The Simpsons movie - leaked footage

[Darren Dirt]

$1.99?  Uhh...iTunes movies are a heck of a lot more then that.  I don't honestly see movies dropping below the $10.00 barrier for a new release for a long time.

My point exactly.


Making a less-than-perfect version available for $1.99 during opening week would encourage the would-be pirates to be honest, and the risk averse stay at home folks to take a smaller financial chance on the film -- with the hope that those who enjoy it might actually want to "take their friends out to see it again". If the movie is actually GOOD, those who took the chance would actually GO during those uber-important opening weeks, boosting the box office numbers for quality and reducing to ZERO the crap offerings.


As a recent example, I saw V for Vendetta in the theatres, twice. And I wanted to go it a third time with folks here on the forum (timing and availability was an issue). IMHO folks who didn't see it on the Big Screen missed a lot of the impact of certain visual scenes, and the same goes for great comedies that nowadays people wait until DVD before seeing (I wish I had seen Mr. & Mrs. Smith in the theatres, for example, but the big ticket price and the LCD* trailer made me skeptical). There's just something about being surrounded by hundreds of others, all sharing the same emotional ride (thrills, anger, sadness, laughter) that the high price of admission has been discouraging.

Heck, there's nothing stopping the studios from offering the viewers of the "$1.99" low res version a dollar discount off the theatre admission, right? There's a deal -- it's like "try before you buy". Simple idea, go ahead and pass that one around, I claim no copyright on it -- DRM free.


*LCD=Lowest Common Denominator

[Shayne]

Interesting idea.  You should patent that

[Darren Dirt]

To patent or claim copyright is to seek the "legal protection" of the state's "justice system".

No thanks.

(Why I would say that should be pretty clear based on my previous postings re. politics and other such nonsense )

[Shayne]

Hmmm.  I dont understand a non-capitalist stance.

[Darren Dirt]

You're mixing up "state capitalism" with "free-market capitalism". The former is all we've ever experienced or seen first-hand; the latter is something we've never experienced in the real world on any enduring, wide scale.

A market is by definition the absence of government involvement in the free exchange of products and services (e.g. Wikipedia summarizes it as "a social arrangement that allows buyers and sellers to discover information and carry out a voluntary exchange of goods or services."). Patent law and copyright law are by definition the government involving itself -- even if both parties do not wish that (i.e. opposite to the "voluntary" element of the exchange).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
"The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent or exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the claimed invention. The rights given to the patentee do not include the right to make, use, or sell the invention themselves. The patentee may have to comply with other laws and regulations to make use of the claimed invention."
Not exactly the kind of deal I'd willfully enter into. (esp. see also "exclusive right" -- "...a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit...")


The state "grants" one party the "exclusive right" to do something, thus preventing (by violent force, natch) others to do the same... But wait! By definition, any right is just a power that is either inherent or delegated (granted) -- and that power not inherent is "granted" TO a party who desires that power, BY another party who already currently possesses that power. So how does the "state" possess that magical "right" of "preventing or excluding" free people from doing peaceful things?

A bit clearer now?

[Shayne]

What im saying is you should patent it, and then license the patent to movie companies for many dollars.

[Darren Dirt]

I know... but you see, what I am saying is that we have been brainwashed, lulled asleep by words like "patent" and "copyright", without really comprehending and coping with their meanings. Who and how would this "patent" be en"force"d? To patent it is to invite/involve a third party, to grant *it* permission to do something that I personally do not have the right to do... I'm not saying I wouldn't want to make a profit off of some product, service, or idea that others find valuable. What I am saying is that, through the use of patents etc., though my goal would not be immoral, the means to achieve it would be.

[Shayne]

Sometimes you gotta kick a few kittens to get ahead...

[Mr. Analog]

[Cova]

And on the subject of kitty pictures....

[Mr. Analog]

Ha!



Good or Bad? I don't know...

[Thorin]

Aww, that poor Skyline

[Tom]

I feel more for those poor domo-kuns that were forced to pose with the skyline

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE DOMO-KUNs?