Moore haters behind piracy?

email this story
read comments (11)
post a comment

Movie City News is saying that Google "seems to be policing the full, uncut, single-file versions of Sicko posted to their video sharing system, removing not only the one that was up all weekend, but another couple of new ones that cropped up this morning." Okay, but what possible difference does that make when you type in "Sicko download" on Google's search engine (as I just did ten minutes ago) and nine -- count' em, nine -- sites come up offering free Sicko downloads?

Obviously pirates are pirates are pirates, but I'm also starting to consider a couple of scenarios: One, there's a cabal of right-wing Moore haters who are behind the stealing and distributing of his film. Or two, that said haters, even if there was no political motive behind the original theft of the film, are at least relishing what's happening and clapping their hands and fanning the flames any way they can.

A line from a recent news story about the YouTube offering of Sicko wasn't used for obvious reasons, but the reporter passed it along. "While the motivation of the leaker(s) remains unclear," it read, "one full copy of Sicko uploaded to a pirate website includes 'suckourdicks' in the file name." Does that suggest anything to anyone? "Suck our dicks" as in "fuck you, Moore!!...and we hope this hurts as a kind of payback for stretching the truth and flim-flamming in order to push your cause in Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11"...or words to that effect.

I'm just thinking out loud and nursing a gut suspicion, but we all know how the right hates Moore. Would anyone be surprised if what I'm saying turns out to be even half-true?

Explaining Tony's death<< previous | next >>

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 18, 2007 at 5:19 PM

comment #1

austinwave says ...

Wow, way to get hysterical! This theory sounds about as credible as the theory that Moore's people released the pirated copies to generate extra publicity about the film prior to its release.

Either way, the publicity will be nothing but good for the BO since Sicko doesn't have the buzz that F911 had going in.

Posted by austinwave at June 18, 2007 5:59 PM

comment #2

PanTheFaun says ...

The version I downloaded (calm down, I had already seen the film at a screening, I just wanted to check out the pirated version) was one of the ones that included 'suckourdicks' in the file name.

Posted by PanTheFaun at June 18, 2007 6:03 PM

comment #3

EOTW says ...

Jesus, Wells, you need to relax. Seriously. If not, I am afraid you have become the Hilary Clinton of movie bloggers. Yes, I am sure that the right leaked the film. Wow, that is really reaching man and this coming from a guy who isn't even on the right (or left, for that matter!).

Posted by EOTW at June 18, 2007 7:25 PM

comment #4

christian says ...

you know, some moore haters spreading this is not beyond the pale of what people out there can do. i love this "stop being paranoid hippie" when anthax is sent via mail and politicians block voters and start bullshit wars and...you know.

Posted by christian at June 18, 2007 7:45 PM

comment #5

EOTW says ...

Ok, man, whatever, dude. Time to roll another one, huh?

Posted by EOTW at June 19, 2007 4:36 AM

comment #6

BurmaShave says ...

Pass the dutchie on the left hand side.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 19, 2007 5:39 AM

comment #7

DavidF says ...

Why does the theory have to be that right wing haters are behind all this?

Isn't it possible that someone in Moore's camp is behind this? Look at the great publicity they are getting.

Say what you will about Moore it is AMAZING how much press he has gotten from the controversy behind his movies months before they even hit theatres. Given that he has (I gather) supported the general principle of allowing movie downloads it does not seem totally out of left field to say that he COULD be indirectly responsible for all this.

It's certainly more feasible than Well's theory which seems to suggest that rightwingers love private health care so much that they are willing to publicize a movie that attacks it full force so long as they can reduce said flick's box office.

I think you have live in Hollywood to even begin to grasp that logic.

I expect a post soon about how the NAACP is giving out free copies of "Birth of a Nation" to make sure that DW Griffith's estate doesn't get a cut of video sales.
Yikes.

Posted by DavidF at June 19, 2007 8:26 AM

comment #8

christian says ...

yeah, i know. there's no conspiracies. ever. just doesn't happen. ever. i'll take a bong rip and stare at tv some more.

Posted by christian at June 19, 2007 8:26 AM

comment #9

PanTheFaun says ...

Riiiiight... all liberals are just doobie rolling hippies.

It's preposterous to assume the Right might be behind a conspiracy. After all, when have they ever done shit like this befo... oh, wait.

And say what you want about Moore being a publicity whore (he is one), he would never, ever leak an advance version of his film in its entirety and thus lose money on people who might have gone to see it in a theater. That's just idiotic to suggest.

On the hype barometer:
Inciting controversy about your film = good. Giving it away for free = bad.

Posted by PanTheFaun at June 19, 2007 9:30 AM

comment #10

DavidF says ...

I'm not saying Moore isn't a publicity whore, nor that right-wingers are incapable of conspiring â€”Â I don't know that they are more prone to conspiring than people of other ideological stripes and I'm not sure how, say, Watergate suggests the Republicans would be behind the Sicko leaks... but let's take that as read.

It still begs the question of why they would promote a movie that attacks their ideology simply to hurt Moore's wallet.

It simply does not make sense. Let's not forget - this is Well's off-the-cuff theory, not something substantiated in any way.

I don't think Moore (or The Left) is behind it, nor do I think The Right is behind it. I just said it would make at least as much sense for Moore to leak it as the people who staunchly back private health care.

Posted by DavidF at June 19, 2007 9:51 AM

comment #11