Reply With Quote
As was the editing of the film. The work of the do entor as well as the sound editor, the money invested by the studio...etc...
Stealing is stealing.
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 do entor as well as the sound editor, the money invested by the studio...etc...
Stealing is stealing.
And how do they lose any time or revenue as a result of my watching a downloaded copy of Sicko?
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.
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.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.
There's only lost money if people download a movie as a replacement for seeing it in the theater or buying the DVD.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.
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.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.
And if a movie studio is peddling a do entary 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 do entary then I'll probably buy the DVD and add it to my substantial movie collection.
But I might also let some people borrow it.
Last edited by Spurminator; 07-02-2007 at 01:42 PM.
...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.
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.There's only lost money if people download a movie as a replacement for seeing it in the theater or buying the DVD."
My intent is not based on its availability via Bittorrent, it's based on my feelings about big budget political-social do entaries.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.
I wouldn't download Transformers, for example, because I will most likely see it in the theater.
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.
Sure. On a small scale like borrowing a DVD.Still stealing.
I can sleep fine with that.
No. There was never any money to be had.regardless of your intent, still lost money.
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.
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.
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.
Speak of predictably and look what pops up......boutonsYoni's knee jerks and he Pavlonianly salivates as predictably as whott and Wild Cobra.
"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, do entary 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.
Correct.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.
...unless I borrowed it from a friend, but otherwise, 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
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 did create a means of lost money, whether or not you would have paid to see it is irrevelant.
Intent to view, but not intent to pay to view.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.
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.
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.
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.
That is one looooong ass slippery slope.
Here's something Sicko! for you:
Terror plot hatched in British hospitals
Too bad Moore didn't sniff around the UK's healthcare system. Maybe he would have noticed something amiss.
Only for those dancing on the edge.
That is one looooong ass slippery slope.
http://lesliehayes.blogspot.com/2007...-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 compe ive 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 en y 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 do entary 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 do entary 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions