Did Ashton Kutcher Pirate His Own Movie?

[Dkz]

He is right, they have no case against him. It's his damn movie, good or not he is promoting his work. I can't see the problem in that. Plus I think his action are well seen by fans and even could be much more appreciated by the fans, because he did it himself not some publicist who is unknown by the fans.

 

[EABlair03]

CRUCIFY HIM.

 

[omikron48]

[citation][nom]Pyroflea[/nom]You idiot, that's because piracy is obtaining files for FREE. Paying to download movies wouldn't be call piracy BECAUSE IT ISN'T.[/citation]

No, you goof! Piracy isn't about the money. It's about illegal distribution, whether money is involved or not.

 

[brendano257]

[citation][nom]borisof007[/nom]It's called a "Sneak Preview" people. He did a "sneak preview" without permission. That's not piracy, that's just Ashton being a retard.If anything, Lionsgate might be able to go after him for not asking permission first, but that's about it.[/citation]

Apparently not asking for permission is now the new piracy...

 

[bdonedge]

I don't understand how anything being copied from an original source is "piracy". It's not actually stealing something, it's merely a copy.

 

[pirateboy]

I bet Ashton touches himself in a naughty way when he sees himself on the screen.

 

[Guest]

You people (and I include the article author in this) are such self-serving, rationalizing infantile idiots. What's the difference between an unauthorized clip broadcast and showing the same clip on a talk show? The difference is PERMISSION. The owners of the movie decide what gets shown and where...that's what the concept of ownership means.

What's the difference between you lending someone your car, and their just taking it for a spin? What sort of brainless twit even needs to ask?

Seriously, the illogical contortions you clowns will go through to justify your piracy would be amusing, were it not so sad. Get a grip.

 

[steelbox]

I would reprimand him if it is stated in the contract, with probably is, in BIG red letters even, to not broadcast it with out permission. Fine him and go home.

 

[gorehound]

i no longer care what movies come out of hollywood.it does not matter because i will not be giving my money to that bloated greedy industry again.
i have gone almost a year now buying only used films and no cinema.to bad mpaaa you lose not me.i just cost you probably over a thousand bucks i might of spent but not........NOT FOR YOU !!!

 

[ksampanna]

I heard the movie was crap anyway ...

 

[techguy378]

Before Comcast bought out all of the smaller cable providers my cable provider (Paragon) allowed customers to watch the first 5 minutes of any pay per view movie. If you didn't call them over the phone to order the movie then playback would automatically stop after 5 minutes. I don't see how what Ashton Kutcher did is any different.

 

[anamaniac]

I may catch the movie at the penny theatre, but no way in hell I'm paying $15/person to see it tat a bigger cinema.

 

[DM0407]

[...] which has decided to hide the movie from critics and instead put the first few minutes in front of its target audience during the run-up to its release,"

Now why would they want to hide this masterpiece from critics who would praise it for its originality?

 

[Guest]

The first 5mins 21secs of Get Him To The Greek are on funny or die's website, this is a great idea (if it was a good film), this would entice people to go to the movie theatre to see it.

I wish all movies put their first 5mins on

here is the link btw: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/50425bf4c8/get-him-to-the-greek-opening

 

[nukemaster]

Awesome!!

 

[NuclearShadow]

"The free preview is a transparent marketing stunt by Lionsgate, the studio behind the film, which has decided to hide the movie from critics and instead put the first few minutes in front of its target audience

Well this certainly shows Lionsgate doesn't have much faith in this movie if they feel it can't survive the critics opinions.
Though this marketing ploy certainly is a interesting one as they don't give enough of the film to make much of a impression which they no doubt hope it will spark peoples interest and curiosity and thus sell tickets.

If this marketing ploy does work and the movie is a poor quality one then they certainly just buried this tactic which could have been a interesting way to market in the future.

 

[tygrus]

Is

 

[tygrus]

Is less than 10% OK ? [edit didn't like the less than symbol] He should have asked for permission. Although he stars in the film he probably doesn't have any ownership rights over his performance or the whole film. The owners of the film are the ones paying for the making and distribution (production company / file studio / distributor). The owner has rights not the employees ie. actors.

 

[razorblaze42]

If he didn't have permission its "piracy" and the MPAA should sue him, just the same as if he was a torrent downloader... why is he special? The law is the law, and if you’re going to be fair, it must be applied equally.

 

[eddieroolz]

Amazing how the minds of MPAA works. Even showing it for promotion is piracy, eh.