Gaspar Noe Love Torrent ??? ????

Gaspar Noe Love Torrent

About Usis a subreddit for in-depth discussions about film.We want to encourage and support in-depth, intellectual discussion. Clear, polite and well-written responses should be upvoted; opinions should not be downvoted.

RulesGeneral:.All discussion must be related to film.No racism, sexism, or other forms of bigotry.Moderators have final discretion.Posts:.Threads must promote in-depth discussion.Threads must point discussion in a specific direction.Links to outside articles must be submitted in a self-post and are subject to the above posting rules.Comments:.Be civil and don’t downvote opinions.There is a 180 character minimum for top-level comments.Follow us on:.TrueFilm Resources:.TrueFilm Projects. Disclaimer: This post is not trying to encourage people to download films illegally.

It only seeks to gather opinions and create a constructive discussion on the advantages this practice might offer and the obvious consequences of doing it. To all commenters: Please do not post links of torrent files and other media obtained illegally.​My opinion is pretty straightforward. I don't want to talk politics and accuse production companies of being greedy capitalist organizations seeking profit by exploiting the weak minds of the masses. I'd really like to know what this community thinks about P2P sharing, how much it can help third world countries and remote areas of the world access art and other media that can't be found anywhere close to them.​I think it's an incredible technology that seeks to maximize the selective and targeted distribution of films by the distributors and producers of the industry. I live in a small country in Southern Europe and the amount of art that reaches us is minimal.

We only have a handful of cinema chains and they only screen the latest blockbusters; action flicks and American comedies. The genres we all probably despise or ignore. Videoteques are almost extinct and they just sell or rent the same blockbusters found in cinemas.

Amazon Video, Hulu and HBO are not available here at all; meanwhile, Netflix only has 200 films (mostly Indian, Turkish and American b-movies) and 33 TV Series (almost all Netflix originals). I could buy DVDs and BluRays on ebay for $10 - $15, excluding shipping and customs fees (which are incredibly high in my country). The average monthly wage here is $250.​I suppose most countries also have the same limits about the films they can access. Choices are scarce for people that live outside North America and the EU.

This technology allows billions of people to download a multitude of wonderful art for free. I'd have never been able to enjoy the works of David Fincher, Tarantino, Kubrick, Coppola, Scorsese, Hitchcock, Inarritu, Cuaron, Pasolini, Fellini, Sorrentino, Godard, Tarkovsky, Gaspar Noe, Windin Refn, Wong Kar Wai and so on.​I'm not trying to justify myself, I'd just like to read honest opinions by this community. What do you think about torrents and other forms of P2P file sharing?

Is it right to brake the law and 'steal' films and other media when you can't access it in any other way? Do you think this has an impact on the profit of the production companies, and especially what the cast and crew earns?. I live in a country that, due to some complicated geo-political issues, has almost no accessible movie theaters. Our borders are completely controlled by a foreign country's military, and they severely limit our ability to import goods.There is also rampant unemployment, underemployment, low wages, and high cost of living.You can legally and affordably access things like the newest Avengers film if you so like, although anything with sex/nudity will be difficult to come by for reasons other than those mentioned above.I also teach film studies at a university here.My job would be impossible without Piracy or P2P file sharing. Back when I lived in Los Angeles I encouraged legal access to films because they were playing at a theater near us all the time (especially art films.

The simple fact is, no amount of piracy is going to hurt tentpoles. But independent, and art films really need financial support.) But I think the democratization and proliferation of cinema is a good thing, and shouldn't be something only available to countries and people with above average standards of living. I don't think we can really compare the experiences of the 20th century greats with that of young artists today. The entire nature of cinema's place in society is different.Many of the 20th century greats had greater access to good movies in their original format than young people do today, even with the internet.I am thinking specifically about the French filmmakers - Godard and Truffaut have both talked about seeing three or four films a day multiple days a week. In a world where the television was still rare and an all-day cinema ticket cost less than a cup of coffee, they were able to see all the old masters and a lot of contemporary films.Even in film cities like Paris and New York you can't really do that anymore, and haven't been able to since the 70's. Paradoxically, the filmmakers of the 20th century had easier access to film than a lot of young artists today, especially those who don't live in a big city.Unfortunately, I think piracy is often the only option for a lot of people, especially when you get into film and video art.For example: should I really fork over $120 for Because that's currently the only way to watch It Wasn't Love legally.This example is really not all that out there for a lot of hard to find film and video art. Piracy did not kill the old school movie going experience at all.

An increase in other available forms of entertainment did. Attendance began dropping all around the world in the 70's and 80's, and it wasn't because people were pirating 'Return of the Jedi.' People had TVs at home. Cable started to become a thing, as did video games and video arcades.

Concert attendance went up. People became more focused on fitness.

The big studios dwindled in power and influence. A whole lot happened to kill the type of movie going that the great directors engaged in.

If piracy was a factor, it was a small one, along with a host of others. For most cases I use p2p and piracy interchangeably since there is generally no argument that p2p is a fantastic technology. It is objectively a positive for consumers, filmmakers, scholars and activists. The film industry has funded several studies in hopes of having proof of that piracy hurts their bottom line, only to end up burying the study because it proves the opposite. Eliminating piracy was projected to have a negative impact profits across industries (film, games, books).I see piracy as a gap filler for a demand that is unmet or comes with burdens consumers will not meet. Publisher doesn't see a profit in releasing an unpopular film, piracy will step in. Government doesn't like the message of a film, piracy will step in.

Publishers require burdensome DRM, piracy will step in.The fracturing of streaming services, with each distributor requiring a separate subscription will probably kick off a surge in p2p streaming as the burden becomes objectionable. I was discussing this the other day, and a critic I follow made a good comment to the effect of 'when movie studios don't publish movies, the pirate becomes an archivist'.If you live in a place like LA where there are video rental stores with all sorts of esoteric stock, you're probably fine. But outside of that, in rural areas, or outside the US, most options really only give you access to modern mainstream film.

I live in Asia, and most video stores will only stock popular Western cinema, and Netflix isn't much better. Good luck getting anything in black and white.The truth is that studios have failed to learn the lesson of Steam for gaming - when movies are affordable and easy to get, people will pay for them, but they won't pay for a service that is a worse experience than piracy. Studios can fix this, but they lack the vision to see beyond their immediate greed.