Michael Moore newsletter 7/4/2004

[Jocko]

Hmm, interestingly enough. Profit from the movie didn't seem to be in doubt. And it appears that the movie has already mad 60 million or so in the theaters, and cost, IIRC about $6 million. So yes, I'm so sure that profit was the number one reason Disney didn't want to distribute.

Please.

Another swing and a miss. Do you even read the posts you're responding to?

Or are you seriously suggesting that Moore somehow has the "right" to determine how much money someone else - someone else he's under CONTRACT with, no less - is "entitled" to make? And to make that determination though illegal means, at that?

Is that what you're saying? "Don't worry about the distributors, they've made enough money and this is just Moore being a man of the people again"?

If so, get used to the ad homs because I'm beginning to realize that's all your logic deserves.

 

[gethane]

I sense there is some reading comprehension difficulties here. I only entered the discussion when someone called MM a hypocrite. I was trying to point out that saying one thing, and then saying the SAME thing later, is generally thought of as NOT being a hypocrite. I'm only trying to point out that MM is being consistent with his earlier statements about copyright.

But if its making your day to continue to attack me, go for it .

 

[crimresearch]

You certainly seem to think ad hominem is perfectly OK when you throw them out, as in the case of lying about what I believe, or bringing in drugs and stupidity tied to statements I never made.

So for you to follow up your own personal attacks with whining about being personally attacked in a pathetic attempt to obfuscate the fact that you didn't bring up any points to *be* addressed, is true to troll form, and supports my assertions that you are unable or unwilling to engage in honest discourse, or critical thinking.

As I mentioned, it isn't going to be your choice come Wednesday...either put up some *facts* to support your inane assertions, or go play over at

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.politics.gossip

where they are welcome.

 

[Suddenly]

Wouldn't you be just a tad pissed off about that? More to the point, can you imagine that Moore's next film will also have problems getting distributed because no one wants to get screwed by the filmmaker?

Only if all distributors are morons. Money talks. If the film will make the distribuitor millions regardless of what Moore says, why would they care?

Then you factor in that the very appeal of Moore's product is that he does such things as part of his persona, and we begin to suggest that the most glaring factor here is not any flaw on the part of Moore, rather the poor business sense of those that would jeopardize a whole "brand" (so to speak) to protect an at best theoretical short term gain.

 

[Jocko]

Only if all distributors are morons. Money talks. If the film will make the distribuitor millions regardless of what Moore says, why would they care?

Then you factor in that the very appeal of Moore's product is that he does such things as part of his persona, and we begin to suggest that the most glaring factor here is not any flaw on the part of Moore, rather the poor business sense of those that would jeopardize a whole "brand" (so to speak) to protect an at best theoretical short term gain.

Show me where the distribution deal's contract mentions any of this, and I'll concede the point. But as a lawyer, I think you know better, dude.

 

[Jocko]

I sense there is some reading comprehension difficulties here. I only entered the discussion when someone called MM a hypocrite. I was trying to point out that saying one thing, and then saying the SAME thing later, is generally thought of as NOT being a hypocrite. I'm only trying to point out that MM is being consistent with his earlier statements about copyright.

But if its making your day to continue to attack me, go for it .

I'm typing as slowly as I can, so please read carefully.

No one said Moore is a hypocrite in regard to his stance on copyright (which is moot anyway, unless laws are suddenly subjective where Moore is concernced).

With me so far?

I stated that it is hypocritical to unfairly paint a legal decision to decline distribution as censorship, then introduce highly problematic issues with the company that DID distribute the film.

He creates his own problems, and then blames others. That is hypocritical.

 

[gethane]

You certainly seem to think ad hominem is perfectly OK when you throw them out, as in the case of lying about what I believe, or bringing in drugs and stupidity tied to statements I never made.

But you don't need to support any assertation you make that MM is in this for the money? Need for proof only goes one way here? And never did I lie about what you believe. How silly to say that.

So for you to follow up your own personal attacks with whining about being personally attacked in a pathetic attempt to obfuscate the fact that you didn't bring up any points to *be* addressed, is true to troll form, and supports my assertions that you are unable or unwilling to engage in honest discourse, or critical thinking.

The use of humor is obviously beyond you. Allow me to rephrase.

However, if you truly believe that MM is in this for the money, I want some of your drugs, they must be good stuff. There is NO evidence that this is true.

Please allow me to share in whatever substance, information, or proof that is allowing you to believe that MM is in it for the money.

As I mentioned, it isn't going to be your choice come Wednesday...either put up some *facts* to support your inane assertions, or go play over at

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.politics.gossip

where they are welcome.

What assertation did I make? That MM's statement about copyrights do not seem inconsistent, therefore calling him a hypocrite seems like trying to continually insult him without real reason?

Frankly, I'm pretty sick of this forum. All I see all day long is personal attack, and accusations of logical fallacies. Very few people seem to want to debate CONTENT. If you feel better to continue to call me names and attack me, simply because I don't believe MM is a hypocrite, then truly, I feel sympathy for you that your life is so empty that attacking a fellow human being makes you feel better about yourself. Now, I must exit this conversation, as my 8 month old babe is waking up and needs some loving and cuddling.

 

[Suddenly]

Show me where the distribution deal's contract mentions any of this, and I'll concede the point. But as a lawyer, I think you know better, dude.

??

Since when did this become a technical legal question?

You called him a hypocrite on a foundation of nothing but a "common sense" type argument, one with several flaws I have illustrated. The distributor has many reasons not to care, as a practical matter. Several million in fact.

To put it simply, you are making an unfounded assumption.

You assume that the distributors profits would rise if Moore did not make such a statement, that when asked about how he felt he would have lied and said that it bothers him that people might see his film without paying.

This ignores the fact that Moore's personal opinion as to copyright (not a legal opinion as some are implying) is part of the larger (no pun intended) Moore persona that drives the sales in the first place.

Whether there is a technical breach is not relevant to this in the slightest.

 

[Batman Jr.]

I stated that it is hypocritical to unfairly paint a legal decision to decline distribution as censorship, then introduce highly problematic issues with the company that DID distribute the film.

He creates his own problems, and then blames others. That is hypocritical.

Lions Gate Films has consented to the illegal distribution.

From the article "Moore: Pirate my film, no problem" in the Sunday Herald
Despite up to 150 people simultaneously bagging free copies of its most valuable property at any given time 24 hours a day, Lions Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice. While unwilling to make any official statement likely to further provoke Hollywood’s heavy hitters, the film company appears to have fallen into line with its director’s laissez-faire approach.

 

[Grammatron]

Lions Gate Films has consented to the illegal distribution.

From the article "Moore: Pirate my film, no problem" in the Sunday Herald
Despite up to 150 people simultaneously bagging free copies of its most valuable property at any given time 24 hours a day, Lions Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice. While unwilling to make any official statement likely to further provoke Hollywood’s heavy hitters, the film company appears to have fallen into line with its director’s laissez-faire approach.

Well that's just dumb on their part. If you don't defend your copyrighted property you will lose it.

 

[glsunder]

First, I've got my own opinions on F911. I'm asking people to change them.

Most of the attacks I've seen on Moore are attacks on him, not his film. If anyone remotely points this out, they immediately begin attacking the poster. Perhaps they should point out the actual errors in the film. Better yet, they should explain how they disagree with the points Moore made, that, after all is the whole point. Some of the people act like they're lawyers who only care about how something is said, not whether it's true or not. Logic is a tool, not the goal. A person could argue perfectly that the earth is flat and still be wrong. Is that a straw man? Or is it simply an analogy used to convey a point?

Most people involved with the internet know about the issues with downloading movies and music. It is illegal -- because of copyright laws. The industry is also aggressively going after people distributing and downloading files. Moore is more interested in getting more people to see his film. Allowing a less than perfect copy to be distributed on the net will do that. Some of the people who download the file would not have gone anyway. How many that would be is debatable. It also acts as free publicity. Some will download the film, then watch it in the theater or buy it on DVD -- it would act as a free sample or a test drive. No one knows the true effect of downloading movies and music yet, and it may never be known. There are a lot of variables in media sales; Moore may simply be taking a gamble that could pay off now and/or in the future for both him and the distributor. Most likely, he believes in the message and wants it distributed.

F911 is the movie equivalent of an opinion page article. I expect a certain spin and cherry picking of evidence. Moore hasn't denied that either. There's 2 main ways to challenge the movie: 1. Show that the facts are false. 2. Show that the conclusions are false. Simply stating that the conclusions are false without stating why doesn't cut it. And showing that one part is false doesn't mean another part is false. By doing that, people wont convince anyone, especially those in the middle who might actually listen to what both sides have to say. I want to see a well done, non-inflammatory commentary on F911. I'm not being sarcastic, I would like to read one.

Here's what I got out of F911:
1. Bush is rich. It's family money, he's not self made.
2. The Saudis have invested themselves heavily in the US and in certain political people. Their investments guarantee that the US won't do anything too drastic that would upset the Saudis.
3. Money and War go hand in hand.
3a. Armies are made up of poor people.
3b. More poor people means it's easier to get more people into a volunteer army, which is mostly poor.
3c. War makes the rich richer.
3d. Vet benefits have been cut.
4. Fear is being used to control the people. That fear is bad is also the primary point of BFC.

Moore isn't providing a solution, only saying "LOOK, there is a problem here. It needs to be fixed." It's not just a right vs left thing. There are republicans who don't agree with the way this administration is ran.

 

[crimresearch]

"But you don't need to support any assertation you make that MM is in this for the money?"

Since you are lying when you say that I ever made any such assertion, of course I don't have to support your hallucinations, or your illiteracy.

The assertion I made, that no one else seems to be having such trouble understanding, is that those who ARE calling Moore a hypocrite are likely to be making reference to his claims to be against copyright laws which forbid free sharing with friends, when there are no such laws.
People who are calling Moore a hypocrite over this issue may also be noting the fact that Moore actually supports the copyright laws as currently written, in that they prohibit the unauthorized selling of Moore's work.
And those who are calling Moore a hypocrite may also be factoring in Moore's proven false statements that the government censored this film by having the President's brother threaten Disney operations in Florida if the California studios didn't stop the film.

In the real world which sane people have to deal with, referencing someone else's position on a matter is not the same as believing that position.

So your repeated statements as to what I believe, what I must be smoking, what etc. are flat out lies.

If you continue to feel abused by having this pointed out, then I suggest that you switch to accurately responding to what people said and meant, insead of lying about what they said and then resorting to name calling and personal attacks when called on your own posts.

 

[Batman Jr.]

The assertion I made, that no one else seems to be having such trouble understanding, is that those who ARE calling Moore a hypocrite are likely to be making reference to his claims to be against copyright laws which forbid free sharing with friends, when there are no such laws.

Ya wanna bet? Check out this overview of copyright law. I think what you refer to falls under the exclusive right afforded to the copyright holder to reproduce his/her materials. Moore does in fact repudiate portions of copyright law in its current condition.

 

[glsunder]

Moore said:

“I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that,”

It's pretty simple and clear: he thinks you should be able to download the movie. You can't download the movie and sell it. The concept is pretty simple. It reminds me of the attitude of many people who put out open source software: You can use it for free, but not resell it for a profit. Note the attitude part and the many part -- that does not mean all people or the techincal points of the license.


crimresearch said:

"copyright laws which forbid free sharing with friends, when there are no such laws."

I can't make a copy of a dvd and give it to my friend. That would require using something like deCSS -- it's illegal in the US. Also, IIRC, copyright law allows me to make a personal backup copy, not distribute it to my buddies. On the music front, there's copy protection coming to CDs. Unless something has changed, the dmca makes it illegal to use and own software which does breaks that.

 

[crimresearch]

Yeah, I'll take that bet.
From the page you linked to.

"Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords...
...To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and"
------------------------------------------------------------------
and
-------------------------------------------------------------------
" The 1976 Copyright Act defines publication as follows:

"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

...The reports state that the definition makes it clear that the sale of phonorecords constitutes publication of the underlying work, for example, the musical, dramatic, or literary work embodied in a phonorecord. The reports also state that it is clear that any form of dissemination in which the material object does not change hands, for example, performances or displays on television, is not a publication no matter how many people are exposed to the work. However, when copies or phonorecords are offered for sale or lease to a group of wholesalers, broadcasters, or motion picture theaters, publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution, public performance, or public display.
"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that it clearly references the difference between selling and displaying material, AND it says that the owner (in this case Moore) can give permission.

For him to do so, and then imply that copyright law forbids it is disingenous, and one of the items that I speculated might give rise to the claim of hypocrisy.

 

[Jocko]

Lions Gate Films has consented to the illegal distribution.

If this is the case, then consider my point withdrawn and apologies issued.

 

[gethane]

Since you are lying when you say that I ever made any such assertion, of course I don't have to support your hallucinations, or your illiteracy.

Actually, I misspoke. I should have said implication, not assertation.

Here's what you said:

It would seem he is a hypocrite because he claims to be against the copyright laws *unless* they interfere with his profits.

I think any reasonable reader could assume from that statement that you yourself did "seem" to believe that MM "seems" like a hypocrite. Also, with your highlighting of the word "unless" it appears that you are insinuating that MM only disbelieves in current copyright law unless his own profits are at stake. However, I then pointed out:

except wouldn't logic tell you that if someone downloads it for free, he's not going to pay to see it in the theater, therefore interfering with his profits

To which, you never responded.

The assertion I made, that no one else seems to be having such trouble understanding, is that those who ARE calling Moore a hypocrite are likely to be making reference to his claims to be against copyright laws which forbid free sharing with friends, when there are no such laws.
People who are calling Moore a hypocrite over this issue may also be noting the fact that Moore actually supports the copyright laws as currently written, in that they prohibit the unauthorized selling of Moore's work.
And those who are calling Moore a hypocrite may also be factoring in Moore's proven false statements that the government censored this film by having the President's brother threaten Disney operations in Florida if the California studios didn't stop the film.

If you are now stating that you are not one of those people, one of those people that believe he is a hypocrite, then none of my comments applied to you, its that simple.

So your repeated statements as to what I believe, what I must be smoking, what etc. are flat out lies.

What "repeated" statements are those? After my first two posts, I've been continually trying to defend myself from your attempts to characterize me as a superstitious boob, a gullible idiot, illiterate, and a troll.

If you continue to feel abused by having this pointed out, then I suggest that you switch to accurately responding to what people said and meant, insead of lying about what they said and then resorting to name calling and personal attacks when called on your own posts.

You keep claiming I'm making personal attacks, but where are those attacks? I've simply been stating that others are attacking me with personal attacks. You call my assertions insane but I've made no assertations other than calling MM a hypocrite doesn't seem to be accurate.

Then twice you go on to ominously insinuate that after Wednesday I won't be welcome here. I think any reasonable, open minded person reviewing this thread will easily be able to discern who is flinging personal attacks around.

Now, as I've already taken too much time on this ridiculous thread, that I only responded to because Jocko called MM a hypocrite, I am finished here. I am also putting you on ignore. The viciousness with which you attacked me was largely unprovoked and I don't feel the need to punish myself by undergoing it any longer. You will be in good company on my ignore list, as the only other person residing there is Jedi Knight.

 

[Batman Jr.]

For him to do so, and then imply that copyright law forbids it is disingenous, and one of the items that I speculated might give rise to the claim of hypocrisy.

Copyright law of course doesn't compel litigation. Moore believes that there should be no grounds for a lawsuit in the first place when dealing with unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property.

 

[Grammatron]

Copyright law of course doesn't compel litigation. Moore believes that there should be no grounds for a lawsuit in the first place when dealing with unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property.

Actually if you don't aggressively defend your copyrighted work then people can challenge it in courts that you don't care and that everyone should have a right to use it.

 

[Segnosaur]

I stated that it is hypocritical to unfairly paint a legal decision to decline distribution as censorship, then introduce highly problematic issues with the company that DID distribute the film.

He creates his own problems, and then blames others. That is hypocritical.

Lions Gate Films has consented to the illegal distribution.

The fact that Lions Gate films consented to the illegal distribution is not totally relevant.

There is no guarantee that other film companies (such as Disney) would be so happy to see their property (i.e. distribution rights to the movie) lost to illegal copying.

At this point, widescale copying of movies is simply not feasable (at least to the point where it would seriously impact profits). However, if such copying were an issue, then any distributor should have concerns distributing a Moore film if they knew he was going to encourage people to "steal" their investment.