Two Swedes Arrested For Trying to Smuggle Butter Into Norway

[Kiame]

Aww, whassamatter? Can't reply to any of my points/links?

 

Your points were incredibly hollow and average about six words long. Yes, I can. The thing is it's really not worth the time. Especially when it's you I'm replying to.

 

If you can't take it, don't dish it out. ;)

 

I've never called you anything remotely as insane as what you just called me.

[Reilly]

I really, really want to know why Kiame is specifically a warmongering corporatist socialist, and I don't see why anyone should respect what Saffire says otherwise.

 

Be accountable for once, you never have before.

[Saffire]

Sorry kid, I'm done responding to you.

[chuck kottke]

Я предпочитаю насилия, товарищ.

 

Я также хотел войны.

 

:)

 

I knew it! Another Crazy Ivan!:cool:

Rad tebya videt.

[Kiame]

I really, really want to know why Kiame is specifically a warmongering corporatist socialist, and I don't see why anyone should respect what Saffire says otherwise.

 

Be accountable for once, you never have before.

 

Saffire? Accountable? I really doubt you're going to get a response...

 

He's got no idea.

 

Sorry kid, I'm done responding to you.

 

 

Haha, knew it.

[Saffire]

Hey Kiame, from now on whenever you annoy me I'll just remind you of Zombieland. ;)

[Kiame]

Hey Kiame, from now on whenever you annoy me I'll just remind you of Zombieland. ;)

 

Fine, I'll bite. It's pretty funny you think you made a good point. I thought it was one of the worst posts you've ever written.

 

Regarding Zombieland:

 

 

So they "only" tripled their investment, and Sony refused to make a sequel based on that?

 

According to the Wikipedia page for the movie, there will be a sequel and they're planning on it. They're even thinking about a TV series based on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombieland

 

You're amazingly hypocritical. Just a few hours ago you were yelling at Parrotdies because he had a source you didn't like. Then you say "according to Wikipedia" and quote Wikipedia at me.

 

Zombieland 2 is still not in production. Both Jessie Eisenberg ( http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Zombieland-2-Isn-t-Dead-But-Jesse-Eisenberg-Isn-t-Sure-It-s-Still-Relevant-25533.html ) and Woody Harrelson ( http://screenrant.com/woody-harrelson-zombieland-2-kofi-101664/ ) both have said it is unlikely a sequel will happen.

 

Zombieland's director Rhett Reese, after discovering about Zombieland's incredibly piracy rates said this:

 

“Zombieland currently the most pirated movie on bit torrent. Over one million downloads and counting. Beyond depressing. This greatly affects the likelihood of a Zombieland 2.”

 

I'm not surprised you're arrogant enough to assume that they are all lying and it is you who knows the truth. Yes, you! Piracy doesn't hurt anyone!

 

Soooo yeah, your argument here (and your example) doesn't hold water.

 

 

It holds a hell of a lot more water than your rebbutal. Your whole point against it was you trying to claim the sequel will be made regardless.

 

Which is irrelevant. Even if a sequel is made, it will involve Sony renegotiating a contract that exceeds the original parameters. I never claimed that Zombieland 2 will never come out - I was just showing you how devastating the piracy was for the crew involved.

 

Whether Zombieland 2 is made or not it doesn't change the fact that piracy hurt the production company a huge amount.

 

The amount of public interest that was behind Zombieland was huge. Most people illegally downloaded it instead of viewing it in a cinema or purchasing a DVD. Because of this, Zombieland only made 90 million when it should have been pushing 300.

 

 

You're assuming the movie is worth that much (meaning the people would have voluntarily traded their money to see it in theaters rather than downloading it).

 

This is a fallacy. Many people download films because they want to get something for free. If you give 100 people a choice over hurting someone and getting something for free, or not hurting someone and losing money - a large portion of the group will choose to get something for free.

 

Zombieland was pirated so much, that even if one quarter of the people who downloaded it paid a dollar instead - the film would have made 1 million dollars extra.

 

So yeah, I am assuming that films are worth more than nothing.

 

 

Not according to the Swiss government, which recently legalized piracy there:

 

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111204switzerland?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+digitalmusicnews+%28Digital+Music+News%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

 

The Swiss did not legalise piracy. More dishonesty from you.

 

The Swiss legalised piracy for personal use. Piracy for non-personal use and redistribution is an even bigger threat and it is something that is still very illegal in Switzerland. Countries like China illegally and immorally undercut both Hollywood and independent film agencies for millions every year - and every year there are hundreds more like you who pretend that it doesn't hurt anyone.

 

Also, take a look at Switzerland. By legalising piracy, they aren't hurting their own manufactures and businesses. Switzerland contributes very little to the global entertainment sector, so making personal use piracy legal has very little effect. If the USA were to legalise piracy it would be far more serious and far worse for the giant film companies.

 

And that's why you have countries like Switzerland legalising piracy and countries like the USA going out of their way to criminalise it. The USA lose a lot through piracy. Switzerland don't. It's inconsequential.

 

By the way, I noticed you deliberately never responded to my analogy of the novel. It was my main point. I'll put it here for you:

 

magine if you were writing a novel for six years. Then I walked into your office, photocopied it and gave it away to everyone who was interested in it. Then you release it, and the book makes only a quarter of the amount of money it was expected to make. So you've only just cracked profit and the book turns out to be a huge financial waste of time. Your publisher dumps you and you end up virtually where you started.

 

Then you come up to me and say "Kiame, you photocopied my book before release and gave it out for free! You've cost me a lot of money!".

 

And I reply "Aw shut up. Intellectual property isn't really property. I didn't actually STEAL the book - I just COPIED it".

 

That's what piracy does. To imply that it's not a hurtful crime is incredibly dishonest.

[Saffire]

Okay, so there are conflicting reports on whether a Zombieland sequel will be made. But so far it's made a 500% profit. That's light-years ahead of many movies, and in dream-zone for most businesses. For instance, Apple Computer only makes about 20% profit margin.

 

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-may-kill-zombieland-sequel-writer-claims-091111/

 

On the contrary, if anything success on BitTorrent has a direct relation with success at the box office. Since unauthorized ripped versions of virtually all movies appear on the Internet nowadays, it would be a really bad sign if no pirate would want to download it.

 

But of course, Reese and others could still argue that they would have made even more money if there was no piracy. There are no hard facts to refute this, but with the box office revenue steadily increasing since P2P file-sharing became mainstream, it has to be doubted as well. The same can be said for the claim that less films receive funding.

 

 

Which is irrelevant. Even if a sequel is made, it will involve Sony renegotiating a contract that exceeds the original parameters. I never claimed that Zombieland 2 will never come out - I was just showing you how devastating the piracy was for the crew involved.

 

Not sure what universe you live in, but a 500% profit margin is hardly "devastating". You might want to pick another movie for your example, if your goal is to get me by the heartstrings.

 

 

This is a fallacy. Many people download films because they want to get something for free. If you give 100 people a choice over hurting someone and getting something for free, or not hurting someone and losing money - a large portion of the group will choose to get something for free.

 

I disagree that downloading movies hurts anyone. I've already explained why: because intangible and non-scarce "goods" are not subject to economic laws of supply and demand.

 

Zombieland was pirated so much, that even if one quarter of the people who downloaded it paid a dollar instead - the film would have made 1 million dollars extra.

 

Okay so this relies on the assumption that 1/4 of the people who downloaded the movie would have been willing to trade 8 or 10 dollars for a movie ticket to go see the film. Currently the film has grossed around 100 million dollars, so it's about 1% of the total revenue. Not much.

 

So yeah, I am assuming that films are worth more than nothing.

 

They're worth what people are willing to pay to see them.

 

If they can figure out a way to peacefully prevent all piracy of the movie, then I'd be totally fine with that. They have every right to do that. But if the film leaks, then too bad. You can't punish people for copying information.

 

The Swiss did not legalise piracy. More dishonesty from you.

 

The Swiss legalised piracy for personal use.

 

 

 

And that's why you have countries like Switzerland legalising piracy and countries like the USA going out of their way to criminalise it. The USA lose a lot through piracy. Switzerland don't. It's inconsequential.

 

I know this, you don't have to explain it to me.

 

I'm simply pointing out that there isn't a rational ethical case to be made against peoples' right to copy data. You're allowed to have a personal moral preference against it, and shun those who do it, but it's not productive to physically attack people who do it.

 

In the same way that making distribution of drugs illegal pushes their price higher, so does making (unlicensed) distribution of movies/music illegal cause their price to move higher. My point is that movies shouldn't be making as much money as they currently are - it's an unnatural economic environment created by government intervention and nonvoluntary taxpayer financing of the prevention/punishment/enforcement apparatus.

 

Your argument about the book is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. However I disagree that this scenario is the one that'll play out. Assuming the book is popular, I can accept donations online, and some of my fans will offer me money so that I can write a sequel. I can release one chapter at a time online (in sort of the same way Charles Dickens did).

 

I can create an "Authorized by the Creator" edition of my book, and include my signature in it for public sale.

 

I can offer to write-in advertisements and names for people who are interested in using my popularity to spread their own products and views.

 

There are many ways to make money creatively in a non-IP environment.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVusj2a0pzg]Against Owning Information ('intellectual property') - YouTube[/ame]

[Wyrd]

"The Swiss did not legalise piracy. More dishonesty from you.

The Swiss legalised piracy for personal use."

I think is like saying: "Not all seeds are poisenous. The seed Rosary Pea' bean is." I don't see what's so hard to understand about what she meant.

 

Also, the link Saffire linked to to show that Swiss recently legalized piracy is not saying they did. It only says they still allow free downloading for personal use. Nothing is recently legalized according to that article.

 

Just my two cents :escaping2:

[Reilly]

More dishonesty from you.

 

To be fair its not dishonesty when one believes their own bullshit.

[Saffire]

These arguments appear to be semantical, rather than contributing to the ethics/economics discussion.