![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Movie Piracy no Big Deal?
- Thread starter Rich Tate
- Start date
Let's also please adhere to the forum rules on this one guys.
No discussing what you download or don't. Please stay directly to the topic.
Now in my case, if you asked me this question, of course I think parking in a fire lane is a bigger deal. Me parking in a fire lane could potentially kill someone, or slow down emergency workers trying to do thier jobs.
What I do find interesting is the disconnection in the piece. People think stealing a physical copy of the movie is serious, but downloading one isn't? Aren't they essentially the same thing?
No discussing what you download or don't. Please stay directly to the topic.
Now in my case, if you asked me this question, of course I think parking in a fire lane is a bigger deal. Me parking in a fire lane could potentially kill someone, or slow down emergency workers trying to do thier jobs.
What I do find interesting is the disconnection in the piece. People think stealing a physical copy of the movie is serious, but downloading one isn't? Aren't they essentially the same thing?
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Interesting analogy that's made... I almost agree with it, except that I don't think cities should be able to charge money for parking (aka parking meters), so as far as that goes I would say downloading movies is slightly more worse, but not much.
I think the whole entertainment industry really has gotten out of control as far as salaries that everyone makes, and I would hazard to guess that this is hitting their bottom line much more so than piracy, although it goes much further than just "stealing from the rich" type thing.
We're talking about information/intellectual property, and this is information that will be distributed "freely" later, new music is on the radio almost immediately, you can record that, but somehow downloading an mp3 is worse? It's not like an mp3 is a perfect reproduction of it either. Now movies tend to be released to the "free" public some time later, so the argument for those is a bit more sketchy.
However the bottom line as far as how much this effecting the movie industry needs to be re-evaluated, as every download song/movie does not represent a lost sale as you need to compare shopping habits, if someone downloads every dvd that's released that doesn't mean that the person would have rented or bought those dvds in the first place, especially in the case of a poor college student. Where as the theft of a dvd does represent a lost sale because someone else can not buy it.
I think the whole entertainment industry really has gotten out of control as far as salaries that everyone makes, and I would hazard to guess that this is hitting their bottom line much more so than piracy, although it goes much further than just "stealing from the rich" type thing.
We're talking about information/intellectual property, and this is information that will be distributed "freely" later, new music is on the radio almost immediately, you can record that, but somehow downloading an mp3 is worse? It's not like an mp3 is a perfect reproduction of it either. Now movies tend to be released to the "free" public some time later, so the argument for those is a bit more sketchy.
However the bottom line as far as how much this effecting the movie industry needs to be re-evaluated, as every download song/movie does not represent a lost sale as you need to compare shopping habits, if someone downloads every dvd that's released that doesn't mean that the person would have rented or bought those dvds in the first place, especially in the case of a poor college student. Where as the theft of a dvd does represent a lost sale because someone else can not buy it.
I agree with you 100% on the ideal that people may not buy or rent a film they may download, but that still doesn't circumvent the idea that you didn't pay for that content you watched.
I also agree with the fact that movie companies do give away their flicks. But how long does it take for a film to go from the theaters to say a television broadcast? You pay for PPV, and HBO. Hence paying for the movie.
Don't get me wrong bro, I'm with you. I think it's INSANE what a trip to the theater costs. Look at Steve or Kyle for example. You gotta buy 4 tickets for you, the wife and kids. Then you gotta have snacks, soda popcorn etc. You're then looking at what, 60-75 dollars for a movie night with the family?
AND so many of the movies suck to boot.
We're the generation who grew up with the VCR. There's a smaller difference between taping a show off the TV (or DVR now) and downloading it, than there is between downloading and walking into a B&M and stealing a hard copy.
Great point, it really supports the detachment idea.
Sorry i Tried to edit my message but couldn't....
Anyways,
I always thought that when a person buys something lets say a movie or a cd, he is free to do whatever he wants to that piece. He can break it, he can make multiple copies of it, whatever he wants to do with it is fine, as he bought the piece. Now, if he wants to put that piece on the internet and "share" it with his friends, people he doesn't know, or whomever...to me, i feel that it should be allowed as he bought the piece and it belongs to him now (the piece does). Now is that illegal? Absolutely. Now is that morally/ethically wrong? Hmmm...I don't think so as he bought the piece and it belongs to him.
UrielDagda
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,844
I, personally, think the punishments and special interest-generated penalties are way overboard to what is the realistic effect of downloading something.
It all comes down to, are people that normally purchasing now downloading instead of purchasing said product.. Or are the vast majority of people downloading pirated stuff people who wouldn't normally purchase it anyway? I think there might be some effect, but still not anything near what the entertainment industry makes it out to be. I mean, we are talking about an industry filled with some of the world's richest people, who are still making money hand over fist.
So while I see pirating as wrong, I don't think it is anything more than small misdemeanor offense, realistically. With some obvious exceptions, say people who run businesses to specifically make profit off of pirated CD and DVDs.
It all comes down to, are people that normally purchasing now downloading instead of purchasing said product.. Or are the vast majority of people downloading pirated stuff people who wouldn't normally purchase it anyway? I think there might be some effect, but still not anything near what the entertainment industry makes it out to be. I mean, we are talking about an industry filled with some of the world's richest people, who are still making money hand over fist.
So while I see pirating as wrong, I don't think it is anything more than small misdemeanor offense, realistically. With some obvious exceptions, say people who run businesses to specifically make profit off of pirated CD and DVDs.
The difference between stealing a Hard DVD and downloading a compressed movie is that one is actual physical stealing (Taking the use of something away from someone else) and the other is copyright infringement (where Copyright was given to the studios to promote creativity and the public good). The penalties are different, they are diferent things.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
And this is the exact reason as to why I do not consider stealing a physical dvd the same as downloading, when you steal a dvd you're stealing not only the "content" (ie the entertainment fee), but also you're stealing their ability to make money on a sale.
I absolutely agree you are stealing "content" in both cases, but then it comes down to what you consider to be worth more, or more to the point, does content equate to a larger percentage of what you're paying for?
Who knows maybe it's because I remember a time when me and some buddies would sit out on the road next to the drive-in movies we'd be able to see the movies for free essentially, ie we were "stealing content"?? Or before that when people would peak through a fence to watch a sporting event (before stadiums became to complex to do this), are they stealing in that case? Seems to me that if you aren't creating a mess on someone's property, or using their facilities, that you aren't costing them a whole lot.
I guess the question of how much of the cost of seeing a movie is the content will never be able to be answered, after all you don't pay any different cost for a movie regardless of how much it physically cost the company to make it, Clerks would cost just as much as Titanic if they were both shown at the same time.
[BRO]Alaskan
Gawd
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 954
When you purchased the DVD or CD you purchased the RIGHT to view it. You did not purchase the redistribution rights. Making a copy for your friends is NOT legal. Uploading it to the internet for anybody and everybody to download is NOT legal. It has never been legal (even though lots did) to do these things even when movies were on VCRs and music was on Tapes. It was legal (and still is I think)to make a copy of a CD or DVD for your own archival purposes but this has been so abused by people who think sharing is legal the MPAA and RIAA want to make all copying ilegal. If there were a lot less people who did not share then I would have had HD content in my house years ago.
meanmodda[H]
Gawd
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Messages
- 526
The day the VCR was invented is when the MPAA lost the war. they might have the occasional victory but unless they stop producing content there is no way they can stop people from sharing.
As for the parking in fire lane well that kinda describes their mentality perfectly , clearly they would portray file sharing worse then potential destruction of physical property. It's called extremism and was widely practiced under communists regimes , where having a different ideology was considered treason.
As for the parking in fire lane well that kinda describes their mentality perfectly , clearly they would portray file sharing worse then potential destruction of physical property. It's called extremism and was widely practiced under communists regimes , where having a different ideology was considered treason.
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
Does anyone else find it scary that SOME people think that a business possibly losing money is worse then an action that could lead to multiple deaths? (i.e. parking in fire routes)?
I have NEVER purchased a movie, EVER or a TV show box set. EVER. Including years where I had a job and didn't download tv/movies. Why? The prices are a joke. We all know the RIAA/MPAA members collude to keep prices absurdly high. It's no secret. Why should anyone support them?
As for downloading TV. I'm just helping the advertisers out. 99% of advertisments I see on TV make me NOT want to buy their product. They're better off with me downloading the content. Besides, what's the difference between viewing it off my PVR, or someone else's PVR? I still pay for cable. I still get the channels. I just view them in a different way.
The reason people don't care about the MPAA/RIAA's imaginary losses is because we know they break a hell of a lot more laws then anyone else to keep prices where they are.
I have NEVER purchased a movie, EVER or a TV show box set. EVER. Including years where I had a job and didn't download tv/movies. Why? The prices are a joke. We all know the RIAA/MPAA members collude to keep prices absurdly high. It's no secret. Why should anyone support them?
As for downloading TV. I'm just helping the advertisers out. 99% of advertisments I see on TV make me NOT want to buy their product. They're better off with me downloading the content. Besides, what's the difference between viewing it off my PVR, or someone else's PVR? I still pay for cable. I still get the channels. I just view them in a different way.
The reason people don't care about the MPAA/RIAA's imaginary losses is because we know they break a hell of a lot more laws then anyone else to keep prices where they are.
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,712
I have a shitload of CDs that I have purchased legally, over 10 dozen DVD's all purchased legally, 4 HD-DVD's purchased legally, go to over a dozen theatrical releases per year, I pay $12 per month for XM radio, $50 per month for internet usage, $65 per month for Digital Cable/HDTV, over $170 dollars per year in rentals, and thousands upon thousands for the hardware and software to watch/listen to it on.
I've backed up all my music in MP3 format, copied all my DVD's for backup, copied all my HD-DVD's for backup, and I digitally record the shows I miss. It seems the RIAA and MPAA wants to put an end to all of this. I won't stand for it. If people choose to download something illegally, that means to me they would never be willing to pay for it out in the consumer world. Seeing this from the outside looking in, I would say.... (a) prices are too high (b) content sucks too much for justification of buying at high prices (c) people want to get back at record companies and movie protection companies for being dicks (d) cable companies have been jacking prices sky high for the last 15 years (e) the person is a theif.
I've backed up all my music in MP3 format, copied all my DVD's for backup, copied all my HD-DVD's for backup, and I digitally record the shows I miss. It seems the RIAA and MPAA wants to put an end to all of this. I won't stand for it. If people choose to download something illegally, that means to me they would never be willing to pay for it out in the consumer world. Seeing this from the outside looking in, I would say.... (a) prices are too high (b) content sucks too much for justification of buying at high prices (c) people want to get back at record companies and movie protection companies for being dicks (d) cable companies have been jacking prices sky high for the last 15 years (e) the person is a theif.
I agree with you about 90%
Fair Use FTW!
The one area I Dont necessarily agree is that I don't believe that it is a black and white issue where someone who DL's something Will never go buy it commercially. I bet that actually does happen more than you may think (Or so I Hear...from my...friend
)The Major problem I see happening and the thing that makes me really angry with the RIAA/MPAA is the way they want to erode Fair use and treat their legitamate customers as criminals.
It's wrong and I won't stand for it.
pixelbender
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2005
- Messages
- 162
Stealing a DVD is THEFT (criminal).
Downloading a movie is COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT (civil).
BIG DIFFERENCE, just like between manslaughter and murder! (25 years)
Downloading a movie is COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT (civil).
BIG DIFFERENCE, just like between manslaughter and murder! (25 years)
pixelbender
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2005
- Messages
- 162
Re: downloaders were never buyers.
I do believe this is true for most people.
For me, music is nice, but it isn't something that I'm vested in. I'll listen often times to what is current, but I could care less about owning it. Music is the passive soundtrack to my life, not an activity.
Whereas movies, I will buy (albeit very few). I'll download flicks all day long, but only because I won't pay for them otherwise. NOW, when there IS something I like (which is pretty much limited to Kubrick and Brooks) I will after watching the downloaded flick, go out and buy a USED copy of the DVD for less than $10. Either way, the studios see no direct revenue from me. Heck often, I'll keep playing the Xvid I downloaded and keep the DVD as a backup!
I do believe this is true for most people.
For me, music is nice, but it isn't something that I'm vested in. I'll listen often times to what is current, but I could care less about owning it. Music is the passive soundtrack to my life, not an activity.
Whereas movies, I will buy (albeit very few). I'll download flicks all day long, but only because I won't pay for them otherwise. NOW, when there IS something I like (which is pretty much limited to Kubrick and Brooks) I will after watching the downloaded flick, go out and buy a USED copy of the DVD for less than $10. Either way, the studios see no direct revenue from me. Heck often, I'll keep playing the Xvid I downloaded and keep the DVD as a backup!
Yeah that is what i'm getting at. There is a difference in moral and ethical wise depending on what you do.
For me, I feel the same as a few others. Downloading is a result of what I'm actually never going to the theater for.
#1 primary reason for me NOT going to the movies:
it costs me $18 for me and a date, which is the price of just purchasing the DVD brand new, without looking for any deals.
Then, I see subliminal (more like BLATENT) advertising throughout the movie. Sure, I'm okay with seeing advertisements in a movie, but if I'm going to get bombarded, I'd better be seeing cheaper theater ticket prices.
But instead, theater prices have increased. So I won't go unless I'm forced into it by a girl (and I don't want to look like a scrooge).
#1 primary reason for me NOT going to the movies:
it costs me $18 for me and a date, which is the price of just purchasing the DVD brand new, without looking for any deals.
Then, I see subliminal (more like BLATENT) advertising throughout the movie. Sure, I'm okay with seeing advertisements in a movie, but if I'm going to get bombarded, I'd better be seeing cheaper theater ticket prices.
But instead, theater prices have increased. So I won't go unless I'm forced into it by a girl (and I don't want to look like a scrooge).
303 Wolverine
n00b
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 61
How is d/ling a movie more wrong than the studio giving actors million dollar contracts?? Or any worse than charging $5 for 10 cents worth of soda??
303 Wolverine
n00b
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 61
WOW I agree 100%...
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
I almost forgot about that crap.
So I go to a theater, pay $15 to see a 9:00 show...
8:45 - Buy tickets
8:46 - 8:50 - Fine Seats
8:51 - Pull cans of pop that I got from the vending machine outside for $1.00 out of my pocket. (Oh, ya, sure, I'll give you $4 for a drink.)
8:52 - Advertisements on the screen.
8:53 - 9:10 - Advertisements still on the screen.
9:10 - Movie finally starts...
9:10 - 11:00 Movie... I think Maddox explains it best is his "I, Robot" rant.
Maddox said:
When the highest paid actors are making < $5 million I might give a damn. Until then, if the studios have a problem with their profits they can stop paying out $100+ million per actor per movie.
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
WTB: Edit button.
As for the "Robin Hood" effect, it's even more then that.
It's not stealing from the rich, it's stealing from the criminal. As I mentioned before. We all know how they keep their prices up. We also all know that they often "lobby" (Read: Bribe) politicians to change the laws to their liking.
I have little problem stealing back what's been stolen from me.
As for the "Robin Hood" effect, it's even more then that.
It's not stealing from the rich, it's stealing from the criminal. As I mentioned before. We all know how they keep their prices up. We also all know that they often "lobby" (Read: Bribe) politicians to change the laws to their liking.
I have little problem stealing back what's been stolen from me.
Totaly agree. I think one of the larger issues is the fact that most people who actively download, are people who understand the ethical dilemmas involved in supporting an orginization like the RIAA and the MPAA. If you google the two, I think you will find several instances where the two have broken several privacy laws, and civil rights in order to keep the pricesas they are.
Which is the other underlying problem, which is that people would rather rent movies or watch TV at home than pay the insane prices for a DVD or a ticket for a movie. Same thing goes for music $.99 per song CD's @ $18.00 that's insane that means that my collection (which is shared between me and my brother, yes we did pay for a lot it) costs one / two thousand.
Now is what I am doing illegal? They would probably tell you so because I am only paying for about a 1/2 of the collection, as per the "purchasing a song entitles me the right to play," but that is absolutely ridiculous and shows how policies like these just dont make sense in the modern world. If that were such a large problem then why stop there, my neighbors will often blast their music obnoxiously loud. At least help me out and subpeona them for sharing their music through loud propogation of sound waves, that way even though I loose civil liberties I will have a quiet neighborhood.
Now someone who isn't lucky and doesn't have a music-loving brother is going to have to pay for all of that or more, who the hell would wan't to have to accomidate that much money for intellectual property, I can barely afford even when sharing with my bro. It is freaking Economics 101, too high prices, people will not buy as much and will either nearly stop buying music, or completely stop, and will very likely end up looking for alternatives, like sharing. Reform the industry if you want keep filling your coffers, it is the consumer that controls the FREE MARKET not the supplier, you have to create initiative for people to buy media.
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
The real problem is they're losing their monopoly. They used to have complete control over the industry. Now there's an alternative and suddenly the ridiculous prices no longer attract the buyers.
Of course, they WANT you to think that people are downloading instead of buying. In reality, the people that never bought are the ones doing most of the downloading. What they want to do is punish people for not buying their product, not punish people for stealing.
If they didn't bother with DRM they could sell music at a much more reasonable $.40-$.50 per song and still push similar profit margins. I don't know about you, but at $.40/song I'd buy it... if it wasn't already legal to download it in Canada.
For those of you that don't know, there is a built in tax on EVERY CD/DVD sold in Canada that gets paid to the record companies. In addition, taxes on MP3 players, solid state media, etc. After they bribed the government officials into this scam, they tried to turn around and sue people in Canada for downloading music. The subsequently got owned by a judge.
Of course, they WANT you to think that people are downloading instead of buying. In reality, the people that never bought are the ones doing most of the downloading. What they want to do is punish people for not buying their product, not punish people for stealing.
If they didn't bother with DRM they could sell music at a much more reasonable $.40-$.50 per song and still push similar profit margins. I don't know about you, but at $.40/song I'd buy it... if it wasn't already legal to download it in Canada.
For those of you that don't know, there is a built in tax on EVERY CD/DVD sold in Canada that gets paid to the record companies. In addition, taxes on MP3 players, solid state media, etc. After they bribed the government officials into this scam, they tried to turn around and sue people in Canada for downloading music. The subsequently got owned by a judge.
Riddlinkidstoner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,589
The real problem is they're losing their monopoly. They used to have complete control over the industry. Now there's an alternative and suddenly the ridiculous prices no longer attract the buyers.
Of course, they WANT you to think that people are downloading instead of buying. In reality, the people that never bought are the ones doing most of the downloading. What they want to do is punish people for not buying their product, not punish people for stealing.
If they didn't bother with DRM they could sell music at a much more reasonable $.40-$.50 per song and still push similar profit margins. I don't know about you, but at $.40/song I'd buy it... if it wasn't already legal to download it in Canada.
For those of you that don't know, there is a built in tax on EVERY CD/DVD sold in Canada that gets paid to the record companies. In addition, taxes on MP3 players, solid state media, etc. After they bribed the government officials into this scam, they tried to turn around and sue people in Canada for downloading music. The subsequently got owned by a judge.
lol owned
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
lol owned
Here's one better...
These are some of the facts that the record companies agreed to when they set up this levy.
# the "rights holders" to be compensated by the levy are authors, performers, and makers
# calculations are based on the assumption that a commercial CD contains 14 songs of an average length of four minutes each, sells for $20, and returns $1.50 to the rights holders
# the imputed value of "a song" to a rights holder is $1.50 / 14 = 10 cents (rounded for simplicity)
# by making a copy, consumers are depriving the rights holders of the compensation they would have received had the consumer purchased a commercial CD
# to recover the lost compensation, the levy should be 10 cents "per song"
10 cents per song. They sue for what, $750/song? I'm sure they love pirates. The government lets them extort 750,000% more profit per song! When's the last time you heard of someone getting sued for $150,000 for stealing a $20 item? Never. So why do the judges just smile and nod when the RIAA pulls this shit?
Shortsighted? Please.
Statistics has proven that those who end up watching a downloaded film would have never in the first place ran to the movie theatres to watch the film or already have.
Also, please do not tell me that hollywood can be making millions when you can go to hollywood video and rent a new release for a $1.30 for a night... you tell me... $1.30 for a NEW RELEASE... now subtract the media costs, subtract the production costs, subtract the retail costs including paying off your employees at the video store, subtract all your logistics, advertising, and rental costs... not to mention tax or fees from your credit card services.... $1.30 shrinks incredibly fast...
now subtract your MPAA fees and any other corporate overlord... and tell me, how much of that rental goes into the pocket of any producer or movie actor?
cklepinger
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 27
You're are completely high....
a rental place pays retail or slightly less for a DVD, or they may have subscription fees to the MPAA.. 15.99 - 25.99 then rent it out over 1,000 times at 3.99 a new release... you think the 1.30 is only one time? Then the ones that they don't rent out anymore, the sell them used for 5-10 bucks. HA your deluded... They SCREW us left and right and want even more... PERIOD.
pigwalk
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,396
I refuse to buy music retail. If I download a CD I like, I goto the bands show and buy it straight through them, or if they're not touring I buy through their website.
If I could do something similar for movies I would too. As is, I just end up buying the flicks I like at Wal Mart when they hit the 7 dollar bin.
If I could do something similar for movies I would too. As is, I just end up buying the flicks I like at Wal Mart when they hit the 7 dollar bin.
I hate it when you go to the movies:
1 - $8-$15 a ticket
2 - $4-8 for popcorn and pop
3 - $4 if you want to buy a vending machine pop
4 - Movie starts late, usually quite late
5 - Commercials and advertisements fills the late start (making money)
6 - Movie itself is loaded with commercials and advertisements
7 - Movie is mediocre
8 - You leave feeling like you just drop the soap in a state penitentiary's shower room.
1 - $8-$15 a ticket
2 - $4-8 for popcorn and pop
3 - $4 if you want to buy a vending machine pop
4 - Movie starts late, usually quite late
5 - Commercials and advertisements fills the late start (making money)
6 - Movie itself is loaded with commercials and advertisements
7 - Movie is mediocre
8 - You leave feeling like you just drop the soap in a state penitentiary's shower room.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,669
I do find it scary that some people think a business possibly losing $10, even if it were a view that would have been converted into a sale, is worse than the possibility of multiple-to-many people losing their lives.
I don't see the difference between viewing it off my PVR or someone wanting to view it off of someone else's. If they pay for the channels anyway, who cares? They're just catching the show on THEIR schedule instead of the force-fed producers'. I'm not sure if handing someone a VCR tape of a show you recorded off of a channel is "legal", but I don't see the difference. Of course, NOW they decide to go on a zealot's crusade against sharing their content that they gave to us.
If I record something off the radio to listen to, it's fine. God help me if I record it off the Internet, for some reason! Same content, same effect of being able to re-listen, but of course, it MUST be the devil because they don't have 100% control of it!
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,669
True on all counts. I *hate* going to movie theatres for the most part due to this stuff they pull.
Nice cliché here.
Oh god how I tried. I recently went on a date this Sunday and the prices for a movie went up from 19.00 to 21.00. WOW. The movie sucked and I didn't get to score. Total rip off for me...
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
Wow is right. Where do you live? Was this at iMax or somethin'? I can see a movie in a theater with stadium seating and surroud sound for under $10, and even less with a student discount (I graduated but I still have my college ID
).GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
You were talking about single ticket price, right?
Nice cliché here.
Trust me, anything coming from you I don't take to heart.