High Definition & Blue Ray Technologies are a scam. Don't be fooled.

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


sheesh, if you learn anything from this thread, it should be that tangible media is a scam. The best way to fight such a scam is to just download all the HD movies and TV shows for free. Don't support these archaic overpriced mediums.

Has no one learned from VHS and DVD yet??? How many tons of plastic garbage do you need to accumulate before someone realizes there is a problem!?




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
sorry scientist..i just don't do that man. I've never downloaded a movie before or a video from the internet and I never will. I've been offered pirated versions and it pisses me off that companies let that happen. I have a coworker that's too cheap and too lazy to go to the movies and he only buys burned dvd movies. I should really report his butt to the fbi. I only buy original prints and films. sorry, but i have morals and integrity.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
I have a coworker that's too cheap and too lazy to go to the movies and he only buys burned dvd movies. I should really report his butt to the fbi. I only buy original prints and films. sorry, but i have morals and integrity.


whatever helps you sleep at night. The fact you mentioned reporting a coworker to the FBI puts a whole new light on your character.


I'm speechless, but not too shocked. What do you think is worse off - the movie studio after a teenager or twenty-something downloading the new "American Pie: Beta House" movie, or that same person being sent to federal prison for a few years?



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

I'm speechless, but not too shocked. What do you think is worse off - the movie studio after a teenager or twenty-something downloading the new "American Pie: Beta House" movie, or that same person being sent to federal prison for a few years?




Watching movies for FREE is illegal. and it has always been. on DVD, HD, VHS or any other format. I make student films and I wouldn't want a guy watching my movie for free. films are not meant to be seen for free. it takes work to make them and no one should download them from anywhere. I have reported people for selling bootleg movies at the comic cons, and yes, it shows that I stand up for art and the director. people who want movies for free are scum. And my co-worker offering me to sell me a 4 dollar bootleg is scum as well. it's stealing. do you know what i'm trying to say now? and these websites that show movies should be fined and send to federal prision, no matter how old they are. too many people are getting away with watching free media on the internet and it should be corrected and controlled. and maybe, maybe blue ray will get to the point that it will get cheaper and people wont have to break the law.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
Watching movies for FREE is illegal. and it has always been.

Sorry but that is NOT true.
Using that logic it would be against the law for me to watch a movie at my friends house because I did not purchase it. And its also not illegal (or it should not be illegal) for a person who bought a movie to make a back-up copy because disks don't last forever.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


It seems you only care about the money, its people like you in the industry that drive people to download films, not because they are too cheap to buy it but because they refuse to support the media companies.

Maybe you should take a leaf out of the independent director for "The man from earth" who noticed his film go from nowhere into the top 20 on the imdb thanks to people downloading his film.

These people would never have seen it had they not downloaded it, they then went and bought the film and he thanked them for watching it and supporting him.

Now theyd never have done that if he had your attitude.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


jedi, it's obvious what your opinion is, but I would like to shed some light on an alternative perspective. First of all, you mention you are making student (aka amateur films). So basically, people watching YOUR movies for free would be a good things, since it means exposure. Unless you plan on living off profits from your first student films, which I would not suggest.

Now, let's step outside such a small microcosm that is your own personal opinion, and focus on a more practical and real-world example.

This is from a popular release log site (a site that tells you when movies / etc. have been posted to the internet, although this site is just a news site, it doesn't give download links or anything like that).

A short rundown: eric wilkinson is a producer of a independent movie (with an amazing cast of actors) that realized his movie had been released online and downloaded thousands and thousands of times within the first day it was leaked. He contacted the site owner, and this is what he said:

www.rlslog.net...



To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Eric D. Wilkinson and I am the producer of a small independent film called “Jerome Bixby’s The Man From Earth” (our review).

I am sending you this email after realizing that our website has had nearly 23,000 hits in the last 12 days, much of it coming from your website. In addition, our trailer, both on the www.manfromearth.com site and other sites like YouTube, MySpace and AOL has been watched nearly 20,000 times AND what’s most impressive is our ranking on IMDb went from being the 11,235th most popular movie, to the 5th most popular movie in 2 weeks (we are also the #1 independent film on IMDb & the #1 science fiction film on IMDb). How did this all happen? Two words: Torrent / File Sharing sites (well, four words and a slash).

More specifically, RLSLOG.net. Our independent movie had next to no advertising budget and very little going for it until somebody ripped one of the DVD screeners and put the movie online for all to download. After that happened, people were watching it and started posting mostly all positive reviews on IMDb, Amazon and other places. Most of the feedback from everyone who has downloaded “The Man From Earth” has been overwhelmingly positive. People like our movie and are talking about it, all thanks to piracy on the net!

Am I upset… surprisingly no. Thanks to everyone who has downloaded this torrrent and watched the film, our awareness level is through the roof. For that I say, “THANK YOU”!

What you guys have done here is nothing short of amazing. In the future, I will not complain about file sharing. YOU HAVE HELPED PUT THIS LITTLE MOVIE ON THE MAP!!!! When I make my next picture, I just may upload the movie on the net myself!



So please, instead of looking at this from your own small "student film" perspective, try seeing how your approach is really hurting the "art" of film you seem to care for so much, as opposed to helping.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
reply to post by jedimiller
 


Maybe you should take a leaf out of the independent director for "The man from earth" who noticed his film go from nowhere into the top 20 on the imdb thanks to people downloading his film.

These people would never have seen it had they not downloaded it, they then went and bought the film and he thanked them for watching it and supporting him.

Now theyd never have done that if he had your attitude.




hah, wow. great minds think alike. I didnt notice you mentioned that same movie until after I just posted a link to the original site where the producer commends people for bootlegging his own movie!


Originally posted by jedimiller
maybe blue ray will get to the point that it will get cheaper and people wont have to break the law.


ironically, it wouldnt make a difference. just the fact that it's on some proprietary plastic medium is enough for me to not want it, even for free. I'd rather pay money for a digital file, than a plastic disc.

For example, I have a collection of 500+ CDs. I could legally rip each one to MP3, and scan the cover art, and then go through and name all the tracks properly. It takes about 15 minutes per album to do all that. Guess what, in this case, I AM lazy. Instead of spending an entire month converting my music to mp3s, I just download pirated copies of those same albums I already own. Why? Because it's faster, easier, more convenient and I can get 500+ albums overnight, as opposed to sitting in front of a computer for 30 days straight.

same with DVDs. It takes about 1hr-2hrs to rip and convert a DVD to divx so that I can store it for safe keeping. Well, it only takes 20 minutes to download the movie from the internet. Guess which route I'll take?

I love it when people try to speak out against piracy and bootlegging. Feel free until you are blue in the face, it's not going anywhere.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by scientist]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
What cracks me up about bootlegging is that the owners of the original files equate number of downloads into lost revenue. Just because I am downloading it for FREE does not mean that I would have ever paid $18 dollars for it.

I am not condoning bootlegging, just saying that when I download a music album for free, does not mean that I would have paid $12 or $13 for one good song.

Perhaps if the movie and music industry wasn't so damn greedy and lower the prices of their products, more people like me would buy them.

Oh, and to stay on topic, to the OP: I guess you have never watched an HD football game, because there is most certainly a difference.

Edit to add to the OP: I guess you were talking about HD DVD's vs. Blue Ray DVD's, sorry. I still think there is a difference. What is the extra 11GB of data for then?

[edit on 12-26-2007 by nyarlathotep]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I actually made a short (5 minute) documentary on this exact topic of piracy, but my real name is in the credits, so I won't post it, in case Jedi is feeling extra-authoritarian one day and reports my name to the FBI.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
sorry scientist..i just don't do that man. I've never downloaded a movie before or a video from the internet and I never will. I've been offered pirated versions and it pisses me off that companies let that happen. I have a coworker that's too cheap and too lazy to go to the movies and he only buys burned dvd movies. I should really report his butt to the fbi. I only buy original prints and films. sorry, but i have morals and integrity.


Lets take a look at the video download from another (yes legal) perspective.

Steve Jobs predicts, as well as I do (hehe), that the future of rental/purchase will be over fast broadband connections.

iTunes music store already sells and probably will soon rent movies. (Pirates of Caribbean, etc.)

So in a sense, the topic of HD-dvd & blue ray is a moot point. Both will loose to on-line distribution. And according to Wired,even BitTorrent has a promising {legal} future starting next year.

HOWEVER, we will still need STORAGE medium.
All of those downloads (legal), have to go somewhere...I guess it can go to harddrives (not really best for long term storage), or DLT (not even known to most people), or high capacity Disk...like Blue Ray, as an example.

So we will need storage, though the industry will try to encourage us to 'rent' everything so the end user will not wind up with a nice big catalogue...and they can rehash and make you repay for the same content time and again. (this is another issue, but this is what we are looking at.)

Kind of like with T-Mobiles Home option here in Hungary.
They say, "ever missed recording your favorite movie or t.v. show on dvd? then get t-home and it will go straight to your t-mobile 50GB harddrive."

What they dont tell you, is unlike recording your show to dvd or VHS, your t-mobile harddrive will not let you transfer the files for keeping, they will get erased if you want to go beyond that limit. Cancel your contract and the box goes.

Point is, storage is an issue, but for the consumers it may not be either. It will all be broadband and seemless, and your internet bill will be your phone bill, your t.v/cable bill, and your way to communicate at work.

New age is developing, and this seems to be where it is headed.

Peace

dAlen


p.s. - as for legal free downloads...here: Atom Films. Get some exposure and put your stuff here.


[edit on 26-12-2007 by dAlen]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
sorry scientist..i just don't do that man. I've never downloaded a movie before or a video from the internet and I never will. I've been offered pirated versions and it pisses me off that companies let that happen. I have a coworker that's too cheap and too lazy to go to the movies and he only buys burned dvd movies. I should really report his butt to the fbi. I only buy original prints and films. sorry, but i have morals and integrity.


What really is piracy?

Its a state of mind for the most part. But first, lets be practical.

There are people who take material for free and then sell it to others.
And of course the people involved in the creation and distribution do not get a dime.

Now I suppose you could say this is the truest case of piracy.
At least in terms of the industry loosing monetary rewards for their 'efforts'.

On the other hand, you have the industry, who wants more and more and more...(the original creators get next to nothing, check out the writer strike going on in hollywood.)
So in a way, the record industry, etc. are pirates.

The industry seems to equate the fact that people listen and watch something (for free) to lost revenue.
Their brains have not yet developed beyond the limited 2 dimensional thinking.
As one user stated, there is some material that people will only listen/watch for free.
In this case the industry shuts down and says, "no soup for you!"

The attitude they have is lost potential. They view the consumer as the enemy, and what they focus on is what they create. It could well be that through word of mouth someone else hears of it and makes a purchase. Or the person purchases it later, etc.

Instead of focusing on customer experience, they focus on the thing they dont want ('piracy') and they get just that. (universal law people, it just works.)


Another thing: In certain countries its not illegal to download. Infact in the states it used to not be illegal. In the minds eye of the industry everything is illegal until proven legal.
(One day they will pay for each breath you take and each second of the song or movie you watch...or put adds there.) So this shows it is a state of mind. The industry says its illegal, and it only is so once the masses adopt their definition of what legal is. Still doesnt pay the artist or writers...

Which brings me to another point - ads.
The ads they cram down peoples throat.

In truth, I am more likely to buy and click on an add if you dont put it in my face.
No matter how pro and nicely laid out your site is...the moment you put the annoying boxes in my face, you've lost me. (A.T.S. annoying flashing adds in Hungarian at the top of my page and inbetween post are getting to me...annoying that is. I dont even speak the language but the advertisers are sure it will work.)

Thats the point. They are pushers...fearful of not making money...fearful of not surviving, and doing everything they can in order to stay afloat.

Stuff with well placed ads, which are relevant work.
Maybe the world is made up of hypnotized sheep who love to click on irrelevant flashing adds, and Im unique in my view - I doubt it.

The first company to go large scale to not push DRM, and ads in a sloppy and forceful manner, will revolutionize the planet - and these dinos that are beating around for their last breath will finally kick the bucket. (Good riddance)


Peace

dAlen








[edit on 26-12-2007 by dAlen]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen
As one user stated, there is some material that people will only listen/watch for free.


I honestly think that we are already in a new era where the quality and pervasiveness of digital tools available to masses means that most anybody can afford to be creative and get exposure. For some years, I've been listening to music in the "electronica" genre which was posted by authors on the net so that people can download for free. I don't think I've lost anything by not trying to find a comparable product, at a cost, in a store. So I agree



The first company to go large scale to not push DRM, and ads in a sloppy and forceful manner, will revolutionize the planet - and these dinos that are beating around for their last breath will finally kick the bucket. (Good riddance)


Yup. The music industry went into a phase where they really don't develop talent anymore and are banking on single hits from an artist, in the hope that people will by entire CD's at the already inflated prices. In reality, we don't need record companies anymore (we did need those 30 years ago).

I'm looking at the prices of HD/Blueray disks and they are in the $28 range. That in itself is outrageous. The content may cost a little more to produce, in these formats, but not to justify 30 to 50% increase in price! The cost of CPU and storage is in a free fall, and this must translate into affordability of the new media, and it doesn't, becase the media companies are too greedy for their own good. I for one do not upgrade to HD/Blueray because the material is just so damn expensive. And that, indeed, is SCAM as per the title of the thread.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
reply to post by jedimiller
 


sheesh, if you learn anything from this thread, it should be that tangible media is a scam. The best way to fight such a scam is to just download all the HD movies and TV shows for free. Don't support these archaic overpriced mediums.

I half agree and half disagree with that.

I’m not satisfied with the quality of most downloads. I want the best quality I can get, and the only way to guarantee that is to make the copy myself, from the original tangible medium. Also, I want to support the artist, and I am not doing that when I download. Not to mention, it could be argued that downloading a recording which I haven’t bought is a violation of the producers’ copyrights.

But at the same time, I want to backup recordings which I buy, because I don’t want to have to buy a new copy because the one I’m listening to gets damaged. And in my country I’m legally entitled make such backups.



Has no one learned from VHS and DVD yet??? How many tons of plastic garbage do you need to accumulate before someone realizes there is a problem!?

I don’t think it’s such a big problem. A lot of movies, you only want to buy once. It’s only the ones you really like that you want to see again in a better format. The ones you don’t like so much, you can watch in their old format on your new equipment. I mean seriously, you can still buy VCRs.



Originally posted by jedimiller
sorry scientist..i just don't do that man. I've never downloaded a movie before or a video from the internet and I never will. I've been offered pirated versions and it pisses me off that companies let that happen. I have a coworker that's too cheap and too lazy to go to the movies and he only buys burned dvd movies. I should really report his butt to the fbi. I only buy original prints and films. sorry, but i have morals and integrity.

Well, morals at least.




Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by jedimiller
I have a coworker that's too cheap and too lazy to go to the movies and he only buys burned dvd movies. I should really report his butt to the fbi. I only buy original prints and films. sorry, but i have morals and integrity.


whatever helps you sleep at night. The fact you mentioned reporting a coworker to the FBI puts a whole new light on your character.


I'm speechless, but not too shocked. What do you think is worse off - the movie studio after a teenager or twenty-something downloading the new "American Pie: Beta House" movie, or that same person being sent to federal prison for a few years?

Well, if they’re shamelessly pirating movies, then either one is fine.


reply to post by jedimiller
 





Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by jedimiller
Watching movies for FREE is illegal. and it has always been.

Sorry but that is NOT true.
Using that logic it would be against the law for me to watch a movie at my friends house because I did not purchase it. And its also not illegal (or it should not be illegal) for a person who bought a movie to make a back-up copy because disks don't last forever.

But that’s obviously not what he meant.

What he meant is that bootleggers should be punished. And they should be.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
reply to post by jedimiller
 


It seems you only care about the money, its people like you in the industry that drive people to download films, not because they are too cheap to buy it but because they refuse to support the media companies.

Maybe you should take a leaf out of the independent director for "The man from earth" who noticed his film go from nowhere into the top 20 on the imdb thanks to people downloading his film.

These people would never have seen it had they not downloaded it, they then went and bought the film and he thanked them for watching it and supporting him.

Now theyd never have done that if he had your attitude.

What do you do for a living?

Would you appreciate not being paid for it?

I rest my case.



Originally posted by nyarlathotep
What cracks me up about bootlegging is that the owners of the original files equate number of downloads into lost revenue. Just because I am downloading it for FREE does not mean that I would have ever paid $18 dollars for it.

I am not condoning bootlegging, just saying that when I download a music album for free, does not mean that I would have paid $12 or $13 for one good song.

If you don’t think the CD’s worth paying for, then don’t listen to it.

If you only like one song, then buy it off of iTunes or Napster.

I’ll say the same to you as I’m saying to Flyer: What do you do for a living? Shall I come to your workplace and demand your product or service for free?



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
My two cents without having read the entire contents of this rediculous thread.

First of all film and digital are two entirely differant formats. To state that converting a film into a digital image takes away from the originality of the quality of the original film image is absolute hogwash. What is happening here is how the human brain sees the final image. THe industry is converting to HD because it is a better media for the industry and in all respects is superior to film. Digital is only in it's infancy as film was at one point in time compare the first 20 years of film to today, Imagine the resolution that will be available to us in another 100 years, the factor that makes a differance is storage space as larger capacity, smaller, and faster storage methods evolve so will the resolution produced by digital imaging devices.

- In terms of pixels film is approx. equaled to a digital capture of 1500 DPI. As is true with a film print printed using an enlarger as compared to a high end digital photographic printer that prints at 300 DPI (not inkjet).
- If film represents only 1500 DPI but drum scanners can scan at least twice that amount isn't it fair to say that digital can reproduce a much greater amount of detail that exists in film. Digital scanners are so good you can actually do such an incredible scan that you can see the silver structure in the scan, not to mention the film grain.
-Now lets examine another aspect of resolution, and that is visual perception. I'm sure a lot of people on here have had this experiance. A friend emails you a picture the picture looks good on your computer screen but you want to print it out and put it into a frame on your desk. Oh no what happened the print looks terrible? If you hold up the print to the screen it looks much better on the screen than it does on the paper even though you are looking at the same image. THe reason for this is the "resolution" of the image on your screen is a mere 72 DPI which is perfectly acceptable for viewing purposes however at 72 DPI the amount of pixels present is not enough to produce enough detail on your paper. Now if my friend had sent me the original higher resolution file straight from his camera as an attachment I would have many more pixels available to me for printing.
- In the printing industry the technology is available to print at a much higher resolution than 300 DPI. and in some cases it is done. However, for 99.9% of people in the world the differance between an image printed in 300 DPI vs. 500 DPI is almost non existent without the use of a magnifying device. So why would you waste your time and money printing in 500 DPI when you can print in 300DPI faster and chaper and for all purposes involved is perfectly fine. Printing in higher resolutions takes more time, and a lot more storage space not to mention processing time.
- HD is nothing more than putting more pixels on your computer screen. It is a result of the ability to capture and store larger amounts of pixel data. What differance does it make whether it whether it was originally shot in digital or converted using a scanning process? The output perception is all that matters.

- Blue ray refers to the color of the laser that burs disks. Blue lasers have a shorter wavelength and can thus store mare data than their counterpart. Once again It's the Storage that plays a key part in all of this. Previously storage was expensive but now storage is dirt cheap. The more storage available the greater the resolution of images we can save.

- Movies are exactly that MOVE IES they move and require many more frames than a picture intended to be printed. A Movie runs at approx 32 frames per second a picture needs only 1 frame thus a movie will require 32 times more space than a picture.

- Another point... it is possible to shoot and view movies at a higher rate of speed than 32 frames per second but whats the point your mind can only percieve approx 32 frames per second, more than that would be overkill except in specialized purposes.

- To be a purist is fine but if you are into making movies your best bet is to shoot in digital. It is cheaper, Creates greater artistic freedom, encourages competitiveness, etc, etc.

- Since this is ATS why does the Gov. want to switch to all digital tech? The answer is simple it's easier to manipulate it and easier to store and search the data.

I've rambled a bit and I know those not in the industry have a hard time understanding how pixels work and I have barely scratched the surface but will provide more explanation if someone asks a specific question.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Since this thread has evolved into copyright issues think about this......

In the photographic industry the clients have demanded copyright released images so that they may use the content as they wish without having to pay high royalty costs or exclusive reproduction charges. All in all the industry has gained from this because photographers can now easily sell the photographic rights to the images. A company hires a photographer for some product shots and wants fully reproducable files. Photographer hence builds that into his price. As a result The photographer generally will make more money up front, Does not have the hassles of reprints and the company is happy and will no doubt rehire this individual for more shoots thus producing more income for the photographer. Keep in mind that there are other scenerios that a photographer should be paid per image and retain his/her copyright.

My only point here is that people in general will always try and copy music and video. Whether it's a tape recorded off the radio or an MP3 received through a peer to peer network artistic material will always be copied it's impossible to keep it from being done. The industry should realize this and make adjustments to their business model instead of trying to desperatley hang onto their old ways of doing business. Times change so should the music and film industry.

One day production companies will do away with human actors and replace them digitally. Hmmmm How much would you say a digital likeness of Tom Cruise would be worth?



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MurderSmurf

What do you do for a living?

Would you appreciate not being paid for it?

I rest my case.


You might rest your case because you dont have one.

Suing customers, putting horrible protection on media that only affects legitimate customers will do nothing to encourage people to buy more.

Copying doesnt negatively affect sales in the slightest, people wouldnt have bought the film in the 1st place and it might have a positive effect as weve seen in the film mentioned earlier.

Artists only see a minuscule amount if anything from CD sales. Film companies cant be that hard off if they are paying actors $20m for a single film.

Its not like no one is getting paid because someone downloads a cd or dvd. Thats just the propaganda the MPAA and RIAA like to throw out.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
This thread is extremely passionate at times and I have learned a lot from it. I am not really a connoisseur of HD-tech, but one comment caught my attention.

TheExaminer wrote:

".. I watched the latest Batman movie in HD. I was not impressed. Reason being was that I was expecting the film effect that you get when you shoot in 24FPS and I got what looks like straight video shot at 29.97..."


I do apologize if I misunderstand you and appear condescending, but to see 24fps you need a player and display that can handle 24fps, and then you have to specifically set the equipment to show 24fps. It's 'there' so to speak on the HD-DVD's if you have the equipment to show it. I have the Batman movies in HD-DVD and they all play in true 24fps on my equipment and look and 'feel' stunning in this mode, goodbye eye-strain!. I use a Toshiba HD-EP10 1080p player with a Samsung LE52F96.

Oh, I don't feel I'm paying for any 'scam' of sorts, the HD movies are astounding compared to DVD. Might not be 'film' but 'astounding' is good enough for me.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by MurderSmurf

What do you do for a living?

Would you appreciate not being paid for it?

I rest my case.


You might rest your case because you dont have one.

Suing customers, putting horrible protection on media that only affects legitimate customers will do nothing to encourage people to buy more.

Copying doesnt negatively affect sales in the slightest, people wouldnt have bought the film in the 1st place and it might have a positive effect as weve seen in the film mentioned earlier.

Artists only see a minuscule amount if anything from CD sales. Film companies cant be that hard off if they are paying actors $20m for a single film.

Its not like no one is getting paid because someone downloads a cd or dvd. Thats just the propaganda the MPAA and RIAA like to throw out.

You’re avoiding the questions.

What do you do for a living?

Would you appreciate not being paid for it?


The situation musicians and actors are in, and the fact that many people download, do not make it right.





top topics
 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join