Moore invites public to download Fahrenheit 9/11

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-02 01:05pm

Moore's documentaries may be big box-office by the standards of documentaries, but it's not as if his box office receipts will even be a drop in the bucket of a monster like Spiderman2 is undoubtedly going to be. I'll guess right now that Spiderman2 will easily power past $400 million in the US alone.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-02 01:59pm

Augustus wrote:But hold on a second there Chief. Whats with the hositlity? I'm not claiming that F911 isn't a successful film or that he shouldn't have made it.

No, you're claiming that Moore is ripping off pimply-faced, squawky-voiced teenage ushers working in movie theatres by saying, "Go ahead and download my movie, share it with friends, because I want as many people as possible to see it." That's ridiculous, and you know it. When the MPAA was running ads about how pirating movies hurt set and production crews, they neglected to mention that those people will get paid regardless of whether or movie does well or gets pirated to death. Just like ushers in movie theatres.

In order for pirating to affect those crews, it would have to be on such a massive scale that it begins impeding their ability to get work. In other words, the only way pirating will affect crews is if, as a result, Hollywood stops making movies it would have otherwise made. Ditto goes for the poor teenagers working at the theatres.

What's next? Every time you download a copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 (which the creator has given you permission to do), puppies will start going homeless because all the people who work in movie theatres will all get fired and won't be able to keep their puppies? Won't someone please think of the puppies?

But these people work in support of his product. Take his product away and the jobs that these people depend on will be impacted.

Wrong. Believe it or not, the movie industry would not have collapsed into oblivion had Michael Moore never produced a single movie. Even the MPAA isn't stupid enough to actually argue what you're arguing.

I will grant you this. But in case you cited Moore is clearly a 'consumer' not a 'producer' so its not the same thing.

I was being facetious. You're basically arguing that the fate of the entire cinema industry rests on whether or not Fahrenheit 9/11 does well at the box office. That's patently absurd.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-07-02 02:17pm

Augustus, numerous bands have publicly stated that they don’t mind if people download their music, do you also accuse them of stealing for food out of the mouths of the clerks in record shops or does you moral outrage just extend to left wing film makers you have a hard on for?

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-07-03 03:47pm

Augustus wrote:Moore's statement just proves he cares more about getting his message out than turning a profit on the film.

As do a lot of other artists and filmmakers. They don't care about money, they care about the message. And I do think that any losses suffered by all these hundreds of thousands of working people who depend on Moore's film for their paycheck will be sufficiently offset by Spider-Man 2. And even if a bunch of people download the movie, there is still a large number willing to shell out the bucks for the theater experience.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-07-03 11:15pm

Well, golly, I ought to hate Moore too, according to Augustus' logic. You see, I work in a factory that produces pool skimmers and cleaners. Now, how Moore might affect this may seem unclear, but allow me to elaborate.

You see, when profits from the movie evaporate to pretty much nothing due to the devastating impact all those downloads will have, all the rich people involved in the movie, or perhaps involved in an indirect manner with the movie, will go out of business. Since they're out of business, they'll quickly become poor, go out on the streets, and be giving handjobs for cash. This being the case, their pools will fall into disrepair, and no one will buy skimmers, scrubbers, and other assorted cleaners for the pool. Thus, thanks to Moore saying it's okay to download his movie, I'm out of a job. Damn you, Moore, you evil hypocrite![/severe and blatantly obvious sarcasm]

-Damien

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-07-04 01:01am

Dalton wrote:As do a lot of other artists and filmmakers. They don't care about money, they care about the message. And I do think that any losses suffered by all these hundreds of thousands of working people who depend on Moore's film for their paycheck will be sufficiently offset by Spider-Man 2. And even if a bunch of people download the movie, there is still a large number willing to shell out the bucks for the theater experience.

Undoubtably you and Mike are correct. Spider-Man 2 will be such an overwelhming money maker at the box office that it will overshadow everything else this summer. For that matter Shreik 2 has just passed $400 Million at its 45 day mark.

My last question on this subject:
Is it correct that the buisness of other films has to absorbe any losses incurred by another film, because of the actions of that film's maker?

Look I know not everyone agrees with me - and I'm fine by that. I tried to construct the best original argument I could, in a frame work people could discuss.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-07-04 02:19am

Augustus wrote:My last question on this subject:
Is it correct that the buisness of other films has to absorbe any losses incurred by another film, because of the actions of that film's maker?

Technically no. If a film does poorly in the movie theater, the theater does not charge higher prices for other tickets.

On the other hand, if a theater decided to not show a particular movie they would fill up that time with another movie.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-07-04 02:47am

Augustus wrote:Is it correct that the buisness of other films has to absorbe any losses incurred by another film, because of the actions of that film's maker?

If someone downloads F9/11, that person can use the money he saved to go and watch a different movie, so the people working in the theaters don't suffer. The only people who loose are Moore, Lion's Gate, and anyone else who gets a share of F9/11's profit.

I don't know if Moore can legally give people permission to download it (I doubt he owns the distribution rights); however, it's a nice gesture on his part. It makes me far more interested to go and see it since I know that he's not interested in the money.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-07-04 02:54am

CelesKnight wrote:
Augustus wrote:Is it correct that the buisness of other films has to absorbe any losses incurred by another film, because of the actions of that film's maker?
If someone downloads F9/11, that person can use the money he saved to go and watch a different movie, so the people working in the theaters don't suffer. The only people who loose are Moore, Lion's Gate, and anyone else who gets a share of F9/11's profit.

I have doubts that someone that downloads F9/11 would use that money to go see a different movie. Why not just download the other movie too?

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-07-04 03:06am

neoolong wrote:I have doubts that someone that downloads F9/11 would use that money to go see a different movie. Why not just download the other movie too?

Because it's a violation of copyright?

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2004-07-04 03:14am

CelesKnight wrote:Because it's a violation of copyright?

I was simply being cheeky there, it wasn't meant to be a serious reply.

My point (in the message you replied to) was simply to illistrate the fact that Moore's offering this movie for free* isn't going to have a catestrophic effect on the theater business and the working people.

Again, assuming that he does have the ability to offer it for free.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-07-04 11:25am

neoolong wrote:I have doubts that someone that downloads F9/11 would use that money to go see a different movie. Why not just download the other movie too?

Because F9/11 is a highly publicised propaganda film which probably won't lose much on the computer screen and which people may not want to see badly enough to shell out money at the theater, and may not even want to watch all the way through. A different movie, however, is probably more entertainment oriented. Those are better in theaters. Try watching The Return of the King in a theater and a DivX rip at home, and tell me: are they the same quality?

Hell, why do people go to movie theaters at all instead of just waiting for the DVD to come out?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-07-05 05:09am

sketerpot wrote:
neoolong wrote:I have doubts that someone that downloads F9/11 would use that money to go see a different movie. Why not just download the other movie too?
Because F9/11 is a highly publicised propaganda film which probably won't lose much on the computer screen and which people may not want to see badly enough to shell out money at the theater, and may not even want to watch all the way through. A different movie, however, is probably more entertainment oriented. Those are better in theaters. Try watching The Return of the King in a theater and a DivX rip at home, and tell me: are they the same quality?

I just find it doubtful that someone would be in the position to have 6.50 to decide between F9/11 and another movie.

Hell, why do people go to movie theaters at all instead of just waiting for the DVD to come out?

Movie theater experience or to see it as soon as possible. However, that doesn't mean they don't buy it on DVD when it comes out.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-07-05 05:12am

CelesKnight wrote:
CelesKnight wrote:Because it's a violation of copyright?
I was simply being cheeky there, it wasn't meant to be a serious reply.

My point (in the message you replied to) was simply to illistrate the fact that Moore's offering this movie for free* isn't going to have a catestrophic effect on the theater business and the working people.

Again, assuming that he does have the ability to offer it for free.

I'm just unsure on the reason why they would be okay. I think they would, but not necessarily for your reason.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-07-05 11:15am

Augustus wrote: Moore's statement just proves he cares more about getting his message out than turning a profit on the film. Its Ironic that he draws so much emphasis on the plite of the working man, but then disregards them by saying its ok to download my movies because your not taking my money away.

what the fuck? by that logic freeware and linux would be immoral and the microsoft corporation and angelic hero of humanity because microsoft´s only intent is making money whereas freeware products and linux operating systems totally screw over little man.