Sicko is PHENOMENAL!

[mudesi]

I just downloaded and watched Sicko, why haven't you?

Because this is absolutely Michael Moore's best film. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it 10,000. Roger And Me was fun, Bowling for Columbine was fantastic, Fahrenheit 9/11 was surprisingly somewhat disappointing, but Sicko is stunning. I have never been so enthralled by a documentary in my life. This movie is a Must See for every single American on the planet.

I won't spoil it for those who have yet to see it, but I will say this: Prepare yourself to have emotions towards total strangers and familiar political faces like you've never felt before. I was horrified, dismayed, and angry in the same moments that Mr. Moore made me laugh out loud. I felt a kind of rage at the Republicans like I've never felt before, and then some. But it's not just about the Republicans. Hillary Clinton's stock dropped about 4,000 points after watching this movie.

In fact, I hope that this movie finally gets Americans to take to the streets (Like another country which shall not be named here, because that would be a "spoiler") to remove every single politician from office, and replace them with people who actually give a damn about something other than the corporations.

Get your backside to a bit torrent site near you and DOWNLOAD THIS MOVIE NOW. You can still support Mr. Moore for the fabulous work he has done later, by seeing it again in the theater, though as you'll see in the movie, he's not in this for the money. Not by a long shot. Michael Moore is a hero and a patriot. Anybody who thinks otherwise has not seen Sicko yet.

[helderheid]

1. you're missing links

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[helderheid]

6. :)

[Atman]

2. If this is Moore's best movie, SHOULDN'T HE BE PAID FOR HIS EFFORTS?

Jesus...fork over the money and see it in a theater! The guy didn't make the movie for free, and just because you think it's awesome doesn't mean you get to rip off the guy! Put some cake back in his pocket so he can make another one. Don't steal.

.

[trumad]

5. WORD!

[helderheid]

One can do both - I am buying the DVD

[Johonny]

7. Yeah

I think it's a movie worth paying to see too. To be fair Moore said he didn't mind people downloading it.

[Atman]

10. I heard him say just the opposite. He was rather pissed off about it.

It's just wrong. It's stealing.

ON EDIT: Okay, I just saw his comments on YouTube. I guess it doesn't really change my mind. Just because he condones stealing doesn't make it right. Maybe it's fine for him and his own movie, but he is basically encouraging people to look at copyright law as something they shouldn't concern themselves with. I flat-out disagree.

.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. He's the copyright holder. He can do that.

By your reasoning, Linux is a bad thing because it makes people believe copying software is a-OK.

[Atman]

33. No, that is not my reasoning at all.

That's just plain silly, and has nothing to do with what I said.

I'll ask you what I asked the others; are you 100% sure Moore is the "owner" of the movie?

.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. Are you 100% sure he ISN'T? I don't see any studio angrily disavowing Moore's words. -nt

[Atman]

39. Uhm...I stated that pretty clearly in my post.

Or do you just want to do a back and forth "DID NOT!" "DID TO!" thing?

Whatever.

.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Stated what? Following non-sequitur-ridden pseudo-logic is beyond my mental abilities. -nt

[Atman]

41. I'm sorry, I thought you were actually following the thread,

and not just making subject-line hit and run insults. Because if you'd actually read my responses you'd know I stated very clearly that I did not know whether he was 100% owner or not. What, exactly, are the non sequiturs to which you refer? Please, do tell.

.

[Beaverhausen]

50. The studio that is paying for advertising and distribution might disagree

Putting a film into theatres and advertising them cost money and actual people have jobs that do these things. :raises hand:

Michael Moore isn't the only person with a stake in this film.

A studio which employs people is paying for the prints, the shipping, the ads (print and Television).

[Atman]

52. Thank you. Apparently I'm a heretic for saying as much.

You know me, just Mr. Inconsistent! For, you know...uh...being consistent and sticking to my guns about this. The "stealing apologists" (hey, the name calling is a two-way street, right?) won't want to hear it, though. It's a GOOD thing for them to steal from others, because that means more people get to see Michael's film! Get it?

.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

55. ...

[Beaverhausen]

56. I know I know. Look at the list of companies involved in the film from IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/companycredits

apparantly people here think films (and music) are magically put in theatres (or stores) all by themselves and no one's job depends on the public supporting them.

[Occulus]

64. In light of his public statement,

I would think if they actually cared at all about it they would come out and say he doesn't speak for them.

They haven't... perhaps because every sneak showing coast to coast has been a 100% sellout. Obviously, the download copies aren't harming them in the least, and may in fact actually be helping.

The sick people who can't get out of bed to go see this film just don't care. By the time it comes out on DVD, they could be dead. Since the film is about them (and I'm not trying in any way to imply that this film is being downloaded only by people too sick to go see it, but there's an irony here I don't want to pass over), I would think- hope, even- he was thinking of them when he said what he did.

For all you know, he explained that to the others involved in the film, and they're onboard with his statement as well.

[Atman]

66. "For all you know..."

That's particularly funny coming from the guy who keeps dogging me because I'm not 100% certain Moore owns the copyright to his film!

:rofl:

Hypocritical much?

.

[Occulus]

67. Not in light of this, no

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2147980,00.asp

Weinstein Co. general counsel Peter Hurwitz said:

"We are actively investigating who illegally uploaded 'Sicko' to the Internet, and we will take appropriate action against that person(s)."

Uploaders, not downloaders.

And Moore said:

"I think the music industry's response to Napster was misguided ... and for me, it's about getting people to see the movie and that's what I want, so they will talk about it," Moore recently told Brandweek magazine. "I would never want to prosecute anybody who would download (his film)."

You. Are. DONE. Demolished. Completely.

If you persist, I'll put you on ignore. If you admit you're wrong, I'll grant you a modicum of the respect I had for you prior to today.

[Atman]

72. You CONTINUE to confuse Moore's personal opinion with THE LAW.

Don't bother trying to "respect" me, because it won't be mutual. I abhor your brand of nonsensical, refuse-to-discuss-the- FACTS approach. Michael Moore's personal opinion has absolutely no bearing on the law, except for that IF he owns the rights to the film outright then it is 100% his choice to decide whether or not to prosecute downloaders.

Do you or do you not agree with that point?

IF he does not own the copyright, and it is in fact owned by Dog Eat Dog Films (and hence, it's investors), then his OPINION about the law has no bearing. You tossed out the Madonna bullshit, but didn't address it when I shot it down...why not?

Does Madonna have the legal right to GIVE AWAY via download the music which is OWNED by her record label, who has a contractual arrangement to make money off of Madonna's work?

You. Can. Put. As. Many. PERIODS. As. You. Want. For. Dramatic. Impact. It changes nothing re: the law.

It just make you look like a fool who has dug in his heels. Go ahead, put me on ignore. Please. Especially if this is your idea of discussion. You might as well stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Neener neener neener I can't heeeeeaaaarrr you!"

.

[Occulus]

76. I didn't say the downloading wasn't illegal EXCEPT in the circumstance you cite

which you yourself have, again, stated repeatedly throught this entire thread you aren't certain of (a fact). I myself tried to find that information, but the only way I'm seeming to be able to is to access "pro" features of websites like IMDB. If I have to pay for information on whether or not someone owns or does not own copyright, and I know they are the creator of the work, I'll (very reasonably) go on to presume they do in fact own the copyright until proven otherwise.

"Does Madonna have the legal right to GIVE AWAY via download the music which is OWNED by her record label, who has a contractual arrangement to make money off of Madonna's work?"

It doesn't matter if she does or not from the standpoint of actions which follow her statement. If she were to say such a thing publicly, the downloading of that particular tune would skyrocket (another fact that we can reasonably presume true, were the song still very popular in the first place). At that point, it doesn't matter what law is on paper; the bell has been rung.

Moore is doing something fairly subtle here regarding copyright and filesharing with the statements he's made. He's making a subtle jab at copyright law as it stands- as well he should, it's a complete fucking mess, just like the healthcare industry- and I'm really getting the impression that you don't much like that at all.

Since no proof of his producers' or distributors' displeasure has been forthcoming (another niggling little fact I seem to be so bereft of), either from you or my own searches, I must conclude that Michael Moore's distribution company, producers, and investors, in light of their apparently complete silence on this matter, do not take umbrage with Moore's public statements- namely, that he (and, presumably, they) would never prosecute anyone for downloading their film.

I should note he said something very similar when F-911 came out (geez, another one of those facts I seem to lack), and I never heard about anyone getting busted for downloading it. You can bet the rightwingers would have hollered it to the hills if that had happened, and I heard nothing from them, either, so I'm going to presume for the moment that not a single person was prosecuted for downloading F-911.

In light of his statements, and no matter how much you apparently would just love to throw everyone who has downloaded this film into jail (I'm sensing lots and lots of open hostility from you toward people who would dare to download... well, any copyrighted work at all), I'm going to state for the record that there won't be any consequences to any this time around, either.

My whole point is and has been that what the law says does not matter when someone who is connected to the film (Michael Moore, of "Michael Moore's SiCKO", for example) gives the public permission in such an open way. Nothing the law says about it will stop it from happening.

You know that, Atman. Why do you persist?

Lastly, mocking how I write is fucking childish. Mocking my creativity by calling it "manga comics" is fucking childish. Repeating what I say to co-opt it is fucking childish. No, it's not sarcasm, it's fucking childish.

You can keep doing it, but it only shows that you're just going to be childish if you don't like what someone has to say.

[Beaverhausen]

96. Looks to me that your link refutes your own position

The owners of the film did not want this out there to be downloaded, so they are going after the person(s) who uploaded it in the first place and made it available for people to download.

[Occulus]

98. My understanding was that it was a master copy

In other words, an inside job.

That isn't what I saw; I saw a really crappy compressed copy.

edit: in the same article, Moore himself states he wouldn't go after people who downloaded it because he feels everyone needs to see it, or want them "gone after".

That does sound like permission to any reasonable person.

[BlueJazz]

105. I downloaded it and I'm also going to see it in the theater.

I want to experience the Crowd getting Educated/Pissed Also.... :)

[Occulus]

108. That's what I've been saying all along...

I fully intend to see it, WITH people who wouldn't have otherwise.

It's not as though I watched a download copy to avoid paying for it...

[Occulus]

19. Why should I take you seriously about copyright ever again?

I just love you copyright apologists. You wiggle and cry about "steeeeaaaaaling from the aaaaarrrtist" (read in a really really whiny annoying voice), and yet, when an artist comes forward and says something which could be construed as giving permission to download the work, somehow, you maintain that position.

Why should I or anyone ever take you seriously about copyright issues ever again, Atman? You've just proven how starkly inconsistent you yourself are on this issue. I've seen other copyright apologists do the exact same thing when someone else has said what amounts to "go ahead and download it as long as you don't profit from it", and I can't understand why you're so willing to erode your own position this way.

The sad, sad fact is that the copyright apologists on this board are not consistent in their opinions. If you people were, you would immediately back off from it when "the artist" gives permission. Yet, you don't, somehow.

So, could you explain why I or anyone else should ever again take you seriously on this one issue? I say this because, as a sometime artist, there may come a time when I actually want someone to see something I made for free, and I don't want to have to deal with unjustified interference from the likes of you.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atman]

35. And what do you call YOUR post?

Alert away. I'm right behind you. Might as well do the whole "deleted sub thread" scene, eh? THAT will sure help get your point across! :rofl:



.

[Occulus]

36. I didn't call you an asshole or a dick n/t

[Beaverhausen]

51. Moore isn't paying for the advertising and distribution of the film into theatres

a studio is paying. They don't deserve to have the film ripped off.

If you want to see more of these types of films in the future you might want to keep that in mind.

Studios won't bother doing it if they are losing money.

[asthmaticeog]

20. Right, why should being proven wrong change your mind?

:eyes:

It IS fine for him and his own movie. He's not encouraging anyone to DL any film other than his own. If I gave you a link to freely download music that I wrote, would that be encouraging shoplifting at record stores?

[Atman]

27. Not if it's 100% YOUR music.

This is not 100% Moore's film. He has distributors and theater owners who've signed contracts, too, you know.

Even with my own artwork, there are covenants when I sell it to others, which Moore has done with his film. I cannot sell a cartoon to a magazine, and then give it away to everybody for free before the magazine comes out. Well, I can if it's in my contract. Show me the contract which says Moore has the right to deprive his distributor and the theater owners from the income they signed up for?

Roll your stupid fucking eyes all you want (sorry, since being a dickwad seems to be the theme here, I'm just playing along), but you don't know shit about copyright law, and I do.

.

[asthmaticeog]

29. You have no fucking idea what I know about law.

And calling people dickwads is out of line, Atman.

[Atman]

31. Sorry, read the responses to my posts.

You and kgfnally sure were civil, weren't you? Can't I act just like you?

What I do know is that one's disdain for copyright law doesn't make it any less of a law. Micheal Moore, afaik, had no right to "give away" his movie, unless he said he'd do so in the deal he signed with distributors and, in turn, theater owners. In fact, I'd be curious to know if Moore is, in fact, the owner of the copyright. I'm not suggesting he's not, but I've seen nothing saying he IS, either. Just because he made the movie doesn't mean it's "his." Did he have investors involved, expecting a return? Then he has no right to give away the product. My analogy was spot on. The inventor of a product for Joe's Corporation cannot simply decide to give it away to the world just because he thinks the world would like it if he's got investors and other stakeholders involved.

You and kgfnally want to get all nasty and say I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll be rude back atcha. But the fact is, I've been in this business for a LONG time and I've sold my copyrights, signed contracts for various rights, sold characters of mine outright that I've lost all rights to, etc. I know what the hell I'm talking about.

You and kgf seem to think that just because you dig something that it gives you the right to violate the law. Forgive me for calling bullshit on you.

.

[Occulus]

42. I never once said you don't know what you're talking about

I haven't even implied that. So, you've called me an asshole, a dick, and NOW you're putting words in my mouth. Again, shame on you.

"In fact, I'd be curious to know if Moore is, in fact, the owner of the copyright. I'm not suggesting he's not, but I've seen nothing saying he IS, either."

So the only thing you really KNOW in this situation is that he gave people permission to download the film, and people took him seriously when he gave that permission. You seem to have a problem with an artist telling his fans to go ahead and download it if they don't profit.

It used to be, from people like yourself, that it was only okay to download something if the artist gave their permission. I should have seen it coming from a mile away, but now you're crying about the distributors and shareholders and investors and whatnot... now that a major player has done what people such as yourself have been saying all along was the requirement to make downloading "their works" okay. Next, I suppose you'll expect us all to have in hand signed permission or some such; a statement to the general public won't be enough.

Then you'll want it notarized and witnessed.

You. Are. Inconsistent. I don't know why you're being so intentionally obtuse. Moore's permission statement, frankly, makes you look silly for continuing to hold the position you are.

[Atman]

44. You CAN'T be serious???!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1186337&mesg_id=1186614

"Why should I take you seriously about copyright ever again?"

And that's just the SUBJECT LINE! You're just down to making shit up as you go along now. Notarized and witnessed? WTF? Are you just pre-emptively planning for a smack-down, or what?

It used to be, from people like yourself, that it was only okay to download something if the artist gave their permission.

Used to be? People like myself? Where? Show me! Where did I or these "people like myself" take such a position? If you want to accuse ME of something, do it, and back it up. But don't play this chicken-shit game of taking your own bogeymen and attributing them to me. Back up your words, dude. Where have I been inconsistent? Your whole argument shits on itself...if I had changed my mind as soon as I saw Moore's video, what would you have called me then? CONSISTENT? Or a flip-flopper?

You kept claiming that I am being "inconsistent" for...uh...sticking by my original position, one which I've always held. Where is the inconsistency? You're just making it up out of thin air. I reaffirm my position re: copyright law and you say it's "inconsistent." Gotcha.

:eyes:

.

[Occulus]

46. *sigh* I think you know *exactly* what you're talking about, Atman

I just don't take you seriously on the subject anymore.

"Where did I or these "people like myself" take such a position?"

First, I didn't say you, personally, did so; second, I've seen that opinion expressed by copyright holders all over the internet ever since downloading copyrighted works became a "problem" in their eyes. That's the exact "out" they've always given, and you know that.

Suddenly crying about the distributors when the artists themselves give permission is the inconsistency. I can't put it any more plain, and I'm sorry for you if you don't or won't see that.

Let me add this:

"You kept claiming that I am being "inconsistent" for...uh...sticking by my original position, one which I've always held."

Ruh-roh. Your original position is what is inconsistent, when presented with the fact of Moore's statements. Your original position became inconsistent the instant you startd yapping at people who took it seriously about how bad it was to take seriously.

Got that clear? Good.

BY the way:

"Are you just pre-emptively planning for a smack-down, or what?"

YES.

[Atman]

48. I'm just talking about the law and what is legal.

I'm not "suddenly" crying about distributors. This is where your whole dis towards me falls apart. This has ALWAYS been my position, and I've been very consistent about it. You seem to think that because I didn't specifically bring up distributors in my very first post that I somehow made it up subsequent to your insulting me. The elements and instances that go into formulating my positions don't all have to get posted along with those positions, do they? And if so, is that your CONSISTENT position -- that when anyone posts their opinion or position, you require them to post the history of their decision-making process, too? -- or does that only apply to me, in this thread?

Now, back to the law part...no inconsistency...Michael Moore can say he has no problem with people violating copyright law to see his film, snd that is fine for Michael Moore, but please explain to me how it changes the law? If he is indeed the sole copyright holder and doesn't file a claim, nothing happens, right? Back to my original analogy...if he says it's okay for people to speed to the theater to see his movie, does it make speeding any less illegal?

But if he is NOT the sole copyright holder, and he has other people contractually bound who are also expecting/planning to make money off the film (ie; investors, distributors, etc) no amount of artistic license in the world gives him the right to violate the law. Yay...he's noble and wants lots of people to see it. Tell it to the theater owner who was hoping for a full house so he could pay his employees, or to the investor who sunk a few million into the project hoping for a good ROI. Or the formal production syndicate who actually "owns" the movie.

To use your own words, "I can't put it any more plain, and I'm sorry for you if you don't or won't see that."

.

[Occulus]

53. The whole problem with your entire position is

you can't state with certainty that Moore isn't able to release the work. As a reasonable person, I can presume that when the very individual who is the reason for the work being created in the first place says publicly I can download and watch it as long as I don't profit from it, that individual means what they say.

If they can't do that, copyright is meaningless.

"if Michael Moore can say he has no problem with people violating copyright law to see his film,"

If Moore says they can download if they don't profit, I see no violation. A reasonable person wouldn't: it's his film; his name's all over it. Thus, your entire argument falls apart.

It's like a song being titled "Madonna's 'Ray of Light'", and Madonna going out and telling people to go ahead and download it because she feels everyone needs to hear it. Are reasonable people going to say that since she said so, they can?

Why, yes. And they would be right to think so: she's the creator of the work. Ultimately, it's hers to give away. Let her worry about what her producers and distributors think about it. That doesn't affect the permission she gave me.

By the way, all the sneak showings have apparently been 100% sold out, so the very idea that downloading this film is in any way causing any harm, by any means, to anyone at all, is patently ridiculous.

You are wrong on this one in every possible conceivable way, Atman. Sorry to say it that way, but it's the toasted toad's truth.

[Atman]

57. I'd bet you anything Madonna's record company would disagree with you.

You are just subjectively altering the laws to fit the position you've taken. I'm not. My position, as stated from the very beginning, has been about the law, not whether or not Michael Moore or Modonna are good people and have the right to give away their work. They both do...IF other people don't own the work. I'm simply not wrong, kgf. You're taking a very ignorant, pedestrian view of copyright law, as you seem to have no inkling about what "ownership" means. We artists do. We deal with it all the time. Just because we "create" something doesn't mean we "own" it.

You are wrong on this one in every possible conceivable way, kgf. Sorry to say it that way, but it's the toasted toad's truth.

.

[Occulus]

62. Now you're just being completely ridiculous

"Just because we "create" something doesn't mean we "own" it."

I fully own each and every work I've ever created and I'd be stupid to tolerate any other situation (big ol' DUH on that one). I own absolutely everything I've ever made, solely. Honestly, you sound as though you haven't been very careful at all about protecting your works; I can't help but feel that you've been, well, irresponsible for not maintaining control of them. Maybe that's why you sound so very bitter: I, for example, would not sell off a character I had created; I would have licensed its limited use in a very specific context. Because I'm the creator and owner of the character, I can do that. I don't know what is giving you the idea that we don't own the works we create; that's just plain batshit crazy silly.

"My position, as stated from the very beginning, has been about the law,"

You yourself have stated repeatedly that you don't know if Moore retains the power (over his own film, no less) to release it for nonprofit downloading prior to its theatrical release. So, your position, while it may have been "about law", is based upon your uncertaintly that it's his to give away and sections of law you've left unquoted and unexamined for determination as to their applicability to this situation.

In other words, your basing your arguments on supposition and assumption. Moore's statements, as much as you may hate to admit it, are what they are, and will be taken to mean as much. Because of what he said, it doesn't matter what you claim the law says about it; people are going to download the film, and they're going to feel just fine about doing so- and justifiably so.

I notice you haven't once made any statements to the effect that the producers have come out and refuted what Moore had to say in the time since he said it. I'm unaware of them making any such statements; I'd think it would be news if they had. That, in itself, is telling for a couple reasons.

First and most obviously, it says that his producers apparently don't much care and don't see the need to refute his words (given the 100% sellout status in each and ever sneak preview showing, I'd say they're quite justifiably unconcerned about people downloading it). Secondly (and for you, personally), it proves out that all the squawking about how his distributors and producers and others involved in the film are being harmed is just that: a whole lot of very loud and tiresome squawking. The 100% sellout proves there's no harm in doing so, and your own admitted uncertainty as to his ability to release the film makes me wonder just what the fuck you're trying to argue in the first place.

Lastly, throwing someone's words back in their face when you're wrong and you know it is really really fucking childish. Shame on you for that, too.

[Atman]

65. You really DO just make stuff up as you go along.

You wouldn't sell a character you've created, you'd license it? Well, bully for you! How many licenses and/or sales do you have? I've SOLD characters outright and STILL retained first rights and some amount of creative control. I've licensed characters and still receive checks for residuals on stuff I did years ago.

Do you HONESTLY think this is a one-size-fits-all proposition? There is a big difference between what you've created and what I've created and what Moore's created...in the cases of me and Moore, investors and backers actually do buy our stuff and we actually have to negotiate contracts for usage and ownership rights. You just talk out of your ass and think you know stuff you just don't know. You have been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME you've tried this...this time it was saying I don't know how to do licensing or sales, yet curiously, I've sold original characters outright to Fortune Fifty companies and made damned good money off them -- and one particular contract even gave me development rights for new venues for the characters even though I no longer owned them.

But tell me, Mr. Copyright Genius...would that enable me to GIVE AWAY THE CHARACTERS on anything I wanted to just because I created them? Dude, you're comically off-base. You know what show just ended in NYC? The International Licensing Tradeshow. It's big business, and I've been fortunate enough to profit from it. In fact, while you're hording your "copyrighted" manga comics in the sketch pad next to your bunk bed, most artists would kill for a good buy-out or licensing deal. You know why? Because buy-out figures usually represent ALL the potential re-sales a piece could have made if the artist had retained ownership. So, instead of having to try to re-sell a cartoon over and over again, we can make a big lump sum in one transaction. It's good business. It pays the rent. And I still retain full ownership of 98% of the work I produce.

I'm not bitter at all! That is ludicrous. I'm knowledgeable, and that's the part that seems to have you thrown off. You expected to be able to come in here and make up all sorts of bullshit and have the ignorant fall to your feet kow-towing at your huge brain. But I'm speaking from experience, not dreams of what I wish I could do.

Keep digging, man. Keep digging. It's kind of amusing to watch.

.

[Occulus]

68. Way to demean what someone else has made

"In fact, while you're hording your "copyrighted" manga comics"

I write music.

Show us your works. Put up or shut up.

(is it just me, or has this guy been personally insulting to me throughout?)

[Atman]

71. There are two links in my sig line.

I've put up. When are you shutting up?

.

[Occulus]

77. Oh, probably never.

The reason is because it's your mentality which, for example, is why mods for games get shut down.

Just for example.

You truly don't understand why your copyright law zealotry is harmful, do you? To continue with my prior example, there was a mod for Star Trek Armada 2 that added the Borg. It was a huge mod for that game- it weighs in at 60+ megabytes- that has been scrubbed from the internet by the creators of the game. You'll likely have a hard time finding it because of that.

I have a copy of it I downloaded after it was made stable (but before it was scrubbed), so it doesn't affect me. However, it was scrubbed because the same company was making a game (a completely different game, which I don't think was ever even released) that merely included the Borg. Thus, the scrubbing, for legal purposes, of course.

There are a lot of other examples. Your mindset allows twelve-year-olds to be hammered with lawsuits worth tens of thousands of dollars. How is that helpful- to them, their families, OR the industry pursuing the suit?

Have such suits actually stopped anything?

I haven't bought a CD of any kind in more than ten years because of the music industry's actions both in terms of milquetoast content (insert negative critique of your sites here- I just don't want to be critical enough to say what I REALLY think) and because of their actions toward people who have downloaded music- actions you seem to zealously support.

Again, shame on you for not getting the point at all. I fully understand what you're trying to say- downloading this film is "illegal" according to you, and you feel nobody should do it.

You just don't seem to be able to accept that the law, the DMCA et al, just might not apply in this case BECAUSE Moore gave permission to the public to download it.

I'm not saying it doesn't, period. I'm saying, even if it does, it doesn't matter in light of Moore's statements. In the end, it doesn't matter if you personally are right OR wrong; people will be downloading this film because Moore 'said they could'.

The law as written, in this case, is of no practical concern.

[Atman]

81. So you're mad because people have stopped you from getting stuff illegally?

Who gives a flying fuck if some stupid kid made a mod for a video game you like. And you rip off every other musician you can find because you think the record companies are baaaaaaad.

You're a real pillar of moral clarity, you are! You simply have no morals. Pretty clear to me!

I don't need copyright lectures from copyright thieves. It's like a burglar telling me why I should let him take my television in the middle of the night.

.

[Occulus]

97. See? You only prove my point.

"And you rip off every other musician you can find because you think the record companies are baaaaaaad."

I refuse to buy from them, or even expose my ears to those works, but I'm stealing. All righty then.

I suppose you consider taping a song from a radio broadcast for your friends to make copies of "stealing" as well?

"I don't need copyright lectures from copyright thieves."

I don't need lectures from what amounts to the copyright version of a health insurance company executive, but that's what I've been getting from you.

[Atman]

106. You don't own ANY music?

I don't get it...you refuse to buy from whom? You claimed in an earlier post that you haven't purchased music in xx number of years, leaving the clear implication (in the context of your advocacy for illegal downloading others' intellectual property) that you're getting your music from some nefarious means -- I'm guessing downloading it from peer-to-peer sites, am I correct? Or do you not acquire ANY new music anymore because you refuse to 'expose your ears to those works?' I don't even get that part...expose your ears to WHAT works? Did I mention specific songs or something? What works, exactly, cannot cross your precious eardrums?

As for your once again incorrectly presupposing what I would do in a given circumstance -- taping music off the air and giving it to a friend -- is just plain silly. Tape music off of FM? Why would I do that, MP3's aren't poor enough quality?

I gave links to two legitimate free music sites which artists use to promote their own works. You "refuse to buy from them (good, they're free) or even expose your ears to those works." Why not? You just can't stand anything that's legal? Does it kill the buzz for you or what?

Comparing me to a health insurance company is absolutely the best, though! Hysterical! You outdid yourself with that one, seriously. You're a piece of work.

.

[Occulus]

110. Atman, I don't own a single music CD beyond my boycott date.

Which was back in 1993 or 1994.

Yes, Atman.... I really, honestly haven't bought OR downloaded ANY RIAA member music published after that date, period. I know that's hard for you to believe, but it's true.

"Tape music off of FM? Why would I do that, MP3's aren't poor enough quality?"

I did that the whole entire time I was a kid. It's the music industry's lack of action during that time period, concerning that practice of dubbing cassette tapes, that makes nearly everyone my age presume it's okay and there's no harm done.

It doesn't matter it that's correct or legal or not; that's the mindset that's in place. Are you really trying to say you didn't know that?

"I gave links to two legitimate free music sites which artists use to promote their own works."

And I saw two milquetoast blogsites and a particularly crappy, completely uninspiring comic strip. I didn't SEE a single music link, regardless of whether it was there or not.

I wouldn't have clicked it if I had, because of the complete lack of quality of the rest of the site. Whoever designed those two sites did it on the cheap and STILL ripped off the owner.

"Why not? You just can't stand anything that's legal? Does it kill the buzz for you or what?"

I was referring to RIAA members. I'll not buy their works, and I don't personally feel they're worth downloading either.

You just don't fathom my resolve, do you? I don't buy, and won't buy, and haven't bought for a long, long time, works produced by any RIAA member, and I wouldn't waste my time downloading them, either.

The works of RIAA members globally are not worth my time to download or my money to buy because of the actions taken by the RIAA against people who downloaded a few (thousand) songs.

I personally do not believe corporations or their representatives or trade associations should have the ability to sue individuals at all, for any reason; such is the direct result of the elimination of corporate person-hood, which is itself an issue which touches upon this one.

"Comparing me to a health insurance company is absolutely the best, though! Hysterical! You outdid yourself with that one, seriously. You're a piece of work."

Well, in the sense that you sound as though you want to throw downloaders to the wolves to suffer their fate, it's apt. There are several cases of very young people having to face civil suits in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars because of some executive is a zealot who thinks like yourself.

You sound as though you can't even conceive of the concept that, in this case, it does nothing but good to have it available for download. Frankly, you do sound like an industry executive, and I mean that in all seriousness.

In other words, you sound like part of the problem.

[Atman]

111. Where did you get this impression that I wanted to jail ANYONE?

Not ONE of my posts in this thread calls for any such thing. I simply said, and will say again, that it is WRONG to steal others' intellectual property. Not ONCE did I call for or advocate corporations suing anyone, not ONCE did I advocate jailing anyone. Not ONCE. You keep making that shit up. I simply said "don't do it; it is wrong." I'm not calling the feds on anyone, I'm not trying to bust anyone. What part of that don't you get?

And btw, you appear to be making attempts to dis my web site, although I don't blog, and my comic strip is actually pretty popular. It pays a few bills, and originals hang in a couple insurance company lobbies. Google "health care comics." #2 out of 17,600,000 hits ain't bad. My buddy Mark Parisi is nationally syndicated, though, and just recently beat me out for the #1 spot after a few years.

So, anyway, now that you've got your petty insults out of the way, the links I was referring to were the two you ignored; daytrotter.com and epitonic.com, free music download sites. The links YOU'RE referring to are the ones in my sig line. Remember when you tried to insult me by claiming I probably don't even hold any copyrights but YOU DO, so I "should put up or shut up?" Those were links to my site. You're just a very confused little man.

So, you've proven one thing to me for sure -- your resolve. You are relentless. Ignorant, off-based, insulting, rude, arrogant -- but you've got resolve. You should be proud of yourself, too, for listening to your oldies for the past decade and a half. I'm not sure why, but it seems to impress you. Personally, I'm constantly looking for fresh indi talent and trying to buy some tunes from them whenever possible. I don't generally by RIAA stuff because I'm not much of a mainstream music fan.

Hey, I give you credit, though...when you're wrong, you do it all the way! Good job!

.

[in_cog_ni_to]

87. Moore DID NOT give his permission to the public to download SiCKO!

I saw him in an interview and he said HE DID NOT release this for internet downloads. He has hired an investigator and will have whoever pirated the film, ARRESTED. MICHAEL MOORE'S OWN WORDS...not mine.

.for Moore, even piracy has its limits, especially when it comes to the timing, quality and source of the bootleg.

“Every filmmaker intends for his film to be seen on the big screen,” Moore said. “This wasn’t a guy taking a video camera into a theater. This was an inside job, a copy made from a high-quality master and could potentially impact the opening weekend boxoffice. Who do you think benefits from that?”

When asked about accusations that he may have leaked the film himself for publicity purposes, Moore scoffed at the notion:

“Oh no. The (Weinstein) brothers are devastated.”

http://www.attorneyfind.com/law-area.asp?CatID=42

[Occulus]

95. This is the part I actually sympathize with

What he was talking about, in this case, was the uploading of the original master, the 4.7 gigabyte full-DVD quality version.

THAT is the sort of shit that's uncalled for, but again, as I've always stated, it is the fault of the industry as a whole for allowing those prerelease DVDs to exist in the first place. What do they think will happen?

Their own people upload these copies, being critics and the like who get hold of prerelease copies for review. I do wish that were a fact included in this "debate", because it reveals how completely disingenuous the whole thing is.

That massively high-res version could not have been leaked by any but someone in the studio, or someone who had access to that master copy. Since it's an inside job, they should be going after the person who leaked it, but again:

"I would never want to prosecute anybody who would download (his film)."

(The one I saw- and have never once stated that I downloaded myself- was a poor quality, better-to-play-just-the-audio copy. Even had I seen the full quality version, I would still be seeing it in the theater.)

[Cronopio]

104. He isn't giving permission, he's just saying that he won't prosecute.

Saying that he won't prosecute is implicitly acknowledging that he knows that it's illegal.

But he also technically broke the law in taking a group of Americans to Cuba, so it's also obvious that he knows that there are sometimes more important considerations than what is illegal and what isn't.

Michael Moore couldn't make movies without his producers, and his producers need money to help finance more Moore. That's the reason I'll be paying for a theater ticket and buying a DVD after having downloaded the pirated copy. I like the idea that I can see SiCKO in the theater out of economic solidarity with the filmmaker than because of a restriction in my viewing choices. Economic fascism is thwarted and economic choice is defended.

If the lawyers don't like that, fuck 'em.

[trashcanistanista]

82. No, he is sacrificing a few bucks

for the greater good of having everyone in the country see it. It is more than a movie, he wants this movie to result in action. It is his gift to us. Those of us who can afford it will buy it. Word of mouth will ensure it's a hit when it opens. He will still win. He is an American hero. :patriot:

[babylonsister]

9. Waiting for the theatre here... nt

[Occulus]

12. I wouldn't have been able to arrange for several others to see it

if I hadn't watched a downloaded copy first. On top of that, seeing it early enabled me to really talk it up to the people I work with. I think I may have gotten a whole lot of people to want to see it just based on that (I've talked it up to probably ten people, perhaps a dozen, whom I work with).

One person seeing a downloaded copy could end in ten or more people seeing it in the theater who otherwise might not have (not including myself- I would have seen it in the theater regardless). Those people will talk about it to their families and friends.

Exactly how is that "ripping off the guy"?

[Atman]

15. It's just the law, that's all.

You're using an "ends justify the means" argument to rationalize why it's okay for you to break the law. I understand your argument, but it's really not any more valid than telling a cop you were driving 85 because if you didn't get to the theater on time, you might have missed the movie and then not been able to talk about it to your friends. Nor is it Moore's place to say it's okay to break the law just because he doesn't mind in this case. If he doesn't mind, he should put it on his own web site and offer it for free. Isn't the distributor and the movie house getting ripped off, too? It's not just Moore.

.

[Occulus]

21. Read my post more carefully.

I never said anything which could be read as saying I personally broke any law of any kind.

Read my comments above. I'm bookmarking your post as an example of how fucking inconsistent you copyright apologists really are.

By the way- your simplistic arguments are what I call "the reveal".

[asthmaticeog]

22. Wow, that's so not even close to analagous.

You copyright trolls are hilarious.

[Atman]

28. So are you people who have no problem stealing other's work.

Fucking hysterical.

.

[asthmaticeog]

30. When did I say I had no problem stealing others' work?

Quote me. This should be fun.

Clue: When the artist gives his or her blessing for free distribution, it's not stealing.

[Atman]

32. Clue: read my post

Are you certain Michael Moore owns the legal copyright (as opposed to another company, even if it's his own) and has the right to give it away?

Case in point: I founded a dot com several years ago. Part of the deal in getting investors was my signing over rights to much of the intellectual property. I created it, my name is on it, it's mine as it's "MY" company. But that doesn't give me a right to simply give away the product just because I created it, "owned" it and sat on the board of the company. It was all mine, but "the company" technically owned it.

Are you CERTAIN Moore has no similar arrangement? It's pretty common. Check the copyright notices on some of the music or films you own, and tell me how many times the actual creator is listed as the owner. I'll wait if you'd like.

.

[mudesi]

45. Just so you know, it's NOT against the law for ME

As a Canadian, I'm allowed to download whatever I want. At least that is my understanding of it from our Supreme Court ruling a couple of years back. I believe they ruled that downloading is no different than taking something out of the library or lending a DVD to a friend.

Not that I want to get into the whole downloading debate, but I just wanted to clarify that I did not break any laws. :evilgrin:

[Occulus]

47. Next he'll be arguing that the DMCA holds true in Canada.

WATCH.

[Atman]

49. Yeah, watch! Watch, man, watch!

kgf is a master prognosticator! He can make up the next situation before it even happens! He's AWESOME! Facts never get in his way. Watch. Really. Watch.

.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

54. I hereby offer you a music video you might find useful.

Especially the chorus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNixch31wmo

[Atman]

59. Sorry. I won't be clicking.

BTW...why is it, exactly, that YouTube is regularly pulling content down from its site? Something about...hmmm, what is it? Oh, yeah...copyright violations. Look it up instead of wasting your time with funny pictures of crying babies and YouTube videos. Then you might actually have something intelligent to add to the thread.

.

[Susang]

129. Your loss

Meds is a fucking great song. And as most artists and networks have found, YouTube postings help their "product" more than hurt it. Comedy Central used to pull clips of the Colbert Report until they realized that the clips were the best advertising they didn't have to pay for.

Personally, I tend to agree with David Bowie's line of thinking:

His deal with Sony is a short-term one while he gets his label started and watches the Internet's effect on careers. ''I don't even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, because I don't think it's going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way,'' he said. ''The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing.''

''Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity,'' he added. ''So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen.''
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:5fEywT92pkoJ:query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html%3Fsec%3Dtechnology%26res%3D9B03E1DA113AF93AA35755C0A9649C8B63+david+bowie,+copyright&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[in_cog_ni_to]

79. The Movie is ONLINE ILLEGALLY! It was PIRATED! Please don't encourage people to steal money from

Michael Moore.:(

[Occulus]

99. Several people in addition to myself will be paying to see it

BECAUSE I saw a downloaded copy and was able to arrange for them to come with me to see it in the theaters.

WHY is this point being so completely missed?

[nashville_brook]

24. moore is a genius for using this form of viral marketing

looked at this way, the only "stealing" is moore "stealing" fees he won't have to pay to marketing firms to promote his film.

[in_cog_ni_to]

83. SiCKO IS NOT online with Moore's blessing! He has hired investigators

to find out who pirated the film and who initially uploaded it to the internets. This was NOT Michael Moore's "viral marketing." This was a THIEF within the production company (he thinks) and they will be arrested and charged when found.

edited to add a Michael Moore quote:

“Every filmmaker intends for his film to be seen on the big screen,” Moore said. “This wasn’t a guy taking a video camera into a theater. This was an inside job, a copy made from a high-quality master and could potentially impact the opening weekend boxoffice. Who do you think benefits from that?”

When asked about accusations that he may have leaked the film himself for publicity purposes, Moore scoffed at the notion:

“Oh no. The (Weinstein) brothers are devastated.”

[Occulus]

101. leaking the master really is in a different class entirely

Every prerelease version of any movie I've ever seen is of utterly shitty quality.

Every shitty quality copy I've ever seen has enticed me to pay to see it in a theater.

Why? Because I'm willing to pay for quality and not content. In this case, 'quality' extends to audience reaction.

Why are these ideas so hard to understand? Why is everyone so sure of the idea that people who want to or do see this in their homes prior to its release won't see it in the theater?

Why do people think that others won't pay for something if they can get it for free? Why do people think that's always true, without exception?

I ask those questions because that's what the digital download debate is all about: there are an awful lot of people, legislators among them, who believe if I can download a film free, I won't see it in the theaters.

It simply isn't true.

[nashville_brook]

125. The Ugly American -- i think most people would say that for *themselves*

they'd go for quality with regard to cultural product. when they are asked to imagine what *other people* want, they'd answer quantity and cheapness.

we imagine that everyone else is The Ugly American and arrange our society for *them* not us.

[sandnsea]

13. That's kind of ironical

Somebody asking the entire country to make a sacrifice for the benfit of the less fortunate - refusing to make the same sacrifice so people without money can watch his film.

Yeah, that wouldn't be him. I don't know about you, do you support universal health care??

[dkofos]

14. Yes we can, and with Michael's approval.

There is a video clip of Michael being asked about Sicko being downloaded off the net.
His response was "I don't mind as long as they don't try to make money from it"

I downloaded it, made copies and gave them to friends and family.

[prairierose]

16. I will see the movie in a theater....

if it comes here but this may not happen. F-911 was booked then canceled here; it did eventually show here because of a letter writing campaign. So I am not sure I will be able to see it in a theater. I wanted to see it now!

I am planning to buy at least one copy of the DVD when it comes out.

[nashville_brook]

23. can't wait to have the group experience! but...

i'd go to opening night here in orlando even if i'd downloaded. haven't done that b/c i want to see it on the big screen.

i'm really glad, though, that it's available for download because many of the people who this film was made for *can't leave the house b/c they're too sick.*

i spent 6 months bedridden b/c of crappy hospital care, wishing that i could walk myself to bathroom. when i could finally get dressed and go out, i went to see a movie -- it was a giant accomplishment (and i paid for it in the days after). i LOVE the notion that hospital patients are downloading this on wifi. i love that people with severe illness or injury can see this.

he'll make plenty of money on this -- people who download it aren't going to break his bank. aside from the theater sales, i bet this will be an historic bestseller DVD.

[Downtown Hound]

122. This movie's going to make a ton of money with or without pirating

What's really important is that as many people see it as possible. Just watch, I'm willing to bet that Sicko will beat out Fahrenheit 9-11 in box office.

[valerief]

3. Every Merkan should go to the theatre and see the movie. The visibility

of theater-goers and the box office results will have a bigger affect than downloading it.

[0007]

18. I agree!

[Beaverhausen]

26. and will allow more of this kind of filmmaking to be made and distributed

[Lisa]

74. last time one of his movies was released, the opening-weekend crowds ...

... were supposedly a factor in getting more screens to open around the country. Especially in some of the smaller towns, which otherwise would have had to wait for weeks or months.

[Beaverhausen]

85. That's a very good point. A lot of folks here are saying it isn't scheduled to play near them

and if opening weekend is good enough, maybe it can get to their towns sooner.

[Lisa]

93. "Every one sold out. This has prompted the Weinstein boys to up the release numbers"

A quote from a link posted by Bluebear. Apparently the numbers at the earlier previews were so good, more screens were opened for this weekend!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1190125

[Occulus]

102. My local theaters pushed it to July 3rd n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. For all of those who are concerned about downloading it, Michael Moore has no problem with that..

In his own words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlAB0v8wHdc

It is a brilliant film and I intend to purchase the DVD when it comes out.

[KansDem]

11. Just out of curiosity, why did you find "F9/11" disappointing? (nt)

[mudesi]

43. I don't really know...

I think F-9/11 lacked the "human element" that is characteristic in Moore's other films, especially Sicko. Roger And Me had the laid off workers, and Bowling For Columbine had the victims of gun violence, while Fahrenheit 9/11 was about what a scumbag Bush is, which is not exactly something any of us disagree with.

Not that I think it was a bad movie. I enjoyed it very much, but for some reason I felt that it didn't live up to the admittedly high expectations, and it wasn't nearly as good as Bowling For Columbine.

[Atman]

37. Why not? They're the only things you left out of your insult tirade.

:shrug:

.

[lies and propaganda]

58. DO NOT STEAL THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!

It defeats the entire purpose of seeing the numbers of people who flock to go see it.

Liberals, Progressives and Democrats that download this movie and do not support it in the theatre shame me!

It opens in days people, dont steal it!@!!!!!!!

[EmmitFitzhume]

61. I'm waiting until Friday as well

and I can't wait. Some friends of mine caught one of the advanced screenings in Washington, DC and loved it. I was told the stories in the film are extremely powerful and persuasive and no commentary is needed to reach a conclusion regarding our healthcare system.

Did anyone else see this http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=local&id=5410435">article, apparently a couple in Moore's hometown of Flint, MI are crediting him with saving their family. The Redfields submitted their healthcare horror story to the Sicko page on http://youtube.com/watch?v=izNaHVjnPJ4">YouTube and within days their $66,000 insurance bill situation was solved. Amazing.

[lies and propaganda]

63. great article! thanks for pointing that out!

Every MM movie I ever see in the theatre recieves standing ovations.. I would never want to deny myself of that and watch some less quality version of it on my pc.

and welcome to DU btw..

[Occulus]

70. You mean evil copyright-violating YouTube?

Wow. A place where rampant copyright violations take place daily ended up doing some good?

Whoda thunkit.

[Atman]

73. So you're finally admitting you're not discussing copyright law.

You're just making the case that everyone should ignore the law as long as they like the stuff they're uploading or downloading. Gotcha.

PLEASE...ignore me. I don't play that game, and I'm not starting up an ignore list just for a lightweight like you.

.

[Occulus]

107. And just what the fuck is THAT supposed to mean relative to that post?

That doesn't even make any motherfucking sense whatever. I mean, it's on the order of "please pour the onions and then douse the milk." In other words, fucking nonsense.

That post was called "sarcasm", which is apparently something you aren't able to identify. And I'm NOT putting you on ignore; I'm leaving you off it specifically to be as caustic as possible to you anywhere and everywhere you post.

:eyes:

Jesus Christ man, you don't have issues... you have entire subscriptions and backdated archives and such.

Get. Help.

Really.

[Atman]

109. I don't know what it means. You came up with the stupid YouTube remark.

And you CONTINUE to ignore the facts of the law, even in regard to YouTube. EVERY post you've made on this subject is very clear...you think that just because something is available to you for free, you should be allowed to have it for free. You've argued nothing else. No other point. It's there, someone put it there, so you should be allowed to have it. You throw YouTube non sequiturs in there, you strain yourself coming up with witty rejoinders, but you NEVER address the legality of it all. You want it, it's available, so fuck everyone else and their goddamn copyrights.

I get you, really. You don't have to to keep piling on your bullshit, we know where you're coming from. Laws are for suckers. Gotcha.

.

[Occulus]

112. Well, copyright law is a mess

I don't think you've argued against that. It's gotten worse since my childhood in the '80s, and I don't think you can argue against that, either.

But- and this is the part you're just not getting- Moore was acting, to me (and apparently a whole lot of others), as a representative of the companies involved when he made the statements he did. So, all your blathering about what the law says about it is really merely academic.

Additionally, when given the opportunity (as I quoted above) to state their reaction, one of the parties involved said they were going after the person(s) who uploaded the work. In the same article, Moore, another individual involved with the film and presumably able to speak on its creators' behalf, stated very explicitly that he would not prosecute anyone who downloaded the film.

I truly don't get why this is so hard for you to understand. The statements of everyone involved and their meanings are very clear. It is obvious most people are taking them the way I'm understanding them, and ignoring persons such as youself who would sacrifice the spirit of the law for its letter.

That's fine with me- the film is 100% sold out in prescreenings coast to coast, so that downloading you're so horrified at can easily be argued to be creating buzz for the actual release. Again, this wilts your point that prerelease downloads are somehow harming this film.

What you're ignoring is that what the law has to say about this is a moot point (only proving that the DMCA itself is ineffective and no protection against such behavior- which, itself, cannot be protected against). It's happened, it's done, and it's actually ending up being a good thing.

I know you just hate that, but it's true.

[Occulus]

69. Nobody here has said they won't be seeing it

I don't know where people are getting the idea that this is harmful in this case. It's been 100% sold out coast to coast. There will be people who will have to wait to see it because it'll be sold out when it opens.

[Atman]

75. How do those facts change THE LAW?

Your ENTIRE case has been that since lots of people want to see it, and that since it's sold out everywhere, and since Michael Moore said he's not too upset about it, that it's LEGAL and/or RIGHT. You just don't give a shit about the LAW if that law inconveniences you from getting what you want when you want it. Good for you! You should run for president.

.

[Occulus]

113. What the law says doesn't change the facts of the situation, Atman

Your yapping about what the law says amounts to "But this is the way it SHOULD be!!"

I deal in reality, Atman, and in reality, this film is being downloaded- and sold out in prescreenings- coast to coast. In reality, Atman, only the people who uploaded it in the first place are really at risk.

In reality, Atman, not too terribly many people give a flying fuck one way or the other what copyright law has to say about downloading anything at all.

But you're dealing in what the law SAYS- not in reality.

[in_cog_ni_to]

89. That changes NOTHING. The movie was pirated and uploaded to the internets...ILLEGALLY.

What is it about the word ILLEGAL you don't understand?

“Every filmmaker intends for his film to be seen on the big screen,” Moore said. “This wasn’t a guy taking a video camera into a theater. This was an inside job, a copy made from a high-quality master and could potentially impact the opening weekend boxoffice. Who do you think benefits from that?”

When asked about accusations that he may have leaked the film himself for publicity purposes, Moore scoffed at the notion:

“Oh no. The (Weinstein) brothers are devastated.”

ILLEGAL:

# prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules; "an illegal chess move"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Law (a loanword from Old Norse lag), in politics and jurisprudence, is a set of rules or norms of conduct which mandate, proscribe or permit specified relationships among people and organizations, provide methods for ensuring the impartial treatment of such people, and provide punishments for those who do not follow the established rules of conduct.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal

# The illegal or unauthorized accessing (often known as "hacking" of computers or networks carries potential civil and criminal penalties under both federal laws and the laws of most states.
www.layerblue.com/company/policies/terms/

# a Soviet citizen who after long and meticulous training takes the identity of a foreigner and goes to work in another country with a false passport and other documents (in contrast to a spy working under the Soviet of diplomatic status; diplomatic passport offers protection from arrest)
www.pbs.org/redfiles/kgb/inv/kgb_inv_voc.htm

# Doing something against the rules that is cause for disqualification.
wksc.tripod.com/glossary.html

# A code construct is illegal if it does not conform to the D language specification. This may be true even if the compiler or runtime fails to detect the error.
www.digitalmars.com/d/glossary.html

# Something is illegal when it violates a statute, regulation or other law.
www.attorneykennugent.com/library/i.html

# This includes copyrighted works, commercial audio, video, graphic, or music files and any material in violation of any local, British or country law.
oldsite.burtonhosting.com/terms.php

# Something not in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge.
www.bridgeguys.com/IGlossary/GlossI.html

# is contrary to these rules.
sportsbookmagazine.com/managearticle.asp

# Purchasing stocks significantly to control its price.

[Occulus]

114. *sigh* and here's what Moore had to say about it:

"I think the music industry's response to Napster was misguided ... and for me, it's about getting people to see the movie and that's what I want, so they will talk about it," Moore recently told Brandweek magazine. "I would never want to prosecute anybody who would download (his film)."

You must have missed it when I posted it above.

[Bridget Burke]

60. Sicko will be released generally this weekend.

I'd rather show my support by attending the movie.

[in_cog_ni_to]

78. This movie was PIRATED...probably by the RWers. PAY TO SEE THE MOVIE! Please!

It's the least we can do for Michael Moore. He has investigators trying to find out who first uploaded SiCKO to the Internet and they will be charged. PLEASE go to the theater to see the movie. When you watch it online, you're breaking the law and stealing from the man who brought this health care issue to the attention of the brain dead.

DO NOT DOWNLOAD THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@#$%$#@:grr:

[Atman]

80. kgf apparently only gets upset when I say the same thing

He hasn't responded to one single other poster who has said "don't download this." I'm the bad guy because I'm articulating my position, I guess. Go figure.

.

[Occulus]

115. How many times on this thread have I said I was going to see it in the theaters?

Jesus tapdancing Christ, Atman, you could at least not be a fucking liar about what I've said.

Alerting. Again.

[Zookeeper]

84. I want to see it in the theater and support Moore....

by taking my husband and three kids. (A pricey proposition. :P )

I might watch it a second time on-line, but the theater experience comes first.

[mmonk]

86. Glad it's phenomenal.

I'll enjoy it at the theater.

[Triana]

88. bit torrent is loaded with viruses and spyware - You couldn't PAY me to download from there...

..FURTHERMORE I will BUY my ticket and my legit DVD copy thankyouverymuch.

I'm certain the film is magnificent and I insist that Mr. Moore get PAID for his work via ticket and DVD purchases - I'd at LEAST like him to recover the money it took him to make the film - and any and all profit he can get from it as well.

Why the Hell would anyone load up their system with viruses, spyware, and other garbage to (probably illegally) download a great film and simultaneously RIP OFF the producer, the promoters, the crew and the advertisers?

no thanks...

[mudesi]

90. "Bit torrent" is a term that describes a communication protocol

There are no viruses from a "bit torrent" in the same sense that there are no viruses from "TCP/IP" or from "GNutella".

[ekelly]

92. Thanks for the explanation.

All I know is that everyone I know who downloads music and movies from the internet has destroyed their computers.
Maybe they are using peer-to-peer sites? Don't know. I just stay away from all of it.

[ekelly]

91. A friend of mine uses bittorrent,

limewire, and bunch of other things like that.

His 3 month old computer is now a barely-functioning pile of crap! I wouldn't touch it either. I plan to see the movie in the theatre and buy the DVD.

[Atman]

94. That's a good reason why not to STEAL music and movies all by itself

If the morality doesn't get you, maybe a $300 bill from a tech geek will do it for you, right?

It isn't the downloading that's bad, as your first post implies. It is ILLEGAL downloading. It reminds me of the cable piracy commercial where the guy can't get his illegal box to work on the day of the big game...who ya gonna call? Why bother? Is it really so important to "stick it to the man," or whatever these people think they're doing?

There are lots of perfectly legitimate FREE music sites which allow you to download to your hearts content, provided you're willing to try some stuff maybe you haven't heard of. I LOVE that! Who the hell cares about the stupid corporate "hits" anyway? I listen to internet radio and satellite radio, and I keep a small note pad next to my computer. When I hear something I really like, I write it down then search the LEGAL sites for downloads. If they're not there, I go to iTunes.

Case in point: the band Vietnam. Go to iTunes and the entire disk is $9.99, but go to Daytrotter.com and four of the best tracks are available for free, perfectly legal and sanctioned by the band. I dl'd the four free ones and bought the other two I liked on the album....six tunes, $1.98. That ain't gonna break me, and I'm not breaking the law.

Did these online content thieves use to steal dvds and cd from Strawberries before the internets took over? I bet they'd never think of such a thing! That's a crime! But they have no trouble doing it from the comfort of their computer chairs.

.

[Occulus]

116. I use bittorrent several times a week

and my system is virus-free.

I know this, because I scan regularly.

I frequently use Azureus, and have had no problems.

(Virus-laden copies of software tend to become unpopular sources fairly quickly; the system weeds itself out. Whomever you know is downloading some really seedy content in the first place if they getting a whole lot of viruses.)

[Atman]

118. Call a spade a spade, dude.

You're simply a thief. Although I could be wrong. I suppose you're actually PAYING for the software and music you download illegally, right? Or were going to purchase copies of all the stuff you dl'd.

:eyes:

Thanks. It took you many, many posts, but you've finally just come right out and said it...you could give a shit about the law. You'll do what you like, and don't care if it is illegal because you don't respect others' property rights. You wouldn't admit it directly, but you've finally put it all on the table for us all to see; you steal music and software and don't have any compunction against doing so.

Good for you. Sleep well.

.

[Occulus]

123. Did I say I used bittorrent to download illegal material?

"You're simply a thief."

You're making presumptions you have no business making. I said I use Azureus at least once a week. I use it to see what content they have for purchase, or for free.

"I suppose you're actually PAYING for the software and music you download illegally, right?"

The downloads I make via Azureus are perfectly legal. I go out of my way to use open source software, and I don't listen to much music- period.

"Thanks. It took you many, many posts, but you've finally just come right out and said it...you could give a shit about the law. You'll do what you like, and don't care if it is illegal because you don't respect others' property rights. You wouldn't admit it directly, but you've finally put it all on the table for us all to see; you steal music and software and don't have any compunction against doing so."

That may be what you would like for me to have said, but it's not what I said. If you download and run the Azureus program, you'll find channels- much like your local cable channels- with many different pieces of content. Most of them are free to download; some of them are for a fee, but every last one of them are sanctioned and legal.

The content includes the original Dr. Who (for a fee), Nosferatu (that's free), lots and lots of stuff from G4 and the BBC, and so forth. There are also movie trailers and several full-length feature films, including one titled "Piracy is Good?", which I think you personally would benefit from seeing.

There are also timed game demos- the full games, here, not a stripped demo version- which one pays a fee (the price of the game) to unlock. Among these are the latest Tomb Raider game, Caesar IV, and several others.

Atman, I use the Gimp and Blender. I own several thousand dollars' worth of purchased PC games. I run a fully licensed, purchased copy of XP 64bit. I know you don't like the idea that some of us who DO legitimately buy things actually see filesharing as a good thing, but could you please lay off the libelous attacks?

I didn't admit to stealing anything, period, and you bloody well know it.

[Triana]

121. Exactly. Bit torrent, limewire, etc...we rebuild systems DAILY whose owners....

..used that PROTOCOL or wtf ever you want to call it and they're LOADED with crap!

I figure it's good enough for the THIEVES...serves 'em right.

[Occulus]

124. I really feel for the people who can't fix their own PCs

I try to teach people whenever possible how to avoid the crap on their systems. Ironically, it's not people downloading stuff all the time that have the most trouble (at least, among the people I've helped)- it's people who have those crappy sidebar applications, or go to shady shopping websites "because I like them!", or people who open every email they get.

Computer literacy in terms of system security seems to be going basically untaught. There wouldn't be such a market for tech help if it were....

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

126. The problem is people downloading things willy-nilly without checking the file type.

If you download an MP3, it will only give you a virus if it's NOT actually an MP3, but rather an executable pretending it's an MP3. Malicious files usually hide their suffixes with long sequences of spaces in their names or other tricks. More, Windows usually does you the "favor" of hiding file name suffixes by default. Not good.

By the way, I use Linux, and the Linux version of BitTorrent just won't place any virus in my machine, since it's an open-source application that's open to examination by every developer in the world.

For downloading newly-released Linux ISO images, there's no better thing. Hell, Red Hat uses it as their primary distribution mechanism.

Bottom line: BitTorrent is not insecure, Windows is.

[Susang]

130. Agreed

I've used BitTorrent on my imac with no ill effects at all. :thumbsup:

[WinkyDink]

100. Going next week! But it isn't playing at any of the "big" houses; only an artsy-tartsy one.

Allentown, PA.

[nonconformist]

103. I downloaded it a week ago. It's awesome! I also downloaded F 9/11

Then I saw it in the theater. Then I took someone else, and treated them, to the theater to see it. Then I bought the DVD. Then I bought 3 more copies of the DVD and gave them as presents.

I plan to do the same with Sicko.

[Hippo_Tron]

117. I won't see it in theaters if I download it, which is why I'm waiting

Seeing F-9/11 (second day it came out) was just as much of an experience as a movie and I don't expect SICKO to be any different. The experience won't be nearly as good if I've already seen the movie.

[Decruiter]

119. I watched it on Google Video last night and loved it. His best yet.

I have no compunction against looking at a free screener, even if by Internet. I leave the legal wrangling to those involved with the law.
Meanwhile, your criticism of the film and MM's others are on point.
Ev v v v v v v v e r y o n e needs to see this film. When I go to new emotional places on film like this one creates, I am moved.
Fuck the Oscars; this is art. This is social responsibility. This is eating life. What a great film!

BTW, I saw Who Killed The Electric Car? this week also, so I am RILED UP. Get some!

[K8-EEE]

120. Why the hell would I download it?

I'm going to see it in a theater next week, that's the way movies should be seen....IMO....

[proud2BlibKansan]

127. Because I am going to pay to see it in the theater

on a big screen.

[mzmolly]

128. Ditto.

:hi:

[PBass]

131. Me too. I'm going to pay full price on opening weekend. I hope everyone else does,

too.

Opening weekend is considered the most important measure of whether a film will be a financial success or not. I want SICKO to be another box office blockbuster like F-911 was.