Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:45:54 PM
713352 Posts in 53057 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Press Releases and Film News  |  Dalla Buyers Club lawsuits « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Dalla Buyers Club lawsuits  (Read 6326 times)
Archivist
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 111
Posts: 1379


« on: April 09, 2015, 09:14:20 PM »

I haven't been keeping up with this issue, but here's an interesting article about a man who was taken to court by the Dallas Buyers Club movie people:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/27038126/i-was-sued-over-dallas-buyers-club/

He was originally asked for $5000, and his lawyer negotiated it down to $500.  He also suggested that DBC prefer to settle out of court, and an accused person could always claim that they didn't download it at all.  It was someone hacking his wifi!  Yeah!  That's it!

Now, I know that people download stuff just because they can, but Dallas Buyers Club?  Is it really such a good movie that you would want to download it, anyway?
Logged

"Many others since have tried & failed at making a watchable parasite slug movie" - LilCerberus
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 3100
Posts: 26772


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2015, 07:39:26 AM »

I wish people would stop downloading stuff for free, but I'm afraid there is no way to stop it. People feel entitled to whatever entertainment they want and have no respect for the people who worked hard to bring it to them. The DBC tactic doesn't work in the long run, just like the RIAA lawsuits it actually causes people to sympathize with the pirates. I wish I knew the answer.
Logged

I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...
FatFreddysCat
Movies, Metal, Beer!
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 389
Posts: 4708



WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2015, 02:12:46 PM »

I read today that the producers of "Expendables 3" have also sued several people recently for downloading a pre-release version of that film. Apparently they blame widespread piracy for the film's sub-par box office performance.

I guess this is the wave of the future. Every time a movie bombs, it's gonna be "Our movie didn't suck! It was those damn pirates! Yeeeeeeeaaaaahhh, that's the ticket!"
Logged

Hey, HEY, kids! Check out my way-cool Music and Movie Review blog on HubPages!
http://hubpages.com/@fatfreddyscat
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2015, 10:03:11 PM »


I wish people would stop downloading stuff for free, but I'm afraid there is no way to stop it. People feel entitled to whatever entertainment they want and have no respect for the people who worked hard to bring it to them. The DBC tactic doesn't work in the long run, just like the RIAA lawsuits it actually causes people to sympathize with the pirates. I wish I knew the answer.


I understand what you are saying and don't disagree in general...especially in regard to movies.

But, there is a side issue (or side-complication) with the way the system is currently set-up. Consider cable-only programming.  And, consider those of us that don't own a TV, so visual content in our home is sparse and when it happens...is DVD or Internet provided.

There are issues with the "industry" requiring that a customer having a cable subscription to "properly" download cable content.

One has to pay for a WHOLE LOT of garbage one does not want to watch one show. And, there is not even the option of electing 'ad supported' for that show...it's buy the package or don't watch.

This is the "industry" cutting itself off at the knees.  The world has changed; the Internet is a delivery medium. Cable "packages" are two decades ago. 

My choice is that I will NEVER pay "package" price to watch one show...and if that means I don't watch, it's more of a loss to those that work hard to produce the content than me.  I owe them nothing; but the "industry" that hired them (to produce fx, sound, act, whatever) does...

The "industry" needs to either find a way to pay per-show, allow ad supported viewing or whatever.  But this CRAP of asking me for a cable subscription is just a recipe for one of two things to occur:

(1) Pirate the desired content
(2) Don't watch

Neither option provides residual income to those that worked hard to produce the content.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 3100
Posts: 26772


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2015, 07:28:49 AM »


I wish people would stop downloading stuff for free, but I'm afraid there is no way to stop it. People feel entitled to whatever entertainment they want and have no respect for the people who worked hard to bring it to them. The DBC tactic doesn't work in the long run, just like the RIAA lawsuits it actually causes people to sympathize with the pirates. I wish I knew the answer.


I understand what you are saying and don't disagree in general...especially in regard to movies.

But, there is a side issue (or side-complication) with the way the system is currently set-up. Consider cable-only programming.  And, consider those of us that don't own a TV, so visual content in our home is sparse and when it happens...is DVD or Internet provided.

There are issues with the "industry" requiring that a customer having a cable subscription to "properly" download cable content.

One has to pay for a WHOLE LOT of garbage one does not want to watch one show. And, there is not even the option of electing 'ad supported' for that show...it's buy the package or don't watch.

This is the "industry" cutting itself off at the knees.  The world has changed; the Internet is a delivery medium. Cable "packages" are two decades ago. 

My choice is that I will NEVER pay "package" price to watch one show...and if that means I don't watch, it's more of a loss to those that work hard to produce the content than me.  I owe them nothing; but the "industry" that hired them (to produce fx, sound, act, whatever) does...

The "industry" needs to either find a way to pay per-show, allow ad supported viewing or whatever.  But this CRAP of asking me for a cable subscription is just a recipe for one of two things to occur:

(1) Pirate the desired content
(2) Don't watch

Neither option provides residual income to those that worked hard to produce the content.

Better options are coming. I think as the pay-per-view market heats up selection should go up and prices go down. Also, sling tv is a step in the right direction; much cheaper than cable. You are right that the industry has been slow to adapt, but ultimately, how can they compete with free?
Logged

I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2015, 09:44:51 PM »


You are right that the industry has been slow to adapt, but ultimately, how can they compete with free?


Ask microsoft.  Linux has been around for decades and is the FAR superior product.  Yet MS marketing continues to keep them "a viable force" in the marketplace.  Cough.

The real answer to your question is that there are those who exercise their morals, at least to some degree.  I do not download movies for free from the 'Net and I assume neither do you.  We pay for our content even with the free alternative.  I utilize 'services' like Netflix and Amazon Prime and Hulu (the free, ad supported side) to minimize those costs somewhat.

The 'Net has been a game-changer.  But, the old-guard "industry' has resisted that chance.  --AA and DRM and stuff like that has only served to embolden those prone to defiance.  Solutions like Prime and Hulu+ are not only workable, but...

Those services are DESIRABLE to those of us that recognize that this stuff should not be "free" to consume if it was not "free" to produce.  I will gladly continue to pay Netflix and Amazon Prime...but wish (for example) Prime held more 'mainstream' content and I did not have to wait a full year for some of it to become available.

My family was playing Apples to Apples tonight.  One of the cards played was a "Beauty and the Beast" card, and the tag at the bottom said "A story as old as time ... so Disney did not have to pay royalties."

That about sums it up.  The "industry" seeks to cash-in on the work done by others but they themselves don't have any qualms about bilking when they can.  Disney is prone to guard its IP with tremendous tenacity all the while cashing in on Public Domain stories that predate the copyright in general.

In short, it's the pure greed in the "industry" that breeds the will of many to pirate content.  While I do not condone that, I certainly understand it.

So, to again get back to your question: perhaps if they, the 'industry,' acted with more integrity, a greater percentage of folks would feel more guilty about gaming them (aka stealing from them) and thus not do it. The theft is not "right," of course.  But neither is it FULLY "wrong" in one point of view, if the property was not really owned by the victim of that theft in the first place (ie, those the work to produce a film/show vs the studios/distributors).
« Last Edit: April 11, 2015, 09:47:49 PM by ulthar » Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Jim H
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 314
Posts: 3669



« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2015, 10:28:57 PM »

Quote
Ask microsoft.  Linux has been around for decades and is the FAR superior product.  Yet MS marketing continues to keep them "a viable force" in the marketplace.  Cough.

I'd argue that is debatable at this stage.  Maybe in terms of stability or security, but in terms of ease of use, support, and compatibility, Windows is far ahead.  It used to be Windows was so unstable, glitchy, and insecure that it was worth considering traversing into the Linux realm for some (I tried it, back in the day, but didn't particularly like most distros and missed a lot of software.  Boot disc versions I've found a use for occasionally though.).  For someone who wants their computer to just work with all their hardware with the widest array of useful programs while remaining familiar, easy to use and secure/stable enough to cause no real issues, Windows 7 on does the trick quite well.  I really have no major complaints any longer.

Another factor, of course, is not just which is the better product, but rather inertia.  Kind of like keyboard layouts other than QWERTY, which may be marginally better, but are not improved enough to offset the costs involved in switching.  Who is willing to relearn their entire OS just to save a relatively small amount of money?  

Quote
You are right that the industry has been slow to adapt, but ultimately, how can they compete with free?

People pay for convenience.  That's a major lesson the music industry has largely learned.  People are willing to buy MP3s, including many who pirate/used to pirate.  The price/convenience factors just have to be there.  There's a question of whether the price points and convenience levels needed for equilibrium with film production costs can be met though, I'd wager.  

On another note, I'd like to mention there's a 9 page thread called "Feature length films on youtube!" that's near the top of the Bad Movies sub forum.  More than half the films there are there illicitly.  Just worth noting.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 10:37:12 PM by Jim H » Logged
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 3100
Posts: 26772


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2015, 07:54:34 AM »



Quote
You are right that the industry has been slow to adapt, but ultimately, how can they compete with free?

People pay for convenience.  That's a major lesson the music industry has largely learned.  People are willing to buy MP3s, including many who pirate/used to pirate.  The price/convenience factors just have to be there.  There's a question of whether the price points and convenience levels needed for equilibrium with film production costs can be met though, I'd wager.  

On another note, I'd like to mention there's a 9 page thread called "Feature length films on youtube!" that's near the top of the Bad Movies sub forum.  More than half the films there are there illicitly.  Just worth noting.

That supports my overall point. Services like YouTube create that convenience factor you speak of for the copyright infringers. Some people are willing to pay for MP3s but many people will just look up whatever they want to hear on YouTube. It's all there for free. Buying music or movies or games is now something people do as a favor to the creator. The paradigm is you take what you want for free and only pay if you really like it. It's like a restaurant that serves meals and puts everyone on the honor system to pay. That's as true of most people here on badmovies as anywhere else. Sadly it seems that people who feel a moral responsibility to pay for their entertainment are in a minority.

It's hilarious to me when people upload full songs and movies to YouTube and write "no copyright infringement intended."  That's like somebody punching me in the face and saying "no battery intended." People literally don't understand.

Most people here will look at this from the perspective of the consumer and see entertainment suppliers as huge evil corporations trying to rip them off. I look at it from the perspective of the artist and the distributor. Perhaps it's unfair, but I see a most of today's consumers as selfish, whiny and self-entitled. As we speak there are people out there brazenly giving away for free books I worked on for months. I don't think it takes significant amounts of money out of my pocket, but it sure makes me furious.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2015, 09:05:28 AM by Rev. Powell » Logged

I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...
Jim H
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 314
Posts: 3669



« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2015, 10:29:14 PM »



Quote
You are right that the industry has been slow to adapt, but ultimately, how can they compete with free?

People pay for convenience.  That's a major lesson the music industry has largely learned.  People are willing to buy MP3s, including many who pirate/used to pirate.  The price/convenience factors just have to be there.  There's a question of whether the price points and convenience levels needed for equilibrium with film production costs can be met though, I'd wager.  

On another note, I'd like to mention there's a 9 page thread called "Feature length films on youtube!" that's near the top of the Bad Movies sub forum.  More than half the films there are there illicitly.  Just worth noting.

That supports my overall point. Services like YouTube create that convenience factor you speak of for the copyright infringers. Some people are willing to pay for MP3s but many people will just look up whatever they want to hear on YouTube. It's all there for free. Buying music or movies or games is now something people do as a favor to the creator. The paradigm is you take what you want for free and only pay if you really like it. It's like a restaurant that serves meals and puts everyone on the honor system to pay. That's as true of most people here on badmovies as anywhere else. Sadly it seems that people who feel a moral responsibility to pay for their entertainment are in a minority.

It's hilarious to me when people upload full songs and movies to YouTube and write "no copyright infringement intended."  That's like somebody punching me in the face and saying "no battery intended." People literally don't understand.

Most people here will look at this from the perspective of the consumer and see entertainment suppliers as huge evil corporations trying to rip them off. I look at it from the perspective of the artist and the distributor. Perhaps it's unfair, but I see a most of today's consumers as selfish, whiny and self-entitled. As we speak there are people out there brazenly giving away for free books I worked on for months. I don't think it takes significant amounts of money out of my pocket, but it sure makes me furious.

Yeah, people will often go for free.  Some will buy too.  In many cases now, the choices are literally A. Watch for free on YouTube/download illegally or B. Go buy a physical disc, or wait for shipping on a DVD/BD that costs $15-$20.  The lack of a solid delivery plan for a lot of this means the studios have basically decided $0 is better than some amount of money.  It's definitely changing, of course - you can buy movies on iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, etc.  But there's still a ways to go in various areas.

By the way, have you read any of the studies indicating the worst pirates are also the best customers?  That is, those who pirate the most films tend to also spend the most money on legitimate entertainment.  It's an interesting dynamic at least.  There are many who could fairly easily pirate 100% of everything they watch, but the percentage who do is quite small.

I have to agree the "no copyright infringement" thing is both sad and hilarious. 

On your final paragraph...  I think you're right.  However, I will say I don't think consumers in the past would have behaved any differently.  They simply couldn't pirate in the way we can today.
Logged
Mofo Rising
Global Moderator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 460
Posts: 3222


My cat can eat a whole watermelon!


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2015, 12:43:42 AM »

What I think is that distribution has utterly changed.

It used to be that if you wanted to listen to a song you had to pay a middle-man to hear it. A very brief history of time when artistic creation was controlled by several gate-keepers. Who gets played on the radio?

Then the internet happened. Now, everything is freely available. 

I will tell you that the only band that I paid money for is a band I originally pirated. The National is fantastic.
Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.
dean
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 267
Posts: 3635



« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2015, 02:31:44 AM »

There will always be people who skirt the rules, but by and large Australia has been without an adequate solution for years now which is why our uptake of illegal downloading is so high.

An expensive cable option with a monopoly squeezed out alot of competition in the market place doubled with delayed telecasts and limited alternatives meant downloading became more prevalent. Plus we're a nation of convicts right?

Now that we FINALLY have some 'ok' streaming options [Netflix for example only landed one month ago] and as such the one cable option here has dropped their prices significantly so it's getting better. You'll start to see the illegal downloading numbers go down as we actually start to have viable options. You may not be able to compete with free for some people, but for the most part people want to pay for a convenient and easy option as long as it's not too expensive. I mean look at Hulu: the basic option is free but I think people are ok with a handful of ads to subsidise it as long as the convenience is ok...

In any case, access is the main issue here: people's overriding urge to have it now is the main, not just the idea of being free. I guess it's the consumer's protest on how terrible we've had it for so long.

I for one try and avoid illegally downloading, but to be perfectly honest as I have Netflix I find I rarely want/need to anyway: there's enough content on there to suit me and my tastes. The only shows I seem to miss out on this way are the True Detectives/Game of Thrones options.

But for a bit of comedy a great article in response to the news Archivist posted:

http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2015/04/13/nation-decides-being-sued-downloading-game-thrones-totally-worth-it
Logged

------------The password will be: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
Mofo Rising
Global Moderator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 460
Posts: 3222


My cat can eat a whole watermelon!


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2015, 10:49:06 AM »

I should note that I also don't pirate media, but even the idea of that has been diluted by reality. What is the difference if I watch a non-sponsored YouTube video of a song as opposed to downloading it and never listening to it again? In the real world, that is.

But, I don't just get things for free on the internet for the same reason I don't buy used games at GameStop. I would like the money I pay for entertainment to go to the people who originally created it, not some random a***ole.

Larger than any personal belief, though, I have quite a few "media now" options at hand. I pay for Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. I also utilize (and work for) my local public library, which supplies almost everything I want for pennies on my tax dollar. I haven't had cable television for almost a decade. In fact, other than Hulu, I almost never see commercials. I've lost my inoculation, and am now almost constantly surprised at how stupid they are.

I'm pretty much in agreement with what dean was saying. I think people want to reward artists/production companies with their money, but the status quo is now everything is freely available. Give people the option to pay a reasonable amount for entertainment made available, they will by and large take it. But traditional entertainment companies like to pretend the cat isn't out of the bag. They don't offer a "media now" option, and take the nuclear option of suing when customers take the very real possibility of getting it for free.

I think the central dogma of artist>distributor>customer is pretty much dead. The fact is that any media than can be digitized will be and be made freely available. Artists are just going to have to adapt, and they have been. The once lucrative sale of a CD has now become the less lucrative sale of a single MP3, which has now become a single listen on Spotify. Brings us back to where we started, live performance and interaction with fans.

Also, I agree with JimH when he brings up the point that those who pirate the most also spend the most. They're fans, they want everything. Provide them with option to give money to those they love they'll do it. It's the way every good webcomic has been supported for years. I said I don't pirate--anymore. But the only band whose CD's I've paid for in years is the National--and I downloaded my first album of their's for free.
Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.
Trevor
Uncle Zombie and Eminent Shitologist
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2121
Posts: 22711



« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2015, 01:20:30 AM »

Some person who worked through me to get access to a film we have here ended up pirating the thing via a time-coded VHS and making / selling DVD copies off of that.  Buggedout
Logged

I know I can make it on my own if I try, but I'm searching for the Great Heart
To stand me by, underneath the African sky
A Great Heart to stand me by.
Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Press Releases and Film News  |  Dalla Buyers Club lawsuits « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.