Badmovies.org Forum

Do you prefer ACTA or free internet? I am doing university research about best alternatives to allow downloading of movies without ACTA and punishments. Please help and answer these a few multiple choice questions at goo.gl/2cXRp

I think you'll find that most folks around here prefer to buy/collect their movies, not download them...

I took the survey but since I've never downloaded a movie in my life (legally or illegally) a lot of the questions didn't really apply to my personal habits. So I don't know how much help I was.

I don't think the survey itself is bad but I'm not crazy about your announced bias in the opening statement: "This questionnaire is meant to give better ideas to movie producers instead of SOPA, PIPA and ACTA." I'm not sure it poisons the survey, but it seems to encourage response bias and just strikes me as poor design. It is better that you announced the bias rather than hiding it, though.

A question like "what is a reasonable price for downloading Avatar in HD" is meaningless. A "reasonable price" is negotiated between buyer and seller, so just getting the opinion of a buyer won't reflect "reasonableness." A better way of phrasing it might be "what would you be willing to pay to download Avatar..." It's a minor point but it seems to me you're implying the customer is always reasonable, and the studios aren't.

I do appreciate what you're trying to do---encourage people to pay for movies voluntarily without invoking harsh legal measures---but I honestly don't believe it can work in any significant way. I doubt legislation would work either, though, so it these kinds of ideas may be the best way for studios to mitigate their inevitable losses to piracy.

You know its kind of funny.  If I went to a musician and asked them about downloading music they would say it is theft.  Then if I brought up how most groupies aren't paid; even though they used to be, the musician wouldn't think anything of it.  Even thought that is labor theft.  In similar vein, I'm sure these movie studios have many unpaid interns.  Why are there no punishments on them for labor theft?  If you want us to spend more and protect your wages and standard of living you have to do the same for us.  Either everyone supports everyone, or its a dog eat dog situation.  In that case don't ask me to care or support rich media holders who have done nothing to support our jobs and livelihoods. 

I know this won't be a popular sentiment here.  But the point needs to be made.

Every industry uses unpaid interns who work in exchange not for money but for experience, making contacts, expanding their resume, and college credit. Having been an intern in a magazine and at a public interest law firm, I did not feel exploited in the slightest; rather I was grateful for the opportunity (which turned into full-time employment in one case). It's hardly theft when the "victim" is not only willing, but actually competing among others for the chance to work for free.

Yeah yeah, and just a generation before you would have got all those things and been paid.  They were breaking minimum wage laws, and stealing potential revenue from you. All this off shoring is stealing jobs and revenue from us.  I find it convenient that only the plight of the rich seems to make airwaves.

I don't know anyone in the arts and entertainment industry who's rich. Those people exist but they're the 1% like any other industry.

You got it!  Interning opportunites with prominent firms or big-name professionals are hotly pursued.  The experience and connections - and often credibility - can pay off big time in terms of career future.

It is not unusual for individuals to approach professionals in some fields and offer to work for no pay, just for the benefit of the experience and connections that can be derived.

It also says to future employers that you can work, have some assured depth of background and have 'paid your dues' at least to some extent.

In my field (pun not intended) we have 'working students' who often toil like slaves for little more than pocket money and the irreplaceable education and experience they will get 'on the job'.  Generally we have written contracts that spell out the terms and the employer/mentor's expectations and obligations (and those of the student).  Some of these positions - say, with nationally-ranked or Olympic competitiors - are extremely desirable and pay far less than minimum wage (though often room and board is included).  As long as they are getting the opportunites and exposure to the experiences they have signed on for, there are very few who would complain about the work or pay. People in the industry are well aware that 'apprenticeship' setups such as these are invaluable.

I think this is a wonderful example of the market place setting wages itself.  If a generation ago intern positions were paid, it's because there's wasn't a good enough incentive to work those positions.  Now they can go as unpaid because people feel that even though they aren't getting paid to work the jobs the experience they are getting is payment enough. 

I don't know what basis there is to claim internships were paid a generation ago.

I worked an unpaid internship in 1984...got some of the best experience of my working life and made some truly phenomenal contacts.

I was lucky to get it, too.  Any 30 people in my field at my level of experience would have PAID to have had that position for the experience of being there.

This whole "premise" is flawed.  Internships are not "jobs."

And, there is absolutely nothing exploitive about it...no one forces anyone to take an unpaid internship.

I've been on the other end, too...in the late 1990's and early 2000's, I managed the internship program at my place of work.  I had more applicants than positions.

Here's how it worked.  We offered the Unpaid Internships based on the following:

(1) We had some extra work that needed doing, but was not 'mission critical,' so paid personnel did not have time to do it.

(2) We wanted to make contacts with students at the local University to create a pool of applicants if we were in the position in the near future to hire additional personnel.  Such a pool would already be familiar with our operation and our ways of doing things.

(3) We wanted to help students grow and become more competitive in the field, whether they ultimately came to work for us or not.  We wanted to work with the University to make its program (and our local community) stronger.

No one was forced to apply or take the position when offered.  How can this POSSIBLY be considered exploitive?

Every Intern I "hired" and managed left the program extremely grateful for the opportunity and experience they gained in their few months working with us.  They had a much better flavor of that particular sector/career opportunity, and the skills they learned in a "real world setting," gave them a competitive edge in the job market.

Ultimately, I can say with 100% certainty from the management perspective that they got FAR MORE than they gave in "free labor."  I spent an incredible amount of time designing tasks that would help them learn and grow...yes, we got something out of it, but it was not anything we HAD to have done right then.

This whole notion blasting unpaid internships is simply ridiculous and makes me wonder if those putting forth this "exploitation" idea have ever either DONE an Internship or managed one.

I have done both.  Internships are VERY VERY good for the Intern....at least in my field and those I've directly observed.