Wow! Unthinkable #3 on IMDB! - Unthinkable (2010) Discussion

[–] tomservo00 14 years ago

Personally, I found you movie to be one of the most offensive things I have ever seen.

I'm not sure what you expect to make the audience "think" about.

I seriously hope what is shown and represented in this film is NOT what our government and our people have devolved into because of the Fake "War On Terror."

Glorifying and justifying torture is nothing new in this Orwellian, "Post 9/11" America.

We are bombarded with Propaganda like this on a regular basis.

About the only think you guys have accomplished is to take it to a level so "unthinkable" it makes 24 look like Full House.

Maybe that and demonstrating just how sick, paranoid, and completely out of control we have become as a country.

I have friends who live in other countries who have seen this, and they just shake their heads.

What's even more frightening to me is how much positive reception the Movie has gotten.

I truly don't recognize my country anymore.

Maybe if people would wake up and educate themselves about who the REAL terrorists are, instead of cowering in fear of an Invisible Bogeyman from a cave, we could regain our standing in the world.

But it looks like we would rather live in a Bad B-Movie Fantasy World of Fear Pornography.

Just like this "film."

I'll give you credit my friend. I thought I knew how twisted Propaganda was until you showed me a whole new level of it.

if anything, you've given all the Right Wing Mouth-Breathers, and the Left Wing Hawks in this country great masturbation material.

You should be so proud.

reply

[–] aws_young 14 years ago

Hahahaha. Comedy gold! Shame he/she is being serious.

reply

[–] RickIsEnough 14 years ago

Spoilers follow:
********************************************************
The movie actually makes a case for NOT doing what is wrong. If Carrie Ann Moss's character was able to bring the children to the torturer then he would feel as if it wasn't worth playing noble because -her character being highly moral and caring, though profesional- anyone could do such horrible things for whatever cause; it guides us to the line of thinking that if we all control ourselves facing the urges to satisfice whatever cause we serve, we could find a cyclical strenght to keep doing good, and as such it asks us to strive to always do what is good even if we are perjudicated in some way.
********************************************************

Spoilers end

However it asks further: what is good? is greater good more important than fundamental good? is there a difference? and a good to what end?

reply

[–] elpresidente-4 14 years ago

Thank God for people like you, tomservo00. Your post and those other US citizens who reviewed negatively this atrocity and rated it with 1 star, show to me that not everything is lost, there are still many intelligent people in USA and we can change things for the better. I'm not from USA, by the way. To me this movie is blatant, obvious, in-your-face propaganda. Many of the negative reviews have already pointed out the worst issues of this movie. I was particularly annoyed by the huge chart-board in the first minutes, that showed alleged "terrorist cells" in USA. This is a dangerous lie, that wants to convince the viewers that there are terrorists in USA. Then there was the mentioning that the terrorist had served in Iraq to "check out nukes". Hello, Caldecot Chubb, where have you been the last decade? Don't you know there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq and it was a lie, just like a lot of things your government says? Yet, people who watched this movie will be left with the impression that there were nukes in Iraq if this guy went there to "check" them. Furthermore, this movie makes the dangerous assumption that a 100% white American could somehow turn into a radical fanatic, ready to murder millions of human beings, only because of his religious beliefs. If he was deranged or simply hated humans, it could've been believable, but no, you went with the Muslim approach. Also, this movie speculates that Plutonium is something that's really easy to get from the Russians, because everyone knows they're some incompetent idiots who doesn't know how to account for their plutonium. Especially when beady-eyed enemy spooks are somehow "checking" their nuclear facilities. Of course it makes sense. The Russians will let some unknown CIA trained foreigner snooping around their nuclear facilities and never keep a close eye on him, yeah right. Since when are Americans allowed to "check" Russian nuclear facilities, anyway? (By the way the Cyrillic writings on the bomb were a hilariously bad example of Russian language. What's the matter - couldn't pay 500 bucks to a real Russian to write it properly for you?) After badmouthing Pakistan (because the terrorist lived in their capital), Iraq, and Russia, this movie goes on to badmouth Iran (what a surprise) by saying the Iranians paid the terrorist 20 million dollars to bring the nuclear materials into Iran, but then somehow lost track of him and the money. Not only that, but the Iranians admit this voluntarily, hoping this will save them from bombing. Seriously, why would they do such a stupid thing? How would anyone know for sure where the terrorist got his materials? Plus, the US government doesn't need a real excuse to bomb Iran. They always could make up a ridiculous lie, when they need it, and give it to CNN to spread it. Just like with Iraq.
Then there's the ridiculous plot of this movie, with the terrorist surrendering immediately. What was he trying to accomplish exactly? To prove to himself that he can withstand physical pain? Maybe he was sort of an extreme practical joker? This movie believes the average viewer is a moron, and judging by the rating, it's not far from the truth. The way I see it this movie is a dangerous justification of US foreign policy lies, and justification of the Patriot act and justification of torture. It even tries to justify the torture of kids.
Disgusting movie you have made, Caldecot, really disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 14 years ago

well i got it from the library and i gotta say this movie completely blew me away. The two top actors are at their best and im so glad that this movie was made. im so tired of the typical boring endings. this one was dead on and so real and so inspiring. film making and art at its best. i too was bummed about it not being released in the theaters. if it had you guys wouldve made a killing no doubt. oscars for everyone. i saw it cause i liked the title and samuel l. I was in the mood for a good political film with samuel L. in it and was completely blown away by it. Im a big movie fan and i think by far this is one of the greatest films ever made. definetely adding it to my collection and hoping more like it are made. very well made. a little uncomfortable and had some scenes i wouldve changed but i think thats what great films do. challenge us and make us uncomfortable. please! make more movies and thank you for being so nice to come in here and chat with the fans.

Why am I such a misfit?I am not just a nitwit.

reply

[–] Jumping_Elephant 14 years ago

First of all, it's really nice to see the producer actually making rounds on the IMDb boards. Hopefully you'll ignore some of the less tactful comments regarding your film.

On the other hand, I must concede that I watched a pirated version of your film, and highly enjoyed it. However, the pirated version that I watched was not one which I downloaded myself. Rather, I went to a friend's house who had downloaded it and suggested we watch it. I acquiesced. If my friend had bought the DVD, or even if he had rented it, it would have made no difference. I still wouldn't have contributed to the overall profit of the film. Some might argue that this is the metaphorically equivalent of taking a joy ride with a friend who had just stolen a car, but I cannot see the connection. Morally, shouldn't I have the right to watch a film which my friend has rented? Economically, what is the difference between the two scenarios?

My vote history: www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=22981176

My iCM: tinyurl.com/4c9erff

reply

[–] fillshertease 11 years ago

Yet another person who casually justifies stealing to themselves! Your friend didn't buy or rent the film, he stole it. You watched it. There is nothing metaphorical here; it is EXACTLY the same as if your friend stole a car and you went for a joy ride in it with him. You were part of the crime, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not (you obviously don't!). What you did was legally and - more to the point - morally wrong. Sorry but there's nothing difficult or confusing here and the answer is glaringly obvious; you and your friend are thieves.

Where is the harm? People like your friend - and you - are keeping the price of movies up and stealing from people like me AND the movie studios. If people like your friend - and you - stopped stealing movies then the prices would drop and we would all be able to watch movies more cheaply.

What should you have done? You should have refused to watch the movie. If your friend bought or rented the movie then you have a right to watch it. He didn't do either of those things though; he stole it. As such you don't have a right to watch it. This whole business of you not contributing to the profit for the film either way is a smoke screen which allows you to engage in an immoral and illegal act without feeling any guilt. Nothing more and nothing less.

Ultimately you should have turned him in to the police. I'm guessing that someone as unethical as you wouldn't dream of doing that but I thought I should mention it just so that someone has at least told you what really should have happened...

reply

[–] Bartholmumet 11 years ago

Not disagreeing with you more wondering really. Just for the record I rarely download movies or tv shows, the only time I have done is when I have missed an episode of a series ( that I pay for ) and need to catch up and have never uploaded anything.
You seem to know quite a bit about the piracy laws judging from your comments.
Something I have always wondered about it:
If I buy a movie on DVD and watch it then lend it to my friend who watches it and then lends it to his friend.... This could go on indefinitely and nobody would say it was theft would they?
However, if I buy a movie and lend it to my friend who then uploads it to some site for his friend to watch and then someone else watches it... This is considered as illegal? If so 1) who is breaking the law 2)how does it differ from the previous example and 3) does it depend on what country you live in regards local law.

Personally I don't think it is theft but may constitute some breach of copyright law.
On a side note a girl I know who owns hundreds of DVDs, most of which she purchases at full price when the movies come out new, will only buy a DVD if she likes the film, she will stream it online first then buy it if she likes it she buys probably 3-4 DVDs a week sometimes. Surely this is not a bad thing for the industry in general?
===================

Just because you're
paranoid it doesn't
mean that they're
not watching.

reply

[–] fillshertease 11 years ago

Let's start by talking about you buying a DVD and lending to a friend, who lends it to a friend, who lends it to a friends, who lends it to a friend, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. That is all perfectly legal and the best way to think about it is if your DVD was your car instead. You are allowed to lend your car to a friend because it's your car and, most importantly, while your friend has the car you are unable to use it. Only one person at a time is using it and that is perfectly fine. Your friend can drive a few of his friends around in the car while he's got it, just like he can watch your DVD with a few friends while he's got it, and all that is perfectly legal too. In reality you would hope that your friend wouldn't lend your car to another friend (without your permission), and that they in turn wouldn't lend it to someone else, and so on, but here is where the problem starts to arise because, for some bizarre reason, people think differently about their DVD's than they do about their cars. There are several reasons for that:

1. Cars are very expensive.
2. There's no way to copy cars (easily and cheaply that is).
3. There's no way to 'transport' cars from one corner of the world to another in the blink of an eye (easily and cheaply that is).
4. Movies are art and, in that sense, they aren't practical like cars. You drive your car every day but you will only watch some movies once. Furthermore because movies are art, and are therefore subjective, you never know if you're going to enjoy a movie until after you have watched it.

So what are the rules? There are a lot of them but the two most relevant ones are quite simple really:

1. You must not copy a DVD, even for your own backup purposes (though a lot of DVD's now come with a .AVI version of the film on the disc for your convenience).
2. You must not download or upload any copies of the movie.

To try to explain all of this, let's imagine for a moment that it is the future and, like they do in Star Trek, we have the ability to replicate things and to 'transport' them instantly from place to place. It would now be possible for you to buy a Mercedes Benz, make an exact copy of it using your 'replicator', and transfer the copy to your friend with your 'transporter' so that he could now drive a copy of your car while you were still driving the original.

What would be wrong with that?

The problem would be that there would be no money in designing and building cars any more because Mercedes Benz would sell one car and then everyone would copy it and Mercedes Benz would go out of business. In the end they are a corporation and they make profit by designing, building, and selling cars. They hope to keep making better cars so that they will sell enough of them to make back the money they spent designing the latest model AND to make a profit. While they continue to make a profit they continue to build better cars and that's why we now have much safer, faster, better looking cars which are, relatively speaking, much cheaper to buy than they used to be. If, however, cars stayed exactly the same and always had the same features then people would stop buying them and the car manufacturing market would disappear.

The exact same thing goes for movies and the companies that make them.

Now let's talk about your friend who copies the DVD you lent him and gives a copy to his friend (rather than lending him your DVD). Yes, that is theft. As I have explained, it now means that multiple people can watch your DVD at the same time, which they couldn't do before your friend made a copy. Let's imagine that your friend kept a copy for himself and gave your DVD back to you. Now we have the situation where you are driving around in your Mercedes Benz, your friend is driving around in an exact copy of your Mercedes Benz, and his friend is driving around in a copy of your Mercedes Benz. Now this is obviously great for the three of you, especially your two friends, who each now have a free Mercedes Benz, but it's not good for Mercedes Benz and it's not good for society in general. I'll expand on that a bit more though just to make sure the ramifications are clear.

Can you still not see that copying your DVD is theft? Even when three separate people can now watch the movie when they want to, even though only one at a time could watch it before the copy?

To expand upon it a bit more, let's talk about the girl you know who owns hundreds of DVD's but who only buys the ones she likes. The reason she is good to talk about is that this is the argument that most people come up with. Basically the argument goes that they would never have watched a particular movie if they had to pay for it so the fact that they downloaded it has not cost the movie studio anything. That sounds reasonable at first glance but if you think it through you'll see that it's not. If only one person was doing it - say the girl you know who stream movies then buys the ones she likes - then it probably wouldn't be a bad thing for the movie industry in general. The problem is that it isn't just one person, it is literally hundreds of thousands of people and that, whether people want to admit it or not, is bad for the movie industry AND bad for all the people who don't steal movies too.

A person saying that they wouldn't have watched the movie if it wasn't free is, when you really think about it, a liar. It's also completely irrelevant anyway. The fact of the matter is that they DID watch it and they can only say, AFTER THE EVENT, that they wouldn't have paid for it. Well imagine if the whole world ran that way??? It would be the same as if we were all able to go into a shop, take whatever we wanted, then go back and pay the price for the item ONLY IF WE DECIDED WE LIKED THE PRODUCT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH THE PRICE! The whole idea is ludicrous and I'm sure you can see that our entire capitalist system would fall apart if things ran that way? The bottom line is that when you buy ANY PRODUCT, you are taking a risk that it won't be what you want. That being the case, whenever you watch a movie you are taking the risk that you won't enjoy it. As a result of that, some people have decided they want a get out of jail free card, so that they can watch a movie and only pay for it if they deem it worthy. That, as I said, is ludicrous and can't possibly work. People don't have a God given right to watch movies; they are a product, just like any other, and if you don't want to be disappointed then you shouldn't watch them. If, however, you decide that you do want to watch them, then you need to pay the asking price. It's as simple as that and all of these excuses like "they're too expensive", or "they're not worth it", are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that I don't drive a Mercedes Benz because I can't afford one and if I can't afford to watch a particular movie then I don't get to watch it. Everything else is BS.

The reason that all this impacts the movie industry AND the people like me (and you) who don't steal movies is that ultimately the movie companies have to keep the prices up and therefore you and I are paying for all the pirates. When a movies studio makes a movie they, like Mercedes Benz, need to recoup the cost of the movie and they hope to make a profit from it. Where I live an average price for a DVD is about $10. Let's use that figure anyway because it's a nice round number. Now let's say that they sell 10,000 DVD's and that 10,000 people illegally download it. Basically what that means is that they could have charged $5 per movie if no one pirated and you and I could have got two DVD's for the same price. I know that is very simplified but that is the basics of it. The pirates are keeping the price of DVD's higher and YOU AND ME are the ones paying for it. That is the the bottom line.

If someone doesn't want to pay for a movie - for whatever reason - then they simply shouldn't watch it. This whole BS argument that they wouldn't have bought it anyway is completely bogus. The fact is they actually DID have sufficient desire to watch the movie BECAUSE THEY DID ACTUALLY WATCH IT. You can't turn around and say you had no interest in watching something you just watched! It makes no logical sense when you think about it. What they're actually saying is that they weren't prepared to watch it AT THE PRICE WHICH WAS BEING ASKED FOR IT. The two responses to that being:

1. Like any other product in the world, if you aren't prepared to pay the asking price then you don't get the product.
2. That if people didn't pirate movies then the prices would come down and the would be offered and at a price you would be prepared to pay.

The bottom line is that there is no excuse for stealing and anyone who tells you otherwise is one of the people who is keeping the prices of DVD's higher and YOU ARE PAYING FOR THEM...

reply

[–] Bartholmumet 11 years ago

Completely see what you mean, though I don't agree that theft is the correct description, as the ft is depriving someone of their property, downloading a movies doesn't deprive anyone of their property. It does potentially deprive them of revenue but that is not yet their possession so cannot be theft more a of loss of earnings.
===================

Just because you're
paranoid it doesn't
mean that they're
not watching.

reply

[–] fillshertease 11 years ago

Yes I understand what you mean. What we're actually talking about is 'intellectual property' and you're right that it isn't the same as 'physical property' (for lack of a better term). Good point thank you...

I don't really see how that isn't theft though. Let's say you and I were friends in real life and one night, while we were hanging out, you came up with an awesome idea for the proverbial better mouse-trap. Before you were able to do anything about it though, what if I went to the patent office and patented your idea, then started a company and began producing the better mouse-trap and I made a bajillion dollars out of it and excluded you from the whole thing. That would basically be the same thing wouldn't it? I think you might call it theft then!?

If I bought a Mercedes Benz and built a copy of it then I wouldn't actually be stealing the car but I would be stealing Mercedes Benz's 'intellectual property'.

Ultimately I get what you're saying but does it mean you should copy DVD's? Is there a difference between stealing intellectual property and stealing physical property? I don't see how it is different but I'm interested to hear what you say. The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that whatever the product is, whether it be a movie, or an application (people pirate games and apps too), or whatever, a group of people have spent their time producing the product and they did so in the hopes of making a profit. If you pirate something then you are basically saying that you deserve the fruits of their labour for free. That is just wrong. Why should someone be penalised because the product they make is a bunch of one's and zero's, as opposed to a physical object like a car?

reply

[–] Bartholmumet 11 years ago

It's definitely not fair, let's get that out of the way.
Maybe it's me being picky over legal terminology?
I have always wondered if the laws regarding piracy differ from nation to nation like laws governing other things do.
I am also unsure of who is breaking the law, the person who uploads or the watcher/downloader or even both.
Someone watching a stream could surely, legally anyway, argue that they were unaware of any wrong doing, especially if there was no piracy warning at the beginning of the stream. Though generally speaking ignorance is no defence when it comes to law breaking.
===================

Just because you're
paranoid it doesn't
mean that they're
not watching.

reply

[–] bluumax-897-952515 14 years ago

NETFLIX

Rock'n movie, five star. (or 10 here)
I think there are a lot of people like myself who are absolutely sick of the "moral high ground" movies.
I could have seen it go farther than it did, but I don't think many others could.

The reality is, you do whatever you have to do, that choice was already made by Younger.
Because of mamby-pamby actions there was no moral high ground,
there was no moral low ground, there was nothing left but a smoking hole.

Morals are a funny thing.
"We train young men to drop fire on people.
But their commanders won't allow them to write *beep* on their airplanes because it's obscene "

reply

[–] Judger 14 years ago

It was available free on demand from Comcast (I think through Starz or Showtime, I'm not sure)

The ticking time bomb scenario is actually the easiest.
You do whatever it takes, although the film did push that to the most extreme "whatever".

There is not a country in the world that would not authorize the most extreme measures in this scenario.

However, there are plenty of real world scenarios that are more ambigous and less extreme or immediate in the consequences. Those are probably more important to explore.

I was born in the house my father built

reply

[–] capnmorgan5150 14 years ago

Yeah, I watched it for free off the torrent system, but I wanna make it right. How much blow do I owe you? Producers still like blow, right?

reply

[–] bigmutt 14 years ago

To your question of how people are watching this movie: I watched it on cable, which costs me over a hundred a month here.
Your whinning about the industry not being able to make a fair profit if people are torrent-downloading movies is disingenuous: there's no lost revenue there. do you really think these folks would go out and BUY or rent the movie if they could not download it? No; it's a red herring argument and it just doesn't fly with most people. Especially because it asks us to "feel sorry for" the poor hollywood industry that's being deprived of all this earned income. Please! cry me a river! the movie industry has never been so profitable as it is these days.
you play us for fools, mr. Caldecot

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fillshertease 11 years ago

What a huge load of rubbish!

Of course there is lost revenue there. Saying people wouldn't watch the movie otherwise is just a bald faced lie. The fact of the matter is that if someone watches a movie for free then they would also buy it for a very cheap price. Unfortunately though, the prices can't get that low because there are so many people out there stealing movies. If you don't want to pay for the movie then you have no right to watch it; simple as that.

It's NOT a red herring argument and it DOES fly with most people. The majority of people pay for their movies but a minority of people steal them. Those who pay for them are subsidising the ones who steal. Quite simply the thieves are stealing not just from the movie studios but from everyone who pays to watch movies.

No one is asking people to feel sorry for Hollywood. People are simply asking for the stealing to stop and for people to pay for the product they are using; the same way you have to do for every single other product in the history of the world.

Making movies is a risky business and it is made harder by all the thieves out there. So what if it is profitable??? That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything. Using that argument I could start stealing things from any industry which is making money. Am I allowed to start stealing cars because it's such a profitable industry? Of course not! So let's not pretend that the movie industry is any different.

If people want to steal then good luck to them. I wish they'd at least have the guts to be honest and stop pretending they're not doing any harm, or that what they're doing is not morally and legally wrong. If they're going to steal then at least have the balls to admit it...

reply

[–] SanchoPasta 12 years ago

Personally I feel strangely conflicted. On the one hand, there's so much positive response -- believe me, I've made movies no-one cared about! -- and on the other, all this seems to be coming from folks who have stolen the work of a lot of people, watched it without paying for it.

I live in India. You show me a way to stream the movie at a price that makes sense for me here taking purchasing power parity into account and I will happily pay to watch movies like this and several more that cannot be got for love or money here.
Instead we have to put up with *beep* regional restrictions when the internet offers a way for anyone sitting anywhere to watch anything they want at a sane price. The same goes for TV shows and anime. There's no way I can watch the scifi series Fringe (which is about to end in a couple of weeks) here in India - none of the available TV channels carry it and nobody offers a streaming service.

A local company offers cheap DVDs of Bollywood movies within a month of their release for about 30 rupees, which is about 60 cents, and as reasonable as say paying $10-15 for a DVD in the US. Result - the pirated DVD market for Bollywood movies has dried up.

Offer legal streaming video at a decent price and people will stop torrenting.

reply

[–] fillshertease 11 years ago

People like you never cease to amaze me. You think you have a God given right to watch cheap movies and if someone won't offer you a price you deem suitable then you are justified in stealing. I'm sorry but you're not. The only right you have is to pay whatever the asking price is; nothing more and nothing less.

I'm not happy about the price of Ferraris but that doesn't give me the right to steal one, or to buy one for a low price from someone who has stolen one. I don't have the right to steal a Ferrari and you don't have the right to steal a movie. Just like ANYTHING else, if you aren't prepared to pay the price - WHATEVER that price may be - then you don't have a right to that product. It's as simple as that...

reply

[–] SanchoPasta 11 years ago

You think you have a God given right to watch cheap movies and if someone won't offer you a price you deem suitable then you are justified in stealing.

You know what? 20 years ago, if there was a movie or music album way beyond my budget, I went without it. Total money got by the maker from me = 0.
Today I torrent the same movie that I can't get otherwise. Total money got from me = still 0. I'm not even in the target market segment for whoever decided to price these things the way they do.

I'm not happy about the price of Ferraris but that doesn't give me the right to steal one, or to buy one for a low price from someone who has stolen one

Listen dumbass, a digital copy of a good is not the same as a physical copy. When I copy a movie from you, I don't deprive you of it. So your Ferrari analogy is total rot. Here, http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-not-theft-111104 enlighten yourself before wanking off the standard 'theft' reply.

reply

[–] fillshertease 11 years ago

Of course it's theft you idiot. The fact that it's not a physical copy is completely and utterly irrelevant, as is whatever happened 20 years ago. You just watched a movie that you wanted to watch. You paid nothing for it. You deprived the owner of the money you should have paid to watch it. That is theft. Sending me to a site which is run and used by other thieves offers no enlightenment. It merely reinforces what I already know; that you're a thieving parasite who has never produced anything of worth and who is too stupid, or deliberately obtuse, to understand and acknowledge intellectual property.

reply

[–] SanchoPasta 11 years ago

You just watched a movie that you wanted to watch. You paid nothing for it. You deprived the owner of the money you should have paid to watch it. That is theft.

Really? Really? Shall we also shut down all public libraries because the author doesn't get paid every time someone borrows a book, and outlaw lending books to others?
If it were up to people like you, companies ought to get paid every time someone thinks of a song or hums it to themselves.
Explain to me maternal-fornicator, who in the name of four letter word for intercourse decides that companies are entitled to make a profit no matter what?

It merely reinforces what I already know; that you're a thieving parasite who has never produced anything of worth and who is too stupid, or deliberately obtuse, to understand and acknowledge intellectual property.

And you're an arrogant wad of used toilet paper who presumes to know anything about other people he encounters on the internet. I have an Android app released for free, without even the fornicating advertising that infests so called free apps on that platform. I have over 700 photos on Flickr released under a creative commons license, some of which have been reproduced with permission (from me) by other sites, all without charging them a fornicating dime. And no, I'm not using that to justify 'piracy'. I have also purchased several games from the Humble Bundle released frequently on Steam, and less frequently on optical media when they're released here at sane prices that don't translate the US dollar price directly into my currency. Oh, and I'm also a paying subscriber for Star Wars:The Old Republic, an MMORPG that is also available free to play. I pay for it because I tried it and liked it.

So shut the fornication up about whatever fornicating assumptions you may have made about me. You don't know jack excrement and are (isn't ad hominem fun?) probably a shill for the RIAA, MPAA and other true parasites that regularly screw over the artistes they allege to represent.

reply

[–] fillshertease 11 years ago

Really? Really? Shall we also shut down all public libraries because the author doesn't get paid every time someone borrows a book, and outlaw lending books to others?

Yes. Really. Whoever owns the rights to the book has every right to allow a library to buy it if they want. It's their property so they can do with it as they please. Once you finish reading a book you borrowed from the library you take it back and someone else can then borrow it you moron. Using your idiotic 'logic' I can take anyone's car at night while they're asleep as long as I return it in the morning before they need it. BZZT! Wrong. Thanks for playing. You don't seem to understand the concept of ownership at all. How can you be so stupendously ignorant?

If it were up to people like you, companies ought to get paid every time someone thinks of a song or hums it to themselves.

Nope. If it were up to people like me (i.e. the majority) then companies would be paid the money they are entitled to - both legally and morally - and criminals like you would be put in jail. Singing a song to yourself is completely different from stealing a recording of it but it's no surprise that parasites like you come up with ridiculous arguments like that and actually think they make sense.

Explain to me maternal-fornicator, who in the name of four letter word for intercourse decides that companies are entitled to make a profit no matter what?

Wow! So you don't even understand how democracy works??? Allow me to explain. The people elect representatives and they make laws on behalf of the people. The people, via the government, have decided that stealing is against the law. Downloading movies has been determined to be stealing and as such it is against the law. See how it works?

When a company - or an individual - produces something they own it and therefore they have every right to do with it as they please. The fact that this simple logic eludes you is further proof that you yourself have never actually produced anything worthwhile. A better question for you is, who in the name of four letter word for intercourse decided that you have the right to watch movies without paying the owner for them? Hint ... the answer is no one; you do not have that right and downloading movies is against the law.

And you're an arrogant wad of used toilet paper who presumes to know anything about other people he encounters on the internet. I have an Android app released for free, without even the fornicating advertising that infests so called free apps on that platform. I have over 700 photos on Flickr released under a creative commons license, some of which have been reproduced with permission (from me) by other sites, all without charging them a fornicating dime. And no, I'm not using that to justify 'piracy'. I have also purchased several games from the Humble Bundle released frequently on Steam, and less frequently on optical media when they're released here at sane prices that don't translate the US dollar price directly into my currency. Oh, and I'm also a paying subscriber for Star Wars:The Old Republic, an MMORPG that is also available free to play. I pay for it because I tried it and liked it.

Thanks for that load of completely irrelevant information. All you have shown is that whoever creates something - be they an individual or a corporation - has the right to do what they like with it. They can give it away if they like or they can charge money for it. The fact that some companies and individuals give their products away is no justification for stealing movies and you've even admitted that! It's hilarious though that you think some pictures you took are equivalent to a movie which took hundreds of people and tens of millions of dollar to produce.

Blah blah blah ... the same old faulty logic; I pay for it if I like it. In the first place it's bu11$h1t because you don't pay for everything you like and in the second place it's bu11$h1t because you have no right to a "get out of jail free card" which allows you to consume entertainment and then pay for it if you deem it worthy. BZZT! Wrong. Thanks for playing. When you decide to consume entertainment - be it watching a film, or reading a book, or playing a video game - there is a risk that you won't like it. That being the case your options are to take the risk and be disappointed, or not consume the entertainment. There is no option to steal it and then pay for it if you feel like it.

Oh and by the way ... when you are in court on charges of theft you don't tell the judge that your stealing was OK because there was SOME stuff that you actually paid for. You don't have to pay for SOME stuff, you have to pay for ALL stuff and if you don't then you are stealing.

So shut the fornication up about whatever fornicating assumptions you may have made about me. You don't know jack excrement and are (isn't ad hominem fun?) probably a shill for the RIAA, MPAA and other true parasites that regularly screw over the artistes they allege to represent.

I'm not making any assumptions about you Mate, I'm stating FACTS. You are a thieving parasite who steals things that don't belong to them; thereby breaking the law, robbing companies and individuals of their revenue, and stealing from people like me who pay more than their fair share - thanks to you - for the entertainment they consume. Those are the FACTS, they are not assumptions.

P.S. Ha ha ha ha ha ha - out comes another of the old chestnuts. YOU steal something from the artists and then say that it's the companies who found them, invested in them, marketed their products etc. who are the parasites. BZZT! Wrong again. Thanks for playing...

reply

[–] SanchoPasta 11 years ago

You work under the assumption that I live in a jurisdiction where content sharing online is illegal. Surprise!

reply

[–] fillshertease 11 years ago

You're the only one here who's making assumptions. Bad ones I might add. I am making no assumptions. You said you live in India and the copyright laws apply there. You are downloading movies illegally - which is theft in India - and as such you are a criminal. End of story.

reply

[–] SanchoPasta 11 years ago

Whoever owns the rights to the book has every right to allow a library to buy it if they want. It's their property so they can do with it as they please.

Oh good lord in heaven. Next you'll be claiming that there are books that libraries are not allowed to buy. Here's a hint - once I've paid for a physical object, it's mine to do what I want with it, whether I burn it or share it with others. And don't think that the retarded IP laws of the US apply to the rest of the world, thereby making 'thieves' out of people who aren't under US jurisdiction.

Singing a song to yourself is completely different from stealing a recording of it but it's no surprise that parasites like you come up with ridiculous arguments like that and actually think they make sense.

Oh yeah. This totally didn't happen.

http://www.businessinsider.in/A-Toddler-Dancing-To-Lets-Go-Crazy-On-Yo uTube-Sparked-An-Epic-Legal-Fight/articleshow/21415630.cms

Wow! So you don't even understand how democracy works??? Allow me to explain. The people elect representatives and they make laws on behalf of the people. The people, via the government, have decided that stealing is against the law. Downloading movies has been determined to be stealing and as such it is against the law. See how it works?

Last time I checked, America didn't rule the world, and copying is not legally the same as stealing.

When you decide to consume entertainment - be it watching a film, or reading a book, or playing a video game - there is a risk that you won't like it.

Uh, yes, but conveniently lumping them all in the same category doesn't help your argument. I can pick up a book at the store, flip through it or even read the ending and leave it on the shelf if I don't like it. Video games have extensive reviews and Youtube play-throughs. A long time ago, games had downloadable free demos that you could use to decide whether it was worth buying. Movies have nothing of the sort unless it's an absolute blockbuster or an absolute lemon. If you don't like the movie half way through, tough sh!t, you don't get a cinema ticket refund. I'd elaborate but someone else on this very thread has explained it far better on the first 2 pages.

I hope you're full now, I've been feeding you all this while but got a big evening ahead. Take care and enjoy your spot under the bridge.

reply

[–] fillshertease 11 years ago

Oh good lord in heaven. Next you'll be claiming that there are books that libraries are not allowed to buy.

Correct! That is exactly right. Well done you.

Here's a hint - once I've paid for a physical object, it's mine to do what I want with it, whether I burn it or share it with others.

No, that is wrong. When you buy something you are bound by whatever contract is agreed upon during the purchase. If you buy something which has no contract associated with it then, yes, you can do with it as you like. If, however, you buy something which has a contract associated with it, and the contract says that you must not copy it, then it is not yours to do with as you like and you must not copy it.

And don't think that the retarded IP laws of the US apply to the rest of the world, thereby making 'thieves' out of people who aren't under US jurisdiction.[.quote]

They are not retarded - they are extremely sensible - and they apply in most of the rest of the world, including India. As I have already explained, you are in breach of the law in India and you are a criminal.

[quote]Oh yeah. This totally didn't happen.

http://www.businessinsider.in/A-Toddler-Dancing-To-Lets-Go-Crazy-On-Yo uTube-Sparked-An-Epic-Legal-Fight/articleshow/21415630.cms

Sorry but why did you provide that URL? You said that people like me wanted others to pay if they hummed a tune. I said no I didn't want that and that no company wanted that either. Next you said that it has already happened but then you provided a URL which relates a completely irrelevant story about someone who was using a copyrighted recording - not humming a song - in a YouTube video. Either you pasted the wrong URL - in which case please provide the correct one - or you are so stupid that you don't understand the distinction between humming a song and reproducing a copyrighted recording. Which one is it?

Last time I checked, America didn't rule the world, and copying is not legally the same as stealing.

Who said anything about America ruling the world? The copyright laws - which are very sensible - are in place throughout most of the world, including India (which is a democracy). As I have explained to you already, downloading a movie which you don't have the rights to IS stealing - you are stealing from both the owner of the movie AND from me - and it makes you a criminal. It's all very clear and easy to understand. I'm amazed that you can't comprehend it.

Uh, yes, but conveniently lumping them all in the same category doesn't help your argument.

It wasn't meant to help my argument, it is simply categorising the different forms of entertainment which are being stolen by people like you.

I can pick up a book at the store, flip through it or even read the ending and leave it on the shelf if I don't like it. Video games have extensive reviews and Youtube play-throughs. A long time ago, games had downloadable free demos that you could use to decide whether it was worth buying. Movies have nothing of the sort unless it's an absolute blockbuster or an absolute lemon. If you don't like the movie half way through, tough sh!t, you don't get a cinema ticket refund.

Yes ... all of that is exactly right! So what? It is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point. The point is that when you buy a movie you will not know whether you will like it or not until you have consumed it. That leaves you with two options:

1. Don't watch the movie and save your money.
2. Take your chances and watch the movie.

That's it. That's all. Those are you only two legal options. The option you are using, to watch the movie for free and then pay nothing whether you like it or not, is an illegal option and if you choose it you are stealing and are thereby a criminal. End of story.

I'd elaborate but someone else on this very thread has explained it far better on the first 2 pages.

Can you point me to it please? All I have seen so far are the weak and pathetic arguments of the type you keep making, which contain holes so big that you can drive a truck through them. If there is some new argument which actually explains how breaking the law and stealing is OK then I truly would love to see it.

I hope you're full now, I've been feeding you all this while but got a big evening ahead. Take care and enjoy your spot under the bridge.

Full of what? Are you suggesting that I am a troll because I am calling you out on your bu11$h1t arguments about stealing? Oh that's right ... I must be a shill who works for the corporations because I don't like the way thieving parasites like you, with your holier-than-though attitude, blatantly steal things and then have the nerve to come online and try to justify it! Sorry but that opinion of yours simply shows how morally bankrupt and lacking in integrity you are. Here's a news flash for you kid; the vast majority of people don't steal movies and they don't agree with you doing it. You are stealing from the rest of us. You're like the d1ck head who thinks it's OK to drive down the inside lane and then merge at the last minute because you're more special than everyone else and above the law. Contrary to what you believe, however, you are a small minority of people who have never achieved anything worthwhile and consequently don't respect the work and ownership of the people who have. You're a blight and you disgust people who have integrity. What you should do is go and actually create something worthwhile yourself, then come back and tell us how tickled pink you are that people are stealing it from you and depriving you of revenue. I'm sure we'll be waiting a considerable period of time. Enjoy your evening. Will you be stealing someone's car to get there? According to you that wouldn't be stealing if you returned it before they needed it right? Why don't you give it a try and see what the judge says...

reply

[–] thirdeye55 11 years ago

I loved this movie, and would NEVER have seen it in the first place - ever - had it not been for torrents. I probably wouldn't even have HEARD of it. But, that being said, yes... first time watching it was torrents.

BUT... I have since purchased it on BluRay. So, in the end, you can thank torrents for my purchase of this movie.

Personally this is how I justify using torrents like I do - it helps weed out the good from the *beep* and allows my hard earned money to be put toward projects which DESERVE IT.

reply

[–] fillshertease 11 years ago

Let's be completely clear about this; when you download a torrent you are stealing - there are no two ways about it - and it certainly annoys me that people like you are prepared to steal so readily. However what annoys me more is the way that you justify it to yourself and even try to make out as though you are actually doing someone a favour because you occasionally buy a movie that you enjoyed when you stole it. Let's be very clear about this too; you are NOT doing anyone a favour - it's the EXACT OPPOSITE actually - and the fact that you would have never seen the movie in the first place is completely and utterly irrelevant. It's also a lie because you actually DID watch it and therefore you probably also would have watched it if it was cheap enough - say 50c or $1 - but movies aren't that cheap because people like you steal them and keep the prices higher as a result.

Movies are a form of entertainment that are produced by companies that are in business to make a profit. Making a good movie is difficult and that's why the people who do it well make a lot of money from it. Sometimes the movie studios make a bad movie though and it loses money but that is subsidised by the good movies that they make. Most of us, when we decide to see a film, take a chance because we are spending our hard earned money and we might end up seeing a film which we don't enjoy. Other people though, like yourself, want to have their cake and eat it too by watching the movie first and only paying for it if you deem it worthy. You want a get out of jail card and you kid yourself that it is free. The problem is that it isn't free and it's the movie studios and other people who are paying for your get out of jail free card. It's quite simple in the end really ... if you want to watch a movie then you pay for it; if you don't want to pay for it then you don't watch it. Basically it is exactly the same as any other product in the world and if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself...

If you stole cars but occasionally bought the ones you enjoyed driving most then you would still be a thief and with movies it is exactly the same. The fact that you would never have bought a Mercedes in the first place doesn't justify stealing one.

You say that you are justified because "it helps weed out the good from the *beep* and allows [your] hard earned money to be put toward projects which DESERVE IT", as though you have some God given right to watch movies (and only good ones at that!). You don't. Movies are the result of many people's hard work and whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, every time you steal one by downloading a torrent, it is exactly the same as me stealing some of your "hard earned" money straight from your bank account. As for only spending your hard earned money on projects which deserve it, that is the same as your boss (or your client, or whoever it is that pays you your "hard earned" money), saying that they are only going to pay you for the work which deserves it. I'm guessing you would be pretty irate if the shoe was on the other foot and, at the end of the week, your boss only paid you for two days and justified it by saying that only two days of your work deserved it.

When you steal a movie you are in fact stealing from me - and other people like me who pay for the movies we want to see and own - because you are keeping the prices for movies higher and it is me and others who are paying for you in the long run. Let's make no mistake about this either; the price of movies has gone down steadily as time has gone by so making the argument that the extra profit would not be returned to the consumer is bogus, as is the idea that you are helping because you pay for the occasional movie that you wouldn't have otherwise paid for. The fact of the matter is that if it wasn't for people like you, the price of movies would drop further and all of us would be able to pay less for movies and therefore get better value overall for our hard earned money. Unfortunately though ... people like me have to cover the cost for people like you by paying higher prices all around...

I don't know what you do for your "hard earned money" but I will take a guess and say that you don't actually produce anything, or do anything creative in nature, because if you did then you would understand what it means to have someone steal from you. This isn't meant to be nasty, it's just that I can't see how anyone who creates or produces anything could be justifying theft the way you do. I could be wrong though?

In closing ... I can't stop you from stealing movies - or anything else for that matter - but as one of the people who is subsidising your theft, I would prefer it if you would stop pretending that you're doing us all a favour, man up, and simply admit that what you're doing is both morally and legally wrong. I know it will make it easier for me, personally, next time I am paying more for a movie than I need to be, if people like you at least start to admit that your stealing is the reason that the prices aren't lower...

reply