What sealed the fate of the Hindenburg was the following:
- damp mooring lines (from rain) that could conduct electricity between the ship and the ground - a thunderstorm that increased the strength of ambient electric fields - a tear in the ship's outer skin that exposed the metal frame and caused a leak of hydrogen to the outside
All of this caused a discharge between the mooring lines and the metal frame in the vicinity of a leak. Kaboom.
Do you think that a Trump administration will be tougher on Russia regarding the Ukraine?
Think again. The Trump team signed off on every single item in the RNC platform -- taxes, trade policy, abortion, education, religion, all of it -- except one thing. They said nope, that one has to go.
Trump is taking credit, but he had nothing to do with it, the investment in question has been in the works for a long time.
My take: the companies in question are letting him take credit for it. They want to be on his good side. And the way to be on Trump's good side entails the following: (1) be obsequious to him; and (2) bring celebrities. One out of two doesn't hurt.
"According to CNN" it the current version of "according to Pravda" from the days of the Soviet Union.
Oh, puh-leeze. I'm not sure what's worse -- that you could make a false equivalence of CNN with Pravda, or that someone modded you insightful.
CNN is not state-run, and it is not beholden to government censors.
And while we're on the subject, there are several healthy democracies that have state-funded media that does not hold back its criticisms of the government. The CBC in Canada and the BBC in the UK are two examples.
The sort of person who's on the ball enough to do good isn't going to fall for Fake News. Where the sort of person who is just needs a little push in the right direction to do something nasty. That's why you don't see left wing Fake News very much. The ones selling it (not good natured lefties but folks in the page views biz) admitted as much when asked in several interviews. Lefty Fake News gets debunked too fast to spread like good Fake News needs to...
This. Last month, there was story about this on NPR.
TL/DR: Jestin Coler (the fake-news writer) claimed that he does it to show how easily hoodwinked people are by fake news, but when pressed, he admitted he could make lots of money doing this. A few interesting quotes from his interview:
The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly false or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction. [...] We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.
The artist has no moral right to prevent fan-edits, or any other case of someone distributing a modified version of his work.
Moral right? That's not what we're talking about here. The question is whether someone has the legal right to modify and redistribute a copyrighted work without the copyright-holder's permission. And the answer is no.
The [content-providers] are not offering a service those families require to consume the product.
The content-providers are not required to provide such a service to these families, although some do -- e.g., they create a PG version.
These families are not "required" to consume their product, therefore it strains reason to suggest they "require" a service to scrub that product.
It's interesting that the families are willing to front the legal costs. This may take a chip off current understanding of copyright law if it goes up.
Imagine a not-too-distant future in which anyone can hire a third party to scrub all broadcasts to fit whatever world-view they wish. That can be done now by selecting your own news media. But what if one can order such filtering for everything you see? It has been shown that meticulous editing of material can make it seem to express something that is exactly the opposite of what the creator of the material intended. That imagined future sounds like an information dystopia.
How can you say Han shot first, yet also say that Harmy had no right to distribute the unspecialized edition? Either you say the artist's "integrity" dominates, and no one has the moral right to make a DVD or BluRay where Han shot first, or you take the position that copyright is just about money.
Nonsense. An artist is perfectly entitled to distribute two versions of a work that contradict each other. Because it's their art.
The point is that the copyright-holder can alter the art, but someone else cannot.
And I choose to take the original Star Wars Episode IV version as canon, but that's just me.
Blocking an ad from within an overall TV show or from where it belongs on a web page is EXACTLY the same thing. It is excising a bit of (admittedly commercial) artistic content from within an overall work (which is, itself, also commercial artwork) before the viewer of the overall work is forced to watch the part to which he objects.
No, I reaffirm that it is not the same thing. A TV show and the ads it contains are copyright by separate entities. Removing the content of one does not violate the copyright of the other.
It's quite odd that so many people who support snipping out advertisements for their own convenience and/or pleasure are so upset by the idea that somebody else might want some cursing or soft-core pseudo-porn snipped out of content their families will consume. Is there some unwritten rule that says everybody must subject themselves and their kids to unnecessary expletives, over-the-top violence,and/or simulated sex and nudity? Why must people subject themselves and their kids to these things if they prefer not to, yet it's ok to excise an ad for a car or a river cruise? Why are some people so insistent that others (and particularly kids) must be forced to see and hear cursing/sex/violence?
Nobody is saying that an individual, in the privacy of their own home, can't choose to watch or not watch portions of a broadcast. What is at issue here is whether a separate party can alter and then distribute copyright material. Even if that altered copy is streamed to one single individual who requested the alterations, that is still a violation of copyright. Even if the original content is streamed in its entirety and the naughty bits are skipped over at the receiving end, that is still a violation of copyright. Yes yes, I know that VidAngel says they can do this per the Family Viewing Act. I would argue that they cannot, and I think the courts will ultimately come to that conclusion as well.
Content-creators have supplied PG-versions of their products for sometime. They can do this because it's their content, not VidAngel's. They have a vested interest in assuring that any alterations to their artistic work does not compromise their expression. They rightly do not want some other entity to distribute versions of their content that are edited without their approval.
I just ripped a page out of a book and blacked out a word three times on a different page. I'm a terrible human being for meddling with so.eone's artistic expression, aren't I?
No. If that's all you did, you would not be a bad person.
However, if you redistributed that copy of the book with the alterations, you would be violating copyright. See the difference?
Yes, advertisements are works of art, and they are (rightly) copyright. But blocking or ignoring ads is not the same as altering and redistributing them.
You, and the others on this thread, continue to misunderstand my position.
People can watch content in whatever manner they want. My point is about the distributors of copyrighted content having (or rather, lacking) the right to alter said content.
BTW, you and I have been around here about the same amount of time. And yes, Han Solo did shoot first.
My point was that copyright law protects the copyright holder, be they big or little.
VidAngel is not the copyright holder. They are trying to exploit what they see as a legal window that gives their business model a pass. Good luck to them, but I think they will fail unless they change their attitude. I think they'd be far better off co-operating with copyright-holders rather than trying to incite their enmity.
Remember Aereo? They similariy tried to exploit what they thought was a legal loophole for redistributing content but SCOTUS handed them their head. I think VidAngel will suffer the same fate unless they change course.
So, you're saying you don't use an ad blocker in your browser, because copyright? This is exactly the same: a service that removes a few seconds of offensive or annoying "content" that matches some filters.
No I don't, and no it is not the same.
Blocking an ad is not the same as altering and redistributing an artistic work.
If you order a car from a dealership because you like the car, but it has hub caps which you hate, do you have the right to simply remove the hub caps before driving the car, or is it a terrible offense against civilization and the artistry of the car designers? You're not remove the hub caps from anybody else's car. You're not even inconveniencing the dealership directly by ordering without the hub caps, nor are you asking him to remove hub caps from his lot or keep them off of anyone else's car. Now, if this is ok, then why is it bad if you ask a third party to discreetly remove the hub caps from your car for you, because they're better at it than you are and they'll even do it for you before you sit down and drive the car? That's what's happening here.
Re-written per request.
Your analogy would apply if it were the dealership switching out the hubcaps. And if I were the auto-maker, I probably would want some say in what they did.
Since when did filmmakers get the right to demand that you watch every moment of their films or you may not watch any of the films? People are free to turn away from a TV, or fast forward a video disc, and most on Slashdot support people being able to skip commercials (the HORROR! do you have a right to skip the "artistry" of that latest Viagra ad??)
Filmmakers don't have the right to force you to keep your eyes open for every second of their film. But they do have the right to control how someone distributes a copy of their work. Because copyright, dammit.
Reminder: When the film Amadeus hit the big screen, the studio released it without the scene of Mozart's wife being assaulted. It was released on VHS tape years later also without that scene. Years later when released on BluRay, the only version released was the "director's cut" where that scene was added back in. This is one example and far from unique. Was the audience wrong to view the theatrical or VHS releases with the scene removed? Wrong to view the BluRay with the scene? Why was it OK for the studio to cut the sexual scene from the theatrical release, but then presumably wrong for some service now to come along and re-remove that scene for a family who wants to expose their children to the great film and the composer it is about while not exposing them to the actress's nude scene?
Yes, the copyright-holders altered their own work. Which they could do. Because they held the copyright. Someone else who wants to do that needs to get permission from the copyright-holder.
Copyright, in part, protects an artist's expression from tampering by others. But they're free to "tamper" with it themselves, because it's their expression.
Everyone has a fucking therapy dog now. Back in the old days it was called manning up and dealing with your problems. Now you just trade addictions because behavior modification is too hard. Instead of being addicted to coke shes addicted to her "therapy dog".
I'm guessing you have never had to deal with mental illness. If you or a loved one ever had any exposure to the issue, you'd be singing a different tune.
Mental illness hurts. It is not easy to fix. You can't just "man up" and "snap out of it." It takes work.
Slashdot Mirror
What sealed the fate of the Hindenburg was the following:
- damp mooring lines (from rain) that could conduct electricity between the ship and the ground
- a thunderstorm that increased the strength of ambient electric fields
- a tear in the ship's outer skin that exposed the metal frame and caused a leak of hydrogen to the outside
All of this caused a discharge between the mooring lines and the metal frame in the vicinity of a leak. Kaboom.
These things will be death traps! Has everybody forgotten about the Hindenburg?!?!
The Hindenberg used hydrogen. Hydrogen is highly flammable. Helium is not.
I can't believe I even have to post this. I guess Poe's Law made me do it.
Floating in the air takes a lot of energy.
You fail at physics.
Do you think that a Trump administration will be tougher on Russia regarding the Ukraine?
Think again. The Trump team signed off on every single item in the RNC platform -- taxes, trade policy, abortion, education, religion, all of it -- except one thing. They said nope, that one has to go.
You know what it was? Support for the Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Trump is taking credit, but he had nothing to do with it, the investment in question has been in the works for a long time.
My take: the companies in question are letting him take credit for it. They want to be on his good side. And the way to be on Trump's good side entails the following: (1) be obsequious to him; and (2) bring celebrities. One out of two doesn't hurt.
He became a politician when he threw his hat in the ring in 2015. He became a successful politician in 2016.
By that argument, he became a politician long before 2015.
His first attempt to run for the presidency was in 2000, when he sought the nomination of the Reform Party. In fact, he toyed with the idea of running for president at least as early as 1987.
"According to CNN" it the current version of "according to Pravda" from the days of the Soviet Union.
Oh, puh-leeze. I'm not sure what's worse -- that you could make a false equivalence of CNN with Pravda, or that someone modded you insightful.
CNN is not state-run, and it is not beholden to government censors.
And while we're on the subject, there are several healthy democracies that have state-funded media that does not hold back its criticisms of the government. The CBC in Canada and the BBC in the UK are two examples.
The sort of person who's on the ball enough to do good isn't going to fall for Fake News. Where the sort of person who is just needs a little push in the right direction to do something nasty. That's why you don't see left wing Fake News very much. The ones selling it (not good natured lefties but folks in the page views biz) admitted as much when asked in several interviews. Lefty Fake News gets debunked too fast to spread like good Fake News needs to...
This. Last month, there was story about this on NPR.
TL/DR: Jestin Coler (the fake-news writer) claimed that he does it to show how easily hoodwinked people are by fake news, but when pressed, he admitted he could make lots of money doing this. A few interesting quotes from his interview:
The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly false or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction.
[...]
We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.
Your link is a plainly-labeled opinion piece, which itself points to other opinion pieces and claims they are fake news.
Opinion pieces are not news, fake or otherwise. Try again.
That is all.
When are we getting the Trump version?
Is this what you're looking for?
The artist has no moral right to prevent fan-edits, or any other case of someone distributing a modified version of his work.
Moral right? That's not what we're talking about here. The question is whether someone has the legal right to modify and redistribute a copyrighted work without the copyright-holder's permission. And the answer is no.
The [content-providers] are not offering a service those families require to consume the product.
The content-providers are not required to provide such a service to these families, although some do -- e.g., they create a PG version.
These families are not "required" to consume their product, therefore it strains reason to suggest they "require" a service to scrub that product.
It's interesting that the families are willing to front the legal costs. This may take a chip off current understanding of copyright law if it goes up.
Imagine a not-too-distant future in which anyone can hire a third party to scrub all broadcasts to fit whatever world-view they wish. That can be done now by selecting your own news media. But what if one can order such filtering for everything you see? It has been shown that meticulous editing of material can make it seem to express something that is exactly the opposite of what the creator of the material intended. That imagined future sounds like an information dystopia.
How can you say Han shot first, yet also say that Harmy had no right to distribute the unspecialized edition? Either you say the artist's "integrity" dominates, and no one has the moral right to make a DVD or BluRay where Han shot first, or you take the position that copyright is just about money.
Nonsense. An artist is perfectly entitled to distribute two versions of a work that contradict each other. Because it's their art.
The point is that the copyright-holder can alter the art, but someone else cannot.
And I choose to take the original Star Wars Episode IV version as canon, but that's just me.
Blocking an ad from within an overall TV show or from where it belongs on a web page is EXACTLY the same thing. It is excising a bit of (admittedly commercial) artistic content from within an overall work (which is, itself, also commercial artwork) before the viewer of the overall work is forced to watch the part to which he objects.
No, I reaffirm that it is not the same thing. A TV show and the ads it contains are copyright by separate entities. Removing the content of one does not violate the copyright of the other.
It's quite odd that so many people who support snipping out advertisements for their own convenience and/or pleasure are so upset by the idea that somebody else might want some cursing or soft-core pseudo-porn snipped out of content their families will consume. Is there some unwritten rule that says everybody must subject themselves and their kids to unnecessary expletives, over-the-top violence,and/or simulated sex and nudity? Why must people subject themselves and their kids to these things if they prefer not to, yet it's ok to excise an ad for a car or a river cruise? Why are some people so insistent that others (and particularly kids) must be forced to see and hear cursing/sex/violence?
Nobody is saying that an individual, in the privacy of their own home, can't choose to watch or not watch portions of a broadcast. What is at issue here is whether a separate party can alter and then distribute copyright material. Even if that altered copy is streamed to one single individual who requested the alterations, that is still a violation of copyright. Even if the original content is streamed in its entirety and the naughty bits are skipped over at the receiving end, that is still a violation of copyright. Yes yes, I know that VidAngel says they can do this per the Family Viewing Act. I would argue that they cannot, and I think the courts will ultimately come to that conclusion as well.
Content-creators have supplied PG-versions of their products for sometime. They can do this because it's their content, not VidAngel's. They have a vested interest in assuring that any alterations to their artistic work does not compromise their expression. They rightly do not want some other entity to distribute versions of their content that are edited without their approval.
I just ripped a page out of a book and blacked out a word three times on a different page. I'm a terrible human being for meddling with so.eone's artistic expression, aren't I?
No. If that's all you did, you would not be a bad person.
However, if you redistributed that copy of the book with the alterations, you would be violating copyright. See the difference?
Yes, advertisements are works of art, and they are (rightly) copyright. But blocking or ignoring ads is not the same as altering and redistributing them.
You, and the others on this thread, continue to misunderstand my position.
People can watch content in whatever manner they want. My point is about the distributors of copyrighted content having (or rather, lacking) the right to alter said content.
BTW, you and I have been around here about the same amount of time. And yes, Han Solo did shoot first.
My point was that copyright law protects the copyright holder, be they big or little.
VidAngel is not the copyright holder. They are trying to exploit what they see as a legal window that gives their business model a pass. Good luck to them, but I think they will fail unless they change their attitude. I think they'd be far better off co-operating with copyright-holders rather than trying to incite their enmity.
Remember Aereo? They similariy tried to exploit what they thought was a legal loophole for redistributing content but SCOTUS handed them their head. I think VidAngel will suffer the same fate unless they change course.
So, you're saying you don't use an ad blocker in your browser, because copyright? This is exactly the same: a service that removes a few seconds of offensive or annoying "content" that matches some filters.
No I don't, and no it is not the same.
Blocking an ad is not the same as altering and redistributing an artistic work.
Frankly, I hope VidAngel wins if only so that media producers run into some kind of limit to their seemingly unending power over the consumer.
Be careful what you wish for. Copyright protects the big guys, but it also protects the little guys from the big guys.
Now I can finally get my 2003 Acura out of the driveway.
If you order a car from a dealership because you like the car, but it has hub caps which you hate, do you have the right to simply remove the hub caps before driving the car, or is it a terrible offense against civilization and the artistry of the car designers? You're not remove the hub caps from anybody else's car. You're not even inconveniencing the dealership directly by ordering without the hub caps, nor are you asking him to remove hub caps from his lot or keep them off of anyone else's car. Now, if this is ok, then why is it bad if you ask a third party to discreetly remove the hub caps from your car for you, because they're better at it than you are and they'll even do it for you before you sit down and drive the car? That's what's happening here.
Re-written per request.
Your analogy would apply if it were the dealership switching out the hubcaps. And if I were the auto-maker, I probably would want some say in what they did.
Since when did filmmakers get the right to demand that you watch every moment of their films or you may not watch any of the films? People are free to turn away from a TV, or fast forward a video disc, and most on Slashdot support people being able to skip commercials (the HORROR! do you have a right to skip the "artistry" of that latest Viagra ad??)
Filmmakers don't have the right to force you to keep your eyes open for every second of their film. But they do have the right to control how someone distributes a copy of their work. Because copyright, dammit.
Reminder: When the film Amadeus hit the big screen, the studio released it without the scene of Mozart's wife being assaulted. It was released on VHS tape years later also without that scene. Years later when released on BluRay, the only version released was the "director's cut" where that scene was added back in. This is one example and far from unique. Was the audience wrong to view the theatrical or VHS releases with the scene removed? Wrong to view the BluRay with the scene? Why was it OK for the studio to cut the sexual scene from the theatrical release, but then presumably wrong for some service now to come along and re-remove that scene for a family who wants to expose their children to the great film and the composer it is about while not exposing them to the actress's nude scene?
Yes, the copyright-holders altered their own work. Which they could do. Because they held the copyright. Someone else who wants to do that needs to get permission from the copyright-holder.
Copyright, in part, protects an artist's expression from tampering by others. But they're free to "tamper" with it themselves, because it's their expression.
Everyone has a fucking therapy dog now. Back in the old days it was called manning up and dealing with your problems. Now you just trade addictions because behavior modification is too hard. Instead of being addicted to coke shes addicted to her "therapy dog".
I'm guessing you have never had to deal with mental illness. If you or a loved one ever had any exposure to the issue, you'd be singing a different tune.
Mental illness hurts. It is not easy to fix. You can't just "man up" and "snap out of it." It takes work.