i'm no big fan of his work, but he obviously takes his work very seriously, and he has won amount of critical acclaim, so these words from him mean a lot to me (an interview from aintitcool.com from 2004):
Capone: The songs selections here are inspired at times. I really liked the Gordon Lightfoot song "Beautiful."
V.G.: Thank you. The amount of time I spent choosing the music of the film would be unbelievable to you. The funny thing is, when it's not right, you spend all your time playing songs for people saying, "What do you think of this one? How about this one? How about this one?" You're dying, when you're on that level. When you hit it, it's so obvious and you immediately get a desperate feeling that says, "How am I going to get the rights? Are they going to fuck me on the rights to this song?" And guess who are the worst people in the movie business. The licensing people. They are most miserable, mean, selfish, insensitive, regressive, unproductive on the planet earth. You don't know what it's like to feel so strong about something and not have a budget to make that go away. It's not like I was looking to get some Paul McCartney song for my movie; I'm talking about esoteric music. Some of the music in the film didn't even exist, I had to rebuild the original master tapes that had decomposed. I had to re-bake the tape stock, the emulsion on the tape had peeling off. I'm the only person in the world who would salvage this particular recording because I had an original three-track machine and I knew how to bake that type of Ampex tape. The tape would have disappeared in two more years, and it's highly spliced. Then to be ballbusted for a year and a half on the licensing on that music. We talk about how long it took for me to get the film out after Cannes was because the film wasn't ready due to negative problems. I wanted to use this technique to blow up the negative in a new way. That's why I waited so long to finish the film. But it turns out that I would have had to wait seven, eight months anyway was the releases for the music. If you were dealing with the musician directly, you wouldn't have these problems. It's the people representing these artists that kill the process. I realize if you want to use the Beatles song "Revolution" to sell eyeglasses, I understand the exploitation of that. I understand that I'm using culturally significant relics to manipulate people into attaching those to my product. But if I'm using a rare piece of music by and unknown artist, not to brag, but the people whose music I use in my films sell way more records than they were selling before they were in my film. Proof of it is, the Italian artist who did this one jazz piece in my movie had sold 600 copies worldwide before my movie. Before my film was released just on the announcement that they were included people tracked down the music, and they sold something like 6,000 more copies. Why you're treated like you're exploiting this music makes no sense. If they're going to make a tough deal for you, just be up front about it. But this sort of, "We don't have time for you. What do you want?" stringing along is nonsense. And I'm the producer on THE BROWN BUNNY. I didn't have a music supervisor. I did the licensing for BUFFALO 66 and THE BROWN BUNNY. And of all my memories of making the film, that's my most painful memories.
so the real perversion here is the guy who discovers something obscure, labors over it to rescue it from decaying media, make it popular again by distributing it in new art, which means more exposure for the original artist, and what thanks does he get for that? HE GETS PUNISHED
that's the state of intellectual property
fuck intellectual property
the entire concept is bankrupt
we need to not just ignore, but we must somehow actively subvert and destroy, to the best we can, the bankrupt, dead concept so called intellectual property
the real story is that there are people out there for whom this is an earth shattering parable bending conceptual leap forward
if we must make an intelligent observation in a thread under a really stupid question, let it be this:
once upon a time, some german dude invented the printing press, and previously uneducated clueless serfs were now able to read on the cheap, birthing the middle class, and fancy ideas from the likes of voltaire and jefferson about equality and democracy. no one intended this, no one planned it, but this is what the printing press did
of course, the previous understanding was there was an aristocratic class, who knew all and decided all, and the uneducated rabble, who were to be herded and put to work, and that is the way god ordained it. there are still people coming to grips with the way the printing press has changed this equation
well, now we have the internet, no less earth shattering than the printing press. and what is the internet going to change?
it destroys the concept of intellectual property
you either get that, or, like those who still believe in the preeminence of a ruling class, you don't get it. and you will be befuddled for many centuries to come
intellectual property is dead. the internet killed it. understand that, or not, but it is the truth whether you like it or not. deal with it
the experience of a drone pilot seems to me to be the very definition of detached and distant
i mean compare their experience to say, plunging a knife into a guys heart and covering his mouth until he stops struggling so his screams don't alert anyone else? now that's vivid and personal if you ask me
the perception of a quality film is not video quality, but audio quality
mix stunning video quality with poor audio quality and the overall audience perception is that the movie is a bad copy. mix crappy video with stunning audio quality and the overall perception is that you have a crystal clear piece of work
i'm not going to play pop psychologist, but i will say that for whatever reason, the ear decides perception of quality in filmmaking, not the eyes
presenting the facts as they are is sufficient to cause outrage
but the language used to present the issue here turns the reader off. if you don't understand that inflammatory rhetoric turns people off, then you will never get any sympathy for any of your concerns in life
salting the facts with inflammatory rhetoric like "slavery" makes the issue sound like a bunch of attention whores with entitlement issues who are clueless about real problems in this world (such as REAL slavery). of course this isn't the case and the issue has merit. so what is served with the use of language that suggests the issue has no merit?
it was supposed to be a dumb joke, a play on concepts, but someone modded my comment as "insightful", which i don't really understand. there is nothing wrong with using adultfriendfinder
by the very nature of logic and reason, one who self-appoints themselves as protector of justice is also someone who HAS to be self-determining what "justice" is as well
for example: you see someone using a word on the internet in a manner you deem unacceptable. so you hound him to the bitter end of the 453rd comment in a retarded neverending thread, thereby standing up for applie pie, grandma, and the american way
so sorry, no more replies for you, i've been trolled long enough, mr. vigilante;-)
those who push the limits of free expression into unethical territory deserve each other
if you shout fire in a crowded theatre, you deserve the guy who videotapes your transgression and publishes your social security number and street address on the internet. buth are wrong uses of speech. but, in a way, they are to be expected and they deserve each other in a twisted way. same with fortuny and his "victims"
free speech is not speech without consequences. speech without consequences simply doesn't exist. everyone should remember that, and then open their mouths
free speech is a concept that applies to and is appreciated by the great ethical responsible middle majority of society. but free speech does not protect you from the evil, the stupid, and the intolerant fringes of society
it is a biological need though. but you can be in a marriage with someone where absolutely every facet of the relationship is fulfilling and nurturing, except the sex
in which case, an open marriage, or even a crime of omission about telling your wife what you were doing while she turns a blind eye, is superior to divorce, don't you think?
or should a nurturing, productive, successful marriage be jettisoned, just because sex occurs outside the marriage?
i am of course speaking in the hypothetical, and of course, the majority of extramarital affairs are by cheating assholes, but not the vast majority. and so one shouldn't be so hasty to call out the cavalry on an issue that is complex and subtle, not simple and straightforward
i don't know why you find it so difficult to accept the word's usage in this manner, it is clearly within the realm of valid meaning for the word. i don't know why you think you have a point to prove
are you something like a grammar nazi? am i going to get a citation from the dictionary police? (snicker)
as the first 3 involve an exchange of money for sex, which is illegal
and by "acceptable" i mean acceptable by current prevailing societal norms. my own personal norms finds nothing wrong with prostitution, as long as it is highly regulated to prevent abuse, human trafficking, disease, etc.
say you see child abuse. well yes, get involved. many other examples: yes, get involved. too often people say "its none of my business" and let a crime they witness lisde. no, this is unethical
however, issues of sex and marriage are complicated. maybe they have an open marriage. maybe the married couple are separated pending divorce. maybe the wife refuses the husband any sex, etc.
as for my last example: lets talk ethics, shall we? if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, is her husband duty bound by marriage to remain celibate himself? can he rightfully seek sex outside the marriage if his wife refuses sex?
90% of the time, the guy is probably just a cheating asshole. but sometimes you are not doing any good by butting in to other people's business (although, of course, in many many cases where you see something ilegal or unethical going on, you have every right, no duty, to get involved)
if someone thinks something is wrong and seeks justice on an issue, they are being a vigilante. doesn't matter what is actually legal or illegal, what matters is what they think is right and wrong
if you start shooting people who do a poor job at parallel parking, you are a "vigilante" in search of "justice" in your mind, regardless of the fact that poor parallel parking skills are not illegal
which is one of the reasons why vigilante justice is wrong: it is determined by the vigiliante, which, as you note, often delineates sharply from society-wide definitions and laws about right and wrong
so i don't know why you think it is valid to point out that someone is not a vigilante because they aren't dutifully following actual laws on the books. as if such a consideration ever had anything to do with what motivates any vigilante, ever, or has anything to do with the criteria for labelling someone a vigilante
but if you understand the number of reasons why vigilante justice is wrong, then you understand how the manner in which he got his commeuppance is wrong
condemning fortuny is not standing up for the cheater. its standing against vigiliante justice
you will note that fortuny has a history of sexual abuse as a child, that his family turned a blind eye towards. which goes far, pop psychology wise, to explaining what would motivate him to do his craigs list "expose": an attempt to find empowerment over an issue which means helplessness to him psychologically
so, in a way, his trolling is just therapy, catharsis. which is my whole theory of trolling: far from pointless negative and twisted, online trolling is merely a way to jettison asocial impulses harmlessly (relatively harmlessly) on the internet
having said that, and fully appreciative of the fact that free speech fundamentalists will come out in support of fortuny, i say to you free speech fundamentalists: no law or government can protect you from the consequences of what you say. in other words, there are elements of speech which have every expectation of protection. then there are elements of free speech, that, while a good argument can be made for their official, societal level acceptance, doesn't mean some asshole somewhere isn't going to get upset and try to do something about what you say
insulting pictures of mohammed, for example. yes, a sound understanding of free speech means that insulting pictures of mohammed should be tolerated. however, a legal, societal understanding of tolerance on this issue does not protect you from the anger of religious fundamentalists who could care less about tolerance
you don't have protection from the consequences of what you say, regardless of the legal environment. making enemies of random guys looking for easy sex is not a situation where a idealistic expectation of free speech without consequences gets you very far
remember that about free speech: it has consequences. if you get upset about that idea, or expect government to somehow protect you from the consequences of what you say, you really don't understand the whole notion that with freedom comes responsibility, which is the only notion that will keep speech truly free
like any right in this world, it carries with it responsibility. shoot your mouth of without any regard for conesequences, and you will discover that consequences happen, that not everyone in society is a tolerant ethical individual
so far, both you and i have nothing to disagree about, right?
and now we radically diverge:
my conclusion: individual initiative by random warhawk assholes sure can wreak a lot of havoc in the world, dang
your conclusion: a top secret dark cabal of warhawk assholes controls all these manipulations in a finely tuned agenda
WTF?!
the question our disagreement depends upon is whether or not being a warhawk asshole is an aspect of individual initiative, or an aspect of a top secret organization from a steven seagal movie
Slashdot Mirror
2. hunt for the hides of weightlifters and wrestlers in central america
3. ???
4. IF IT BLEEDS WE CAN KILL IT
i can steal a car. you only have one car
how can i steal an effortless copy of your mp3 of britney spears oh great swami?
i'm no big fan of his work, but he obviously takes his work very seriously, and he has won amount of critical acclaim, so these words from him mean a lot to me (an interview from aintitcool.com from 2004):
so the real perversion here is the guy who discovers something obscure, labors over it to rescue it from decaying media, make it popular again by distributing it in new art, which means more exposure for the original artist, and what thanks does he get for that? HE GETS PUNISHED
that's the state of intellectual property
fuck intellectual property
the entire concept is bankrupt
we need to not just ignore, but we must somehow actively subvert and destroy, to the best we can, the bankrupt, dead concept so called intellectual property
its a dead fucking farce
as opposed to stuff they have to pay for
duh
the real story is that there are people out there for whom this is an earth shattering parable bending conceptual leap forward
if we must make an intelligent observation in a thread under a really stupid question, let it be this:
once upon a time, some german dude invented the printing press, and previously uneducated clueless serfs were now able to read on the cheap, birthing the middle class, and fancy ideas from the likes of voltaire and jefferson about equality and democracy. no one intended this, no one planned it, but this is what the printing press did
of course, the previous understanding was there was an aristocratic class, who knew all and decided all, and the uneducated rabble, who were to be herded and put to work, and that is the way god ordained it. there are still people coming to grips with the way the printing press has changed this equation
well, now we have the internet, no less earth shattering than the printing press. and what is the internet going to change?
it destroys the concept of intellectual property
you either get that, or, like those who still believe in the preeminence of a ruling class, you don't get it. and you will be befuddled for many centuries to come
intellectual property is dead. the internet killed it. understand that, or not, but it is the truth whether you like it or not. deal with it
i have trouble keeping track of all my usernames and passwords like everyone else
so i put it in passwords.txt in my shared emule folder, so i can access it anywhere in the world ;-)
smart, huh?
the experience of a drone pilot seems to me to be the very definition of detached and distant
i mean compare their experience to say, plunging a knife into a guys heart and covering his mouth until he stops struggling so his screams don't alert anyone else? now that's vivid and personal if you ask me
and by the way, that's not a theoretical:
http://books.google.com/books?id=74DRCVfzqkgC
the perception of a quality film is not video quality, but audio quality
mix stunning video quality with poor audio quality and the overall audience perception is that the movie is a bad copy. mix crappy video with stunning audio quality and the overall perception is that you have a crystal clear piece of work
i'm not going to play pop psychologist, but i will say that for whatever reason, the ear decides perception of quality in filmmaking, not the eyes
presenting the facts as they are is sufficient to cause outrage
but the language used to present the issue here turns the reader off. if you don't understand that inflammatory rhetoric turns people off, then you will never get any sympathy for any of your concerns in life
salting the facts with inflammatory rhetoric like "slavery" makes the issue sound like a bunch of attention whores with entitlement issues who are clueless about real problems in this world (such as REAL slavery). of course this isn't the case and the issue has merit. so what is served with the use of language that suggests the issue has no merit?
completely overused in completely wrong contexts to the point of saturation and irrelevancy
no, dear submitard, what apple is being sued for is not "slavery"
really
it was supposed to be a dumb joke, a play on concepts, but someone modded my comment as "insightful", which i don't really understand. there is nothing wrong with using adultfriendfinder
how long it would take, if instead the system was giving him a raise
2 days, tops
is a self-appointed protector of justice
by the very nature of logic and reason, one who self-appoints themselves as protector of justice is also someone who HAS to be self-determining what "justice" is as well
for example: you see someone using a word on the internet in a manner you deem unacceptable. so you hound him to the bitter end of the 453rd comment in a retarded neverending thread, thereby standing up for applie pie, grandma, and the american way
so sorry, no more replies for you, i've been trolled long enough, mr. vigilante ;-)
xoxoxoxox
those who push the limits of free expression into unethical territory deserve each other
if you shout fire in a crowded theatre, you deserve the guy who videotapes your transgression and publishes your social security number and street address on the internet. buth are wrong uses of speech. but, in a way, they are to be expected and they deserve each other in a twisted way. same with fortuny and his "victims"
free speech is not speech without consequences. speech without consequences simply doesn't exist. everyone should remember that, and then open their mouths
free speech is a concept that applies to and is appreciated by the great ethical responsible middle majority of society. but free speech does not protect you from the evil, the stupid, and the intolerant fringes of society
it is a biological need though. but you can be in a marriage with someone where absolutely every facet of the relationship is fulfilling and nurturing, except the sex
in which case, an open marriage, or even a crime of omission about telling your wife what you were doing while she turns a blind eye, is superior to divorce, don't you think?
or should a nurturing, productive, successful marriage be jettisoned, just because sex occurs outside the marriage?
i am of course speaking in the hypothetical, and of course, the majority of extramarital affairs are by cheating assholes, but not the vast majority. and so one shouldn't be so hasty to call out the cavalry on an issue that is complex and subtle, not simple and straightforward
is clearly an exercise in vigilante justice
http://www.google.com/search?q=fortuny+vigilante
i don't know why you find it so difficult to accept the word's usage in this manner, it is clearly within the realm of valid meaning for the word. i don't know why you think you have a point to prove
are you something like a grammar nazi? am i going to get a citation from the dictionary police? (snicker)
as the first 3 involve an exchange of money for sex, which is illegal
and by "acceptable" i mean acceptable by current prevailing societal norms. my own personal norms finds nothing wrong with prostitution, as long as it is highly regulated to prevent abuse, human trafficking, disease, etc.
in other people's business?
say you see child abuse. well yes, get involved. many other examples: yes, get involved. too often people say "its none of my business" and let a crime they witness lisde. no, this is unethical
however, issues of sex and marriage are complicated. maybe they have an open marriage. maybe the married couple are separated pending divorce. maybe the wife refuses the husband any sex, etc.
as for my last example: lets talk ethics, shall we? if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, is her husband duty bound by marriage to remain celibate himself? can he rightfully seek sex outside the marriage if his wife refuses sex?
90% of the time, the guy is probably just a cheating asshole. but sometimes you are not doing any good by butting in to other people's business (although, of course, in many many cases where you see something ilegal or unethical going on, you have every right, no duty, to get involved)
if someone thinks something is wrong and seeks justice on an issue, they are being a vigilante. doesn't matter what is actually legal or illegal, what matters is what they think is right and wrong
if you start shooting people who do a poor job at parallel parking, you are a "vigilante" in search of "justice" in your mind, regardless of the fact that poor parallel parking skills are not illegal
which is one of the reasons why vigilante justice is wrong: it is determined by the vigiliante, which, as you note, often delineates sharply from society-wide definitions and laws about right and wrong
so i don't know why you think it is valid to point out that someone is not a vigilante because they aren't dutifully following actual laws on the books. as if such a consideration ever had anything to do with what motivates any vigilante, ever, or has anything to do with the criteria for labelling someone a vigilante
but if you understand the number of reasons why vigilante justice is wrong, then you understand how the manner in which he got his commeuppance is wrong
condemning fortuny is not standing up for the cheater. its standing against vigiliante justice
if you look for sex on the internet you are getting into legal trouble, and if you look for legal advice on the internet you are going to get fucked
you will note that fortuny has a history of sexual abuse as a child, that his family turned a blind eye towards. which goes far, pop psychology wise, to explaining what would motivate him to do his craigs list "expose": an attempt to find empowerment over an issue which means helplessness to him psychologically
so, in a way, his trolling is just therapy, catharsis. which is my whole theory of trolling: far from pointless negative and twisted, online trolling is merely a way to jettison asocial impulses harmlessly (relatively harmlessly) on the internet
having said that, and fully appreciative of the fact that free speech fundamentalists will come out in support of fortuny, i say to you free speech fundamentalists: no law or government can protect you from the consequences of what you say. in other words, there are elements of speech which have every expectation of protection. then there are elements of free speech, that, while a good argument can be made for their official, societal level acceptance, doesn't mean some asshole somewhere isn't going to get upset and try to do something about what you say
insulting pictures of mohammed, for example. yes, a sound understanding of free speech means that insulting pictures of mohammed should be tolerated. however, a legal, societal understanding of tolerance on this issue does not protect you from the anger of religious fundamentalists who could care less about tolerance
you don't have protection from the consequences of what you say, regardless of the legal environment. making enemies of random guys looking for easy sex is not a situation where a idealistic expectation of free speech without consequences gets you very far
remember that about free speech: it has consequences. if you get upset about that idea, or expect government to somehow protect you from the consequences of what you say, you really don't understand the whole notion that with freedom comes responsibility, which is the only notion that will keep speech truly free
like any right in this world, it carries with it responsibility. shoot your mouth of without any regard for conesequences, and you will discover that consequences happen, that not everyone in society is a tolerant ethical individual
so we're polluting our home planet and we need to colonize a new one, and the first candidate turns out to be a contaminated rocket fuel brownfield
the conference on august 5th will nothing more than an announcemnet that NASA is being put under administrative jurisdiction of the EPA
gw bush: warhawk asshole
dick cheney: warhawk asshole
john mccain: warhawk asshole
this anthrax scientist: deranged warhawk asshole
so far, both you and i have nothing to disagree about, right?
and now we radically diverge:
my conclusion: individual initiative by random warhawk assholes sure can wreak a lot of havoc in the world, dang
your conclusion: a top secret dark cabal of warhawk assholes controls all these manipulations in a finely tuned agenda
WTF?!
the question our disagreement depends upon is whether or not being a warhawk asshole is an aspect of individual initiative, or an aspect of a top secret organization from a steven seagal movie
apply occams razor and decide
dick cheney: warhawk asshole
john mccain: warhawk asshole
this anthrax scientist: deranged warhawk asshole
so far, both you and i have nothing to disagree about
my conclusion: individual initiative by random warhawk assholes sure can wreak a lot of havoc in the world
your conclusion: a top secret dark cabal of warhawk assholes controls all these manipulations in a finely tuned agenda
WTF?!
occam's razor friend, look it up
and they prove exactly what?
its not your "facts" you see me dancing a strawman in front of
but please, why do you keep responding? who am i to doubt the vast secret YOU alone have stumbled upon!
what do yur "facts" prove, friend?
please, educate me. i'm all ears