Just seems hypocritical to go after that Fox guy for reviewing the workprint, and then not only watching said illegal workprint but then "reviewing" the press screening by comparing it to the workprint instead of on its own merits.
Surprise! FOX lied about "Wolverine" (Spoilers?)
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Just seems hypocritical to go after that Fox guy for reviewing the workprint, and then not only watching said illegal workprint but then "reviewing" the press screening by comparing it to the workprint instead of on its own merits.
I have to admit I saw it, but only because it was there, and only because someone at work had seen it too. I guess it IS all over the place. I wonder how well it'll do at the box office?
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
QFT
BlackestPanther
Lieutenant Commander
So how confident are we that the person in question is telling the truth? I personally have no interest in seeing this movie, but if Fox has been blatantly lying about this, I want to know.
I like how Fox is suddenly the bad guy for "lying" in an attempt to do damage control after some asswipe fucked them over.
Anyone who saw the movie illegally (and, yes, this includes me) deserves to have to go to the theater, pay for a ticket, and then find out the hard way that there's nothing new there. Serves them (and me) right.
Anyone who didn't see it illegally shouldn't give a fuck if there is new footage or not, or care one shit about anything Fox said about it.
The entitlement that exists in this generation with respect to illegal downloading and pirating makes me sick.
I mean, really, what are we trying to protect here? The "rights" of the fans who watched the movie illegally not to be "tricked" into having to physically go to the movie and pay for it, like they should have done in the first place?
Really?
If that's someone's position, then that person is an ass.
Rii
Rear Admiral
Yeah, it's the moral degradation of society since the 50s that's to blame for the rise in piracy. Internet schminternet.
Rii
Rear Admiral
So you agree that copyright infringement would've been just as widespread amongst prior generations if they'd had the technological means available today?
It would have been no more or less illegal if it had been more or less widespread at any given time.
Copyright infringement is rampant bacause: a) it's so damn easy to do, and b) the laws are so damned hard to enforce.
Nevertheless, it's still against the law, and rightly so.
If people want to delude themselves that it's no big deal because "everyone else is doing it,' that's their psychosis.
I'm sure the people stealing shit during the L.A. riots felt the same way.
The ease of breaking the law, or the generation in which that ease peaks, has no impact on how right or wrong the actions are.
Rii
Rear Admiral
Exactly. It has nothing to do with today's generation having a greater sense of entitlement to the intellectual property of others than prior generations, today's generation is merely able to infringe upon those rights with greater ease and on a larger scale than prior generations.
Of course.
This conflicts with nothing that I said above.
I just pointed out this generation's comfort with breaking the law.
I didn't delve into how this generation of humanity is any more or less fucked up than the other generations. Which it's not, of course. We're just as fucked up and/or wonderful as we have always been, and always will be.
Rii
Rear Admiral
So do you want to make out?
No, that's not true. The ease with which intellectual property rights can be violated with impunity has fostered a greater sense of entitlement. The easier it is to steal, and the less obvious the impact of stealing on the person being stolen from, the less theft seems like theft.
To argue otherwise is to argue that surveillance and punishment are the only things preventing universal criminality: that everyone would break the law, all the time, if they could do so with no chance of being caught and punished.
That's plainly not true. Most people obey the law simply because they've been taught to obey the law. To choose the most obvious example: most people will continue to obey traffic laws, even when there's no other car in sight, let alone a police officer.
If people feel entitled to steal, and to seek rents from others, it can only be for two reasons. Either they were not properly socialized in the first place, or they have gone through a form of counter-conditioning.
That counter-conditioning is provided by the very act of illegal downloading. Every time you do it, you condition yourself to see it as a normal and acceptable activity--until finally, you're inventing elaborate rationalizations for your own criminality, like the one you posted above. "Not only is everybody doing it--everybody else would have done it too, throughout history, if they'd just had the technology!"
The fact is, everybody else throughout history was generally poor, lived under an undemocratic, authoritarian state, and was denied basic economic, political, and religious liberties that we take for granted in the modern West. Under such a regime, when the law itself was unjust, violating the law was a justifiable act of resistance.
In eighteenth-century France, books had to be smuggled across the border from Switzerland, like drugs, and the regime classed Enlightenment philosophy in the same legal category as pornography and libel. People brave enough to actually break the law and read the works of the philosophes bought pirated editions because, in many cases, they were the only editions available.
The people breaking intellectual-property law in the modern West aren't heroic resisters. Their rights aren't being violated, and they're not fighting the power. They're the spoiled children of wealth and privilege--the modern global equivalent of the pre-Revolutionary French aristocracy. And like aristocrats throughout history, their sense of entitlement to the fruits of other people's labours knows no bounds. There's the real historical parallel you should have drawn.
I wonder if that would work out in this day and age. I mean what would keep people from pirating those endings? At the very least, everyone would know what those endings contained without having to see it. With Clue there wasn't a well-established internet to disperse this information so easily.
People are saying the workprint is misleading, yadda yadda. How is that misleading? The graphics are supposed to enhance the movie, not carry it. The story itself is majorly flawed and even if you are not a fan of Wolverine you are going to hate it. I am sure it's going to make a lot of money, but then again Spider-man 3 did that too.
