This is a fact that a lot of people don't seem to care enough about.
I am a freelance writer. Most of the time, I contract with my newspaper to sell a stories (and the rights thereto) to that one publication. Yet when I search for myself on Google these days, I find more and more links to the full text of my articles on Web sites with names like "freebizarticlessourcedestination.com" (* not sure if that's a real site; I use that name purely for example).
And, more and more often, my name shows up attached to the story without the name of the publication.
Seeing this on some guy's shill site irks me, even though legally it's not my problem - I sold the rights to that story, it's the newspaper's story now. Even so, this reflects on me when it appears I may have written this story for the site in question. I don't write "content" for Web sites; I write for newspapers as a freelance journalist. And I don't like the thought of my work being plagiarized or repackaged, in general, although at this point the money is less of an issue than the annoyance of it being taken out of context.
I don't think the point is whether or not you or anyone else could figure out the meaning. It dsn't tk mch wrtn nfo 2 gt th pt of a sntnce.
I can understand this poster's frustration. Those of us who read between the lines in such matters (and, as a college English teacher, it's my job) would say that it smacks of laziness to use poor grammar, especially when attempting to come across as a professional in what is supposed to be a forum for professionals (despite the fact that the noobs and grammar police are here, too).
Actually, that's correct usage - at least in the U.S.
Check any guide that lists Modern Language Association (MLA) style for written English, which is the set of guidelines for formal writing that a large percentage of humanities students in the United States (supposedly) are taught in high school and college.
Of course, this is a programmers' website, so YMMV.;-)
I always thought that Sony made a big goof by not using the movies as a loss leader to sell the PSP.
Think about it:
(1) Sony is affiliated with Sony Pictures and has ties within the film and TV world; (2) Sony uses that influence to negotiate rights for UMD / PSP versions of movies dirt-cheap - practically give 'em away. New releases at $6-$8 a disc; older stuff, $2 or $3. Enough to cover production. So what if they take a loss on the rights? They'll get it back in sales of units. (3) The format's pretty secure, so piracy is a marginal issue - and the inexpensive price makes it hardly worth the time to rip and burn if you could, unlike discs that cost between $18-$20. (4) The ability to use the PSP as a dirt-cheap portable movie player - and a little strategic marketing in the right places could help parents see this as a Good Deal ("it does more than play those damned games, we can watch movies on it, too..." (5) They let other movie studios start making UMD movies also; they license out UMD to some cheap Taiwanese outfit and make some $60 - $80 UMD movie players and sell 'em at Wal-Mart. They let the format spread itself around. They keep the money in the game market and the PSP-2 or whatever the next item is. (6) Profit - not mega-millions, but not the loss that the current situation is likely to be.
I'm sure there are some flaws in my idea and I'm sure someone will point them out. But in the end, somebody dropped the ball here big time. I love the PSP; it's a neat toy. But I've never bought a single movie for it; in fact, I saw this coming and told my friends to expect it - dropping the movies inside of a year - and I said that the first time I saw a UMD movie at a Goddamned Wal-Mart with a $20 price tag.
But, I think that if Sony came back at it, even now, and tried this strategy, it could work. Even this late in the game, with the right promotion and presentation. But it's a good idea, so, fat chance of that happening, eh?
No word yet on power consumption and heat levels, of course."
Bleeding edge gamer: "Hey, guys? I'm about to start Doom 3! Activate the Quad SLI!" Gamer's best bud: "Commence primary ignition!" Dude's buddy flips switches to crank up liquid nitrogen pump and nuclear power-plant tie-in. Sound of neighboring houses' power being drained: Beeooooooooooo...! Other buddy looks away from the see-thru case mod, and covers his eyes...
[1]In those days Da-than begat Yo-nah, which was the fruit of his circuitboard, strong by nature and a good processor. [2]Now Da-than looked on Yo-nah and said, "Yea shall I call you the Slayer of the Amd-ites, for thou shalt go out into their pastures and you shall slay their benchmarks utterly; [3]for thou art pleasing and art born of good silicon." [4]But Yo-nah saw, when he went out into the land of Cun-sumer, how despised he was among the buyers of chips; and he did gnash his teeth and beat his transistors saying: [5]"Oh wherefore was I not left dead on the test-bench and why was my die not broken the day I was born? [6]for I am inferior to my brethren the Amd-ites who run much better than I and cost way the hell less." [7]And he went out into the dust and wandered for a year, until the new product cycle taketh him away.
Good point. I haven't seen a ROKR in person. I do have a 20Gb iPod (the only Apple product I own - not that I dislike 'em, just not my choice). I agree that if I had purchased a ROKR and expected to get an iPod with a phone attached, I would be disappointed by the limitations also. Also, the points people have made about the Mac clones, etc. make good sense: Mac has ALWAYS wanted to be the single source. Which is why, realistically, an Apple monopoly would probably give us the same lack of innovation and lack of attention to details that MS currently gives us. And Bill Gates would be the scrappy underdog that everybody on/. loved to praise.
(It'd make a cool Star Trek episode, maybe. If for no other reason than to see the alt-Bill Gates with a goatee.)
Their name is still connected to this product, by way of iTunes. So, logically, if people's only experience with iTunes comes by way of the ROKR and that experience is a negative one, logically that's going to lead customers to respond by going elsewhere for music and for a portable music player.
The idea that people might get a ROKR and say "wow, this is cool, I want to buy an iPod now" seems more plausable - as does the idea that more people than you might realize are going to shy away from the all-in-one gadgetization of the phone (with cameras, mps players, video / TV etc.) I am one of those people who would rather have three devices that do their respective functions very well than one that does three different things in a mediocre way.
I never said he didn't have the right to free speech.
Agree with him or not, if someone was trying to censor Thompson, I would be against it. The crux of my post was that he's going about his fight the wrong way, and that he's really just shooting himself in the foot.
This is exactly what blowhards like Jack Thompson deserve: to be publicly lampooned for their ridiculous actions.
What does this man think he's going to accomplish? His vitriolic actions are very unlikely to change anyone's mind about the issue of video game violence. I teach argumentative writing and rhetoric to college students; one of the first things we teach is to know one's audience. Very few people of the ultra-conservative persuasion, however, need to be persuaded - they already are fanatically against video games that contain violence, sex, etc.
And his tactics - wilfully distorting the truth, branding video game makers as murderers, setting up straw men to attack in his ravings about violent entertainment - well, I doubt anyone who's played the games he's targeting is going to burn their copy of GTA because of the things Thompson is saying.
Bravo, Penny Arcade, for helping him do what he'd end up doing anyway: alienating anyone who might have listened to a more logical or reasonable argument against game violence, and generating more media attention for Rockstar Games et al. so they will, in turn, sell more games and continue creating popular content. For a lawyer, Thompson seems to have missed that one little maxim: "any press is good press."
Also note that this affects only people who are go-betweens for other customers, NOT your typical homemaker or hobbiest who just discovered that Aunt Ida's prized mathom is going for $5,000 online.
Just because you saw the same movie doesn't mean there weren't multiple cuts being screened. You might have just seen version n.
Studios frequently screen films to gauge audience reaction; I've never heard of variable cuts being screened but I wouldn't put it past Whedon & co to do just that - especially when they're making something geared toward growing popularity out of a cult following. Joss has a lot riding on this; if you read his blogs and other interviews, you see that the desire to make sure the largest number of fans can understand and get into what's happening is very important to him.
To offer another example of how screenings affect movies: I have always heard that audience reaction to Spock's death in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan when it was screened caused the filmmakers to go back and re-edit so that there was an easy way to bring him back in a sequel.
I don't know if there were eight versions, but, I wouldn't be surprised if there were several different variations. I think that anticipation of fans' reactions (and wanting to have enough time to alter the film, if needed) had to play some role in the choice to screen the movie to so many people so far in advance.
It is NOT the place of the FBI to investigate such things. Even if you happen to believe that adult-focused pornography of any type is "wrong" - even if you don't happen to agree that pornography should be viewed as "free speech" - this is not a matter for the Federal government to legislate or investigate. States and municipalities, not the Federal government, ought to be the ones entrusted with such decisions IF they are to be made at all.
Next election, please help vote these Patriot Act-slinging, big-government loving pols out of power. We need less of them.
When they came for the people who were camming movies in the theaters, I said nothing, because I didn't watch crappy reencoded cams.
When they came for the people leaking the screeners, I said nothing because I never watched them: I hated that stupid time-counter at the top of the screen.
When they came for the P2P filesharers, I said nothing because I never downloaded movies: I hated the hassle and could never find what I wanted.
Now they're coming for my fair-use rights, and I can't watch anything at all.
I never started - online gambling, that is. I live in North Carolina, where draconian laws prohibit gambling (even private poker games and sports pools - as our newspapers helpfully remind us every time a major sports tournament is upcoming). So I gamble when I travel, because I love to play blackjack and craps. I've won a little bit of money here and there over the years - $50-100 at a time, nothing major, and it's fun because I know how to play sensibly.
However, we do have one casino, of sorts, in NC - on the Cherokee reservation in the western part of the state. But I have never gone there and I never will, for the same reason I will never gamble online.
Because instead of standard table games - with real cards, actual dice, etc. - there are only computers and video-poker style games at Cherokee. And as much as I love technology, I don't trust it for gambling. At. All. There are just too many possibilities to manipulate the outcome.
Granted, anyone can learn to cheat at dealing cards; there are ways to make loaded dice and fixed slot machines (I don't play slots either). But the big, legal brick-and-mortar casinos around the country, with standard table games, have a bigger measure of responsibilty. You can still lose your ass playing there.
But those casinos depend on their reputations to survive; in my experience, if you think there's a problem or an inconsistancy with a game, you can have it addressed immediately and thoroughly.
Try that with a gaming website based on a Pacific island.
In t3h beginning, there was the Web. And it was good.
Now, we've got an age of popups, popunders, sliding layers, things that flash in our faces, things that try to install spyware, ads that incessantly try to place cookies on our machines, etc. People are fed up.
So, the next step will be even tougher ad-blocking. Forget simple (and ever-less-effective) popup-blocking, I'm waiting for the version of Firefox, or the plugin, that offers Proxomitron-style dynamic recoding / blocking of selected content, not to mention more privacy-protecting features. Here's a for-instance: on-the-fly recoding of cookies. Doubleclick.net wants to set a cookie? Replace it with a standard "junk" cookies, so that millions of machines suddenly report that they belong to Johndoe@doubleclick.net... making their tracking data less than useless.
It'll happen. And sure, we'll see some of the big-name providers start to use more intrusive ads and charge for some services. People will adapt. The Onion used to have free content and few ads. Now they have annoying pre-mercials and they charge for archive access. I rarely visit The Onion anymore.
And I'm sure the New York Times and other news providers will likely start charging for premium content; the "free reg required" will give way to something like $12 a year, then $4 or $5 a month, and then it'll grow from there. That's the way of things.
There's a South Park episode where the citizens kill Wal-Mart and shop at the small-town drugstore, which then becomes a supermegastore the same as Wal-Mart and then has to be killed... and the cycle continues. Thus with the Internet. If the current news sites start charging monthy subscription rates, free ones will appear; if Yahoo and Gmail started charging for their services, more free e-mail would appear.
Doubleclick, just like the RIAA/MPAA and Microsoft and everyone else, is just a cog in the machine. And just like a part in a machine, it seems the whining and grinding often gets louder just before the part wears out for good.
I agree, to a point. MS involving themselves with P2P opens a brand-new field of pros and cons. The good news: Any MS-bred P2P app will help legitimize the technology. But there's also a lot of bad news: what if we see M$ P2P apps that somehow set themselves up as "defaults" a la IE, and/or hijack functionality / block other programs?
And what about MS' "corporate responsibility" to stop copyright infringement? Let's say you download a torrent and try to open it; but instead of BT or BitLord or whichever flavor you're using, an "Avalanche" window opens, because it has associated itself with.torrents. Then, a message box opens: CSI_s3ep24_tvrip_xvid.avi is a copyright protected file. This download has been aborted; your IP address has been logged. If you have any questions, please go to [address of anti-piracy site here].
This is a little far-fetched, but then again, it might not be so far off.
Bottom line? MS might do a good job of popularizing and, to an extent, legitimizing the underlying principles of P2P. But I don't trust 'em as far as I could throw 'em, as far as their role as a content distributor is concerned.
Bonus, you get all the extras, like the gag reel, and the behind the scenes stuff.
Actually, the *full* gag reel is floating around on the 'Net. It's about 2x longer than what you saw on the DVD, and contains quite a bit of profanity and one bit (a play on the opening credits) that would have been hard-core copyright infringement had it gone on the commercial DVD.
It's quite amusing. You can find it floating around p2p land, and I'm sure there's a torrent out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it April 1st already?
I am a freelance writer. Most of the time, I contract with my newspaper to sell a stories (and the rights thereto) to that one publication. Yet when I search for myself on Google these days, I find more and more links to the full text of my articles on Web sites with names like "freebizarticlessourcedestination.com" (* not sure if that's a real site; I use that name purely for example).
And, more and more often, my name shows up attached to the story without the name of the publication.
Seeing this on some guy's shill site irks me, even though legally it's not my problem - I sold the rights to that story, it's the newspaper's story now. Even so, this reflects on me when it appears I may have written this story for the site in question. I don't write "content" for Web sites; I write for newspapers as a freelance journalist. And I don't like the thought of my work being plagiarized or repackaged, in general, although at this point the money is less of an issue than the annoyance of it being taken out of context.
I can understand this poster's frustration. Those of us who read between the lines in such matters (and, as a college English teacher, it's my job) would say that it smacks of laziness to use poor grammar, especially when attempting to come across as a professional in what is supposed to be a forum for professionals (despite the fact that the noobs and grammar police are here, too).
Check any guide that lists Modern Language Association (MLA) style for written English, which is the set of guidelines for formal writing that a large percentage of humanities students in the United States (supposedly) are taught in high school and college.
Of course, this is a programmers' website, so YMMV. ;-)
"Say there, Mister Content Provider, that's sure a nice video you tryin' to send. Be a shame if anything was to, you know, happen to it...
Think about it:
(1) Sony is affiliated with Sony Pictures and has ties within the film and TV world;
(2) Sony uses that influence to negotiate rights for UMD / PSP versions of movies dirt-cheap - practically give 'em away. New releases at $6-$8 a disc; older stuff, $2 or $3. Enough to cover production. So what if they take a loss on the rights? They'll get it back in sales of units.
(3) The format's pretty secure, so piracy is a marginal issue - and the inexpensive price makes it hardly worth the time to rip and burn if you could, unlike discs that cost between $18-$20.
(4) The ability to use the PSP as a dirt-cheap portable movie player - and a little strategic marketing in the right places could help parents see this as a Good Deal ("it does more than play those damned games, we can watch movies on it, too..."
(5) They let other movie studios start making UMD movies also; they license out UMD to some cheap Taiwanese outfit and make some $60 - $80 UMD movie players and sell 'em at Wal-Mart. They let the format spread itself around. They keep the money in the game market and the PSP-2 or whatever the next item is.
(6) Profit - not mega-millions, but not the loss that the current situation is likely to be.
I'm sure there are some flaws in my idea and I'm sure someone will point them out. But in the end, somebody dropped the ball here big time. I love the PSP; it's a neat toy. But I've never bought a single movie for it; in fact, I saw this coming and told my friends to expect it - dropping the movies inside of a year - and I said that the first time I saw a UMD movie at a Goddamned Wal-Mart with a $20 price tag.
But, I think that if Sony came back at it, even now, and tried this strategy, it could work. Even this late in the game, with the right promotion and presentation. But it's a good idea, so, fat chance of that happening, eh?
Bleeding edge gamer: "Hey, guys? I'm about to start Doom 3! Activate the Quad SLI!"
Gamer's best bud: "Commence primary ignition!"
Dude's buddy flips switches to crank up liquid nitrogen pump and nuclear power-plant tie-in.
Sound of neighboring houses' power being drained: Beeooooooooooo...!
Other buddy looks away from the see-thru case mod, and covers his eyes...
Yeah. Something like that.
[1]In those days Da-than begat Yo-nah, which was the fruit of his circuitboard, strong by nature and a good processor. [2]Now Da-than looked on Yo-nah and said, "Yea shall I call you the Slayer of the Amd-ites, for thou shalt go out into their pastures and you shall slay their benchmarks utterly; [3]for thou art pleasing and art born of good silicon." [4]But Yo-nah saw, when he went out into the land of Cun-sumer, how despised he was among the buyers of chips; and he did gnash his teeth and beat his transistors saying: [5]"Oh wherefore was I not left dead on the test-bench and why was my die not broken the day I was born? [6]for I am inferior to my brethren the Amd-ites who run much better than I and cost way the hell less." [7]And he went out into the dust and wandered for a year, until the new product cycle taketh him away.
(It'd make a cool Star Trek episode, maybe. If for no other reason than to see the alt-Bill Gates with a goatee.)
Their name is still connected to this product, by way of iTunes. So, logically, if people's only experience with iTunes comes by way of the ROKR and that experience is a negative one, logically that's going to lead customers to respond by going elsewhere for music and for a portable music player.
The idea that people might get a ROKR and say "wow, this is cool, I want to buy an iPod now" seems more plausable - as does the idea that more people than you might realize are going to shy away from the all-in-one gadgetization of the phone (with cameras, mps players, video / TV etc.) I am one of those people who would rather have three devices that do their respective functions very well than one that does three different things in a mediocre way.
And just think of all the fun Internet content we're missing out on because of that:
www.WaffleHouseWaitresses.xxx
www.OverweightDeerHuntersFromAlabama.xxxn nyMetrosexualsWhoThinkGirlsAreImpressedByHomemadeP orn.xxx
www.JanetReno.xxx
www.Ski
If it keeps THAT kind of smut off the web, then by God I hope we keep control for a long, long time!
Agree with him or not, if someone was trying to censor Thompson, I would be against it. The crux of my post was that he's going about his fight the wrong way, and that he's really just shooting himself in the foot.
What does this man think he's going to accomplish? His vitriolic actions are very unlikely to change anyone's mind about the issue of video game violence. I teach argumentative writing and rhetoric to college students; one of the first things we teach is to know one's audience. Very few people of the ultra-conservative persuasion, however, need to be persuaded - they already are fanatically against video games that contain violence, sex, etc.
And his tactics - wilfully distorting the truth, branding video game makers as murderers, setting up straw men to attack in his ravings about violent entertainment - well, I doubt anyone who's played the games he's targeting is going to burn their copy of GTA because of the things Thompson is saying.
Bravo, Penny Arcade, for helping him do what he'd end up doing anyway: alienating anyone who might have listened to a more logical or reasonable argument against game violence, and generating more media attention for Rockstar Games et al. so they will, in turn, sell more games and continue creating popular content. For a lawyer, Thompson seems to have missed that one little maxim: "any press is good press."
Also note that this affects only people who are go-betweens for other customers, NOT your typical homemaker or hobbiest who just discovered that Aunt Ida's prized mathom is going for $5,000 online.
Studios frequently screen films to gauge audience reaction; I've never heard of variable cuts being screened but I wouldn't put it past Whedon & co to do just that - especially when they're making something geared toward growing popularity out of a cult following. Joss has a lot riding on this; if you read his blogs and other interviews, you see that the desire to make sure the largest number of fans can understand and get into what's happening is very important to him.
To offer another example of how screenings affect movies: I have always heard that audience reaction to Spock's death in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan when it was screened caused the filmmakers to go back and re-edit so that there was an easy way to bring him back in a sequel.
I don't know if there were eight versions, but, I wouldn't be surprised if there were several different variations. I think that anticipation of fans' reactions (and wanting to have enough time to alter the film, if needed) had to play some role in the choice to screen the movie to so many people so far in advance.
It is NOT the place of the FBI to investigate such things. Even if you happen to believe that adult-focused pornography of any type is "wrong" - even if you don't happen to agree that pornography should be viewed as "free speech" - this is not a matter for the Federal government to legislate or investigate. States and municipalities, not the Federal government, ought to be the ones entrusted with such decisions IF they are to be made at all.
Next election, please help vote these Patriot Act-slinging, big-government loving pols out of power. We need less of them.
When they came for the people who were camming movies in the theaters, I said nothing, because I didn't watch crappy reencoded cams.
When they came for the people leaking the screeners, I said nothing because I never watched them: I hated that stupid time-counter at the top of the screen.
When they came for the P2P filesharers, I said nothing because I never downloaded movies: I hated the hassle and could never find what I wanted.
Now they're coming for my fair-use rights, and I can't watch anything at all.
Come to think of it, why the hell isn't the UN trying to do this already? Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?
Why have you stopped playing?
I never started - online gambling, that is. I live in North Carolina, where draconian laws prohibit gambling (even private poker games and sports pools - as our newspapers helpfully remind us every time a major sports tournament is upcoming). So I gamble when I travel, because I love to play blackjack and craps. I've won a little bit of money here and there over the years - $50-100 at a time, nothing major, and it's fun because I know how to play sensibly.
However, we do have one casino, of sorts, in NC - on the Cherokee reservation in the western part of the state. But I have never gone there and I never will, for the same reason I will never gamble online.
Because instead of standard table games - with real cards, actual dice, etc. - there are only computers and video-poker style games at Cherokee. And as much as I love technology, I don't trust it for gambling. At. All. There are just too many possibilities to manipulate the outcome.
Granted, anyone can learn to cheat at dealing cards; there are ways to make loaded dice and fixed slot machines (I don't play slots either). But the big, legal brick-and-mortar casinos around the country, with standard table games, have a bigger measure of responsibilty. You can still lose your ass playing there.
But those casinos depend on their reputations to survive; in my experience, if you think there's a problem or an inconsistancy with a game, you can have it addressed immediately and thoroughly.
Try that with a gaming website based on a Pacific island.
We used to get up every morning at six a.m., set up all the bricks to be broken, and then beg tuppence off of passersby to use for coins in the game.
But you try 'n tell that to kids today, an' they won't believe you!
In t3h beginning, there was the Web. And it was good.
Now, we've got an age of popups, popunders, sliding layers, things that flash in our faces, things that try to install spyware, ads that incessantly try to place cookies on our machines, etc. People are fed up.
So, the next step will be even tougher ad-blocking. Forget simple (and ever-less-effective) popup-blocking, I'm waiting for the version of Firefox, or the plugin, that offers Proxomitron-style dynamic recoding / blocking of selected content, not to mention more privacy-protecting features. Here's a for-instance: on-the-fly recoding of cookies. Doubleclick.net wants to set a cookie? Replace it with a standard "junk" cookies, so that millions of machines suddenly report that they belong to Johndoe@doubleclick.net ... making their tracking data less than useless.
It'll happen. And sure, we'll see some of the big-name providers start to use more intrusive ads and charge for some services. People will adapt. The Onion used to have free content and few ads. Now they have annoying pre-mercials and they charge for archive access. I rarely visit The Onion anymore.
And I'm sure the New York Times and other news providers will likely start charging for premium content; the "free reg required" will give way to something like $12 a year, then $4 or $5 a month, and then it'll grow from there. That's the way of things.
There's a South Park episode where the citizens kill Wal-Mart and shop at the small-town drugstore, which then becomes a supermegastore the same as Wal-Mart and then has to be killed ... and the cycle continues. Thus with the Internet. If the current news sites start charging monthy subscription rates, free ones will appear; if Yahoo and Gmail started charging for their services, more free e-mail would appear.
Doubleclick, just like the RIAA/MPAA and Microsoft and everyone else, is just a cog in the machine. And just like a part in a machine, it seems the whining and grinding often gets louder just before the part wears out for good.
Disclaimer: I work at MSN
Son, you'd best get outta town. Them men over there wit' th' penguins on their jackets just drew a bunch of guns.
Slashdottersville: Where The Good Guys Wear Red Hats
I agree, to a point. MS involving themselves with P2P opens a brand-new field of pros and cons. The good news: Any MS-bred P2P app will help legitimize the technology. But there's also a lot of bad news: what if we see M$ P2P apps that somehow set themselves up as "defaults" a la IE, and/or hijack functionality / block other programs?
And what about MS' "corporate responsibility" to stop copyright infringement? Let's say you download a torrent and try to open it; but instead of BT or BitLord or whichever flavor you're using, an "Avalanche" window opens, because it has associated itself with .torrents. Then, a message box opens: CSI_s3ep24_tvrip_xvid.avi is a copyright protected file. This download has been aborted; your IP address has been logged. If you have any questions, please go to [address of anti-piracy site here].
This is a little far-fetched, but then again, it might not be so far off.
Bottom line? MS might do a good job of popularizing and, to an extent, legitimizing the underlying principles of P2P. But I don't trust 'em as far as I could throw 'em, as far as their role as a content distributor is concerned.
Bonus, you get all the extras, like the gag reel, and the behind the scenes stuff.
Actually, the *full* gag reel is floating around on the 'Net. It's about 2x longer than what you saw on the DVD, and contains quite a bit of profanity and one bit (a play on the opening credits) that would have been hard-core copyright infringement had it gone on the commercial DVD.
It's quite amusing. You can find it floating around p2p land, and I'm sure there's a torrent out there.