You did read the bit where the police missed the unarmed man and hit two innocent bystanders right? You're really going to defend that level of incompetence? Do you know anything about basic gun safety?
Selected filmography: Casino Royale (1967) Hammerhead (1968) The Horror of Frankenstein (1970) Up the Chastity Belt (1971) Carry On Henry (1971) A Clockwork Orange (1971) Vampire Circus (1972) Black Snake (1973) Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (1974) Callan (1974) Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977) Jabberwocky (1977) The People That Time Forgot (1977) Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Star Wars Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi (1983) Saving Star Wars (2004) Ravedactyl: Project Evolution (2005); short film Perfect Woman (2006) The Kindness of Strangers (2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Prowse#Darth_Vader Prowse claims his contract for Return of the Jedi included a share of profits on the film, and although it grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget, Prowse explained in an interview in 2009 that he has never received residuals for his performance. Due to "Hollywood accounting", the actual profits are sent as "distribution fees" to the studio, leaving nothing to distribute to others.
"Don't suppose you have a single citation to back any of these recent nutty allegations, do you?"
Seriously? I don't think even industry insiders would be so bold as to deny any of those claims. There's nothing particularly controversial or surprising there. Just par-for-the-course movie and music biz antics that make their protestations about "immoral" piracy such a joke.
And what about his share of the profits as per his contract? Are you honestly going to claim this movie did not make a profit? Are you going to claim you're on some moral high ground about piracy while trying to justify deeply immoral accounting practices at the same time?
"Content owners distribute their product in a manner they see fit. Just because it isn't in the manner you want, doesn't mean they should. It is THEIR content, they get to decide."
Yeah, keep telling yourself that with your head buried deep in the sand, ignoring what's actually happening in the real world. Artist who don't freak out about not being able to lock down their works and instead make an effort to give fans what they want will go from strength to strength, while those with attitudes like yours will wither and fade.
"This is generally a complaint of non-Americans whose countries have no meaningful creative output of its own. My response to this is that you are not entitled to US content. Maybe you should try some innovation of your own instead of your mindless obsession with American culture."
Really, you're going to throw American exceptionalism into the mix now? Are you deliberately trying to come across as an asshole?
"I'm not sure who you think you're talking about."
Well I'm not sure who you're talking about either, since since no part of your reply to me applies either. If you want to make nonsense claims about random people on the webz, expect the same in response.
"It takes no particular innovation to distribute things over the internet when you don't have to trouble yourself with issues like licensing, fees and paying the owners of the content."
You've conflated two completely separate issues; the implementation of the distribution service (i.e. the innovation) and the cost of the licensing. If internet distributorship is so easy when licensing isn't an issue, why have the content owners failed so spectacularly in offering their own services? After all, since they don't have to pay fees to themselves for the content (dodgy accounting practices aside...) and it's super easy to throw up a website, the money should just pour in shouldn't it?
"Those so-called "innovators" don't have a business at all were it not for the content of others that they're monetizing for their own profit."
Ugh, this old trope. It's a meaningless statement, which you could equally (and equally stupidly) apply to anybody selling anything made by someone else.
"Wikipedia has a responsibility to follow the laws of other countries and if a court finds that a website can be held liable then the owner of that website either needs to block Germany from accessing Wikipedia..."
Excellent suggestion. Wikipedia should not be forced to operate under legal threat from one country with outdated laws on secondary liability. Perhaps if Wikipeia was blocked in Germany for a while, a couple of million grumpy German Wikipedia fans might be able to show the government the error of their ways.