Since the movie just came out i doubt if there is anywhere you can watch it online. Maybe in 6 months you may be able to see it on nexflix. btw i looked and it is not doing well at the box office. It was listed at 12th in the box office returns for the weekend it opened. I can't even see it in the town i live in. Personaly (although i still will see the movie a.s.a.p.) i think they should have found an actor who looked more like Bobby Fischer.
Can someone please show me where I can watch Pawn Sacrifice online!
Sort:
Oct 1, 2015
0
#43
TurboFish wrote:
"Fair use" laws allows for sharing with a limited number of people IF you bought/rented the digital content in the first place, and IF you are not monetarily profiting from sharing.
The bold above is correct, and so it sounds like there is no problem sharing movies for you. And I agree. If the product is appealing enough then I'll also buy it, too:)
Oct 1, 2015
0
#44
TurboFish wrote:
ProfessorProfesesen wrote:
TurboFish wrote:
NativeChessMinerals wrote:
Exactly. If everyone did it, it wouldn't matter. If the world loses its big name movie actors and studios, it won't matter. The art will be expressed through a non-million dollar medium (or a different million dollar medium haha). Actors will have to get real jobs.
According to your logic, musicians, book authors, visual artists, and programmers (anyone who creates digital work) should all work for free or "get real jobs". Do you agree with this? I don't.
They are overcharging. Have you seen the price of school textbooks?
All they see us as is cows to be milked...
I think my plumber overcharges, so therefore he should work for free?
Why not extend that criteria to all workers? Everyone should work for free because I think everyone charges too much! The excuses become absurd when selfish people try to justify avoiding paying workers for their labor.
you are right. people should do whatever they want.
tmkroll wrote:
Seriously incantevoleutopia? I think I know more about what I do for a living and how I feel about it than you.
The problem is that you only think that, you can't be sure. Or we know each other? You may want to listen to an idiot like Steve Albini, major figure, but he probably knows less than you about the music industry.
The only true art of this world. Don't be shy, just admit it. It's ok. Everybody's got the same illness.
Oct 1, 2015
0
#47
tmkroll wrote:
Trysts was better because I have pirated music before. I will not pirate Pawn Sacrifice however.
I've never stolen art, that I'm aware of, which is what "pirating" art refers to. I look at paintings, read original material, and view movies, whether or not these things are copyrighted or not. I also share and/or advertise works of art for free. I don't expect nor apply for compensation for sharing and advertising something. I'm just a part of the community of the creators and spectators of art:)
the law still hasn't caught up to the modern age. Sharing art is not piracy... until it is. You should probably be able to figure out the difference without me trying to explain it,
Oct 1, 2015
0
#49
tmkroll wrote:
the law still hasn't caught up to the modern age. Sharing art is not piracy... until it is. You should probably be able to figure out the difference without me trying to explain it,
I think people have the wrong idea of what viewing a movie on the Internet for free means if they call it "stealing" the movie. What TurboFish wrote about "Fair Use" should probably be read by a few people in this thread:)
Oct 1, 2015
0
#50
I think this discussion ends up when one establishes the difference between the world of laws and the world of ethics, they do not perfectly match (they are not even close) and laws use to be more rigid and ethics use to be more ductile
trysts wrote:
TurboFish wrote:
"Fair use" laws allows for sharing with a limited number of people IF you bought/rented the digital content in the first place, and IF you are not monetarily profiting from sharing.
The bold above is correct, and so it sounds like there is no problem sharing movies for you. And I agree. If the product is appealing enough then I'll also buy it, too:)
Glad to see that we agree on the fair use policy. But I want to emphasize that by "sharing" a movie I mean inviting a few friends over to my house to watch it together, as opposed to sending mutiple digital copies to strangers over the internet. And I pay the artists' representatives to buy or rent the movie, as opposed to downloading it off of BitTorrent without the artists' permission. I hope you still agree with my more specific statement.
Oct 1, 2015
0
#52
I guess if you live long enough then you'll even see things like pdela contemplating ethics...
Oct 1, 2015
0
#53
Of all things the measure is pdela, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not.
If in doubt, ask yourself, what would pdela do?
trysts wrote:
Agreed, but viewing is not stealing, either, is it?
Well, it's illegal. I don't know if it's morally right or wrong. But, imagine if you were the producer of Pawn Sacrifice and spent millions of your dollars on the film. Would you want people watching it for free online while it was still in the theaters?
Oct 1, 2015
0
#55
TurboFish wrote:
trysts wrote:
TurboFish wrote:
"Fair use" laws allows for sharing with a limited number of people IF you bought/rented the digital content in the first place, and IF you are not monetarily profiting from sharing.
The bold above is correct, and so it sounds like there is no problem sharing movies for you. And I agree. If the product is appealing enough then I'll also buy it, too:)
Glad to see that we agree on the fair use policy. But I want to emphasize that by "sharing" a movie I mean inviting a few friends over to my house to watch it together, as opposed to sending mutiple digital copies to strangers over the internet. And I pay the artists' representatives to buy or rent the movie, as opposed to downloading it off of BitTorrent without the artists' permission. I hope you still agree with my more specific statement.
I don't agree with the idea that I should have an established relationship with the person wishing to share the music or movie they bought. I look at the Internet as a community, not my living room. You can get to know people and other works of art through sharing in the community. It is free advertisement for your art. If the art is appealing enough then the artist will gain a following. I go to sites that stream movies and music so I don't actually download these things. I just would like a view and if it's appealing enough to me I will purchase it for viewing or listening to whenever I wish, wherever I wish. If the copyright holder does not want to have their work ready-to-view, then I believe they should have the right to contact the place where their work has been uploaded and have that place delete their work. I trust that places like youtube will honor that request. Are we still in agreement, turbofish?:)
Oct 1, 2015
0
#56
pdela wrote:
Of all things the measure is pdela, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not.
If in doubt, ask yourself, what would pdela do?
hello
Illegal download = Artist loses money.
No. Educate yourself, please.
It's not so simple however I think incantevoleutopia is trolling a bit and knows piracy does cost artists some money.
Oct 1, 2015
0
#60
jurassicmark wrote:
trysts wrote:
Agreed, but viewing is not stealing, either, is it?
Well, it's illegal. I don't know if it's morally right or wrong. But, imagine if you were the producer of Pawn Sacrifice and spent millions of your dollars on the film. Would you want people watching it for free online while it was still in the theaters?
I don't know of any law making viewing or listening to art illegal. And yes, I have no problem watching a film online that is in the theaters if it is made available online. I paid to watch Gone With The Wind in a theater years ago even though I could watch it online for free. If something is in the theater which is made available online then I may watch it depending on my interest. A huge bulk of the millions of dollars spent on films is for advertisement. The film gets funded through advertisement of products, or the film itself constitutes a product which advertises whatever company is distributing it, etc., etc. I advertise it if I like it, for free. I even advertise it for not liking it. Just by talking about it I'm advertising it, and so we're all involved in making the film some money in the long run:)
I think you can get on netfix online, the question dosen't ask for a free viewing
It's still in theaters.
nobody is answering the question
Read #4