In the same way, there are musicians and film makers that I first encountered on pirated material – and would never have listened to/paid to see at the cinema – but who's back catalogues I have subsequently legally bought, ultimately benefitting the artist in the long run. If the product is good enough, people will be prepared to pay for it. If it's "Catwoman" they'll snap up a copy at a car boot sale, then use it as a coaster….

Also, in the original Variety article (this morning )describing the whirling dervishes of News Corp., the writer stated that relations between Murdoch and Ailes were 'strained.' Later edition altered the message to read – Ailes had strained relations with 'other News Corp. execs.' Which is true. Pandora's Box has been pried open. No?

As for there being no art. We're back to the discussion about who is making movies. Yes, Olly, all we have to do if we want to protest is to not watch. There is SO MUCH OUT THERE. So much variety, so much creativity, so many surprises. Don't settle for the mundane and repetitious. And when you find something worth seeing, DON'T STEAL IT. Make sure the creative people who have given of their time, talent, and money earn wages that recognize their contribution.

These people don't see that they are not hurting the actors the least bit with their actions. If you really want to hurt them, here's a thought, Don't Go To Their Movies, Don't watch their TV shows, and Don't buy products that they may endorse. Oh, and if DVD's and Movie Tickets are expensive, here's a thought, Don't buy em and Don't watch em. But you know what, you people can't find it in you to do so. You guys will get on a soapbox one day and say "I'm done with hollywood," but when the next blockbuster opens next weekend, you people are among the masses that go watch.

The reason some filmmakers make a tremendous amount of money is NOT because they arbitrarily gouge individual viewers but because so many people pay to see their film. And to compare film piracy with music piracy is not an accurate comparison. People who write and perform music get paid to perform that music. Sometimes on recordings, sometimes live. The music industry is beginning to understand that if their recorded music is less profitable, that it nevertheless drives up demand for their music (past, present & future) and the profits on live performance.

But film has no substitute venue, just different viewing devices. I agree with Brad that people are just justifying bad practice. If we use your example of James Cameron, what if his film was downloaded so much that he received no compensation for his work? Not only would he be forced to quit but who would want to follow him? Filmmakers take a tremendous risk. Slumdog Millionaire was fully expecting to go right to DVD after showing in India. But from that risk we have a remarkable film and a new generation of people who saw it and said, that's what I want to do.

And please, don't even infer that piracy will help the mental health of young actors by giving them less money "to know what to do with." That argument only shows that you are grasping at straws.

James Cameron had to put up his own money to finish Titanic because the studio wouldn't and he was smart enough to do so in exchange for more rights for the movie. I applaud him and am happy he made out. This proves that the majority of capitol raised from movies does not go toward future movies. It goes in their pockets. My logic is not that others will pay so it's Ok. I'm saying that a few million a year loss to the studios and theaters is karmic justice.

You contradict yourself twice first when you say a person watching movies online doesn't like them. If they didn't like them they wouldn't take the risk to watch them. Second when you say it could theoretically take down the industry but then admit that it will not close it's doors. What's the difference?

After Cameron made that enormous sum of money he hasn't made any new flicks other than documentaries which is disappointing because he's one of the top directors. Half of Hollywood's actors (especially the young ones) are self destructive because they don't know what to do with all that money. The bottom line is flooding this market with excess cash has proven to be detrimental.

This leads me back to my original argument that this is the inevitable balancing that has already taken place in the music industry and will probably happen to the video game industry as well. Whenever demand is balanced to supply the prices inevitably reduce. It happened with cell phones, computers, etc. It's natural capitalistic Yin and Yang.

And I will say it one more time, just because piracy is out there does not make it right.

By the way, someone was talking about prison before and needless to say there is no right or wrong things here, in my eyes to imprison someone for not playing the money game would paint a bad picture of our 'rights', it doesn't send the message of "You better stop stealing films", it sends the message that "How dare you not embrace our concepts of living, how dare you question the idea of paying for your entertainment, you must now go to prison as you are clearly a harm to our society". But if it did happen though, I'm sure not enough people would call that way of thinking inhumane…

Also, you question someones love of film if they pirate (or fella anyway). There are plenty of different reasons to pirate but common ones are that they have a love for cinema but not the money to properly fund that interest, or perhaps obscure films not sold or screened in the country. This is not always the case obviously, but I don't think your interest or appreciation in cinema could be determined through the way it is watched or 'bought'.

Will movie piracy actually cause Hollywood to close its doors? No, but that doesn't mean it is right or justified no matter your excuse.

You never said you hate movies or anyone involved but your words and actions imply it.

I'm one of those folks who throws some of their hard earned money into the till to see a good movie. Let them earn whatever the market will allow. I like good film making and want filmmakers to know that there's money in it if they produce them.

Jake:
I'd love to hear from a fire fighter or a police officer concerning this debate about wages. I'm a school teacher. I don't earn a fortune but I support my family, and more importantly, I love my job. I did not choose my field because I thought I'd be sailing on a yacht in the Caribbean one day. It doesn't bother me a bit that others are earning millions working in their own chosen fields. If people are bitter about their own life style or income, do something about it. You woudn't be an iota better off if Tom Hanks suddenly had to live in a walkup.

If my points in this debate offend you then say the word and I'll be on my way. Attacking me personally only proves you have no legitimate response. Forgive my intrusion.

Look at Watchmen, a film that has now made $105 million domestically and $172 million worldwide. With an approximate $150 million production budget, on a film with pretty much no name actors the actor's salaries don't even fit into your argument. It costs a lot of money to make a movie and to ignore the fact it is happening or find some way to make an excuse for it is silly.

While I make 35,000 a year working my ass off to support a wife and 3 kids, these Hollywood people are complaining that some people aren't paying the ten bucks they are supposed to, to stare at a screen.

I'm a pirate, and I don't care. So what? So what that Leonardo DiCaprio would be able to buy his third yacht because I watch movies for free. So What? So what that Woody Allen would be able to buy his second house in Barcelona, so what? Should I feel bad for them? They are overpaid anyways.

He didn't break any laws by watching that movie (now don't even get me started on piracy laws, all eyes on the Piratebay case btw).

Being a bigshot reviewr of a top brass column, he should know that reviewing a leaked Wolverine copy would get his ass booted.

PS: I'm not an advocate of torrenting and downloading movies… i personally buy every single movie. Just saying that Friedman was fired for his idiocy, not for breaking the law.