"Getting asses in your seats vs. their living room is your problem now"
But that has always been a theatre’s problem. The whole draw of a theatre is not to watch a movie, but to watch a movie in a social setting. If a theatre cannot convince people to do that, it is not the fault of piracy — it is the fault of that theatre for not finding a way to make the theatre-going experience worth a consumer’s time and money.
This is how a lot of MMA, boxing, and pro wrestling fans viewed PPV costs at the height of that system’s popularity: Throw a party of sorts, split the costs between everyone there, and watch the show. Ten friends paying five dollars each is a far better idea than one person paying the full fifty.
To a movie studio, that would be anathema. “How dare these people only pay part-price for the right to watch our movies!” they might yell in a boardroom. There would be all kinds of restrictions and issues pushed onto these “licensed rentals” to make them not worth the cost.
And that does not even get into the subjective nature of whether a film (or a PPV) might be “good” or “bad” and the risks involved with paying for something you might later regret having paid for.
Imagine a world where a film only needs a single marketing run to cover every possible release — theatrical, DVD/Blu-ray, digital video. Imagine how much money that would save studios in the long run. That is a benefit of a non-existent release window.
Imagine a world where a film could be released in theatres and on home video (physical and digital) at the same time. Rather than limiting consumer choice to either “theatres” or “piracy”, consumers would have the extra option of “licensing” the home video release and watching it on their own terms. That is a benefit of a non-existent release window.
Imagine a world where a simultaneous cross-platform release could negate or drive down piracy. As this site has said before, legal and convenient (as well as fairly priced) is the easiest way to push people away from piracy and toward legal options. That is a benefit of a non-existent release window.
Maybe there will be more piracy of a film if it received a digital release at the same time as the theatrical. Then again, if the studios think people will pay thirty fucking dollars for a mere “license” to a film — a license that could be revoked at any time or made worthless by a downed DRM server — piracy will remain an “unfixable” problem for the studios.
There are more benefits to a non-existent release window than there are drawbacks. Some of those benefits are even on the “supply side” of the chain. Society is changing, and so is how society experiences films and television shows (can we even call them “television shows” if they are on Netflix?). Theatres will still have a place in society, but making them the first and only option for consumers to view new movies is not going to help theatres (and movie studio profits) survive. And it will damn sure not marginalise the issue of piracy.
the logical leap to say all art should be preserved doesn't follow
What makes a work of art or a pop culture artifact worth preserving — is it the medium in which it is presented, the supposed quality of the work, or some other intangible subjective quality? Who amongst us has the right to declare what art “deserves” preservation?
In other words: What compelling reason could you possibly offer to justify why a video game considered by industry historians and average gamers alike to be one of the best games ever made (e.g., “The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past”) deserves less of a shot at proper preservation than a film considered by all who have seen it to be one of the worst films ever made (“Manos: The Hands of Fate”)?
You know, there is at least one way to help stem the tide of forced prostitution and such: Legalise and regulate sex work as if it were any other service industry. That approach would not stop all forced prostitution (and I would be a fool to believe otherwise), but it could help create conditions that favor voluntary sex work and better safety for sex workers. If an adult legitimately wants to become a sex worker, would you prefer they do it somewhere that can vouch for their general safety and well-being (i.e., a legalised brothel), or would you prefer they do it on a street corner where no one can vouch for their safety?
there is nothing in the Order calling it a Muslim ban
As pointed out by numerous other commenters here — not to mention the TRO against the new order — Trump and his administration cronies have said, out loud and on the record, that the intent of both travel orders was to be a “Muslim ban”. Trump himself campaigned on the notion that he would carry out this ban. The order does not explicitly have to say “this is a Muslim ban” if the intent of the order is clear. Trump and his cronies made the intent quite clear themselves; now they have to deal with their own words being used against them.
And how many public beatings, lashings, and executions did you personally witness? How many non-Muslims and women were killed right in front of your eyes by the “barbaric” Muslims you want to decry? Do you have any records to prove these supposed first-hand claims, or do you want me to take it on faith?
I am well aware of the human rights abuses that happen in countries such as Saudi Arabia. That awareness is still not an excuse to foster an “all people from Saudi Arabia are bloodthirsty backwards savages” attitude. Your personal anecdotes (substantiated or not) will not sway me into such a mindset, either.
Also: Do not pull that “you think you have it bad here” bullshit out again. As an LGBT person who felt insulted by Trump’s attempts to use LGBT people as a shield for his Islamophobia, that argument — such as it is — has no effect on me. It is a transparent disguise for bigotry, and I think even you know that.
I think trying to draw a direct line between the countries he targeted, and his own personal gain, is a reach.
Not really, no. Trump did not fully divest himself from his business interests after he took office. His wanting to keep countries on his side when those countries can help him get wealthier is not a ridiculous conclusion to draw here.
The guy's 70 years old or so. I would think someone at his age would be more concerned about his legacy than money
From all the evidence I have seen, Trump believes his legacy begins and ends with his brand. Polished or tarnished, the existence of his brand is all that matters to him. And his brand represents obscene wealth and fame. So why would he refuse a chance to grow his wealth, and thus his brand, at every possible opportunity?
I can tell you that regardless of what they "think", they are taught from a very young age that Westerners and their values are evil.
Teaching something is a far cry from getting people to believe that something. To wit: evolution.
You think being black is difficult in the U.S.? Try being female in Saudi Arabia.
Ah, the old “you have it so much better here” argument — the last gasp of a bigot as they try to paint all foreign peoples and cultures as “barbaric” and “backwards”.