And why would that be a problem? We're not talking about a temporary experiment setup for fun. The goal is colonization! Looking at all previous colonization efforts (of which the USA is most probably the clearest example) contamination of the local flora and fauna is a certainty. Just look around and count the number of bison's, native americans and horses. As a reference, the continent used to be filled by the first two and devoid of the last (for the last 10.000 years or so of course).
In addition to that, would it not make sense to have the people on Mars search for proof BEFORE they kick the bucket? And when we contaminate the soil in a way that makes it impossible to detect signs of life native to Mars with our current detection techniques, we will have to invent new ones. It's been going on for about 150 years on earth. Hell, we've even found a name for it: Scientific Progress!
While I am pretty sure that is the question the Hollywood people are asking themselves, I don't agree with the fact that it is the right question. In my opinion, the right question is: "How do we give our movie viewing audience what they want". And given that 80% of the people who downloaded it didn't come from the US, I think that that 80% was so excited about this movie that they didn't want to wait till it was in their local cinema.
In this world where more and more companies are using social media to get a better understanding of who their customers are, Hollywood still sees the world as regions. They try to withhold movies from people who are obviously eager to see them. It's obviously a financial issue, distribution of a movie costs money and world wide distribution through the current channels would probably be to expensive. But what if you'd change to a completely digital distribution system? And then provide all movies through this network so every theatre would have instant access to all movies? Maybe you could determine the selection of movies based on what people around that theatre would actually want to see...
So an idiot offered a deal where he lost money. It's not like Groupon set up the deal, decided on the services offered or set the price and number of packages. That was all the photographer's choice, it's not Groupon's job to decide any of that or do an analysis of the deal. Their job is to sell the coupons.
Stores didn't tell Gillette to charge for the razor, they just sold the blades. It's not the store's job to determine if the manufacturer makes money. Groupon is no different.
It kinda is. Well, that is if Groupon wants to stay in business. Imagine you are a business owner and you read that Groupon is selling deals that puts other businesses out of business. That would be bad press for Groupon's target market no? Also, imagine you are one of the buyers of a coupon and you find out that the photographer that is supposed to do your photo-shoot went bankrupt. As a customer you will feel cheated. You might not want to buy another coupon from Groupon. So it's Groupon's problem because, like any business, they most probably strive to provide their customers with good service. With regards to your Gillette comparison, it does not work. Gillette uses a store to sell their product. The store has every right to provide their customers with coupons for both handles and blades. It does not change the price Gillette charges the store for their product.