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."

15 of 1,417 comments (clear)

  1. F911 by mfh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This truly is a first. I am quite pleased by Moore's decision to broaden his audience by allowing free downloads of the film.

    I think this would be a great place to link all your Fahrenheit 9/11 torrents!

    I already saw Fahrenheit 9/11 in theatre, and it was truly amazing. I don't care if some of it was not factual, because the bulk of it is just too damn funny to worry about trivial he-said, she-said crap. Think for yourself, but also see the movie... it's amazing, imho. Quite a catalyst for provocative thought and discussion. It's not just funny, it's moving and sad, terrifying at times. The funniest parts are when they look at bush in his candid moments, when his true hick nature seeps through the $5000 suits he wears. I won't spoil it. I will say that during the film, they play audio of the 9/11 attacks over a black screen and people in the audience were crying, it was soooo moving, and sad. Now watch this drive!

    So much for the MPAA... gosh it's nice to see their hands tied for a change.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  2. CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent? by GGardner · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'll download it as soon as there's something better than a CAM out there :-)

    While this was intended to be funny, there is some seriousness here. If I were Moore, and my goal was widest possible distribution, not most money made, putting it up for P2P download is a great idea. However, having gone to the trouble to shoot and edit the movie with high enough quality for movie projection, I'd want the highest possible quality to be downloadable. So, if he were really interested, he'd upload a copy from the original sources.

    Or, maybe Moore sees P2P as an advertising medium to drive sales of movie tickets? In which case, you'd probably want a low-quality CAM capture to be floating around the net.

  3. Not all pirates are assholes... by FrO · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Valenti said: "Nobody can allow their rights to be stolen because, if you can't retrieve your investment, you're out of the movie business,

    "I don't think there's really a single actor or director in the world who does not believe that if you don't combat piracy, it will devour you in the future."


    I've seen this happen so many times that it's the norm for me. A group of my friends used to pirate movies/music/apps/games/etc back in our early days of college. While it is true that there were many things we didn't buy, there were also many things that we DID buy. my DVD collection grew greatly during this period, as did my CD collection and the number of games that I owned. I mean hell, I had a pirated copy of Warcraft III, yet I forked over the $80 to get the special edition of the game when it came out. Yes, there are those assholes who decide that they will never buy anything, but most pirates will pay for things that they really enjoy. Thus, in my experience, Valenti's assertion that piracy is the downfall of the industry is wrong. If they produced something that everyone wants to see or own and sold it at a reasonable price, then even the pirates would go out and buy it.

  4. Re:Not surprising... by presarioD · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The most interesting thing of all is how people have a hard time watching their beliefs capsize and collapse in front of their eyes.
    In the process to defend them they contradict themselves so badly!
    An example was an article in a local newspaper on how Michael Moore is just another capitalist and while people watch his documentary he is making a fortune and blah blah blah...

    Since when capitalism became such a bad thing?
    Fox news, ABC, CNN etc etc etc are charitable institutions?
    Why is it so hard to accept Michael Moore's news while "Live on CNN" is welcomed with a gaping mouth?

    I guess I know now! Interesting, very interesting!

    --
    Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
  5. Re:Interesting. by Eru-sama · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The title is "Fifty-six deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11" but I think a more suiting one would be "fifty-six insignifciant instances of nitpicking."

  6. Re:Serious? by mkro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The IMDB average of the movie is 7.8. If you limit the votes to US voters (Because who cares about Europeans anyway), the average is 7.6.

    1355 Americans gave it a "1". 93 gave it a "2". I'm not sure what to think of those numbers. Of course, any accusation of "voting by principle" can also be applied to the other end of the scale.

    --
    I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
  7. Moore's next film by epsalon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If Moore is against Copyright, he should make a film about the DMCA, the Sonny-Bonno copyright extention act, software patents, and similar freedom-inhibiting laws. That kind of film could really make a difference.

  8. Simple logic by kilimangaro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is no such thing in that stories about Hey dude!!! pirating is OK. There is a cold logic behind Moore's warm aproval...
    And the logic is simple: This movie is a COUNTER-PROPAGANDA. More people will see it, More people will be against Bush administration.

    By the way, im sure that Moore's wish his movie to be broadcast on national television

    --
    "Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." - Nietzsche
  9. Re:Not a documentary by n6mod · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't understand why the entire world suddenly thinks that documentary = journalism, or documentary = cinema verite.

    Documentaries certainly have points of view, and they always have. At least Moore's is blatant; the "objective" documentaries *still* have some slant, because they are made by humans and humans have opinions.

    --
    You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
  10. Re:Not a documentary by TGK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not that it really matters.

    1 - Until Kerry accepts the nomination there exist no federally imposed limits on his spending. Those that exist after the nomination are voluntary though candidates are monetarily encouraged to accept them. Therefore, even if 911 ended with "I'm John Kerry and I approved this message" it's still perfectly justifiable as far as political speech goes.

    2 - Documentaries have an opinion. We're socialized to believe otherwise because our first exposure to documentaries is generally in elementary school with a discussion of how babies are made, the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus, or the formation of stars or some such. Of course, all these documentaries have an opinion as well. Many would argue that the babies films indicate a difference between a fetus and a baby. It's worth noting that Columbus wasn't even the first European to set foot in the Americas and that many prefer Genesis to the gravitational condensation of gas as the reason stars form. (Wow, worst run on sentence ever)

    3 - Integrity? Moore said he was producing a film that accused Bush of all kinds of insidious things. He produced the film. Gotta at least take the man at his word. Bush, on the other hand, pledged to reduce the size of the federal government and refrain from engaging in "Nation building." Hmmmm.... guess one of these two has been caught in a lie to two.

    I'm not saying Moore's film isn't misleading. I'm not saying it's not propaganda. There is an art to arranging facts in a certain way so as to prove a point. There is a finesse in accomplishing that task in such a way as to leave your audience with an opinion that you never actually stated. Moore is a master of this technique. Nothing, and I say that after an appreciable amount of investigation, in Moore's film is untrue. Nonetheless, he has artfully arranged things to imply more than he says. Those implications are opinion, not fact. A wary observer will note the difference.

    As for journalistic... your local newspaper publishes an editorial section. That's journalism too.

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  11. Not even Mel Gibson did this by canadacow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Interesting how Mel Gibson actually cracked down on peer-to-peer distribution of "The Passion of the Christ" (techincally the equivalent to stealing Bibles) where as Moore supports the free sharing of his movie.

  12. Re:Not surprising... by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bingo! I may have more liberal leanings, but I don't think there is anything wrong with REAL capitalism. The kind that originally made this country a great place. REAL capitalism isn't about making the most sales and dominating the market. It's about providing a good or service that really has value and keeping your customer satisfied. The criminal activites that masquerade as "capitalism" these days have made a travesty of the United States. It sickens me that so many people out there believe that they are part of something good when they support the purveyors of these activities. It also does my heart good to see that there are plenty of people who are, perhaps, starting to become a little more aware of how this country is being ruined.

  13. Analysis of how F911's critics "expose lies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In reading a plethora of "critiques of the movie", web sites supposedly debunking Moore's claims and everything in between, I've noticed a consistent pattern of how Moore's critics address his work:

    1. Standard right wing/conservative approach to dealing with issues: DON'T

    Attack the messenger, ignore the message.

    The vast majority of negative reviews of F911 tend to center around character assassination of Moore himself, rather than the issues raised in his movies:

    "Before watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I actually had some sort of admiration for Michael Moore. In his previous, most popular, two movies, Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me, he was able to hide the fact that he's truly a sleaze-ball."
    - Bucket Reviews


    2. Make outrageous claims with no intent to back them up:

    "Fahrenheit 9/11 is a different experience than his past two outings, though. In it, he lets the filth fly, exposing his entirely evil heart, which is offensive and vile through and through. No matter how many quick cuts and slick moves he can make behind and in front of the camera, there's no disguising his despicableness here. Fahrenheit 9/11 is comprised of one percent truth, thirty-three percent staging, sixteen percent bents of reality, and fifty percent downright, inexcusable, lies. If I was a Democrat, I'd be ashamed that such an obnoxious scum was representing my political party, in film. If I was on the fence, voting, I would steer towards George W. Bush's side because of the atrociousness Moore utilizes in this film."
    - Bucket Reviews


    3. "Post-hypnotic suggestions" - Tell people what they will think.

    It's bad enough that any critic has the job of influencing people based on their opinion, but when they start telling you how you will react to the movie, they've gone too far:
    "What can I say about "Fahrenheit 9/11" that you can't already guess? If you are in line with Michael Moore's politics, you're gonna love this movie. But if you disagree with him - or maybe even find yourself somewhere in the middle - you just might find this the most grossly speculative, obnoxious, racist, obscured and hate-filled movie yet."
    - Film Threat


    4. Push the boundaries of hypocrisy

    This great trick, perfected by Fox News with the advent of the "No Spin Zone" has been elevated to an art form by the Bush administration. Right wing pundits employ this technique more often than they whip out their American Express gold card:
    "..Apparently Moore didn't have any footage of torture chambers, rape rooms or mass Kurdish graves to throw in as well. Oh yeah, I forgot. That doesn't fit in his agenda. So, let's not "document" those facts. Most people forget that Michael Moore has had a problem with accuracy. ...At times, Moore completely abandons any pretext of a documentary and slips into fiction by literally putting words into Bush's mouth and thoughts into the man's head.


    Let's put thoughts in Michael Moore's head, then let's lambast him for putting thoughts in other peoples' heads. Then let's top it all off with a cherry:
    "The bottom line is that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is nothing short of yellow journalism. In fact, it's worse. It's yellow journalism masquerading as investigative reporting. It is Michael Moore's desperate attempt to justify his Oscar speech."

  14. Another reason people download... by _defiant_ · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Very few people download movies to make a profit off of them. We download the movies because it is convienient to do so (ala iTunes).

    I honestly think some people -- maybe not the majority but a significant minority -- download movies, songs, TV shows, software, etc because they are addicted.

    I'm willing to bet that everyone here knows at least one guy (or girl) who has hundreds of thousands of MP3s, some of which they've only listened to once. Or maybe someone who has dozens of complete TV series. You walk into these people's rooms and there are tons of 100 disc CD spindles sitting on shelves, completely burned and just collecting dust.

    I have to believe in these cases that it's a form of internet cleptomania. Not the most damaging of disorders, but still not fucking right.

  15. Re:Rar's ISO's is pretty standard... by Cramer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    • saturate bandwidth on the receiving sides
    Actually, it tends to saturate bandwidth on all sides and right down the middle, too :-) I have seen (and about 6 seconds away from getting a coworker fired, to boot) a single warez node consume 30% of an ISPs entire aggrigate bandwidth. When you do this on the wrong side of a SONET ethernet bridge, it becomes VERY noticable. (OC3 carrying a DS3, 6 T1s, a 10M ethernet, and a 100M ethernet VLAN span... yes, that's more than 155mbps.)

    • Up until now, it's just people trading files because they like trading files fast.
    It's a pissing a contest... who can transfer the file the fastest. They don't care what they are moving or who they may be hurting in the process. I sat and watched these idiots once... a dozen "people" all pushing the same file(s) to the same server; the first one to get the entire file there "wins". This is both stupid and wasteful.

    • Often it'll hit newsgroups before it gets made into a torrent somewhere
    For some things, yes. But for more popular items, a torrent will ususally be available before it appears in part or whole on USENET. (I know, because I watch... and, sadly, usenet is faster than downloading via bittorrent. esp. from such places as suprnova)