Moore Approves Fahrenheit 9/11 Downloads 1417
13.7BillionYears writes "The Sunday Herald reports that Michael Moore has expressed his approval of Fahrenheit 9/11 being downloaded through networks like BitTorrent and eDonkey2000. He also champions a very Lessig-esque outlook in his reasoning. Quentin Tarantino's earlier support for such practices is also mentioned. Meanwhile, Lion's Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice."
Re:Post your Torrent Links, folks! (Score:4, Informative)
well in that case: (Score:4, Informative)
Have fun (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)
Google'd for a torrent (Score:2, Informative)
http://66.90.75.92/sup
Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Informative)
It's [66.90.75.92] marked as "Cam" on suprnova even though the description says "Screener on DVD". Since it's not on vcdquality, I'm not going to 'risk it'. mis-labeled downloads are all too common. I'll wait for a proper release.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2042/Fahren
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2031/Fahren
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2046/Fahren
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/1888/fahren
Sorry, Suprnova.org.
Re:Yes, its ILLEGAL (Score:3, Informative)
So, those interests most likely don't want to see their businesses undermined by downloading. It's amazing that Lions Gate's current stand is a "no comment" because they don't want to get into a public fight with their star director.
Moore and the truth (Score:2, Informative)
The linked article was written by Dave Kopel a former Assistant Attorney General of Colorado. He is a libertarian. Like Michael Moore, he endorsed and voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, so he's hardly a firebreathing Republican (though some of the magazine he publishes in are right-wing)
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:5, Informative)
[1] An interview with an Iraqi woman where the subtitles are off the bottom of the screen.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)
2 is the same cam except ready to be ripped onto a DVD.
5 is the trailer only.
Re:well in that case: (Score:2, Informative)
Ignore it. It's a BOOTLEG. Unless you enjoy looking at a shaky recording of a recording with poor audio.
Re:Torrent (Score:5, Informative)
My favorite is Azureus [sourceforge.net] although it uses java and is a resource hog.
Original client--no bells or whistles [bitconjurer.org]
Experimental client with some speed controls [kefro.st]
Inaccuracies In Farenheit 9/11 (Score:2, Informative)
The movie is factual (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If Michael Moore wants it this way... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:what is the story? (Score:3, Informative)
Grated, they would like to see a bigger profit, but they would rather get future Moore films than lose some money from people downloading it.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)
Before Bowling for Columbine he might not have. Moore agreed to speak for an hour at Hendrix College (where I attend), booked eighteen months in advance for $50,000 plus expenses. A few months after Bowling for Columbine hit theaters, he changed his price to $120,000 for that same hour of whatever he wanted to talk about. Needless to say, Hendrix's strongly liberal-minded campus and its conservative surrounding cities did not get to see him that year.
I know this because I did bitch work for one of the guys who booked the college's special events. It's also worth noting that Hendrix never charges admission for any of its events, though students do get priority.
Obligatory torrent links (Score:1, Informative)
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2
Fahrenheit 9/11 Screener on DVD
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2042/F
Re:Fahrenheit 9/11 on suprnova.org (Score:5, Informative)
The ip may change, so YMMV
Re:It's still illegal, dude (Score:4, Informative)
Use BitTornado not Eike Frost's (Score:4, Informative)
The bittorrent client available at ei.kefro.st is banned on many trackers because it's over a year outdated. Use BitTornado [bittornado.com] instead.
Re:French Bashing (Score:3, Informative)
Distributors are looking into legal action. (Score:4, Informative)
It's the distributors' movie, And they don't want it downloaded [p2pnet.net].
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:fuck moore (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:3, Informative)
Moore makes no mention of wanting a profit or considering the online version only a sample designed to generate more profit for him. If that was his belief, he should have stated it. Instead, he talks about "wanting the world to change" and "sharing". If he truly believes this, he should release a high quality version of his movie on the P2P networks (he already has an absurd amount of money, why does he need more?), otherwise he is just talking about things which are outside his control and isn't backing up his statements with actions.
Re:Without France, the US might never have existed (Score:3, Informative)
That was the French monarchy. The complaints are usually aimed at the cowardice and weakness of the French republic which didn't emerge for at least a decade after that (1789?).
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:3, Informative)
Believe me, I'd love to see a small DivX or Xvid rip, but can you see lamers [restlessmind.com] using transcode [uni-goettingen.de]?
The reason so many CAM and TeleSync rips are distributed as VCDs is for the convenience of end users - 'hang the quality, let's get it out there and get people watching it'. And with TV resolution at 352x288, who can blame them?
The multipart rar-chives? Well, from what I've been told, it's to let a legion of 0wnz0red boxes on xDSL connections be as useful as a single big server on a T3, by distributing the bandwidth requirement. I agree though, it's still very annoying, especially on a slow machine (takes time to unroll) or with low disk space (effectively, you need double the space to d/l and then unroll).
Not A Screener (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Non, merci (Score:2, Informative)
Argument by assertation, um... false dilemmas (essay good, movie bad)..ad hominem there too.
I think he does care about money, as his not-quite-middle-class lifestyle would suggest. In this case, more people being swayed to his cause is worth more to him in the long run than some quick cash. He has his priorities in order.
If advocate of sub-wealthy then themselves sub-wealthly. If not subwealthy, then not an advocate of subwealthy. One of those if A = B, then if not A, not B or vice versa. Complicated, but a non sequitor nonetheless.
Answer me this: if I make a movie that has loads and loads of fabricated bullshit, but I make a lot of people cry with it, does it deserve a Golden Palm? Is being "moving" and "passionate" more important than being factual and reasonable? It sounds like you think the answer ot that question is yes, though I imagine that you would qualify it with a statement like, "...yes, but only if the said movie advances the superstitious beliefs that I adhere to!"
You are forcing the the interviewee to accept your premises before asnwering your question. You are begging the question.
No, thank you. The movie is based on presuppositions that I reject. You can't get a true conclusion from a false premise, so why should I waste my time seeing this pile o' poo? To see some "moving" scenes? There are plenty of movies that provide that without having to endure stupid, Leftist progaganda.
Um.. appeals to emotion flambee. A veritable buffet of ad hominem.
Isn't it obnoxious when people just point out logical fallacies and then run away to spread their own brand of fallacious, captious reasoning elsewhere? What logical fallacy am I perpetrating here?
Re:The movie is factual (Score:1, Informative)
The US effort in Afghanistan was not enough. If the amount of troops and money we've spent in Iraq went into Afghanistan and the border region with Pakistan, we'd be more secure.
Bush isn't interested in security.
Documentary? (Score:1, Informative)
It's a propoganda film for one particular political point of view.
What facts that there are in this movie are colored through that prism.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not a documentary (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Does Moore Own It? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY! (Score:4, Informative)
Nobody said it is...
primary sources (Score:2, Informative)
If you're going to refute a person's work, then take the time to go to primary sources; the victims, the subjects, the documents, etc., and present them for review.
Re:And the truth doesn't matter in the process!!! (Score:5, Informative)
I read through the list and, though some of the points are highly interesting (for example, the "My Pet Goat" scene [by the way, the book is actually called "The Pet Goat", so I guess Michael Moore tried to deceive us again!] and how the teacher actually comended Bush's actions), most of the points are irrelevant. Take the one straight off the top. Fahrenheit 9/11 opens with a scene of Ben Affleck, Al Gore, etc. all celebrating under a banner that says "Florida Victory". The link you sent us to points out that the celebration was pre-election results in Florida and that Michael Moore is thus deceitful in trying to paint it like it's not.
But the stakes of the claim are zero. Who cares if it was pre-election? It's not deceitful, it's a matter of making a movie that's interesting. What is important, in the documentary, are the real facts asserted. For example, if the scene where members of congress futilely protested Bush's appointment to the presidency turned out to be fake or something, then an important argument had been made.
Plus, some of the "Deceit" claims are just plain ol' wrong. For example: "Moore Claimed that Osama bin Laden Might be Innocent and Opposed the Afghanistan War". I saw the movie a few days ago, and I don't think I forgot or missed much, but at no point of time do I remember Moore making the claim in the movie. Outside the movie, he didn't claim Osama bin Laden was innocent, but that the American way means we have to assume so until the facts come out against him. When Christopher Hitchens said "Something--I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now--has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell", he's full of it. We obviously have learned a lot more since the initial September 11 attacks, including more evidence to implicate Osama bin Laden. That may have fulfilled Moore's requirements for "till proven guilty".
The list goes on and on. Much of the "deceits" consist of agreeing that what Moore says is right (about the PATRIOT act, for example) but then saying "well, Clinton was involved/did something similar/etc" which is a common defense to any criticism of the Bush administration. Just because someone crticizies the Bush administration doesn't mean they love Clinton. Moore included.
Plus, how is this argument: "He shows Britney Spears saying she supports the President on Iraq. As if there weren't a host of brain-dead bimbo celebs, (Madonna, Sean Penn, Russell Simmons, Lenny Kravitz, Susan Sarandon, The Dixie Chicks, etc.), spouting off on the other side." the exposition of a deceitful aspect of Moore's film? He wasn't trying to hide the fact that they did, nor did he push an implication that they didn't. Obviously the movie is going to better represent his "side".
Take the documentary "Fog of War", for example. There was a driving theme to that whole documentary. Therefore, all the clips from McNamara and from elsewhere were chosen to promote that theme. If I say down and made an argument that everything should have been put in full context and every detail included, then the theme crumbles. Obviously there is another side for every assertion. I didn't see Fahrnheit 9/11 to learn that. I wanted to here one side make it's argument. The other side can have it's chance too.
This story is fake, ./ duped again. (Score:2, Informative)
Link to CNN.com story. [cnn.com]
Learn how to use a dictionary already (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's the definition of the adjective form of the word "documentary", not the noun form, which is what we are discussing when we talk about "a documentary".
Don't believe me? Look for yourself [reference.com].
I knocked down this little bit of selective mis-definition in an earlier thread [slashdot.org]... the fact that it keeps popping up when it is so obviously wrong indicates that either many people here need to learn how to use a dictionary, or they need to learn how to do more than just parrot Republican talking points.
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a link explaining how Moore's alleged stance on copyright issues is being used to damage the profitability of the film:
Link to CNN.com story. [cnn.com]
Re:Not surprising... (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, triumphing by a scant $10 mil over the much anticipated The Notebook, which Ebert gave 3.5 stars. What an accomplishment for Michael Moore.
FYI:
White Chicks: 2726 theaters
The Notebook: 2303 theaters
Fahrenheit 9/11: 868 theaters
Revenue per theater:
White Chicks: $7218
The Notebook: $5846
Fahrenheit 9/11: $27558
Re:Ahistorical and ungratefull (Score:5, Informative)
The French were using tanks in an infantry support roll. The total number of French tanks was about equal to the number of German tanks, but spread across the entire defensive line in groups of one or two per mile. The Germans concentrated their entire tank force into one area and smashed through. Once the line was broken, they were able to attack the rest of the line from the rear.
Or, in terms better understood by the Slashdot community, the French bunker line was 0\/\/n3z by a Zerg rush early in the game.
Re:The movie is factual (Score:3, Informative)
Christopher Hitchens is NOT a conservative. He's an English socialist who has written extensively for magazines such as The Nation. However, he has been very critical of his colleagues' responses to the War On Terror. He feels that a liberal isn't just someone who wants an economically just society, but someone who wants to guarantee the essential freedoms that are curtailed in many Muslim countries (rights of women and homosexuals, freedom of religion, etc.).
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fahrenheit 9/11 on suprnova.org (Score:3, Informative)
URBAN LEGEND: Karzai never worked for UNOCAL (Score:1, Informative)
Interview with UNOCAL. [emperors-clothes.com]
One unsubstantiated Le Monde article was all the "evidence" ever provided.
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:1, Informative)
Anyway, I applaud Michael Moore for taking this stance. Having seen the last film, and the sites citing errors, ommisions and downright duplicity in the films I was going to not bother watching this one. Since it is now legal to watch over BT I'll definitely pull a copy and give it a watch on the hope he has something interesting to say without his grandstanding and stunts.
Re:Ahistorical and ungratefull (Score:2, Informative)
Adolf and co. say, "Hey lets go through Belgium. There is no wall and no heavy artillery there."
Pierre replies, "Shit we forgot about the Belgian border."
Rar's ISO's is pretty standard... (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, this is normal. What's annoying is when somebody hosts a torrent that is the RAR files and not the uncompressed BIN/CUE's. The pirating group never goes so far as to release the thing onto torrents or such. They're sending files between ftp sites, usually on hacked systems or other systems with big fat pipes and lots of storage. They use tools that let them FTP between sites (similar to FSP), and sometimes from multiple sites (this is where having many RAR files comes in handy) to saturate bandwidth on the receiving sides.
Sometimes this is even automated. Those tools are pretty nifty, actually. You feed it a list of sites and a list of files. It FTPs the whole thing to the first site, then uses FSP to copy it to the second site (much faster than directly FTP'ing it there), then uses FSP to send it to the third site from both of the first two sites simultaneously, and so on. By the time it's done, 20-30 sites can have the thing, and it didn't take any longer than it would have took to send to 3 or 4 of them directly, thanks to the FSP using direct connections between sites and the RAR's being split so that it can send from multiple sites at once. More complicated tools can improve on this by transferring to many sites at once from many other sites and maximizing bandwidth on all of them.
In any case, these sites then get distributed to others via IRC, and people download the thing from these sites, and put it onto their 0-day hookups. This goes on for a bit, and then it eventually filters down to people who might actually watch the movie. Up until now, it's just people trading files because they like trading files fast. They might never actually use those files. Anyway, once it makes it onto sites where people will actually download the thing and thus watch it, it often goes from there onto the P2P networks. Some guy makes a Torrent out of it, somebody sticks it onto Usenet, etc, etc. Often it'll hit newsgroups before it gets made into a torrent somewhere. But by the time it's a torrent, you're at least 4-5 generations away from the original pirated site transfers.
This is so commonplace that tools exist to deal with the multiple layers of formatting. I suggest getting a copy of VCDGear (search google). It can convert RAR'd BIN/CUE's directly into MPG files for viewing. One step, instead of two or three.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
From Moore's own site [fahrenheit911.com]: © WESTSIDE PRODUCTIONS, LLC 2004 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The trailers don't say the copyright, but they do say "A DOG EAT DOG FILMS PRODUCTION".
To the other poster who said that Lions Gate Films says it's ok to download, keep in mind that while LGF is the worldwide distributor, other companies [imdb.com] have distribution in certain countries, and they might be pissed that Moore is saying "go download it".
Re:Not even Mel Gibson did this (Score:3, Informative)
NO, it's "technically" the equivillant to setting up your own printing press, manufacturing bibles, and giving them away.
Stealing is when you deprive someone of something they had. They had it.. you stole it, now you have it, and they don't.
Re:Stop pinning this on Bush. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:i saw it... (Score:3, Informative)
Frankly, I'm far more worried about a government that no longer even represents the majority of the people - they are obviously there to further themselves, not make the US better. If this kind of 'leadership' is allowed to continue, 5 years from now the US as it was designed will be on it's way out.
If being pissed off that government is being used as a tool for those in power to scratch the backs of their backroom pals and feather their nests, then a pompous fuck I am.
Yeah, I'll wear the T-shirt too...
Re:Makes sense. (Score:4, Informative)
Just because he has a message doesn't preclude him from wanting to make a buck.
Especially since if he doesn't, it'll become even harder for him to get a film out.
In addition, it's one thing for him to say he doesn't mind the 'pirates' and for Lions Gate to tacitly agree, but if he actually feeds the P2P network himself, he'll lose an important bargaining chip for when he wants to get his next movie out.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm using two pieces of information and putting them together. The first is Moore's claim that F911 is an "op-ed" piece [go.com].
Moore is quoted in this article as saying, "I would like to see Mr. Bush removed from the White House...It [the movie] is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."
The second, of course, is the definition of propaganda [m-w.com]: "The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person."
As you can see from the definition, even if the film contains nothing but fact, which is still being debated [contracostatimes.com], it can, and is, be done in a way so as to be considered propaganda.
So, as you can see, I'm not spreading lies, I'm spreading Moore's own words and using common meanings of words to understand what he says.
The fact that you bring up a source where he claims that the film is not propaganda reveals either that he doesn't know what the word means (which makes him uneducated at best, stupid at worst), or that he is contradicting himself (which makes him inconsistent at best, or a liar at worst, or perhaps it means that he has changed his mind about his own work between the two interviews).
Belloc
Re:Past week? (Score:2, Informative)
earning $50 million.
http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/wbotitle.p
Re:Not surprising... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Serious? (Score:3, Informative)
If you would have done the slightest bit of research whatsoever, you would have found that the 1's and 2's most likely do no affect the score very much. The scores are are not a median or average, they are weighted. Please see this [imdb.com] page
Re:Let's call Leftism for what it is (Score:3, Informative)
Christ you're an idiot. You say 'read up on discrete' (I assume you mean Descartes) and you don't even understand the most basic logic.
It isn't "HIV -> AIDS", the question is "AIDS -> HIV", which means if you have AIDS, you also have HIV. (It also says: if you have HIV, you may or may not have AIDS. If you do not have HIV, youd o not have AIDS)
Saying "HIV causes AIDS" is completly diffrent from saying "HIV implies AIDS", retard.
Re:Stop pinning this on Bush. (Score:2, Informative)
about this on google.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=b
Bush already knew about the first plane crash before he was in the school, and he sat there for 5 minutes flipping through a book after he was informed about it.
Re:Wrong (Score:1, Informative)
I don't think that is correct. I'm not 100% positive of the situation, but it seems to me that in order for distribution to occur in the first place, Bob and Harvey Weinstein had to buy the distribution rights from Disney. Copyright is the distribution rights (or more specifically, the "right" to "copy").
It seems to me that in the movie business, copyright tends to belong to those who fund the work, which in this case was Disney.
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:4, Informative)
The article goes on to describe the back and forth between supporters and detractors of the film and the almost "polticial campaign" behavior of both sides. This fight may be more significant than the actual Presidential campaign it is intended to influence.
Of course, Bush is planning the Second Korean War as we speak as his "October Surprise", so all this may become irrelevant - except to prove Moore was right.
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:3, Informative)
Excuse me? IRC networks don't actually handle the transfers, they merely facilitate the spread of information. IRC file transfers are actually direct transfers between source and destination.Uhh, it's still not legal, but the director and the distributor are just not going to give a damn about enforcing it unless someone starts sellign pirated copies
Re:What is Michael Moore's True Motive? (Score:3, Informative)
No, not quite. The federal election laws apply to advertising including images of candidates. Whether or not this will affect the advertising of F911 and it's subsequent DVD releases is something that the FEC is studying, but the DVDs (and VHSs) themselves are not threatened by any such action.
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:3, Informative)
I can't believe that people call this a documentary. Documentaries are supposed to be at least aiming for the truth. You should read this - http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
One of the more interesting points is that, while Richard Clarke is viewed as the hero in Moore's movie, it was him, and him alone who authorized the Saudi flights out of the US.
Of course, absolutely noone in the media ever mentions Gore's close ties with big oil, or the fact that he sold our Navy's national reserves to the company his Dad worked for, leaving us even more dependent on foreign oil than ever.
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:2, Informative)
My suggestion is if you choose to get your information about someones credibility, at least try to choose a credible source.
Got your facts right here (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceit