Michael Moore Changes his Tune on Piracy
Documentary filmmaker, voice of the disenfranchised, and all around “good guy” Michael Moore recently released his latest movie Slacker Uprising for free online. His reasoning was that he wanted the movie to get out to as many people as possible and hopefully make a difference on Election Day, but some recent actions by Moore and his lawyers might lead you to believe otherwise.
The movie was only made available online within the U.S. and Canada through a few approved sources, but various torrent sites began hosting their own copies of the movie so that everyone around the world would have access to it. Unfortunately now these torrent sites and even some of their web hosts are being hit with a letter saying that they are in violation of copyright and that they are required to remove any links to the movie. The funny thing is, I remember last year when Sicko leaked online, Moore said he was totally okay with it! Apparently this doesn’t hold true when it’s a movie that he’s already released online for free in the first place. I’m sure plenty of people will jump on Moore and call him a hypocrite… personally I’m still scratching my head about it. All I know is that Slacker Uprising is coming out for sale on DVD tomorrow, and from what I hear, it’s not worth buying!
Comments (21)
Moore is an idiot… he’s the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party in since Jimmy Carter. I wish he would just shut up!
Posted by David Lay on October 6th, 2008“Good Guy”, Sean?
Moore is an opportunistic, muckraking piece of shit. I’m not surprised that he’s changing his tune. If his films get pirated, he won’t make the millions he is used to. He’s a fat hypocrite.
Posted by Jon Rocks on October 6th, 2008What does he expect when his films pander to such a lazy, layabout demographic?
Posted by Joel on October 6th, 2008How is he making millions by offering the movie for free online Jon?
Posted by swarez on October 6th, 2008Whoa, what a surprise to hear Jon Rocks chime in on this topic. Anyway, I don’t dislike Moore, because his films are not misleading, and his message is one that needs to be heard. However, this does seem to be a somewhat dickish move, seeing as how he can’t decide whether he or the people should have rights to the movie. Haven’t seen Slacker Uprising and don’t intend to, because it really seems like a piece of shit (which is the only reason he would let people see it for free in the first place.)
Posted by Matt on October 6th, 2008>>How is he making millions by offering the movie for free online Jon?<<
read the article. he’s offering it free online to US/CANADA ONLY. besides despite what we may think a great majority of people don’t actually use the internet, much less how to download movies off bittorrent, etc. so yes, he will still make millions. it’s just the cheapo slackers like us who will download his movies for free.
Posted by blah on October 6th, 2008I know it’s US and Canada only. The film has found a distributor overseas and they don’t want the film pirated before it’s released there. What’s dickish about that? They are protecting their investment. The reason he wants it free online in the states is because he wants young people to get of their fucking ass and vote. This is a good way to try and persuade them to do so.
How would you that think he’s a dick about it feel if you had created something to sell and people were distributing it online for free?
Posted by swarez on October 6th, 2008Swarez, he is only offering it online for free because nobody would pay to purchase a film about an “uprising” that failed. It’s not as if he wouldn’t milk this film for millions if the election had gone the way he’d hoped it would.
And Matt, what’s the matter with me presenting a contrarian point of view? I’m not trying to start a fight or anything, I’m just saying…
I have lots of (very) liberal friends, and I like to think that I present a viewpoint that most of them don’t get from most of their other friends.
Posted by Jon Rocks on October 6th, 2008So how come it’s being released on DVD if nobody wants to pay to see it?
How come people who dislike him always resort to calling him fat or a piece of shit, but never contradict his points or prove him wrong.
Posted by swarez on October 6th, 2008Jesus– contradicting his points would take all night. I’m not about to be baited into another one of those arguments. Even his supporters admit that he stretches the truth quite often– but that is the prerogative of the documentary filmmaker, and that’s not necessarily what I have problem with. I have a problem when uninformed viewers buy his rhetoric at face value.
The fact remains that the man is fat, or morbidly obese– a fact that is not mutually exclusive to his being a piece of shit.
And, as stated in one of the earlier posts, not everybody is accustomed to viewing films on the PC, or torrenting. So he is releasing it on DVD for more conventional customers.
Posted by Jon Rocks on October 6th, 2008What does him being fat have anything to do with anything? You either agree or disagree with the man because of his arguments but not base your opinion of him because of his looks which you clearly do.
Also, name me one documentary that doesn’t edit or rearrange things to get its point across or to make it more dramatic. Every documentary does this, every single fucking one of them.
Posted by swarez on October 6th, 2008You clearly haven’t read my last post well enough. I said right in it that I don’t have a problem with him stretching the truth– by nature, that is what documentary filmmakers do. I’m well aware of that. I have a problem when people (read: unintelligent viewers) don’t realize that a documentary film represents specific person’s point of view, and they take his films as gospel.
And I also said him being fat has nothing to do with him being a shit (hence the part about them not being mutually exclusive.) Did your fervor to disprove my post get in the way of comprehending what I actually said?
Posted by Jon Rocks on October 6th, 2008I see Jon couldn’t go into his Moore tirade without a fat crack. how typical.
Posted by Goon on October 6th, 2008“I have a problem when people (read: unintelligent viewers) don’t realize that a documentary film represents specific person’s point of view, and they take his films as gospel.”
as opposed to 99% of McCain’s ads?
Posted by Goon on October 6th, 2008FilmJunk isn’t the place to turn this into a current election debate. My comment was about the posted item.
And, just so you know, I think anyone who buys into any candidate’s election ads, on either side, to be lacking in intelligence.
And Goon– Michael Moore is a svelte, handsome man. Is that better?
Posted by Jon Rocks on October 6th, 2008All Michael Moore posts seem to come back to the same arguments, but I’m a fan of Michael Moore’s movies and even I am wondering why he would bother to threaten the torrent sites. Maybe he thought no one would notice.
Posted by Sean on October 7th, 2008Ok Jon. Tell me if I’m reading this correctly. You have a problem with people taking his film as the absolute truth and you hate HIM for it? How does that work?
Posted by swarez on October 7th, 2008“FilmJunk isn’t the place to turn this into a current election debate.”
fine, but when you’re stoking the fires with fat insults and random historical references like “he’s the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party in since Jimmy Carter” I don’t think its appropriate to complain when I make a reference to whats happening now. I mean you said ‘muckraking opportunist’ when I can easily make that argument against McCain - who dumped his crippled wife for a beer heiress, who sold his office to Keating, who has in his own books wrote that running for president is only about personal ambition, who unlike Moore, is running for president. (PS Moore is voting Democrat, but he’s been a very harsh Dem critic for nearly 20 years now. Be fair)
What point is to be made out of the ‘fat’ line of attack. I’ve always wondered, is it just venting because from where I sit, and I’ve made fat jokes, its gotten to the point of bullying. That Zucker movie apparently has him eating non-stop through the film. If I make a Rush Limbaugh movie I might make a pill popping joke, but I’m not going to have him chugging Oxycontin in any scene, I mean christ.
If its just to vent, then I get it, but if its supposed to mean something - I mean look around, half of anyones favorite movie stars are on drugs or in rehab, have had DUIs, major personal issues, said something stupid, got into scientology, etc. Politically, Limbaugh is a drug addict, Obama and Bush both did drugs when they were very young, McCain’s wife stole drugs from a charity to feed her addiction, I mean its all there, and if you want to attack someones character to win points against a political film you don’t like, feel free, but…
For example, “You can’t talk about the health care industry because you’re fat” argument I’ve seen in a lot of places doesn’t fly very well with me. I mean, we might as well get rid of every rich persons opinion on health care too (which would include Moore) because they can afford insurance. Might as well shut up every white person who speaks out against racism because they don’t have to deal with the problems facing minorities first hand. And then of course, there’s the writing off of the opinion of every celebrity as ‘telling you how to vote’ when TV is filled with man on the street interviews every day, paid political pundits, without any special qualifications to tell you either.
Either you have the information and the argument to persuade people, or you don’t. I guess that’s all I’m trying to say in my own long winded way. Moore has selectively taken stats, quotes, etc in his film. Just like most political ads, just like most op-eds and editorials of any political persuasion in any paper. I know it walking in. Moore has been successful, and thus is treated as some symbol of everything wrong with the media. It’s bullshit.
In the end let’s be honest - People who don’t agree with him are a lot more upset with the message than the means to convey it. Sean Hannity had Jerome Corsi on TV how many times? How much play did the Swiftboat Veterans get 4 years ago? They took it hook line and sinker. Anyone who wants to swallow something as complete truth is going to do so, whether they are left, right or up or down, fat or ’svelte’.
So with that in mind that people are going to do whatever they can to best make the case, I’m not going to assume they are rubbing hands saying ‘heh heh heh’ as they craft their argument. I’m also not going to assume every wrong fact in any argument is done on purpose to deceive, as so many Moore haters do.
Posted by Goon on October 7th, 2008“I’m not going to assume they are rubbing hands saying ‘heh heh heh’ as they craft their argument.”
Not only do I do this frequently, I also make it a point to twirl my mustache as I hit the post button, regaling at yet another well placed barb deflating an obnoxious plebe.
Well played, sir, well played.
Posted by Dave on October 7th, 2008I respect Micheal Moore both as a man and as a filmaker. Truth be told THOUGH -Slacker Uprising wasn’t good enough to be released in theaters. While I won’t get to political, I wish people would look at things with an open mind. If you watched SICKO no matter what you think of Moore in general, how could one not be moved by the plight of people with no health insurance or limited coverage. I know I care, whether Moore existed or NOT!
Posted by entertainmenttodayandbeyond on October 7th, 2008Is he getting fatter?
Posted by BrokenJpg on November 6th, 2008Leave a Reply