The only *useful* reform is to list the content of the film, not the MPAA (or anyone else's) rating of suitability.
Hopefully with counts too ("Full Frontal Nudity: 5 times, 2:30 total", "Bad Language: 5 F**ks, 3 S**ts, 8 Motha F**kers".) That way the kids know whether a movie is worth watching or not.
In other words, any plan that doesn't involve parental responsibility is going to fail. If you don't go to IMDB to read the plot notes, and don't wish to watch the movie first to see if it appropriate for Timmy, then maybe Timmy shouldn't be watching the movie. Of course, I'm of the opinion (after growing up with parents that restricted me from watching movies to begin with,) that keeping your kids out of the culture, without careful exposure and teaching, is detrimental to their growth as much as allowing them to watch it without being there to explain it to them. It takes time and effort, which is why nobody does it.
The big question is how did we allow sharing to become a criminal thing?
When we allowed those who missed preschool and failed kindergarten to run things. I suspect they were the bullies and always got into fights instead of learning how to have fun on the playground.
When I was a kid, I'd get yelled at for not sharing my things. Then again, I was from a large family and we shared everything.
I'd certainly agree. Your task-masters (the labels) are getting away with impunity and the victims (artists and consumers) are stuck fending for themselves. When the whole label astroturfing thing doesn't work out for you, I am sure Mr. Hope from JAWA might be able to use your services.
This is precisely the world we live in -- when people realize they are getting royally screwed by this character, no amount of logic will be able to keep him out of trouble -- it takes a little time before we start collecting the brooms and pitchforks and run these guys out of town on the rail.
The amazing thing here is that when the light is shown on this cockroach, he doesn't run -- he makes a fool of himself and turns himself into a huge target for legal proceedings. He could learn a few things from his kind -- disappearing when the light turns on is the only way to survive what is coming, and he hasn't quite mastered that trick. Cockroaches that don't scatter don't live very long, and I suspect that Mr. Hope is going to experience the legal system up-close-and-personal as the wheels of justice start turning (they are slow to start, but they tend to crush anyone who stands in their way once they get going.)
Yes, but aside from the confusion of the name of the planet, he was right...Jawas were from Tatooine, of which there was a particular town called Mos Eisley which was the hive of scum and villainy (at least according to Obi-Wan "Old Ben" Kenobi.)
Jawas weren't particularly vile, but they were considered scum. They tended to be vultures, which would scavenge for stuff that didn't necessarily belong to them, and tended to sell broken droids to unsuspecting consumers, but most folks knew what they were buying so it wasn't necessarily a scam, but more of a gray/black market of stolen goods. Unlike this company which is obviously a scam.
Darn, my Star Wars nerd-card is showing. I'll go hide now.
More than anything, it's a poor attempt to replace people paying a very little for their own copy of the work, and replacing it with a few people overpaying for the right to see their name in lights somewhere for a few minutes.
I hate to bring this up, AC, but what you are saying is what has existed all throughout history, until 1710, when the English Parliament decided to implement this new fangled system called "Copyright" which gave a 14-year monopoly to publishers (not the writers/artists.)
Before that...if you were an artists or a writer...you'd have someone out there who would hire you to work as an artist. So one or a few nobles would pay for the work and would make that work a benefit to others.
Hell, even Apple with its DRM and proprietary format managed to make a decent go of taking the Napster idea and monetizing it.
Partly, of course, because Apple didn't have a horse in the race to begin with...so to say, and could make a collection available the consumer wanted, regardless of the label (though I'm not discounting the incredible work they did convincing the labels to go along with the deal...for that, I am truly in awe of, as they did nothing less than herding cats in order to make that happen.) They offered what the customer wanted, and were rewarded for that. Of course, that is what Apple does...and they are rewarded for that (full-disclosure: I am writing this comment on an Apple.)
The labels didn't want to sell their competition's music along with their own, and thus every system they tried to put in place failed miserably. The customer didn't mind the DRM, at first, and wanted the music they wanted to listen to regardless to who the label was, and they wanted an easy place to find the music they wanted. Apple iTunes provided all that. However, had one of the label's systems worked, I think they would have rolled over on Apple and killed iTunes in a heartbeat...and for that, I am thankful they all failed.
The customer loves iTunes, and there is no way the industry will ever compete with iTunes without adapting to do what is in the customer's best interest...not their own.
We could always put them in Alcatraz, for crimes against ears.
Alcatraz is in San Fransisco, about 500 mi north of Hollywood...but it would certainly be a good place to put them. Only the tourists would see them, but luckily they wouldn't have to hear them.
Should we use the Boston Harbor again, or is there a river that runs through Hollywood??
There are a couple, they call them the Los Angeles River and its tributaries...you've seen them on TV or in the movies before...they have cement banks and a cement floor, and there is usually a very small stream running through them, and sometimes they have cars chasing each other at high speed through them. We call them flood channels. However, they might not work well if you want to put them on a boat first, and then dump them into the river from that boat.
Los Angeles is pretty much a desert, and Hollywood is in Los Angeles. But during the spring time the flood channels get a little deeper due to melting ice in the Santa Monica and San Gabriel mountains.
It is so funny that even today there are folks who look at the world around them and come up with the idea that somehow, survival of the fittest shouldn't or doesn't apply to them. Especially when its shown time and time again that survival of the fittest is the only way the world works around you, and in order to survive, you have to adapt better than any of your competitors. Their chosen method of adapting is getting better lawyers and using graft and corruption to maintain their power, but these options are rapidly disappearing, and they are still left being the dinosaurs and failing to adapt.
But then again, since the copyright maximalists believe they're entitled to make money no matter how poorly they treat their customers or run their business, it makes sense that they would ignore the world around them and believe that survival of the fittest doesn't apply to them.
Free market = bad.
And copyright maximalists call the open-source movement anti-democratic, communist, and non-capitalist. I keep telling people that the copyright maximalists are projecting their own views on the open-source movement...that open-source is about as free-market as you get, and what they want is much more anti-democratic, fascist, and non-capitalist. After all, good open-source projects become legends...bad ones die off or are replaced.
Should every idea for a movie receive funding? Probably not, so I think what we need to look at are the rate of "failures" of Kickstarter movies to take off vs. the rate of rejects of scripts from a studio. When they are on par, you've got an equally functional model.
Oh, come on. I am sure there are far more movie ideas out there pitched to the studio that would make tons of money but just aren't worth the risk to the entertainment industry...and yet we still get really bad movies like the Transformer series, et. al.. I've heard more than my share of folks out there who just won't go to movies any more because they consider them all to be crap. The entertainment industry wants a sure thing, and they usually try to quash folks from talking about the movie after seeing it in hopes that their friends won't figure out how crappy it is and save their money.
I think Kickstarter does exactly what the Movie Industry doesn't do...offer a chance for movie ideas to meet an audience, and in this case, it does just that. Now if you can make a good movie for $200,000...that is the problem though I think Kevin Smith and others have proven time and time again that you can make a good movie for cheaper. Special effects in todays movies is a very expensive substitute for a good story. Give me a good story and I'll like the movie alot more than if you turn it into a two hour explosion-fest (I like MythBusters for explosions, not movies.)
I personally liked FanBoys, even though it was very campy...and I watched it a whole bunch of times, both in the movie theater (and once for free at a test screening presented at Comic Con.) A lot of critics panned the movie, but it had a following. Had someone gone in and pushed it on Kickstarter, I would have donated to it. The fact that the movie took so long to be released and suffered through multiple re-edits was because the movie industry wanted to tamper with it the whole time...the end product had to be wrested from the jaws of the movie industry and returned to the producers so that they could complete the project...because the industry thinks it knows what is best...and it doesn't. Sure, FanBoys didn't appeal to everyone, but who cares, it appealed to a large enough group to give it a hollywood-accounting return of close to a million dollars (yeah, it took 8 million, but how much of that was caused by the industry holding on to the movie for 10 years, forcing multiple re-edits and changes, and fudged costs.)
This movie seems like it may be somewhat of a chick flick, but it may be worth a watch, especially with Simon (from Big Bang Theory) on it. We'll see. I see this as the future of movies...but it may be a while before the old guard dies off and better movies start appearing.
How about one article that discusses what artists can actually do to take on this economic abundance and not have the kneejerk reaction of: "But... But... PIRACY!"
Jay, I've seen a number of articles here. The problem is bleeding edge...artists are just beginning to realize that there is life outside of the box the MAFIAA has put them into, and we are beginning to see an exodus out of that box. Give it time.
Other points the articles makes is the film industry exec's are wondering where all the collecting went, and they want that cash cow back. I (and a ton of the commentors on that article) think that people realized they only watch a DVD once or twice at most and that the HD format war put a large hold on collecting.
Yup, that and I really don't see buying the Blue-Ray version of a movie released 30 years ago, when the technology wasn't capable of capturing 1920x1080p, when the DVD version is as good enough. Does "Gone with the Wind" or "Wizard of Oz" really need to be released on Blue-Ray?
Sure, I have Avatar on Blue-Ray, but that movie works well at 1920x1080. My brother bought Gone with the Wind on Blue-Ray, and I cannot see anything in that copy that makes it any more valuable than the DVD version.
Oh and if making a fool of yourself means you are human. I must be so human its uncanny! :)
I think we all are (though I was in no way making a statement that you were making a fool of yourself at any time during this discussion.) Some of us are a little more honest about it than others. I appreciate the folks that make a fool of themselves and then have the balls to admit it, and strive to do so myself when I am called on it. But I value more listening to folks who have an opinion that is different than mine, because I am constantly re-evaluating my position on things and learning from mine, and other's, mistakes.
Cool, so does that mean that according to the Movie Industry, I am a "Freetard" because I spend $18.95/mo for Netflix? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you (although this is the MAFIAA we are talking about...they just haven't found a hand worth not biting.) I'd hate to see Netflix get destroyed because the MAFIAA are a bunch of idiots who couldn't innovate themselves out of a wet paper bag.
Of course, I am beginning to get the feeling that the MAFIAA thinks everyone who is not part of the MAFIAA is a "freetard," given the regular response here from industry shills whenever someone says something that is not part of the MAFIAA view on things.
Then again, one thing I've learned over the years is that many people who are wrong tend to externalize and blame everyone else for their own inadequacies. Everyone else is a crab in a bucket, keeping them down, when they don't realize they are the only crab keeping themselves down while everyone else is doing quite fine despite them. I see the MAFIAA as having a definite persecution complex, everyone out there is specifically doing things to hurt them (and although they'd like to have all the artists believe that everyone is hurting the artists, many artists are realizing that just isn't true.)
So if she can afford people to troll the internet on her behalf, surely the MAFIAA can too?
I figured that was a given, especially with the number of industry trolls here...they can't all be working for the MAFIAA, some of them also have to be mercs working for the MAFIAA. Now we just need to find the evidence.
On the post: How The MPAA Screws Over Indie Filmmakers
Re:
Hopefully with counts too ("Full Frontal Nudity: 5 times, 2:30 total", "Bad Language: 5 F**ks, 3 S**ts, 8 Motha F**kers".) That way the kids know whether a movie is worth watching or not.
In other words, any plan that doesn't involve parental responsibility is going to fail. If you don't go to IMDB to read the plot notes, and don't wish to watch the movie first to see if it appropriate for Timmy, then maybe Timmy shouldn't be watching the movie. Of course, I'm of the opinion (after growing up with parents that restricted me from watching movies to begin with,) that keeping your kids out of the culture, without careful exposure and teaching, is detrimental to their growth as much as allowing them to watch it without being there to explain it to them. It takes time and effort, which is why nobody does it.
On the post: Why Hasn't The Report Debunking Entire US Foreign IP Policy Received The Attention It Deserves?
Re: Re: there are so many terms for it
The good lawyers were in court trying to overturn the wall in time (the bad lawyers were on the train.)
On the post: Chris Dodd Memorizing Bogus MPAA Talking Points; Says File Sharing Ruins Community Bonding
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When we allowed those who missed preschool and failed kindergarten to run things. I suspect they were the bullies and always got into fights instead of learning how to have fun on the playground.
When I was a kid, I'd get yelled at for not sharing my things. Then again, I was from a large family and we shared everything.
On the post: Judge Who Said Lumping Together Unrelated Copyright Cases Is Fine... Is A Former RIAA Lobbyist
Re: Re: Quote
I'd certainly agree. Your task-masters (the labels) are getting away with impunity and the victims (artists and consumers) are stuck fending for themselves. When the whole label astroturfing thing doesn't work out for you, I am sure Mr. Hope from JAWA might be able to use your services.
On the post: Jawa Threatens Blog That Accused It Of Cramming, Gets Blog Taken Down By ISP
Re: Re: What service?
This is precisely the world we live in -- when people realize they are getting royally screwed by this character, no amount of logic will be able to keep him out of trouble -- it takes a little time before we start collecting the brooms and pitchforks and run these guys out of town on the rail.
The amazing thing here is that when the light is shown on this cockroach, he doesn't run -- he makes a fool of himself and turns himself into a huge target for legal proceedings. He could learn a few things from his kind -- disappearing when the light turns on is the only way to survive what is coming, and he hasn't quite mastered that trick. Cockroaches that don't scatter don't live very long, and I suspect that Mr. Hope is going to experience the legal system up-close-and-personal as the wheels of justice start turning (they are slow to start, but they tend to crush anyone who stands in their way once they get going.)
On the post: Jawa Threatens Blog That Accused It Of Cramming, Gets Blog Taken Down By ISP
Re: Re: Hoth?
Yes, but aside from the confusion of the name of the planet, he was right...Jawas were from Tatooine, of which there was a particular town called Mos Eisley which was the hive of scum and villainy (at least according to Obi-Wan "Old Ben" Kenobi.)
Jawas weren't particularly vile, but they were considered scum. They tended to be vultures, which would scavenge for stuff that didn't necessarily belong to them, and tended to sell broken droids to unsuspecting consumers, but most folks knew what they were buying so it wasn't necessarily a scam, but more of a gray/black market of stolen goods. Unlike this company which is obviously a scam.
Darn, my Star Wars nerd-card is showing. I'll go hide now.
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Re: Herr Trollington, I presume?
Quick...sign him up for a Jury. With no reading comprehension he likely isn't a learned individual, and thus is perfect for the job.
On the post: Maintenance Report Shows Radiation Levels On Some TSA Scanners 10 Times Higher Than Promised
Re: Re:
Last time I got rouge was after I played rogue non-stop for an entire weekend. That game is so addictive.
On the post: Crowdfunding Movies Possible Even For Original, Rather Than Derivative Works
Re: Re: Re:
I hate to bring this up, AC, but what you are saying is what has existed all throughout history, until 1710, when the English Parliament decided to implement this new fangled system called "Copyright" which gave a 14-year monopoly to publishers (not the writers/artists.)
Before that...if you were an artists or a writer...you'd have someone out there who would hire you to work as an artist. So one or a few nobles would pay for the work and would make that work a benefit to others.
On the post: RIAA Not Happy With Rep. Lofgren Calling Out ICE For Web Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go steal some more money from your artists, loser.
On the post: RIAA Not Happy With Rep. Lofgren Calling Out ICE For Web Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Partly, of course, because Apple didn't have a horse in the race to begin with...so to say, and could make a collection available the consumer wanted, regardless of the label (though I'm not discounting the incredible work they did convincing the labels to go along with the deal...for that, I am truly in awe of, as they did nothing less than herding cats in order to make that happen.) They offered what the customer wanted, and were rewarded for that. Of course, that is what Apple does...and they are rewarded for that (full-disclosure: I am writing this comment on an Apple.)
The labels didn't want to sell their competition's music along with their own, and thus every system they tried to put in place failed miserably. The customer didn't mind the DRM, at first, and wanted the music they wanted to listen to regardless to who the label was, and they wanted an easy place to find the music they wanted. Apple iTunes provided all that. However, had one of the label's systems worked, I think they would have rolled over on Apple and killed iTunes in a heartbeat...and for that, I am thankful they all failed.
The customer loves iTunes, and there is no way the industry will ever compete with iTunes without adapting to do what is in the customer's best interest...not their own.
On the post: Why A Copyright Levy ('Music Tax') Is A Bad Idea: Unnecessary Attempt To Retain Old Power Structures
Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
Alcatraz is in San Fransisco, about 500 mi north of Hollywood...but it would certainly be a good place to put them. Only the tourists would see them, but luckily they wouldn't have to hear them.
On the post: Why A Copyright Levy ('Music Tax') Is A Bad Idea: Unnecessary Attempt To Retain Old Power Structures
Re: Re: So...
There are a couple, they call them the Los Angeles River and its tributaries...you've seen them on TV or in the movies before...they have cement banks and a cement floor, and there is usually a very small stream running through them, and sometimes they have cars chasing each other at high speed through them. We call them flood channels. However, they might not work well if you want to put them on a boat first, and then dump them into the river from that boat.
Los Angeles is pretty much a desert, and Hollywood is in Los Angeles. But during the spring time the flood channels get a little deeper due to melting ice in the Santa Monica and San Gabriel mountains.
On the post: Even WIPO Realizing That Copyright Law May Have Gone Too Far
Another Darwin-Denier
But then again, since the copyright maximalists believe they're entitled to make money no matter how poorly they treat their customers or run their business, it makes sense that they would ignore the world around them and believe that survival of the fittest doesn't apply to them.
Free market = bad.
And copyright maximalists call the open-source movement anti-democratic, communist, and non-capitalist. I keep telling people that the copyright maximalists are projecting their own views on the open-source movement...that open-source is about as free-market as you get, and what they want is much more anti-democratic, fascist, and non-capitalist. After all, good open-source projects become legends...bad ones die off or are replaced.
On the post: Crowdfunding Movies Possible Even For Original, Rather Than Derivative Works
Re: Not Practical?
Oh, come on. I am sure there are far more movie ideas out there pitched to the studio that would make tons of money but just aren't worth the risk to the entertainment industry...and yet we still get really bad movies like the Transformer series, et. al.. I've heard more than my share of folks out there who just won't go to movies any more because they consider them all to be crap. The entertainment industry wants a sure thing, and they usually try to quash folks from talking about the movie after seeing it in hopes that their friends won't figure out how crappy it is and save their money.
I think Kickstarter does exactly what the Movie Industry doesn't do...offer a chance for movie ideas to meet an audience, and in this case, it does just that. Now if you can make a good movie for $200,000...that is the problem though I think Kevin Smith and others have proven time and time again that you can make a good movie for cheaper. Special effects in todays movies is a very expensive substitute for a good story. Give me a good story and I'll like the movie alot more than if you turn it into a two hour explosion-fest (I like MythBusters for explosions, not movies.)
I personally liked FanBoys, even though it was very campy...and I watched it a whole bunch of times, both in the movie theater (and once for free at a test screening presented at Comic Con.) A lot of critics panned the movie, but it had a following. Had someone gone in and pushed it on Kickstarter, I would have donated to it. The fact that the movie took so long to be released and suffered through multiple re-edits was because the movie industry wanted to tamper with it the whole time...the end product had to be wrested from the jaws of the movie industry and returned to the producers so that they could complete the project...because the industry thinks it knows what is best...and it doesn't. Sure, FanBoys didn't appeal to everyone, but who cares, it appealed to a large enough group to give it a hollywood-accounting return of close to a million dollars (yeah, it took 8 million, but how much of that was caused by the industry holding on to the movie for 10 years, forcing multiple re-edits and changes, and fudged costs.)
This movie seems like it may be somewhat of a chick flick, but it may be worth a watch, especially with Simon (from Big Bang Theory) on it. We'll see. I see this as the future of movies...but it may be a while before the old guard dies off and better movies start appearing.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: It's Time To Realize Artificial Scarcity Is Gone... And That's A Good Thing
Re: What about the artists?
Jay, I've seen a number of articles here. The problem is bleeding edge...artists are just beginning to realize that there is life outside of the box the MAFIAA has put them into, and we are beginning to see an exodus out of that box. Give it time.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: It's Time To Realize Artificial Scarcity Is Gone... And That's A Good Thing
Re: Read this article yesterday..
Yup, that and I really don't see buying the Blue-Ray version of a movie released 30 years ago, when the technology wasn't capable of capturing 1920x1080p, when the DVD version is as good enough. Does "Gone with the Wind" or "Wizard of Oz" really need to be released on Blue-Ray?
Sure, I have Avatar on Blue-Ray, but that movie works well at 1920x1080. My brother bought Gone with the Wind on Blue-Ray, and I cannot see anything in that copy that makes it any more valuable than the DVD version.
On the post: Copyright Pre-Settlement Virus A Lucrative Scam
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Similar story
I think we all are (though I was in no way making a statement that you were making a fool of yourself at any time during this discussion.) Some of us are a little more honest about it than others. I appreciate the folks that make a fool of themselves and then have the balls to admit it, and strive to do so myself when I am called on it. But I value more listening to folks who have an opinion that is different than mine, because I am constantly re-evaluating my position on things and learning from mine, and other's, mistakes.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: It's Time To Realize Artificial Scarcity Is Gone... And That's A Good Thing
Of course, I am beginning to get the feeling that the MAFIAA thinks everyone who is not part of the MAFIAA is a "freetard," given the regular response here from industry shills whenever someone says something that is not part of the MAFIAA view on things.
Then again, one thing I've learned over the years is that many people who are wrong tend to externalize and blame everyone else for their own inadequacies. Everyone else is a crab in a bucket, keeping them down, when they don't realize they are the only crab keeping themselves down while everyone else is doing quite fine despite them. I see the MAFIAA as having a definite persecution complex, everyone out there is specifically doing things to hurt them (and although they'd like to have all the artists believe that everyone is hurting the artists, many artists are realizing that just isn't true.)
On the post: SF Plastic Surgeon Files Defamation Claim Against Negative Reviewers Across The Country To Avoid SLAPP
Re: hired a firm?
I figured that was a given, especially with the number of industry trolls here...they can't all be working for the MAFIAA, some of them also have to be mercs working for the MAFIAA. Now we just need to find the evidence.
Next >>