Actually, they can be used for other numbers (like AAA), or at least mine could. When I forgot to pay my bill once, they cancelled my service, but if I tried to dial a number, a voice system would prompt me for a credit card number.
I'm sure it would be a few bucks per minute, but if you are stuck on the highway, it'd be worth it to call AAA (or a friend) to come get you.
So how much homework should I do before renting a movie from Blockbuster? They don't state it plainly on the tape, or give me a choice, so I never rent from Blockbuster.
Me either. I'm not advocating Blockbuster, I'm stating that the fact that studios release R-rated versions of their films is not the same as other companies re-editing those films.
(And if fact, it's not JUST Blockbuster... many stores only carry the R-Rated version, Wal-Mart and Target for example do not carry NC-17 films.)
Like I said above, it's standard to release NC-17 movies as both R and NC-17 versions. This is because Wal-Mart, Target and Blockbuster (among others) won't carry NC-17 movies. Many directors get permission to make a NC-17 movie ONLY because they agree to make an R-rated edit. I know this was the case with Requiem For A Dream, for example, the director mentioned it in an interview.
As for not knowing, the fact that it says "Rated R" on the box, and usually also has the words "R-Rated version" should be a tip off that it's rated R.
Beyond that, this is still not the same as the "e-Rated" videos they refer to in the article, since the owner of the film is doing the releasing, not some other company.
Uh, you sure about that one? There is an NC-17 cut for sale on Amazon. If that movie was NC-17 when it was released, that's most likely the same version, or maybe even a special "extra boobies" version.
Additionally, I know someone who was in that movie, as an extra.
The movie you rent at Blockbuster is, more than 99% of the times the theatrical release version. "Unrated" versions of such films as American Pie are NOT the theatrical release version, they are deluxe home video editions with extra stuff, that was NOT shown in theaters.
If you rent American Pie from Blockbuster, you are seeing the original theatrical version, even if it's not the "uncut, unrated" version that you could rent elsewhere.
In cases such as Requiem For A Dream, it is not the theatrical version, this is true, but the fact that that theatrical version of the film is NC-17 and the one at Blockbuster is R should tip you off... Usually they have the words "R-rated version" on the cover as well (I know Requiem For A Dream does).
Most likely the director's contract stipulated that he would be allowed to make a NC-17 film, but only if he would be willing to edit it down for a split home video release... Since NC-17 films find it hard to make money, and if they couldn't sell tapes to Blockbuster and Wal-Mart, it'd be even harder to make money.
In either case, edited verions at Blockbuster are still released by the filmmakers and thus legitimate - unlike these "e-Rated" videos.
The issue here, at least from what I got out of the article, is that companies are buying tapes, going in and editing the movie, re-shrink-wrapping the tapes and selling and/or renting them. NOT that the directors have a problem with the movie studios.
They who pay for the film and own the rights can do what they want with it. Everyone else involved were just employees.
Judging from this and your below comment ("Then those people ought not create things using other peoples' money and to which other people own the rights."), I'm assumming you mean the rights, which are owned by the companies that produced the film?
Those aren't the people making these "E-rated" movies. The article clearly states that other companies are doing it, NOT the production studios.
If you had read the article, you would have seen the part where the director of Valley Girl says that his problem with it is that people are editing movies without the creators input. TV and plane edits are done with the creators input - probably depending on their contract. I know Speilberg apparentlly had it in his contract that E.T. couldn't be re-edited by anyone but him, so when it showed on TV for the first time, the word "shit" was still in there.
Actually, the human eye can see at higher than 24 frames per second. There is probably variance per person, but I've read that 60 fps is closer to the upper limit. Still a lot less than 1000, though.
This doesn't have much to do with CD-Ex. It's a ripping and encoding tool, not a P2P tool. You can commit "intellecual piracy" with a scanner, too, but that doesn't mean scanners are theft tools.
What? You've _never_ made a mix cd for yourself from CDs you own (that's legal, AFAIK)? Or put school/work files on it for transport somewhere else? I use my CD Burner for "good" a few times a week. And rarely for evil, since I'm far to lazy to burn my cds for friends.
Sure, I don't have a problem with that. Never said I did. But I wouldn't consider CDEx a theft tool. No more than a VCR is, or a CD-Burner. It's just a tool. Tools can be used for both honest and dishonest ends.
I'm not buying Warcraft III because I've come to consider my free time too valuable to spend it playing video games, especially games that require a significant time investment - no offense to people that play them, I used to be an addict, too. Now I spend my time on other things. If I thought I could get away with gaming at work, then I might be tempted, since I have a fair amount of down time at my job (thus,/. postings like this one).
However, the news that WineX can emulate popular and new videogames is still interesting to me, as the ability (or lack thereof) to play games will influence Linux's desktop acceptance (or lack therof).
As far as Vivendi's tactics, as I understand it they are operating inside the law. Sure, the law needs to be changed, I won't argue that it doesn't, but a business will almost always act in it's own self interest to the limit of the law (if not beyond). If you haven't figured that out by now... I don't know what to tell you.
Work to get the laws changed. Boycott the company if you want. But try to avoid making sweeping generalizations about everyone who reads this site, such as "we only boycott them between releases... I can't help but being mad at those who can't seem to stick to their own principles for more than a few minutes..." The fact is, I doubt if even a majority of the people on here share the exact same principles or interests as you, so who are you mad at?
Additionally, if you are going to boycott every business that commits unethical acts, you are going to deny yourself quite a few things. Tyson foods, for example, was recently caught importing illegal immigrants into the US, paying them less than minimum wage, and basically using them as slave labor (they even promised them apartments to live in, but in reality dumped them off at homeless shelters and expected the government and church charity groups to pay for these people). This seems unethical to me, and it's definitely illegal. Do you boycott Tyson food products? (Note : Tyson is the world's leading meat distributor and McDonalds' #1 supplier)
Personally, I still eat meat, and I don't check to see if it's Tyson's. Maybe I should quit eating meat, sure, or only eat meat that I can prove didn't come from a Tyson plant. But how many _other_ things will I be denying myself if I live my life like this? I'm just using Tyson as an example, there are hundreds, thousands of companies who have unethical practices. How much time will I give up researching the ethics of every company that produces what I need to live?
It seems to me the only way to truly live free of unethical companies is to be a hermit in a field somewhere and grow your own food. Maybe some people can do that. The best the rest of us can do is try to do the best they can, pick certain issues that mean a lot to them and work on those. Maybe bnetd is your issue, that's fine. But don't presume to think it is everyone else's too.
irregardless
adv : in spite of everything; without regard to drawbacks; "he
carried on regardless of the difficulties" [syn: regardless,
irrespective, disregardless, no matter, disregarding]
Why do you think that, of the quarter of a million/. readers, they all agree with you and have the same "principles"? Seems pretty arrogant to me. Perhaps the people excited about this never said they would boycott Blizzard in the first place, thus they aren't violating their principles.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, they can be used for other numbers (like AAA), or at least mine could. When I forgot to pay my bill once, they cancelled my service, but if I tried to dial a number, a voice system would prompt me for a credit card number.
I'm sure it would be a few bucks per minute, but if you are stuck on the highway, it'd be worth it to call AAA (or a friend) to come get you.
Depends where you live. There are plenty in my area.
In this instance, it's because the government leases the airwaves to the companies.
So how much homework should I do before renting a movie from Blockbuster? They don't state it plainly on the tape, or give me a choice, so I never rent from Blockbuster.
Me either. I'm not advocating Blockbuster, I'm stating that the fact that studios release R-rated versions of their films is not the same as other companies re-editing those films.
(And if fact, it's not JUST Blockbuster... many stores only carry the R-Rated version, Wal-Mart and Target for example do not carry NC-17 films.)
Like I said above, it's standard to release NC-17 movies as both R and NC-17 versions. This is because Wal-Mart, Target and Blockbuster (among others) won't carry NC-17 movies. Many directors get permission to make a NC-17 movie ONLY because they agree to make an R-rated edit. I know this was the case with Requiem For A Dream, for example, the director mentioned it in an interview.
As for not knowing, the fact that it says "Rated R" on the box, and usually also has the words "R-Rated version" should be a tip off that it's rated R.
Beyond that, this is still not the same as the "e-Rated" videos they refer to in the article, since the owner of the film is doing the releasing, not some other company.
Uh, you sure about that one? There is an NC-17 cut for sale on Amazon. If that movie was NC-17 when it was released, that's most likely the same version, or maybe even a special "extra boobies" version.
Additionally, I know someone who was in that movie, as an extra.
The movie you rent at Blockbuster is, more than 99% of the times the theatrical release version. "Unrated" versions of such films as American Pie are NOT the theatrical release version, they are deluxe home video editions with extra stuff, that was NOT shown in theaters.
If you rent American Pie from Blockbuster, you are seeing the original theatrical version, even if it's not the "uncut, unrated" version that you could rent elsewhere.
In cases such as Requiem For A Dream, it is not the theatrical version, this is true, but the fact that that theatrical version of the film is NC-17 and the one at Blockbuster is R should tip you off... Usually they have the words "R-rated version" on the cover as well (I know Requiem For A Dream does).
Most likely the director's contract stipulated that he would be allowed to make a NC-17 film, but only if he would be willing to edit it down for a split home video release... Since NC-17 films find it hard to make money, and if they couldn't sell tapes to Blockbuster and Wal-Mart, it'd be even harder to make money.
In either case, edited verions at Blockbuster are still released by the filmmakers and thus legitimate - unlike these "e-Rated" videos.
Blockbuster's tapes come from the studio that released the film. So there is no copyright or any other type of infringement there.
Blockbuster rents only versions that are legitimate, even if they are edited down from the "director's cut".
The issue here, at least from what I got out of the article, is that companies are buying tapes, going in and editing the movie, re-shrink-wrapping the tapes and selling and/or renting them. NOT that the directors have a problem with the movie studios.
They who pay for the film and own the rights can do what they want with it. Everyone else involved were just employees.
Judging from this and your below comment ("Then those people ought not create things using other peoples' money and to which other people own the rights."), I'm assumming you mean the rights, which are owned by the companies that produced the film?
Those aren't the people making these "E-rated" movies. The article clearly states that other companies are doing it, NOT the production studios.
If you had read the article, you would have seen the part where the director of Valley Girl says that his problem with it is that people are editing movies without the creators input. TV and plane edits are done with the creators input - probably depending on their contract. I know Speilberg apparentlly had it in his contract that E.T. couldn't be re-edited by anyone but him, so when it showed on TV for the first time, the word "shit" was still in there.
I'll bet you $100 that this is not the "end of Windows". Seriously.
I'd be happy to lose this bet... But I doubt I will.
Maybe so Sony can then sell slightly modified PS3s with Linux as render farms?
Maybe so Sony can release their own Linux Distro, for use on the PS3 and try to dominate the asian computer markets?
Just the first two ideas that popped into my head.
Actually, the human eye can see at higher than 24 frames per second. There is probably variance per person, but I've read that 60 fps is closer to the upper limit. Still a lot less than 1000, though.
I believe this may be what some people refer to as a 'proof-of-concept'.
Geez. Intellectual, sorry.
This doesn't have much to do with CD-Ex. It's a ripping and encoding tool, not a P2P tool. You can commit "intellecual piracy" with a scanner, too, but that doesn't mean scanners are theft tools.
What? You've _never_ made a mix cd for yourself from CDs you own (that's legal, AFAIK)? Or put school/work files on it for transport somewhere else? I use my CD Burner for "good" a few times a week. And rarely for evil, since I'm far to lazy to burn my cds for friends.
Sure, I don't have a problem with that. Never said I did. But I wouldn't consider CDEx a theft tool. No more than a VCR is, or a CD-Burner. It's just a tool. Tools can be used for both honest and dishonest ends.
Huh? How is CD-EX a "stealer"? I'm assumming you are a troll.
I think W makes too many for any to gain acceptance. Thanks for the history lesson, I never knew that it wasn't a word.
I'm not buying Warcraft III because I've come to consider my free time too valuable to spend it playing video games, especially games that require a significant time investment - no offense to people that play them, I used to be an addict, too. Now I spend my time on other things. If I thought I could get away with gaming at work, then I might be tempted, since I have a fair amount of down time at my job (thus, /. postings like this one).
However, the news that WineX can emulate popular and new videogames is still interesting to me, as the ability (or lack thereof) to play games will influence Linux's desktop acceptance (or lack therof).
As far as Vivendi's tactics, as I understand it they are operating inside the law. Sure, the law needs to be changed, I won't argue that it doesn't, but a business will almost always act in it's own self interest to the limit of the law (if not beyond). If you haven't figured that out by now... I don't know what to tell you.
Work to get the laws changed. Boycott the company if you want. But try to avoid making sweeping generalizations about everyone who reads this site, such as "we only boycott them between releases... I can't help but being mad at those who can't seem to stick to their own principles for more than a few minutes..." The fact is, I doubt if even a majority of the people on here share the exact same principles or interests as you, so who are you mad at?
Additionally, if you are going to boycott every business that commits unethical acts, you are going to deny yourself quite a few things. Tyson foods, for example, was recently caught importing illegal immigrants into the US, paying them less than minimum wage, and basically using them as slave labor (they even promised them apartments to live in, but in reality dumped them off at homeless shelters and expected the government and church charity groups to pay for these people). This seems unethical to me, and it's definitely illegal. Do you boycott Tyson food products? (Note : Tyson is the world's leading meat distributor and McDonalds' #1 supplier)
Personally, I still eat meat, and I don't check to see if it's Tyson's. Maybe I should quit eating meat, sure, or only eat meat that I can prove didn't come from a Tyson plant. But how many _other_ things will I be denying myself if I live my life like this? I'm just using Tyson as an example, there are hundreds, thousands of companies who have unethical practices. How much time will I give up researching the ethics of every company that produces what I need to live?
It seems to me the only way to truly live free of unethical companies is to be a hermit in a field somewhere and grow your own food. Maybe some people can do that. The best the rest of us can do is try to do the best they can, pick certain issues that mean a lot to them and work on those. Maybe bnetd is your issue, that's fine. But don't presume to think it is everyone else's too.
1 definition found
From WordNet (r) 1.7 :
irregardless
adv : in spite of everything; without regard to drawbacks; "he
carried on regardless of the difficulties" [syn: regardless,
irrespective, disregardless, no matter, disregarding]
Why do you think that, of the quarter of a million /. readers, they all agree with you and have the same "principles"? Seems pretty arrogant to me. Perhaps the people excited about this never said they would boycott Blizzard in the first place, thus they aren't violating their principles.