Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
jengelh wrote:I would follow the standard licensing à la CC/GPL/etc. -- the movie itself is free, what you pay for is: the cinema seat, the 36x18 m superscreen and your popcorn, the electricity to play it, etc. (GPL calls this "distribution fees".)
You do realize that the GPL allows selling the work for whatever price someone is willing to pay, right? Doesn't have anything to do with Star Wreck.
CC and the GPL are not that much related.
Well, I'm just one of the fans of the movie, so I have nothing to do wiht the creating or licensing part of it(read: I don't have the moral responsibility in fron to the many people who helped to create the movi for free), but I believe that it's a pretty fair deal, if a poster says it LOUD AND CLEAR WITH BIG FONT, that a full length version of the the movie is LEGALLY FREE TO DOWNLOAD at www.starwreck.com
, and then charge what ever they wish for the ticket, even double of the ticket price of an average "closed source" movie. I believe that the market situation will do its job here and that the usual ticket prices for a legally freely downloadable movie are not an issue to everybody.
So what, let the cinemas stick the big-profit to their pockets, at least the movie will spread and may-be this will encourage the cinemas to look also at other, alternative, freely available movies, to their repertuar. As long as people are fully informed of the freeness of the movie, the cinema just provides a service and it's people's free choice from "moment-one": download it from the URL, shown at the cinema's advert-poster, or enjoy the popcorn and a nice atmosphare in the cinema.
After all, tee in a caffeteria also costs more than tee at home, and it's not unfair, or is it?
(OK, I tend to disagree with the fairness of the shittyly small food portions at trade-shows(think Hannover, CeBIT), that cost 4 times of an average, normal-sized lunch at an average restaurant.)
A truly democratic forum does not have censorship, even for dirty language.