9/11 makes me rich

[Peephole]

A few points:

1) The LTW guys make things up, so it's a good idea to be skeptical about whatever they say.

2) Sales would include 10- and 50-DVD spindle bulk sales, as well as $3 "bare bones" DVDs without the packaging. These items have a lower profit margin than the $17.95 DVDs. Given the youth of their target audience and the fact that their product is available for free, I'd be surprised if the more expensive DVDs were big sellers.

3) There's no way to tell how many DVDs they've given away. The 100,000 figure would include all the DVDs their followers copied and distributed. You can bet that LTW didn't make 100,000 copies themselves. And these are "bare bones" DVDs in plain sleeves. Somehow I wound up with 24 of them on 9/11.

You're totally right

....

....

....

but doesn't the IRS have an email adress or something?

 

[Oliver]

if larry silverstein pulled WTC7 they sold 100,000 DVDs

I believe that 100,000 idiots believe that larry himself
pressed the buttons to blow all the buildings in the WTC.
ETA: Includig the remote control to fly the planes...

But besides that - shall we speculate about their income so
far? Shall we? Shall we? Shall we?

 

[Shrinker]

Not a whole lot of critical thinking going on here. As Gravy said, take their sales figures with a pinch of salt. It's called hype.

Also, who said they were fiddling their taxes? Earning money doesn't make you a tax cheat. Randi's got a million bucks stashed away, does that mean the Loosers should send sneaky emails to the IRS? For all we know, they could have a perfect capable accountant.

Sure they're profitting off tradegey but lets not embarrass oursleves with some lame attempt to snitch on them. Just the facts.

 

[nathanmcginty]

Goldfish Pictures (from the Naudet documentary) want's their footage to be taken out of the film, or else sue them for copyright infrigment(sp). I don't know what the status on that is, though.

yeah - because that Naudet footage was STILL in the version i watched a couple of months or so ago.

let's not forget to mention all the CNN footage, various news station footage, HBO footage (i still think that very first shot of the State of Liberty in LC is taken from the HBO "In Memoriam" documentary), screen grabs, newspaper masthead images (pretty sure you need to have permission to use those), Google earth shots, etc.

Where the hell are all these corporate lawyers america is full of? Does no one care anymore?

it's one thing to try to stop them showing a film on google video where they're not (technically) making money from screenings a la YouTube, but they're selling a crapload of DVDs with this stolen footage on it.

 

[Bell]

yeah - because that Naudet footage was STILL in the version i watched a couple of months or so ago.

let's not forget to mention all the CNN footage, various news station footage, HBO footage (i still think that very first shot of the State of Liberty in LC is taken from the HBO "In Memoriam" documentary), screen grabs, newspaper masthead images (pretty sure you need to have permission to use those), Google earth shots, etc.

Where the hell are all these corporate lawyers america is full of? Does no one care anymore?

it's one thing to try to stop them showing a film on google video where they're not (technically) making money from screenings a la YouTube, but they're selling a crapload of DVDs with this stolen footage on it.

And how about all the screenings on tv? I'll bet they get a hugh amount of money for those.

LC2 has a disclaimer at the start, but that does nothing against actually using the footage.

Not to generalize here, but I thought people in the US are used to sueing each others @ss off? Where indeed are all the corporate lawyers?

 

[MarkyX]

I really hope they believe in this "America to Fascism no taxes"-crap and end up in jail to have some time to think about ................... some new CT´s...

Actually the document claims that you only have to pay income taxes if it's earnings for a corporation, not wages.

Dylan doesn't do wages; he OWNS the company.

Not even the nutty CTers can save him, unless they are going to make up a story on corporation profits as well.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Not a whole lot of critical thinking going on here. As Gravy said, take their sales figures with a pinch of salt. It's called hype.

Also, who said they were fiddling their taxes? Earning money doesn't make you a tax cheat. Randi's got a million bucks stashed away, does that mean the Loosers should send sneaky emails to the IRS? For all we know, they could have a perfect capable accountant.

Sure they're profitting off tradegey but lets not embarrass oursleves with some lame attempt to snitch on them. Just the facts.

but its fun spouting pointless speculation supported by circumstantial evidence

no wonder the CT movement is so big

 

[jhunter1163]

I don't generally have too much to contribute, but I'm absolutely certain that newspaper mastheads ARE copyrighted. When I was in college our student paper put out an April Fools version of the Seattle Times. The managing editor returned the favor: he made a prank call to our editor, and told him that the Times was going to sue for copyright infringement. And in this call, he specifically stated that EVERYTHING that appears in the paper, including mastheads, editorials, and copy, is copyrighted. So... LTW is definitely in violation of someone's copyrights. And, along those lines, some sharp lawyer could probably make a case that LTW is using those mastheads to imply that the papers support the Loosers' contentions, which is of course nonsense. I smell lawsuit, but how much could the get from a couple of film-school rejects anyway?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I don't generally have too much to contribute, but I'm absolutely certain that newspaper mastheads ARE copyrighted. When I was in college our student paper put out an April Fools version of the Seattle Times. The managing editor returned the favor: he made a prank call to our editor, and told him that the Times was going to sue for copyright infringement. And in this call, he specifically stated that EVERYTHING that appears in the paper, including mastheads, editorials, and copy, is copyrighted. So... LTW is definitely in violation of someone's copyrights. And, along those lines, some sharp lawyer could probably make a case that LTW is using those mastheads to imply that the papers support the Loosers' contentions, which is of course nonsense. I smell lawsuit, but how much could the get from a couple of film-school rejects anyway?

newspaper: copyright infringement
loosers: fair use
newspaper: misrepresentation
loosers: just asking questions

and the dance goes on

 

[Dog Town]

but its fun spouting pointless speculation supported by circumstantial evidence

no wonder the CT movement is so big

That and stupid people feel smart watching WWF! No Diss to anyone here, "but you understand"!