What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
110 Comments
- novenator, on 11/10/2009, -1/+79Bands that release their stuff online for a 'donation' always get a few bucks from me. Metallica can suck my balls though.
- dogpigeoncow, on 11/10/2009, -4/+73***** THE MPAA!
- captininsanity, on 11/11/2009, -0/+66Obscurity is a bigger threat to art than piracy.
- MAGZine, on 11/11/2009, -3/+62Indie: Thanks for watching!!!! Watch our next one please??
Holly: YOU OWE US A BILLION DOLLAZ!!!!! PLUS YOUR FREEDOM!!!! PLUS ANOTHER BILLION FOR UPLOADING IT!!!! YOU'RE SUCH A CRIMINAL - Yatti420, on 11/10/2009, -5/+52MPAA\RIAA FAIL..
- daneshea, on 11/10/2009, -4/+43***** the MPAA and the RIAA
- wlmafia, on 11/11/2009, -0/+24So then is it really "piracy"?
- captininsanity, on 11/11/2009, -0/+22Yea I bet the filmmakers are all destitute on the street eating from trash cans right now because of the millions they lost... /s
They just got millions in free advertising. A small group like this couldn't buy this kind of publicity... - swagv, on 11/11/2009, -1/+19Today's BitTorrent users self-validation digg is brought to you by Swedish furniture.
- broken107, on 11/11/2009, -0/+17They have an online store as well as a donate button on their site for anyone who wants to help support the film markers.
- captininsanity, on 11/11/2009, -1/+16As an artist myself I can tell you that the internet has done nothing but improve the efforts of the little known artist...
- tootim, on 11/11/2009, -1/+16I'd like an answer actually. Even if movies are free, my time is not.
Don't think me arrogant, I would just really like to know people's feelings on it. Truly. - wikinerd, on 11/11/2009, -1/+14Oh, so the MPAA/RIAA producers/execs are starving?
Or you're the starving troll that they employed wishing for a payraise? - thebreach, on 11/11/2009, -2/+15The movie industry like the music industry has totally disconnected with how the fans are doing things these days. Any movie I download, I would probably have NEVER paid to go see it, or even buy it on DVD. Sometimes if I like something enough, I will get a real copy or pay to see it in a theater for the full experience.
But greed knows no boundaries. Yes they might be losing a little bit because of piracy, but only because now we are not forced to pay for DVDs as we used to be. Until they decide that there is a level of "good enough" in their profit margin they will always bitch about how BitTorrent and the Internet stole their prom date.
Glad to see Indie filmmakers are greeting technology with open arms though, they actually see the potential. - phoomp, on 11/11/2009, -1/+13And THIS is probably the real reason that the studios don't like P2P. Forget "theft" of their content. P2P kills their monopoly by making it easier for Indie artists to get indie content to our eyeballs.
- darkphenox, on 11/11/2009, -1/+13No because you have the copyright holders permission.
- tootim, on 11/11/2009, -1/+12What, no ability to navigate the internet?
- namelessXsilent, on 11/11/2009, -0/+11is the movie any good?
- emocean, on 11/11/2009, -0/+10I saw Ink @ a little film festival night in Saskatoon and thought it was pretty good. Glad to hear people are seeing it, in one way or another.
:: - Valyn, on 11/11/2009, -0/+8You have a point, but you destroy it by grossly exaggerating. 100 million film made independently would not have actors/directors, etc. getting paid 20 million each. Without the big names, and shooting on a quick schedule you could bring almost any movie down exponentially.
- kashk5, on 11/11/2009, -0/+8Obscurity can lead to starvation. Piracy just means a smaller paycheck. So if you meant piracy leads to starvation, your logic fails.
- javaroast, on 11/11/2009, -0/+7Don't wait. Did you realize that your small donation of 20 cents a day can help ensure that a Spielberg will never have to face the horrors of starvation. But that is exactly what poor Steven will face due to the ravages of sharing and cooperation. Please friend act now.... before it's too late.
- schroeder, on 11/11/2009, -1/+8They do in theaters, DVDs, and television. Plus all the product placement.
- ugetab, on 11/11/2009, -0/+7I just got done watching Ink, and I have to admit that it's not my standard fare.
Special Effects were in support of the plot, not the reason for the plot.
Some parts were above my ability to comprehend, or possibly had no real reason. A far cry from the usual American spoon-fed story lines I've seen.
The people who made it weren't angry that people just took it. I could almost believe they were more happy than disappointed. Kind of bypasses my "If it's not worth stealing..." train of thought.
I've seen movies I've been more interested in, but not recently. $250,000 for that kept my attention about as well, or possibly better than District 9. Not really saying much except to compare the budget, and the fact that instead of thinking about the ramifications of the film, I'm trying to understand the content in it's context.
Can't really donate any significant amount of money, but on the other hand, they didn't have distribution costs to get it to me, they didn't have advertisement costs to get me interested, and they didn't try to force it down my throat. Hopefully, they make money off of it, because I have to admit that getting no leading/misleading previews combined with what appears to be genuine public interest in the content(well, that and the IMDB genre tags) is the best sell I've seen in years. - mihiryouthere, on 11/11/2009, -0/+7This was incredibly well said; I thought about it for a few moments and came to the conclusion that i wholeheartedly agree.
- Dunge, on 11/11/2009, -2/+9FUCCKKK YYOOOO WHHHAALELESS
- KeseChartier, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6Your analogy fails miserably. When you go to work there is a contract between you and your employer that you will work and they will pay you. If you work for 2 weeks and then your boss refuses to pay you, he has violated that contract.
When someone makes a piece of art there is no contract, implied or otherwise, that stipulates if you even look at it you must pay the creator. As much as the powers that be in the music and movie industries would like to pretend, an electronic copy of something does not cost them anything until you sell it to someone who was willing to pay for it, then it's piracy.
And trailers are so far from "a free trail" that I don't know where to begin. If you can't comprehend the difference between an advertisement designed specifically to entice you to view a film and a free showing, I don't think we can come to common understanding. - javaroast, on 11/11/2009, -1/+7There have been no lost jobs or loss of dollars.
- UnaClocker, on 11/11/2009, -2/+8What, no link to the torrent?
- lutafin, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6Piracy has not stopped anybody from making movies, it also has yet to cost them anything.
On the other hand where they do lose money is when they make remake after remake of a ***** crappy movie or just a crappy movie altogether. That is where they lose money. - immatellyouwhat, on 11/11/2009, -3/+9FRUCK THE DORPHYN!!!...wait what?
- javaroast, on 11/11/2009, -2/+8Pro tip: There is no such thing as bad publicity. Wow, wasn't that a neat exchange of meaningless artificial truisms.
- sageerrant, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6Also available for streaming on Netflix, if you'd rather not torrent or wait more than thirty seconds.
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Ink/70125584
I don't actually know if it's any good yet, but this is an easy way to find out. - themastersb, on 11/11/2009, -2/+7Spreading the word FAIL.
- thebreach, on 11/11/2009, -2/+7Seems to have worked so far this decade
And you are correct, a business (in this case a film) should be allowed to make money of course, but they must also adapt to what their fans/consumers want. Big film failed long ago by thinking DVDs would last forever, as they watched distribution go online without them, and now they are bitching about it.
There is no clear answer yet I think, but sueing your customers just for wanting your content bad enough to download it illegally is not it. - willrs, on 11/11/2009, -3/+8The movie was pretty good. Then again I started watching it with low expectations knowing it was an indie film.
- Sabretou, on 11/11/2009, -1/+6Yes because I love calling myself a pirate.
- javaroast, on 11/11/2009, -1/+6Reality says your fantasy scenario isn't being accepted. Come again as the market has rejected your plan. I will give you some ups for the trailer line. That one was hilarious.
- Satenru, on 11/11/2009, -1/+6Here ya go:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/3122511 - zenmechanic, on 11/11/2009, -2/+7***** AA!
*sips his beer* - namelessXsilent, on 11/11/2009, -1/+5in the reply to my comment
- thebreach, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4That is fine if you are ok to pay for content that may be total *****, as a lot of us have found out with buying CDs for that single hoping the rest is as good, and is actually 2 good songs and 13 fillers.
That's *****. You wouldnt buy a car without driving it first, I for the most part dont buy content that I can't verify being worth my money or not.
It is not my fault the industry does not provide this service for the most part, so piracy it is. - pissshivers, on 11/11/2009, -1/+5...so you pay for your Digg account?
- Sabretou, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4It has a 6.9 on IMDB right now, and I've seen IMDB's score to be fairly accurate most of the time (except when the vote count is in two digits). Looks worth torrenting, at least if you're not downloading anything else.
- tootim, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4HAHA, dugg down for not deciding!
- hellotyler, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4Gonna watch this tonight. Thanks. :)
- Culyt, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4Except its generally not the choice of the film maker. It's the dinosaurs that are running the industry into the ground. The industry has the monopoly in place already so film makers are forced to go with their rules or have no chance of getting anywhere. It's only rare cases like this and all of youtube that gets passed it.
Flashbulb should look at releasing under a Creative Commons license. If he has gone to the effort to post them to BitTorrent for exposure, obviously people are going to download it, and it being 'illegal' but officially endorsed is a bit stupid (although obviously much better than the general sue everyone approach). In either case and he can still ask for people to, donate, purchase from online stores, buy a physical disc, etc... and people might be more willing to support a creative commons artist.
About the only revenue lost would be the 'I don't want to do something illegal' crowd (or specifically 'I did something illegal and now feel bad because the message called me out on it' crowd since they would have had to get it from the site in the first place). Or I guess if the artist became really famous and could then afford lawyers to sue everyone to stop the original stuff being distributed. Judging by the fact that there are only about 50 seeders form both the pirate bay and Mininova the added exposure could be helpful. - javaroast, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4"actually...copyright law dictates that. If you watch a movie that has been released through a specific distribution channel, and do so without the creators permission, or paying for the right to view that movie, you are now breaking the law."
No, copyright law says no such thing. Take the time to understand what copyright is before you attempt to discuss it in public. Your definition above would make inviting friends over to watch a rented movie a criminal act. It's not.
"The argument that you wouldnt buy it anyway doesn't hold water because if its not worth buying then you should not benefit from it. The fact that millions of other people are willing to pay the $10 ticket price sets the value of the movie, which means when you get it for free, you are in fact stealing."
***** pure and simple. Using your definition every rental from RedBox is a theft. It's not. Using your definition matinees are stealing. They aren't. In fact copyright law doesn't ever use the term steal. It's an infringement.
You can make this stuff up and keep repeating it, but your entire argument only proves to highlight the fact that you don't have any clue about what you are talking about and that you aren't even close to having the most basic grasp of copyright law. - Satenru, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3Torrent:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/3122511 - Vile2539, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3Two of my friends loved the movie. I thought it was alright, but a bit too artsy and slow for my liking.
And I now prepare for all the people telling me I didn't "get" the movie... -
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is