Comments on: Camcording in cinemas

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 15 May 2007 13:07:31 +0000

“I don’t think anyone will be negatively impacted by a law against camcordering in theaters, but all creativity and the basic property rights (and dependant rights) of all citizens will be harmed by laws against the private ownership/control of technology.”

Wrong. Probable some innocent tourist who knows nothing about local laws will be arrested and destroyed for life. This is what will happen to the victim:

a. The vacation will be ended.
b.will need to morgage his future to hire a lawyer.
c. He/she caanot leave the country until proseuted and has served whatever sentence was give.
d. The employment or studies back home will end.
e. With a criminal record all future employment is at risk.
f. The way out is to become a homeless drug addict or a drug dealer.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 15 May 2007 07:43:08 +0000

Those movies don’t profit because no one goes to see them because they’re crappy movies. I don’t owe them anything for crappy movies, however they may owe me for wasting 2 hours of my life that I will never get back. It’s simple. Make good movies people will go see and you will profit. Make shitty movies that no one wants to see, and you won’t make a dime.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 14 May 2007 20:25:45 +0000

hmmm, I agree it should be illegal. But I see it as a move by the copyright cartel to get a law on the books that involves copying a work that requires no actual distribution and of course will have a large penalty… they are hoping for ca$h to be paid to them of course.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:40:04 +0000

While we can largely agree that camcordering isn’t a serious problem, what is the harm of actually making this activity clearly illegal and easy to prosecute?

I believe there are benefits. With this trivially wrong (but insignificant) problem out of the way, it may reduce some of the pressure to pass laws making the personal ownership/control of technology (IE: anti-circumvention, AKA: TPM/DRM protection laws). I don’t think anyone will be negatively impacted by a law against camcordering in theaters, but all creativity and the basic property rights (and dependant rights) of all citizens will be harmed by laws against the private ownership/control of technology.

I believe that opposing anti-camcording laws is harmful to our cause. Clarify this as being a low priority with little to no evidence of harm, but please don’t claim that camcordering movies should be legal.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:49:10 +0000

The reason they did not make their money back because it most likely sucked. By making a good product and reforming their business practices, movie makers could be rolling in the dough. I watched a movie called. “Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning.” This parody was of good quality and had many special effects, yet it was produced in a two room flat by 5 friends and only cost a few thousand dollars.

This proves that good quality movies can be done on the cheap. Viral marketing can advertise and promote these movies and allow immense profit. With the marketing clout that the cartels enjoy, they should be able to make grat profits with the help of talented actors and producers.

See http://www.starwreck.com/ for more information and to legally download for free.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 14 May 2007 09:19:35 +0000

because you owe them for those movies that sucked too that never made their money back.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 14 May 2007 04:50:00 +0000

In one week, it was reported that Spider-man 3 made over 600 million dollars. Even if you take into account that it cost $700 million to make, market and distribute, Sony only has to make $100 million more to start making a profit. They haven’t even started with the 5 different versions of DVD sales yet, so it seems very likely that Spider-man 3 will start showing a profit sometime this week.

Regardless of whether or not Spider-man 3 was a good movie or not, how has downloading affected it’s ability to turn a profit?

Even I have a home theater system, and occasionally, I buy pirated copies of movies, but when I do, they are always crappy quality recordings of equally crappy movies. The movies generally suck to begin with. It has nothing to do with my pirated copy. I wouldn’t even pay $2 to rent the movie, let alone pay $30 to go see it with my wife at the theatre. Why support an industry that makes shit?

Every once and awhile, a movie is released that I make the effort to go to see at the theatre, but that has everything to do with quality of movies Hollywood has been releasing and nothing to do with whether or not I can download it off the internet. If it’s a really good movie, I’ll even buy a legit DVD so I can get all the extras that don’t usually appear on pirated copies.

The other problem I see, is there is so much money spent on promotion and release dates to get the hype up, yet studios continue to release movies in foreign markets months after they are released in North America. Sometimes I have no choice but to download the movie since I live in one of those foreign markets.

When Spiderman 3 was released here in S. Korea, 4 days before the NA release, I was one of the first people in the theatres. Why wait 4 days to download it off a NA server when I can see it in all it’s glory on the big screen today?