Id82 said: Could we for once in the history of america finally see partisan cooperation in opposition to a bill that the majority of Americans don't want?
Zo said: Crono said: The Smurfs movie made 500 million bucks this year. In a world where the economy is drowning, and this type of shit happens... I just can't help but think the movie industry needs to go to shit anyways. In an ironic twist to my point, I've never pirated a movie; strictly games and software.Piracy doesn't harm stuff like the Smurfs movie. Piracy harms all the movies they didn't make because it'd be more profitable for them to make a Smurfs movie (non-offensive, nostalgia, remake, kid's movie). Piracy is the reason for the Smurfs movie, and for Transformers, and for Jack and fucking Jill. If piracy didn't happen then studios would have more money to take risks on better (but less popular) films, and then maybe people besides Sundance and Cannes audiences would be able to see an indie film.
Crono said: The Smurfs movie made 500 million bucks this year. In a world where the economy is drowning, and this type of shit happens... I just can't help but think the movie industry needs to go to shit anyways. In an ironic twist to my point, I've never pirated a movie; strictly games and software.
Spidey said: Everything you said is true, but it doesn't support the claim that piracy is what prevents studios from taking risks. Whlie piracy does hurt, they wouldn't be taking risks anyway. Movies like Scott Pilgrim weren't being made before the internet either, that's why I use it as an example. If anything the internet age of piracy produced a big budget film like Scott Pilgrim, where pre 1995, there were no movies about video games with any sort of budget. Clearly piracy isn't the dealbreaker when it comes to studios deciding whether to make a risky film. There's been shit like Smurfs coming out and shit like Scott PIlgrim not coming out since before I was born. There hasn't been any trend that has linked increasing piracy with decreasing studio-innovation/risk taking. I"m satisfied with your answer on my other question though.
Zo said: That's a good point actually, maybe it is just an excuse. I don't think piracy helps in any case though, and I should think that movies like Smurfs are still pirated less than most thanks to being a kid's movie. I guess I'm just trying to justify the rising cost of cinema tickets to myself, since there's been a ton of movies that have passed me by because they're simply too expensive for me to justify going to see. What used to be £4-5 has shot up to £10-12, up to £15 or more for 3D movies (which is just another reason to hate 3D). It sucks because I do want to see these movies, and I want to support the film industry, but until the price is reasonable then piracy is always going to be the most attractive option. This I feel is the major problem with organisations like the RIAA and MPAA - the attitude that consumers should feel privileged that we're permitted to pay large amounts of money for 2 hours of entertainment. The fight against piracy isn't working - what high-profile cases we've seen have all been demonising the RIAA/MPAA for hounding relative innocents with huge lawsuits for tiny infringements. The entertainment industry needs to take piracy seriously and start treating it as competition, because it's never going to beat it and is wasting time and money trying.
Id82 said: I hope so too.
SuperSquall said: As far as I'm concerned the American government will declare itself obsolete, out of touch with reality, and at odds with the younger generations (and ultimately the chance for a better future) if this passes.
Rhaegar said: SuperSquall said: As far as I'm concerned the American government will declare itself obsolete, out of touch with reality, and at odds with the younger generations (and ultimately the chance for a better future) if this passes.You mean it hasn't already?
