that in an effort to push their business model further towards irrelevancy, some major film studios are considering a new policy that would harvest ill will in increasing amounts from consumers for several weeks. Under the plan, new DVD releases would be available on a purchase-only basis for a few hours, after which time filesharing such as Bittorrent and eMule would offer the DVDs for free. 'The studios are wrestling with declines in DVD sales while the rest of the world adapts superior distribution technology,' says PHBasterd, the CEO of Clueless Inc. 'If we can agree on annoying enough artificial tollbooths, $0 could potentially seem far more attractive to consumers.' Three studios have already tried to impose arbitrary attempts to control what they can't control anymore on any forward looking company with a better idea, believing they can stop progress and return to some nostalgic time period when Sonny sang with Cher. Consumers have responded by not caring and doing whatever the hell they want, since IP law was never meant to be used as a club on the general consumer. Meanwhile, media execs snorting coke off hookers' asses have been complaining that there is less coke and less hookers and why don't people understand how vital and important they are to the flow of media and culture."
it doesn't reflect well on you when you've already lost and you won't admit it
yes, we're talking about our famous poison arsenic, which is also a potent carcinogen
however, break that CFL, and your toddler gets a nice heavy sticky sweet ozone-mercury taste in the back of their throat, that fine white dust hanging in the air. joy
break that LED (a LOT harder to break, btw), and what do you get? a stable crystal. hell, you could probably swallow a gallium arsenide crystal and it will pass through you, inert
now if you want to talk about mining, smelting, refining, fabricating, and disposal: yeah, gallium arsenide ain't pretty. but neither is mercury by the same measures. its just that in residential spaces (not the wider supply chain), gallium arsenide bits is a lot safer than mercury vapors and dust
so a nobel prize to the first guy who can devise a white LED from common elements rather than rare elements, like properly doped/ layered aluminum boride, or whatever
LED bulbs are going to render CFL bulbs a flash in the pan
no toxic mercury, no 30 second wait to dim up completely after turn on, not nearly as fragile, lasts much longer, nicer white glow, similar very low energy usage...
but currently, they are a little pricey and their lighting wattage is low
that is, my attitude is not polite nor well-spoken, nor do i feel a desire to behave well, when i faced with stupidity
why the lack of respect?
because you're STUPID:
"This said, to put my reasoning in a simpler form : english as an homogenous, live, language is on the verge of explosion under the sheer weight of foreign loan words ; this will probably lead at first to localized form of english, interacting at the lowest level via a common vocabulary of limited scope (the TV one) and later on will lead to the birth of new, incompatible languages"
lady, this is some sort of moronic science fiction you've written
here's the cluebat: there is amazing new-fangled thing called "radio", "television", "internet": mdern mass media. what does mass media do? it homogenizes language, and due to its influence, it means those learning english in new delhi from the simpsons are going to wind up speaking and writing the same language as those reading slashdot in wellington
go visit manila. you'll find people there speaking american-style english. the only thing being ruined is tagalog, which has evolved into taglish. not the other way around
modern media is destroying all other languages and replacing it with southern california valley girl speak from stockholm to johannesburg
try to understand the concepts of a subject matter you've inserted your low iq self into, such as: MASS MEDIA
but that's mostly a class thing: poor people are sent prison more than rich people (which is of course, wrong)
additionally, a lot of "crimes", such as smoking a joint, are ridiculous: marijuana should be legal
however, after saying those two things, i think if you went to the philippines or bangladesh or cameroon, you wouldn't find people proud of their low prison rates as compared to the usa. i think you would find people angry and jealous of the usa and desirous of high prison populations: all of the graft and corruption around them
high prison populations are not automatically a bad thing. high prison population is also a sign of strong social order. highly corrupt, highly disordered, anarchic societies: all low prison populations. all the criminals are on the street (and in the government)
people always talk about freedom, but they never talk about responsibility. and if you break certain deadly serious responsibilities to others in this world, you very much are evil and deserve to be in jail
such that a high prison population is not something awful in the usa. on face value, i see a high prison population as a plus, not a mnus. i believe it is a sign of a superior society that takes its responsibilities as seriously as its rights
people are always whining about rights, and no one ever talks about their responsibilities
without taking your responsibilities seriously, you automatically degrade the levels of rights in your society. not taking responsibilities seriously mean the government has to come in and police people for not doing what they should be doing themselves. rights do not exist without responsibilities, they are joined at the hip. a high freedom society is automatically a high responsibility society, and visa versa. it is when people in this world aren't very responsible do rights begin to degrade, completely regardless of whatever government does, and the government has to step in to maintain your freedoms when responsibilities are shirked
you will never have more freedom in your world until you, and those around you, take on more responsibility. then more freedom is automatic. this completely shortcircuits and renders moot the government's role in any of the arguments over your rights and freedoms, which is thr truth: the government is mostly a reflection of the people it governs. a high responsibility people get the government they deserve (not much of it, less intrusive) and visa versa: a people who won't take care of themselves AND EACH OTHER gets an intrusive rights-denying government
the shock troops of that tyranny will be composed of sweat drenched hysterics like you
you're obviously spasmodically fearful, with a ridiculous fantasy life to go along with it of imminent attack and subjugation. this means you are easy to manipulate. all someone has to do is paint a picture for you of some sort of tyranny out there out to oppress you, just beyond the horizon. framed in the rather ridiculous hysterical ways you imagine, along with a group of fellow adrenaline basketcases you trust, and off you will go, ride of the valkyries blasting, guns ablazing: the vanguard of tyranny
i'm in no way joking. study history. ask yourself who was at the front of the line putting down civil society for the sake of the autocrat. look in the mirror fool: your brain stinks of panty twisted fear, you're so easily manipulated its not even funny. you are pure voluntary cannon fodder. you're a fucking tool, literally, you are tool: press the right buttons, and off you go
if it is composed as bits, and it is consumed as bits (books, music, movies/ tv), consumers will pay nothing or very little for it
this is the future, deal with it
and no dear content panic brigade: plenty of books, music, movies/ tv will still be made. high quality and at high cost. as if free internet content is a threat to content creation: it isn't, its free adertising for the creators. music is consumed at concerts, movies in cinemas, and books in beds/ trains. and this makes cash as well as a whole huge range on ancillary streams: endorsements, toylines, speeches, movie script treatments, spokesperson, etc...
what kind anarchist communist thinking is this?
gee, i dunno. its called the business model that saw the rise of radio, and sustained television for free over the airways for decades: ADVERTISING. you give your content away FOR FREE, and your content is supported by ANCILLARY STREAMS OF REVENUE. you don't put moronic tollbooths that are broken anyways on top of access to your content. no one is going to pay it, you'll just make a lot less money than if you provided free access and depended on ancillary streams
do you think the business model of radio and television in the 1950s is some antiamuricun socialism? no? then why are your panties in a twist over free digital content?
but go ahead hulu, reduce your viewership by a thousandth or a millionth. you're geniuses, really, we can bring the business model of vinyl and cassette tapes to the internet. yeah, go for it
regardless of whether you agree with that goal or not, let's look at the validity of his tactics within the scope of that goal
prostitution happens in a marketplace. the sheriff thought the best thing to do is shut down the marketplace. this doesn't work: a new marketplace springs up somewhere else
the best thing to do is flood the existing marketplace with phony sellers to catch buyers and phony buyers to catch sellers. this will only put a damper on the trade, but it is the maximum dampening effect you can get for the minimum of effort. either way, the existence of a well-recognized dominant marketplace is the enforcer's FRIEND, not something to shut down. craigslist basically hands the sheriff offenders every day, all he has to do is arrange to meet them and arrest them. why does he want to shut that down?
the sheriff just didn't recognize the right tactics
communism believes human altruism trumps all, selfishness can only result in wrong, and so selfishness must be stamped out. they imagine the future to be an egalitarian community of equally deserving middle class peers, achieved via the state deciding what is best for all. the result is a group of poor people lorded over by an autocrat who is the state, since decision making must reside somewhere if everyone else relinquishes it
libertarianism believes human selfishness trumps all, altruism can only result in wrong, and altruism must be stamped out. they imagine the future to be a balanced federation of equally successful middle class peers, achieved via the natural self-correcting effects of the market. the result is a group of poor people lorded over by a monopolist who takes advantage of the natural imperfections in the market better than anyone else
both libertarianism and communism are equally flawed ideologies destined for the dustbin of history. both had their heydey in the last century and today are really nothing more than philosophical anachronisms no one serious should consider for very long. regard them with the same bemused interest as any other bizarre curiosity of belief from mankind's past
the truth is that human nature is a paradoxical mix of altruistic and selfish impulses. therefore, any valid political philosophy which claims to be able to lead men must reflect this mix as well. any political philosophy which ignores man's essential altruism or ignores man's essential selfishness cannot lead men for very long, we grow disillusioned when we see the fruits of folly
the market fundamentalism of libertarianism or agrarian fundamentalism of communism are, like any other form of fundamentalism, simplistic overstatings of human nature, and always result in tragedy and suffering
large budgets ruin directors: they throw money at a problem rather than ingenious lighting or cinematography or misdirection. lots of money makes them stupid
if you're making a horror movie, its scarier to imply the creature rather than show it... don't you think something like district 9 is better than anything by roland emmerich or michael bay, who are all about throwing gobs of cash on screen for little dramatic effect?
hollywood is replete with huge expensive projects that bomb. meanwhile, if you keep your costs small, you simply make more money in the end, as long as the execution is fundamentally sound. i'm glad hollywood is going on a diet. maybe we'll see next shit like "land of the lost". too much cash floating around hollywood gets ejaculated all over the stupidest of ideas and execution. starve hollywood, force it to think for once
obviously, you need a bare minimum of cash to make a movie of bare essential technicality. but above that, you ruin the move by relying on spectacle rather than creativity
the idea of throwing gobs of money at film will somehow improve it is bullshit. for every film idea, there is a price needed to realize it on screen. more money spent than that price makes it a lower quality film, not a higher quality film, because the baubles you can now afford do not necessarily make for a sexier product, just a louder and gaudier one. you can put a diamond necklace on an ugly chick, its an ugly chick wearing a diamond necklace. you haven't turned her into a beautiful chick
so stop with this bullshit about the need for wads of cash to make movies. no: how about you make your movie, and we'll give you what to need to make it. not the other way around. your thinking is backwards in the relationship between filmmaking and cash. think about the film first, then the cash needed to realize it. don't put the emphasis on the need for big cash flows, and what product you can throw into that flow. that's how all these shit giant bombs are made
"I'm also not saying that you need the DVD aftermarket to make money, just that some films need it"
and i'm saying let them die. the dvd aftermarket has been a colossal bloom of quantity, not quality. flush that shit down the toilet. good riddance
"by eliminating it as an option, you're narrowing the field"
right, because nowadays any high school kid has more production power than the classical studios of yore on his laptop. you keep depending upon this bullshit premise that you need money, lots of money to make a film: no, you simply do not. you need less, and less every day, as technology advances. our options are expanding over time, due to technology, and the amount of cash around has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the quality coming out on the other end
"And yes, you're also narrowing the field by giving artists a monopoly on their ideas (i.e. a copyright) but I have no sympathy for artists that can't so much as come up with an idea without using somebody else's IP. It's not that hard."
you're talking about ip law as applied to hollywood dealmaking. that's different. the death of ip law in this thread refers to the death of hollywood exerting control over the end user. it does not, and never did refer to, for example, jk rowling getting $20 mil to turn a book of hers into a movie. this ip law is still 100% philosophically valid, and there's nothing at all wrong with it, since such deals are enforceable: they are solitary and unique and involve contracts between individual players. they don't involve distributors trying to exert control over millions of anonymous consumers. that kind of ip law is dead
"Yes, it won't last forever, but it's just going to be replaced with digital distribution."
which is $0 income. you do understand that right? you haven't swallowed the koolaid and believe that that will be anything but decimated and then fade away right?
look: millions of technologically sophisticated, media hungry, and most importantly, POOR teenagers versus a couple thousand industry lawyers. you tell me who's going to win that contest, ok?
for the bottom amount needed to make a movie, above starvation levels of budget, well within the range of what can be recouped in cinema receipts only, you can make quality film
please don't try to tell me you need gobs of cash to make a good film. the dvd aftermarket has indeed supported plenty of worthy films. and a giant flowering of shit
any cinema-only exposure proportional to potential interest level can reasonably be considered valid for recouping costs for a giant range of budgets. with cinema-only exposure, you are well within range for good money making opportunities in hollywood, forever
yes, i am going out on a crazy limb to suggest you don't need the dvd aftermarket to make money in hollywood. there's no historical precedent for my madness, you NEED dvd!:
remember the conventional wisdom that was dead certain the VCR was going to kill hollywood? so conventional hollywood wisdom seems pretty retarded, no? since the vcr was the beginning of the massive new aftermarket that the dvd inherited
so all i am talking about is returning to an era... that hollywood was desperate to preserve from the onslaught of the armageddon that was the vcr. lol
so color me unimpressed with your reasoning about the need for dvd $. the dvd aftermarket is drying up regardless. you need to deal with its future irrelevancy no matter what i say
so, great linguistic genius, why do they speak the same english in boston as they do in san francisco, but across the same geographical scale they speak different languages in prague and madrid and in patches in between? i say its modern transportation and shared media versus ancient isolation. what say you professor, since i am truly so ignorant of linguistics?
obviously, i'm just a clueless fool because "media isn't a language" (wtf?) and i "may be watching the same TV as the average californian gang member" (LOL)
"you'd already be at loss in certain suburbs of LA (where you wouldn't dare going in the first place, of course)"
yes, as you can see from my SIGNATURE BELOW, i'm frightened of scary strange brown people. you know, the gang members you say i share my tivo settings with(!?). so thanks for the fucking racist patronization, daft bitch. seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?
i think where hollywood firefly fades according to your financial calculations, and fan-made firefly blossoms according to my intellectual property negations, you have more to keep you happy than disappointed, no?
the illusion things are changing when nothing is changing, only you are
"our way of thinking is very different, our morals are different, and the population is many orders of magnitude larger."
who wrote these quotes:
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint"
"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and are tyrants over their teachers."
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for girls, they are forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress."
all of these quotes are from ancient greece, many centuries bc
it is illusion things change about human nature. people haven't changed one bit. go to any society in the world today, or any time period in the past, or the future, and you find the same mix of personalities, grievances, and concerns. living in the ancient urban societies along the nile, you'd be amazed at issues people were concerned with: the same things residents of any city today are concerned with. crime is the same, morlas, or lack thereof, is the same, etc. there is no such thing as some mythological past where everyone had better behavior. you have some serious delusions about the reality of simple human nature: it is a constant across all time and all cultures
"Oh, and the ancient lifestyle was actually sustainable , unlike our modern industrial economic machine."
the ancients killed off dozens of megafauna. and have ever you heard of easter island?
human nature is human nature is human nature. it is completely untrue ancient man was some wise nature man in touch with the universe. he was busy throwing his trash outside his abode and getting whatever he wanted with as little effort as possible: the same as modern man in psychology
you have somee serious hollywood-level mythological delusions about what it means to be human
try to understand what it means for everyone to adapt english as a second language for business reasons, how that bleeds into the sciences and the arts...
now project into the future in terms of loan words, bleeding into other languages: taglish, franglais, etc...
the future is all english. its inevitable. its simply a matter of something set in motion in the colonial era. its not a good thing, nor a bad thing, it just happened, and can't be controlled, or stopped, nor changed by future developments: the die has been cast
so why do you have such an indignant little silly chip on your shoulder about all of this? no one is doing it on purpose
ps: it's been nice interacting with you... IN ENGLISH (thanks for proving my point!)
modern media and modern transportation: the guy in san francisco is watching the same tv show as the guy in boston, and the guy in san francisco is the grandson of a guy who got there by train in a few days
there's no balkanization as per the ancient era as people aren't isolated for centuries from the people just a few valleys over
it's the media that changes everything
because of the internet, in the future, lol and wtf will be standard english, as common acceptable and normal as any other common english phrase
we will crush denmark with our recent cultural output of movies starring viggo mortensen and connie nielsen, about beowulf and hans christian andersen stories, and made by lars von trier!
you will scream as american heavy metal by the likes of lars ulrich makes you weep for the light of the sun again!
we will be make something rotten in the state of denmark!;-)
all languages evolve. what is called english today would be baffling in victorian england, and visa versa. what we call english today won't be standard english in 2109 and wasn't standard english in 1909. not that any of that matters. and grammar? random rules that shift and evolve. it doesn't mean anything. what you call corruption and the loss of something is simply the way it has always been and always will been and nothing of any value is ever really lost. stop attaching value to arbitrary pointless signifiers
Slashdot Mirror
that in an effort to push their business model further towards irrelevancy, some major film studios are considering a new policy that would harvest ill will in increasing amounts from consumers for several weeks. Under the plan, new DVD releases would be available on a purchase-only basis for a few hours, after which time filesharing such as Bittorrent and eMule would offer the DVDs for free. 'The studios are wrestling with declines in DVD sales while the rest of the world adapts superior distribution technology,' says PHBasterd, the CEO of Clueless Inc. 'If we can agree on annoying enough artificial tollbooths, $0 could potentially seem far more attractive to consumers.' Three studios have already tried to impose arbitrary attempts to control what they can't control anymore on any forward looking company with a better idea, believing they can stop progress and return to some nostalgic time period when Sonny sang with Cher. Consumers have responded by not caring and doing whatever the hell they want, since IP law was never meant to be used as a club on the general consumer. Meanwhile, media execs snorting coke off hookers' asses have been complaining that there is less coke and less hookers and why don't people understand how vital and important they are to the flow of media and culture."
it doesn't reflect well on you when you've already lost and you won't admit it
game over dude
and give him an honorary degree in material science
yes, we're talking about our famous poison arsenic, which is also a potent carcinogen
however, break that CFL, and your toddler gets a nice heavy sticky sweet ozone-mercury taste in the back of their throat, that fine white dust hanging in the air. joy
break that LED (a LOT harder to break, btw), and what do you get? a stable crystal. hell, you could probably swallow a gallium arsenide crystal and it will pass through you, inert
now if you want to talk about mining, smelting, refining, fabricating, and disposal: yeah, gallium arsenide ain't pretty. but neither is mercury by the same measures. its just that in residential spaces (not the wider supply chain), gallium arsenide bits is a lot safer than mercury vapors and dust
so a nobel prize to the first guy who can devise a white LED from common elements rather than rare elements, like properly doped/ layered aluminum boride, or whatever
LED bulbs are going to render CFL bulbs a flash in the pan
no toxic mercury, no 30 second wait to dim up completely after turn on, not nearly as fragile, lasts much longer, nicer white glow, similar very low energy usage...
but currently, they are a little pricey and their lighting wattage is low
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/coming-soon-a-40-watt-led-light-bulb/
now i'm waiting for my fiber-optic headphones
i would never have known that ninjas are mammals
http://www.realultimatepower.net/ninja/ninja2.htm
that is, my attitude is not polite nor well-spoken, nor do i feel a desire to behave well, when i faced with stupidity
why the lack of respect?
because you're STUPID:
"This said, to put my reasoning in a simpler form : english as an homogenous, live, language is on the verge of explosion under the sheer weight of foreign loan words ; this will probably lead at first to localized form of english, interacting at the lowest level via a common vocabulary of limited scope (the TV one) and later on will lead to the birth of new, incompatible languages"
lady, this is some sort of moronic science fiction you've written
here's the cluebat: there is amazing new-fangled thing called "radio", "television", "internet": mdern mass media. what does mass media do? it homogenizes language, and due to its influence, it means those learning english in new delhi from the simpsons are going to wind up speaking and writing the same language as those reading slashdot in wellington
go visit manila. you'll find people there speaking american-style english. the only thing being ruined is tagalog, which has evolved into taglish. not the other way around
modern media is destroying all other languages and replacing it with southern california valley girl speak from stockholm to johannesburg
try to understand the concepts of a subject matter you've inserted your low iq self into, such as: MASS MEDIA
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT
but that's mostly a class thing: poor people are sent prison more than rich people (which is of course, wrong)
additionally, a lot of "crimes", such as smoking a joint, are ridiculous: marijuana should be legal
however, after saying those two things, i think if you went to the philippines or bangladesh or cameroon, you wouldn't find people proud of their low prison rates as compared to the usa. i think you would find people angry and jealous of the usa and desirous of high prison populations: all of the graft and corruption around them
high prison populations are not automatically a bad thing. high prison population is also a sign of strong social order. highly corrupt, highly disordered, anarchic societies: all low prison populations. all the criminals are on the street (and in the government)
people always talk about freedom, but they never talk about responsibility. and if you break certain deadly serious responsibilities to others in this world, you very much are evil and deserve to be in jail
such that a high prison population is not something awful in the usa. on face value, i see a high prison population as a plus, not a mnus. i believe it is a sign of a superior society that takes its responsibilities as seriously as its rights
people are always whining about rights, and no one ever talks about their responsibilities
without taking your responsibilities seriously, you automatically degrade the levels of rights in your society. not taking responsibilities seriously mean the government has to come in and police people for not doing what they should be doing themselves. rights do not exist without responsibilities, they are joined at the hip. a high freedom society is automatically a high responsibility society, and visa versa. it is when people in this world aren't very responsible do rights begin to degrade, completely regardless of whatever government does, and the government has to step in to maintain your freedoms when responsibilities are shirked
you will never have more freedom in your world until you, and those around you, take on more responsibility. then more freedom is automatic. this completely shortcircuits and renders moot the government's role in any of the arguments over your rights and freedoms, which is thr truth: the government is mostly a reflection of the people it governs. a high responsibility people get the government they deserve (not much of it, less intrusive) and visa versa: a people who won't take care of themselves AND EACH OTHER gets an intrusive rights-denying government
the shock troops of that tyranny will be composed of sweat drenched hysterics like you
you're obviously spasmodically fearful, with a ridiculous fantasy life to go along with it of imminent attack and subjugation. this means you are easy to manipulate. all someone has to do is paint a picture for you of some sort of tyranny out there out to oppress you, just beyond the horizon. framed in the rather ridiculous hysterical ways you imagine, along with a group of fellow adrenaline basketcases you trust, and off you will go, ride of the valkyries blasting, guns ablazing: the vanguard of tyranny
i'm in no way joking. study history. ask yourself who was at the front of the line putting down civil society for the sake of the autocrat. look in the mirror fool: your brain stinks of panty twisted fear, you're so easily manipulated its not even funny. you are pure voluntary cannon fodder. you're a fucking tool, literally, you are tool: press the right buttons, and off you go
if it is composed as bits, and it is consumed as bits (books, music, movies/ tv), consumers will pay nothing or very little for it
this is the future, deal with it
and no dear content panic brigade: plenty of books, music, movies/ tv will still be made. high quality and at high cost. as if free internet content is a threat to content creation: it isn't, its free adertising for the creators. music is consumed at concerts, movies in cinemas, and books in beds/ trains. and this makes cash as well as a whole huge range on ancillary streams: endorsements, toylines, speeches, movie script treatments, spokesperson, etc...
what kind anarchist communist thinking is this?
gee, i dunno. its called the business model that saw the rise of radio, and sustained television for free over the airways for decades: ADVERTISING. you give your content away FOR FREE, and your content is supported by ANCILLARY STREAMS OF REVENUE. you don't put moronic tollbooths that are broken anyways on top of access to your content. no one is going to pay it, you'll just make a lot less money than if you provided free access and depended on ancillary streams
do you think the business model of radio and television in the 1950s is some antiamuricun socialism? no? then why are your panties in a twist over free digital content?
but go ahead hulu, reduce your viewership by a thousandth or a millionth. you're geniuses, really, we can bring the business model of vinyl and cassette tapes to the internet. yeah, go for it
fucking morons
regardless of whether you agree with that goal or not, let's look at the validity of his tactics within the scope of that goal
prostitution happens in a marketplace. the sheriff thought the best thing to do is shut down the marketplace. this doesn't work: a new marketplace springs up somewhere else
the best thing to do is flood the existing marketplace with phony sellers to catch buyers and phony buyers to catch sellers. this will only put a damper on the trade, but it is the maximum dampening effect you can get for the minimum of effort. either way, the existence of a well-recognized dominant marketplace is the enforcer's FRIEND, not something to shut down. craigslist basically hands the sheriff offenders every day, all he has to do is arrange to meet them and arrest them. why does he want to shut that down?
the sheriff just didn't recognize the right tactics
communism believes human altruism trumps all, selfishness can only result in wrong, and so selfishness must be stamped out. they imagine the future to be an egalitarian community of equally deserving middle class peers, achieved via the state deciding what is best for all. the result is a group of poor people lorded over by an autocrat who is the state, since decision making must reside somewhere if everyone else relinquishes it
libertarianism believes human selfishness trumps all, altruism can only result in wrong, and altruism must be stamped out. they imagine the future to be a balanced federation of equally successful middle class peers, achieved via the natural self-correcting effects of the market. the result is a group of poor people lorded over by a monopolist who takes advantage of the natural imperfections in the market better than anyone else
both libertarianism and communism are equally flawed ideologies destined for the dustbin of history. both had their heydey in the last century and today are really nothing more than philosophical anachronisms no one serious should consider for very long. regard them with the same bemused interest as any other bizarre curiosity of belief from mankind's past
the truth is that human nature is a paradoxical mix of altruistic and selfish impulses. therefore, any valid political philosophy which claims to be able to lead men must reflect this mix as well. any political philosophy which ignores man's essential altruism or ignores man's essential selfishness cannot lead men for very long, we grow disillusioned when we see the fruits of folly
the market fundamentalism of libertarianism or agrarian fundamentalism of communism are, like any other form of fundamentalism, simplistic overstatings of human nature, and always result in tragedy and suffering
small budgets spur on creativity
large budgets ruin directors: they throw money at a problem rather than ingenious lighting or cinematography or misdirection. lots of money makes them stupid
if you're making a horror movie, its scarier to imply the creature rather than show it... don't you think something like district 9 is better than anything by roland emmerich or michael bay, who are all about throwing gobs of cash on screen for little dramatic effect?
hollywood is replete with huge expensive projects that bomb. meanwhile, if you keep your costs small, you simply make more money in the end, as long as the execution is fundamentally sound. i'm glad hollywood is going on a diet. maybe we'll see next shit like "land of the lost". too much cash floating around hollywood gets ejaculated all over the stupidest of ideas and execution. starve hollywood, force it to think for once
obviously, you need a bare minimum of cash to make a movie of bare essential technicality. but above that, you ruin the move by relying on spectacle rather than creativity
the idea of throwing gobs of money at film will somehow improve it is bullshit. for every film idea, there is a price needed to realize it on screen. more money spent than that price makes it a lower quality film, not a higher quality film, because the baubles you can now afford do not necessarily make for a sexier product, just a louder and gaudier one. you can put a diamond necklace on an ugly chick, its an ugly chick wearing a diamond necklace. you haven't turned her into a beautiful chick
so stop with this bullshit about the need for wads of cash to make movies. no: how about you make your movie, and we'll give you what to need to make it. not the other way around. your thinking is backwards in the relationship between filmmaking and cash. think about the film first, then the cash needed to realize it. don't put the emphasis on the need for big cash flows, and what product you can throw into that flow. that's how all these shit giant bombs are made
"I'm also not saying that you need the DVD aftermarket to make money, just that some films need it"
and i'm saying let them die. the dvd aftermarket has been a colossal bloom of quantity, not quality. flush that shit down the toilet. good riddance
"by eliminating it as an option, you're narrowing the field"
right, because nowadays any high school kid has more production power than the classical studios of yore on his laptop. you keep depending upon this bullshit premise that you need money, lots of money to make a film: no, you simply do not. you need less, and less every day, as technology advances. our options are expanding over time, due to technology, and the amount of cash around has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the quality coming out on the other end
"And yes, you're also narrowing the field by giving artists a monopoly on their ideas (i.e. a copyright) but I have no sympathy for artists that can't so much as come up with an idea without using somebody else's IP. It's not that hard."
you're talking about ip law as applied to hollywood dealmaking. that's different. the death of ip law in this thread refers to the death of hollywood exerting control over the end user. it does not, and never did refer to, for example, jk rowling getting $20 mil to turn a book of hers into a movie. this ip law is still 100% philosophically valid, and there's nothing at all wrong with it, since such deals are enforceable: they are solitary and unique and involve contracts between individual players. they don't involve distributors trying to exert control over millions of anonymous consumers. that kind of ip law is dead
"Yes, it won't last forever, but it's just going to be replaced with digital distribution."
which is $0 income. you do understand that right? you haven't swallowed the koolaid and believe that that will be anything but decimated and then fade away right?
look: millions of technologically sophisticated, media hungry, and most importantly, POOR teenagers versus a couple thousand industry lawyers. you tell me who's going to win that contest, ok?
budget!=quality
for the bottom amount needed to make a movie, above starvation levels of budget, well within the range of what can be recouped in cinema receipts only, you can make quality film
please don't try to tell me you need gobs of cash to make a good film. the dvd aftermarket has indeed supported plenty of worthy films. and a giant flowering of shit
any cinema-only exposure proportional to potential interest level can reasonably be considered valid for recouping costs for a giant range of budgets. with cinema-only exposure, you are well within range for good money making opportunities in hollywood, forever
yes, i am going out on a crazy limb to suggest you don't need the dvd aftermarket to make money in hollywood. there's no historical precedent for my madness, you NEED dvd!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Hollywood_cinema
remember the conventional wisdom that was dead certain the VCR was going to kill hollywood? so conventional hollywood wisdom seems pretty retarded, no? since the vcr was the beginning of the massive new aftermarket that the dvd inherited
so all i am talking about is returning to an era... that hollywood was desperate to preserve from the onslaught of the armageddon that was the vcr. lol
so color me unimpressed with your reasoning about the need for dvd $. the dvd aftermarket is drying up regardless. you need to deal with its future irrelevancy no matter what i say
so, great linguistic genius, why do they speak the same english in boston as they do in san francisco, but across the same geographical scale they speak different languages in prague and madrid and in patches in between? i say its modern transportation and shared media versus ancient isolation. what say you professor, since i am truly so ignorant of linguistics?
obviously, i'm just a clueless fool because "media isn't a language" (wtf?) and i "may be watching the same TV as the average californian gang member" (LOL)
"you'd already be at loss in certain suburbs of LA (where you wouldn't dare going in the first place, of course)"
yes, as you can see from my SIGNATURE BELOW, i'm frightened of scary strange brown people. you know, the gang members you say i share my tivo settings with(!?). so thanks for the fucking racist patronization, daft bitch. seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?
who doesn't understand the cult of firefly, i struggle to care
and furthermore, what are you trying to say? intellectual property laws are the friend of fanboys?
in truth, looser intellectual property laws would let fan-made homage be easier to make:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions
i think where hollywood firefly fades according to your financial calculations, and fan-made firefly blossoms according to my intellectual property negations, you have more to keep you happy than disappointed, no?
the illusion things are changing when nothing is changing, only you are
"our way of thinking is very different, our morals are different, and the population is many orders of magnitude larger."
who wrote these quotes:
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and
respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise
[disrespectful] and impatient of restraint"
"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer
rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents,
chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their
legs, and are tyrants over their teachers."
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have
no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all
restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes
for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for girls, they are
forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress."
all of these quotes are from ancient greece, many centuries bc
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=398104
do you understand the point?
it is illusion things change about human nature. people haven't changed one bit. go to any society in the world today, or any time period in the past, or the future, and you find the same mix of personalities, grievances, and concerns. living in the ancient urban societies along the nile, you'd be amazed at issues people were concerned with: the same things residents of any city today are concerned with. crime is the same, morlas, or lack thereof, is the same, etc. there is no such thing as some mythological past where everyone had better behavior. you have some serious delusions about the reality of simple human nature: it is a constant across all time and all cultures
"Oh, and the ancient lifestyle was actually sustainable , unlike our modern industrial economic machine."
the ancients killed off dozens of megafauna. and have ever you heard of easter island?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#Collapse_of_the_ecosystem
human nature is human nature is human nature. it is completely untrue ancient man was some wise nature man in touch with the universe. he was busy throwing his trash outside his abode and getting whatever he wanted with as little effort as possible: the same as modern man in psychology
you have somee serious hollywood-level mythological delusions about what it means to be human
http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/worldlang.htm
try to understand what it means for everyone to adapt english as a second language for business reasons, how that bleeds into the sciences and the arts...
now project into the future in terms of loan words, bleeding into other languages: taglish, franglais, etc...
the future is all english. its inevitable. its simply a matter of something set in motion in the colonial era. its not a good thing, nor a bad thing, it just happened, and can't be controlled, or stopped, nor changed by future developments: the die has been cast
so why do you have such an indignant little silly chip on your shoulder about all of this? no one is doing it on purpose
ps: it's been nice interacting with you... IN ENGLISH (thanks for proving my point!)
pfffft
as new york
why?
modern media and modern transportation: the guy in san francisco is watching the same tv show as the guy in boston, and the guy in san francisco is the grandson of a guy who got there by train in a few days
there's no balkanization as per the ancient era as people aren't isolated for centuries from the people just a few valleys over
it's the media that changes everything
because of the internet, in the future, lol and wtf will be standard english, as common acceptable and normal as any other common english phrase
the media: that drives language evolution
i am making an objective reading of your intellectual sophistication based upon what you have written:
you're 11 years old, or a certifiable low iq moron
but thanks for the laughs retard
xoxoxoxoxoxoxox
we will crush denmark with our recent cultural output of movies starring viggo mortensen and connie nielsen, about beowulf and hans christian andersen stories, and made by lars von trier!
you will scream as american heavy metal by the likes of lars ulrich makes you weep for the light of the sun again!
we will be make something rotten in the state of denmark! ;-)
all languages evolve. what is called english today would be baffling in victorian england, and visa versa. what we call english today won't be standard english in 2109 and wasn't standard english in 1909. not that any of that matters. and grammar? random rules that shift and evolve. it doesn't mean anything. what you call corruption and the loss of something is simply the way it has always been and always will been and nothing of any value is ever really lost. stop attaching value to arbitrary pointless signifiers
i'm guessing 11
http://www.pri.org/arts-entertainment/movies/diablo-cody-on-horror-movies1622.html