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."
Post your Torrent Links, folks! (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing says "I'm trading this" like a
F911 (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this would be a great place to link all your Fahrenheit 9/11 torrents!
I already saw Fahrenheit 9/11 in theatre, and it was truly amazing. I don't care if some of it was not factual, because the bulk of it is just too damn funny to worry about trivial he-said, she-said crap. Think for yourself, but also see the movie... it's amazing, imho. Quite a catalyst for provocative thought and discussion. It's not just funny, it's moving and sad, terrifying at times. The funniest parts are when they look at bush in his candid moments, when his true hick nature seeps through the $5000 suits he wears. I won't spoil it. I will say that during the film, they play audio of the 9/11 attacks over a black screen and people in the audience were crying, it was soooo moving, and sad. Now watch this drive!
So much for the MPAA... gosh it's nice to see their hands tied for a change.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:1, Interesting)
CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent? (Score:5, Interesting)
While this was intended to be funny, there is some seriousness here. If I were Moore, and my goal was widest possible distribution, not most money made, putting it up for P2P download is a great idea. However, having gone to the trouble to shoot and edit the movie with high enough quality for movie projection, I'd want the highest possible quality to be downloadable. So, if he were really interested, he'd upload a copy from the original sources.
Or, maybe Moore sees P2P as an advertising medium to drive sales of movie tickets? In which case, you'd probably want a low-quality CAM capture to be floating around the net.
Re:Beggars and Choosers (Score:3, Interesting)
Not all pirates are assholes... (Score:5, Interesting)
"I don't think there's really a single actor or director in the world who does not believe that if you don't combat piracy, it will devour you in the future."
I've seen this happen so many times that it's the norm for me. A group of my friends used to pirate movies/music/apps/games/etc back in our early days of college. While it is true that there were many things we didn't buy, there were also many things that we DID buy. my DVD collection grew greatly during this period, as did my CD collection and the number of games that I owned. I mean hell, I had a pirated copy of Warcraft III, yet I forked over the $80 to get the special edition of the game when it came out. Yes, there are those assholes who decide that they will never buy anything, but most pirates will pay for things that they really enjoy. Thus, in my experience, Valenti's assertion that piracy is the downfall of the industry is wrong. If they produced something that everyone wants to see or own and sold it at a reasonable price, then even the pirates would go out and buy it.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Interesting)
In the process to defend them they contradict themselves so badly!
An example was an article in a local newspaper on how Michael Moore is just another capitalist and while people watch his documentary he is making a fortune and blah blah blah...
Since when capitalism became such a bad thing?
Fox news, ABC, CNN etc etc etc are charitable institutions?
Why is it so hard to accept Michael Moore's news while "Live on CNN" is welcomed with a gaping mouth?
I guess I know now! Interesting, very interesting!
A positive side effect... (Score:2, Interesting)
what is the story? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's much more interesting that the studio is OK with this. I don't see how this benefits them in any way (unless all they do is activist films and don't care about their bottom line either). I'm curious to see how all this plays out.
Of course, the joke could be on us; perhaps Moore's next film will be about how downloaders are undermining the american way of life, or something to that effect. The fact that people will take time out of their busy schedules of pirating Spiderman2 and whatnot in order to download a long, mostly un-entertaining political polemic has interesting implications -- these aren't irresponsible kiddies (who couldn't care less about this stuff). These are adults who presumably have a conscience. Downloaders are everywhere.
Fahrenheit 9/11 director backs illegal not-for-pro (Score:3, Interesting)
But if the copyright owner backs it, then it's not illegal. Moore had the copyright to begin with, since he made the flick. But wait, he signed it away! So now he has to back people illegally distributing his own brainchild?
Or maybe, just maybe, he should have thought harder before he signed away our rights to some distributor. Disney, was it not? You know.. Extend-copyrights-"temporarily" over-and-over-again-Disney? That one.
Umm, stealing HOW? (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said, in the article, Jack Valenti is bleating on about how anybody who downloads any copyrighted work is an infringer/pirate/theif. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Moore has assigned distribution rights (ahem, COPY rights) to LGF, which should have final say as to how the work can be copied. LGF is basically saying "go at it", something which it has every right to do.
(Moore, on the other hand, does not have the right to officially say who can legally download what (since he does not hold distribution rights on his own movie, like nearly any movie/song), but thankfully his views and LGF's views are the same, so the point is moot.)
So in the broadest view, how is this even REMOTELY considered wrong?
Re:Beggars and Choosers (Score:2, Interesting)
Michaeal Moore as an agent of the company which owns the copyright has authorized the duplication of the said work. Any action brought against a sharer would be thrown out of court in light of Moore's public invitation to trading.
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
1355 Americans gave it a "1". 93 gave it a "2". I'm not sure what to think of those numbers. Of course, any accusation of "voting by principle" can also be applied to the other end of the scale.
Re:fuck moore (Score:2, Interesting)
Moore's next film (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't make expensive movies that suck. (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't believe people say stuff like this.
a) matinees exist. try to see a movie before 6pm sometime, pay half the price. I know they try to configure their timing such that this is difficult, but if your job is flexible and you want to see a movie after work without paying an arm and a leg, go in earlier.
b) I don't know where you live, but here in Portland, Oregon we have dozens of second-run theaters of high quality, mostly of the McMenamins [mcmenamins.com] variety. You can drink hard cider (beer if you're into that shite), eat pizza or stuffed blue-cheese and carmalized onions hamburgers-- I digress. $2 to $4 for a movie. Only have to wait 3 to 4 weeks depending on the movie for it to get there.
Simple logic (Score:4, Interesting)
And the logic is simple: This movie is a COUNTER-PROPAGANDA. More people will see it, More people will be against Bush administration.
By the way, im sure that Moore's wish his movie to be broadcast on national television
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Interesting)
Documentaries certainly have points of view, and they always have. At least Moore's is blatant; the "objective" documentaries *still* have some slant, because they are made by humans and humans have opinions.
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush went to war in Afghanistan for an oil pipeline. Hey, it's a lie, but you know, that's just an insignificant nitpick
Moore argued something like this, but does that make it a lie? It's ridiculous on its face, but it's a case he tries to make, not something he states as fact.
Bush personaly approved flying Osama's family out of the country right after 9/11 when all other planes were grounded and without the FBI ever having the chance to question them. It's a lie, but, hey, you know, that's just an insignificant nitpick.
Weird how you accuse someone else of distortion while distorting them yourself. Does that make your head explode?
The bin Laden family were allowed via Executive authority out of the country before any other passenger flights were allowed back in the air. That really happened. People attacking this say, "oh well, he said they were allowed on 9/13, but flights were allowed then! A lie!" and hope that no one notices that passenger flights were not allowed on that day by just not bringing it up.
Re:Past week? (Score:1, Interesting)
Ahistorical and ungratefull (Score:3, Interesting)
If the French hadn't supported the American Independence in 1776 there's a great chance that America would still be part of the United Kingdom. ( An Outline of American History - Chapter 3: The Road to Independence [state.gov] )
Re:Not surprising... (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, and nobody cares where you're from unless you're also ethnocentric.
Au contraire, mon ami, the poster was no doubt referring to the fact that there is sustained, mindless France-bashing from many Americans
Oh there is a sustained anti-French bias coming out of the US these days, but it's not truly mindless. None of this justifies the very obvious anti-french bias in the US these days, and anyone who thinks that one doesn't exist is deluding themselves, but let's call a spade a spade.
It is very true that the French would not have been able to get themselves out from under the Nazi jackboot without outside help, (partially because many French citizens were wearing nazi jackboots themselves), and a significant portion of that help came from the USA. It is also true that French gratitude for having been liberated by allied forces including American forces was very muted at the time and has continued to be ever since. The French then and now preferred to pretend that the French resistance was the primary mover in kicking out the Nazi's. The fact that the French insistence on reparations after WWI being a not insignificant factor in the rise of Hitler is rarely mentioned.
It is also true that the anti-French bias in the USA has been long preceded by a virulent anti-American bias in France. France is a terribly ethnocentric country, and that is a large chunk of the reason why Americans are increasingly anti-French. There's an old proverb about reaping what you sow that may be applicable here.
Of course I'm a Canadian, so we're the masters of virulent anti-American bias. We can recognize it when we see it.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Inaccuracies In Farenheit 9/11 (Score:4, Interesting)
But for the sane, what it comes down to is that the level or questioning going on regarding the current administration is relevant.
That is, we can certainly do much better than to have an administration of such questionable intent.
Re:The movie is factual (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Not a documentary (Score:3, Interesting)
Hi! I'll be happy to rate your rating. I'm a meta-friendly-peudophilosophy-bullshit-meter.
Grandparent was initiating his response with a statement of contrary belief. It's not an argument. Not only is it okay, its the correct way to begin a critique.
I would accept that if:
1. Poster gave some statements in support of this position, and
2. Poster left out the "100%"
Since the poster merely made a statment and tried to "punch it up" by adding the "100%", I judge this to be argument by assertion.
Again, this clause is not an argument, nor does it attempt to unjustifiably make fun of you. He is stating, by his argument, that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary, then you do not understand what it is to be a documentary.
Ad hominem does not necessarily imply that the opponent must be "unjustifibly made fun of", as you claim. (I'd be interested to know what you think a "justified" mocking of one's opponent would be. Surely you're not going to sway many minds with *that* tactic!) By stating that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary then opponent does not understand what it is to be a documentary, poster is stating one of the following:
1. opponent is stupid (ad hominem)
2. opponent is uneducated (ad hominem)
3. opponent chose to believe false information (ad hominem)
Now, if you read the rest of his post, you'd find his argument.
Sorry, I couldn't get past his fallacies that you've failed to defend. But I'll go ahead and critique the rest.
His argument is that the movies cited are widely accepted as being documentaries,
"Widely accepted"? This is ad numeram or perhaps even ad verecundiam, depending on who is doing the "accepting".
and since Fahrenheit 9/11 displays more characteristics of a documentary than these movies, a fortiori, it is a documentary.
And yet poster failed to provide for us what he considers to be "characteristics of a documentary". Certainly those would be up for debate.
If you want to attack his argument, that's it.
I did! Poster didn't have much of an argument to attack. I dislike considering the arguments of those who can't seem to begin their argument without throwing in a couple of stupid, flawed arguments at the get-go. Doesn't that seem like a waste of time? You, however, are much more interesting.
Throwing around incorrect uses of informal fallacies isn't going to help you much.
I agree! Likewise, attacking the proper enumeration of informal fallacies with flawed arguments of your own will not convince me to your point of view.
Oh, I have to rate your rating. I rate it: not impressive.
Re:Let's call Leftism for what it is (Score:4, Interesting)
The sooner you realize that both wings of ideology are not rational in their beliefs, the sooner you can realize that both have some very valid portions in their arguements, and you can start sifting out the bullshit without having to assume left = hippy and right = nazi.
rejecting "leftism wholesale" is exactly the kind of unthinking, superstitious, emotional response you are attacking.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Interesting)
1 - Until Kerry accepts the nomination there exist no federally imposed limits on his spending. Those that exist after the nomination are voluntary though candidates are monetarily encouraged to accept them. Therefore, even if 911 ended with "I'm John Kerry and I approved this message" it's still perfectly justifiable as far as political speech goes.
2 - Documentaries have an opinion. We're socialized to believe otherwise because our first exposure to documentaries is generally in elementary school with a discussion of how babies are made, the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus, or the formation of stars or some such. Of course, all these documentaries have an opinion as well. Many would argue that the babies films indicate a difference between a fetus and a baby. It's worth noting that Columbus wasn't even the first European to set foot in the Americas and that many prefer Genesis to the gravitational condensation of gas as the reason stars form. (Wow, worst run on sentence ever)
3 - Integrity? Moore said he was producing a film that accused Bush of all kinds of insidious things. He produced the film. Gotta at least take the man at his word. Bush, on the other hand, pledged to reduce the size of the federal government and refrain from engaging in "Nation building." Hmmmm.... guess one of these two has been caught in a lie to two.
I'm not saying Moore's film isn't misleading. I'm not saying it's not propaganda. There is an art to arranging facts in a certain way so as to prove a point. There is a finesse in accomplishing that task in such a way as to leave your audience with an opinion that you never actually stated. Moore is a master of this technique. Nothing, and I say that after an appreciable amount of investigation, in Moore's film is untrue. Nonetheless, he has artfully arranged things to imply more than he says. Those implications are opinion, not fact. A wary observer will note the difference.
As for journalistic... your local newspaper publishes an editorial section. That's journalism too.
don't 'couNT' out the glowbull warmongerers yet? (Score:1, Interesting)
"We have a train wreck that's definitely going to happen,'' Harris said. ``We have conflict of interest, we've taken the checks and balances away, and we know the votes are already being miscounted fairly frequently. This is going to be huge.''
Harris, 52, didn't set out to become a muckraking voting technology expert.
Accustomed to working with manuscripts and authors in suburban Seattle, she preferred doting on her new grandchild to debating politics. She still doesn't vote regularly.
But when Harris was idly surfing the Web during a lunch break two years ago, she became obsessed with an issue essential to democracy, quickly becoming the unlikely center of a movement to ensure integrity in the nation's voting systems.
Critics say Harris, author of ``Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century,'' is a fear-mongering grandstander and a presumptuous conspiracy theorist. The prime target of one investigation -- voting equipment maker Diebold Inc. -- says her antics undermine democracy.
``We must not frighten voters or inadvertently provide any type of disincentive to voting,'' Diebold spokesman David Bear wrote in an e-mail when asked to respond to Harris' claims that the company's software is riggable and insecure. ``While security is an important issue
Others question the motives behind her obsessive investigations of politicians and executives at big voting equipment companies such as Diebold, Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. and Election Systems & Services Inc.
``She bases her whole theory on a continuous string of untruths,'' said Lou Ann Linehan, chief of staff for Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel. In the 1990s, Hagel headed voting equipment company American Information Systems Inc., which later became ES&S. Hagel maintains investments between $1 million and $6 million in McCarthy Group Inc., a private bank with a large stake in ES&S.
Harris, who dubs Hagel ``poster boy for conflict of interest,'' says the Republican did not disclose the extent of his American Information Systems involvement and questions whether a former executive of a company whose machines count votes in precincts nationwide should run for public office. Hagel's staff insist that his former career doesn't affect his political life.
``I don't know if it's sloppy research or she doesn't care,'' Linehan said. ``I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it because it's all so ridiculous.''
Criticism, as well as legal threats from ES&S, Diebold and other companies, has enervated Harris, whose blond hair turned completely gray last year. But legions of fans -- from New Zealand bloggers to respected computer scientists -- encourage her.
Exploiting the power of the Internet, Harris has created a Web site that documents hundreds of local, county and state elections that have been botched or contested because of flaws with voting software.
She details an incestuous web of voting company executives, politicians and election officials -- people who are often related or have worked for each other.
Her style is brash. She drives her Toyota Corolla and rental cars thousands of miles to ambush registrars in counties where election results didn't match exit polls.
Frustrated that few mainstream journalists have publicized her exploits, Harris once left voice mail for Washington Post star Bob Woodward. When he didn't call back, she trashed him in a Web forum called ``Media Whores Online.''
``It took me a while to recognize that despite her over-the-top personal style, she was doing valuable sleuthing,'' said Douglas Jones, associate professor of computer science at the University of Iowa and a member of Iowa's Board of Examiners for e-voting. ``But her style, which tends to be a bit alarmist and tends to appeal to conspiracy theorists, may be necessary to get the attention of the people who need to pay attention.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-P
Re:so-called deceits just spin (Score:1, Interesting)
What could have have done? Oh, let's see, he could have had a teleconference with senior members of NORAD and the FAA on the same call. Thanks to the 9/11 commission, we have learned this didn't happen until it was far too late because of incompatible crypto and because no one was around to say "screw crypto, this is too important".
If you check the 9/11 comission reports, it's pretty obvious no one was in charge even after Elvis left the building.
Re:THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY! (Score:2, Interesting)
MoveonPAC meeting with Michael Moore (Score:2, Interesting)
You know a movie has substance when people who haven't seen it are attacking it. The thing that has the Republicans scared is how this movey HAS swayed the American public already. There is report after report of staunch Republicans coming out of the movie saying that they can't support Bush.
Bush had better pardon himself for war crimes before he leaves office -- otherwise he may get a knock on the door. Maybe not now or in the near future, but the people of the world will not forget what his administration has done.
Downloading != Stealing (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because I downloaded the movie (for fear that it wouldn't be shown in my small town (which it very nearly wasn't)), doesn't mean I deprived anyone of anything.
Re:Past week? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd also like to see the audience breakdown from the first week. I haven't seen that yet. I saw it plastered around that the movie was packed even in "Republican strongholds." Well, of course. Even in Republican strongholds you have at least thousands of Democrats, and when you have the film showing on only a few screens it doesn't take many Democrats eager to see a "slam Bush" movie to fill the theater. It would be interesting to see if someone went on opening weekend and polled the peopl in line for their party affiliation. That would be a lot more interesting than "soldout shows in Republican strongholds" which is nothing more than a sound-byte.
If anyone has a link to that kind of poll, please let me know. I'd be interested in seeing it.
Re:Torrent (Score:1, Interesting)
It's available at http://pingpong-abc.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Re:MM is a terrorist (Score:2, Interesting)
Hooray, Free Crap...... (Score:1, Interesting)
How about the shill on the 9/11 committee who contributed the intelligence failure?
NOT!
More censorship El president'a Taco?
Re:The lies of Michael Moore (Score:3, Interesting)
SHOVELING COAL FOR SATAN: Christopher Hitchens collects check from Microsoft, calls Moore a coward [nypress.com]
read that article, please.
Not even Mel Gibson did this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Moore and the truth (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be different if the points that they dispute in the movie on their website were more relevant and not just trivial like 'Moore implies thisandthat but in reality it was slightly different', for instance:
It is interesting to compare: The critics [davekopel.com] [davekopel.com] with the The responses [michaelmoore.com] [michaelmoore.com].
I, for one, am very disappointed in the critic's points. Some of their points are in direct conflict with other points. For instance, they say special permission for the flights of the Saudis was not required because the flights were after Sept. 13th:
Yet in the next section they say that special permission WAS given by the white house, albiet signed by Richard Clarke, not Bush.
It all sounds so child-like: "He implies that the white house gave permission, but they didn't have to! And besides, the permission that the white house gave was signed by Clarke, not Bush, so there.."
All very subjective and internally inconsistent- just like the typical view of the problems of Moore's films.I have come to the conclusion that most people are stupid, it doesn't matter what side of the political fence that they are on.
--jeff++
Re:You wanna know lies? Why it's not a documentary (Score:3, Interesting)
So what if it is or isn't?
The only reason this "difference" is being flogged by the radicals is that it creates a patina, an aura, of "lying" by Moore. It's misdirection, in the same manner that Moore illustrated in the movie itself. Don't look at the elephant on the bed! Look at the dictionary! It's not an elephant by definition! It's a pachyderm!
Level-headedness shouldn't make you stupid. The facts in the movie are checked out. They are solid. What he documents happening, happened.
There is a difference between what O'Really and the radical right wing talkers do and what Moore does. Both are propagandists. The Right pretends to be fair, Moore does not. The Right has constant access to the airwaves, Moore does not. Bush and company lies, constantly, incontravertibly. Moore does not.
Moore is one man, and the radicals are legion. They are not equivalent.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Without the world, France might not exist today (Score:1, Interesting)
The shrill perennial cry from young Amercians who were born many years after WW2 was that they were fighting for freedom and the world owes them a debt of gratitude until doomsday.
where were the champion liberators of Europe in 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland and developed a war machine built on Jewish slavery?
Analysis of how F911's critics "expose lies" (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Standard right wing/conservative approach to dealing with issues: DON'T
Attack the messenger, ignore the message.
The vast majority of negative reviews of F911 tend to center around character assassination of Moore himself, rather than the issues raised in his movies:
2. Make outrageous claims with no intent to back them up:
3. "Post-hypnotic suggestions" - Tell people what they will think.
It's bad enough that any critic has the job of influencing people based on their opinion, but when they start telling you how you will react to the movie, they've gone too far:
4. Push the boundaries of hypocrisy
This great trick, perfected by Fox News with the advent of the "No Spin Zone" has been elevated to an art form by the Bush administration. Right wing pundits employ this technique more often than they whip out their American Express gold card:
Let's put thoughts in Michael Moore's head, then let's lambast him for putting thoughts in other peoples' heads. Then let's top it all off with a cherry:
Another reason people download... (Score:4, Interesting)
I honestly think some people -- maybe not the majority but a significant minority -- download movies, songs, TV shows, software, etc because they are addicted.
I'm willing to bet that everyone here knows at least one guy (or girl) who has hundreds of thousands of MP3s, some of which they've only listened to once. Or maybe someone who has dozens of complete TV series. You walk into these people's rooms and there are tons of 100 disc CD spindles sitting on shelves, completely burned and just collecting dust.
I have to believe in these cases that it's a form of internet cleptomania. Not the most damaging of disorders, but still not fucking right.
You don't see triple negatives every day... (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm still trying to figure out what the above post is supposed to be saying.
I've seen F9/11, and while I think it's a bit too heavy-handed in the propaganda department, I applaud Moore's attitude on P2P distribution.
Re:Without the world, France might not exist today (Score:1, Interesting)
WWI did not threaten the United States, and there was no overriding national interest in going over there. It was, bluntly put, military charity. Complaining we didn't enter early enough is a bit like complaining a gift isn't expensive enough.
In WWII we could have concentrated on defeating Japan before we ever sent a single person over to Europe. Since we are told repeatedly that the U.S. contribution was trivial and it was actually the Russians who defeated Germany, that shouldn't have caused any problems.
Re:You wanna know lies? Why it's not a documentary (Score:2, Interesting)
Um, I just told you Moore has stated he is making no claims that Fahrenheight 9/11 is rooted in impartial fact but is an op-ed piece. Hell, right now the Daily Show is running a rerun with Moore on it, and he says the same damn thing.
If you still think Bowling For Columbine is a documentary even after it's been proven he completely distorted facts [hardylaw.net], well, then clearly you're more concerned with believing what Moore tells you than what the facts are.
There is a difference between what O'Really and the radical right wing talkers do and what Moore does.
What does O'Reilly have to do with this? He makes it clear his show is an editorial commentary show. Not a documentary.
Both are propagandists. The Right pretends to be fair, Moore does not.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE, except that you agree with Moore and don't agree with the right. So suddenly, they're "pretending to be fair" and Moore isn't. Is that why Moore came out after Cannes and said his film was supported by facts and would go after anyone claiming otherwise with a suit of libel?
That's like MoveOn.org pretending to be fair. Surprise, surprise, people who believe in their opinions think they're being fair. You have chosen to adhere yourself to the left, and so you think they're fair.
The Right has constant access to the airwaves, Moore does not.
Give me a break. The journalism industry is dominated by liberals, and a recent poll even proved this. If a conservative filmmaker made a "documentary" that stretched the truth like Moore did, papers like the L.A. Times would be all over it. Hell, did you even know Moore gave back his documentary Oscar? Of course you didn't, because the liberal media didn't report on it. If a conservative filmmaker had done that, it would, again, be on the front pages as "SO-AND-SO GIVES BACK OSCAR."
Bush and company lies, constantly, incontravertibly. Moore does not.
Ah, and so your biased agenda emerges. You don't want to see truth, you just want to believe everything Moore says because, again, he tells you what you want to hear. I already gave you lies that Moore has told, including a link to an even bigger list on Bowling For Columbine as well as a Slate article that listed Fahrenheit 9/11's lies (Iraq never threatened a single American?).
After the 9/11 Commission determined that there was nothing wrong with the Saudi flights, suddenly Moore changed his tune, and the film was an "op-ed piece."
Moore is one man, and the radicals are legion. They are not equivalent.
You are biased. Believe what you want about Moore, even in the face of truth. I've offered you facts. All you've offered with your post can be summed up as, "Nuh-uh, the Right lies and Moore doesn't. So there!" You're sure convinced me.
Rent it? Not at Blockbuster... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Distributors are looking into legal action. (Score:2, Interesting)
It is their right (obligation) to distribute the movie in contractually-defined venues (theatrical release) in contractually-defined territories (for LGF most likely North America), for a contractually-defined length of time (X years). It is their right (some might say obligation) to defend their contracts, including defense against "piracy" (i.e. unauthorized distribution).
If you read the link in parent, it is also not clear that Lion's Gate Films (LGF) has expressed legal concern over unauthorized p2p distribution of the film. What they seem to be expressing concern over in that article are opponents of the film from inciting unauthorized distribution. At least that is my read. Sounds like idle threats mostly to me. The smartest thing they can do is encourage poor quality bootlegs so that people who might otherwise not have seen the film can see it, and perhaps later purchase tickets to see it on the big screen, with full resolution, sound, and with an audience.
I've long believed, as a filmmaker, that the smartest policy to combat "piracy" would be to let low quality dupes go unchecked and flourish, while vigorously controlling high quality distribution. That way the work can stand on its own merit, and what the distribution chain controls is quality not access. The Studio System (a) cannot think in these terms out of greed and lack of foresight, and (b) is so used to selling the public shlock that they dupe audiences into paying for in theaters that it is not in their best interests to give anyone advance access. IOW, most of the work turned out by the film industry is unable to stand on its own merits.
Re:the Clinton Chronicles (Score:4, Interesting)
Not that I believe any of that, but hey, if someone likes F911, maybe they'd like the Clinton Chronicles, too.
The key difference between left- and right-wing propaganda is that left-wingers will also criticize the Democrats and liberals if necessary. Moore has, and does, slam the Democrats. Al Franken has too. Mike Malloy did it. Randi Rhodes does it. Lots of "liberal" commentators do it regularly because they stand by principles, not a party. Can you cite an example of the producers of The Clinton Chronicles going after a Republican or a conservative on film like that? How about Ann Coulter? Rush? Sean Hannity? Ever hear those guys utter a single criticism of their own side? In fact, many of them stick to what's called Reagan's eleventh commandment: to speak no ill of fellow Republicans.
The difference between these two groups of commentators is striking and if you don't believe it, go look into David Brock's Blinded by the Right which gives an insider's account of the Republican smear machinery at work of which the Clinton Chronicles is a small part. Still, if it makes you feel good to equate someone like Michael Moore with the producers of the tripe called The Clinton Chronicles, then by all means, go for it.
Re:Rar's ISO's is pretty standard... (Score:4, Interesting)
- saturate bandwidth on the receiving sides
Actually, it tends to saturate bandwidth on all sides and right down the middle, too- Up until now, it's just people trading files because they like trading files fast.
It's a pissing a contest... who can transfer the file the fastest. They don't care what they are moving or who they may be hurting in the process. I sat and watched these idiots once... a dozen "people" all pushing the same file(s) to the same server; the first one to get the entire file there "wins". This is both stupid and wasteful.- Often it'll hit newsgroups before it gets made into a torrent somewhere
For some things, yes. But for more popular items, a torrent will ususally be available before it appears in part or whole on USENET. (I know, because I watch... and, sadly, usenet is faster than downloading via bittorrent. esp. from such places as suprnova)Re:You wanna know lies? Why it's not a documentary (Score:2, Interesting)
I was hoping someone would mention the Hitchens article, because it's just so comically baseless to anyone who actually reads it critically. [hollywoodbitchslap.com] To quote the link, "[Hitchens] claims lies have been told, but can only find one statement that could even be inferred as untrue - and even that's a stretch."
It's a laughing shame that anyone still takes that guy seriously.
Re:Rar's ISO's is pretty standard... (Score:2, Interesting)
This is offtopic (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:i'm lovin' it (Score:3, Interesting)
"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States
-- George Orwell, Orwell's Notes on Nationalism (May 1945)
[Some things never change. The usual left-looney game is to treat the United States, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, etc. as being completely morally equivalent. They are all equally as bad. If you truly believe this, then you need to take a step back and ask yourself, "When did I lose my marbles?".]
Re:Without France, the US might never have existed (Score:4, Interesting)
That is a pretty ignorant statement as you are ignoring a lot of French history after 1789. The biggest ommision is Napoleon. Did you not know that Napoleon Controlled most of Europe? He was also slugging it out with our main Enemy in the early 19th century, the English. Remember when the British invaded the U.S in 1812 and burned D.C.? France was anything but weak under Napoleon. You also seem to be ignoring the hardships that the French endured over the 19th and 20th century. The aftermath of the Napoleonic wars left France with an installed Monarch and a subsequent revolution in 1830. France dealt with a serious shortage of Men over the 19th and 20th century due to heavy losses in Wars, ( Napoleonic,Franco-Prussian, WWI and WWII ). It's hard to fight Wars when there are missing generations of Men.
I think your view of France has been shaped by the English. The English hate the French. They have a very big rivalry as they were at war with each other for hundreds of years. Much of our society and law have been influenced by the English. After all aren't most Americans more familiar with the Kings and Queens of England than of France? When you think of the middle ages and knights do you not think of King arthur and an English settings. The fact is the French and other European countries were more advanced at an earlier stage than the English. Just travel to England and France and compare the architecture and the time periods in which they were built. You will see that the French were more advanced in their architecture and building methods than the English. For more info on why the Brittish hate the French and vise versa.... theotherside [theotherside.co.uk]
Re:Rar's ISO's is pretty standard... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not good enough for you? Fuck you. I won't be encoding anything else.