A full length version (though unrendered) of the unreleased movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine was leaked on the internet.
Ethics-noun [in sing. ]
a set of moral principles, esp. ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct
Let's talk about nethics- (a new word as far as I know- I like making words lol). ethics using the medium of the internet.
I only found out around this past January that you can watch (without downloading, but streaming video)full length feature films online (I can hear the youth laughing cuz I'm way behind the times). I told my 60 something yr old mother, and she didn't believe me. 'How could you possibly in any way be able to watch feature films online, soon after their their releases (let alone before!) for free?' Mai own mother didn't believe me.
Most online movies are usually 'bootleg' copies, where someone paid to see the movie at the theatre, videotaped it and put it on the Net. But honestly, I still don't know how an unreleased movie like Wolverine could be leaked UNLESS by someone working on the film. However, before the net, you could BUY bootleg copies from street vendors, but now they just put it on the net for no profit? That's kinda weird. A sort of recession time, entertainment- Robin Hooding? You decide...
It's theft. It's piracy. It's copyright infrigement. It's wrong. But its a de facto practice by many.
Pro
Movies require millions of dollars, and make millions of dollars, movie stars and celebrities make exorbitant amounts of money performing (often producing great works of art) essentially a needless service.
When I was about 8 or 9yrs old, I was angered, confused, and saddened to the point of tears when I understood the wage differences between athletes (celebrities) and teachers. I didn't understand how such an important job (teaching), was so less monetarily valued. Now of course I understand the industry of art and the industry of education...
We are in a recession, and it's survival of the fittest, would Darwin watch movies for free online??? I'm not sure, but I believe many who watch movies online wouldn't bother to watch them at all if they weren't online.
Con
Bootlegged films will make less money. The stars will be the last to suffer.
Sure the studios loose money, but in the most direct of ways the movie theatres will be hurt. Their janitors, popcorn vendors, ticket sellers, the average working people. Not to mention the people who work tirelessly at places like BlockBuster.
With this in mind, are they still worth watching in this manner?
It's theft. It's wrong. But its a de facto practice by many.
It's not theft; it's copyright infringement. That doesn't make it right, but I just wanted to clarify that reducing the value of something in an illegal way is not "theft."
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
While the above comment makes a great point that it is not theft per se, it is in conflict with my core values. Big business will always find a way to cover itself, so movie piracy, songs etc. will hurt from the bottom up.
However I have always felt like downloading an album is wrong, but not a song. I see no difference between this, and say recording songs off the radio. The system has always favored record companies over artist, so for example George Clinton doesn't own the rights to any of his P-Funk recordings, so when you go to the store and buy Atomic Dog or Flashlight or any recording that features these things, he doesn't get a dime, the white collar crooks who have stolen his music get every dime. When you download Atomic Dog or Flashlight and make a banging mixtape for your friends it keeps his music alive and when he comes to town to do a show, or releases something on his own, he has an audience.
So I do think that I should re think my actions in term of pirated entertainment.
Love-Health-Awareness-Wealth
Mjh
I'm glad to hear your stance on the issue. Being a Media Comm Major who will hopefully one day be one of those filmmakers, I'm definitely on the side of the creators of the movie. Sure, some Robin Hoody guy might think he's sticking it to those overpaid actors when he bootlegs a film, but what about the camera operator and the line producer? What about the writer? The makeup gal? The choreographer? The caterer? The animal trainer? The Gaffer? The Guy Whose Cell Keeps Ringing During the Shots?
There's a lot of people. And they ain't gettin' what the star is gettin', at least not most of them.
I'd just like to point out that most of the people putting movies online, legit or not, aren't doing so for free. See the ads on this and pretty much every site? Those are a major source of revenue for the site operators. The more people that visit a site, regardless of whether they actually watch anything, the more money they get (bonus points for people who follow the links the ads are for, and even more if they buy anything).
Also, not all services are illegal. Part of this is because they offer the movies/TV shows/music in a non-downloaded medium (aka - streaming) as part of the deal they have with the media companies. The free places are also typically ad-supported. It's the same concept as TV with commercials on air or cable channels, or paying extra for things like HBO or Pay-Per-View.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I'm with Bridge on this...
Everyone knows actors and actresses are grossly overpaid; but most of the people that it takes to put together a movie are not. Many of them work for minimum wage, or just above minimum wage.
I'm sure these people think they're sticking it to the actors... "Aww, Julia Roberts is only going to get 12.5 billion instead of 12.8 billion now" - but she won't be the one who loses out.
As far as movie theaters, they make their money on their concessions - I wouldn't feel too sorry for them. It costs a penny (maybe two pennies) for them to fill a large cup of soda for you, and it costs them maybe another 5 cents (altogether) for the cup itself, a lid, and a straw. So we're looking at 7 cents it costs them to give you a large soda, and they're charging $3.25 (or more). That's a markup I don't even want to try bothering to figure out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence
Everyone knows actors and actresses are grossly overpaid; but most of the people that it takes to put together a movie are not. Many of them work for minimum wage, or just above minimum wage.
...but the free market determines the worth of the work that various people on a movie set perform. The simple fact is that almost anyone can hold a roll of gaff tape and peel off a strip on command, but not everyone can provide an academy award winning performance as an actor. Good actors are more rare that good gaffers...hence, the actors make more money than the gaffers.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I was about to say something...and then I realized you're probably right. I mean, no matter how many movies you see, only a handful of those actors will be great. Sure, a good number of them can be "good" but good is just a step above mediocre. Movies need great behind the scenes people. If the DOP (Director of Photography) doesn't know his stuff, the whole image of the movie is ruined. If the Director doesn't care, that'll affect everyone else.
...measured against the availablity of that resources dictates the worth of that resource in a market economy. And the simple fact is that movie consumers, by and large, don't give a damn who the Director of Photography is. They go to the movies to see their favorite actors, and a big name actor will bring people in to see even a crappy movie. And let's face it, there are a lot more qualified Director's of Photography than there are Brad Pitts or Angelina Jolies. Also, don't forget that MOST actors make squat. Its only a few at the very top of the industry that command the really big bucks.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
LOL, Actually, I agree with you. But people don't think of the little or the mediocre when they think of actors.
And, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? Seriously? Although Brad Pitt did impress me in Babel and in 12 Monkeys, Angelina Jolie has yet to impress me at all. Giovanni Ribisi - now there's an actor! But that's not exactly the topic of this discussion, lol.
And I do understand about the whole supply and demand for a product or service. But there are how many people hoping and working to be actors? I remember being told many times that LA was filled with the most talented homeless people in the world - people who tried to make it but couldn't catch a break. You can't convince me that they're all bad... or that of all the young girls dreaming of stardom that none of them can match Julia Roberts' talent. Additionally, it's not like sports professionals where they're forced to retire at a certain age or hurt and that's it for them. Does an Actor really need 12 million dollars a movie? On the 10th season of Friends, each actor was paid 1 million dollars an episode. Did they really need 22 milion dollars that year?
The same thing could be said for many other professions that don't make nearly enough money. My city is short by almost 1000 teachers; if you add all the teachers and current substitutes together and give them each a class of 35 students, we'd still be short by more than 300. But how many really good teachers do we have versus those who do an adequate job of passing out books and tests?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie?
They were just examples, though you must admit that a lot of people go to see their movies...okay, maybe not for the acting, but still.
Does an Actor really need 12 million dollars a movie?
I wasn't aware that people's wages were capped once they had earned everything that they "needed." (Can you say, "socialism?") In free market capitalism, you get paid as much as you are worth, based on the availability and demand of the resource you provide. It has nothing to do with what you "need."
The same thing could be said for many other professions that don't make nearly enough money. My city is short by almost 1000 teachers; if you add all the teachers and current substitutes together and give them each a class of 35 students, we'd still be short by more than 300. But how many really good teachers do we have versus those who do an adequate job of passing out books and tests?
Unfortnately, the wages of public employees are out-of-touch with the pressures of the free market. Wages for school teachers come from a limited fund, which logically limits the upper level of their salaries. Teachers aren't forced to compete for wages, and most are paid according to schedules that are based on time served rather than merit. And since those salaries are tax based, the public has a vested interest in keeping those wages as low as possible. The result is an artifically low wage that back in the free market causes many potential employees who have the skills to be teachers to look at the opportunity and say..."nah, that's not for me." If we paid teachers competitive salaries, and forced them to compete for those salaries on the basis of merit, the shortage of teachers would alleviate itself rather quickly.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.