Slashdot Mirror
Moore Approves Fahrenheit 9/11 Downloads
13.7BillionYears writes "The Sunday Herald reports that Michael Moore has expressed his approval of Fahrenheit 9/11 being downloaded through networks like BitTorrent and eDonkey2000. He also champions a very Lessig-esque outlook in his reasoning. Quentin Tarantino's earlier support for such practices is also mentioned. Meanwhile, Lion's Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice."
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2046/Fahrenh eit.911.CAM-POT(2).torrent
here is a torrent link from suprnova(~1gb)
http://trackerwww.prq.to/download.php/3219853/Mich ael%20Moore%20About%20Filesharing.avi.torrent
But does he approve of his own lies as well?
There's DVD copy from the Cannes judges. Suprnova.org should have like a 2 gig ludicrously high-quality version for torrent.
It's marked as "Cam" on suprnova even though the description says "Screener on DVD". Since it's not on vcdquality, I'm not going to 'risk it'. mis-labeled downloads are all too common. I'll wait for a proper release.
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2042/Fahrenh eit911.torrent h eit911.DVD.iso.torrent h eit.911.CAM-POT(1).torrent h eit.911.CAM-POT(2).torrent h eit_911%20trailer%20-%20mpg.torrent
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2042/Fahren
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2031/Fahren
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2046/Fahren
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/1888/fahren
Sorry, Suprnova.org.
[1] An interview with an Iraqi woman where the subtitles are off the bottom of the screen.
1,3, and 4 above I believe are all basically the same. Cam-capture in 2 folders that are ready to be ripped onto CDRs for viewing in most any DVD player.
2 is the same cam except ready to be ripped onto a DVD.
5 is the trailer only.
Better yet, where the torrent tools?
My favorite is Azureus although it uses java and is a resource hog.
Original client--no bells or whistles
Experimental client with some speed controls
I've read all the attacks on the film...none of them point to any factual errors. What the F911-detractors don't like is that Moore presents certain facts to make a point. "We invaded Afghanistan" and "Afghanistan's natural gas pipeline was built very quickly." Moore puts these facts in proximity to imply we invaded partly for oil. You can't deny the facts, but the implication is debatable.
Before Bowling for Columbine he might not have. Moore agreed to speak for an hour at Hendrix College (where I attend), booked eighteen months in advance for $50,000 plus expenses. A few months after Bowling for Columbine hit theaters, he changed his price to $120,000 for that same hour of whatever he wanted to talk about. Needless to say, Hendrix's strongly liberal-minded campus and its conservative surrounding cities did not get to see him that year.
I know this because I did bitch work for one of the guys who booked the college's special events. It's also worth noting that Hendrix never charges admission for any of its events, though students do get priority.
The ip may change, so YMMV
No, the story explicitly says that the distributors do not care if people share the movie. "I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour." -- Michael Moore "Meanwhile, Lions Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice." -- The article See? (Lions Gate is the distributor, by the way.) I'm not sure if this makes it perfectly "legal," but it's effectively the same thing if the copyright holder allows it and the creator literally encourages it.
Signature.
The bittorrent client available at ei.kefro.st is banned on many trackers because it's over a year outdated. Use BitTornado instead.
There is a big difference between someone who *is* French and someone who *speaks* French. Quebeckers do not consider themselves to be French, they feel they are distinct in their own right. This sentiment is the cause of the separatist movement. That movement is calling for the breakup of Canada which is the cause of animosity. No that they speak French.
It's the distributors' movie, And they don't want it downloaded.
Um, WTF are you talking about? The POT release is *the* worst, most amateur cam release I've ever seen in my life, ever. The image is framed terribly (you're missing a big portion of the screen), it constantly flickers, the sound is almost inaudible, and to add insult to injury, they used *3* wrong formats distributing the thing. They rar'd iso's of VCDs? 1 gig? WTF? Distribute a 250 meg DIVX and let the lamers still using VCDs transcode it themselves.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
That was the French monarchy. The complaints are usually aimed at the cowardice and weakness of the French republic which didn't emerge for at least a decade after that (1789?).
Believe me, I'd love to see a small DivX or Xvid rip, but can you see lamers using transcode?
The reason so many CAM and TeleSync rips are distributed as VCDs is for the convenience of end users - 'hang the quality, let's get it out there and get people watching it'. And with TV resolution at 352x288, who can blame them?
The multipart rar-chives? Well, from what I've been told, it's to let a legion of 0wnz0red boxes on xDSL connections be as useful as a single big server on a T3, by distributing the bandwidth requirement. I agree though, it's still very annoying, especially on a slow machine (takes time to unroll) or with low disk space (effectively, you need double the space to d/l and then unroll).
13.7BillionYears writes "The Sunday Herald reports that Michael Moore has expressed his approval of Fahrenheit 9/11 being downloaded through networks like BitTorrent and eDonkey2000. He also champions a very Lessig-esque outlook in his reasoning. Quentin Tarantino's earlier support for such practices is also mentioned. Meanwhile, Lion's Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice."
Nobody said it is...
Warning: there may be a few minor "spoilers" here, but nothing you couldn't handle.
I read through the list and, though some of the points are highly interesting (for example, the "My Pet Goat" scene [by the way, the book is actually called "The Pet Goat", so I guess Michael Moore tried to deceive us again!] and how the teacher actually comended Bush's actions), most of the points are irrelevant. Take the one straight off the top. Fahrenheit 9/11 opens with a scene of Ben Affleck, Al Gore, etc. all celebrating under a banner that says "Florida Victory". The link you sent us to points out that the celebration was pre-election results in Florida and that Michael Moore is thus deceitful in trying to paint it like it's not.
But the stakes of the claim are zero. Who cares if it was pre-election? It's not deceitful, it's a matter of making a movie that's interesting. What is important, in the documentary, are the real facts asserted. For example, if the scene where members of congress futilely protested Bush's appointment to the presidency turned out to be fake or something, then an important argument had been made.
Plus, some of the "Deceit" claims are just plain ol' wrong. For example: "Moore Claimed that Osama bin Laden Might be Innocent and Opposed the Afghanistan War". I saw the movie a few days ago, and I don't think I forgot or missed much, but at no point of time do I remember Moore making the claim in the movie. Outside the movie, he didn't claim Osama bin Laden was innocent, but that the American way means we have to assume so until the facts come out against him. When Christopher Hitchens said "Something--I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now--has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell", he's full of it. We obviously have learned a lot more since the initial September 11 attacks, including more evidence to implicate Osama bin Laden. That may have fulfilled Moore's requirements for "till proven guilty".
The list goes on and on. Much of the "deceits" consist of agreeing that what Moore says is right (about the PATRIOT act, for example) but then saying "well, Clinton was involved/did something similar/etc" which is a common defense to any criticism of the Bush administration. Just because someone crticizies the Bush administration doesn't mean they love Clinton. Moore included.
Plus, how is this argument: "He shows Britney Spears saying she supports the President on Iraq. As if there weren't a host of brain-dead bimbo celebs, (Madonna, Sean Penn, Russell Simmons, Lenny Kravitz, Susan Sarandon, The Dixie Chicks, etc.), spouting off on the other side." the exposition of a deceitful aspect of Moore's film? He wasn't trying to hide the fact that they did, nor did he push an implication that they didn't. Obviously the movie is going to better represent his "side".
Take the documentary "Fog of War", for example. There was a driving theme to that whole documentary. Therefore, all the clips from McNamara and from elsewhere were chosen to promote that theme. If I say down and made an argument that everything should have been put in full context and every detail included, then the theme crumbles. Obviously there is another side for every assertion. I didn't see Fahrnheit 9/11 to learn that. I wanted to here one side make it's argument. The other side can have it's chance too.
Here is a link explaining how Moore's alleged stance on copyright issues is being used to damage the profitability of the film:
Link to CNN.com story.
The French did not plan a stupid defense in WWII. They planned a superb, WWI style defense. The problem is the Germans mounted a WWII blitzkrieg style attack, an attack that had been invented by the Germans just a few years previously.
The French were using tanks in an infantry support roll. The total number of French tanks was about equal to the number of German tanks, but spread across the entire defensive line in groups of one or two per mile. The Germans concentrated their entire tank force into one area and smashed through. Once the line was broken, they were able to attack the rest of the line from the rear.
Or, in terms better understood by the Slashdot community, the French bunker line was 0\/\/n3z by a Zerg rush early in the game.
In the movie piracy scene, generally films are released as either VCD or SVCD format. These are in BIN/CUE format, ready for burning. The BIN/CUE's are then RAR'd to take advantage of RAR's splitting capabilities and integrity checks. Then the RAR's are distributed.
In other words, this is normal. What's annoying is when somebody hosts a torrent that is the RAR files and not the uncompressed BIN/CUE's. The pirating group never goes so far as to release the thing onto torrents or such. They're sending files between ftp sites, usually on hacked systems or other systems with big fat pipes and lots of storage. They use tools that let them FTP between sites (similar to FSP), and sometimes from multiple sites (this is where having many RAR files comes in handy) to saturate bandwidth on the receiving sides.
Sometimes this is even automated. Those tools are pretty nifty, actually. You feed it a list of sites and a list of files. It FTPs the whole thing to the first site, then uses FSP to copy it to the second site (much faster than directly FTP'ing it there), then uses FSP to send it to the third site from both of the first two sites simultaneously, and so on. By the time it's done, 20-30 sites can have the thing, and it didn't take any longer than it would have took to send to 3 or 4 of them directly, thanks to the FSP using direct connections between sites and the RAR's being split so that it can send from multiple sites at once. More complicated tools can improve on this by transferring to many sites at once from many other sites and maximizing bandwidth on all of them.
In any case, these sites then get distributed to others via IRC, and people download the thing from these sites, and put it onto their 0-day hookups. This goes on for a bit, and then it eventually filters down to people who might actually watch the movie. Up until now, it's just people trading files because they like trading files fast. They might never actually use those files. Anyway, once it makes it onto sites where people will actually download the thing and thus watch it, it often goes from there onto the P2P networks. Some guy makes a Torrent out of it, somebody sticks it onto Usenet, etc, etc. Often it'll hit newsgroups before it gets made into a torrent somewhere. But by the time it's a torrent, you're at least 4-5 generations away from the original pirated site transfers.
This is so commonplace that tools exist to deal with the multiple layers of formatting. I suggest getting a copy of VCDGear (search google). It can convert RAR'd BIN/CUE's directly into MPG files for viewing. One step, instead of two or three.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Just because he has a message doesn't preclude him from wanting to make a buck.
Especially since if he doesn't, it'll become even harder for him to get a film out.
In addition, it's one thing for him to say he doesn't mind the 'pirates' and for Lions Gate to tacitly agree, but if he actually feeds the P2P network himself, he'll lose an important bargaining chip for when he wants to get his next movie out.
Where are your references?
I'm using two pieces of information and putting them together. The first is Moore's claim that F911 is an "op-ed" piece.
Moore is quoted in this article as saying, "I would like to see Mr. Bush removed from the White House...It [the movie] is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."
The second, of course, is the definition of propaganda: "The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person."
As you can see from the definition, even if the film contains nothing but fact, which is still being debated, it can, and is, be done in a way so as to be considered propaganda.
So, as you can see, I'm not spreading lies, I'm spreading Moore's own words and using common meanings of words to understand what he says.
The fact that you bring up a source where he claims that the film is not propaganda reveals either that he doesn't know what the word means (which makes him uneducated at best, stupid at worst), or that he is contradicting himself (which makes him inconsistent at best, or a liar at worst, or perhaps it means that he has changed his mind about his own work between the two interviews).
Belloc
I got more rhymes than Jamaica got Mangoes.
Actually it seems to me the article quotes Moore and does not deny he said what he said. That said, the article DOES say that the companies involved are going to sue anybody who distributes the movie illegally.
The article goes on to describe the back and forth between supporters and detractors of the film and the almost "polticial campaign" behavior of both sides. This fight may be more significant than the actual Presidential campaign it is intended to influence.
Of course, Bush is planning the Second Korean War as we speak as his "October Surprise", so all this may become irrelevant - except to prove Moore was right.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Old Michael Moore is actually pretty good. His recent stuff, however, is nothing short of propoganda. The number of lies and half-truths he's been telling in his recent movies is just staggering.
I can't believe that people call this a documentary. Documentaries are supposed to be at least aiming for the truth. You should read this - http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
One of the more interesting points is that, while Richard Clarke is viewed as the hero in Moore's movie, it was him, and him alone who authorized the Saudi flights out of the US.
Of course, absolutely noone in the media ever mentions Gore's close ties with big oil, or the fact that he sold our Navy's national reserves to the company his Dad worked for, leaving us even more dependent on foreign oil than ever.
Engineering and the Ultimate