Mickey Mouse's introduction was in Steamboat Willey which was a parody of the Buster Keaton movie Steamboat Bill, Jr.. Disney has been borrowing/stealing their stories from day one.
You stand before the fires of Mt. Doom. Hot jets of glowing magma erupt on either side of you, searing your skin. The hair on your toes shrivels and disappears. Above you columns of black smoke billow into the sky.
To the north is a small rocky ledge above the fires. To the south is a path leading down into Mordor.
You find it hard to breathe here.
>drop ring
Which ring do you mean? The One Ring, or the Copper Ring of Gondor?
>one
dropped
>wait
Time passes...
Your lungs begin to burn.
>Take ring
(One Ring) Taken.
>Drop ring in lava
Which ring do you mean? The One Ring, or the Copper Ring of Gondor?
>one
The lava has no good surface to put that on.
>yell
AAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!! Do you feel better?
You begin to hack and cough from the hot searing fumes.
>Drop one ring into fires
You are not close enough to the ledge to drop the ring into the Fires of Mt. Doom!
>Look
You stand before the fires of Mt. Doom. Hot jets of glowing magma erupt on either side of you, searing your skin. The hair on your toes shrivels and disappears. Above you columns of black smoke billow into the sky.
To the north is a small rocky ledge above the fires. To the south is a path leading down into Mordor.
You double up with a choking spasm, hacking and coughing.
>N
You creep out onto the rocky ledge. You look down into the fires. From here you can easily drop the One Ring and complete your quest. Your heart thrills with anticipation!
You fall to the ground in agony, clutching your throat. The fumes are too much and have overcome you. As you begin to black out, you think to yourself, "I'm sorry Gandolf. I failed. I failed."
******* You Have Died **********
You have earned 275 out 300 points earning you the title of Grand High Elf.
What you are really refering to, is an artist's 'Moral Right' to control the 'vision' of an artistic work. This means that no one can change or distort an artistic work, without the permission of the original artist.
While this might sound good in theory (Why not protect the artist?), in practice, it is one of the most dangerous ideas I have heard in a long time. The idea that someone could be legally prevented from modifying their own personal property, solely because the artist disagrees with the modifications is scarey to say the least. Where would this right end? How would it be enforced? Can the artist keep track of the painting after it has been sold to ensure that it hasn't been modified, or can they inspect someone's living room to make sure it displays the painting under optimal circumstances? Where would the artist's rights end and my rights, as a property owner, begin?
Personally, I believe the artist's rights end as soon as they sell the painting, movie, or what-have-you. The only way they should be able to maintain any kind of control (beyond what the already way too powerful copyright laws give them) is if they keep it to themselves and never let anyone else see it, duplicate it, sell copies of it etc. If you want to release your art or sell copies of it to the public, you must accept the fact that someone may do something you don't like with it.
Actually, in IV, there was no "ethical choice" to change to past to how it "should be". They went back in time specificaly to save the present. (i.e. "We need to go back in time and get some whales so that the earth isn't destroyed by a giant space cigar.")
I agree that the industries problem is not that some people infringe copyrights. But by infringing copyrights, we give them the "moral clout" necessary to get these terrible laws passed.
Someone could hand me a perfect DVD quality rip of this movie, and I would still wait until it is in the theaters to see it.
Dammit, I've waited 30 years to see this movie done right on the big (not just large) screen, and I'll gladly pay the $15 for me and my wife to see it in the theater on openning night.
Anyone who thinks their kids are safe when they are at home in bed with you in the house has a false sense of security. In our area this past June a 14 year old girl was kidnapped at gun point from her bedroom. Her sister was in the room with her and was told if she made any noise or told her parents, then her sister would die. Her parents were sleeping down the hall completely unaware. (Should they have been in the room with her?) She still hasn't been located over two months later. See here for more info.
Don't you dare think that keeping your kids safe is simply a matter of raising them right. All the training in the world won't stop a determined but sick individual from harming them. Perhaps if Elizabeth had been wearing one of these her parents could have found her that same night.
This was the very problem with Digital Audio Tape (DAT). Before the RIAA allowed it to be released in the US, it had to have DRM. It would only let you make one copy of the original, no matter who owned the content. They (content companies, not some genric they out there) want control. Complete control.
All DRM will do is make "average" Joe Consumer play by the media companies rules.
I'm becoming convinced that the MP/RIAA are not at all afraid of online file sharing and piracy. They are merely using it as a tool to get what they've always wanted all along: Control. Control over what people watch and listen to. Where they can do it and how much they pay for it. The percentage of the population that can bypass DRM tools is very small, so those few will give them the ammo they need to pass laws to control the rest.
It is complete arrogance to think that the only way art should ever be viewed is with the same vision of the artist.
If I want to view the Mona Lisa while wearing glasses that appear to give her a moustache, then I should be allowed to. If I want to watch only the lower 1/3 of a movie by using masking tape on my TV, who are you to say it's wrong. If I want to skip the middle of "The Old Man and the Sea" (good idea, btw) then bravo for me.
If I am concerned that I get the full impact that the artist intended, then I will make sure that I watch it the way the Director (studio?) released it. Mainly though, I just want to be entertained. If I don't find swearing or nudity entertaining I should be able to filter out anything I want.
No they don't. As far as you or I are concerned, anything that is copyrighted today, is copyrighted forever. We will never have creative access to it in our lifetime. So copyright is forever.
Slashdot Mirror
Mickey Mouse's introduction was in Steamboat Willey which was a parody of the Buster Keaton movie Steamboat Bill, Jr.. Disney has been borrowing/stealing their stories from day one.
You stand before the fires of Mt. Doom. Hot jets of glowing magma erupt on either side of you, searing your skin. The hair on your toes shrivels and disappears. Above you columns of black smoke billow into the sky.
>drop ringTo the north is a small rocky ledge above the fires. To the south is a path leading down into Mordor.
You find it hard to breathe here.
Which ring do you mean? The One Ring, or the Copper Ring of Gondor?
>onedropped
>waitTime passes...
>Take ringYour lungs begin to burn.
(One Ring) Taken.
>Drop ring in lavaWhich ring do you mean? The One Ring, or the Copper Ring of Gondor?
>oneThe lava has no good surface to put that on.
>yellAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!! Do you feel better?
>Drop one ring into firesYou begin to hack and cough from the hot searing fumes.
You are not close enough to the ledge to drop the ring into the Fires of Mt. Doom!
>LookYou stand before the fires of Mt. Doom. Hot jets of glowing magma erupt on either side of you, searing your skin. The hair on your toes shrivels and disappears. Above you columns of black smoke billow into the sky.
>NTo the north is a small rocky ledge above the fires. To the south is a path leading down into Mordor.
You double up with a choking spasm, hacking and coughing.
You creep out onto the rocky ledge. You look down into the fires. From here you can easily drop the One Ring and complete your quest. Your heart thrills with anticipation!
You fall to the ground in agony, clutching your throat. The fumes are too much and have overcome you. As you begin to black out, you think to yourself, "I'm sorry Gandolf. I failed. I failed."
******* You Have Died **********
You have earned 275 out 300 points earning you the title of Grand High Elf.
Would you like to RESTART, RESTORE, or QUIT?
>
What you are really refering to, is an artist's 'Moral Right' to control the 'vision' of an artistic work. This means that no one can change or distort an artistic work, without the permission of the original artist.
While this might sound good in theory (Why not protect the artist?), in practice, it is one of the most dangerous ideas I have heard in a long time. The idea that someone could be legally prevented from modifying their own personal property, solely because the artist disagrees with the modifications is scarey to say the least. Where would this right end? How would it be enforced? Can the artist keep track of the painting after it has been sold to ensure that it hasn't been modified, or can they inspect someone's living room to make sure it displays the painting under optimal circumstances? Where would the artist's rights end and my rights, as a property owner, begin?
Personally, I believe the artist's rights end as soon as they sell the painting, movie, or what-have-you. The only way they should be able to maintain any kind of control (beyond what the already way too powerful copyright laws give them) is if they keep it to themselves and never let anyone else see it, duplicate it, sell copies of it etc. If you want to release your art or sell copies of it to the public, you must accept the fact that someone may do something you don't like with it.
Actually, in IV, there was no "ethical choice" to change to past to how it "should be". They went back in time specificaly to save the present. (i.e. "We need to go back in time and get some whales so that the earth isn't destroyed by a giant space cigar.")
I agree that the industries problem is not that some people infringe copyrights. But by infringing copyrights, we give them the "moral clout" necessary to get these terrible laws passed.
Someone could hand me a perfect DVD quality rip of this movie, and I would still wait until it is in the theaters to see it.
Dammit, I've waited 30 years to see this movie done right on the big (not just large) screen, and I'll gladly pay the $15 for me and my wife to see it in the theater on openning night.
Anyone who thinks their kids are safe when they are at home in bed with you in the house has a false sense of security. In our area this past June a 14 year old girl was kidnapped at gun point from her bedroom. Her sister was in the room with her and was told if she made any noise or told her parents, then her sister would die. Her parents were sleeping down the hall completely unaware. (Should they have been in the room with her?) She still hasn't been located over two months later. See here for more info.
Don't you dare think that keeping your kids safe is simply a matter of raising them right. All the training in the world won't stop a determined but sick individual from harming them. Perhaps if Elizabeth had been wearing one of these her parents could have found her that same night.
This was the very problem with Digital Audio Tape (DAT). Before the RIAA allowed it to be released in the US, it had to have DRM. It would only let you make one copy of the original, no matter who owned the content. They (content companies, not some genric they out there) want control. Complete control.
All DRM will do is make "average" Joe Consumer play by the media companies rules.
I'm becoming convinced that the MP/RIAA are not at all afraid of online file sharing and piracy. They are merely using it as a tool to get what they've always wanted all along: Control. Control over what people watch and listen to. Where they can do it and how much they pay for it. The percentage of the population that can bypass DRM tools is very small, so those few will give them the ammo they need to pass laws to control the rest.
It is complete arrogance to think that the only way art should ever be viewed is with the same vision of the artist.
If I want to view the Mona Lisa while wearing glasses that appear to give her a moustache, then I should be allowed to. If I want to watch only the lower 1/3 of a movie by using masking tape on my TV, who are you to say it's wrong. If I want to skip the middle of "The Old Man and the Sea" (good idea, btw) then bravo for me.
If I am concerned that I get the full impact that the artist intended, then I will make sure that I watch it the way the Director (studio?) released it. Mainly though, I just want to be entertained. If I don't find swearing or nudity entertaining I should be able to filter out anything I want.
Oh, and copyrights do expire eventually.
No they don't. As far as you or I are concerned, anything that is copyrighted today, is copyrighted forever. We will never have creative access to it in our lifetime. So copyright is forever.
DigitalConsumer.org is sponsering a consumers bill of rights in reguards to fair use. They will even fax your congressman for you.
Electronic Frontier Foundation is heavily involved in protecting civil rights in a digital world.
Join and donate to both these groups and that will be a good start.Damn! My first post on /. and I screw it up. Thanks for the correction.
So bypassing Macrovision is legal on VHS, but not on DVD, is that correct?
Isn't it illegal to use a technology that circumvents a copyright protection technology. It's part of the DCMA.