backtop


Print 183 comment(s) - last by flatline76.. on Jun 1 at 10:25 AM

A producer for "The Hurt Locker" goes postal after a Boing Boing reader questioned the need for a massive lawsuit against pirates

Last week, we detailed a story involving piracy and the movie “The Hurt Locker”. Due to heavy piracy of the movie – even before it was even released in theaters – the producers decided to take the fight to pirates. According to reports, the producers are prepared to sue thousands of pirates and it has the backing of 75 percent of ISPs in the United States.

Now, however, the situation is starting to heat up a bit. A Boing Boing reader sent Nicolas Chartier, President of Voltage Pictures (producers of “The Hurt Locker”), an email expressing his distaste with the fact that his company was going after pirates with a lawsuit. "I wish to register my disagreement with these tactics, and would like you to know that as a result of these actions I am boycotting your films. The majority of the people you are suing were not seeking to make money from their downloads," explained the reader. "While it is completely understandable that Voltage Pictures wishes to defend its intellectual property, this is an inhumane way of doing so."

While we're unsure if the Boing Boing reader expected to actually hear back from Chartier, we're quite certain that he didn't expect to receive the over-the-top email response. Chartier responded, and he struck down with great vengeance and furious anger:

Hi Nicholas, please feel free to leave your house open every time you go out and please tell your family to do so, please invite people in the streets to come in and take things from you, not to make money out of it by reselling it but just to use it for themselves and help themselves. If you think it's normal they take my work for free, I'm sure you will give away all your furniture and possessions and your family will do the same. I can also send you my bank account information since apparently you work for free and your family too so since you have so much money you should give it away... I actually like to pay my employees, my family, my bank for their work and like to get paid for my work. I'm glad you're a moron who believes stealing is right. I hope your family and your kids end up in jail one day for stealing so maybe they can be taught the difference. Until then, keep being stupid, you're doing that very well. And please do not download, rent, or pay for my movies, I actually like smart and more important HONEST people to watch my films.

Chartier definitely got his point across, but it should be interesting to see how the pirates respond to such attacks.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Family Family Family Family
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2010 11:57:55 AM , Rating: 5
Hey asshole why don't you say "family" a few more times to get your point across. Cause we totally didn't get the whole emotional blackmail angle you were going for the first twenty times!

Looks like someone is pissed his generic sad soldier film #325 didn't sell enough DVD's, so we're going after pirates.

As an "executive" I would be thoroughly embarrassed if I allowed my emotions to cause me to fire back such a poorly written, hatefilled, bad analogy ridden post that reads like something from an average video game forum troll.

You know what, I wasn't interested in your movie, but I think I'll go Usenet the Hurt Locker right now just to spite you. Ass. And there is NOTHING you can do about it.




RE: Family Family Family Family
By alphadog on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Family Family Family Family
By Mojo the Monkey on 5/19/2010 3:19:49 PM , Rating: 5
You have no idea how the legal system works if you think that his post can be sufficient for a judge to issue a warrant. If it did come to that, any defense attorney with half of a pulse could get the whole thing thrown out.

Its hilarious how much money and manpower people think "the police" have to investigate their crimes. They think every petty crime should be proved-up by $40,000 in forensic lab studies and another $20,000 in expert analysis for trial. This is the real world. If this guy filed a report, it would be accepted with a "thank you" (while restraining saying: "whatever man, we have bigger problems") and tossed into the do-nothing file.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By Fracture on 5/19/2010 4:24:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
please feel free to leave your house open every time you go out and please tell your family to do so, please invite people in the streets to come in and take things from you blah blah blah blah

A haiku to help understand:

Copies not stolen
Scarce goods not lost to others
More is created

Article: "Saying you can't compete with free is saying you can't compete at all"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.s...


RE: Family Family Family Family
By bigboxes on 5/19/2010 5:40:51 PM , Rating: 5
Yup. This guy just doesn't understand.

quote:
Hi Nicholas, please feel free to leave your house open every time you go out and please tell your family to do so, please invite people in the streets to come in and take things from you, not to make money out of it by reselling it but just to use it for themselves and help themselves.


To equate what file sharers do to leaving your house unlocked and taking everything, the perpetrators would have to magically copy your lamps, sofas, televisions, beds, clothes, food, and other appliances and take the copy with them leaving your original property intact and in your home. There's no stealing involved in file sharing. It's only copying. That is copyright infringement, not stealing.

Maybe, just maybe, The Hurt Locker wasn't as good as advertised. Ever think of that possible scenario Nicolas? Hmmm???


RE: Family Family Family Family
By phattyboombatty on 5/19/2010 6:57:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
There's no stealing involved in file sharing. It's only copying. That is copyright infringement, not stealing.

Exactly. If you grab a book off the shelf at Barnes & Noble and run out the door without paying for it, you've commited the crime of stealing. If you grab a book off the shelf at Barnes & Noble, and then photocopy it, you haven't commited a crime but have infringed a copyright.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By afkrotch on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Family Family Family Family
By eldakka on 5/19/2010 11:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
IANAL, but isn't copyright violation, at least on small scales, a civil, not a criminal, offense?

I.e. you get sued by the copyright holders, not prosecuted by the DPP?


RE: Family Family Family Family
By cdwilliams1 on 5/20/2010 10:17:06 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, it's a criminal offense. Looking up the NET act of 1997. Even if no financial gain was involved, it's a criminal offense.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By AstroCreep on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Family Family Family Family
By afkrotch on 5/19/2010 8:43:03 PM , Rating: 5
When you're done being an asshat, you can look up top and notice you are under the "blog" section.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By AstroCreep on 5/19/2010 9:10:15 PM , Rating: 1
...actually, we're not. This article was under the news page, not the blog page.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By AstroCreep on 5/27/2010 9:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
Why did I get modded down for that? That was indeed on the news page, not the blogs page. Sheesh...


RE: Family Family Family Family
By adiposity on 5/19/2010 12:10:05 PM , Rating: 5
He's mad it got pirated before release. If that happens they have no control over what people think and say about the film leading up to the premiere.

I don't think people should be able to pirate films willy-nilly, but the distribution model for films suck. One entity is telling you how good it is, and that entity is the one selling it.

Only after critics have had a couple weeks to get over the hype can you actually get an honest impression of the film without paying to go see it.

Pre-release piracy is not the answer to this, but when you see how mad they get when it happens, you realize how important it is to them to keep the quality under wraps until it's too late to take your money back.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2010 12:19:11 PM , Rating: 5
I don't care WHAT he's mad at. Saying you hope peoples family go to jail for this or that in that manner is just stupid. Especially when the guy isn't even a pirate, he's just concerned about this guys Gestapo screwball quest to sue the crap out of everyone.

The guy is a douchebag. Sometimes how you say something is more important than what you are saying. Good luck getting people to take your side when you stupidly attack their families and wish them to get robbed, arrested, or mugged because you lost a few bucks on your shitty movie.

And yes I agree with what you are saying.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By MadMan007 on 5/19/2010 1:33:58 PM , Rating: 1
I hope your family goes to jail for your DT posts.

!!


RE: Family Family Family Family
By clovell on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Family Family Family Family
By gralex on 5/19/2010 7:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
It never occured to me that there might have been a few bakers, fishermen and wine-makers pissed off at Jesus for cloning their livelihood...


RE: Family Family Family Family
By bighairycamel on 5/19/2010 2:11:35 PM , Rating: 5
I suggest everyone send this a-hole an email. I know I will. I'm going to make it a point to tell him that I've NEVER pirated a movie and yet I still think he's a blabbering over-emotional moron, and that his movies aren't worth the price of free.

I look forward to his response.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By bighairycamel on 5/19/2010 2:16:25 PM , Rating: 5
From their website:

Nicolas Chartier - President
nicolas@voltagepictures.com

By the way... this idiot just got in trouble for sending an email soliciting oscar votes. He had to send an appology afterwards because he's an ignoramus who doesn't pay attention to rules.


By Modeverything on 5/27/2010 11:37:17 AM , Rating: 2
If you really want to piss him off, just sign up his email address with every porn site you can find on the internet and enjoy the thought of his rage as he tries to deal with all of that spam. He'll have to change his work email address.


By flatline76 on 6/1/2010 10:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
Sent him an e-mail, his only comment when I asked him about the overblown cost of his blu-ray he sent an e-mail back that I could just "rent it." Rather then addressing the fact that they charge WAY to much money for their movies.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By Omega215D on 5/19/2010 3:18:53 PM , Rating: 5
I hope Master Sergeant Jeffery Sarver wins his lawsuit against The Hurt Locker.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By DM0407 on 5/19/2010 5:55:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I hope Master Sergeant Jeffery Sarver wins his lawsuit against The Hurt Locker.


I wonder if his military pay is enough to provide for his family.

This guy risks his life for his country and a relatively small pay check so some ass hat can replicate it in a movie and make millions and then complain that his family needs to be taken care of. I mean if your wife doesn't get that 2011 Mercedes your not taking care of your family and the terrorist win.

If you made more than 100k for 'directing' people around, you should be satisfied, and if your not go manage a McDonald's for 30k a year.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By clovell on 5/19/2010 5:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
If you haven't seen his movies, then... wouldn't you be over-emotional as well?


RE: Family Family Family Family
By bighairycamel on 5/19/2010 10:48:22 PM , Rating: 1
I said I've never pirated a movie. I didn't say anything about watching them...


RE: Family Family Family Family
By clovell on 5/20/10, Rating: -1
RE: Family Family Family Family
By hyvonen on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Family Family Family Family
By afkrotch on 5/19/2010 9:05:25 PM , Rating: 4
All depends. If I go into a Blockbuster, take the movie off the shelf, then walk out. What would happen if I'm caught? A small fine and a misdemeanor charge.

I'm sure these lawsuits are for thousands of dollars, if not tens of thousands.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By cerx on 5/19/2010 12:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
So true.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By amanojaku on 5/19/2010 12:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
I think Chartier made a solid argument with relevant points... Until he wrote this:
quote:
I hope your family and your kids end up in jail one day for stealing so maybe they can be taught the difference.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By consumerwhore on 5/19/2010 1:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's just a wish. It's not part of the argument.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By Jalek on 5/19/2010 1:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on what they're suing for.
Are they after thousands of dollars for downloading the movie or are they seeking to use the criminal aspect of the DMCA to lock people up?

I don't even know how that functions, it was the first law that made copyright infringement a criminal offense rather than a civil one.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By rcc on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Family Family Family Family
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2010 6:51:42 PM , Rating: 5
First off, we have no evidence the person sending him that message or anyone in his family pirates. So constantly saying he hopes his family is robbed and thrown in jail is just completely uncalled for.

Secondly, by galvanizing the internet community against him, he just lost any chance of making himself heard and taken seriously.

There are ways to get your point across, and then there are mean spirited personal attacks. He chose the latter route. And threatening someones family and children, especially when they have done nothing wrong, is just low class pettiness. I've seen 12 year old forum trolls who were more elegant.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By rcc on 5/20/2010 7:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I don't disagree that the response email was over the top, I was just commenting on the OPs characterization/comment on the cause.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By clovell on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Family Family Family Family
By Solandri on 5/19/2010 2:40:14 PM , Rating: 5
Copyright is a give and take. The government gives you a monopoly for a limited time so you can profit off it, and in exchange the public domain takes it after a limited time.

Unfortunately, "limited time" has been perverted from less than 30 years when Copyright in the U.S. was first codified, to the current life of the author + 70 years, or 95-120 years for works for hire. If you extend the period of "give" to exceed the lifetime of most people alive when the work was created, you shouldn't be surprised when many of them are too impatient to wait for the public domain to "take" it legally, and decide on their own to "take" your work without paying for it.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By whiskerwill on 5/19/2010 3:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah right, I'm sure if copyrights were rolled back to 30 years, people would instantly stop pirating those hot new release films that have been out all of THREE WEEKS or less.

Copyrights are too long, but your post is just asinine.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By The Raven on 5/19/2010 3:59:05 PM , Rating: 3
I see what you're saying but I think he was just pointing out that the entertainment industry/copyright system is fubar, and that the invisible hand will take a five finger discount at some point.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By clovell on 5/19/2010 5:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand - the film was released within the last year. Even if we cut those time frames to a quarter of what they are now, I don't see how the issue at hand is addressed.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By Solandri on 5/20/2010 4:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well, you have to see the post I was replying to to understand the context. I didn't realize it would be downrated to -1 and wouldn't be visible anymore, so I failed to quote the part I was replying to.

Basically, the OP was likening people downloading the movie as saying, "I don't think you deserve to get paid for your work, but I'll take it anyway." Taking without giving. I was merely pointing out that it was the entertainment industry which through copyright extensions started the whole vicious cycle of taking without giving anything back. You reap what you sow.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By clovell on 5/20/2010 2:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
Great point, but by the same token, we're not going to break this cycle by infringing on new IP. If we want the point to be made, made we should start seeding Leave it to Beaver or MASH or something.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By frobizzle on 5/19/2010 4:51:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Well, by pirating his film, these folks are essentially taking his work without paying for it

That is not necessarily true. A lot of downloads are by people that would never buy this particular movie in the first place.

I'm not condoning (or condemning) piracy here - just stating a fact.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By clovell on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Family Family Family Family
By Exodite on 5/20/2010 4:51:23 AM , Rating: 2
The point, and one that gets lost more often than not, is that pirating media or software doesn't deny anyone any income.

It just doesn't grant any.

It's way overdue for the media industry to stop equating piracy to lost sales, and lamenting over the fact, and start looking at their business models.

If you're selling millions of copies of your product and still not making ends meet it's your costs that are fucked up, not your income.

And if you're actually doing well you should have the grace and foresight to STFU and enjoy it while it lasts.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By clovell on 5/20/10, Rating: -1
RE: Family Family Family Family
By The Raven on 5/19/2010 6:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, by pirating his film, these folks are essentially taking his work without paying for it, which is like saying, "I don't think you deserve to get paid for your work, but I'll take it anyway."


How about, "I don't know if your movie is worth paying for until I see it?"

Well we can't do that without piracy or a free screening. And we risk wasting our time to boot.

Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit, but I hope my point is properly conveyed.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By clovell on 5/20/2010 2:15:28 PM , Rating: 1
Not really. Viewers have tons of legal ways to find out whether a movie will suck balls or not before they get anywhere near a theater.

If you suck that much at reading reviews, get Netflix.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By The Raven on 5/20/2010 3:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
First of all I do have Netflix (and rather enjoy it BTW), but even if you get movies in such a way [what many people consider 'free' rentals for a monthly price] you only have 24 hrs in a day. How many movies do I have to watch until I find one that I would personally invest in the making of? Whooo, that is a good question.

With that out of the way, the value of the reviews (be it amature or professional) is just as bad as the movies themselves. The main reason for any of this is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

So, should I pay for something that you think is 'beautiful' but I don't? It is understandably unavoidable but the way the system is set up is ridiculous and it has been heading to mass piracy for a long time.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By chris00 on 5/20/2010 4:23:39 AM , Rating: 4
As many people have pointed out, making a digital copy of something is not stealing in the way that taking someone's property is; one causing no loss to the owner, the other doing so. By equating the two, clearly the only moron in this exchange is Chartier himself.

I too am thoroughly unimpressed at the heavy-handed tactics of this studio and the no-doubt exorbitant settlements they will be demanding for what is essentially the copying of a $5 DVD through which there is no direct loss as such to the producer.

I too will be boycotting this studio.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By fatedtodie on 5/20/10, Rating: 0
RE: Family Family Family Family
By chris00 on 5/20/2010 11:53:58 AM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely correct that it is illegal, and I don't think anybody is claiming that it is not. I think this is more of an argument against the fact that it is quite extortionate to charge the prices that are charged for a digital copy of something that essentially costs virtually nothing to re-produce. Watching a film in a cinema is one thing because you pay for the venue and the experience, but to charge $35 for something that is essentially free is clearly in the view of many people a step too far.

Given that copying something does not directly cause loss to the owner (only the perceived loss should the copier have bought the item instead - which may be quite rare in reality) I think that the perception is that whilst illegal, it is not particularly immoral.

In the end this is just the consumer fighting back against the overly wealthy corporations. Charge what is a reasonable price, and consumers will pay it. I would expect that a couple of $s is about right.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By smegz on 5/20/2010 12:26:23 PM , Rating: 3
I suddenly lost any urge to see this film. What a childish outburst made by an exec at a production company...someone needs to check his diaper.


RE: Family Family Family Family
By Azzr34l on 5/20/2010 2:57:05 PM , Rating: 1
DT is full of pirates, or sympathizers at the very least. I'm shocked! </sarcasm>

You don't have to agree with their business model, but stealing is stealing regardless of how you try and justify it.


By flatline76 on 6/1/2010 10:18:36 AM , Rating: 1
Pretty sure I'm looking at it right now and it's not stealing. Although that douche did rob me of about 3 hours and 5 dollars (Yes I rented that piece of shit).


Pirating is not the same as stealing
By hackztor on 5/19/2010 12:42:50 PM , Rating: 5
Pirating is not the same as stealing. When you pirate your are denying someone the ability to make money off of a copy. When you steal, you are physically denying someone the ability to use what you stole. Pirates are not physically stealing the movie, otherwise you would not be able to see it anymore. If someone stole my furniture I would not be able to use it anymore. Please let me make copies of my furniture and then I would not care if someone stole it. In the end, people are better off just using netflix. A service is provided at a decent price, so be decent and rent movies.




RE: Pirating is not the same as stealing
By Nutzo on 5/19/2010 1:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
The solution is easy, but Hollywood is too greedy to allow it. Just as the itunes $.99 per song lead to huge sales and less piracy, so would easy & cheap access to movies.

Netflix could be made almost perfect with a few changes.

1. Better selection and more current movies
2. Better quality
3. The ability to buffer several movies locally (like on a laptop when traveling or to preload a HD movie on a slow line to watch later). Don't care if it's full of DRM or encrypted into some custom file format.

At < $10 month for unlimited streaming, why go through the hassle of downloading?


RE: Pirating is not the same as stealing
By afkrotch on 5/19/2010 9:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
You live in an area where you can't use digital distribution. Like me, for example. Military. Sometimes we don't get the luxury of choosing where we live.


By Alexstarfire on 5/19/2010 11:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
And? Does that mean you're entitled to everything others may have?


RE: Pirating is not the same as stealing
By clovell on 5/19/2010 1:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
All true, but what you're saying when you Pirate is, "I don't think your work is good enough for me to pay for it, but I'm going to take it and use it as if I did, anyway."

So, you're right in that, in the end, it's not as big of a deal as it sounds - but, it's something that folks can understandably get emotional over.


RE: Pirating is not the same as stealing
By 67STANG on 5/19/2010 5:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
I typically see at least 4-6 movies in the theater every month. I also typically watch 2-4 movies online every month. Why? I, like so many others have been duped by movie previews that show the only 2 funny moments in a movie or scenes that aren't even in the release, etc.

If I like a movie on my little LCD hooked to my computer, then I make a point of seeing it in the theater or buying the DVD-- or both. Period. There definitely have been many cases when I thought I wouldn't have liked a movie, downloaded it, loved it and paid to watch it-- where I would have just skipped it otherwise. I bet I'm not the only one.

As far as The Hurt Locker is concerned, I didn't download it, rather, I watched it online. After 15 minutes of blah, I closed the browser and patted myself on the back for not wasting $10 and 90 minutes of my time on what is a average to poor movie.

If anyone wants to watch The Hurt Locker, you can easily watch it online http://thepiratecity.org/movie/The_Hurt_Locker.htm without getting locked up in the whole public torrent tracker saga. Or you can just sign up at Demonoid, a private tracker.

NJoy.


By wiz220 on 5/19/2010 5:56:37 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, they are making a trip to the theater so expensive now that people are actually stopping to weigh the "risk" of it being awful and a waste of their money.


RE: Pirating is not the same as stealing
By clovell on 5/19/2010 6:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to justify illegal activity with the fact that it all comes out in wash, it's no skin off my teeth. I'm just gonna wait to catch the movies on Netflix, if I'm not sure about em.


RE: Pirating is not the same as stealing
By 67STANG on 5/19/2010 6:51:34 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not justifying anything-- I'm more or less explaining some of the reasons why p2p is so popular-- not to mention that it probably gives the studios a lot more business then it takes away.

I'm sure the days of movie studios having to actually worry about whether their product is good or not is still a bit off (thanks to consumers like yourself), but for me, those days are numbered.

Not really sure how you can watch movies that are in the theater on Netflix... but kudos to you!

By the way, don't let any of your friends or family come over to watch one of those Netflix movies that only you paid for. That would be wrong....


RE: Pirating is not the same as stealing
By clovell on 5/20/2010 2:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you are. You're justifying why you break the law and pirate movies. You're saying that it doesn't hurt anybody because you pay for them later on anyway - it might even be helpful, because you'd otherwise not buy movies.

I think you're full of crap. Who in their right mind would actually go pay for something they already committed a crime to get and have for free? Maybe you're more noble than the rest of us. But, let's go one more step with this - even if you're the Mother Theresa of piracy, what makes you think that everyone is as honest as you? Seems like a stupid thing to presuppose.

I actually read reviews before I go to the theater and generally have a really good time there. I don't watch movies via Netflix that are in theaters, but I do have this thing called patience. So thanks for being such a benevolent, criminal smartass about it.


By ender21 on 5/25/2010 10:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
Explaining the reasons one believes something occurs does not necessarily equate to justifying it.


RE: Pirating is not the same as stealing
By rwpritchett on 5/19/2010 3:14:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Pirating is not the same as stealing. When you pirate your are denying someone the ability to make money off of a copy. When you steal, you are physically denying someone the ability to use what you stole. Pirates are not physically stealing the movie, otherwise you would not be able to see it anymore. If someone stole my furniture I would not be able to use it anymore. Please let me make copies of my furniture and then I would not care if someone stole it.
Of course you wouldn't care if someone copied your furniture: you don't sell furniture for a living. You would most definitely care if you were a craftsman who builds and sells furniture.

Imagine if people had a gizmo that allowed them to copy furniture. They walk into your showcase, scan your tables and chairs, then go home with a "free" copy of your craft to use as they please. What if such a gizmo had become so prevalent that everybody carried one. No harm done because you still have the original copies, right? Wrong.


RE: Pirating is not the same as stealing
By MozeeToby on 5/19/2010 3:36:36 PM , Rating: 5
If such a technology existed for furniture, I would say that the furniture business could not continue to exist in it's current format. Much the same way that I currently say that multimedia companies cannot exist in their current format.

Step one would be to stop spending hundreds of millions of dollars designing each new piece of furniture, hoping that the zero incremental cost (after all, you must have the magical furniture copying machine too right?) will cover the expense. Step two would be to research and experiment with new revenue models because although you have to compete with illegal but free today, you will be competing with community created and free tomorrow. Step three, and this is an important one, don't sue your potential customers. It makes them angry and unwilling to do business with you.


By rwpritchett on 5/19/2010 4:34:00 PM , Rating: 4
Well said.

Let’s geek-it-up a notch (after all, this is a tech site) and take it further. In the Star Trek universe they have replicators. The ills of civilization such as poverty, hunger, etc. have been cured because people have easy access to what they need. There is no currency. Most of anything can be had from a replicator be it food, clothes, or what have you. The only items in Star Trek that still have trade-value are items that cannot be replicated such as dilithium crystals, gold-pressed latinum, ancient artifacts, and certain technologies.

So, mass availability combined with free access eliminates trade for easily replicated items. If you haven’t noticed, people in Star Trek do not watch filmed entertainment; they watch live performances or interact with characters on a holodeck. These performances give an experience that cannot be replicated. If Star Trek is a hint of how easily replicated items have less value, the movie studios need to think of a business model in which they provide value beyond just watching a movie on a screen.


RE: Pirating is not the same as stealing
By clovell on 5/20/2010 2:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
Why change when the law protects your current business model?


By Azure Sky on 5/24/2010 10:10:13 PM , Rating: 1
because the current business model is failing?

expecting the law to protect you from evolving is like expecting a cop to give a damn if you walk in and complain that somebody watched one of your movies without asking.....(as in poped a dvd into the player watched it and put it back on the shelf at your place)

I use that example because a crazy cunt I use to be friends with actually called the cops when her sisters boyfriend did that......mind you, he had a key SHE GAVE HIM, and he was just watching the movie waiting for her to get home so he could find out what she was talking about needing fixed(stove wireing was messed up)

point is, the cops showed up, she complained, they told him to leave and advised him to just not come back and try and help his soon to be sis-in-law, they told her there really wasnt anything they could or where willing to do about it.

the cops DONT CARE ABOUT THIS STUFF, they got BETTER THINGS TO DO, you know like catch real criminals, muggers, drug dealers, exct.


...
By ForumMaster on 5/19/2010 11:45:07 AM , Rating: 4
All I'll say is this: IIRC, when the movie just came out (before the Oscars) the producers were giving tickets away and had to pay theaters just to keep on screening the movie.

Only when the movie did win the Oscars, did it really become popular.

Now for example, Avatar: some may argue a worse movie, but nevertheless, i think it was pirated much less because it was an experience that you couldn't get at home. People also enjoyed themselves. was it pirated? probably. undoubtedly. On a much grander scale. James Cameron isn't going to go after the pirates because he's made a freakin' $2.7 billion. These guys haven't and want money.

Now i've said this before as have others: I don't want to buy this movie on DVD. I'll probably watch it once. maybe twice. That's not worth it. I want someplace from where i can download that movie for a reasonable price ($20 is not reasonable) and i can watch it for 2 days for example. Do that and pirating would be diminished significantly.
(I am outside of the states so netflix is not an option)

Unfortunately, these companies would rather sue people and try to get thousands of dollars instead of providing a real solution that could solve the problem...




RE: ...
By smackababy on 5/19/2010 11:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
I thought Hurt Locker was an amazing movie and deserving of all the awards it received. However, I rented it and watched it once. I have no desire to watch it again. It was not a movie that had that much of a replay appeal. I also thought the same about Avatar, though, so maybe I'm just an asshat.


RE: ...
By twhittet on 5/19/2010 11:56:38 AM , Rating: 3
I'm one of the people who think it was barely watchable for how unrealistic it was. Sure - it's a movie, I know, but they try to sell it off as if it were close to real. There were many opportunities to make it more realistic AND still be good, but most were missed.


RE: ...
By wiz220 on 5/19/2010 5:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
The Master Sergeant who thinks this was based on his life and experiences thought it was realistic enough to sue for royalties.


RE: ...
By Denigrate on 5/19/2010 12:55:48 PM , Rating: 1
Nah, Avatar wasn't worth the price of admission. Special effects were cool, but the "story" was basically Dances With Wolves, only set on a distant planet.


RE: ...
By jeff834 on 5/19/2010 1:16:42 PM , Rating: 1
The story was Ferngully, but that doesn't stop James Cameron from thinking he's God.


RE: ...
By Iaiken on 5/19/2010 1:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
No! It was Pocahontas...


RE: ...
By afkrotch on 5/19/2010 9:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
The story is played out. Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Last Samurai, etc.


RE: ...
By fishman on 5/19/2010 1:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
Story I've heard is the the troops in Iraq think the movie is just a bunch of crap and unrealistic. Who needs facts when you have Hollywood there to spin it?


RE: ...
By clovell on 5/19/2010 1:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
The production crew has no recourse for developing your mythical solution, Ponce. Is it really their fault that the distribution model sucks?


RE: ...
By wiz220 on 5/19/2010 5:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
I can pretty much do what you're recommending with Comcast On-Demand, I agree, it's a great way to rent/watch movies.


*#@#
By Smilin on 5/19/2010 11:37:22 AM , Rating: 5
So you go into a meeting with lots of people who disagree with you and begin a discussion. Here's the rule: The first person to lose their cool loses the debate. The strength of your argument can only be applied by a cool reasonable head.

Same thing applies here. The producer had a good point to make but all I got out of it was "what a dick".




RE: *#@#
By wempa on 5/19/2010 12:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I agree. Plus, he doesn't even address what the original poster is saying. He said he disagrees with the tactics being used. Granted, he does make a pretty idiotic comment about the downloaders not looking to make a profit on it, but still. Piracy is wrong, but instead of responding to the original comment, he is merely going off on a rant and looking like a jackass.


I have a counter proposal for the producers...
By Motoman on 5/19/2010 2:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
...go f#ck yourselves.




By FaceMaster on 5/19/2010 4:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. I agree! This is AMERICA. We're allowed to have what ever we want. Those producers should go screw themselves, it's a crime that we have to pay for products that are meant to be for entertainment purposes. What sort of world do we live in?

America rules!


By jimbojimbo on 5/19/2010 6:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
But Hurt Locker wasn't entertaining? What is it now? Can we sue Chartier for my 2.5 hours back?


Hmmmmm Karma
By Source9 on 5/19/2010 2:37:41 PM , Rating: 4
wait wait wait... this is coming from the same asshat who sent a writer over to the war to document a soldier from Michigans "life during war" then didnt pay that soldier a penny for duping his "real life story". So now he has sour grapes.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Calling the kettle black.. too funny.




RE: Hmmmmm Karma
By derricker on 5/19/2010 3:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
Poetic Justice.


Refund
By Devil07 on 5/19/2010 5:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
I sent this guy an email asking for a refund, as I couldn't watch the rest of the movie much past the explosives cart with the wheel falling off.




RE: Refund
By Devil07 on 5/19/2010 5:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
OK, so someone replied to my request for a refund after choosing to NOT continue watching the movie after the opening scene. Here is the response:

How do you refund a restaurant if you don't like the meal?
Best regards,

Nicolas Chartier
Voltage Pictures, LLC
6360 Deep Dell Place
Los Angeles, CA 90068
Tel: (323) 464-8351
Fax: (323) 464-8362

Ummmm yeah.... nice example there buddy. If I don't like the meal, I send it back. I pay AFTER I am satisfied.


RE: Refund
By Hyperion1400 on 5/19/2010 7:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
Remember, he and his family have a really hard time living off of MILLIONS of dollars, so he probably thinks the pay-up-front McDonalds method is the norm.

But hell, if MDs burns your burger, you can still make them give you a new one.

Hmm, tele number eh? I wonder if it is pronounced Char-tier or Shar-tee/ae?


And.....
By DPigs on 5/19/2010 11:52:15 AM , Rating: 5
.....initiate Low Orbit Ion Cannon bombardment in 3...2...1....

I still don't understand why people like this beg for the wrath of the interwebs.




My Response to the Douche
By Ard on 5/19/2010 5:08:53 PM , Rating: 5
Reproduced in all it's wondrous glory:

Hello Nicolas,

Consider this a response to the disturbing and disgusting "rant" you felt the need to post in response to a concerned BoingBoing reader's email to yourself. In case you're suffering from short-term amnesia, here is your response:

"Snipped for brevity"

Do you even realize how ridiculous your response is? Do you also not realize how it makes you look like a pathetic child? Let's start first with your asinine analogy. It would behoove you to make sure you understand the legal definition of theft before you attempt to compare it to digital piracy. Theft is the unlawful taking and carrying away of another's property with the intent to deprive permanently. Digital piracy is not theft. Why? Because you haven't been deprived of anything permanently. You still have possession of, and right to, your movie. The only thing you may have potentially lost is a sale and even that argument is largely a fallacy because the person pirating your work most likely didn't think it was worth paying for in the first place.

Intellectual property is known as inextinguishable property. Why? Because it doesn't run out. Copies can be made of copies and further copies can be made of those copies. Digital piracy involves the downloading of one of those infinitely available copies. Again, you haven't lost anything. The download doesn't prevent someone from seeing your movie, nor does it prevent you from showing your movie. Contrast that with the ridiculous idea of someone taking my furniture, thereby depriving me of the enjoyment of that furniture permanently, and you see how stupid you actually sound when you try to equate digital piracy with theft. Of course, I expect no less from someone who, much like the majority of the content industry, blames his own failings on piracy. Instead of accepting the fact that your movie didn't sell as well as you would have liked, and thereby wasn't good enough to entice people to spend money on it, you decide to take the "easy" way out and play the child throwing a tantrum. Even worse, you go out of your way to insult a man and his family simply because he disagreed with your pathetic attempt to litigate your way to profit. You're no better than the pirates you're scapegoating. In fact, you're worse.

You know what's interesting about this whole affair? If you would've kept your mouth shut, you might have actually drawn some sympathy from consumers. Instead, you decided to go on a tirade and your reward for that is going to be more piracy, deservedly so given your reaction. I'd be tempted to do the same if I actually gave a damn about your movie. Alas, I have better things to do with my time. Eventually you'll learn like every other industry on the brink of failure: you either adapt or you perish.

Enjoy wasting the court's time, while achieving no success in doing so.




I've gone to more movies after I started pirating
By SurreDeth on 5/19/2010 1:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
In my late 20's I pretty much completely lost interest in movies. The theaters were getting too expensive, you had to get to the theater earlier and earlier to get a decent seat, the experience wasn't really that rewarding, and the quality of the content was eroding year after year. I went almost six years without going to a movie theater(art house exceptions of maybe 1 or 2 a year) until I started downloading CAMs or Telesyncs of recently released movies. If the movie seemed interesting or enjoyable I usually recommended it to friends and/or went and saw it at theater, usually bringing along other people that wouldn't normally have desired to see it.

The Hurt Locker on the other hand, was a movie I was not impressed with and spread negative comments in regards to. That probably explains their aggressive anti-piracy tactics.




By afkrotch on 5/19/2010 9:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
The last movie I went and watched was a limited showing of Patlabor WXIII at a London art theatre. It was awesome. Only like 6 ppl in there watching it. The room probably only held 60 ppl at most.

The reason I stopped going, wasn't because of the cost. It's the other ppl screaming and yelling while I'm trying to watch the movie. I'm not going to pay $7+ dollars to attempt to watch a movie while others scream and crap. I hate when there's a laugh track on TV shows, but a live laugh track at a movie theatre. No thanks.


How old is this guy?
By gralex on 5/19/2010 2:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
He sounds like a lolcat reader on coke.

Stupidity: You truly are doing it well.




RE: How old is this guy?
By Gzus666 on 5/19/2010 8:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I'm a LOLcat reader on coke and I take offense to that analogy.


who's Nicholas?
By Chaser on 5/19/2010 3:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, however, the situation is starting to heat up a bit. A Boing Boing reader sent Nicolas Chartier, President of Voltage Pictures...While we're unsure if the Boing Boing reader expected to actually hear back from Chartier, we're quite certain that he didn't expect to receive the over-the-top email response. Chartier responded, and he struck down with great vengeance and furious anger:

Hi Nicholas, please feel free to leave your house open every time...


Is the boing boing user's name Nicholas too?




RE: who's Nicholas?
By Chaser on 5/19/2010 3:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
Got it. Nicholas and Nicolas. Wow. Does that add to the irony or what?


hmm
By xkrakenx on 5/19/2010 4:45:14 PM , Rating: 4
endless discussions about whether piracy is wrong or not, *wrong* of course is subjective in terms of effect and I'm not sure why the discussion gets so much emotion on both sides.

some things just *are* and are not defensible but could be dealt with rationally. Unlikely you will guilt fileshares into stopping what they do, or litigate them into stopping either.

you'll have just as much luck getting the masses to quit masturbating, using recreational drugs, laughing at things inappropriate, etc and so forth.

reminds me..

time to get high and rub one out.




* boycotts film*
By psychobriggsy on 5/20/2010 7:06:00 AM , Rating: 2
*boycotts film*

The producer is comparing THEFT - the deprivation/taking of goods (in this case goods from someone's house) - to a non-deprivation - COPYING. A theoretical monetary loss, typically from poor students and teenagers who don't have the money to pay for these things anyway.




RE: * boycotts film*
By MrBlastman on 5/20/2010 7:57:19 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't you just own up? Admit that you:

Are a poor student or teenager and know full and well that you are breaking the law and doing something illegal by copying and torrenting the movie but know that you have no money to pay for it so you're watching it anyways.

That is all I ask. I see everyone lambasting this guy for wanting to defend something he and (mostly others) worked so hard to create; all they want is to be paid for it when people watch it, and everyone on here that pirates these films says they would not have paid for it anyways (while pretending it isn't wrong).

What a joke. I'd have quite a bit more respect for these people if they'd just man up over it. Admit it so the alterior motives are wiped out of the backwaters so we can get on with stimulating conversation.

Back in the day, people would admit that they were downloading crap illegally, nowadays, they try to make it out as if it is their right and it is okay (which they know it is not). It is as if everyone is spineless these days.

Who cares if they're breaking the law! That isn't the point. I seriously have my doubts that so many people think that it isn't wrong to deprive and author or artist of money after consuming their works, intellectually speaking.

Perhaps... these same people have never had to work for a living based on their own IP creations as say an author/artist/musician?


Pathetic, Nicholas.
By StealthPyro on 5/20/2010 11:44:42 AM , Rating: 2
I found it was worth it to create an account just to respond to this.

Nicholas,

Your attempt at creating real life analogy is pathetic. I'm not supporting piracy in any way, but your response was very poor. Apparently $50 million isn't enough for you? Because I have to say, I'm surprised Hurtlocker even doubled it's claimed budget in revenue, it did very much better than double; shocking since it was a mediocre movie, at best. Did James Cameron whine about Avatar, the single movie with the most pirated copies in movie history? Not that I'm aware of. Honestly, your little stunt of playing the hitman role and going after each individual person that pirated your movie is rather sad. I seriously hope that the costs of this venture throw off whatever money you are able to steal from your potential fans. I, for one, will not be paying to see any of your future movies, and I don't even support piracy. Suing millions of people for however many thousands of dollars is ludicrous, considering it costs $20 to buy the movie and it's not even that great of a movie release. You need to grasp the concept that 1 pirated download does NOT in any way resemble 1 lost sale. I'm pretty confident that if your movie was not leaked online, it would have suffered the same, weak, low number of sales. I wish for the worst of karma to come back to you.




RE: Pathetic, Nicholas.
By StealthPyro on 5/20/2010 11:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I'd like to throw a bit of sense in your face about how your analogy fails so hard.

If people had the ability to come into my home, make a copy of my furniture and electronics, and leave, I'd GLADLY allow them to. You should be happy that a few extra million people even HEARD of Hurtlocker. It's likely leading to higher DVD sales. Many pirates that watched the movie in poor theater-bootleg quality and thought it was a decent movie, likely went out and bought it. It is a proven fact that piracy is actually HELPING many markets.


Never
By p05esto on 5/19/2010 12:03:15 PM , Rating: 3
I know I will never pay a $1 to this movie studio or the actors in that movie. My friends and family are all aware of what they are doing to kids and people downling a single movie. Since when should stealing a movie cost $5,000 or whatever they are extorting? If I walk into a store and steal a movie the punishment should be the same (a fine, a mark on your record and maybe a court appearance in the local cout). Since when is the fine for a pick-pocket $5,000 for a $20 item? That punishment is cruel and doesn't fit the crime. This movie studio signed their own death warrant.




I love the analogies
By smackababy on 5/19/2010 11:34:53 AM , Rating: 2
Taking ones furniture is just like making a copy of a movie.

At least the lawsuits will go well now. I bet he (Nicholas Chartier) gets a lot of positive press over this. Keep up the good work Nicky!




foolish
By invidious on 5/19/2010 12:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
Had actually had a pretty good argument going until he started to insult the individual. Albeit a drawn out unproffession rant of an arguement.

This will undoubtably be used to demonize him and his company in court. It will be used to show that all his company cares about is money and how they are charging outrageous prices. Regardless of the truth of such an argument he just gave it a lot of ammunition.




Inhumane?????????
By dragonbif on 5/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Inhumane?????????
By Exodite on 5/20/2010 5:29:25 AM , Rating: 2
It's inhumane as far as the violations of basic rights go.

Invasion of privacy, disrespecting the right to due process, making untenable allegations with threats of grossly inappropriate fines.

Like it or not it's not our job to provide a viable alternative route or option to go after pirates. We're pretty much obliged to speak up when our basic rights as human beings are being infringed upon though, at least if we want to keep them.

While I can appreciate the fact that big money wants to make even more money it's not something worth undermining either basic human rights or the legal system in general over.


By derricker on 5/19/2010 2:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
No wonder that guy is soooo pissed of, the cover has been blown, now everybody knows it's a mediocre movie at best and they won't be able to steal $20 or so out of people.

The nerve some have, preaching about stealing when they were intent in doing so.




Hurt Locker/Family Family Family
By lostvyking on 5/19/2010 2:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
"take my family.....PLEASE!"

But seriously folks. All this "tough talk" from the a$$hats have pretty much put me off from wanting to see this movie. I did not go see it in the theaters, nor will I buy it on BluRay, rent it from Netflix, or even watch it should it come to cable television. The producers and directors and all the others who are pulling such strings and saying such things have to learn that they are nothing without the fans and the people who are putting their ten and twenty dollars down to see their work. It is still not too late to vote with our feet as I have chosen to do.

I never had any intention of downloading this movie. After seeing previews at the cinema, I pondering seeing it, either at the cinema or eventually purchasing the Blu-ray. After the actions of these people, I doubt I could take this movie seriously.




By pepper454 on 5/19/2010 2:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
Reminded me of this story, maybe they need the money.

A U.S. soldier who defused roadside bombs in Iraq wants credit for inspiring the main character in "The Hurt Locker," a movie up for nine Oscars this weekend.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/03/hurt....




4500 seeds on PirateBay...
By xmichaelx on 5/19/2010 3:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
...and that's just the most popular torrent; there are dozens of others.

The fact that this douche has made millions (and will make millions more) from such a highly pirated movie is proof that his argument and outrage are totally unfounded.




The movie...
By masamasa on 5/19/2010 5:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
The movie really wasn't anything to write home about. It was good, but Oscar worthy? Hardly. The lawsuit is a bit of a joke considering there are much better films out there. I do support them protecting their intellectual property, but it's time for the movie, music, and game industry to practice what they preach. Release crap and get people to pay for it and eventually they will steal from you because they get tired of paying for crap. Time for a wake up call.




Smart?
By tkeoki on 5/19/2010 5:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
Nikolai,

You recently stated in an email response:

"And please do not download, rent, or pay for my movies, I actually like smart and more important HONEST people to watch my films."

Did you watch your own movie? Because there's quite a bit of evidence accumulating that you don't fit in the 'smart' category.

First, it's a common misconception, but smart people know that assault is not the same as battery, and likewise, stealing is not the same as pirating.

Second, a smart person would think a little more before wishing harm on someone's kids and family. You do know there might be sufficient information in your email for a case of libel (free tip: libel is often confused with slander, but they're different). Do you have factual knowledge that this individual's family and kids are thieves?

"I'm glad you're a moron who believes stealing is right. I hope your family and your kids end up in jail one day for stealing so maybe they can be taught the difference."

Third, a smart person wouldn't send out emails soliciting Oscar votes for your movie. (Also, not sure this fits with your honest category either).

Anyway, I hope one day you'll qualify to watch your own movie, but...Until then, "keep being stupid, you're doing that very well."




What an Ass.
By falacy on 5/19/2010 7:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, quite the "professional" this man is. Were this nobody worth a person's time to read about in the future, I am sure one would not be surprised to read his apology for this act of colossal stupidity.

Why do that?




Wilco
By straycat74 on 5/19/2010 8:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And if the whole world’s singing your songs And all of your paintings have been hung Just remember what was yours is everyone’s from now on And that’s not wrong or right But you can struggle with it all you like You'll only get uptight


Wilco- What Light




Sharing is caring
By xtort107 on 5/19/2010 8:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently nick doesn't like sharing a lamp and some end tables with a few torrent friends, touchy touchy




Rationalizing its ok to steal
By TiVoBum on 5/19/2010 9:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
It amazes me how many people are trying to justify stealing (file sharing) games as being ok. The sale of a game is more than just the CD package or the contents of the CD. The sale also includes a license to use the software. The argument that the taking of a copy of the software is not the same as the taking of a 'physical' object is nothing more than a smoke screen.

No one buys a game just to have a disc. They are purchasing (or stealing) the game to play it on the computer. Similarly, the gaming company is not so much selling a disc as a playable product which is the executables contained on the disc.




y0
By Jo3ziLLa on 5/19/2010 9:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
Dear Mr. Nicolas Chartier, your movie was lame, my friend said he is sorry for stealing your movie by downloading it.... so we would like to know if there is any possible way to upload the garbage back to your company, I mean its only right to return property you took if its not yours right???

- :D




Oh no, not again...
By Landiepete on 5/20/2010 5:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
How many times are we going to have these it's theft/it's not theft discussions?

It's very simple, really :

You make someting. It is yours. You then decide other people can see/hear use or otherwise use what you have made for a fee.

The potential user can choose to use or not to use your prodict. He is free in his choice. He is also free to accept or not to accept your conditions of use (in this instance, pay the fee).

Everything else is codswollop.




damn critics
By Principal Skinner on 5/20/2010 5:47:50 AM , Rating: 2
The irony is, I pirated this movie because I read good reviews about it. Was totally disappointed btw. If it hadn't been for good review I wouldn't have downloaded it.




By GTVic on 5/20/2010 12:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
The movie industry is one giant case of collusion against the public. Insanely high prices for works of very questionable quality that they pay tens of millions of dollars to falsely advertise as "the best movie of the summer". Then they have the audacity to stick the public with the entire bill (enormous salaries, wasted/false advertising, undeserved profits, etc).




By highlander2107 on 5/21/2010 7:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
I actually WASNT going to pirate the movie.

Then I read this scathing letter.

Now I will pirate the movie and probably enjoy it!




Ummmm...
By nukunukoo on 5/26/2010 11:06:28 AM , Rating: 2
Just wondering what director Uwe Bol would do in this situation. Boxing, anyone?




By monkeyman1140 on 5/28/2010 4:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
He's facing a lawsuit himself for pirating the story from a soldier and not paying him for it.

There is no honor among thieves.




By changecopyright on 6/1/2010 10:20:45 AM , Rating: 2
Things TO DO TO STOP LEGAL EXTORTION- UDATED 6/1/2010

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN!!! CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN!!!

It is important to call your senators and congressmen to let them know about this extortion/shakedown scheme. You can make a difference but you have to call or pyhsically write letters. or if you want DO BOTH. when you call read/write the following:

"I wanted to inform the congressman about an important issue. Currently there is legal extortion going on in this country. A Group of Lawyers using the name US Copyright Group are filing thousands and thousands of lawsuits in federal court in washington DC. They are actually ilegally bundleing thousands of people's names together in an effort to have a kind of reverse class action lawsuit against people it claims have illegally downloaded movies of their clients.

"This US Copyright group is sending out 50,000 plus presettlement letters to people using filmsy evidence which basically tell them "Pay us 2,500 dollars or else we will take you to federal court and sue you for much more" The congressman needs to know that this is a shakedown, an extortion scheme. A group of 12 lawyers cannot possibly take 50,000 plus people individually to court. They are counting on a certain percentage of people recieving the letter and getting scared and mailing in the payment. Innocent people will have to pay much more than the settlement price in order to prove their innocence and the only evidence of wrongdoing is easily corrupted and invalid. But the US copyright group could care less how many innocent people are sued due to filmsy evidence. The US Copygroup lawyers have said "we are creating additional revenue streams for content providers" They are using the court system to pad their bottom lines.

Tell the congressman to please work to change copyright law with monetary caps on individual people and enact legislation that would outlaw these "revese class action fishing lawsuits from goups like the US copyright group" because this is only the beggining. If the US Copyright group is successful, expect copycat companies to emerge to use the same tactics. So it would be beneficial for the congressman to get on the forefront of this issue becuase you will be recieving more calls about it soon.
------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------

You can also call multiple congressmen in your area, just look at what the congressman's local office zip code is and say you live in that zip code.

Call you ISP and tell them not to violate your privacy!!!

Comcast Legal Response Center
650 Centerton Road
Moorestown, NJ 08057

Normal business hours (M-F, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm EST)
866-947-8572

Attorneys behind the US copyright group, who are hiding behind the name
US Copyright group:

Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver

Washington, D.C. Office
1200 G Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: (202) 316-8558
Fax: (202) 318-0242

Bennett, Ellis L. - ebennett@dglegal.com
Chang, Phillip - pchang@dglegal.com
Dunlap, Thomas M - tdunlap@dglegal.com
Dureska, Geoffrey M. - gdureska@dglegal.com
Grubb, Daniel L. - dgrubb@dglegal.com
Ludwig, David - dludwig@dglegal.com
Moore, Mike - mmoore@dglegal.com
Kurtz, Nicholas A. - nkurtz@dglegal.com
Novel, Sur - snovel@dglegal.com
Policasti, Eugene - epolicasti@dglegal.com
Tate, Christopher F. - ctate@dglegal.com
Weaver, Jeffrey William - jweaver@dglegal.com
Whitticar, Michael C. - mwhitticar@dglegal.com
Gurganous, Tom - tgurganous@dglegal.com

IMPORTANT!! CONTACT WASHINGTON DC BAR
they are they only people you can really complain to
us justice department says refer complaints to them.
here is how to contact them.

From the home page "www.dcbar.org"

For the public > working with lawyers > when problems arise.

under the heading "filing a complaint" download the english pdf form

http://www.dcbar.org/for_the_public/working_with_l...

it has to be faxed or mailed back, NO EMAILS

Mail to:

Office of Bar Counsel
Board on Professional Responsibility
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
515 5th Street NW
Building A, Suite 117
Washington, DC 20001
Fax (202)638-0862

YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT ONE COMPLAINT FORM PER LAWYER ONLY

hilariouly you cannot combine lawyers at the same law group the way this criminal lawyers are combining thousands of defendants

under attorney complain of write:

Thomas M. Dunlap
1200 G Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: (202) 316-8558
Fax: (202) 318-0242

Write under details of complaint

"Thomas M. Dunlap is leading a group of attorneys who are filing mass "reverse-class action lawsuits." using easily inncorrect evidence (ip addresses) Thomas M. Dunlap is suing tens of thousands of people for copyright infringement. He sends out presettlement letters by the thousands. His small law firm cannot possibly bring thousands of cases to court. This is extortion at its most basic level. Most federal courts charge a $350 filing fee per case, along with a new set of paperwork. Each case also creates another docket to keep track of, making thousands of cases an administrative nightmare.

Instead of going this route, plaintiffs have simply filed mass lawsuits against groups of "John Does," in some cases by the thousands. It is not evident from the complaint in this case that there is anything common to the 5,000 defendants that would justify joining them in a single litigation... Courts facing these identical circumstances have repeatedly held that a plaintiff may not join in a single action multiple defendants who have allegedly downloaded or facilitated the download of copyrighted material at different times and locations.

"Thus, if the plaintiff wants to sue these 5,000 defendants, it owes this court 5,000 separate filing fees, and it must file individual actions. Plaintiff then would be unable to combine together a single, massive discovery request with which to burden non-party ISPs"




By mpjesse on 5/20/2010 12:29:37 PM , Rating: 1
This is the world we live in: if you circulate a screener before it's released in theaters, you run a very large risk of it getting pirated and circulated. Instead of trying to do damage control AFTER it's leaked, how about you PREVENT the problem. If you've so much faith in your film then fly the critics and financiers to a private studio and have it screened there. STOP CIRCULATING SCREENERS YOU DAFFY BASTARDS AND THEY WON'T END UP ON PIRATEBAY. It's that f'ing simple.

And this is for the academy: instead of sending out 400 copies of all the nominated films, fly the assholes to a singular location and screen the movies over a 1 week period. OR if it's unaffordable, make THEM pay for it. From what i understand being a member of the academy is a privilege, not a right. So if your membership is so damned influential and sacred, then make them come to Hollywood once a year to see these movies in a movie theater with plenty of security.

I'm sooooooo sick of listening to Hollywood cry about pirated screeners. It's f'ing ridiculous.




Well said,
By MrBlastman on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Well said,
By smackababy on 5/19/2010 11:39:38 AM , Rating: 2
A film producter does not contribute any IP to a film. Yes, they do put forth a lot of work, but no IP. They hire people...

I don't agree with people pirating the movie, but don't agree with this guy raging over someone disagreeing with the methods being taken to "combat" piracy.

I hope that user responded with "lolumad?"


RE: Well said,
By MrBlastman on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Well said,
By Denigrate on 5/19/2010 11:55:24 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming said movie is worth paying to see, I agree with you. However, if said movie is not worth paying to see, why watch it? Haven't seen the Hurt Locker, but from what I've heard, they should be paying/refunding peoples money for watching it.

Considering how cheap a netflix subscription is, there's no need to pirate anything.


RE: Well said,
By MrBlastman on 5/19/2010 12:13:17 PM , Rating: 4
Considering how cheap a netflix subscription is, there's no need to pirate anything.

Ding ding! We have a winner! :)

I'm an avid film buff, it wasn't too long ago before I was married that I'd see at least one film a week in the theater. Wife and kids change that, plus the ridiculous rise in theater prices (Costco tickets are my friend for that special occasion), aside from that, I have seen my share of bad movies. Not many--but I've seen a couple.

I don't watch previews as a rule, I never watch advertisements and I pick my movies by director/writer and a few select review sources... after only reading the last paragraph of the review. It is a system that works pretty well. There have been duds, the Musketeer was horrible, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was cringeworthy, and I slept through most of Underworld as it caused me to pass out from boredom.

Despite these duds, wastes of time and absolute dissapointments, I never once have asked for my money back. My system failed me, I chose poorly and it was my own fault that I saw a terrible movie. I picked myself up, went on my way and vowed to see something better next time.

Seeing a movie that is bad is no excuse to not pay for it. If you watch it, the filmmaker deserves their due, much like the dolphin trainer deserves theirs for you watching their show or the magician that produced a trick for you.


RE: Well said,
By Lord 666 on 5/19/2010 1:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
One question... did you watch Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull in the movie theater?


RE: Well said,
By MrBlastman on 5/19/2010 1:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I did. It was okay at best and a far toss from its predecessors, though, it did manage to entertain somewhat. The aforementioned duds to my own chagrin are not my typical viewing fare.

Some of them were actually the doing of friends on mine and are atypical of the plot and dialogue rich entrees that I prefer to consume. More often than not, they are comprised mainly of the independent course and the majority of which are not products of Hollywood.

Hopefully that clears things up a little.


RE: Well said,
By unfalliblekrutch on 5/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Well said,
By Denigrate on 5/19/2010 12:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
If I buy a bad box of cereal, I'm taking it back and asking for a refund. Can't do that at a movie theater as they will refuse you. Apples and oranges.


RE: Well said,
By MrBlastman on 5/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Well said,
By MadMan007 on 5/19/2010 1:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe in the future there will be mind-wipe technology such that all memories of an experience can be wiped therefore they can be refunded. That's the difference between etheral content and physical goods - you can't 'return' your experience of ethereal IP goods.


RE: Well said,
By Diesel Donkey on 5/19/2010 1:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think you should be able to get a refund on your movie ticket as long as you leave before you've watched more than half of the film. Similarly, the store isn't going to refund your cereal purchase if you've eaten the whole box.


RE: Well said,
By clovell on 5/19/2010 1:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
Read reviews. Case closed. Works with video games 24/7/365.25.

/thread.


RE: Well said,
By zxern on 5/19/2010 5:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
Game reviews?

Seriously?

Was this supposed to be sarcastic?


RE: Well said,
By clovell on 5/19/2010 5:59:40 PM , Rating: 1
Nope - but it was plural, and I did use the word "read".

Reviewers have their biases, but once you accept that, you can figure things out for yourself. If a small game studio decided to sue people who were downloading illegal copies of its game, would everybody bitch as much?

It's amazing to me how many guys come out of the woodwork in the comments section when we get an article about ridiculous cell phone contracts - screaming 'Buyer Beware!!!', but it's a foreign concept to do some reading before you go to see a movie.

So, yeah, this guy's being a dick - I think he's got a reason to be dick, but he's still a dick. It just gets under my skin that folks rationalize piracy by attacking the quality of the movies made. To those folks: Get lives.


RE: Well said,
By callmeroy on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Well said,
By clovell on 5/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Well said,
By Exterous on 5/19/2010 3:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
Netflix subscriptions may be cheap but studios are pushing for Rental Companies to release movies 28 days later than they are available for purchase. Add to that the fact that many titles you can now only rent the Theatrical Version (No navigation screen, no BD Live, no special features) and the allure of a Netflix subscription fades


RE: Well said,
By Alexstarfire on 5/19/2010 11:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm, like what? Other than the Avatar DVD I haven't heard of anyone else being as stupid about DVD releases.


RE: Well said,
By Exterous on 5/20/2010 2:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much anything from Warner Brothers:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/netflix-to-...
And Terminator Salvation was one of the first to come out with Theatrical Only versions for rental


RE: Well said,
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2010 12:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shouldn't they be compensated by people who wish the view their creation?


Are you saying they aren't??


RE: Well said,
By MrBlastman on 5/19/2010 12:47:48 PM , Rating: 3
They obviously aren't by the people who torrent their films. This is wrong.


RE: Well said,
By Jalek on 5/19/2010 1:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
This guy's probably been told that if all of those downloads had bought the movie, it would've grossed $500 billion or something. I'd be pissed if I were uninformed enough to believe that.

Every report I've seen assumes that every torrent file download results in a complete movie/album/program download, when in fact I'm sure it's far less than a 1:1 ratio.

Downloading the torrent would demonstrate intent, which would cover the criminal aspect of the DMCA I suppose, but how would you sue for monetary damages if you don't know that anything more was downloaded?


RE: Well said,
By MrBlastman on 5/19/2010 1:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a lawyer so I can't argue how the law is supposed to operate, though, I'd think intent would go a long way towards providing evidence for a conviction.

What I really would like to see here is the 'torrentors' fess up and admit that what they are doing is really wrong rather than try and justify their actions. They should know deep down inside that it is--and that is fine, at least have the pair of nuts to admit it.


RE: Well said,
By foolsgambit11 on 5/19/2010 11:52:40 AM , Rating: 5
Why do people keep equating copyright infringement (including infringement without monetary gain) with stealing? They aren't the same thing. To be clear, I'm not saying that copyright infringement isn't or shouldn't be a crime. But copyright infringement is different than stealing. So I found it ironic when he said, "I hope your family and your kids end up in jail one day for stealing so maybe they can be taught the difference." Good thing this guy has lawyers, and isn't prosecuting this case himself.


RE: Well said,
By rcc on 5/19/2010 12:16:21 PM , Rating: 3
Why is it that everyone want people to be precise, when it's convenient for them? Fine, it's not theft, but our society uses "stealing" as a generic term for taking what isn't yours.

"He stole her thunder"

"You stole my line"

"She stole my breath away"

"He's stealing her heart"

So, call it what every you want. It's wrong, it's illegal, and by popular definition, it's stealing.


RE: Well said,
By alphadog on 5/19/2010 12:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hear, hear! I grow tired of that constant complaint. Stealing has more than just the strict legal definition.


RE: Well said,
By Solandri on 5/20/2010 4:40:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hear, hear! I grow tired of that constant complaint. Stealing has more than just the strict legal definition.

In this context, since the people are being sued for copyright infringement, the only definition which matters is the strict legal one. Also, the director made a direct comparison between copyright infringement and stealing material property. I'm sure even you can agree that "stealing her thunder" is in no way comparable to stealing her 50" HDTV.


RE: Well said,
By XZerg on 5/19/2010 1:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think the poster meant that just because you download a movie doesn't mean you stole it. What is wrong with people buying a movie (dvd/blu-ray) and then downloading it so that it is easier for playing across all the system at home?

Would you rather browser through your HTPC files and double click the movie you want to watch and watch.

OR

Go through a huge stash of movie boxes to find the/a movie you want to watch, open the drive, remove the disc, put it back in its case, self it, put the new disc in the drive, click play and then suffer through 10 minutes of commercials before the actual menu come up to watch the movie and then more commercials/crap...

http://www.geekologie.com/2010/02/25/piracy-small....

This best explains why the way the producers have gone about delivering content is forcing people to download movies even more. NOTE: Not many people are savy with encoders or want to spend time encoding.


RE: Well said,
By zxern on 5/19/2010 5:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with this.

Wouldn't it be nice to buy a video on amazon or itunes, and be able to play it on any ipod/zune/dvd player?

Thanks to piracy you can.

Hopefully it won't take the mpaa people 10 years to figure out drm free downloads are better like the riaa.


RE: Well said,
By clovell on 5/19/2010 6:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hell yeah, it would. I still don't think that swapping formats is piracy, though. I don't think it would stand up in court, either, except that the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent DRM, which you kind of have to do in order to convert to another format.


RE: Well said,
By rcc on 5/21/2010 5:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the poster meant that just because you download a movie doesn't mean you stole it. What is wrong with people buying a movie (dvd/blu-ray) and then downloading it so that it is easier for playing across all the system at home?


As far as I'm concerned, nothing. However, in my experience far too many of the people that are doing that are also passing it to friends, family, etc.

As long as the pirates are out there proving to the studios that there is a large demand for the movies,they are going to keep doing their thing.

And, until the laws get changed, it's still stealing, copyright infringing, or whatever other tag peeps want to hang on it.


RE: Well said,
By eldakka on 5/20/2010 12:07:44 AM , Rating: 3
All of those examples use the term 'to steal' correctly, that is, depriving someone else of something so you can have it.

Let's take each of the examples you've provided:

"He stole her thunder"

Since 'He' stole her thunder, she no longer has it, therefore depriving her of her thunder (i.e. impact).

"You stole my line"

You deprived me of what I was going to say (this is really akin to stealing thunder above). I am not going to say it now because saying it would have less impact or make me look like a fool for repeating what has already been said, therefore a deprivation has occurred.

"She stole my breath away"

This implies a temporary suspension of breathing, a stunned silence/amazement where you actually cease to breath for a few seconds. Therefore you have been deprived of something, breath.

"he's stealing her heart"

If someone's heart is stolen, in the way indicated by the statment, then her heart is no longer available for someone else. I.e. she loves him, and not someone else. Therefore she has been deprived of loving someone else. At least as deeply, you can of course love several people simultaneously, in different degrees, but this statement is more falling deeply in love, becoming unavailable to someone else. While it is a deprivation, hopefully it's a good one ;)

Now, when you infringe copyright, you haven't deprived anyone of anything. The item that you have copied is still owned by, and in possession of, the owner.

Calling copyright infringement 'stealing' is a construction of the industry that depends on copyright for it's livelihood. An attempt at putting a greater emotional context on something for their own purposes.


RE: Well said,
By docinct on 5/22/2010 12:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please.
Of course it is "stealing", playing word games doesn't negate the fact that you are taking something of value that belongs to a person or business without compensation or permission.
I run a small video production business and sell DVDs (haven't made the leap to streaming yet). It costs money to make and distribute the videos. I expect to make money from my efforts and copyrighted works.
When you make copies without compensating me, you are stealing from me. If you sell those copies you are profiting from my work, not yours. If you post a copy on the internet for downloading your are also stealing from me (if indirectly).
To assume it is o.k. to just make a copy because you disagree with the price of the video/movie/DVD/download is wrong and is, under current US law, illegal. Are the fines, awards, etc. outrageous, yes they are and far outweigh the actual financial loss of the copyright owner. But that is not an excuse to justify "piracy" or copyright infringement.
Most of the posters on this thread seem to think they are entitled to free entertainment. Just who do you think pays the salaries, production costs, distribution costs, etc.? How do you think THEY pay for all of that except by charging for viewing their creative work? Are movie tickets expensive, yes, so either don't go or go to bargain matinees (I use the $4 senior day). Are DVDs too expensive? Then don't buy them, or rent them from NetFlix, or iTunes or Amazon or whatever.


RE: Well said,
By cerx on 5/19/2010 12:48:29 PM , Rating: 1
It is stealing, 100%. It's not burglary, larceny, or robbery, but it is stealing .

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.


RE: Well said,
By callmeroy on 5/19/2010 3:00:51 PM , Rating: 1
The ethics of the crowd on DT shine on debates like this....

Its wrong, its illegal.... Why the hell is their continued debated on something so crystal clear obvious?

Semantics, excuses...whatever...say whatever makes you happy it doesn't change the truth -- its STEALING...

Its....not legal.


RE: Well said,
By Alexstarfire on 5/19/2010 11:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone is saying it's not illegal. They are just saying that it's not stealing, which IMO it's really not. It's similar, but not the same. The other problem is, like many have said on here, just because someone downloaded it to watch doesn't mean they'd ever have paid for it. After attempting to watch Crystal Skull I can't say that I blame many people for wanting to watch a movie before paying for it. Not saying it's legal, but after that crap excuse for a movie can you blame people completely?


RE: Well said,
By invidious on 5/19/2010 12:57:56 PM , Rating: 3
You seriously think his pay isn't affected by the earnings/profitability of the movies he produces?


RE: Well said,
By ImSpartacus on 5/19/2010 1:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but from the The Man's point of view, does that teach pirates anything?

The RIAA and like seem to want to make examples of people by throwing absurd fines at them.

It'd be nice if they did have reasonable fines.


RE: Well said,
By MrBlastman on 5/19/2010 1:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
The RIAA I place in a far different category than the MPAA. The RIAA has been screwing over artists that make music for years, stomping out their will to produce and then terrorizing the public for their reduced profits. The problem with the RIAA is they fail to see that the crap they are forcing down our throats is just that, crap, and none of us want to pay for it (or even listen to it).

There are still plenty of good movies being produced to watch. There is also good music being produced--and thankfully, it can be bought outside of the RIAA's grasp.

I don't think we can fairly lump these two organizations in the same category as the RIAA is clearly the lowest, foulest form of existence that there is in this world.


RE: Well said,
By Jalek on 5/19/2010 1:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
When I first heard of Napster, I expected to hear that people were started receiving bills based on logfiles. Had they used a court order to just monitor what people were doing, they could've gathered that sort of information, then sent out bills for 1-2 dollars per song.

People would've complained, but I doubt it would've required the sort of legal army the RIAA assembled, videotaping children on playgrounds and doing all sorts of things to apply pressure to get large settlements.

A good collection agency could've collected on more reasonable demands for payment and people like me, who didn't even use that sort of file sharing, wouldn't have canceled multiple "record club" memberships and boycotted labels for many years due to their approach.


RE: Well said,
By monkeyman1140 on 5/28/2010 4:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
I consider a reasonable fine $7.00 and 2 hours of my life back for wasting time watching that turd.


Great Response
By DarthKaos on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Great Response
By ET on 5/19/2010 3:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"pirate", what does that term bring to mind?

It brings to mind that circular arguments are silly. If you call it "piracy" and then try to convince people that because it's called piracy it's bad, then your argument doesn't have any legs to stand on. Hmmm, maybe it's time the copyright holders started to call pirates "copyright rapists". This certainly feels stronger and doesn't have any exciting connotations.

It's not that your general argument is wrong, it's just that having holes in it makes it vulnerable to picking apart.

I think that it's fine to punish pirates, but I think it should be a reasonable cost. Retail price of the movie (in its most expensive format) plus paying for the trial. That's reasonable compensation, and it puts pirates in a position they might think twice if the hassle is worth it. Trying to win exhorbitant sums just makes the movie studios look like the bad guys.


Oh NOes!!!!1!!111!
By Schrag4 on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh NOes!!!!1!!111!
By boobo on 5/19/2010 3:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
[quote]"I'm sure all of Hollywood is quaking in their boots that pirate-sympathizers (most likely pirates themselves) will stop paying for their product."[/quote]

Considering that pirates spend up to 4.5 times more on purchasing legal content than those who don't pirate, yes, it should cause at least a bit of concern.

Source: Figure based on poll conducted by the music research firm The Leading Question. The University of Amsterdam's “Legal, Economic and Cultural Aspects of File Sharing” also indicated that pirates buy more merchandise and concert tickets.


well
By Calindar on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: well
By alphadog on 5/19/2010 11:50:45 AM , Rating: 3
The fact that you do not like how much an actor gets paid does not entitle you to commit copyright infringement.

Instead, may I suggest you pay for viewing good, indie films with reasonably-paid actors?


RE: well
By MPE on 5/19/2010 12:03:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Pirating is wrong. But I don't feel as bad when I know that these "artist" are being paid ridiculous amounts of money to act in these films, and that giant paycheck is passed down to the consumer where it costs $20 to go see a movie in a theater.


Only a handful of people out of the HUNDREDS that require to make a film gets high salary. 99% of the people involve in a film are paid living wages.

Only the Executive Producer, 1 or 2 main actors, producer, etc.
There are probably more 'assistant' position that pay BELOW living wage (closer to poverty line) than those people who gets paid 6 or 7 digits.

People forget that almost all of the jobs in movies not only do not pay well but are freelance position. So not only you get paid sh!t, you have to struggle again to make sure you don't stay unemployed.

People have the wrong idea the amount of money 99% of the people that works in TV and film and music receive because all they know is how much Tom Cruise, Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, etc gets paid.

They did not know that the guy the moves the lighting, or does the audio recording or cleans the mess all earn about the same as their parents do.


RE: well
By Tyhr on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: well
By jRaskell on 5/19/2010 12:51:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
FYI - the average salary of a "successful" actor is less than $10,000/year. Unless you're a big name Hollywood actor (that top 1%), $10k is not a "reasonable" amount of money IMO.


I'm calling BS on that claim. Provide a source. A quick 2 minute google provided several sources stating the average salary was closer to around 50k a year. Still nothing to write home about, but within the realm of reasonable.


Cue Freeloader Indignation In 5... 4... 3...
By alphadog on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
By Cooken on 5/24/2010 10:10:23 AM , Rating: 1
Smells like the last election


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki