Free Solo Movie

David Kerkeslager wrote:

It's already available in those countries on The Pirate Bay. :D

But seriously, I'm not proposing that it's right to not pay for movies--I'm just saying that if businesses do stupid crap like releasing their movies to only 1/8 of the world's population, I don't see anything wrong with pirating the movie and paying for it later when they decide to get their act together.

Good point!  That's an option but I really want to see it on the Big Screen.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

It's already available in those countries on The Pirate Bay. :D

But seriously, I'm not proposing that it's right to not pay for movies--I'm just saying that if businesses do stupid crap like releasing their movies to only 1/8 of the world's population, I don't see anything wrong with pirating the movie and paying for it later when they decide to get their act together.

Its their intellectual property and legacy. They have every right to do with it whatever they choose (and you realize that Alex is making appearances at many of the showings, right? Probably not). 

There is no "act for them to get together" to please you or anyone else my friend. Only themselves.

Please delete your post.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

paying for it later when they decide to get their act together.

You obviously have zero clue about the movie business and the people involved with this one.

Mikey Schaefer wrote:

You obviously have zero clue about the movie business and the people involved with this one.

Oh by the way...congrats to the Free Solo team on the Academy nomination! You're totally gonna win.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

Its their intellectual property and legacy. They have every right to do with it whatever they choose (and you realize that Alex is making appearances at many of the showings, right? Probably not). 

There is no "act for them to get together" to please you or anyone else my friend. Only themselves.

I never said otherwise. They have the right to release their content on VHS only if they want. And I'd be well within my right to say that would be a stupid idea.

How does it hurt content providers if someone pirates their content and then pays for it once it's released in their country?

wow. just.

wow.

Mikey Schaefer wrote:

You obviously have zero clue about the movie business and the people involved with this one.

I'm well-aware of the backwardness of the movie business, and I realize that "this is how everybody does it". I've been tracking this issue since they added regions and DRM to DVDs. But if you really think that people in certain countries should simply accept that they're considered second-class citizens with regard to most movie releases, I'd like you to enlighten me as to why. I also think that if people like you didn't simply accept that "this is how everybody does it" you could figure out a way release your content to everyone fairly if you made it a priority. The Beatles discography did it, Louis CK did it with a bunch of tapings of his tours, etc. It can be done--people have done it--and it's absolutely nonsense that there's some reason it can't.

And I'd like to reiterate: I totally believe you should be paid for your work, as I've stated in every post on this subject. I paid for a ticket to see Free Solo in a theater. I'm simply not opposed to people pirating content that isn't available in their country until they can legally obtain it and pay for it. It's not like you're losing money if someone pirates your video when they have no options for paying for it.

Again, I'd be happy to change my mind if you can reasonably explain why you think it has to be this way.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

I'm well-aware of the backwardness of the movie business, and I realize that "this is how everybody does it". But if you really think that people in certain countries should simply accept that they're considered second-class citizens with regard to most movie releases, I'd like you to enlighten me as to why. I also think that if people like you didn't simply accept that "this is how everybody does it" you could figure out a way release your content to everyone fairly if you made it a priority. The Beatles discography did it, Louis CK did it with a bunch of tapings of his tours, etc. It can be done--people have done it--and it's absolutely nonsense that there's some reason it can't.

And I'd like to reiterate: I totally believe you should be paid for your work, as I've stated in every post on this subject. I paid for a ticket to see Free Solo in a theater. I'm simply not opposed to people pirating content that isn't available in their country until they can legally obtain it and pay for it. It's not like you're losing money if someone pirates your video when they have no options for paying for it.

Again, I'd be happy to change my mind if you can reasonably explain why you think it has to be this way.

Being a thief for a little while eh?

. Mobes wrote: 

Being a thief for a little while eh?

"Being a thief" implies someone is harmed.

In this case, people don't get paid who wouldn't be paid anyway, because you don't have an option to pay them. And they get paid for their content when they decide to give you that option. If you feel this is equivalent harm to thieving, I'd like you to explain what harm you think is being done.

EDIT: Hit my post limit. Responding to Marc's post below:

For starters, consider that bittorrent sites don't pay attention to geography.

...which is exactly why many people pirate in countries where content creators decide not to release their content.

Then you can read this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsongranados/2016/02/01/how-online-piracy-hurts-emerging-artists/#7520bb487774

Skimming that article, it says that content creators are harmed when people don't pay for their content. Obviously, I didn't need an article to tell me that.

However, that's not what I'm proposing. I've advocated paying for content in every post I've posted on this subject.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

"Being a thief" implies someone is harmed.

In this case, people don't get paid who wouldn't be paid anyway, because you don't have an option to pay them. And they get paid for their content when they decide to give you that option. If you feel this is equivalent harm to thieving, I'd like you to explain what harm you think is being done.

For starters, consider that bittorrent sites don't pay attention to geography.

Then you can read this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsongranados/2016/02/01/how-online-piracy-hurts-emerging-artists/#7520bb487774

Jaren Watson wrote: To use your logic in another context, imagine you have a rather vast and impressive trad rack, one you haven’t catalogued. Using your reasoning, I can take one of your cams, provided I’m stealthy. Because you won’t notice it’s missing in your blissful ignorance, you will experience no harm. And if you experience no actual harm, no theft has occurred.

I'm not going to argue that piracy is ethical in any case, but I'm in an argumentative mood today so can't help but point out that this hypothetical doesn't help your argument.

In your hypothetical Joe Climber had 200 cams and now he has 199. It doesn't matter if he notices the harm or not, it is done.  He has one less cam, period. David's argument is that when Joe Pirate in Timbuktu downloads a movie, the content creators went from getting $0 from Joe (since he couldn't buy it any way living in Timbuktu), to getting $0 from Joe. He doesn't have one less of anything.  The two scenarios are not comparable. 

Your second point that it is unlikely that Joe Pirate would ever pay for the content after pirating it is better, but doesn't really apply since David has always been upfront with his assertion that pirating is only okay if payment is subsequently made whenever possible.  So you've argued against a strawman that is different than David's initial argument.

Again, I agree pirating Free Solo in any case would be unethical, but countering David's arguments with logic is more difficult than that. I guess I miss debate... :)

This shit is spicy! 

Who's all like, "I'm just going to pirate this thing", when there's members of the production team on the forums? That's just a bad look, my man.

Jaren Watson wrote:

You can’t gloss over earning potential as if it doesn’t exist, claiming no one is harmed. The potential for for profit is precisely why goods are produced.

I don’t believe you are quite so naive to think that many people would actually pay later for a product they previously stole.

Oh come on, in David's world thieves eventually pay for what they steal. Right Dave?

Jaren Watson wrote:

For every pirate that consumes the product, the producer is minus one potential customer, just like the stolen cam scenario.

Ah, but remember that in David's scenario, the only two outcomes are a) Joe Pirate is never able to legally purchase the content, in which case he isn't actually a potential customer, or b) Joe Pirate purchases the content as soon as it becomes available, so wasn't ever really lost as a customer, just consumed the content before paying for it, which I don't think harms the producer.

But my version reflects reality and the original version reflects an unrealistic hypothetical.

I think this hits the nail on the head.  While David's argument is somewhat difficult to counter, the point he is fairly successfully arguing isn't all that interesting since it makes unrealistic assumptions. The fact that your realistic version is a bit of a strawman means that it is fairly easy to show that piracy is unethical from a base of any realistic set of assumptions.

(Apologies for the thread drift...)

Buck Rogers wrote: Anyone know when it will be released in Germany/Luxembourg/Switzerland/France? 

So, what sorts of reasons would there be for not releasing it in these countries?

Jim Turner wrote:

So, what sorts of reasons would there be for not releasing it in these countries?

The markets are all different, and there may not be enough demand in those countries to justify a wide release (we don't get all the German movies released in the US for example, but Toni Erdmann found its way to US theaters eventually). The publicity from the Oscars should help the film's chances of getting a wider international release, and if not, it will be available streaming and on Blu-Ray soon enough. They often do limited release of smaller films in a few US cities (usually NY and LA) to build hype (press reviews and word of mouth), and then later move on to wide releases. 

International theatrical distribution rights are sold separately, and reflect what theater owners in those countries think their audiences will pay for. They come to the US annually for the American Film Market to get a preview of what's coming out and to negotiate such distribution.

Ummm... can't they just release the movie as a download for a fee? Wtf?

Jaren Watson wrote:

This scenario gives the gift of future sight to Joe Pirate, another aspect of the original position that is unlikely to play out in reality.

Without foretelling the future, how does Joe Pirate know the film will never be available? He justifies his actions on a guess as he has no way of knowing ahead of time the actual outcome. This implies what is ethical can be determined by random chance. Dicey proposition, no?

I don't think he needs the gift of future sight. He just has to know that if it does become available he will pay for it.  Using just that knowledge (which doesn't require any special powers, just knowing himself), he can know that one of the two possible outcomes I mentioned will be true.  His justification isn't "This will never be available", his justification is "either it will never be available, or it will be and I'll pay for it."

Tradiban wrote: Ummm... can't they just release the movie as a download for a fee? Wtf?

They will, after the theatrical run, which is getting a boost as the Oscars approach.