MovieChat Forums > MikeHunt12345
MikeHunt12345 (792)
Posts
Making Greedo shoot first was ridiculous, but I don't see how it changed Han's character.
Which animated character's voice has changed the most?
I was hoping this would be a simple movie about a man getting revenge on realistic, typical everyday scammers.
Is Goldeneye a reboot?
Can bad memories associated with a form of entertainment ruin it?
Margot has gotta be by far the world's worst escort
If you're one of the many people who hates Karl Rock for helping catch YIFY, can you logically explain why?
Regardless of whether or not casting her as Juliet was the right decision, there's one thing that's very hard to deny:
Am I the only one who would've voted not guilty?
It's ridiculous how everyone suddenly started hating this movie just because the sequels were bad
View all posts >
Replies
OK you seem to be much more of an expert on this than me, you may be right. Although I'd argue it is very different from taping a movie off TV and giving it to a library. You have to actually go to the library to get it, and while you have it nobody else can access it, and then you have to go return it. When you upload a movie to a torrent site, anyone with a computer with internet can very quickly and easily download it and keep it forever.
I'm still not convinced it's ethical. Maybe the food analogy is a bad one, a better one is I don't see how it's any different from sneaking into a concert without paying, assuming there are lots of empty seats. Nobody would think that's OK, I think it's just a cultural thing, just like how people think it's OK to eat pigs but not dogs, even though pigs are smarter.
I don't see how the fact that it's only "speculative damages" makes it OK. There's no irrefutable proof that people who pirate films would've paid for it if they couldn't pirate it, but I think we can make an educated guess that some of them would.
Lots of things are overpriced, yet movies are the only one people think it's OK to access illegally. Why are people entitled to cultural assets? They have absolutely no impact on your survival. I can't imagine life without movies, but that's just the way the world works, there are things people want but can't afford. I'd love to live in a big house, but if I squatted in a billionaire's house while they were on vacation, nobody would think that's OK. You could argue a big house is slightly more important for survival. Better security, more room to exercise, etc.
Regarding that information, I'm not sure if it's true, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is. I still don't see how that makes it OK. Pirates aren't a hive mind, maybe it's not very common, but I'm sure there are some billionaires who always pirate movies and never pay for them simply because they're cheap, and would've paid for them if piracy wasn't available.
Lots of things are overpriced, yet movies are the only one people think it's OK to steal. Movies are not essential for survival, nobody is entitled to them.
There isn't "one less" of the movie you pirate, but the overall result for the company is similar. McDonald's buys food, someone takes it without paying, McDonald's loses money. A studio spends money on a movie, someone watches it for free instead of paying, the studio loses money.
But if you won't accept that analogy, here's another: It's no different from sneaking into a concert without paying, assuming there are lots of empty seats. Yet nobody would think that is OK.
Interesting reply, I haven't seen the original, I didn't know that. We don't know much about the rape case, and obviously being promiscuous doesn't mean you deserve to be raped, but the victim's sexual history can sometimes be relevant. For example, if Cady tied her up, and the report on her sexual history said she enjoyed being tied up, Sam could've used that to argue that it was consensual sex.
Him trying to drown him in a well should be enough to not want him to raise him.
OK, you're right about those ones.
I think it probably would be, but I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.
But he wasn't trespassing, he was outdoors on public property.
It doesn't matter what his intentions were, his actions would've been legally justified even if he didn't have a license to kill.
If he shot her non-fatally, and she called it off, Renard may have been able to tell she was in pain from her voice, and it could've made him suspicious.
The radio was in front of her face. If he shot it, he still would've killed her. And he would've been taught to always aim for the center mass. It doesn't matter how close the target is, and how good of a shot he is, there's still a higher chance he'll miss, it's not worth the risk.
View all replies >