What is it with you people? About every 6 months I wind up attracting someone agitated and spiteful and they insist on trying to one-up the sarcasm. Makes me wonder who they are trying to convince...
Nobody cares. Do you know what a troll is?
People around here surprise me more than they do you.
No, I'm not, since I'm not going to the cinema any more thanks to actions of the movie industry, this being but the latest. The victims are those who are paying for tickets, the perps are the execs in the movie industry.
Do me a favor and explain to me how preventing piracy with no effect to non-pirates makes ticket-buyers victims.
I'm just a bystander.
You're clearly activist.
The other two are relevant to put the actions of both Hollywood on one hand and so called "pirates" on the other hand in context.
No, stop adding "so called." People who illegally film movies and distribute them on the net are movie pirates.
Do me a favor and explain to me why they're not.
The other two points had nothing to do with the discussion.
That's preposterous. I hold that it's you that portray the movie corporations as "victims", and that they had absolutely no choice what so ever in adding this subliminal flicker.
They're simply preventing piracy. You're pretending to be a victim over unnoticable flicker added to stop piracy. This leads me to believe you are simply a disgruntled movie pirate.
Yes, the corporations are victims if their material is being illegally stolen.
If that ripping were neither illegal nor stopped, those movies would be a lot more accessible in a variety of ways.
Stealing is illegal and immoral. It's a given they would be more accessible if it wasn't illegal to rip them and distribute them. As it stands, you have no legal or moral right to do so, no matter what your IRC Undernet buddies who trade movies all day think.
You could go to a theater (same as now), you could download them or you could get a copy on CD-R from a friend.
Downloading or copying from a friend is illegal since you don't pay to see the film. Why do you think you are entitled to see it completely free of charge? What gives you that right? You have none.
The movie would achieve greater spread and thus make a bigger contribution to society, being seen by more people thus enriching the culture more.
Take your bullshit "information wants to be free" mentality back to the 80s BBS hacker age. How can a culture be enriched if nobody is making money off of what they work on? You have just officially made the silliest argument I have ever read on Slashot.
Not only do I think that's okay, I think that's commendable behaviour from a moral (not legal) standpoint.
Then you are obviously trolling.
You on the other hand were "just waiting" for a post like mine so you could criticize it for daring to question the reproduction monopoly that copyright law grants.
There is no "reproduction monopoly." You have no right to steal. I was waiting for a post like yours because I knew an idiot Slashbot would post something like it and argue with me that piracy is a-okay and the right thing to do.
I do feel that it's absurd that an archaic business regulation for the book printing industry is turned against the computer-using consumers. There was no Internet when copyright was invented.
It doesn't matter. You don't have a right to download a movie for free. Since you'll never grasp that simple concept of morality, you'll just have to learn to deal with it.
That appears to be a false statement. You might want to go back and check my original post and your reply.
It wasn't a false statement, and I don't know what else to tell you. I copied and pasted your text.
I've watched telesync rips a grand total of two times. Whoop-de-do. I'll manage. I won't be going to theatres with this kind of distortion, though.
Good riddance. The "distortion" will be unnoticable.
So was your quip about me trying to blindly justify my warez, which only were meant to make my arguments seem somehow less valid.
At least you used your karma bonus modifier to reply. You adhere to the random-humor category, attempting to be as randomly goofy as you can and hopeing it's funny.
These sorts of things aren't really supposed to be so technically explained.
The whole breaking-physics thing is a way for there to be a story theme that you can do anything if you will it, that the human mind isn't bound by rules and has whatever potential it wishes to have if the effort is exerted. An inspiring, motivational thing.
I think the author of the essay underestimates the "there is no spoon" motif. I think it is more likely the Matrix runs as a stable world because the perceptions and expectations of the human mind make it so. There are scientific theories that suggest reality exists because our brains make it. The rebels realize the Matrix reality is fake and thus can transcend it.
Also, with all the obvious Biblical references in the film, it can be inferred Neo is simply just supernatural. When he dies, Trinity revives him when she quotes the Oracle's prophecy that the man she loved would be the One. She kisses him, fulfilling that prophecy, and he truly awakens as the One and has apparently supernatural control over the Matrix.
Obviously, it's just a fucking movie, and most of this shit should just be assumed to have an explanation in your mind like every other movie you watch, though the workings of the Matrix are supposed to be explained in more detail in the two sequels.
Not exactly forcing me, and I will avoid these products in the future, but there is significant pressure, both peer pressure and (especially) commercial pressure. Advertisements do aim to get me to want to consume, they're not just decorational or even in any way benevolent.
You're right; you're such a victim.
Pirates didn't invent copyright. Pirates didn't add a subliminal flicker to the movies. Pirates didn't invent region codes.
Only one of three of those has anything to do with this article. And pirates did add subliminal flicker indirectly with their actions. Stop playing victim.
It is the basis of my argument and the very reason I posted in the first place. It is important to the discussion. Hollywood is making their products (the movies) less accessible (less copyable, less watchable) so that they can keep their prices high without fear that people will turn to the offerings of what you call pirates.
A simple unnoticable flicker added to theater projections to stop illegal ripping isn't making anything less accessible. What do you mean, "what you call pirates?" They're illegally filming movies to distribute them freely on the Internet. Clearly, you feel this is okay, so your moral basis is already severely skewed and shouldn't be taken seriously in a discussion.
I consider this counter-productive and unethical.
That is what movie piracy is. You've grown up with the convenience of the Internet for so long, your mind has grown accustomed to getting whatever you want, no matter the legality. Face facts and grow up.
You quoted "economonical sabotage" where I wrote "economical sabotage" in a sentence where you made a remark on my intelligence level, implying, I assume, that that level was low. Even if this was unintentional I wanted to defend myself.
I copied and pasted your text.
It was a slight diversion prompted by your accusation that my position on the topic was based in mere convenience and need for justification.
You are clearly a movie pirate just pissed that your precious telesync rips won't be so easily obtained anymore. Deal.
I don't consider R.A. Wilson books very intellectual nor pretentious, and I apologize for the quotation if you percieve it as out of line.
I percieve it as bizarre and pointless.
I'm aware of that. My objective, on the other hand, is not to defend and help those corporations to make the maximum amount of money.
Your objective, in fact, is to specifically rip them off of money by illegally obtaining their movies without paying for them. They have every right to do whatever they want with their movies, how they are projected, and who can watch them.
Why should it be?
Nobody said it should be. It's just you seem so naively startled by the fact that companies would take measures to stop their stuff from being stolen.
Why are you so eager to please these "corporate masters"?
Who am I pleasing by simply stating the truth?
What do I have to gain by sitting quietly when corporations try to maximize their profits at the expense of society?
You are right. Adding unnoticable flicker to theater projections in order to prevent cam rips is an "expense of society."
And if corporations keep ripping people off, which is the far more common situation, there will be a backlash, which copying and p2p both are only parts of.
It doesn't matter; it is still illegal. To act so idealistically and naively as you do over a simple projection flicker designed to stop cameras is hilarious.
Nobody is being ripped off. You don't have to see their movies.
It's always been obvious to me that the machines did it to enslave man.
They were at war, remember? It wasn't just for their body energy. Agent Smiths makes it quite clear the machines think of themselves as the dominant race. Enslaving man and using their bodies for power fulfills that effect.
The article speaks about disruptive patterns. This won't be cheap nor easy, and who will pay for it? Most likely the people who buy cinema tickets, DVDs and merch - the consumers.
Though I doubt it will be that expensive, nobody is forcing you to buy cinema tickets, DVDs, and merchandise. If you want somebody to blame, blame pirates.
Making a product worse, less accessible, just to be able to increase it's market price is in my opinion very immoral, and that's what I called economical sabotage.
Nice how that doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.
I didn't misspell it.
I didn't say you did.
Yes, I use warez already...
As I correctly guessed.
Robert Anton Wilson once claimed that "what the thinker thinks, the prover proves", meaning that people will justify anything, but no matter how hard I think or try to "prove", I can't justify the way copyright looks today.
Someone beginning a statement with "Robert Anton Wilson once claimed..." reaks of pretentiousness. Stick to the discussion at hand.
I'm surprised at the lengths some people will go to defend practices of the same corporations who would do almost anything to make a buck.
Corporations make money. Their objective is to make money. You go to work to make money.
If people keep ripping them off, they will seek methods to ensure they don't.
I waited and waited for that one perfect idiot who would post about how this was an abuse of power. Score.
How dare they project movies in any way they choose. For some reason, this is an abuse of power. Having people scan the audience once in a while to check for cameras is wrong, though it's okay if they check tickets like they have for decades. Simply changing the projection method to make it more difficult for cameras to pick up is also somehow immoral. You blindly call it "distorting the image."
What really let me know your level of intelligence was when you called it "economonical sabotage." You are right. All the sudden, there will be a mass exodus of people leaving theaters all over the nation even though they won't notice a single difference in anything, except that once in a great while, someone illegally filming the film will be asked to leave.
Please do stick to warez. The fact is, you already use warez, and you needed your little exposition to help you justify it.
It won't happen. The slobbering, drooling masses who have to reply to absolutely everything won't remember it was a duplicate or just won't care. The idealist minority is outnumbered by the idiotic majority who treat this place as their karma playground. The misinformed "technology experts" who feel the need to post five-paragraph diatribes incorrectly explaining the technology in the article, the idiots who actually post the text of the article itself, the saps who feel the need to follow every article with a "In other news..." joke...it's a parabola of stupidity out there, and we're on the edge looking in.
Re:I wonder if they really can make this 'invisibl
on
Foiling Cinema Pirates
·
· Score: 1
Sounds to me like another reason not to go to a cinema anymore...
I was waiting for someone to turn this into a "another reason not to" discussion. You don't even know what it will look like or if you'll notice it, and you make a completely unrelated comparison to CDs and MP3s. Yet you've already decided it's a bad thing.
Cue Texan accent. "Seems to me I reckon people will complain about this." Please stop.
Sorry, I use both Red Hat Linux 9 and Windows XP, and Windows' font rendering still beats it by light years. I actually get headaches staring at Red Hat Linux 9 for extended periods, and I've adjusted settings endlessly attempting to make things as smooth and clearly rendered as Windows.
There are clear artifacts in the Linux font rendering. Yes, I've tried enabling the TrueType interpreter. There is clearly work to go on this.
What's so funny about using "that badboy" Wingdings? It seems somewhat juvenile to me, but what do I know...people around here will moderate up anything if it's ridiculous or not clever.
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell your mom to give it back.
What is it with you people? About every 6 months I wind up attracting someone agitated and spiteful and they insist on trying to one-up the sarcasm. Makes me wonder who they are trying to convince...
Nobody cares. Do you know what a troll is?
People around here surprise me more than they do you.
No, I'm not, since I'm not going to the cinema any more thanks to actions of the movie industry, this being but the latest. The victims are those who are paying for tickets, the perps are the execs in the movie industry.
Do me a favor and explain to me how preventing piracy with no effect to non-pirates makes ticket-buyers victims.
I'm just a bystander.
You're clearly activist.
The other two are relevant to put the actions of both Hollywood on one hand and so called "pirates" on the other hand in context.
No, stop adding "so called." People who illegally film movies and distribute them on the net are movie pirates.
Do me a favor and explain to me why they're not.
The other two points had nothing to do with the discussion.
That's preposterous. I hold that it's you that portray the movie corporations as "victims", and that they had absolutely no choice what so ever in adding this subliminal flicker.
They're simply preventing piracy. You're pretending to be a victim over unnoticable flicker added to stop piracy. This leads me to believe you are simply a disgruntled movie pirate.
Yes, the corporations are victims if their material is being illegally stolen.
If that ripping were neither illegal nor stopped, those movies would be a lot more accessible in a variety of ways.
Stealing is illegal and immoral. It's a given they would be more accessible if it wasn't illegal to rip them and distribute them. As it stands, you have no legal or moral right to do so, no matter what your IRC Undernet buddies who trade movies all day think.
You could go to a theater (same as now), you could download them or you could get a copy on CD-R from a friend.
Downloading or copying from a friend is illegal since you don't pay to see the film. Why do you think you are entitled to see it completely free of charge? What gives you that right? You have none.
The movie would achieve greater spread and thus make a bigger contribution to society, being seen by more people thus enriching the culture more.
Take your bullshit "information wants to be free" mentality back to the 80s BBS hacker age. How can a culture be enriched if nobody is making money off of what they work on? You have just officially made the silliest argument I have ever read on Slashot.
Not only do I think that's okay, I think that's commendable behaviour from a moral (not legal) standpoint.
Then you are obviously trolling.
You on the other hand were "just waiting" for a post like mine so you could criticize it for daring to question the reproduction monopoly that copyright law grants.
There is no "reproduction monopoly." You have no right to steal. I was waiting for a post like yours because I knew an idiot Slashbot would post something like it and argue with me that piracy is a-okay and the right thing to do.
I do feel that it's absurd that an archaic business regulation for the book printing industry is turned against the computer-using consumers. There was no Internet when copyright was invented.
It doesn't matter. You don't have a right to download a movie for free. Since you'll never grasp that simple concept of morality, you'll just have to learn to deal with it.
That appears to be a false statement. You might want to go back and check my original post and your reply.
It wasn't a false statement, and I don't know what else to tell you. I copied and pasted your text.
I've watched telesync rips a grand total of two times. Whoop-de-do. I'll manage. I won't be going to theatres with this kind of distortion, though.
Good riddance. The "distortion" will be unnoticable.
So was your quip about me trying to blindly justify my warez, which only were meant to make my arguments seem somehow less valid.
It's true. They make your arguments less
"My 0.02" is trite.
At least you used your karma bonus modifier to reply. You adhere to the random-humor category, attempting to be as randomly goofy as you can and hopeing it's funny.
Nice try.
These sorts of things aren't really supposed to be so technically explained.
The whole breaking-physics thing is a way for there to be a story theme that you can do anything if you will it, that the human mind isn't bound by rules and has whatever potential it wishes to have if the effort is exerted. An inspiring, motivational thing.
I think the author of the essay underestimates the "there is no spoon" motif. I think it is more likely the Matrix runs as a stable world because the perceptions and expectations of the human mind make it so. There are scientific theories that suggest reality exists because our brains make it. The rebels realize the Matrix reality is fake and thus can transcend it.
Also, with all the obvious Biblical references in the film, it can be inferred Neo is simply just supernatural. When he dies, Trinity revives him when she quotes the Oracle's prophecy that the man she loved would be the One. She kisses him, fulfilling that prophecy, and he truly awakens as the One and has apparently supernatural control over the Matrix.
Obviously, it's just a fucking movie, and most of this shit should just be assumed to have an explanation in your mind like every other movie you watch, though the workings of the Matrix are supposed to be explained in more detail in the two sequels.
A simple scan of my sentence reveals I use the word "mistakenly." Obviously I knew it was a typo.
It's clear my point whooshed straight over your head, so you resorted to childishness.
Next.
Not exactly forcing me, and I will avoid these products in the future, but there is significant pressure, both peer pressure and (especially) commercial pressure. Advertisements do aim to get me to want to consume, they're not just decorational or even in any way benevolent.
You're right; you're such a victim.
Pirates didn't invent copyright. Pirates didn't add a subliminal flicker to the movies. Pirates didn't invent region codes.
Only one of three of those has anything to do with this article. And pirates did add subliminal flicker indirectly with their actions. Stop playing victim.
It is the basis of my argument and the very reason I posted in the first place. It is important to the discussion. Hollywood is making their products (the movies) less accessible (less copyable, less watchable) so that they can keep their prices high without fear that people will turn to the offerings of what you call pirates.
A simple unnoticable flicker added to theater projections to stop illegal ripping isn't making anything less accessible. What do you mean, "what you call pirates?" They're illegally filming movies to distribute them freely on the Internet. Clearly, you feel this is okay, so your moral basis is already severely skewed and shouldn't be taken seriously in a discussion.
I consider this counter-productive and unethical.
That is what movie piracy is. You've grown up with the convenience of the Internet for so long, your mind has grown accustomed to getting whatever you want, no matter the legality. Face facts and grow up.
You quoted "economonical sabotage" where I wrote "economical sabotage" in a sentence where you made a remark on my intelligence level, implying, I assume, that that level was low. Even if this was unintentional I wanted to defend myself.
I copied and pasted your text.
It was a slight diversion prompted by your accusation that my position on the topic was based in mere convenience and need for justification.
You are clearly a movie pirate just pissed that your precious telesync rips won't be so easily obtained anymore. Deal.
I don't consider R.A. Wilson books very intellectual nor pretentious, and I apologize for the quotation if you percieve it as out of line.
I percieve it as bizarre and pointless.
I'm aware of that. My objective, on the other hand, is not to defend and help those corporations to make the maximum amount of money.
Your objective, in fact, is to specifically rip them off of money by illegally obtaining their movies without paying for them. They have every right to do whatever they want with their movies, how they are projected, and who can watch them.
Why should it be?
Nobody said it should be. It's just you seem so naively startled by the fact that companies would take measures to stop their stuff from being stolen.
Why are you so eager to please these "corporate masters"?
Who am I pleasing by simply stating the truth?
What do I have to gain by sitting quietly when corporations try to maximize their profits at the expense of society?
You are right. Adding unnoticable flicker to theater projections in order to prevent cam rips is an "expense of society."
And if corporations keep ripping people off, which is the far more common situation, there will be a backlash, which copying and p2p both are only parts of.
It doesn't matter; it is still illegal. To act so idealistically and naively as you do over a simple projection flicker designed to stop cameras is hilarious.
Nobody is being ripped off. You don't have to see their movies.
Next.
It's always been obvious to me that the machines did it to enslave man.
They were at war, remember? It wasn't just for their body energy. Agent Smiths makes it quite clear the machines think of themselves as the dominant race. Enslaving man and using their bodies for power fulfills that effect.
The Wachowskis must have had "waaaaaaaaaaay to much time" on their hands to write the Matrix in the first place.
You must have too much time to post on Slashdot.
Funny how your argument makes no sense. And your joke was lame.
Guess you missed the "parallel computing" part. It's okay, not everyone reads the article before posting. In fact, it's quite common.
Shouldn't you be posting over at Aint-it-cool-news?
Oh, seriously?
Another example of Slashbot knee-jerk mindlessness is demonstrated by how many times people keep mistakenly mentioning the RIAA in these discussions.
The article speaks about disruptive patterns. This won't be cheap nor easy, and who will pay for it? Most likely the people who buy cinema tickets, DVDs and merch - the consumers.
Though I doubt it will be that expensive, nobody is forcing you to buy cinema tickets, DVDs, and merchandise. If you want somebody to blame, blame pirates.
Making a product worse, less accessible, just to be able to increase it's market price is in my opinion very immoral, and that's what I called economical sabotage.
Nice how that doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.
I didn't misspell it.
I didn't say you did.
Yes, I use warez already...
As I correctly guessed.
Robert Anton Wilson once claimed that "what the thinker thinks, the prover proves", meaning that people will justify anything, but no matter how hard I think or try to "prove", I can't justify the way copyright looks today.
Someone beginning a statement with "Robert Anton Wilson once claimed..." reaks of pretentiousness. Stick to the discussion at hand.
I'm surprised at the lengths some people will go to defend practices of the same corporations who would do almost anything to make a buck.
Corporations make money. Their objective is to make money. You go to work to make money.
If people keep ripping them off, they will seek methods to ensure they don't.
Next.
Name what we're actually losing if there is no perceived loss. Nobody will care. I promise.
I figured it was his dad at the beginning of the joke.
Any more brainbusters?
The truly stupid would say "it tells me we need to hire thugs to guard doors."
Are those people who go around checking tickets "thugs" too? Honestly, the propaganda used on Slashdot amazes even me. Thugs. Haha.
Lets mess up the quality of presentation in the name of 'copy protection' and make the paying customer suffer.
Have you seen it? Do you know if it's even noticable? How do you know it's messing anything up and making people "suffer?" Oh, okay. Thought so.
I waited and waited for that one perfect idiot who would post about how this was an abuse of power. Score.
How dare they project movies in any way they choose. For some reason, this is an abuse of power. Having people scan the audience once in a while to check for cameras is wrong, though it's okay if they check tickets like they have for decades. Simply changing the projection method to make it more difficult for cameras to pick up is also somehow immoral. You blindly call it "distorting the image."
What really let me know your level of intelligence was when you called it "economonical sabotage." You are right. All the sudden, there will be a mass exodus of people leaving theaters all over the nation even though they won't notice a single difference in anything, except that once in a great while, someone illegally filming the film will be asked to leave.
Please do stick to warez. The fact is, you already use warez, and you needed your little exposition to help you justify it.
Next.
It won't happen. The slobbering, drooling masses who have to reply to absolutely everything won't remember it was a duplicate or just won't care. The idealist minority is outnumbered by the idiotic majority who treat this place as their karma playground. The misinformed "technology experts" who feel the need to post five-paragraph diatribes incorrectly explaining the technology in the article, the idiots who actually post the text of the article itself, the saps who feel the need to follow every article with a "In other news..." joke...it's a parabola of stupidity out there, and we're on the edge looking in.
Sounds to me like another reason not to go to a cinema anymore...
I was waiting for someone to turn this into a "another reason not to" discussion. You don't even know what it will look like or if you'll notice it, and you make a completely unrelated comparison to CDs and MP3s. Yet you've already decided it's a bad thing.
Cue Texan accent. "Seems to me I reckon people will complain about this." Please stop.
It helps me sleep with your mother, son.
That screenshot is a nice example of just how poor font rendering typically is on a Linux desktop. Look at the poorly rendered a, s, and w characters.
Really, any character with circular or diagonal lines. I hate looking at assed up versions of Windows fonts, sorry.
Sorry, I use both Red Hat Linux 9 and Windows XP, and Windows' font rendering still beats it by light years. I actually get headaches staring at Red Hat Linux 9 for extended periods, and I've adjusted settings endlessly attempting to make things as smooth and clearly rendered as Windows.
There are clear artifacts in the Linux font rendering. Yes, I've tried enabling the TrueType interpreter. There is clearly work to go on this.
What's so funny about using "that badboy" Wingdings? It seems somewhat juvenile to me, but what do I know...people around here will moderate up anything if it's ridiculous or not clever.