I'm "friends," with James Gunn on Facebook, and he literally just posted the folllowing.

A couple of years ago I wrote a blog that was meant to be satirical and funny. In rereading it over the past day I don't think it's funny. The attempted humor in the blog does not represent my actual feelings. However, I can see where statements were poorly worded and offensive to many. I'm sorry and regret making them at all.

People who are familiar with me as evidenced by my Facebook page and other mediums know that I'm an outspoken proponent for the rights of the gay and lesbian community, women and anyone who feels disenfranchised, and it kills me that some other outsider like myself, despite his or her gender or sexuality, might feel hurt or attacked by something I said. We're all in the same camp, and I want to do my best to make this world a better place for all of us. I'm learning all the time. I promise to be more careful with my words in the future. And I will do my best to be funnier as well. Much love to all - James

Trey, the problem is TheGreg doesn't feel you MADE anything at all.  It's just Data, man.

Not at all.  Your body is water and flesh, but you are more than that.  An MP3 is absolutely a computer filed with data coded a certain way to be stored as information on a hard drive, but if that's all you see, buddy, I pity you.

Fiberglass core buggy whip with nylon covering, 50 inches long with an 18 inch drop.  This is the iPod of Buggy Whips, you guys!

It pretty much boils down to, do you like living in a world where movies like this exist?  Then until a better model can sustain them, please support these movies in the model that exists.

Nope, it's the same IDEA.  What is different is the VALUE ADDED to that idea.  THAT is what you are paying for.  You're paying for Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens to condense (although apparently not by much) a novel into three movies on page form.  Then you're paying for the actors to add something to the roles, you're paying all of New Zealand to add some part of it. 

So you get an hourly rate for your work.  Who then, pays the hourly rate for all those people I just listed.

People are still buying her merch.  Her sales haven't dropped at all, and by her own admission it's a tiny, tiny number of people who do it. 

So I ask you again to articulate a defense for her (I already know why I'm against it).  If no one is harmed, if her sales aren't impeded, and if people who admire her work and can't afford one of her products but a cheaper version as well....why should she vigourously prevent people from doing that?

And films are not ideas.

Let me give you another example, and I'd love to get your opinion on this Greg.  My friend, the supremely awesome Melita Curphy owns a website called missmosnter.com

There, she sells clothing, accessories, dolls, statues, and other art of hers that you can purchase.  This is her profession.  SHe does no other job for a living.  She is one of the busiest people I know.  Part of the reason she is busy is because a good chuck of her time is spent busting people on deviantart, cafe press, and zazzle who take her images off her website, and see merch of it on coffee mugs and shirts. 

Now, under your logic.....all anyone is doing is taking an image that is digital and doing something with it.  So it's ok, right?  If you think not, I'd like to hear why.