Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA Wants Filmmakers To Pay Licenses, Not Rip Blu-rays (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on from the keep-the-revenue-flowing dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Late last year several filmmaker groups asked the US Copyright Office to lift some of the current DMCA circumvention restrictions, so they can rip and use clips from Blu-rays and other videos without repercussions. In the US, people risk bypassing DMCA's anti-circumvention when they rip a DVD or Blu-ray disc. (There are some exemptions, such as educational and other types of fair use, but the line between legal and illegal is not always clear, some argue.) Not everyone agrees with this assessment though. A group of "joint creators and copyright owners" which includes Hollywood's MPAA, the RIAA, and ESA don't think this is a good idea and point out that filmmakers have plenty of other options. The MPAA and the other groups point out that the exemption could be used by filmmakers to avoid paying licensing fees, which can be quite expensive.

81 comments

  1. A great listen. RIAA? No! by crreimer · · Score: -1, Troll

    MPAA is a bunch of thugs just like the RIAA!

    1. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by LifesABeach · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      People still use Blue-Rays for other uses than coffee coasters? Amazing.

    2. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hate hipster idiots that think they're so cool. You're not as witty as you think you are.

    3. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

      I weep with personal shame at your tolerant observation of my mentality. Here, take my prized toilet plunger handle and place it where the sun does not shine on you. I know it will make an excellent replacement for you brittle spine.

    4. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's Blue-ray? Is it like a DVD from the 1990s? I don't think those ever took off if so. Or maybe the playstation had it or something... but outside of those tiny niches I don't know anybody who even owns a Blue-ray player. I'm upper middle class here so... can't be a poverty thing.

    5. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People still use Blue-Rays for other uses than coffee coasters? Amazing.

      Let me guess: you're in Silicon Valley or on the Microsoft campus, someplace with infinite, high-speed broadband. For a good portion of the rest of the planet, DVDs and Blu-rays make way more sense than soaking up low-monthly-cap, not-so-high-speed (or for some of us, stupidly-low-speed) internet connections to download videos.

    6. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People still use Blue-Rays for other uses than coffee coasters? Amazing.

      Are you shitting me?

      For movies I want to keep and watch whenever I want, I still buy them on BluRay.

      No download to worry about, no asking permission from some asshole movie studio to validate my license, no 'content no longer available' after I paid for it, nobody's goddamned business how many times I watch it, and I don't have to give my contact information to anybody like you do with Ultraviolet.

      I have no interest in a digital only copy which is controlled by someone else, because those people are assholes.

    7. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bandwidth isn't the issue here, dude.

      Regardless of how much bandwidth you have, streaming sites, digital storefronts, and the free "digital downloads" included with many movies are shit in terms of quality when you compare them to the physical release.

    8. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by mspohr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The "physical release" for theatres is now most often digital video. Film is going away. Nothing physical anymore.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    9. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he/she is correct. You are neither witty, nor clever. This post just confirms it.

    10. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by rjune · · Score: 1

      You should have posted under your own name. Everything you said is true and it applies to CD's too. No monthly fee, and if I want my music in FLAC instead of mp3, I can just rerip it. For all the complaining people do about RIAA and MPAA, they are amazingly trusting about having their content remain available.

    11. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People still can't spell Blu-ray properly? Not amazing.

    12. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, "physical release" is not the preferred nomenclature. Blu-Ray, please.

    13. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could also be a low IQ thing. It's Blu-ray you dimwit.

    14. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you might be upper class financially but your eyes are third world if you're content with streaming quality.

    15. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I get it - everyone has different standards. But the streaming formats have surpassed OTA TV now, and really aren't half bad. Sure, a HD 4k Blu-Ray is really gorgeous on a nice TV... but shows on Amazon and Netflix in 4k HD also look really nice. Maybe not as nice, but still better than anything available 5 years ago in any format. We just watched Planet Earth 2 on Netflix and it was jaw-droppingly gorgeous.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      There are some really nice Blu-Ray rips up on usenet, though.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      But honestly, does anyone actually care anymore? I was a DVD early adopter (I'm in the UK and bought all my DVDs from Canada to play on my region free DVD player - I really cared). Now? I just couldn't give two fucks. I don't even pick the HD stream when I'm given the choice. 4k explosions and 7.1 bullet noises really don't add much to my enjoyment of the story.

    18. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by sexconker · · Score: 2

      What the fuck are you talking about?

      A physical BR has much higher quality than anything you can get via Netflix/iTunes/Amazon/UltraViolet/etc. I was responding to someone who mentioned bandwidth being a problem (and that person was responding to some clown who referred to BRs as coasters).

      This has nothing to do with what movie theaters get, nor does it have anything to do with film.

    19. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's simply not true. I used to own an early blu-ray player, along with a great old 300lb Sony Trinitron that was older than the HDMI standard.

      Then the studios started using the blu-ray DRM to force the analog component output to run at 480i.

      That TV is long gone but so is my blu-ray player. I'll stick to The Pirate Bay, thanks.

    20. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I care. If I'm going to take the time to sit through a movie, I'm not going to fucking deal with shitty quality. When I can go to RedBox on my way home / to get food/gas/blow and get a superior version of something for a dollar (there's always free rental codes to be had, so you just pay the upcharge for the BR version), why wouldn't I? There's also the option of downloading a BR rip from TPB (and you can typically get it earlier than street date this way) if you just want shit for free or demand maximum convenience.

      No, graphics and sound don't make the story better. But when was the last time you watched a Hollywood film for the story?

    21. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      "We just watched Planet Earth 2 on Netflix and it was jaw-droppingly gorgeous"

      What about the characters, story, plotline, moral? We are swallowing our own cum gloating over pixels we can't see, watching garbage.

      Congratulations.

    22. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm being honest, the last movie I watched was Cockneys vs. Zombies. I grabbed it because I thought the writing could be good, and I enjoyed it because the writing was good.

      Watched it on my phone in SD.

    23. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can stream in 4k. Exactly what quality am I missing by using the internet and not getting the exact same bits by shining a laser at a disc?

    24. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by tepples · · Score: 1

      You aren't getting the same bits. The stream on a BD and the stream for Amazon or Netflix often have different quantizer settings, even if they are made from the same pixels. A higher quantizer reduces bitrate but adds more noise to the picture to make it easier to compress.

    25. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to tell you that you're wrong. I work with most major video streaming companies, 4k blu-ray was released in q1 or q2 2016 and some customers were already streaming 4k content a few years before that.

      If you really want 4k you'll have to dig for it online, just google it and you'll find these services. It won't be long before ATSC 3.0 comes out and you'll have 4kHDR video over the air.

      I have to admit most of the time the mezzanine, or source video, is designed for blu-ray and then encoded down but from it's also common to see M-JPEG, Apple ProRes, and for reasons I don't understand plain MPEG (not 4) at just fucking monster bitrates and from such a source video it'd be simple to create a hls.265 video that's smaller and better than what you'll see on a blu-ray disc and indeed some customers are experimenting with offering this.

      It's also my observation that the demand is the driver here, they'd expand their high quality video offerings if people wanted it, but most people have no fucking clue what what quality their video is.

      I know all of this and am happy with 720 on my 42 inch tv most of the time. Maybe if I go bigger I'd want more but all this bullshit is just an excuse to get you to buy shit and consume.

    26. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by mcl630 · · Score: 2

      Streaming 4k video is far more compressed than UHD Blu-ray. Likewise, streaming HD video is far more compressed than Blu-ray. You're not getting the "exact same bits", and you're not getting the same quality.

    27. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you don't accidentally upgrade your firmware or playback software and you happen to end up on a version that doesn't support your bluray because one of the studios deemed to make you no longer compatible.

    28. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The size of the video is insignificant. The audio track is what takes all the size. One can fit the video from a standard 1080p BluRay on a DVD if you compress the soundtrack to DD 5.1, and fit TWO 1080p BlueRay titles on a DVD if you go down to crappy MP3 audio suitable for playing through 2" tinny speakers.

    29. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WTF are your smoking?

    30. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Are you shitting me?

      No, I concur. I bu a lot of DVDs still by many standards, but I get the majority second hand from a UK chain called CEX, where they sell them from between 50p and about a tenner.

      They do also sell BluRay, but I never buy any because I don't have a player. I don't have a player because they have one half-height shelf devoted to Blu-rays and an entire floor for DVDs. DVDs it seems are still vastly more popular and I'd imagine the availability of second hand ones has some relation to the availability of new ones. Plenty of the second hand DVDs are from the last few years.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    31. Re: A great listen. RIAA? No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dolby TrueHD is 18 Mbit/s. Netflix 1080p including audio is maximum 5 Mbit/s (lower in most scenes).

    32. Re: A great listen. RIAA? No! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Oh sentient one, I marvel at how you can generate enough electricity to to move your fingers on your keyboard. Here, behold my pile of masochistic sand for you to use. Please demonstrate your ability to be forcefull on this sand.

    33. Re:A great listen. RIAA? No! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      So now documentaries are not a valid form of entertainment? Amazing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. MPAA wants to gouge more people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...News at 11.

  3. Fuck the MPAA by stealth_finger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But why do film makers need to lift so much footage from other films? Does this happen a lot outside of stock footage situations? Documentaries sure but there's an exemption for that it seems.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Fuck the MPAA by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      But why do film makers need to lift so much footage from other films?

      For things like the Transformers movies. I think there's only been two actual movies filmed and all the other ones are clipped together from them.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Fuck the MPAA by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      It's not a question of the amount of footage. Even taking one frame from a Blu-Ray movie to use in a review of that movie is a violation of the DMCA because you have to break the encryption to get hat frame.

      The group is asking for an exception to allow decryption for clips that would be legally usable under fair use laws if they weren't encrypted.

    3. Re:Fuck the MPAA by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "But why do film makers need to lift so much footage from other films? Does this happen a lot outside of stock footage situations? Documentaries sure but there's an exemption for that it seems."

      An exemption that cannot be used without ripping a Blu-ray, that's sort of the point of this article.
      Where else could you get a scene in high quality for free?

    4. Re:Fuck the MPAA by DeathtoPorgs · · Score: 1

      There are also educational uses beyond documentaries. For example, I have a podcast analyzing films and in the shownotes will often post short videos and screencaps pointing out and detailing various aspects of filmmaking. Plenty of youtube channels do this same idea as well. I can imagine also wanting to use it for preproduction of a film where I'm trying to communicate with my team what I'm trying to accomplish.

    5. Re:Fuck the MPAA by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There can be a lot of uses.
      1. An other movie is an element of the plot. Think Home alone, where Dirty Harry (or some gangster movie) was shown, and replayed to scare the bad guys into thinking they were being shot at.
      2. A movie at the time was shot on site, Now it is decades later and such landscape isn't available anymore. Pre-2001 New York City, Las Vegas nearly every year... A movie clip could help set the scene for the period of the movie.
      3. Having to reuse the same effect. The Wilhelm scream comes to mind. Or the destruction of the bird of pray in Star Trek Generations which was just the same shot in Start Trek VI.
      4. Parody

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Fuck the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one frame why do you need to break the encryption at all? I've managed screen snapshots with video running before.

    7. Re:Fuck the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you don't. You just do a screen capture.

    8. Re:Fuck the MPAA by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Not on proper Blu-Ray player software - which requires a secure content path from the decoder to the screen, including HDCP. If you're saying you can get a screen grab, you are probably issuing a player that already breaks the encryption.

    9. Re:Fuck the MPAA by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Secure content path. HDCP. No screen capture.

    10. Re:Fuck the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. An other movie is an element of the plot. Think Home alone, where Dirty Harry (or some gangster movie) was shown, and replayed to scare the bad guys into thinking they were being shot at.

      I'm not sure that falls under fair use.

      2. A movie at the time was shot on site, Now it is decades later and such landscape isn't available anymore. Pre-2001 New York City, Las Vegas nearly every year... A movie clip could help set the scene for the period of the movie.

      See previous statement.

      3. Having to reuse the same effect. The Wilhelm scream comes to mind. Or the destruction of the bird of pray in Star Trek Generations which was just the same shot in Start Trek VI.

      Why would the studio making $Sequel not just pull the duplicate shot from the source?

      4. Parody

      While parody is generally protected, I fail to see why I would need to make a copy of whatever I am parodying.

      Don't get me wrong though, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to allow this. I just fail to see how any of your examples apply.

    11. Re:Fuck the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was actually done with Anchorman.
      There was so much excess footage that they made an alternative movie with the leftovers.

    12. Re:Fuck the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For things like the Transformers movies. I think there's only been two actual movies filmed and all the other ones are clipped together from them.

      Which is like 3 too many.

    13. Re:Fuck the MPAA by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Documentaries sure but there's an exemption for that it seems.

      No, such an exemption is what they're asking for.

      Also, the amount of footage is 0% relevant. Accessing two seconds of video, or even a still, is just as illegal under DMCA as accessing two minutes.

      That all fair uses are illegal unless explicitly exempted, and the tools are illegal regardless of whether the use is legal or exempted or not, are among of the reasons DMCA should be repealed.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    14. Re:Fuck the MPAA by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not on proper Blu-Ray player software - which requires a secure content path from the decoder to the screen, including HDCP. If you're saying you can get a screen grab, you are probably issuing a player that already breaks the encryption.

      I usually just lay a 14 inch HDMI monitor on my flatbed scanner for a quick screen grab. If I need a higher quality one, I'll make a bunch of scans off of my 55 in TV and stitch them together. So far my Blu-ray software hasn't complained about it. ;-)

    15. Re:Fuck the MPAA by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      I've actually tried to legally use a single frame still from a movie as part of a talk, to illustrate a particular point. In other words, something that's obviously fair use, but for some reason I thought I'd try and do it the right way and actually get official permission.

      It was basically impossible. After several hours of effort to try and Do The Right Thing, I had to give up, it was potentially going to take days of effort spread over weeks or even months of time just to get to use one stinking lousy frame of the typically quarter million or so in a movie like that.

      And now the MPAA wants to institutionalise this crap. I've tried to play their game, and it's set up to be impossible. No doubt, after everyone just goes ahead and uses the content, they'll go to their pet congresspeople and ask for stricter laws, because look at all this piracy.

    16. Re:Fuck the MPAA by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Not on proper Blu-Ray player software - which requires a secure content path from the decoder to the screen, including HDCP. If you're saying you can get a screen grab, you are probably issuing a player that already breaks the encryption.

      Or pointing a camera at the screen? I bet that's probably covered too actually.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    17. Re:Fuck the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secure content path. HDCP. No screen capture.

      What if you are using a VM with hardware video passthrough.. and you take a screen capture of the remote console screen which shows the video playing?

    18. Re:Fuck the MPAA by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It would be the same as taking a screenshot on the local machine. You'd get nothing. What do you think 'passthrough' means and what do you think that's bypassing?

  4. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does the European Space Agency have something to say on this matter?

  5. Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Fuck the MPAA and the "law". I'd be in favor of just exterminating the hollywood kikes altogether. Hell, I'd be down for nuking israel and killing off the rest of the bastards.

    1. Re:Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Settle down hitler

    2. Re:Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Ooo look! It's the master race! Let's all point and laugh!

      Pro-tip: Hitler would have had retards like you in the gas chambers before he'd even got round to Jews. Or medical experiments more like."Zis creature - how does it live, viz less zan half a brain?"

  6. Fair use, anyone? by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a little shocked, shocked! the film makers want to be exempted from copyright they rely on to derive revenue from their work, so they can apparently use other film makers' work for free.

    Why could this be wrong? Well, first, fair use is the proper exemption. Of course it could apply, unless of course there is profit involved. I'm guessing they want to use clips in place of stock footage, or perhaps real world event clips to fit plot, or even steal outright clever stuff.

    Let them eat cake.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Fair use, anyone? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that the fair use rights (which you admit are the proper exemption here) are blocked by movie studios using encryption on released video. The use of the clip may be legal, but the decrypting the video to get the clip is illegal under the DMCA.

    2. Re:Fair use, anyone? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Fair use is fair use even with a profit motive. As long as you're making your actual profit from the commentary and not as a way to see the copyrighted content, it's legal fair use.

    3. Re:Fair use, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But its not fair use when I want to store a movie that I bought on my SAN and stream it to a device in my house?

    4. Re:Fair use, anyone? by Nothing2Chere · · Score: 1

      unless of course there is profit involved.

      This is not a problem. Modern movies use accounting practices that ensure they do not make a profit.

    5. Re:Fair use, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since your post is so clearly wrong, I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic, but I don't really see the point you're trying to make by claiming things that are so clearly wrong.

      As we all know, there is a 4 factor test to determine whether fair use applies:

      -the purpose and character of your use
      -the nature of the copyrighted work
      -the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
      -the effect of the use upon the potential market.

      None of these prohibit fair use if a profit is involved, so your claim is clearly false, and I doubt the MPAA would have ever given this logic in any cases.

      Help me here, let me in on the joke?

    6. Re:Fair use, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not under the legal definition of fair use.

      Fair use is where parts of a work can be reproduced for transformative purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.

      That isn't to say that you ought to not have that right, but that use doesn't fall under fair use doctrine.

    7. Re:Fair use, anyone? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      That's not quite correct. If your use of the clip falls under fair use, you are free to decrypt the video to obtain the clip. The DMCA specifically says, "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." So the DMCA provisions and punishments do not apply if your use of copyrighted materials is fair use.

      What the DMCA has done is make creation and distribution of the tools needed decrypt the video illegal. You still have the right, but you no longer the means to exercise it.

  7. The Day of the Rope is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    The Day of the Rope is coming for all of these Hollywood types, jews, liberals, nigqers, faggots, wetbacks, and degenerates!

    1. Re:The Day of the Rope is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the retards like you! You'll be first!

  8. I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll rip whatever the fuck I want from discs I own. It's none of anyone else's business and they can go fuck themselves.

    1. Re:I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You own the discs, not the content You can use them as frizbes, eat them, but not extract the content. Feel free to 'rip or 'scratch them and repay for the content though :)

      Yours,

      the RIAA, MPAA

  9. Just use a webcam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use a webcam pointed at a TV. For the quality of most stuff out there, even a 640x480 webcam will do. Crap is still crap, even at Blu-Ray resolution.

    1. Re:Just use a webcam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA would argue that qualified as circumvention under the DMCA or whatever legal framework they have to force encrypted devices all the way to the display, if they haven't already. These people have NO shame or common sense.

  10. I can still say this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    When you lick a butthoal you lick it for life!

  11. Really don't need to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't need to read it. If the MPAA wants it, then it is by definition bad for consumers. The same way that anything Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. want is automatically something we should be against.

    1. Re: Really don't need to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have any of those entities proven loyalty and/or put their customers first? They don't you say? Well fuck em then.

      A bunch of greedy/shady assholes. The whole lot. Fuck em I say.

  12. My guess is they want to use the clips by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    in film critique, e.g. reviews, which last I heard was fair use.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:My guess is they want to use the clips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in film critique, e.g. reviews, which last I heard was fair use.

      Key to remember is the MPAA doesn't believe in fair use, is doing everything they can do undermine it, and effectively wants veto power over any and all technologies. They have repeatedly tried to undermine the very concept of it.

      Because the MPAA are greedy douchbags and assholes.

    2. Re:My guess is they want to use the clips by tepples · · Score: 2

      Why does film critique require displaying an excerpt of the original motion picture in a quality greater than that achievable by camcording a licensed TV connected to a licensed player? Reviews in newspapers get away with not displaying the motion picture at all.

  13. Kiwi ingenuity by Swampash · · Score: 2

    When Taika Waititi was announced as the director for Thor: Ragnarok, the New Zealand native known for indie comedies seemed like an odd choice. That collision of two different filmmaking worlds is made clear by Waititi's story about how he put together the film's sizzle reel.

    This sizzle reel, a cut of clips to convey tone and concept to the higher-ups before the movie was officially greenlit, has been discussed before, by Waititi and Kevin Feige himself, who called Waititi's Ragnarok reel, scored by Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song "amazing."

    But that sizzle reel, which may have gotten Waititi the gig, was not made by the most, ah, legal means. "There was no story when I went in, they didn't have a story or any ideas, really," he told Canadian radio station CBC Radio. "So I cut together little clips and shots. I, uh, basically illegally torrented and downloaded clips from a bunch of different movies."

    https://www.gizmodo.com.au/201...

  14. Angels With Filthy Souls by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1 is probably not fair use, as the production could instead produce an original film and have the characters watch that film. In fact, "Angels With Filthy Souls" in Home Alone is exactly that.

    2. The production can instead build a replica set. That's how it'd have to be done anyway for movies set before color motion picture film became widespread.

    3. Star Trek Generations and Star Trek VI share a distributor. Licensing is a doddle in such cases.

  15. Entertainment Software Association by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why does the European Space Agency have something to say on this matter?

    It doesn't, except to the extent that games published by members of the Entertainment Software Association use data sets published by the European Space Agency.