'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.

Comments

Go see it in theaters

[ValiantSoul]

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.

Re:Go see it in theaters

[syousef]

There's something very perverse about taking (arguably) the movie with the most action and special effects ever made, and breaking the law to watch it in crappy low-fi divx. Can you say cheapskate?

Re:Go see it in theaters

[Neurotoxic666]

Or maybe spend more than $2 at the discount theatre.

With the pop-corn (covered with unsalted grease - no more butter here) and a bottle of water, I'll end up paying the price of a DVD. Just to see the movie once. And no, it's not a discount cinema -- but however big and American it wants to be, it'll be overcrowded and not as comfy as my house.

I also want to point out that I'll be seeing the movie in FRENCH, because 1) my friends prefer it this way (stupid, I know) 2) it's hard to find a cinema around here that has the original English version, unless I'm willing to go downtown and cope with the traffic jams (I'm in Montreal).

As for pausing the movie, get an attention span.

Because I feel like taking a piss, I am lacking attention span? What about the luxury of pausing the movie for whatever reason I want? Can I do that without having some moron telling me to get an attention span? Thank you very much.

The movies aren't cheap, the popcorn/candies/beverage cost way too much, then you get the extra ads in the hope you go get more of the expensive stuff, then you get 15 minutes of preview, then you get to see the movie. I don't see any reason to pay for that, unless your TV realy sucks. Or unless you're doing it for your kids or someone else -- like I do.

I voted "my own couch" in the poll, if you're wondering... There just is no place like 127.0.0.1 :P

Cam-rips are usually unwatchable

[croddy]

Cam-rips are usually unwatchable... I can't imagine a low-resolution recording of a movie being any sort of substitute for actually seeing the film.

But from the number of people I've heard are downloading it, it seems pretty popular -- I wonder if the MPAA is watching them...

Re:Get real

[dwlovell]

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

Both sides need to get a grip.

[SuperBanana]

I don't know which is funnier:

• People claiming BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate" (funniest example of this was a guy who blurred out the "legitimate" torrents and had torrentspy in a browser window behind the torrent client)....OR...Hollywood claiming BitTorrent/P2p is only used for illegitimate purposes
• Downloaders claiming that they see/buy everything they download, as does everyone else on p2p....OR...Hollywood, claiming that every download = not just the lost ticket price, but some insane multiplier, when most people don't even bother to "seed" more than half or less of what they download.
• Downloaders whining about how they'd go see/buy more movies/music, if only it was better, but still download the "crap" and don't go for independently produced stuff...OR...Hollywood claiming that downloaders are hurting them, while ignoring massive Group Think among producers, directors, and writers for churning out crap not worth paying over TEN DOLLARS to see in a theater where you'll be given the opportunity to pay $3.50 for a small bottle of water, your eardrums will get blown out, and your shoes will stick to the floors for a week.

I'm tired of both sides taking absolutely ridiculous, unsupportable positions...

Re:Both sides need to get a grip.

[gumbo]

People claiming BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate" (funniest example of this was a guy who blurred out the "legitimate" torrents and had torrentspy in a browser window behind the torrent client)

Of course BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate." Are you trying to say that HTTP and FTP aren't legitimate because they can be used to transfer illegal copies of things? Is the US mail system not legitimate because you could mail someone a DVD-R of Star Wars?

Nobody's claiming that BitTorrent isn't used for illegal things (I hope), but that doesn't mean that it's not "perfectly legitimate."