Save Star Wars! (1 Viewer)

[Dave H]

Great posts, Douglas.

 

[Dave H]

Because it's not their property. It belongs to George Lucas. If other people are tinkering with it, and distributing it freely, then Lucas therefore has had some of his rights taken away from him. Why the hell can't you understand that? He created Star Wars so that he could make money off it. He didn't put it out there so it could be a public domain industry in which everyone can participate and get "their" share. That's not the way things work. Why should total strangers be out there editing new versions of Star Wars and making money off them? The hell with those people--if they're so friggin talented, they should be creating their own movies.

Exactly. As much as I would LOVE to see the original Star Wars films released on Blu-ray in a high quality manner, I keep things in perspective.

 

[RobertR]

Because it's not their property. It belongs to George Lucas.

You're failing to make the distinction between intellectual property and tangible property. There are people who have real, tangible objects in their hands, called pieces of film. It's their property. You and Doug favor absolute long term control by Lucas over that tangible property that BELONGS to other people. What you want is absolute control by one man over an IDEA. An idea is not something that a person loses the use of when some else uses it. Suppose instead of Star Wars, Lucas had a unique and extremely valuable car that he made. It's his pride and joy, one that he intends to sell one day. Or maybe not. His everyday behavior tells everyone he doesn't like it as much as he used to, in fact, he doesn't much care for it at all. He stores it away somewhere and refuses to display it, even though a lot of people enjoy viewing it, and desire it. Everyone agrees it would be wrong to steal the car, since it's a scarce good that he would lose the use of. Now suppose the technology existed to make an essentially perfect copy of the car, without in any way disturbing the original. Lucas still has full use of the car, and can do anything he wants with it. But there's a copy. The owner of the copy announces that he's going to make lots and lots of copies of the car from his copy. No one pretends the copies are the original. Lucas screams "foul" and deploys his lawyers and/or lobbies the legislature to stop the copying, arguing that "the car is mine, the idea of it is mine, only I can control any property that embodies it". Now let's examine the two scenarios. If Lucas succeeds in convincing legislators to stop the copies, the car is stored away someplace and never seen or enjoyed by anyone. If he fails, lots and lots of people are enjoying the car, at a much lower cost than if Lucas had sold the original, all without taking any tangible property from Lucas whatsoever. It should be obvious to everyone that the latter scenario is hardly "bastardly". Indeed, it's far, FAR better for society as a whole. "but", you say, "Lucas' ability to profit from his creation is reduced!". Aside from the fact that everything he does tells us he never wants this thing to see the light of day, let alone sell it, so what? Who says the function of public policy is to GUARANTEE maximum income for producers? I sure as hell don't. I want the maximum goods that people really desire to be produced at the lowest cost and the highest quality. I sure as hell don't wake up in the morning thinking "boy, I sure hope my representative is working hard to guarantee maximum return for Ford Motor company, or some other company" (a GM executive infamously said that "what's good for GM is good for the USA"). I think producers should be rewarded on the basis of their willingness to work their asses off to please the consumer (which Lucas has hardly done of late, and GM failed to do for decades). THAT'S where the income should come from (in fact, that's where it DID come from for the originals), NOT from the ability to command rents enforced by state decree. Remember, he has full use of the product and can market the hell out of it, and it's a given that the "real" thing will be more highly valued than the copies. Lucas has already profited ENORMOUSLY from the originals, and there would be NOTHING to prevent him from continuing to do so. Zilch. Nada. And if you think this is all too "hypothetical", and has nothing to do with the "real world", in which creativity and innovation would be smashed, you'd be dead wrong. I quote from a book on this very subject, talking about intellectual monopoly:

In late 1764, while repairing a small Newcomen steam engine, the idea of allowing steam to expand and condense in separate containers sprang into the mind of James Watt. He spent the next few months in unceasing labor building a model of the new engine. In 1768, after a series of improvements and substantial borrowing, he applied for a patent on the idea. August 1768 found Watt in London about the patent and he spent another 6 months working hard to obtain it. The patent was finally awarded in January 1769. Nothing much happened, in terms of production, for a few years until, in 1775, after another major effort supported by his new business partner Matthew Boulton, Watt secured an Act of Parliament extending his 1769 patent until the year 1800... Once Watt’s patents were secured, a substantial portion of his energy was devoted to fending off rival inventors. In 1782, Watt secured an additional patent, made “necessary in consequence of ...having been so unfairly anticipated, by [Matthew] Wasborough in the crank motion.” More dramatically, in the 1790s, when the superior and independently designed Hornblower engine was put into production, Boulton and Watt went after him with the full force of the legal system. In contrast to Watt, who died a rich man, the inventor Jonathan Hornblower was not only forced to close shop, but found himself ruined and in jail. Prior to the start of Watt’s commercial production in 1776, there were 510 steam engines in the U.K., most using the inefficient Newcomen design. These engines generated about 5,000 horsepower. By 1800, when Watt's patents expired, there were still only 2,250 steam engines used in the U.K., of which only 449 were the superior Boulton and Watt engines, the rest being old Newcomen engines. The total horsepower of these engines was 35,000 at best. In 1815, fifteen years after the expiration of the Watt patents, it is estimated that nearly 100,000 horsepower was installed in the U.K., while by 1830 the horsepower coming from steam engines reached 160,000. The fuel efficiency of steam engines is not thought to have changed at all during the period of Watt’s patent; while between 1810 and 1835 it is estimated to have increased by a factor of five. After the expiration of the patents in 1800, not only was there an explosion in the production of engines, but steam power finally came into its own as the driving force of the industrial revolution. In the next 30 years steam engines were modified and improved, and such crucial innovations as the steam train, the steamboat and the steam jenny all came into wide usage. The key innovation was the high-pressure steam engine –development of which had been blocked by Watt by strategically using his 1775 patent. Many new improvements to the steam engine, such as those of William Bull, Richard Trevithick, and Arthur Woolf, became available by 1804: although developed earlier these innovations were kept idle until the Boulton and Watt patent expired. None of these innovators wished to incur the same fate as Jonathan Hornblower….In fact, it is only after their patents expired that Boulton and Watt really started to manufacture steam engines. Before then their activity consisted primarily of extracting hefty monopolistic royalties. Independent contractors produced most of the parts, and Boulton and Watt merely oversaw the assembly of the components by the purchasers.

Now tell me with a straight face that there wasn't MORE creativity, MORE innovation, and people weren't MUCH better off as a whole AFTER the expiration of the Watt patent than during it, or that you don't give a damn about any of that, because the ONLY thing that matters is that Watt died a rich man keeping others from expanding on what he came up with.

 

[Ruz-El]

That you're equating an invention like the steam engine to film is even more ridiculous then your previous argument.


Anyone can make a copy of star wars on their own. You have to hire new actors, write a script that's kind of close but not exactly the same and you can get away with it. the intellectual idea of a space adventure is actually something that Lucas borrowed from himself. That's what happens when people take materials and make their own version of something.


The DIFFERENCE, which you fail to see, is that Lucas sold you the physical material that you want to make "improved" (which is debatable since it would be a matter of taste) copies from. And he sold it under the expressed condition that you are not allowed to re-use, distribute or show it for you're own profit. You were not tricked, you were not denied material, it was offered at one time, it's just not offered now. If your old physical material doesn't look as good to you as you think it should, you can spruce it up yourself, I doubt anyone cares, it's yours. And that's where it ends. Lucas reserved the right from the very beginning that only he can distribute and profit from it. This isn't an engine or machine that can be proven that a different version of the same thing is better then the other via physics and physical tests. It's a work of art created by a person to be presented to the world and accepted or refused as is. You're example would be between seeing Star Trek and wanting to make Star Wars, no one would deny you to do that, provided you created it yourself without cutting and re-editing Star Trek to make your Star Wars.


Creating a work of art is not creating an monopoly just because it's financially successful, and the creator of that work should be protected from loss of revenue and be able to control it. This is the same cavette that is on all art. Books are the same. You can write a book about little guys who with the help of a wizard have an adventure, but you can't call it "Lord Of The Rings" and you can't use the same words in the same order and the exact same plot. You do that it's called "Plagiarism" and the book field seems to be doing just fine on the creative front.


And you never should be able to. Any argument to take away a persons rights as a positive thing shouldn't be acceptable. Striping someone of their rights should never be the right answer. Laws denying people rights are nearly always terrible laws.


Especially just to buy an old version of a movie that based on comments in this thread, no one is having a hard time finding....

 

[Douglas Monce]

But the problem with the car theory is the same as the movie. I can go out and buy a car, just like I can buy a DVD of a movie. I can even turn around and sell that car, just as I can sell that DVD. But I can't take the car apart, reverse engineer it, and then build a copy and sell it. That would violate trademarks and patents on every part of that car, and would be just as illegal as making a copy of the DVD. Having said that, a car is not a movie. A car is not intellectual property. Even though it might be tolerated, I can't go out and re-write Moby Dick because I think the ending sucks. Just as I could not make a movie version of it without obtaining the rights from the publisher. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the Millennium copyright act. I think it extends copyright far too long. There is a ton of library music recorded from the 20's through the 40's, that would be public domain now if it were not for that law. I would love to be able to use some of that music in my own films, but I can't with out paying through the nose for it. Regardless of that, even giving the copyright laws before the MCA, Star Wars would still not be public domain, until 70 years after the death of George Lucas, which would pretty much put it out of our lifetime. Doug

 

[RobertR]

That you're equating an invention like the steam engine to film is even more ridiculous then your previous argument.

I thought you had quit the thread? But I do see that you’re having trouble seeing the similarity. Watt came up with the IDEA of the steam engine. Lucas came up with the IDEA of Star Wars. People were much worse off when Watt maintained tight fisted control over the distribution of his idea, and people are much worse off that Lucas maintains tight fisted control over distribution of his idea, even though he has already profited from it and shows no intention of distributing it himself. How are people better off because of that? What you’re saying is “the hell with people, I care only about George Lucas, and that’s the ONLY person the law should be concerned with”, just as Watt said “the hell with England, all that matters is MY bank balance.” Why? And don’t tell me it would “stifle creativity”. The example I gave (and there are others) disproves that.

You can write a book about little guys who with the help of a wizard have an adventure, but you can't call it "Lord Of The Rings" and you can't use the same words in the same order and the exact same plot. You do that it's called "Plagiarism" and the book field seems to be doing just fine on the creative front.

Of course, no one is talking about plagiarism, since the films would always have the name of George Lucas on them (we are, after all, talking about the ORIGINAL films). When the printing press was invented, the select few who were formerly the only ones who could “create” them didn’t like the idea at all, since it would mean they couldn’t command the high income they used to. It appears that in your world view, they should have maintained their income, rather than all those books becoming so readily available to so many…

A car is not intellectual property.

But you've just argued that the IDEA of the car IS intellectual property. Explain how Watt's iron-fisted control of his "intellectual property" (on which patent law is based) made people better off. Explain how Lucas' iron-fisted control of HIS "intellectual property" makes people better off.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I thought you had quit the thread? But I do see that you’re having trouble seeing the similarity. Watt came up with the IDEA of the steam engine. Lucas came up with the IDEA of Star Wars. People were much worse off when Watt maintained tight fisted control over the distribution of his idea, and people are much worse off that Lucas maintains tight fisted control over distribution of his idea, even though he has already profited from it and shows no intention of distributing it himself. How are people better off because of that? What you’re saying is “the hell with people, I care only about George Lucas, and that’s the ONLY person the law should be concerned with”, just as Watt said “the hell with England, all that matters is MY bank balance.” Why? And don’t tell me it would “stifle creativity”. The example I gave (and there are others) disproves that. Of course, no one is talking about plagiarism, since he films would always have the name of George Lucas on them (we are, after all, talking about the ORIGINAL films). When the printing press was invented, the select few who were formerly the only ones who could “create” them didn’t like the idea at all, since it would mean they couldn’t command the high income they used to. It appears that in your world view, they should have maintained their income, rather than all those books becoming so readily available to so many…

I'm not sure that ANYONE is worse off for not having Star Wars, thats a bit of a stretch. Even having said that, Star Wars hasn't been withheld from anyone. You can go right down to the store and buy it tonight. Just because its not the version that you prefer is irrelevant. I seriously doubt that the steam engine they were selling 20 years after Watt invited the thing was the same design as the one the put together originally. I'm quite sure it was an improved model. In fact I'd say that the version of Star Wars that you can buy today, is MUCH closer to the original, than the steam engine 20 years after its invention. Doug

 

[RobertR]

I'm not sure that ANYONE is worse off for not having Star Wars, thats a bit of a stretch. Even having said that, Star Wars hasn't been withheld from anyone. You can go right down to the store and buy it tonight. Just because its not the version that you prefer is irrelevant.

If it's not relevant, why is there so much discussion about it, so much controversy, so much passion and effort in rectifying the situation? It may not matter to you, but it matters VERY much to a lot of people. You're well aware of that.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Because our culture has become so twisted that puts the same emphasis on a work of entertainment that it would on something as important as the steam engine or the polio vaccine. That is an exaggeration of course, but after all, it is only a movie. It is entertainment and that is all it was ever intended to be. I think some people take this stuff far to seriously. There is no situation to rectify. Until this moment I thought we were talking about this simply as a hypothetical exercise in "what if". What you are suggesting is so completely out of the realm of possibility, its not even worth calling a pipe dream. Its not possible and surely not desirable. Doug

 

[RobertR]

Really Doug, who are you to judge whether people should want a movie or not? And was the widespread copying of books ("mere entertainment") after the invention of the printing press REALLY less important than the invention of the steam engine?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Really Doug, who are you to judge whether people should want a movie or not? And was the widespread copying of books ("mere entertainment") after the invention of the printing press REALLY less important than the invention of the steam engine?

I'm not judging what movies you want to see. You can want to see any movie you like, but that doesn't mean you have the right to claim said movie as your own. Additionally the version of Star Wars you prefer is in fact available. Granted its not on blu-ray, but it is yours to buy if you want it. Given that the vast majority of books published on the early printing press were in fact the Bible, I'm not sure you could classify that as entertainment, and would have been LONG in the public domain if such laws had existed at the time. The true importance of the printing press was the wide dissemination of information in the form of what developed into news papers. Additionally the printing press directly lead to the creation of copyright laws, as authors discovered that their works were being copied and sold and they were not profiting from these sales. Doug

 

[Greg_S_H]

What is the time limit we're shooting for? How long can a work of art (or commerce, since I'm sure many would scoff at some or all of the SW films being considered "art") be withheld before the owner has it taken from him and redistributed? If Disney runs one of those, "Get 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' now before it goes back into the vault for ten years!" is that promotion's expiration date the point where I can say, "Ten years is too long! I'm putting it out right this instant!" Nintendo ported a handful of Gamecube games to the Wii, but most of the rest are long out of print. Should I wait to see if they are going to have them on the Virtual Console on the Wii U or should I just start printing them tomorrow? There has been a similar argument about emulated arcade games from the '70s, '80s and even '90s. "Why is it wrong to distribute these games for free when the original rightsholders are doing nothing with them?" In many cases, those games have been put out on current consoles by the rightsholders. I can do what I consider the right thing and purchase a disc full of old Atari arcade games, or I can just download the games for free. Of course their ability to profit is hurt by people deciding it was their right to release these games without any kind of permission. And saying that it's completely okay because Lucas will never release them in their original format? He did, in 2006. I know, I know . . . old laserdisc ports. But that's beside the point. He said they would never see the light of day before 2006, and he went back on that. There is absolutely no reason to think he will never go back on it again. He'll run out of ways to package them and here they will come. And no, I'm not up Lucas's ass. I don't even like the man. Having an uncle who fought in Vietnam, I find his "I take real inspiration from the Vietcong!" comments from The Phantom Menace commentary to be very disturbing, not to mention other comments he's made over the years. I'd take the same position if we were talking about Ridley Scott or Steven Spielberg, whose movies were long thought to be in the same position as Star Wars, with favored versions never to see the light of day. That changed, too. But, if it didn't, and no matter who was responsible for keeping the favored versions from being seen, I would still say it isn't then the public's place to say, "Well, then I'm doing it for you!" Let's please drop the, "Oh, ho! You said you were never coming back!" stuff. This conversation gets overheated from time to time and people make statements like that, but what good does it do if Russell or johnSM stay away? Let's just discuss it, keep our cool, and if we all decide it has become pointless, just shake hands and leave it there. The HTF way.

 

[RobertR]

I'm not judging what movies you want to see. You can want to see any movie you like

But you WERE judging what people should consider "relevant", and what they should be spending their time and effort on. I think you're in no position to make that judgement.

Additionally the printing press directly lead to the creation of copyright laws, as authors discovered that their works were being copied and sold and they were not profiting from these sales. Doug

Actually, copyright originated not to protect the rights of authors, but as an instrument of royal power to control what could be printed and read. Royal and religious powers decided that THEY had the power to decide what could and could not be printed. Hence the granting of the "right to copy" according to what the ruling classes thought was fit to read. Later on, copyright evolved into a tax instrument, in effect a bribe to the royal power for the granting of a monopoly privilege (come to think of it, that's not so different from the way Hollywood and the RIAA lobby Congress...). Later on, the original "legitimate" copyright was for a mere 14 years.

There has been a similar argument about emulated arcade games from the '70s, '80s and even '90s. "Why is it wrong to distribute these games for free when the original rightsholders are doing nothing with them?"

Why indeed? The thing I see people continually losing sight of is the answer to the question "what is the purpose of production, ie why is anyone in business?" The ongoing assumption seems to be "a business is beneficial because it makes money for its owner(s)". That's wrong. Businesses exist to provide goods and services for people that want them. The ability (NOT the guarantee) to make money is a side effect of the ability to satisfy the wants of people. Do that well, and you'll make money. Do it poorly and you won't. Don't do it at all, and oh wait--let's REWARD someone? Why? Why should someone make money if he doesn't provide a product at ALL? I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw in college. An instructor is telling the class "today we will learn how to make things--actual things". One student says to another "Things?? I don't want to make THINGS. I want to make MONEY". The other student says "We could sue the school and make money that way!". And so you have it. An attitude that says "I can't be bothered with busting my butt to satisfy wants--spending energy, time and money on lawyers is much more satisfying!". And I'll ask the question again: Where the HELL is the benefit from such an attitude for the poor guy who just wants to play the game, read the book, watch the movie, benefit from the invention, etc. while waiting to see if the monopolist deigns to maybe satisfy his wants instead of worrying about how much state granted privilege is going to make him? The attitude seems to be "who cares about THAT guy? Only the wants of the 'creator' matter." If high quality copies of the original films were being distributed and couldn't be stopped by legal fiat, you can BET that would light a fire under Lucas' ass, and get HIM to release them (and make lots of money in the process!). I've yet to see ANYONE show me why such a result could POSSIBLY be considered bad.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Greg_S_H
And saying that it's completely okay because Lucas will never release them in their original format? He did, in 2006. I know, I know . . . old laserdisc ports. But that's beside the point. He said they would never see the light of day before 2006, and he went back on that. There is absolutely no reason to think he will never go back on it again. He'll run out of ways to package them and here they will come.

Uh oh Greg, you just made the same mistake I did early in the thread, you posted an entirely logical supposition based on fact that doesn't require Lucas getting ripped off of his creative rights.


Expect it to be ignored by those who can't wait for the release because they seem to think they are entitled to have their nostalgia fulfilled immediately just because they purchased a version at some point in their lives....

 

[Ethan Riley]

Why indeed? The thing I see people continually losing sight of is the answer to the question "what is the purpose of production, ie why is anyone in business?" The ongoing assumption seems to be "a business is beneficial because it makes money for its owner(s)". That's wrong. Businesses exist to provide goods and services for people that want them. The ability (NOT the guarantee) to make money is a side effect of the ability to satisfy the wants of people. Do that well, and you'll make money. Do it poorly and you won't. Don't do it at all, and oh wait--let's REWARD someone? Why? Why should someone make money if he doesn't provide a product at ALL? I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw in college. An instructor is telling the class "today we will learn how to make things--actual things". One student says to another "Things?? I don't want to make THINGS. I want to make MONEY". The other student says "We could sue the school and make money that way!". And so you have it. An attitude that says "I can't be bothered with busting my butt to satisfy wants--spending energy, time and money on lawyers is much more satisfying!". And I'll ask the question again: Where the HELL is the benefit from such an attitude for the poor guy who just wants to play the game, read the book, watch the movie, benefit from the invention, etc. while waiting to see if the monopolist deigns to maybe satisfy his wants instead of worrying about how much state granted privilege is going to make him? The attitude seems to be "who cares about THAT guy? Only the wants of the 'creator' matter." If high quality copies of the original films were being distributed and couldn't be stopped by legal fiat, you can BET that would light a fire under Lucas' ass, and get HIM to release them (and make lots of money in the process!). I've yet to see ANYONE show me why such a result could POSSIBLY be considered bad.

Now I think I see your point of view. ...Yikes!

 

[Douglas Monce]

But you WERE judging what people should consider "relevant", and what they should be spending their time and effort on. I think you're in no position to make that judgement. Actually, copyright originated not to protect the rights of authors, but as an instrument of royal power to control what could be printed and read. Royal and religious powers decided that THEY had the power to decide what could and could not be printed. Hence the granting of the "right to copy" according to what the ruling classes thought was fit to read. Later on, copyright evolved into a tax instrument, in effect a bribe to the royal power for the granting of a monopoly privilege (come to think of it, that's not so different from the way Hollywood and the RIAA lobby Congress...). Later on, the original "legitimate" copyright was for a mere 14 years. Why indeed? The thing I see people continually losing sight of is the answer to the question "what is the purpose of production, ie why is anyone in business?" The ongoing assumption seems to be "a business is beneficial because it makes money for its owner(s)". That's wrong. Businesses exist to provide goods and services for people that want them. The ability (NOT the guarantee) to make money is a side effect of the ability to satisfy the wants of people. Do that well, and you'll make money. Do it poorly and you won't. Don't do it at all, and oh wait--let's REWARD someone? Why? Why should someone make money if he doesn't provide a product at ALL? I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw in college. An instructor is telling the class "today we will learn how to make things--actual things". One student says to another "Things?? I don't want to make THINGS. I want to make MONEY". The other student says "We could sue the school and make money that way!". And so you have it. An attitude that says "I can't be bothered with busting my butt to satisfy wants--spending energy, time and money on lawyers is much more satisfying!". And I'll ask the question again: Where the HELL is the benefit from such an attitude for the poor guy who just wants to play the game, read the book, watch the movie, benefit from the invention, etc. while waiting to see if the monopolist deigns to maybe satisfy his wants instead of worrying about how much state granted privilege is going to make him? The attitude seems to be "who cares about THAT guy? Only the wants of the 'creator' matter." If high quality copies of the original films were being distributed and couldn't be stopped by legal fiat, you can BET that would light a fire under Lucas' ass, and get HIM to release them (and make lots of money in the process!). I've yet to see ANYONE show me why such a result could POSSIBLY be considered bad.

I think there is different between significance and importance to society. Star Wars is clearly very significant, however its actual importance is probably fairly low. But your argument here about the purpose of a business disproves the need for your idea about the copyright laws. Its clear from the profits that the vast majority of people are perfectly happy with the versions of Star Wars that are available to them. It appears to be the biggest selling blu-ray of all time. Clearly Lucasfilm is providing what its customers want. I think Lucas maybe smarter about his audience than many give him credit for. I think the folks who are clamoring for the original versions of the film, are most likely a very small but rather vocal minority. So my question to you is this, how would you feel about Lucasfilm making a some what exclusive product for that market. A limited edition (say under 10,000 copies) release blu-ray of the classic cuts of the films? Doug

 

[RobertR]

my question to you is this, how would you feel about Lucasfilm making a some what exclusive product for that market. A limited edition (say under 10,000 copies) release blu-ray of the classic cuts of the films? Doug Doug

I think that grossly underestimates the demand for the originals. On the other hand, if it's as small as you suggest, it could hardly be argued that copies of the originals would be harming Lucas to any significant degree.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I think that grossly underestimates the demand for the originals. On the other hand, if it's as small as you suggest, it could hardly be argued that copies of the originals would be harming Lucas to any significant degree.

I think you misunderstand. The copyright laws of the U.S. require that a copyright holder vigorously defend those copyrights, or they become invalid. If Lucasfilm were to allow the original films to become freely available for anyone who wants them, it would threaten all of his copyrights on all of the Star Wars products, be they sound track albums, toys, posters, TV shows, etc. By law Lucasfilm MUST defend those copyrights or lose them. Doug

 

[AlexCosmo]

10,000 copies eh? So, the original star wars trilogy, in total, sells about 10% of a week's worth of Scarface. Yeah that sounds right.

 

[TravisR]

10,000 copies eh? So, the original star wars trilogy, in total, sells about 10% of a week's worth of Scarface. Yeah that sounds right.

Where did you get the information that Scarface sells 100,000 copies a week? Maybe in its first week it sold that many but it isn't the norm for that title. And before I start getting yelled at for what Doug is saying, I think the original Star Wars trilogy would sell more than 10,000 copies too.