20 ms·

Boycotting Hollywood

130 points by aaronmoodie 15y ago

locopati 15y ago
When capitalism is dominant and the bottom-line is money, this is the logical first line of reponse. If you don't agree with a company's actions, withdraw financial support. If enough people do it, it can make a difference. In this world, there are many means of entertainment, especially with the internet. Movies can be replaced; it may be a sacrifice, it may be something else, but it won't be supporting groups whose actions endanger the great endeavor that is the internet.
monsur 15y ago
What about consuming Hollywood movies through legal, online means such as Amazon.com video? You'd still get to watch the movies while giving a vote to legal online streaming.
- cyrus_ 15y ago
  Well, your money still ends up in the MPAA's hands to be used for nefarious purposes. I don't think the MPAA will stop no matter how successful online video services are, because they could always be making more, in their minds, if they only had "the tools" to stop online piracy. That these tools amount to sledgehammers that could, whether by accident or abuse of power, stop legitimate uses of the internet is not important to these people. This is what we are protesting.
- Ixiaus 15y ago
  This really is the most level headed and correct response IMHO. Hollywood is responding, not to the internet as a modality of speech, but to the rampant piracy of materials that legally makes them money - they are doing nothing wrong by providing that material for sale. Are they draconian about it? Sure. Are they not innovating? Sure. But it doesn't make them wrong and us right, what it means is that we (as internet citizens) need to promote the act of legitimate value exchange between consumers that are torrenting/downloading material and value creators. Hollywood never started this fight - this was started by people who found out that it costs almost nothing to copy a digital copy of a film or piece of music and put it up for download. Do I think copyright and rights management are all kinds of messed up? Hell yes I do, but that's why it requires innovation FROM US; Hollywood will die off if we encroach using a legitimate business model - it sucks that it took this long for everyone to realize that Hollywood needs to be disrupted just like every other industry the technology industry has disrupted. I believe Amazon is having a go at it? It really stinks that this whole thing has come down to us needing to defend our rights on the internet - but I can't help but feel that Hollywood's response is a leveled reaction to something many people are not respecting (that is, paying for the content). The problem is two-fold here, Hollywood isn't innovating and internet citizenship is not being respectful. It has been Hollywood's shortcoming in not being able to figure out better ways of making content easier to access online over the pirated version; and people aren't respecting the boundaries (due to Hollywood's inability to innovatively respond to distribution on the internet) of fair economic trade in the digital medium. These next two to five years will define both the internet and the entertainment industry for the next 50-100 years IMHO.
  - pwg 15y ago
    Except that the fight is not really about piracy. Piracy is just the strawman the RIAA/MPAA uses to grab the ear of politicians and unsuspecting members of the public. The fight is really about control. The internet allows, for the first time, independent amateurs to command the same ability to create and distribute as the major media companies. And that scares them, it scares them immensely because it means that you just might not need them as gatekeeper and distributor. Which means that that will not remain attached to your wallet, receiving payment for all the content you consume from them. Watch this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/defend_our_freedom_to_share... It is only 14 minutes long, but it will put a lot of what the real reason for all this attack on the internet is about into perspective.
    - jonhendry 15y ago
      " And that scares them" Oh please. I suspect Hollywood has problems with internet-distributed small time indie productions when their distribution costs are being subsidized by their file host, via ad revenue generated by providing downloads of pirated Hollywood movies. If small-time indie productions can't afford to pay for their own bandwidth, maybe they need to fix their own business model.
- molmalo 15y ago
  The point is to affect their quarter balance. Consuming their products either way, is just the same. The money ends up in their hands. But for a boycott to be effective, you need to create awareness to generate real-world actions. Otherwise, only the tech-savvy ones will do something, and the boycott won't reach the scale needed. Anyway, I don't believe that a boycott is a good alternative. That would hurt mostly to the weakest links of the chain; employees who work for little money, and the big companies won't hesitate to fire, if they feel the need to keep their numbers fine, just to don't make their shareholders angry. Let's remember that we are in the middle of a nice tech-bubble here, most of us making some good money, but the rest of the economy is in really bad shape. I don't think this is a good time to push them to swell the ranks of the unemployed. I'm having sort of a dilemma here... I have to meditate it a bit longer.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    This argument reminds me of the way logging companies defend clear-cutting old-growth forests by simply saying that loggers need jobs. If your main concern is simply to preserve jobs, then it's never a good time to start a boycott. If your main concern is defense of liberty, if I may be so bold, then now is most definitely an appropriate time to start a boycott.
DamnYuppie 15y ago
I am surprised that this was not put forth by more people as a way to protest actions of the MPAA. This is not only reasonable but something more people should be doing as well. Personally I have been boycotting movies since November.
- alan_cx 15y ago
  Opiate of the masses. Not easy to give up. Media consumers are little better than junkies. They hate themselves, but do it anyway. If they cant afford it because their money now has to go else where in a society which spends its time monetising things that used to be free, or sorry, "added value" they pirate. And this is one reason I reckon piracy is popular and less money is going to media producers. Our money has different places to go now, compared to before. Some things like fuel have massively increased in cost. One simple example is the internet its self. We have to pay for a connection, which means 2 less CD's per month. More of our money goes on things like video games. Fuel, gas, and electricity in the UK for example have almost double in the last 5 years or so. Dunno the total cost there, but its is in the £1000's. So if the media people what to know where their income has gone, a big chunk of it is with the energy producers. The money has simply shifted elsewhere. Maybe if fuel costs went back to 2002 levels, money money might get spent on movies, etc. But, we still want our opium. The opium they fed us in the first place. I think artists and media companies have to accept that the gravy train has derailed and they have to make less millions than before when they had it good. And frankly, these people have been obscenely over paid for decades. Isn't $5m OK any more? Does it have to still be the historic $10m?
zecho 15y ago
SOPA/PIPA shouldn't be the only reason, as noted in a throwaway line by the OP. Here's why I haven't been to a movie in well over a year: ...Four adaptations of comic books. One prequel to an adaptation of a comic book. One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a children's book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title. http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day-the-movies-died-mark-harris#ixzz1kFPpQmsF http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day... SOPA/PIPA just sent me from being indifferent about moviemakers to actively opposing them. And it goes deeper than just boycotting. I intend to donate money to campaigns of politicians who were always against these bills and to the EFF, the ACLU and other watchdogs that did a good job bringing it to our attention.
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  Here is a list of the 50 best films of 2011: http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2011/12/the-50-best-movies-of-2011.html http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2011/12/the-50-best... Here are Roger Ebert's 20 best films of 2011: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/12/the_best_films_of_2011.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/12/the_best_films_of_20... Here is the AV Clubs 15 best films of 2011: http://www.avclub.com/articles/best-films-of-2011,66423/ http://www.avclub.com/articles/best-films-of-2011,66423/ Saying that 'all Hollywood is shit and should be destroyed' based on mass market crap is as purposefully naive as saying that the entire music industry is only producing the content you hear on Top 40 Radio.
  - david927 15y ago
    Your response, though, proves the point. You made a list of independent films! While some of the weaker candidates came from Hollywood, the vast majority of the films you listed came from independent studios -- who are not trying to destroy the internet. Hollywood (the major studios) is not film just as the major labels are not music. They represent a period of less than 100 years where vast amounts of money could be made off of art by middle men who market it. That period is over but they don't want to give up "their right" to that money. Who would? But instead of going peacefully, they will do a "scorched earth" all the way down, making everybody pay for the fact that the times have changed and no one needs them anymore.
smoody 15y ago
This will be an unpopular opinion, but in addition to boycotting Hollywood, why not also make it your mission to talk to each of your friends who illegally watch copyrighted films (according to US laws) about the cost of their actions? If the goal is to get hollywood to stop pushing completely absurd and not well thought-out laws through our system of government, then it seems to me that reducing piracy (through education) makes sense as part of a larger strategy. Of course it is my experience that people who pirate content won't listen, but at least I try. To people who pirate, it's sort of like a single vote in an election... what does it matter if one person does or doesn't do it? And FYI, I don't work for Hollywood, but my wife is an independent filmmaker (award winning in several major film festivals) and she invested her hard-earned money to complete her film -- as did her producers and their parents, etc. When people steal her movie instead of watching it on iTunes or Netflix for a minuscule charge (and many people do indeed watch it illegally), then it's not any different than taking money (even if it's pennies per person) out of our pockets. Plus, her value as a director cannot be accurately measured because industry analytics don't include pirated content, and that makes it harder to prove her worth when she tries to line-up investors for her next film.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  """it's not any different than taking money (even if it's pennies per person) out of our pockets""" I thought you had a good comment until you got to this part. This tripe, shoveled by the mouthful out of Hollywood, is way too simplified to be meaningful. I'm so sick of hearing this without any thought to the other side of the piracy coin: access and exposure; or the side of the coin (people who would not have paid you a penny under any circumstance). I honestly don't know if piracy reduces or increases film revenue (it appears to have helped the game industry and put Windows on 90+% of desktop computers worldwide), but it is this mantra that has led to crap-feats like SOPA and PIPA. A balanced conversation about it (and not one saying "piracy is all gain thanks to exposure") would be refreshing. EDIT: And for the record, I don't pirate. If I can watch it legally, I don't watch it. EDIT2: I don't care about being downvoted, but I feel like there is an argument I'm missing. If you downvoted me (or feel like doing so), let me know why. I Prefer to have my worldview challenged so I can change or expand as needed.
ianstormtaylor 15y ago
This service could be very helpful then: http://www.fandor.com/ http://www.fandor.com/ They let you subscribe to vouched-for indie films.
- aaronmoodie 15y ago
  Thanks, I'll check this out.
draggnar 15y ago
Maybe we should start picketing outside of movie theaters also?
earbitscom 15y ago
This article (and most of these Kill Hollywood ones) is just ridiculous. "Hollywood" (what does that even mean?) does not want to break the internet. They do not want to stifle free speech. They are not "mean". They want to stop people from taking things that cost them a lot of money to make without paying for them. It's that simple. They want people to either abstain from using their product (not ideal) or pay them for the use of it. This is what every business on the planet wants. Instead, they invest billions of dollars making things that are in massive demand. They employ millions of people whose livelihoods depend on these products getting a return. They have a moral and legal obligation to protect the interests of their investors and their employees. Although 10 million illegal downloads is not 10 million legal sales lost, it is, without a doubt, some sales lost, and there are many billions of illegal downloads annually. These companies have moral and legal obligations to push for better enforcement against this illegal activity. And they do not have the answer to how to go about that effectively without causing problems in the process. It does not make them malicious people by default. Everyone on this forum knows that there is no perfect solution, and maybe it is a pointless pursuit, but it is just silly to act as if this massive industry, lead by people who feel every bit as responsible for their employees' families having food on their table as any other company's leaders, is supposed to just sit there and watch people illegally take their product without paying for it and do nothing. Yes, we all want to make sure legislation like SOPA does not pass. But declaring a war on them is not going to help find amicable solutions. Saying you do not like their proposed solutions and then going back to business as usual, not proactively joining the conversation for how to reduce piracy, is not doing anything at all to keep the internet safe from the flawed solutions that they will continue to propose out of obligation to their shareholders and employees. If you really want to protect the internet, the two best things you can do are stop pirating things you didn't pay for, and start contributing ideas and solutions to the issue of piracy that have as few unintended consequences as possible.
- etherael 15y ago
  What they want is not the problem, what they're doing is. A boycott and all out war on their existence is a perfectly rational response with respect to what they're doing.
- 15y ago
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
My daughter just pointed me at Black March[1]. I'm ready to give my attention and dollars to people who aren't trying to take away my liberties. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3499120 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3499120
daimyoyo 15y ago
I've also boycotted hollywood but SOPA / PIPA wasn't the reason why. I refuse to patronize hollywood because the DOJ is reaching across international borders to prosecute a young man who had the audacity to run a website containing links that the MPAA didn't like. I cannot in good conscience support an industry that is so hell bent on restricting the progress of technology simply because their outdated business model no longer works. And I used to see 8-10 movies a month so I hope the studios are happy with their decisions. Because I'm happy with mine.
backprojection 15y ago
What about donating $1.5 to the EFF for every $1 you spend on movies/music?
- finnw 15y ago
  Sounds great. Do they take Amazon gift vouchers?
brianstorms 15y ago
My response to the "Kill Hollywood" and "Boycott Hollywood" rants: Kill Y Combinator. http://blog.moviegoer.com/post/16333492475/kill-y-combinator http://blog.moviegoer.com/post/16333492475/kill-y-combinator
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
chaostheory 15y ago
I wonder if buying used movies (used DVDs / Bluray) would let us have our cake and eat it too? From the little I know, only the retailer or the individual re-selling them makes a profit, and not the studios.
__abc 15y ago
18 dollars a ticket? Where is he paying that? I just saw a flick in San Francisco and it didn't cost that much. Is this a NYC thing?

130 points by aaronmoodie 15y ago

When capitalism is dominant and the bottom-line is money, this is the logical first line of reponse. If you don't agree with a company's actions, withdraw financial support. If enough people do it, it can make a difference. In this world, there are many means of entertainment, especially with the internet. Movies can be replaced; it may be a sacrifice, it may be something else, but it won't be supporting groups whose actions endanger the great endeavor that is the internet.

monsur 15y ago

What about consuming Hollywood movies through legal, online means such as Amazon.com video? You'd still get to watch the movies while giving a vote to legal online streaming.

cyrus_ 15y ago
Well, your money still ends up in the MPAA's hands to be used for nefarious purposes. I don't think the MPAA will stop no matter how successful online video services are, because they could always be making more, in their minds, if they only had "the tools" to stop online piracy. That these tools amount to sledgehammers that could, whether by accident or abuse of power, stop legitimate uses of the internet is not important to these people. This is what we are protesting.
Ixiaus 15y ago
This really is the most level headed and correct response IMHO. Hollywood is responding, not to the internet as a modality of speech, but to the rampant piracy of materials that legally makes them money - they are doing nothing wrong by providing that material for sale. Are they draconian about it? Sure. Are they not innovating? Sure. But it doesn't make them wrong and us right, what it means is that we (as internet citizens) need to promote the act of legitimate value exchange between consumers that are torrenting/downloading material and value creators. Hollywood never started this fight - this was started by people who found out that it costs almost nothing to copy a digital copy of a film or piece of music and put it up for download. Do I think copyright and rights management are all kinds of messed up? Hell yes I do, but that's why it requires innovation FROM US; Hollywood will die off if we encroach using a legitimate business model - it sucks that it took this long for everyone to realize that Hollywood needs to be disrupted just like every other industry the technology industry has disrupted. I believe Amazon is having a go at it? It really stinks that this whole thing has come down to us needing to defend our rights on the internet - but I can't help but feel that Hollywood's response is a leveled reaction to something many people are not respecting (that is, paying for the content). The problem is two-fold here, Hollywood isn't innovating and internet citizenship is not being respectful. It has been Hollywood's shortcoming in not being able to figure out better ways of making content easier to access online over the pirated version; and people aren't respecting the boundaries (due to Hollywood's inability to innovatively respond to distribution on the internet) of fair economic trade in the digital medium. These next two to five years will define both the internet and the entertainment industry for the next 50-100 years IMHO.
- pwg 15y ago
  Except that the fight is not really about piracy. Piracy is just the strawman the RIAA/MPAA uses to grab the ear of politicians and unsuspecting members of the public. The fight is really about control. The internet allows, for the first time, independent amateurs to command the same ability to create and distribute as the major media companies. And that scares them, it scares them immensely because it means that you just might not need them as gatekeeper and distributor. Which means that that will not remain attached to your wallet, receiving payment for all the content you consume from them. Watch this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/defend_our_freedom_to_share... It is only 14 minutes long, but it will put a lot of what the real reason for all this attack on the internet is about into perspective.
  - jonhendry 15y ago
    " And that scares them" Oh please. I suspect Hollywood has problems with internet-distributed small time indie productions when their distribution costs are being subsidized by their file host, via ad revenue generated by providing downloads of pirated Hollywood movies. If small-time indie productions can't afford to pay for their own bandwidth, maybe they need to fix their own business model.
molmalo 15y ago
The point is to affect their quarter balance. Consuming their products either way, is just the same. The money ends up in their hands. But for a boycott to be effective, you need to create awareness to generate real-world actions. Otherwise, only the tech-savvy ones will do something, and the boycott won't reach the scale needed. Anyway, I don't believe that a boycott is a good alternative. That would hurt mostly to the weakest links of the chain; employees who work for little money, and the big companies won't hesitate to fire, if they feel the need to keep their numbers fine, just to don't make their shareholders angry. Let's remember that we are in the middle of a nice tech-bubble here, most of us making some good money, but the rest of the economy is in really bad shape. I don't think this is a good time to push them to swell the ranks of the unemployed. I'm having sort of a dilemma here... I have to meditate it a bit longer.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  This argument reminds me of the way logging companies defend clear-cutting old-growth forests by simply saying that loggers need jobs. If your main concern is simply to preserve jobs, then it's never a good time to start a boycott. If your main concern is defense of liberty, if I may be so bold, then now is most definitely an appropriate time to start a boycott.

DamnYuppie 15y ago

I am surprised that this was not put forth by more people as a way to protest actions of the MPAA. This is not only reasonable but something more people should be doing as well. Personally I have been boycotting movies since November.

alan_cx 15y ago
Opiate of the masses. Not easy to give up. Media consumers are little better than junkies. They hate themselves, but do it anyway. If they cant afford it because their money now has to go else where in a society which spends its time monetising things that used to be free, or sorry, "added value" they pirate. And this is one reason I reckon piracy is popular and less money is going to media producers. Our money has different places to go now, compared to before. Some things like fuel have massively increased in cost. One simple example is the internet its self. We have to pay for a connection, which means 2 less CD's per month. More of our money goes on things like video games. Fuel, gas, and electricity in the UK for example have almost double in the last 5 years or so. Dunno the total cost there, but its is in the £1000's. So if the media people what to know where their income has gone, a big chunk of it is with the energy producers. The money has simply shifted elsewhere. Maybe if fuel costs went back to 2002 levels, money money might get spent on movies, etc. But, we still want our opium. The opium they fed us in the first place. I think artists and media companies have to accept that the gravy train has derailed and they have to make less millions than before when they had it good. And frankly, these people have been obscenely over paid for decades. Isn't $5m OK any more? Does it have to still be the historic $10m?

zecho 15y ago

SOPA/PIPA shouldn't be the only reason, as noted in a throwaway line by the OP. Here's why I haven't been to a movie in well over a year: ...Four adaptations of comic books. One prequel to an adaptation of a comic book. One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a children's book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title. http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day-the-movies-died-mark-harris#ixzz1kFPpQmsF http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day... SOPA/PIPA just sent me from being indifferent about moviemakers to actively opposing them. And it goes deeper than just boycotting. I intend to donate money to campaigns of politicians who were always against these bills and to the EFF, the ACLU and other watchdogs that did a good job bringing it to our attention.

res0nat0r 15y ago
Here is a list of the 50 best films of 2011: http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2011/12/the-50-best-movies-of-2011.html http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2011/12/the-50-best... Here are Roger Ebert's 20 best films of 2011: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/12/the_best_films_of_2011.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/12/the_best_films_of_20... Here is the AV Clubs 15 best films of 2011: http://www.avclub.com/articles/best-films-of-2011,66423/ http://www.avclub.com/articles/best-films-of-2011,66423/ Saying that 'all Hollywood is shit and should be destroyed' based on mass market crap is as purposefully naive as saying that the entire music industry is only producing the content you hear on Top 40 Radio.
- david927 15y ago
  Your response, though, proves the point. You made a list of independent films! While some of the weaker candidates came from Hollywood, the vast majority of the films you listed came from independent studios -- who are not trying to destroy the internet. Hollywood (the major studios) is not film just as the major labels are not music. They represent a period of less than 100 years where vast amounts of money could be made off of art by middle men who market it. That period is over but they don't want to give up "their right" to that money. Who would? But instead of going peacefully, they will do a "scorched earth" all the way down, making everybody pay for the fact that the times have changed and no one needs them anymore.

smoody 15y ago

This will be an unpopular opinion, but in addition to boycotting Hollywood, why not also make it your mission to talk to each of your friends who illegally watch copyrighted films (according to US laws) about the cost of their actions? If the goal is to get hollywood to stop pushing completely absurd and not well thought-out laws through our system of government, then it seems to me that reducing piracy (through education) makes sense as part of a larger strategy. Of course it is my experience that people who pirate content won't listen, but at least I try. To people who pirate, it's sort of like a single vote in an election... what does it matter if one person does or doesn't do it? And FYI, I don't work for Hollywood, but my wife is an independent filmmaker (award winning in several major film festivals) and she invested her hard-earned money to complete her film -- as did her producers and their parents, etc. When people steal her movie instead of watching it on iTunes or Netflix for a minuscule charge (and many people do indeed watch it illegally), then it's not any different than taking money (even if it's pennies per person) out of our pockets. Plus, her value as a director cannot be accurately measured because industry analytics don't include pirated content, and that makes it harder to prove her worth when she tries to line-up investors for her next film.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
"""it's not any different than taking money (even if it's pennies per person) out of our pockets""" I thought you had a good comment until you got to this part. This tripe, shoveled by the mouthful out of Hollywood, is way too simplified to be meaningful. I'm so sick of hearing this without any thought to the other side of the piracy coin: access and exposure; or the side of the coin (people who would not have paid you a penny under any circumstance). I honestly don't know if piracy reduces or increases film revenue (it appears to have helped the game industry and put Windows on 90+% of desktop computers worldwide), but it is this mantra that has led to crap-feats like SOPA and PIPA. A balanced conversation about it (and not one saying "piracy is all gain thanks to exposure") would be refreshing. EDIT: And for the record, I don't pirate. If I can watch it legally, I don't watch it. EDIT2: I don't care about being downvoted, but I feel like there is an argument I'm missing. If you downvoted me (or feel like doing so), let me know why. I Prefer to have my worldview challenged so I can change or expand as needed.

ianstormtaylor 15y ago

This service could be very helpful then: http://www.fandor.com/ http://www.fandor.com/ They let you subscribe to vouched-for indie films.

aaronmoodie 15y ago
Thanks, I'll check this out.

draggnar 15y ago

Maybe we should start picketing outside of movie theaters also?

earbitscom 15y ago

This article (and most of these Kill Hollywood ones) is just ridiculous. "Hollywood" (what does that even mean?) does not want to break the internet. They do not want to stifle free speech. They are not "mean". They want to stop people from taking things that cost them a lot of money to make without paying for them. It's that simple. They want people to either abstain from using their product (not ideal) or pay them for the use of it. This is what every business on the planet wants. Instead, they invest billions of dollars making things that are in massive demand. They employ millions of people whose livelihoods depend on these products getting a return. They have a moral and legal obligation to protect the interests of their investors and their employees. Although 10 million illegal downloads is not 10 million legal sales lost, it is, without a doubt, some sales lost, and there are many billions of illegal downloads annually. These companies have moral and legal obligations to push for better enforcement against this illegal activity. And they do not have the answer to how to go about that effectively without causing problems in the process. It does not make them malicious people by default. Everyone on this forum knows that there is no perfect solution, and maybe it is a pointless pursuit, but it is just silly to act as if this massive industry, lead by people who feel every bit as responsible for their employees' families having food on their table as any other company's leaders, is supposed to just sit there and watch people illegally take their product without paying for it and do nothing. Yes, we all want to make sure legislation like SOPA does not pass. But declaring a war on them is not going to help find amicable solutions. Saying you do not like their proposed solutions and then going back to business as usual, not proactively joining the conversation for how to reduce piracy, is not doing anything at all to keep the internet safe from the flawed solutions that they will continue to propose out of obligation to their shareholders and employees. If you really want to protect the internet, the two best things you can do are stop pirating things you didn't pay for, and start contributing ideas and solutions to the issue of piracy that have as few unintended consequences as possible.

etherael 15y ago
What they want is not the problem, what they're doing is. A boycott and all out war on their existence is a perfectly rational response with respect to what they're doing.
15y ago

SoftwareMaven 15y ago

My daughter just pointed me at Black March[1]. I'm ready to give my attention and dollars to people who aren't trying to take away my liberties. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3499120 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3499120

daimyoyo 15y ago

I've also boycotted hollywood but SOPA / PIPA wasn't the reason why. I refuse to patronize hollywood because the DOJ is reaching across international borders to prosecute a young man who had the audacity to run a website containing links that the MPAA didn't like. I cannot in good conscience support an industry that is so hell bent on restricting the progress of technology simply because their outdated business model no longer works. And I used to see 8-10 movies a month so I hope the studios are happy with their decisions. Because I'm happy with mine.

backprojection 15y ago

What about donating $1.5 to the EFF for every $1 you spend on movies/music?

finnw 15y ago
Sounds great. Do they take Amazon gift vouchers?

brianstorms 15y ago

My response to the "Kill Hollywood" and "Boycott Hollywood" rants: Kill Y Combinator. http://blog.moviegoer.com/post/16333492475/kill-y-combinator http://blog.moviegoer.com/post/16333492475/kill-y-combinator

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

chaostheory 15y ago

I wonder if buying used movies (used DVDs / Bluray) would let us have our cake and eat it too? From the little I know, only the retailer or the individual re-selling them makes a profit, and not the studios.

__abc 15y ago

18 dollars a ticket? Where is he paying that? I just saw a flick in San Francisco and it didn't cost that much. Is this a NYC thing?