'Sith' Already Found Online
ScentCone writes "Of course it was bound to happen, so now it's mostly a matter of discussing why Lucas does or does not deserve to make the proceeds, or whether people would or would not have gone to see it now that the usual path has been carved around the opening weekend box office." I've yet to find a blockbuster movie that isn't readily available on the net after it opens, but somehow this is still news. It's still usually worth shelling out the cash to see a version that isn't fuzzy with garbled sound, though.
I saw it at 12:05am. The downloadable version is probably very crappy quality, especially the sound. See it in theaters - simply amazing! You don't get that kind of experience from a computer.
But from the number of people I've heard are downloading it, it seems pretty popular -- I wonder if the MPAA is watching them...
Just like "take our Star Wars quiz!" and "was Darth Vader born evil?" [also CNN content] are news? The site has been posting Star Wars crap all week as a marketing blitz for the premiere.
This isn't news, it's thinly veiled marketing.
The kind of people that would watch a crappy version on their computers are NOT the people who would pay $9 to see it in the theatre. Will this affect anything? No.
It seems to me just like the MPAA pumping the press to make it look like a huge deal. It's not.
'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST
If it hits $100 million domestic before Memorial Day, are they *still* going to whine and bitch about how downloading is ruining their industry? Yes, I know. But it strains credulity. I suspect a lot of the people downloading either 1) already saw the movie/plan to see it this week and just want a copy to watch at home until the DVD comes out or 2) have some kind of vague curiousity but aren't planning on seeing it in the theater anyway. It's hard to imagine that any self-respecting geek would be willing to settle for watching an inferior copy on a small screen instead of seeing the movie in the theater.
They are not just concerned about the cost of this movie being shared and the amount of money lost from this movie. Its more about the cost of not pursuing each of these movie postings.
If they dont do anything about it, it will happen more often, and in a more accessible way. Sure they can never eliminate the sharing of their movies, but they can ensure that the punishment is painful enough that the common citizen cannot easily get at it.
If you dont believe me, just look at Napster. I had totally computer illiterate friends who were able to use Napster to get free music. After that was shut down, they simply dont know how to use the other more complicated file sharing systems. (Not to mention they are aware that downloading is illegal now, so some stay away for that reason alone.) Shutting down Napster didn't stop music sharing, but it did curb it immensely and stop other Napster competitors from popping up and making it even easier.
So not all legal battles are immediately profitable, but the money spent can be an investment to prevent future infringement.
-David
I don't know which is funnier:
I'm tired of both sides taking absolutely ridiculous, unsupportable positions...
Please help metamoderate.
Damn!
I left for Japan on Wednesday and now I don't get to see it until I get back (in two weeks). If I wanted to download it, I would... but frankly, and I think many people will agree with me on this point, I don't want to see it until I can see it in its full glory. Seeing it compressed and trashed and tiny isn't the way to see it the first time.
Now if I enjoyed it, I might download it and keep it until the DVD is released... then I'll buy he DVD when it comes out.
I wish the jackasses at the MPAA would just figure it out too.
Just like /. does. Who's your ISP?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
As amazing as it seems on /., it really is possible for people to not know a damn thing about Star Wars. Last night, after taking her to the midnight showing of Episode III, I discovered that my girlfriend's only exposure to Star Wars was Episode I, and RotS left her very confused because it pratically depends on a basic knowledge of the final three episodes.
-----
jonathan barket
Why would we discuss that? Is there even a question? What would be the argument against the creater/funder/owner of the content deserving the proceeds of their work?
Was that remark based on the fact that people are mad at Lucas because they didn't like the last 2 movies?
Or is it that people really dont think any creator deserves proceeds from their work? I'm not talking fair use or anything like that - I understand those arguments - they don't seem relevant here.
Then NOTHING is perfectly legitimate. I cannot think of one thing in this world that has not been used illegally in some way at some point in time.
In BT's case it's quite clear to see that it has very,v ery widesperad legitimate use. If you are getting a Linux distro, it's hard not to get it via torrent these days. Whenever any download gets slashdotted, someone throws up a torrent and people come in droves (I've done over 5mbytes/second seeding those, that's about a DS-3's worth of bandwidth). Or go to 3dgamers.com and download something. They do have some direct download servers, but the method they push is Bittorrent.
You can argue till you are blue in the face about how much of it is legal vs illegal, point is it wasn't created for the intent of breaking the law and there is a substanital amount of non-infringing use. That's why it's legit.