who on tw claimed they wrote zombieland?

Hi all, since I'm the one who unwittingly started this particular firestorm, here are my thoughts.

My two tweet plea (five if you include my three angry tweets to individuals) began after I read tweet upon tweet for hours, days, weeks, in which people mentioned (or often, bragged) openly about having just watched Zombieland at home for free. I largely shrugged this piracy off as inevitable, but it never felt good to read the tweets. Then I saw the 60 Minutes episode on piracy. And then I read an article about the sheer numbers of downloads of Zombieland in particular. Rightly or wrongly, I felt burned. For the record, I may have been over-dramatic, in my emotional state, in suggesting that downloading could kill Zombieland 2. It could. In our case, the greater hope/expectation is that it won't. The movie has done very well.

No, I don’t believe that 1 download = 1 lost ticket sale or 1 lost DVD sale. Certainly, there are many people who both contribute to a movie's legitimate B.O. and also download the movie… including, it turns out, the people I singled out on Twitter. There are also many people who download movies who would never pay to see those same movies in any format regardless. But I do believe that there is a significant, non-trivial population of people who might have (in an ideal world with no piracy) paid to see Zombieland, either in theaters or on DVD, but instead chose to watch it for free, because it was easy and didn't cost them anything.

No, I don't subscribe to the Robin Hood argument, which claims that rich, greedy Hollywood studios/actors/writers/etc. have enough $ and don't need more. Nor do I subscribe to the argument that examines positive correlations between downloads and box office and concludes that popularity in the one (downloads) is somehow causing the popularity in the other (box office). Correlation does not imply causality.

Some might argue that an ideal world *should* allow unlimited piracy of copyrighted material. I disagree. And I agree with the reasoning behind copyright law. Copyright law grants the owner of a copyright a window of time within which he/she can make money off the copyright. I hate to say it, but people making money off art, even a lot of money, is a good thing. It’s America. It's capitalism. Copyright law is important because it provides financial incentive for artists to set aside other pursuits and devote entire careers to creating and innovating. Movies. Books. Videogames. Songs. These things bring us joy. And joy is worth paying for.

I can only assume that lovers of piracy relish the improvements in copying/distribution technology that make pirating all the easier and gradually improve the quality of what is being pirated... to where a pirated copy will ultimately be indistinguishable in quality from an original. But take this to its logical conclusion, and it isn't hard to see why everyone should be concerned. Human nature sadly dictates that few people will pay for what they can get for free. In a world where all art is instantly available for nothing, no one will be able to make a living as an artist. Nor will anyone invest any capital in art. So… no more movies. No more videogames. No more albums. TV shows. Etc.

I by no means want to be an anti-piracy crusader, and I’m now going to step away from the debate. I’m not a very political person. On a very basic level, my tweets were just the defensive reactions of an artist who hates seeing people brazenly proclaim that they’re pirating his work.

I really like the genuine debate that has been inspired by this thread. There are obviously different sides of this issue, and different complexities within it. I've been called a lot of things in the last week, a number of which have been pretty crazy, and I just wanted to make the most reasoned response I could. Paying for art isn’t the most objectionable thing in the world. In fact, it’s a very beneficial thing.

PS, thanks for weighing in, everyone, especially those who supported my point of view. Suicide Taxi, in particular, makes a TON of sense to me!

SG

Largely what I posted to the torrentfreaks comments although mine had a lot less explanation, and a lot more angry.

I'd also quote Taxi's long post on this because it's by far the most cogent I've ever seen him, it was shocking.
 
Its just an emotional response by somebody who sees something they probably worked hard on getting stolen.

Sure its not true, but how can you get mad at the guy for feeling that way, he used twitter for it didndt he, he probably saw it, got mad, and posted it in a 30 second period.

No need to hate, but im sure if push came to shove most would admit the impact of piracy is probably somewhat small.

I dont go to the theater, ever, haven't been in years. I would rather wait for netflix, so if i pirate a movie there is no lost revenue there because there is no chance at all I would go see it.
 
good posts by taxi and sg.

find a way to provide your art to the end-user in a fast, reliable, and immediate way at a fraction of the cost, and you will crack into a niche market that will allow you to share your hard work, provide entertainment to your users at an affordable cost, and reduce the overall amount of piracy surrounding your art.

i havent seen your movie yet, but everyone i know has and theyve enjoyed it. i simply wont part with $50 to take me, my gf, her son, and a friend to a theater that's ripping me off for all but sitting there in a loud, crowded, smelly theater. you'll get my money when it floats to HD on-demand so i can watch it in the comfort of my own home.
 
SG, I saw your movie twice. Once with my cousin the other with my girlfriend. I think that a major point is being missed, or maybe not didn't read the whole thread, but I truly believe that as some of us age, the propensity to pirate becomes less. The unfortunate aspect is that you are targeting a demographic that is of a pirating age. I am 38, pay to go see movies and pay to rent and purchase dvds. I will be buying your DVD when it comes out, because I can afford to. Not because of my stance on piracy. I think disposal income plays more of a part in this than anything else.

If there was a way to establish a sliding scale in entertainment for payment I trulybelieve there would be less piracy. Just my thoughts.
 
I saw part of it after downloading

movie sucked and writing was terrible so I stopped

trust me no way I would check it out in theaters and the dload was just bc a TWer wrote it
 
I haven't seen the movie so I don't know anything about it, but I just wanted to chime in and let Dac know that no one values his opinion about anything.
 
I've never pirated a movie. It's not that I'm against it in principle, but I'm kind of picky on the setting in which I watch a movie. I don't like watching shitty bootlegs. I didn't catch zombieland in theaters but I'll definitely watch it when it comes out on DVD.
 
i simply wont part with $50 to take me, my gf, her son, and a friend to a theater that's ripping me off for all but sitting there in a loud, crowded, smelly theater.

Holy crap, it's $1.50 a ticket where I live. How the hell can they get away with charging that much? :psyduck:
 
Last edited:
Last thing i would ever worry about is Artists losing money. Its not like they themselves lead holier than thou lives and never ever downloaded a song or movie illegally.

If anything, Piracy does everyone a great service by insuring that distributors have to offer products at reasonable prices to compete with illegal downloads.

so to all you pirates out there, thanks. I appreciate being able to get movies and CD's for $9.99 instead of the $30 they used to charge which kept me from buying.
 
I've never pirated a movie. It's not that I'm against it in principle, but I'm kind of picky on the setting in which I watch a movie. I don't like watching shitty bootlegs. I didn't catch zombieland in theaters but I'll definitely watch it when it comes out on DVD.

You can download blu-ray quality movies and then burn them to blu ray discs and watch them on your blu ray player + big tv.
 
Back
Top