Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argument?

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

A direct sequel to Wolverine or just another X-Men movie? Because the latter is automaticly assumed since Fox wants to keep the rights to make them -they have to have an X-Men movie every 5 years in order to hold onto the rights.

A sequel to Wolverine has been given the go-ahead. It's likely that Wolverine extends the X-Men rights as a whole - and as others have speculated, the branding of the film with "X-Men Origins" in the title may be to ensure that it kicks in the contractual extension of the overall X-Men film rights.

 

[Garrovick]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

This pretty much convinces me that every thing I can find, I can down load with out a twinge of guilt or a spasm of morality.

TrekBBS has convinced me. Thanks

 

[Rii]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

People like [TGTheodore]piss me off.

People who know and understand that watching a movie, watching a TV show, playing a game, listening to music or reading a book without paying for is stealing from the creators of such works and if there's no money to be made in those areas they'll stop doing it?

Nah, people who hysterically reiterate a point germane only to their overstuffed bag of straw.

 

[Othello]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

No, Maybe without the leak the film would have easily broken $100 million.

 

[Garrovick]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

No, Maybe without the leak the film would have easily broken $100 million.

I think the point is that 87 million was enough cash. The rest belongs to the people. Not Corporate America.

 

[JustKate]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

"The people"? The people have a right to see Wolverine? Huh. Must have missed that in my copies of the Constitution or the Geneva Convention.

You have got to be kidding me. The people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They have the right to be represented by an attorney if they are charged with a crime. They don't have to incriminate themselves. They don't have a right to see a movie. Any movie. It's a movie, for God's sake - it's not insulin.

 

[Captain Craig]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

People like [TGTheodore]piss me off.

People who know and understand that watching a movie, watching a TV show, playing a game, listening to music or reading a book without paying for is stealing from the creators of such works and if there's no money to be made in those areas they'll stop doing it?

Nah, people who hysterically reiterate a point germane only to their overstuffed bag of straw.

****
This is an error in quoting. I did not say that. An edit is in order.
Thank you.
****

No, Maybe without the leak the film would have easily broken $100 million.

FOX can easily make that claim, justly to IMO. Worst case scenario gotten even closer to $100m even if it didn't cross that mark.

 

[Rii]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

This is an error in quoting. I did not say that. An edit is in order.
Thank you.

Sorry about that. I blame Trekker.

 

[Arrqh]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Are you advocating piracy? What entitles you [or a pirate] to download an illegal copy of a movie for viewing? You know it takes millions of dollars to make movies funding everyone from $10/hr craft services workers to the $10m actor, right? You know that if people don't go see a movie and isntead get an illegal copy of it they're hurting those people's industries, right?

Oh yes, obviously people who are trying to correctly point out that piracy is not legally theft and that everyone who downloads something illicitly does not translate to a lost sale are advocating privacy. You sure figured that argument out.

Bottom line: Wolverine met the expectations of the studio for the opening weekend. We don't know how much the movie would have made in magical fantasy land where it didn't get leaked. We do know that even with the leak the movie made slightly more then FOX was hoping for. Make whatever determinations you want from that... but hysterics and platitudes don't help anyone make an argument.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Same shit, different day.

Do you guys EVER get tired of posting the same topic over and over and over again?

And reading the same arguments back and forth over and over and over again?

This is starting to look very similar to TNZ. A bunch of the same tired arguments over and over....but with no real hope of anyone ever changing their mind or habits.

People know what the issues are. I mean, this is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. So why have the same argument in three different threads during a one month period?

It's not like anyone is going to change.

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Oh yes, obviously people who are trying to correctly point out that piracy is not legally theft...

You're taking something without paying for it.

Something that to use "legally" one would need to PAY for it.

How is that not theft?

(And don't give me the argument that it's "not theft" because you're not taking something away from someone making it impossible for them to use it.)

Downloading or purchasing illegaly obtained copies of copyrighted material is [iillegal. It also makes one a jerk.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

I didn't think this thread was asking if piracy = theft.

 

[Arrqh]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

(And don't give me the argument that it's "not theft" because you're not taking something away from someone making it impossible for them to use it.)

So you're not interested in the actual definition of the words then?

It's very simple. Theft is when you take something from someone and deprive them of possession. When you pirate something, it is not theft. It is infringement which is a different crime. You can wave your hands around and ignore the legal definitions if you so choose, but I'll stick with the actual meaning of things, thanks. By pointing out to you the correct definitions of the words, I am not saying that I support piracy. I am being a bid pedantic, however... though still correct.

And none of this changes the fact that as I've said twice already, Wolverine met FOX's expectations for opening weekend. They do a lot of market research to try and figure these things out before hand and unless someone can present evidence that they downgraded their numbers after the leak (which is possible, but I'm not going to assume it) then this suggests that the leak did not really impact ticket sales in a significant way. Certainly, it isn't proof but it's still a more solid argument then "without the leak it would have made $100M" which is absolutely hypothetical.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Well, considering he cost of the film was 158 million dollars, and you really have to triple the budget to be considered a profitting movie and make back that budget and advertising, I'd say W:O is a failure right now.

In the end -- with domestic and DVD profit -- I think it will just barely make any profit, probably killing the Magneto film, and another sequel.

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

(And don't give me the argument that it's "not theft" because you're not taking something away from someone making it impossible for them to use it.)

So you're not interested in the actual definition of the words then?

It's very simple. Theft is when you take something from someone and deprive them of possession. When you pirate something, it is not theft. It is infringement which is a different crime. You can wave your hands around and ignore the legal definitions if you so choose, but I'll stick with the actual meaning of things, thanks. By pointing out to you the correct definitions of the words, I am not saying that I support piracy. I am being a bid pedantic, however... though still correct.

Ah. So you ARE playing a semantics game. Nice.

Besides the point, but nice.

And none of this changes the fact that as I've said twice already, Wolverine met FOX's expectations for opening weekend. They do a lot of market research to try and figure these things out before hand and unless someone can present evidence that they downgraded their numbers after the leak (which is possible, but I'm not going to assume it) then this suggests that the leak did not really impact ticket sales in a significant way. Certainly, it isn't proof but it's still a more solid argument then "without the leak it would have made $100M" which is absolutely hypothetical.

It may have met "expectations" but it cannot be denied that if peple saw the Workprint, didn't like it so they decided no to see the movie that that cost Fox money. (My pendatic moment: Unlike NBC, CBS and ABC, the Fox network's name is not an acronym, so capitalizing all of the letters in its name isn't required.)

 

[Rii]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

(And don't give me the argument that it's "not theft" because you're not taking something away from someone making it impossible for them to use it.)

You are referring, of course, to the legal definition of theft.

 

[Arrqh]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

(And don't give me the argument that it's "not theft" because you're not taking something away from someone making it impossible for them to use it.)

So you're not interested in the actual definition of the words then?

It's very simple. Theft is when you take something from someone and deprive them of possession. When you pirate something, it is not theft. It is infringement which is a different crime. You can wave your hands around and ignore the legal definitions if you so choose, but I'll stick with the actual meaning of things, thanks. By pointing out to you the correct definitions of the words, I am not saying that I support piracy. I am being a bid pedantic, however... though still correct.

Ah. So you ARE playing a semantics game. Nice.

Besides the point, but nice.

You're the one who decided to harp on the incorrect idea that copyright infringement is theft. It is not. If you want to talk about semantics, which clearly you did because you engaged in the argument in the first place, don't get annoyed when you're demonstrated to be wrong. As an aside, I never understood why people will use "semantics" as a way to brush aside an argument. Words have meanings. If you can't use the correct meaning for words, how do you expect to participate in a discussion?

And none of this changes the fact that as I've said twice already, Wolverine met FOX's expectations for opening weekend. They do a lot of market research to try and figure these things out before hand and unless someone can present evidence that they downgraded their numbers after the leak (which is possible, but I'm not going to assume it) then this suggests that the leak did not really impact ticket sales in a significant way. Certainly, it isn't proof but it's still a more solid argument then "without the leak it would have made $100M" which is absolutely hypothetical.

It may have met "expectations" but it cannot be denied that if peple saw the Workprint, didn't like it so they decided no to see the movie that that cost Fox money. (My pendatic moment: Unlike NBC, CBS and ABC, the Fox network's name is not an acronym, so capitalizing all of the letters in its name isn't required.)

What percent of people who downloaded the workprint saw it in theaters anyway? What percent of people who downloaded the workprint weren't going to see it in theaters no matter what? I don't know the answer to these. Neither do you. And neither does Fox. Is that potentially what happened? Sure. But the well paid people at Fox who's job it is to estimate box office gross don't seem to agree because their predictions lined up very closely with the actual gross.

Nice shot about Fox's name. Yeah, the name of a studio is totally on the same level as the legal definition of a crime.

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

So you're not interested in the actual definition of the words then?

It's very simple. Theft is when you take something from someone and deprive them of possession. When you pirate something, it is not theft. It is infringement which is a different crime. You can wave your hands around and ignore the legal definitions if you so choose, but I'll stick with the actual meaning of things, thanks. By pointing out to you the correct definitions of the words, I am not saying that I support piracy. I am being a bid pedantic, however... though still correct.

Ah. So you ARE playing a semantics game. Nice.

Besides the point, but nice.

You're the one who decided to harp on the incorrect idea that copyright infringement is theft. It is not. If you want to talk about semantics, which clearly you did because you engaged in the argument in the first place, don't get annoyed when you're demonstrated to be wrong. As an aside, I never understood why people will use "semantics" as a way to brush aside an argument. Words have meanings. If you can't use the correct meaning for words, how do you expect to participate in a discussion?

All meaningless.

Obtaining a copy of copyrighted material without paying for it is illegal.

Call it whatever you want, anecdotally and slang-idly it's called stealing.

 

[Rii]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

All meaningless.

Obtaining a copy of copyrighted material without paying for it is illegal.

Excellent. As murder and rape are also illegal, one could reasonably describe those who engage in copyright infringement as murderers or rapists. This is fun!

Call it whatever you want, anecdotally and slang-idly it's called stealing.

Anecdotally it's called "piracy", the term exists in this context specifically because theft doesn't encompass it, even colloquially.

 

[Captain Craig]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Well, considering he cost of the film was 158 million dollars, and you really have to triple the budget to be considered a profitting movie and make back that budget and advertising, I'd say W:O is a failure right now.

In the end -- with domestic and DVD profit -- I think it will just barely make any profit, probably killing the Magneto film, and another sequel.

That triple figure is so wrong. If it were right then very few movies would have sequels. There wouldn't be a Resident Evil trilogy, an Underworld trilogy and we could go on ad nauseum I've no doubt. How that BS of a figure gained hold is beyond me. I'm on a few box office sites and that is so laughed at when people bring it up.

Also, you've missed the news apparently but a direct W:O sequel has already been given the 'go'. Magneto is unknown although knowing FOX I wouldn't be surprised if they go with the latest hot items Deadpool and Gambit instead of Magneto.