Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   MPAA's Chris Dodd threatens to cut off Hollywood's campaign contributions if Obama does not change his position on SOPA   (foxnews.com ) divider line 478
    More: Dumbass, Chris Dodd, obama, MPAA, Hollywood, campaign contributions, Hollywood studios, Motion Picture Association of America, News Corp.  
•       •       •

14154 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2012 at 8:28 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



478 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-20 09:47:12 AM  
The MPAA? That would be the organization that represents companies that use "creative accounting" to show that none of their movies make a profit?
 
2012-01-20 09:47:48 AM  

thelordofcheese: Who the fark is Dodd?


Why, he's our most famous a$$hole corrupt former Senator from CT that's evidently whoring (which casts prostitution in a poor light) for Hollywood moguls. He lost his D.C. gig after it came to light he was c---k in m----th with Country Wide Mortgages. The very same folks he was supposed to be regulating.

media.washingtonpost.com

Pretty much a Government Lifer (if he hadn't screwed the pooch) like his dad was. Just one more famous family on the public teat for generations. Hmm, does that make it a two generation Government Welfare family?
Not that he's the first mind you. This crap goes back to the Breen Office and their ilk. The money in Hollywood knows how to get what they want and all it takes is long green. Sadly predictable.
 
2012-01-20 09:48:06 AM  

Lunaville: Mr. Right: Brother_Mouzone: it seems fairly obvious to me that this sopa is going to die an early death soon. The sponsor, Marco Rubio, a republican has backed off big time, in Illinois Senator Kirk, another Repub is bailing. This is pretty much a DOA thing.

A lot of the sponsors have backed off this thing because what appeared to be a good idea wasn't really when the fine print and its implications were figured out. The scarey part is that some supporters have already threatened to tie parts of this bill to other bills, like funding for WIC or veterans benefits that nobody is going to vote against. It will behoove anyone who enjoys the freedom of the internet to maintain constant vigilance.

And is anyone else damned tired of military personnel and veterans being the go-to hostage? What level of evil makes a person shrug and say "We get what we want or the veterans are cut off." Or "That's a nice VA hospital system you've got there ... be a shame if anything happened to it." Why do we put up with this cr@p?


All of this bullshiat with rider bills makes me wonder if there's any good reason for rider bills at all.

Sure, it makes the process faster, but it also allows congressmen to hold bills, like military and veteran pay, hostage.
 
2012-01-20 09:49:32 AM  

WhyteRaven74: In Hollywood a movie that makes $450 million can be labeled non-profitable due to how creative Hollywood is with accounting with tax breaks and loopholes they bought on the cheap through lobbying LA, California, and the feds. And then they have the balls to whine about torrents and stuff.


FTFY.

And then Hollywood progressives have the balls to whine about "the rich" not paying their fair share - without even realizing how their wealth wouldn't have been possible without tax breaks that were available ONLY to their industry.
 
2012-01-20 09:52:19 AM  

Great_Milenko: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

You're absolutely right, but what should the punishment be for this? Incarceration? Thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees for a few hundred songs valued at 99 cents each on iTunes? A jury awarded the RIAA (who are not even the actual copyright holders) $80,000 per song from a woman who downloaded 24 songs. Is this even remotely realistic?

As a quck example, the maximum fine for wreckless driving in the state of Washington is $5,000. Yes, there's also the possibility of prison for wreckless drivers, but if you can't pay the equivelent of this fine every month for the next 316 years, where do you think you'll end up? If they're trying to send a message with huge fines, they'll have to enforce them or the joke becomes even more obvious.


If there weren't any wrecks, why are the drivers being punished?

/reckless
 
2012-01-20 09:54:18 AM  

Hydra: WhyteRaven74: In Hollywood a movie that makes $450 million can be labeled non-profitable due to how creative Hollywood is with accounting with tax breaks and loopholes they bought on the cheap through lobbying LA, California, and the feds. And then they have the balls to whine about torrents and stuff.

FTFY.

And then Hollywood progressives have the balls to whine about "the rich" not paying their fair share - without even realizing how their wealth wouldn't have been possible without tax breaks that were available ONLY to their industry.


So, they feel like they should be paying more in taxes to make up for that? What is the problem?
 
2012-01-20 09:54:26 AM  

Great_Milenko: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

You're absolutely right, but what should the punishment be for this? Incarceration? Thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees for a few hundred songs valued at 99 cents each on iTunes? A jury awarded the RIAA (who are not even the actual copyright holders) $80,000 per song from a woman who downloaded 24 songs. Is this even remotely realistic?

As a quck example, the maximum fine for wreckless driving in the state of Washington is $5,000. Yes, there's also the possibility of prison for wreckless drivers, but if you can't pay the equivelent of this fine every month for the next 316 years, where do you think you'll end up? If they're trying to send a message with huge fines, they'll have to enforce them or the joke becomes even more obvious.



Don't think for a second that I am defending SOPA/PIPA, the RIAA or the MPAA on any of this. The bills are flawed and wildly overreaching. But something does need to change, as the status quo is not working.

I'm just making the point that illegal downloading DOES hurt someone. Namely me and many other below-the-line types who work damned hard for a living.
 
2012-01-20 09:55:50 AM  

wingnut396: Its too bad boycotts rarely work. We really need to stop buying TV, movies, music and all the other crap these industries produce for a year. Not a day, not a week. The whole freaking year.

But, too many people will want their American Idol and Saw 57.


Hey! Saw 52 was a classic!
 
2012-01-20 09:56:27 AM  

ikanreed: How the hell does this not establish a clear quid pro quo with impeachment for Dodd, and indictment for MPAA execs?


Rich people don't get punished.
 
2012-01-20 09:57:50 AM  

downtownkid: BurnShrike: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

The key point is that you're not "taking" anything. You're "copying" it. The latter leaves the original in place.


If someone purchases a movie I helped make I get a very small portion of the price they paid for it. If they "copy" it I do not. Explain to me how this is not hurting me again?


You're not winning any friends here. You want more money, make movies that aren't crap, full stop. People pirate Survivor: the musical for a reason, IT HAS NO VALUE.
 
2012-01-20 09:57:58 AM  

fracto73: downtownkid: BurnShrike: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

The key point is that you're not "taking" anything. You're "copying" it. The latter leaves the original in place.


If someone purchases a movie I helped make I get a very small portion of the price they paid for it. If they "copy" it I do not. Explain to me how this is not hurting me again?


Punching you might hurt you, but it isn't taking anything from you either.



Only a disingenuous twat would play the semantic games you are. If you really want we can go down the same road again. Blah blah blah, it isn't technically stealing, it's really a license violation blah blah blah. Both you and that conversation bore me, and ultimately end with the fact that you are doing something you shouldn't be. Something that takes money out of my pocket.
 
2012-01-20 09:58:45 AM  
I'm not sure if it was mentioned or not, but isn't James Cameron being sued for copyright infringement?
 
2012-01-20 09:59:37 AM  

g4lt: downtownkid: BurnShrike: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

The key point is that you're not "taking" anything. You're "copying" it. The latter leaves the original in place.


If someone purchases a movie I helped make I get a very small portion of the price they paid for it. If they "copy" it I do not. Explain to me how this is not hurting me again?

You're not winning any friends here. You want more money, make movies that aren't crap, full stop. People pirate Survivor: the musical for a reason, IT HAS NO VALUE.


Well there's a well-reasoned logically sound argument.
 
2012-01-20 09:59:39 AM  

downtownkid: fracto73: downtownkid: BurnShrike: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

The key point is that you're not "taking" anything. You're "copying" it. The latter leaves the original in place.


If someone purchases a movie I helped make I get a very small portion of the price they paid for it. If they "copy" it I do not. Explain to me how this is not hurting me again?


Punching you might hurt you, but it isn't taking anything from you either.


Only a disingenuous twat would play the semantic games you are. If you really want we can go down the same road again. Blah blah blah, it isn't technically stealing, it's really a license violation blah blah blah. Both you and that conversation bore me, and ultimately end with the fact that you are doing something you shouldn't be. Something that takes money out of my pocket.


No, because you are assuming that without pirating, you would be paid.
 
2012-01-20 10:01:03 AM  

downtownkid: BurnShrike: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

The key point is that you're not "taking" anything. You're "copying" it. The latter leaves the original in place.

If someone purchases a movie I helped make I get a very small portion of the price they paid for it. If they "copy" it I do not. Explain to me how this is not hurting me again?


^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not defending SOPA or PIPA, they're both horribly worded over-arching facism tools BUT this needs to be addressed somehow. If I invest $20,000 in recording studio equipment, 6+ months developing a record and then someone just farking copies it then I must be the asshole, right?
 
2012-01-20 10:01:05 AM  

rebelyell2006: downtownkid: fracto73: downtownkid: BurnShrike: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

The key point is that you're not "taking" anything. You're "copying" it. The latter leaves the original in place.


If someone purchases a movie I helped make I get a very small portion of the price they paid for it. If they "copy" it I do not. Explain to me how this is not hurting me again?


Punching you might hurt you, but it isn't taking anything from you either.


Only a disingenuous twat would play the semantic games you are. If you really want we can go down the same road again. Blah blah blah, it isn't technically stealing, it's really a license violation blah blah blah. Both you and that conversation bore me, and ultimately end with the fact that you are doing something you shouldn't be. Something that takes money out of my pocket.

No, because you are assuming that without pirating, you would be paid.



Yes, I am. Not everyone who pirates a movie would otherwise buy it, obviously, but some would. I cannot quantify what percentage would and neither can you.
 
2012-01-20 10:01:14 AM  

Lunaville: Mr. Right: Brother_Mouzone: it seems fairly obvious to me that this sopa is going to die an early death soon. The sponsor, Marco Rubio, a republican has backed off big time, in Illinois Senator Kirk, another Repub is bailing. This is pretty much a DOA thing.

A lot of the sponsors have backed off this thing because what appeared to be a good idea wasn't really when the fine print and its implications were figured out. The scarey part is that some supporters have already threatened to tie parts of this bill to other bills, like funding for WIC or veterans benefits that nobody is going to vote against. It will behoove anyone who enjoys the freedom of the internet to maintain constant vigilance.

And is anyone else damned tired of military personnel and veterans being the go-to hostage? What level of evil makes a person shrug and say "We get what we want or the veterans are cut off." Or "That's a nice VA hospital system you've got there ... be a shame if anything happened to it." Why do we put up with this cr@p?


When we rely too heavily on government, whether for food stamps or internet regulations, we open ourselves up to this kind of extortion. Instead of having government beholden to the voters, voters become supplicants who must show proper obeisance in order to receive their benefits. The nature of big government is not so much the percentage of GDP controlled by the government as much as the percentage of our daily lives controlled by government.
 
2012-01-20 10:01:54 AM  

NewportBarGuy: I sentence Angelo Mozillo and Chris Todd to 25 years of watching Avatar non-stop with no bathroom breaks or sleep. Case dismissed!


So, he'd have to watch it like 3 times, then?
 
2012-01-20 10:03:03 AM  

Reverend Monkeypants: downtownkid: BurnShrike: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

The key point is that you're not "taking" anything. You're "copying" it. The latter leaves the original in place.

If someone purchases a movie I helped make I get a very small portion of the price they paid for it. If they "copy" it I do not. Explain to me how this is not hurting me again?

^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not defending SOPA or PIPA, they're both horribly worded over-arching facism tools BUT this needs to be addressed somehow. If I invest $20,000 in recording studio equipment, 6+ months developing a record and then someone just farking copies it then I must be the asshole, right?


No, you're not. The people who use crappy methods of distributing the film are the assholes. People pirate because it is more convenient to download than it is to buy a disc.
 
2012-01-20 10:04:08 AM  

downtownkid: fracto73: downtownkid: BurnShrike: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

The key point is that you're not "taking" anything. You're "copying" it. The latter leaves the original in place.


If someone purchases a movie I helped make I get a very small portion of the price they paid for it. If they "copy" it I do not. Explain to me how this is not hurting me again?


Punching you might hurt you, but it isn't taking anything from you either.


Only a disingenuous twat would play the semantic games you are. If you really want we can go down the same road again. Blah blah blah, it isn't technically stealing, it's really a license violation blah blah blah. Both you and that conversation bore me, and ultimately end with the fact that you are doing something you shouldn't be. Something that takes money out of my pocket.



If semantics don't matter why keep using the 'stealing' line when it isn't true? You see the fact of the matter is that it doesn't take money out of your pocket. That money was never in your pocket and unless you can show that it was going to be you are simply trying to change the language of your accusation to gain sympathy. You should not accuse people of playing the semantics game while you are doing it yourself.
 
2012-01-20 10:05:04 AM  

fracto73: Regardless of what it is called, if Obama changes his position it will look like he is taking a bribe. Dodd has made is even worse for Obama to support SOPA.


Exactly. All Dodd has done is weaken the MPAA's case. Clearly he didn't learn much in his years in DC.
 
2012-01-20 10:05:40 AM  

downtownkid: rebelyell2006: downtownkid: fracto73: downtownkid: BurnShrike: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

The key point is that you're not "taking" anything. You're "copying" it. The latter leaves the original in place.


If someone purchases a movie I helped make I get a very small portion of the price they paid for it. If they "copy" it I do not. Explain to me how this is not hurting me again?


Punching you might hurt you, but it isn't taking anything from you either.


Only a disingenuous twat would play the semantic games you are. If you really want we can go down the same road again. Blah blah blah, it isn't technically stealing, it's really a license violation blah blah blah. Both you and that conversation bore me, and ultimately end with the fact that you are doing something you shouldn't be. Something that takes money out of my pocket.

No, because you are assuming that without pirating, you would be paid.


Yes, I am. Not everyone who pirates a movie would otherwise buy it, obviously, but some would. I cannot quantify what percentage would and neither can you.


Neither of us can figure out the percentage, but there are plenty of people (like me) who believe that once a song or a movie has been mass broadcasted over the air (on TV or over the radio), that means it should be public domain.
 
2012-01-20 10:05:57 AM  

rebelyell2006: No, you're not. The people who use crappy methods of distributing the film are the assholes. People pirate because it is more convenient to download than it is to buy a disc.


You can purchase most movies through an online service just as easily as you can pirate. People pirate because they are thieves.
 
2012-01-20 10:06:48 AM  

Secret Agent X23: Dodd, who became CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America after leaving the Senate in 2011, noted the movie "Avatar" was stolen by online pirates 21 million times. Such acts, he said, threaten to decimate his industry.

Chris, buddy, come here. Listen, let me clue you in on something: Pointing to your all-time box office champ isn't going to convince anyone with a functioning brain that piracy is hurting your little industry.

Yeah, yeah, I know. That still doesn't account for Congress...



Seriously. I watched it 11 times in the theater in 3D, once in IMAX, and bought it on Bluray. Am I supposed to feel bad that between the theater run and before it's release on disc that I pirated a copy? It shattered box office records and made an ungodly amount of money for them... How farking greedy of a-holes are they?

I absolutely love that THAT was his big example. It exemplifies how out of touch with reality the industry's complaints are. They don't need more power and influence over our legislation... they need LESS.
 
2012-01-20 10:07:46 AM  

modestlivinglegend: This is all just an excuse by Rupert, who brainwashed his Hollywood minions, to help make it possible to virtually shut down the internet, Google, FARK and other aggregators, and stop online business and news so Rupert can go back to being a king of newspaper and subscription TV.
The internet will prevail. Let's see if this President is really for sale.


it's been going on a lot longer than Rupert Murdoch has been on the scene, but money and protection of the hegemony are and always will be the driving forces behind this type of thing.

In 1948, the United States used anti-trust laws (new window) to breakup the vertical integration of the "studio system", ending the stranglehold movie studios had on theaters.

In 1982, MPAA president Jack Valenti (new window) told a congressional committee that " the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." Anyone who lived in the 80's can no doubt remember the explosion of video rental stores, many of which were small businesses owned by individuals (job creation, anyone?) that paved the way for today's home video market.

in 1992, Garth Brooks (new window) forced his label to restrict sales of his then-latest album to stores that sold used CDs, citing loss of royalties and resulting in several anti-trust cases. Despite the loss of royalties, today Brooks has an estimated net worth of $325 million.
 
2012-01-20 10:07:52 AM  

heinekenftw: Lunaville: Mr. Right: Brother_Mouzone: it seems fairly obvious to me that this sopa is going to die an early death soon. The sponsor, Marco Rubio, a republican has backed off big time, in Illinois Senator Kirk, another Repub is bailing. This is pretty much a DOA thing.

A lot of the sponsors have backed off this thing because what appeared to be a good idea wasn't really when the fine print and its implications were figured out. The scarey part is that some supporters have already threatened to tie parts of this bill to other bills, like funding for WIC or veterans benefits that nobody is going to vote against. It will behoove anyone who enjoys the freedom of the internet to maintain constant vigilance.

And is anyone else damned tired of military personnel and veterans being the go-to hostage? What level of evil makes a person shrug and say "We get what we want or the veterans are cut off." Or "That's a nice VA hospital system you've got there ... be a shame if anything happened to it." Why do we put up with this cr@p?

All of this bullshiat with rider bills makes me wonder if there's any good reason for rider bills at all.

Sure, it makes the process faster, but it also allows congressmen to hold bills, like military and veteran pay, hostage.


If there was only some way that a President with balls (not so fast, Obama) to only veto a part of a bill, a line item if you will...
 
2012-01-20 10:08:51 AM  

GameSprocket: So, they feel like they should be paying more in taxes to make up for that? What is the problem?


They don't realize that had it not been for those tax breaks to make Hollywood an inordinately profitable industry, they wouldn't have been able to enjoy the wealth they do because the industry wouldn't have been able to afford to pay them as much as it has since it would've been less profitable. They're rent-seekers, plainly put.

Alec Baldwin is a classic example of this when he was lobbying New York to keep tax breaks for film production: "The actor recently rebuked New York Governor David Paterson for threatening to try to help close the state's $7 billion budget deficit by canceling a 35% tax credit for films shot in the Big Apple.

'I'm telling you right now,' Mr. Baldwin declared, 'if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it's all going to go to California.'"


It's a classic example of, "Everyone should have to pay more - except me and MY special interest." Same goes for Warren Buffett every time he calls for higher taxes - yet turns right around and continues lobbying for more tax breaks, buying up tax credits, and setting up tax shelters for Berkshire Hathaway.They're hypocrites.
 
2012-01-20 10:10:17 AM  
Instead of focusing on punishing people for copying, the artists and industry groups should focus on adding value to purchased media so that people want to buy it and figure out a formula that accurately reflects lost revenue from piracy and attribute that, instead, to marketing costs. People listening to your music and watching your movies is generally a good thing for your artists in terms of exposure. Taking people to court for this nonsense is bad PR.
 
2012-01-20 10:11:42 AM  

Hydra: GameSprocket: So, they feel like they should be paying more in taxes to make up for that? What is the problem?

They don't realize that had it not been for those tax breaks to make Hollywood an inordinately profitable industry, they wouldn't have been able to enjoy the wealth they do because the industry wouldn't have been able to afford to pay them as much as it has since it would've been less profitable. They're rent-seekers, plainly put.

Alec Baldwin is a classic example of this when he was lobbying New York to keep tax breaks for film production: "The actor recently rebuked New York Governor David Paterson for threatening to try to help close the state's $7 billion budget deficit by canceling a 35% tax credit for films shot in the Big Apple.

'I'm telling you right now,' Mr. Baldwin declared, 'if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it's all going to go to California.'"


It's a classic example of, "Everyone should have to pay more - except me and MY special interest." Same goes for Warren Buffett every time he calls for higher taxes - yet turns right around and continues lobbying for more tax breaks, buying up tax credits, and setting up tax shelters for Berkshire Hathaway.They're hypocrites.


Forgot that Fark won't link to the WSJ. Here's the source of that Alec Baldwin quote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123698885439126181.html
 
2012-01-20 10:12:18 AM  
What is the world coming to when even the President of the United States won't stay bought?
 
2012-01-20 10:13:37 AM  
Chris Dodd may soon be introduced to Osama in Davey Jones Locker.
 
2012-01-20 10:14:00 AM  
Dodd, who became CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America after leaving the Senate in 2011, noted the movie "Avatar" was stolen by online pirates 21 million times. Such acts, he said, threaten to decimate his industry.

You know what else threatens to decimate your industry? Sequels, reboots, rereleases in 3-D, threatening movies that deal with sexuality or use a lot of strong language with an NC-17 while torture porn like Saw and Hostel get easy R ratings.
 
2012-01-20 10:16:26 AM  
This is why I don't worry or care about elections or the political process anymore.

Government is so completely corrupt and in the grip of the robber barons corporations that it has become utterly pointless to put any energy toward politics. What's going to happen is going to happen, either way.

Best to just spend your short time on Earth trying to enjoy yourself-- Hopefully without harming anyone else in the process.

It doesn't matter if you die rich. It only matters if you die happy, and VERY old.
 
2012-01-20 10:17:29 AM  

g4lt: heinekenftw: Lunaville: Mr. Right: Brother_Mouzone: it seems fairly obvious to me that this sopa is going to die an early death soon. The sponsor, Marco Rubio, a republican has backed off big time, in Illinois Senator Kirk, another Repub is bailing. This is pretty much a DOA thing.

A lot of the sponsors have backed off this thing because what appeared to be a good idea wasn't really when the fine print and its implications were figured out. The scarey part is that some supporters have already threatened to tie parts of this bill to other bills, like funding for WIC or veterans benefits that nobody is going to vote against. It will behoove anyone who enjoys the freedom of the internet to maintain constant vigilance.

And is anyone else damned tired of military personnel and veterans being the go-to hostage? What level of evil makes a person shrug and say "We get what we want or the veterans are cut off." Or "That's a nice VA hospital system you've got there ... be a shame if anything happened to it." Why do we put up with this cr@p?

All of this bullshiat with rider bills makes me wonder if there's any good reason for rider bills at all.

Sure, it makes the process faster, but it also allows congressmen to hold bills, like military and veteran pay, hostage.

If there was only some way that a President with balls (not so fast, Obama) to only veto a part of a bill, a line item if you will...


G-d help us, where is the "sadly true" button?
 
2012-01-20 10:19:31 AM  

Brother_Mouzone: it seems fairly obvious to me that this sopa is going to die an early death soon. The sponsor, Marco Rubio, a republican has backed off big time, in Illinois Senator Kirk, another Repub is bailing. This is pretty much a DOA thing.


But the Fark-heralded genius and best senator EVAR Al Franken is still lovin' it. Is Reid still on board?
 
2012-01-20 10:21:03 AM  

yves0010: rebelyell2006: Obama should respond by getting the Attorney General to take down the RIAA and MPAA using the RICO Act. Just for kicks. The Chicago way.

That would be a nice thing for us normal people... Dont care who takes them out. RIAA and MPAA need to just go away.


OMG DEREGULATION SOMALIA
 
2012-01-20 10:22:45 AM  

Priapetic: Hobodeluxe: CPT Ethanolic: Another congress whore becomes a corporate whore. Shocking.

to be fair...he was always a corporate whore. they all are.

But he took it to new heights. Or depths.


I dunno about that. Boehner handing out checks on the house floor from the tobacco lobbyists while the vote was going on was pretty ballsy.
 
2012-01-20 10:23:10 AM  

TheGreatGazoo: People will download Yoko Ono albums if they are free. I know people that have enough stuff downloaded that it would take them decades to watch it all. It is more akin to hoarding than anything.


THIS. I know a lot of people who do a fair amount of downloading, and they seem to fall into two categories. The first are the people who'll just download stuff they want to watch. But if they're looking for "The Men Who Stare at Goats" and cant' find it easily, they'll move on and download "True Grit" instead. (And I'll note that there's no lost sale there because these folks are not going to buy anything--it's just that simple.)

And then there are the ones who accumulate everything they can. They'll buy as much legitimate product as they can afford, and then they'll download stuff they haven't bought. And what they've downloaded is what they consider the low-priority stuff. They wouldn't really miss it if they didn't have it.

Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I'm convinced that these types of folks account for a significant percentage of downloaders.
 
2012-01-20 10:23:17 AM  

uncoveror: Hollywood is complaining that they are losing their asses because some people saw the highest grossing film of all time without coughing up ten bucks. To hell with Hollywood! Copyright was meant to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, not be a protectionism racket for frivolous entertainment. Entertainment is worth what the audience decides it is, no more.


I saw it twice in theaters (BLEH, wimmins get what they want) annnnd had a download for awhile. OH NOES
 
2012-01-20 10:23:36 AM  

Hydra: Marine1: Can someone please embarrass this guy already?

C'mon Anonymous. Want to really show that you have hair on your asses? Dig up some skeletons out of this guy's closet. He was in DC for 35 years. He has to have done some disgraceful things that the public needs to know about.

He's a Democrat. Anonymous won't touch him.


Yeah man, it's a big conspiracy.
 
2012-01-20 10:24:04 AM  
Obama should sue Dodd for piracy.

After all, he WOULD have gotten that money, if it had been given to him. It wasn't, so clearly Dodd has stolen from President Obama.
 
2012-01-20 10:26:07 AM  

Wade_Wilson: Obama should sue Dodd for piracy.

After all, he WOULD have gotten that money, if it had been given to him. It wasn't, so clearly Dodd has stolen from President Obama.



I think you mean theft. In this thread I've learned that Dodd clearly stole that money from Obama.
 
2012-01-20 10:27:27 AM  

Lunaville: g4lt: heinekenftw: Lunaville: Mr. Right: Brother_Mouzone: it seems fairly obvious to me that this sopa is going to die an early death soon. The sponsor, Marco Rubio, a republican has backed off big time, in Illinois Senator Kirk, another Repub is bailing. This is pretty much a DOA thing.

A lot of the sponsors have backed off this thing because what appeared to be a good idea wasn't really when the fine print and its implications were figured out. The scarey part is that some supporters have already threatened to tie parts of this bill to other bills, like funding for WIC or veterans benefits that nobody is going to vote against. It will behoove anyone who enjoys the freedom of the internet to maintain constant vigilance.

And is anyone else damned tired of military personnel and veterans being the go-to hostage? What level of evil makes a person shrug and say "We get what we want or the veterans are cut off." Or "That's a nice VA hospital system you've got there ... be a shame if anything happened to it." Why do we put up with this cr@p?

All of this bullshiat with rider bills makes me wonder if there's any good reason for rider bills at all.

Sure, it makes the process faster, but it also allows congressmen to hold bills, like military and veteran pay, hostage.

If there was only some way that a President with balls (not so fast, Obama) to only veto a part of a bill, a line item if you will...

G-d help us, where is the "sadly true" button?


A line item veto would serve two purposes. One, it would allow a president to get rid of nonsense riders. Two, it would allow the voters to see what kind of dreck a president DIDN'T line out.
 
2012-01-20 10:29:19 AM  

heinekenftw: serfdood: Here's the email I sent to Chris Dodd, via the MPAA email. I don't really expect a response. Unfortunately I did have a spelling error and one grammatical error when I sent it, so maybe I'll be subject to their ridicule. Oh well.

To Chris Dodd:

Go f**k yourself.

Sincerely,

A Concerned American

Huh, your email looked like my email. I edited out the difference.



Thanks, my wife says I have a tendency to be a bit too wordy.
 
2012-01-20 10:29:36 AM  
cdn.stripersonline.com
 
2012-01-20 10:32:52 AM  

jakomo002: FTA; "You can complain and say, well, actors make a lot of money and they don't have to worry about this," said Dodd. "You tell that to that camera guy, you tell that to that makeup artist, you tell that to that truck driver out there who made, makes a living because they work in this industry.

Hey Dodd, the makeup artist and the truck driver GET PAID whether the movie is a stinker or an Oscar contender. As soon as shooting wraps, they cash their final paycheck and then move on to the next production. Same thing for the actors. Maybe 0.1% of actors actually get a cut of the box office receipts.


Yeah, what our good friend Mr. Dodd needs to do here is come up with a list of movies that were never produced primarily because of piracy. That's where you would have your lost jobs among the camera and makeup people.
 
2012-01-20 10:33:02 AM  
"Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," Dodd told Fox News. "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."


His argument is not "Hey, let's figure out what is right and good for the country". His argument is, "You should play your cards right in this game of favors exchanged". There is absolutely no regard for anything in that statement not motivated by abject selfishness. This, boys and girls, is how every single politician thinks all the time. Every last one of them. All day. Every day. Never ever believe anything any one of them says.
 
2012-01-20 10:34:10 AM  

heinekenftw: Heron: There really needs to be a rule that any rider to a bill must be pertinent to the expressed purpose of said bill. This bullshiat of sticking Buggy Whip Protectionism onto VA funding, new flightless fighter jet procurements onto school lunch programs, or revisions of import law onto medicare budgets has got to end.

This.

And I believe riders should not be allowed onto mandatory appropriation bills, or any mandatory bill.


Yeah. It sort of defeats the purpose of "mandatory" when you're stuffing it full of "constituent service" pork-barreling written and paid for by lobbyists.
 
2012-01-20 10:36:11 AM  

BloodySaxon: But the Fark-heralded genius and best senator EVAR Al Franken is still lovin' it.


You mean Al Franken, the senator who's been roundly criticized on fark for weeks over his SOPA stance? What I'm saying is, go fark yourself.
 
2012-01-20 10:36:37 AM  

Heron: jakomo002: FTA; "You can complain and say, well, actors make a lot of money and they don't have to worry about this," said Dodd. "You tell that to that camera guy, you tell that to that makeup artist, you tell that to that truck driver out there who made, makes a living because they work in this industry.

Hey Dodd, the makeup artist and the truck driver GET PAID whether the movie is a stinker or an Oscar contender. As soon as shooting wraps, they cash their final paycheck and then move on to the next production. Same thing for the actors. Maybe 0.1% of actors actually get a cut of the box office receipts.

The people who DO suffer are the people who get a percentage of the box office. Like the producers, the studio, sometimes the director. The guys who pony up the original dough to get the movie off the ground.

And, uh, they can afford it. And if they can't, and a studio goes out of business, everyone good moves over to other studios and the show goes on.

I mean, these aren't doctors, they're not saving lives or anything, they're trying (with varying degrees of success) to ENTERTAIN people and make money off it.

Movie funding is pretty murky, actually. I don't know anything about it firsthand, admittedly, but I read this article awhile back arguing that, basically, the studios themselves don't really lose anything on a movie, ever; due to getting their funding primarily from Wall Street via loans, a robust system of tax deductions, and esoteric budgeting practices, movies are pretty much pure profit paid for with other peoples' money. So good or bad, hit or flop, the production houses make money off of them, and "piracy" doesn't really impact that in any way.


Films are like companies that only exist to produce that film. They have investors, which can be private individuals, various administered funds or distribution companies. It's very risky, most films produced lose money for their investors. Sure, the crews get paid, but the challenge after production is to sell the distribution rights to a distributor and then wait for a return after distribution, marketing costs etc.

If you're not in with a big director blockbuster, getting money back may take a very long time, if at all.

There is 'hollywood accounting', but this has more to do with structuring things for tax efficiency. Most films, even very successful ones, show a loss in the balance sheet.
 
Displayed 50 of 478 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report