documentaries that are made to sell tickets under the guise of presenting "the truth" to the public.

I think they absolutely have a right to distribute the film for profit, even millions. But the more money there is to be made, the greater the degree of skepticism I approach it with.

[Spurminator]

And either way, this movie is not going to hurt for ticket sales, since a great majority of its audience will buy a ticket to see it as a badge of honor, like showing up with all of your like-minded buddies for a protest rally.

[Yonivore]

Look, there's still money to be made in documentaries that are shown to the public for free. Otherwise PBS wouldn't be putting out so many quality programs.
Now you're talking about another pet peeve of mine. Public funding of art and entertainment.

Much of what's on PBS wouldn't be broadcast if it were up to free market forces.


Of course there are costs for making a film like Sicko. But you don't need Weinstein type clout to present it to the public.
But, you do need money. If you want to bankroll some venture, fine; but, don't be using my money to do it and then just give it away. If my tax dollars are going to go toward some junk like Sicko!, I want there to be a profit.


Depending on its merit, this may be a good thing. We all know what happens to fictional movies when the goal is to make $100 Million at the box office. I would expect the same depreciation in quality for socio-political documentaries that are made to sell tickets under the guise of presenting "the truth" to the public.

I think they absolutely have a right to distribute the film for profit, even millions. But it does introduce a degree of skepticism.
Really? The fact Michael Moore was involved didn't make you skeptical?

[Spurminator]

Much of what's on PBS wouldn't be broadcast if it were up to free market forces.

Thankfully we've always got Fox and The CW.


If my tax dollars are going to go toward some junk like Sicko!, I want there to be a profit.

Why do you care whether someone profits or not, unless it's you?

Government funds are (supposed to be) used for the overall public benefit. That doesn't have to be monetary. It can be informational.


Really? The fact Michael Moore was involved didn't make you skeptical?

Of course it did.

[Jamtas#2]

You can believe this sort of thing should be free. You can petition and write letters to your congressman or senator for change and public funding. But until it is free, you are still stealing, regardless of if you think it should be free or not. Right now, it isn't.

[Yonivore]

Thankfully we've always got Fox and The CW.
Amen.


Why do you care whether someone profits or not, unless it's you?
It is me, I'm a taxpayer. And, if tax dollars are to be used I want there to be a zero-sum gain or profit. No losses.


Government funds are (supposed to be) used for the overall public benefit. That doesn't have to be monetary. It can be informational.
Find that in the Constitution.


Of course it did.
At least you got that going for you.

[Spurminator]

You can believe this sort of thing should be free. You can petition and write letters to your congressman or senator for change and public funding. But until it is free, you are still stealing, regardless of if you think it should be free or not. Right now, it isn't.

And if it gets to the point where I feel legitimately threatened by the possibility of being found and punished for viewing it for free, I may reconsider.

In a world where people drive over the speed limit, smoke pot and play in March Madness office pools, I'm not all that swayed by an appeal to my respect for the government's definition of stealing.

[Spurminator]

Find that in the Constitution.

Find your "zero sum gain" provision in The Constitution.

What does The Constitution have to do with any of this anyway? We're just talking philosophy.

[Yonivore]

Find your "zero sum gain" provision in The Constitution.
You've got to find the constitutional authority to spend my tax dollars on PBS first.


What does The Constitution have to do with any of this anyway? We're just talking philosophy.
Because you said this:


Look, there's still money to be made in documentaries that are shown to the public for free. Otherwise PBS wouldn't be putting out so many quality programs.
PBS ain't free.

[Spurminator]

PBS was simply an example of a network where documentaries are of a high quality, and where the public would not have to pay $8-$10 to see such a program.

I understand that it's publically funded, but it's an available option. My intent was not to debate the merits of Public TV.

If it's truly groundbreaking and significant work, I'm sure ABC or CBS wouldn't hesitate to show it during one of their news programs.

[Jamtas#2]

And if it gets to the point where I feel legitimately threatened by the possibility of being found and punished for viewing it for free, I may reconsider.

In a world where people drive over the speed limit, smoke pot and play in March Madness office pools, I'm not all that swayed by an appeal to my respect for the government's definition of stealing.

Ok, so by speeding, smoking pot and playing in a March Madness pool, who exactly are you preventing from profiting from the service/good they provided? Why not just eat your dinner at Chili's and leave without paying? If you don't get caught, no big deal right?

[Spurminator]

I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not arguing that it's not "stealing" by definition, I'm just saying I don't care. I dislike the idea of films like Sicko! profiting millions of dollars, and I choose not to support it monetarily.

But I do want to speak intelligently on it if it comes up in conversation. So I'll download it illegally off the internet and watch it. Then I'll delete it.

[Yonivore]

I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not arguing that it's not "stealing" by definition, I'm just saying I don't care. I dislike the idea of films like Sicko! profiting millions of dollars, and I choose not to support it monetarily.

But I do want to speak intelligently on it if it comes up in conversation. So I'll download it illegally off the internet and watch it. Then I'll delete it.
That's just idiotic reasoning. Sorry, but it is.

[spurscenter]

GO SEE SICKO

best movie of the decade

[Yonivore]

GO SEE SICKO

best movie of the decade
Yeah, I love the way he justified his glowing praise for Cuba's healthcare system. He and his crew were allowed to check themselves into a Cuban hospital so they could see how patients are treated.

Jay Leno said something to the effect of, "Surely you realize the Cuban government was using you as a tool, right?"

Moore's response?

They had a spanish-speaking member of their crew sneak out of the hospital and re-admit herself through the emergency room. Moore says she got the same treatment as when it was known who they were.

Yeah, I'm sure the Cuban handlers had no clue about that stunt.

You want to see Cuba's true healthcare system?

Michael Moore's Wish For America.. Cuban Healthcare -- a photographic, undercover, essay (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/michael-moores-wish-for-america-cuban.html)

Sicko! is a Moore's kinder gentler attempt at the same bullshit he pulled in his other Mockumentaries.

[boutons_]

Yoni's knee jerks and he Pavlonianly salivates as predictably as whott and Wild Cobra. :lol

[Spurminator]

That's just idiotic reasoning. Sorry, but it is.

Oh well.

Nobody's losing any money if I download a movie I never would have paid to see in the first place. Sorry if I don't lose any sleep over that or your opinion of it.

[Yonivore]

Oh well.

Nobody's losing any money if I download a movie I never would have paid to see in the first place. Sorry if I don't lose any sleep over that or your opinion of it.
Stealing the "best movie of the decade" (edit: ooops! according to "spurscenter" not "spurminator" -- yonivore) and then pimping it to others...your mother would be proud.

[Budkin]

Sicko was fucking amazing. Practically brought me to tears with all the medical bullshit I've had to go through with my wife here. It's time the health insurance companies went bye bye.

[Jamtas#2]

Oh well.

Nobody's losing any money if I download a movie I never would have paid to see in the first place. Sorry if I don't lose any sleep over that or your opinion of it.

Nobody's losing money if I dine and dash for a meal I never would have paid for either, right?

The fact that you have the ability to download and steal it means that someone is losing money. I understand that you don't care about stealing it, you've made that clear. But that is just ridiculous reasoning.
But at least you can talk intelligently about the movie now...(even though you never would have paid to see it in the first place)

[Spurminator]

Nobody's losing money if I dine and dash for a meal I never would have paid for either, right?


Of course they are. You've taken food that could have been sold to someone else, a table that could have seated paying customers, and time from a waiter and kitchenstaff that could have been used on paying customers. There are tangible goods lost when you leave a restaurant without paying.

[Jamtas#2]

Of course they are. You've taken food that could have been sold to someone else, a table that could have seated paying customers, and time from a waiter and kitchenstaff that could have been used on paying customers. There are tangible goods lost when you leave a restaurant without paying.

As was the editing of the film. The work of the documentor as well as the sound editor, the money invested by the studio...etc...
Stealing is stealing.

[Spurminator]

And how do they lose any time or revenue as a result of my watching a downloaded copy of Sicko?

[Jamtas#2]

because since you are stealing the finished product, you make sure that they studio that paid for all of the salaries is not being re-imbursed by your viewing. With the increased number of "I'm just one person stealing the movie" downloders, it amounts to a great deal of lost money, further discouraging investing in this type of venture. Having had friends in the lower levels working at studios like Miramax in the past and knowing that layoffs are made because of the loss of revenue of films, I can say that illegal downloading does have a cost.

[Spurminator]

because since you are stealing the finished product, you make sure that they studio that paid for all of the salaries is not being re-imbursed by your viewing.

My viewership of the film is not a finite good that results in a loss of revenue. On an individual level, it's no different from borrowing a DVD from a friend.


With the increased number of "I'm just one person stealing the movie" downloders, it amounts to a great deal of lost money, further discouraging investing in this type of venture.

There's only lost money if people download a movie as a replacement for seeing it in the theater or buying the DVD.


Having had friends in the lower levels working at studios like Miramax in the past and knowing that layoffs are made because of the loss of revenue of films, I can say that illegal downloading does have a cost.

The market will correct itself. The Book industry survived public libraries, the Movie industry will survive Bittorrent. I don't condone selling bootlegs or downloading a bunch of movies as a replacement for taking trips to the theater, but right now it's a symptom of an industry who has priced a lot of its audience out of the market.

And if a movie studio is peddling a documentary based on mischaraterizations and exaggerations in order to exploit the public's mistrust or feelings of victimization, then I hope it does lose revenue. On the other hand, if it's a good enough documentary then I'll probably buy the DVD and add it to my substantial movie collection.

But I might also let some people borrow it.

[Jamtas#2]

...all valid arguments on how the industry will need to adapt to technology. But you still are currently stealing as libraries are a legal alternative since the books were still purchased from the publisher, as was the dvd you could borrow from a friend. Borrowing from a friend is a small level distribuiton, not exactly the same as putting it on the web for thousands or millions to view.


There's only lost money if people download a movie as a replacement for seeing it in the theater or buying the DVD."

Since you said earlier that you had no intention of paying for it, you would fit into this category and you proved my statement about the lost money correct.

[Spurminator]

Since you said earlier that you had no intention of paying for it, you would fit into this category and you proved my statement about the lost money correct.

My intent is not based on its availability via Bittorrent, it's based on my feelings about big budget political-social documentaries.

I wouldn't download Transformers, for example, because I will most likely see it in the theater.

[Jamtas#2]

Still stealing.

"There's only lost money if people download a movie as a replacement for seeing it in the theater or buying the DVD."

regardless of your intent, still lost money.

[Spurminator]

Still stealing.

Sure. On a small scale like borrowing a DVD.

I can sleep fine with that.


regardless of your intent, still lost money.

No. There was never any money to be had.

[Jamtas#2]

Sure. On a small scale like borrowing a DVD.

I can sleep fine with that.



No. There was never any money to be had.


Like I said, with borrowing a DVD, the product had been purchased and the distribution among friends does not come close to being available on the web.

and yes, since you would have had to pay to see the film in a theatre, or borrow from a friend who paid for it, there was money to be had.

[Spurminator]

I don't think you're understanding what I mean when I say I don't intend to pay for Sicko.

If downloading it online was NOT an available option, I still would NOT go to the theater to see it, or rent it, unless I was somehow given a ticket or borrowed a copy. Therefore, there is NO POTENTIAL REVENUE for Sicko from me.

What they are getting from me amounts to a bonus viewing.

[Jamtas#2]

No. I understand what you are saying. You seem to think that it is ok to steal the movie if you never intended to see it. That there is no lost money because you wouldn't pay to see it. The fact that you did download it means that since you were able to view it which you would not be able to do unless it was available illegally, you did create a means of lost money, whether or not you would have paid to see it is irrevelant. You still stole it. And since you stated earlier that you wanted to be able to speak intelligently about the film, you did have intent to view it.
Downloading online is an option, but an illegal one that is still stealing.

[xrayzebra]

Yoni's knee jerks and he Pavlonianly salivates as predictably as whott and Wild Cobra. :lol

Speak of predictably and look what pops up......boutons
:lol

[xrayzebra]

No. I understand what you are saying. You seem to think that it is ok to steal the movie if you never intended to see it. That there is no lost money because you wouldn't pay to see it. The fact that you did download it means that since you were able to view it which you would not be able to do unless it was available illegally, you did create a means of lost money, whether or not you would have paid to see it is irrevelant. You still stole it. And since you stated earlier that you wanted to be able to speak intelligently about the film, you did have intent to view it.
Downloading online is an option, but an illegal one that is still stealing.

"Sicko" is a movie? So guess you could call it fiction,
right?

[Jamtas#2]

"Sicko" is a movie? So guess you could call it fiction,
right?

Sorry, I was more referring to downloading films in general. Movie was not the correct term to use, documentary would have been the appropriate word.

Not having seen it yet, I couldn't comment on the complete accuracy and debate you on what is fiction vs fact in the film. My hope is that this work of Moore's is not slanted right or left, but rather on the subject of our healthcare system and what issues need to be addressed. I'm not a huge fan of Moore personally, but I'm not gonna write off Sicko just because he made the film.

[Spurminator]

You seem to think that it is ok to steal the movie if you never intended to see it.

Correct.


That there is no lost money because you wouldn't pay to see it.

Correct.


The fact that you did download it means that since you were able to view it which you would not be able to do unless it was available illegally

...unless I borrowed it from a friend, but otherwise, correct.


you did create a means of lost money, whether or not you would have paid to see it is irrevelant.

No I didn't. The net loss for the movie studio is measured by their potential revenue from me if downloading is not an option. That potential revenue is zero, thus their net loss is zero.


You still stole it. And since you stated earlier that you wanted to be able to speak intelligently about the film, you did have intent to view it.

Intent to view, but not intent to pay to view.

My intent to not financially support a slanted, exploitive outweighs my desire to speak intelligently about it, so given only those two options, I would have had no intent whatsoever to see it. But given both the opportunity to see it and avoid supporting it financially... sure, why not?

My conscience is clear. Good talk though.

[Jamtas#2]

Ok, I get your point. However, please realize that you are not just ripping off a big huge studio with lots of money. When they lose money it is not the big salaried guys that pay the price, it is the lower level employees. You may not care and continue to download films and music online illeaglly, but do realize that there is a price to it all. When you get any good or service and don't pay a price, it is stealing no matter what your intent would have been towards it without the downloading service available. Downloading music or films from the internet is in fact copyright infringement on intellectual property and due to the ease and vast size of the internet, I would have to argue that it is very much not the same as borrowing a copy of a CD or DVD from a friend who bought it.
I think I've said about as much as I can on this as well.

[Yonivore]

So, spurminator, if the video wasn't available on the internet tubes (due to illegal posting), would you sneak into a theater to see it so you could talk intelligently about it? Or, would you just skip it as a topic about which you'd discuss? Or, maybe, you'd buy a ticket and see it -- particularly if it was a hot topic.

The harm you do by stealing it online is that you give ammunition to those who would like to exert control over the internet and restrict access to all sorts of things that are intended to be free...not just pilfered movies you wouldn't otherwise pay to see.

Keep it up and big media -- big business -- or big government (take your pick) will own the internet. Way to go champ, hope it was worth it.

[Spurminator]

:lol

That is one looooong ass slippery slope.

[Yonivore]

Here's something Sicko! for you:

Terror plot hatched in British hospitals (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2730423.ece)

Too bad Moore didn't sniff around the UK's healthcare system. Maybe he would have noticed something amiss.

[Yonivore]

:lol

That is one looooong ass slippery slope.
Only for those dancing on the edge.

[boutons_]

http://lesliehayes.blogspot.com/2007/08/doctor-buys-334-of-lions-gate-shares-1.html


Saturday, August 4, 2007

Health Care Investor Buys 33.4% of Lions Gate Shares 1 Week before the

Release of Michael Moore’s SICKO


Mark H. Rachesky, M.D. purchased 33.4% (over 40 Million) shares of Lions Gate stock one week prior to the scheduled opening of Michael Moore's controversial film "Sicko" which happens to be distributed by Lions Gate. (SEC filing can be found here.). Interestingly, a pre-screening of the film was held on the same day in New Hampshire for over 600 people including doctors, health care lobbyists, nurses, political figures and pharmaceutical companies all from the health care industry.

Dr. Rachesky is the founder and President of MHR Fund Management LLC and affiliates who are investment managers of various private funds. Dr. Rachesky is currently on the Board of Directors of Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. who focus on the acquisition, development and commercialization of medically important, novel pharmaceutical products for the treatment of life-threatening diseases, including diabetes and cancer. He is also an investment broker for NovaDel Pharma Inc. (AMEX: NVD), a specialty pharmaceutical company who targets candidates suffering from nausea, insomnia, migraine headaches and disorders of the central nervous system (CNS). In addition DR. Rachesky is the beneficial owner of Medical Nutrition USA, Inc. owning approximately 29% of the company with 3,786,799 shares. He is also the Director of Neose Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTEC) which is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of next-generation therapeutic proteins that are competitive with best in class protein drugs currently on the market. In 2003, the market for therapeutic proteins grew by almost 19% to $37 billion, and is predicted to achieve sales of over $90 billion by 2010. Recently the Doctor also has invested in Emisphere Technologies, Inc. another bio pharmaceutical company charting new frontiers in drug delivery. Emisphere has strategic alliances with world-leading pharmaceutical companies

Originally, Lion’s Gate had planned a wide release of SICKO in over 1,600 theaters nationwide June 29, 2007 but one week prior to the release the number was reduced to a mere 400. This decision was made the same week Dr. Rachesky purchased Lions Gate stock. Could this be pure coincidence?

Did Dr Rachesky purchase the stock for controlling interests in Lions Gate? Controlling Interest is when the parent company owns a majority of the common stock that allows the shareholder major influence on the company. Normally for one to obtain controlling interests in a company one would purchase at least 51% of all shares however, in some cases a single entity can essentially maintain control with only 33.4% of the outstanding shares. Ironically, this is the exact percentage of shares purchased by Dr. Rachesky.

In the film SICKO Michael Moore turns his attentions toward the topic of health care in the United States in this documentary that weighs the plight of the uninsured against the record profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Moore interviews a number of people who have been left broke by medical bills even though they were fully insured, and explains how the corporate drive for profits has left numerous people in financial and medical disarray. After hearing that detainees in Guantanamo have access to free health care, Moore assembles a group of World Trade Center rescue workers to travel to Cuba in order to get the medical help they need for ailments they incurred in 2001. Moore's film debuted at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival. ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide

If Dr Rachesky purchased Lions Gate shares for controlling power is it safe to ask why? There are many debates and arguments as the the accuracy of Moore’s film. What interests me is if there were no truth and validity to the documentary why would someone go to so much trouble to make sure it is not a success and limit the amount theaters where the film can be seen? Sounds to me like this film has left the health care industry shaking in their boots and they don't want us to know the truth.

Article By: Leslie Hayes

==========================

Any comments on the facts of the purchase?

Perhaps a simple explanation is that the good doctor is innocently investing in LG due to him believing LG has some blockbusters in the pipleline. Or maybe he really did want to strangle the Sicko release because it dramatizes how sick is his gouging, ineffective, fatal-error-pronce profession, and its supporting industry, that makes his so wealthy.