Okay. This is a big frikin' rant but there's probably some unbiased truth in it. You be the judge.
If the attitudes reflected here on Slashdot represent a significant amount of the attitudes in the so called "real world," then I would argue that the advertisement's message is ineffective. Much of the criticism is directed at the portrayal of piracy harming the independent filmmaker and the people who work in the movie industry in jobs that pay salary or hourly wage.
Some separation needs to be made here. Most people who work on the movies get their money as wage or salary before the movie hits the theaters and on down the distribution chain making money for the producer who made the initial capital investment to make the movie in the first place. Pirating the movie does not directly reduce their income, but an unprofitable film will hurt the production company that DOES pay their wage or salary. So, it's fairly obvious that these people will be indirectly affected by piracy. Yet we seem to loose sight of that, preferring to think of the corporations or mega-stars who are more directly affected. This is a rationalization defense mechanism.
The independent filmmaker suffers not so much because of movie piracy but because these media gatekeepers (producers) have decided their work unworthy of (or rather unprofitable in) mainstream consumption. Yet their plight is used as propaganda by these same gatekeepers in a selfish attempt to wax their own waning gains in profit.
I say cut the bullcrap. Piracy is illegal. Piracy does indirectly harm hardworking people. Does it harm businesses and wealthy people more? Yes. Does that make it right? No.
The MPAA and RIAA need to cut the bullcrap to. Stop telling us that your primary interest in fighting piracy the artists. It's political posturing, we see through it, and it hurts your argument. A better message: the truth. The media production and distribution industry does make millions, even billions. Piracy harms THAT bottom line MOST. Piracy is against the law, and as a business you have a vested interest in preventing it. As consumers we have an interest in large scale media distribution, as it brings to the world sights and sounds that would otherwise not reach so far away from an artist or performer's particular location. Assuming we are conscientious consumers we also have an interest in making sure that the original artists and performers are fairly compensated for their original works.
No doubt many of you are saying "Ah! Large scale media distribution companies often do NOT fairly compensate artists." So what. That does not make piracy right, and pirating the media is not helping the artist. If we want better compensation for artists then we should get of our Slashdot reading asses and get political. Fight for the rights of artists instead of whining about how they are getting stepped on.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay. This is a big frikin' rant but there's probably some unbiased truth in it. You be the judge.
If the attitudes reflected here on Slashdot represent a significant amount of the attitudes in the so called "real world," then I would argue that the advertisement's message is ineffective. Much of the criticism is directed at the portrayal of piracy harming the independent filmmaker and the people who work in the movie industry in jobs that pay salary or hourly wage.
Some separation needs to be made here. Most people who work on the movies get their money as wage or salary before the movie hits the theaters and on down the distribution chain making money for the producer who made the initial capital investment to make the movie in the first place. Pirating the movie does not directly reduce their income, but an unprofitable film will hurt the production company that DOES pay their wage or salary. So, it's fairly obvious that these people will be indirectly affected by piracy. Yet we seem to loose sight of that, preferring to think of the corporations or mega-stars who are more directly affected. This is a rationalization defense mechanism.
The independent filmmaker suffers not so much because of movie piracy but because these media gatekeepers (producers) have decided their work unworthy of (or rather unprofitable in) mainstream consumption. Yet their plight is used as propaganda by these same gatekeepers in a selfish attempt to wax their own waning gains in profit.
I say cut the bullcrap. Piracy is illegal. Piracy does indirectly harm hardworking people. Does it harm businesses and wealthy people more? Yes. Does that make it right? No.
The MPAA and RIAA need to cut the bullcrap to. Stop telling us that your primary interest in fighting piracy the artists. It's political posturing, we see through it, and it hurts your argument. A better message: the truth. The media production and distribution industry does make millions, even billions. Piracy harms THAT bottom line MOST. Piracy is against the law, and as a business you have a vested interest in preventing it. As consumers we have an interest in large scale media distribution, as it brings to the world sights and sounds that would otherwise not reach so far away from an artist or performer's particular location. Assuming we are conscientious consumers we also have an interest in making sure that the original artists and performers are fairly compensated for their original works.
No doubt many of you are saying "Ah! Large scale media distribution companies often do NOT fairly compensate artists." So what. That does not make piracy right, and pirating the media is not helping the artist. If we want better compensation for artists then we should get of our Slashdot reading asses and get political. Fight for the rights of artists instead of whining about how they are getting stepped on.