Michael Moore does not have the movie available for download, The movie *IS* available for download yes, but michael moore is not making that so. It would still be AVAILABLE for download even if moore said "don't download my movie, you have to see it in theaters"
his blessing means nothing, pirates will be pirates regardless, only now, the guy that went into the theater with the intentions of stealing the movie to put it on the internet, isn't Technically a pirate because moore said it was okay, but, that doesn't change the fact that moore isn't serving it for anyone, or giving it to anyone for free. He's just saying that he wants as many people as possible to see it, if they have to download it, so be it, he has no problems with that, as long as they end up seeing it.
that's a big difference from him making it available to download for free, which implies that he is actively making that so.
By your logic he isn't making it available in theaters either.
By your logic he isn't making it available in theaters either.
he isn't, his distribution company is.
But, my point with the file sharing, is that, moore didn't tell people to go pirate his movie(as in, goto the theater with a camera and film it, then put it on the internet for people to download) he just told people that he's cool with people downloading it.
he didn't have any active role in getting people to go to a theater with a camera and film the movie, then subsequently releasing it on the internet. that was done ENTIRELY WITHOUT HIS INPUT AND WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAY. Just because he's cool with it doesn't mean that he had anything to do with it happening, HE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH RELEASING IT ON THE INTERNET.
He doesn't "have it available for download" OTHER PEOPLE(you know, the kind that aren't michael moore) have it available to download , and nothing michael moore says changes that, You said he "has it available for download", which is incorrect. If moore releases an official "michael moore fahrenheit 9/11 online edition" THEN he will have it available for download, until then, your phrasing error, still stands as an error, that would easily be corrected by you editing your post and saying "the movie is available to download" not "he has it available to download"
because he doesn't(unless he does, in which case, a link would be appreciated because I would like to see the fucking movie and the one I already downloaded was super crappy and not worth watching)
Do you not see the difference between a commercial distribution company and movie pirates?
Don't you realize that he doesn't own the movie . . . he merely made it . . . if he put it on a server for free-download he would be sued and would probably never be able to make decent sized flms again, that we all could see . . . . his distribution company and his production company are in hock to financial backers . . . and even if, for some unimaginable reason, he did actiually own the movie entirely, he himself is probably in a great deal of debt to crew and facilities companies and etc etc . . .
Also, in the same light, if he did not allow these companies, who 'own' huge amounts of the film, to recoup their investments he would never find backing again . . . unless it were through moveon.org or some such penny pinching means . . .
When you make a big film that is then distributed in a BIG way - not just loading it up on some damn server somewhere - then you are most likely in some serious financial limitations . . .
Don't you realize that he doesn't own the movie . . . he merely made it . . . if he put it on a server for free-download he would be sued and would probably never be able to make decent sized flms again, that we all could see . . . . his distribution company and his production company are in hock to financial backers . . . and even if, for some unimaginable reason, he did actiually own the movie entirely, he himself is probably in a great deal of debt to crew and facilities companies and etc etc . . .
Also, in the same light, if he did not allow these companies, who 'own' huge amounts of the film, to recoup their investments he would never find backing again . . . unless it were through moveon.org or some such penny pinching means . . .
When you make a big film that is then distributed in a BIG way - not just loading it up on some damn server somewhere - then you are most likely in some serious financial limitations . . .
Good points, I had overlooked that. So, for the purposes of this little argument, Michael moore should mean (something to the effect of) "michael moore, and those that are affiliated with him through business" I apologize for the mistake.
But, Movie Pirates are working independently from michael, he didn't set them up to make available the movie on the internet. Michael Moore(and especially his financial backers, distributors, production company..etc.) has NOT made available his movie on the internet, just by saying that he's alright with people downloading it, is what I'm saying.
Nick nice try. FOOTAGE DOESN'T LIE. BUSH JOKED ABOUT HIS WMD LIES. WHICH COST THOUSANDS OF LIVES. I'm sure those families would be a little pissed if you mentioned your "logical fallacy" and "A to B to C" bullshit to them. Like the woman in Fahrenheit who knew "This is all staged! All staged!"
And I just finished watching Wag the Dog. Everyone go watch it! Made in 97, amazingly a year before the Lewinsky scandal, where Clinton used some war maneuvering (or so Republicans said, he was actually um fighting terrorism) to escape the media. Very interesting, this film. Just like The Siege, which predicted 9-11 and our reaction. These are two potent, powerful films. I would say almost more so in their way that they were made before events actually happened!
Also I liked Moore's "1984" reference in the film. Ashcroft's real good at singing apparently he even made that song up? At least if he gets fired he'll have another career option.
I guess you are a little beyond help at this point. But looking at your reasoning, it is easy to see why you enjoy the Moore film.
I have to say that expect people to object to the recent Time Magazine cover of Moore holding a tiny folded flag . . . I find it disconcerting in a not too pleasant way . . .and, knowing what the right will say about it, I have pangs of dislike for it, quite strong pangs too, in almost agreement with that perspective
But I think that I need to think about it more first before I write it off . . .
But anyway, here is a good letter to the Times from a "trailer Park" citizen . . . a real "common [wo]man" . . .Its a good letter:
Quote:
To the Editor:
Re "Dude, Where's That Elite?," by Barbara Ehrenreich (column, July 1):
I am one of those Americans the Republicans seem to be confident of having squarely in their camp. My husband is a blue-collar worker; we do not have college degrees; and we live in a rural area in a mobile home!
There are many people like us, however, who could never consider themselves conservatives.
We are card-carrying A.C.L.U. members, and we don't listen to country music. We have never been to a Nascar event, and we oppose the strong-arm tactics of the N.R.A. So by a Republican definition, our beliefs are more those of the "liberal elite."
Michael Moore speaks to our truth, not Bill O'Reilly. Republicans, beware! Dude, we are the "trailer park" elite!_
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
What is worst? To have money handed over to you for free from one of your opponents or to have money handed over to you by the buisness you have pledged to protect your voters from? We know why Nadar is handed money and is being helped from the republicans. Its obvious to everyone. It will never be open to us what the democrats have to do for their.
Why on earth won´t the democrats not bind themselves to election reforms? If they did more than half of Nadars arguments in this election will dissapear and he may even stop his campaign (and if he doesn´t the democrats can play the ego-card).
Comments
Has anyone here seen it? (edit: I just saw pfflam mention it) It's very good.
Seems like it and F 9/11 would be a good double feature.
Originally posted by Cake
I just finished watching Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War.
Has anyone here seen it? (edit: I just saw pfflam mention it) It's very good.
Seems like it and F 9/11 would be a good double feature.
Have you seen Happy tree Friends?
I thought it was kind of funny, that they linked to that as a "we also recommend"
Originally posted by bunge
Get yourself a copy of BOB ROBERTS.
I think you meant to type "EVITA"
(the one with Madonna, Banderas, and Pryce)
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
eh?
Michael Moore does not have the movie available for download, The movie *IS* available for download yes, but michael moore is not making that so. It would still be AVAILABLE for download even if moore said "don't download my movie, you have to see it in theaters"
his blessing means nothing, pirates will be pirates regardless, only now, the guy that went into the theater with the intentions of stealing the movie to put it on the internet, isn't Technically a pirate because moore said it was okay, but, that doesn't change the fact that moore isn't serving it for anyone, or giving it to anyone for free. He's just saying that he wants as many people as possible to see it, if they have to download it, so be it, he has no problems with that, as long as they end up seeing it.
that's a big difference from him making it available to download for free, which implies that he is actively making that so.
By your logic he isn't making it available in theaters either.
Originally posted by bunge
By your logic he isn't making it available in theaters either.
he isn't, his distribution company is.
But, my point with the file sharing, is that, moore didn't tell people to go pirate his movie(as in, goto the theater with a camera and film it, then put it on the internet for people to download) he just told people that he's cool with people downloading it.
he didn't have any active role in getting people to go to a theater with a camera and film the movie, then subsequently releasing it on the internet. that was done ENTIRELY WITHOUT HIS INPUT AND WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAY. Just because he's cool with it doesn't mean that he had anything to do with it happening, HE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH RELEASING IT ON THE INTERNET.
He doesn't "have it available for download" OTHER PEOPLE(you know, the kind that aren't michael moore) have it available to download , and nothing michael moore says changes that, You said he "has it available for download", which is incorrect. If moore releases an official "michael moore fahrenheit 9/11 online edition" THEN he will have it available for download, until then, your phrasing error, still stands as an error, that would easily be corrected by you editing your post and saying "the movie is available to download" not "he has it available to download"
because he doesn't(unless he does, in which case, a link would be appreciated because I would like to see the fucking movie and the one I already downloaded was super crappy and not worth watching)
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Have you seen Happy tree Friends?
I thought it was kind of funny, that they linked to that as a "we also recommend"
No, I haven't and that's truly bizarre.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
he isn't, his distribution company is.
Exactly.
Originally posted by bunge
Exactly.
Do you not see the difference between a commercial distribution company and movie pirates?
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Do you not see the difference between a commercial distribution company and movie pirates?
Don't you realize that he doesn't own the movie . . . he merely made it . . . if he put it on a server for free-download he would be sued and would probably never be able to make decent sized flms again, that we all could see . . . . his distribution company and his production company are in hock to financial backers . . . and even if, for some unimaginable reason, he did actiually own the movie entirely, he himself is probably in a great deal of debt to crew and facilities companies and etc etc . . .
Also, in the same light, if he did not allow these companies, who 'own' huge amounts of the film, to recoup their investments he would never find backing again . . . unless it were through moveon.org or some such penny pinching means . . .
When you make a big film that is then distributed in a BIG way - not just loading it up on some damn server somewhere - then you are most likely in some serious financial limitations . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
Don't you realize that he doesn't own the movie . . . he merely made it . . . if he put it on a server for free-download he would be sued and would probably never be able to make decent sized flms again, that we all could see . . . . his distribution company and his production company are in hock to financial backers . . . and even if, for some unimaginable reason, he did actiually own the movie entirely, he himself is probably in a great deal of debt to crew and facilities companies and etc etc . . .
Also, in the same light, if he did not allow these companies, who 'own' huge amounts of the film, to recoup their investments he would never find backing again . . . unless it were through moveon.org or some such penny pinching means . . .
When you make a big film that is then distributed in a BIG way - not just loading it up on some damn server somewhere - then you are most likely in some serious financial limitations . . .
Good points, I had overlooked that. So, for the purposes of this little argument, Michael moore should mean (something to the effect of) "michael moore, and those that are affiliated with him through business" I apologize for the mistake.
But, Movie Pirates are working independently from michael, he didn't set them up to make available the movie on the internet. Michael Moore(and especially his financial backers, distributors, production company..etc.) has NOT made available his movie on the internet, just by saying that he's alright with people downloading it, is what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Nick nice try. FOOTAGE DOESN'T LIE. BUSH JOKED ABOUT HIS WMD LIES. WHICH COST THOUSANDS OF LIVES. I'm sure those families would be a little pissed if you mentioned your "logical fallacy" and "A to B to C" bullshit to them. Like the woman in Fahrenheit who knew "This is all staged! All staged!"
And I just finished watching Wag the Dog. Everyone go watch it! Made in 97, amazingly a year before the Lewinsky scandal, where Clinton used some war maneuvering (or so Republicans said, he was actually um fighting terrorism) to escape the media. Very interesting, this film. Just like The Siege, which predicted 9-11 and our reaction. These are two potent, powerful films. I would say almost more so in their way that they were made before events actually happened!
Also I liked Moore's "1984" reference in the film. Ashcroft's real good at singing apparently he even made that song up? At least if he gets fired he'll have another career option.
I guess you are a little beyond help at this point. But looking at your reasoning, it is easy to see why you enjoy the Moore film.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
The irony is killing me...
Cheney: "And we would have owned the world if it wasn't for those pesky Liberal kids!"
Hooray for the pesky kids. To keep the real thieves in check.
You ought to see what Moore will film and claim for a Scooby snack.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You ought to see what Moore will film and claim for a Scooby snack.
Nick
But I think that I need to think about it more first before I write it off . . .
To the Editor:
Re "Dude, Where's That Elite?," by Barbara Ehrenreich (column, July 1):
I am one of those Americans the Republicans seem to be confident of having squarely in their camp. My husband is a blue-collar worker; we do not have college degrees; and we live in a rural area in a mobile home!
There are many people like us, however, who could never consider themselves conservatives.
We are card-carrying A.C.L.U. members, and we don't listen to country music. We have never been to a Nascar event, and we oppose the strong-arm tactics of the N.R.A. So by a Republican definition, our beliefs are more those of the "liberal elite."
Michael Moore speaks to our truth, not Bill O'Reilly. Republicans, beware! Dude, we are the "trailer park" elite!_
SHERRY FORLAND
Bloomfield, N.M., July 1, 2004
It seems this little picture show is still doing well...
Let's just say I was so moved by it that I am reconsidering my support for Nader.
Originally posted by Existence
I saw F911 today for the first time.
Let's just say I was so moved by it that I am reconsidering my support for Nader.
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
What is worst? To have money handed over to you for free from one of your opponents or to have money handed over to you by the buisness you have pledged to protect your voters from? We know why Nadar is handed money and is being helped from the republicans. Its obvious to everyone. It will never be open to us what the democrats have to do for their.
Why on earth won´t the democrats not bind themselves to election reforms? If they did more than half of Nadars arguments in this election will dissapear and he may even stop his campaign (and if he doesn´t the democrats can play the ego-card).