"Wow, a whole 57 members. It's a uprising I tell ya."

Almost like a tea party. (KIDDING!)

"WTF does that have to do with pissed off Nigerians?"

Nothing--read the posts, man. Someone said they downloaded the movie (stole it). Scarily, I find myself agreeing with Vernon.

"I almost always download a film first for critique, then decide it's worth sharing or owning. My CD and DVD collection is immense and I have no room for furthering that expensive habit. Jan Svankmajer and Ken Russell obsessions aside, it was accumulated during a period of excessive pricing ($30-40 per import DVD) and I believe I've more than paid my "dues"."

Cool that you (might?) buy it if it's worth your while, but your "dues paid" argument doesn't wash, IF you mean it's sometimes okay to share or not buy. A Netflix account doesn't cost much, and then you're at least honoring copyright for that "Is it good enough to own?" experience. Of course, I do own some pirated copies (copied by friends for me, prior to the days of P2P) of some stuff. I don't get into huge arguments about it, but I think the rationales some people use are absurd. A good friend of mine actually said, "Oh, come on; you and I used to tape albums--and later CDs--all the time when we were kids!" Yeah, when I didn't know any better. : )

But you know, if you have anything really good, well, I don't own the whole Miyazaki catalog yet...

"Good movie.. and fuck them. I say get your email scam scumbags offline then we can talk. I receive at least 1 a day from some letter scamster."

You're funny, Legio. Do you really think those "Nigeria" e-mails are really created by people from Nigeria?

Oh, shit, Mystery, that was almost funny.

"If the Nigerians were protesting "9", I could understand. That was a scam."

LOL. Saw it last night. Great visuals, good sense of humor in reveals and characterization. But the narrative was weak. Bummer.

Now you're just makin' shit up. : )

I understand, Mystery. (I understand mystery?)

If you could videotape their responses, you'd be onto something.

"Maybe some of us are sick of spending $10 per ticket so some glamfuck out in California can drive a dozen bentleys, live in a 50,000 sq ft palace, and fund multiple multi-million dollar, predatory legal juggernauts for simply staring in a movie."

So stealing from the rich is okay? Hm. Gotta love them mobile moral goalposts.

And in case you didn't know it, yes, the studios and record labels rip off artists, but you're ripping them off too if you steal music or movies from the Net. Ever hear of royalties? And not all of those people getting royalties are fat cats.

I think DVD prices are too high, and I know a little about production. I think the way theater distribution is set up is fucked, and I know a little about that. I still don't steal. Do you steal books from Borders, too?

"E-books will soon be replacing the traditional paper book and they can merrily go about justifying to themselves that the publishers are ripping of the readers. "

I don't think that paper books are in any danger of being fully replaced any time soon. I think the e-book market share will continue to grow, however. "Soon" is, of course, a relative term. ; )

"I found the movie [9] a bit disturbing. Too much of man's "humanity" was put on display."

It was meant to be disturbing, and I understand the reaction, but for me, I've seen too many movies like that to be disturbed. Actually, I was expecting more of that (given the director and producers).

And without ruining the ending or some details along the way, I'll just say that there was some great potential in the set-up to the ending, and it went untapped. (For those who have seen it, I'll say it has to do with the scientist... and maybe you'll see what I'm getting at. : ) )

"The price of the e-book reader is going to have to drop by at least two-thirds before they can become a true book replacement. Also the look and feel of the e-book reader will have to more book like to be successful as a paper book replacement. And some color please. For $300 a pop, the manufacturers are really cheaping out."

Agreed--with that and the previous. We're talking a generation or so, at least. My students don't (mostly) have much trouble reading on a screen. Many people my age (those who read) still like the feel and experience of books. I can't imagine relaxing on the sofa or comfy chair to _read_. Watch movies, yes...

"i thought the movie was amazing.
extremely heavy."

Really? I found the ending a total letdown--just didn't live up to the promise/setup. But hey, taste and all that.

"Through various government grants, the school has been transformed from old and busted (literally) to new hawtness.[many details to follow]"

This is awesome. Truly impressive. At least half the teachers would HATE it. : ) I would love it. I wonder how all those grants happened.

"Flip side: all teachers are strictly limited to 2,000 sheets of paper/copies for the entire year, to include all copies required for all the testing that must take place."

Hm. I haven't counted my paper use, but I can see this being a problem. Limiting paper could require a whole new approach, not only to instruction and assigning, but to grading and assessment. Well, problem is the wrong word. Challenge. I would be interested. Where's this school? : )

Ah, school of _math and science_. Now I get it. : )

And just in case my point got lost, I asked because I wanted to apply, not because I doubted you. ...

But now I know I can't apply. I don't teach math and science. (No, I really do know that they must teach some sort of English, history, etc.)

"Anything to subvert the entertainment cartel's protectionist racket--copyright law--is a good thing."

Copyright law also protects artists and indie producers. I hope none of you people make your living by _creating_ anything.

That said, if someone could burn me a new Prius, I might take them up on it.

At least your #72 is funny. You're stimulating the economy!

Wow. A friend of mine suggested recently that the people who buy into the Desperate Housewives lifestyle (shopping and materialist values) are doing something good because they're stimulating the economy.

Ye gods.

I like the idea someone said about sending money directly to the artist.

Do you know that recording artists take loans from the record label to record their record? Think about that for a second, in regard to stealing music.

Hey, I'm not gonna try to tell you not to do it (okay, I did), but don't try to justify it. It is theft. You are stealing. _Maybe_ there is some extenuating circumstance, but at base, you are breaking the law. Just because it's easy, or because it undermines some system you disapprove of, does not make it right.

But you know, it's up to the RIAA and the motion picture industry to catch you. That said, I agree that the industry should work on new models to address all these (valid) concerns.

If movies were available the way music is (say, via iTunes), would you who are stealing start paying for them?

Serious question.

Oh, and making copies of stuff you buy _for your own use_ is legal. If you copy it for a friend, you are in violation.

"It actually isn't legal to download a copy of a CD that you own on record or tape, but not CD. It was argued before and lost because the CD is a remaster and a new medium and therefore a new product."

You are correct. (A new "mechanical" and a new medium.) I didn't mean to imply that the action you describe is okay. I mean that if you have a CD, you can legally rip it to your iTunes folder, put it on your iPod, or burn it on a new CD so you can have one in your car and one in your house. You can't copy it for a friend. Legally. ; )

I _think_ I can even copy a purchased movie onto my HD at school so I can project it for students, _as long as_ I meet the educational requirements for showing movies to students (there are four).

Funny Zot.

Actually, my ethics are four-dimensional.

"Imo, pirating is for profit, sharing is obviously not. I have never pirated and prefer to give my money directly to the artist."

That first part I agree with, but copyright isn't always about profit.

The second part is interesting--_do_ you give money to the artist? Also, that could put the artist in a bind anyway--a legal bind--depending on contract.

"This doesn't change how you feel, but at least you get to hear once more from me how I do."

HA! Nicely done. : )

Interestingly, some of you are arguing the morality of copyright (or something like that) at the same time you are stealing. Two wrongs make a right? I dunno about the larger morality. I've tried to keep to legal definitions (tried). And I did comment on distribution models and record labels.

"Actually, sales increase because more people want to get it and share legitimate copies. That the RIAA's dirty little secret."

I've heard this argument. I certainly don't think, by and large, that record companies are hurt by a few people stealing. I do think that stealing is stealing, and I do think that pirating for profit is wronger (wronger?) than engaging in P2P sharing.

What I'd like to see is serious lobbying for revisions of copyrights and serious reexaminations of distribution models and of how corporations treat artists. (Going back to the patronage model seems rather limiting, and self-release provides tiny markets and no money--but is cooler, and hey, Ani DiFranco pulled it off.)

Btw, I think DethSpud, with that last post, proved that he's really my good friend in Maine, not the Canadian he purports to be. That, or they're linguistic doppelgangers.

"pennies on the dollar for the artist."

Agreed.

"WE artists can and will find new ways to make money that don't involve selling our digital music. Merch, Concerts, physical CD's, physical DVD's, and most importantly, people who love the artist will donate money toward keeping the artist going."

What? Are you kidding? People donate money to artists? You're gonna make a living on _that_?

But yeah, concerts and merchandise are where musical artists make the most money anyway.

"The only musicians who copyright protects are those that the corps own and write music for.
kanye west is protected, but the indie artist struggling to get noticed, is actually screwed."

Your premise is not exactly valid--copyright protects the indie artist too; self-releases enjoy the same legal protections as label releases--but your outcome is. But it's not, or not just, copyright that determines this. The business as a whole is rigged in favor of labels and studios. But a musical artist can do self-release much more easily than a moviemaker can. And self-production as well.

I think we need to change the industry(ies), but subverting copyright or ignoring copyright is not the best way to achieve this. It may be part of a larger effort, though.

Did you know that advertising companies and those who hire them are trying to make it illegal for media educators to use ads (for education/deconstruction) without paying for the privilege? Talk about corporate control!

"Did you know that advertising companies and those who hire them are trying to make it illegal for media educators to use ads (for education/deconstruction) without paying for the privilege? Talk about corporate control! "
Capitalists don't stop at the simple commodification of everything. It has to be privatized and under lock and key as well. God forbid anything they produce ends up in the public domain."

Well, yeah. But isn't it funny that the movie companies aren't arguing about use of movies in the classroom (Fair Use/Educational Use: four factors)? Advertisers et al don't want us to do this because we might foster skepticism and critical thought in consumers.

And Zot--"Very Bart of you": very funny.