Hi everybody. Long time, no see.

I'm not sure that this reached all corner of our beloved earth,
so I thought I would flash it. I know a lot of you guys are interested
in the unavoidable reformation of Copy right laws, in one way or the other,
and this is surely something that has brought up alot of discussions
on forums all over the internet.

The short story is, the Pirate Party in Sweden got 7.1% of the votes in
the recent EU election. That means that they are intitled to 1 chair in the
Swedish delegation. This is snipped right from 
http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/

"The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of 
the patent system, and ensure that citizens' rights to privacy are 
respected. With this agenda, and only this, we are making a bid for 
representation in the European and Swedish parliaments."

Now, wether you like their politics or not, this will create alot of 
discussions and stir up
the establishment (sounded a bit revolutionary there.. hehe) but that is 
exactly what we need.
Many of the newspapers here has waved it off as a bunch of free-loaders that 
just want
free movies to download. And yes, of course there are P2P:ers within the 
movement, but those also exist in any other political party.

I recently got banned from one of the bigger CG forums because I wrote that 
I think
the Entertainment industry doesn't take responsibility for it's products. 
It's a long story but
it all boils down to that I strongly feel that the Industry should be fined 
for lying in their
commersials. If a car manufacturer did the same (implied that the car would 
do 300 Km/h and bring light, happiness and tons of women into your life, 
where infact it only does 120 km/h on a good day) there would be an outcry 
and that would be banned. Why is the Entertainment industry allowed to 
continuously hype their products? When was the last time anybody saw a movie 
that lived up to it's trailers? We scream when Microsoft bend the minimum 
hardware requirement list but we allow Universal to paint up a picture of 
their new movie that it's just short of Mona Lisa as art.

Yes, I know, entertainment is subjective. But there are standards that most 
people agree on, and frankly, most of the mainstream rubbish that is pushed 
onto us today is not worth the paper the posters were printed on.

I just dont get it, want it and accept it any more. They live on the fact 
that people have to buy their products unseen and without warranty and of 
course they aren't interested in changing the laws. Of course one of the 
basic problems is that you have to experience the product before you can 
review it.

Been ranting a bit.. just wanted to bring it up here.

Regards,

Stefan

Post a reply to this message

"Stefan Persson" <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4a2e0a2a$1@news.povray.org...

> Hi everybody. Long time, no see.
>
> I'm not sure that this reached all corner of our beloved earth,
> so I thought I would flash it. I know a lot of you guys are interested
> in the unavoidable reformation of Copy right laws, in one way or the
other,
> and this is surely something that has brought up alot of discussions
> on forums all over the internet.
>
> The short story is, the Pirate Party in Sweden got 7.1% of the votes in
> the recent EU election. That means that they are intitled to 1 chair in
the
> Swedish delegation. This is snipped right from
> http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/

It's been posted earlier I think.

> It's a long story but
> it all boils down to that I strongly feel that the Industry should be
fined
> for lying in their
> commersials. If a car manufacturer did the same (implied that the car
would
> do 300 Km/h and bring light, happiness and tons of women into your life,
> where infact it only does 120 km/h on a good day) there would be an outcry
> and that would be banned. Why is the Entertainment industry allowed to
> continuously hype their products? When was the last time anybody saw a
movie
> that lived up to it's trailers? We scream when Microsoft bend the minimum
> hardware requirement list but we allow Universal to paint up a picture of
> their new movie that it's just short of Mona Lisa as art.

OK, I understand that freeloading generation sees any industry that actually
manufactures stuff as evil and all that, but this is by far the weakest
argument I've seen. What next, the book jacket police? Editorial police?
It's rather hypocritical that the same people asking for lawlessness when it
comes to protecting intellectual property so they can benefit freely from
other people's works are the very same people who want actual producers to
be handtied and drowned in legislature.

> Yes, I know, entertainment is subjective. But there are standards that
most
> people agree on, and frankly, most of the mainstream rubbish that is
pushed
> onto us today is not worth the paper the posters were printed on.

This coming from the very same people who keep stealing the very thing they
badmouth is not convincing. If it's rubbish, don't buy it. Speak with yout
wallet. But more importantly, don't steal it - that's a sincere form of
flattery. Again, supreme hypocricy.

If a movie makes 50 million a weekend, you can call it rubbish all you want
atop your high horse, but it shows people see value in it, and are willing
to pay for their enjoyment. Fortunately, you cannot legislate taste or force
yours on everybody else. Someone sells something, someone else buys it, what
is it to you? Of course unless you are a closet fan but too cheap or
embarrassed to get in on the action through normal/legal channels.

> I just dont get it, want it and accept it any more. They live on the fact
> that people have to buy their products unseen and without warranty and of
> course they aren't interested in changing the laws. Of course one of the
> basic problems is that you have to experience the product before you can
> review it.

Internet is the supreme platform for user reviews (you though I was going to
say stealing, right?). Every Joe and Jane and their dog posts their opinions
for every single thing under the sun, so even if you don't care for
professional reviews, there's absolutely no excuse nowadays to feign
ignorance about the wealth of information available. It seems that the more
information is available, the louder the whiners get about being kept in the
dark by the "evil media". Those theater and opera goers of centuries past
who had but just immediate friends and a couple of "mainstream" (hence evil,
by definition) newsprints available for reviews would cringe at the thought
of internet generation complaining that media companies are keeping them in
the dark. If you are concerned about wasting your time and money, just wait
*1 day* after a movie is screened for deity's sake - it won't kill you,
trust me.

> Been ranting a bit..

I see that, but you need more consistent arguments and/or pick your fight
more wisely and one at a time.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4a2e2473$1@news.povray.org...
> It's been posted earlier I think.

I had a quick look.. but couldn't find anything.

> OK, I understand that freeloading generation sees any industry that 
> actually
> manufactures stuff as evil and all that, but this is by far the weakest
> argument I've seen. What next, the book jacket police? Editorial police?
> It's rather hypocritical that the same people asking for lawlessness when 
> it
> comes to protecting intellectual property so they can benefit freely from
> other people's works are the very same people who want actual producers to
> be handtied and drowned in legislature.

> This coming from the very same people who keep stealing the very thing 
> they
> badmouth is not convincing. If it's rubbish, don't buy it. Speak with yout
> wallet. But more importantly, don't steal it - that's a sincere form of
> flattery. Again, supreme hypocricy.

> If a movie makes 50 million a weekend, you can call it rubbish all you 
> want
> atop your high horse, but it shows people see value in it, and are willing
> to pay for their enjoyment. Fortunately, you cannot legislate taste or 
> force
> yours on everybody else. Someone sells something, someone else buys it, 
> what
> is it to you? Of course unless you are a closet fan but too cheap or
> embarrassed to get in on the action through normal/legal channels.

First thing, it's not stealing. But I'm not going into that discussion here.
If I read between the lines you accuse me of downloading the work.
Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's beside the point. Where did I say I
was pro-download? Nowhere.

I say that they earn those $50M because they are allowed to hype their 
product
in a way that we have laws againts for other products.
Taste has nothing to do with it. You have yours, and I have mine. I am 
saying
that their delivered product should live up to what they promise.

And I also have to object to that you put $==Value. How many of those
went out of the cinema and swore they would burn the movie company to the
ground? Your figure doesn't really say what people thought of the movie, 
only
what was reported by the box office.

Now, I know what you are going to say.. So let me explain something.
As being a fairly creative person, I can appriciate work without actually 
liking it.
Take Hendrix, for instance. I can't say I ever listened to him neither liked 
it very
much, but I can appriciate him for being a good guitar player.
The same goes for movies. There are alot of directors that I have respect 
for, without
that I actually like their movies. Ingmar Bergman, for instance. Can't stand 
the movies.
But I can respect his work since he has added something to the art.
And I can watch atleast parts of the movies to try to understand his 
technique.

So, what I ask (again) is that the product, in this case the movie, lives up 
to what
was promised me in the trailer. Not to much to ask for, right?
Sure, I might not like it, but that's life. But if you market a movie for 
being the baddest,
most scary and evil movie of all times, you'd expect some chilling moments, 
wouldn't you?

> Internet is the supreme platform for user reviews (you though I was going 
> to
> say stealing, right?).

No I wasn't.

> Every Joe and Jane and their dog posts their opinions
> for every single thing under the sun, so even if you don't care for
> professional reviews, there's absolutely no excuse nowadays to feign
> ignorance about the wealth of information available. It seems that the 
> more
> information is available, the louder the whiners get about being kept in 
> the
> dark by the "evil media". Those theater and opera goers of centuries past
> who had but just immediate friends and a couple of "mainstream" (hence 
> evil,
> by definition) newsprints available for reviews would cringe at the 
> thought
> of internet generation complaining that media companies are keeping them 
> in
> the dark. If you are concerned about wasting your time and money, just 
> wait
> *1 day* after a movie is screened for deity's sake - it won't kill you,
> trust me.

Of course not. And of course a first hand review by someone that really was 
there
should give you a fair picture of what it was like. I agree. But how does 
that give the Industry the right to lie? Or perhaps lie is a strong word. I 
prefer hype in the very most negative of meanings.

> I see that, but you need more consistent arguments and/or pick your fight
> more wisely and one at a time.

I'm glad you are here to tell me these things.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/09 02:07, Stefan Persson wrote:
> I'm not sure that this reached all corner of our beloved earth,
> so I thought I would flash it. I know a lot of you guys are interested

	Yup.

> that lived up to it's trailers? We scream when Microsoft bend the minimum
> hardware requirement list but we allow Universal to paint up a picture of

	Also talked about this. Sort of.


-- 
"A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's 
too late." - Frank Sinatra


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Internet is the supreme platform for user reviews 

This works for vacation planning too, by the way. The number of vacation 
photos and travelogues out there means you can really plan a trip to 
someplace you've never been and have a good time without hitting much of 
anything bad.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Persson wrote:
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4a2e2473$1@news.povray.org...
>> It's been posted earlier I think.
> 
> I had a quick look.. but couldn't find anything.

I mentioned it, but I don't think I added a link and the subject line wasn't 
very good. And I talked about the politics and not the legal changes. :-)

> Your figure doesn't really say what people thought of the movie, 

When people go back to see Titanic 40 and 50 times, it's a pretty good bet 
they enjoyed it.

> So, what I ask (again) is that the product, in this case the movie, lives up 
> to what
> was promised me in the trailer. Not to much to ask for, right?

What movie are you talking about, and what didn't it live up to? I see very 
few trailers showing scenes that didn't make the final cut.

> Sure, I might not like it, but that's life. But if you market a movie for 
> being the baddest,
> most scary and evil movie of all times, you'd expect some chilling moments, 

I think that particular emotion is very dependent on the viewer. I almost 
never get even the least bit afraid at movies.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

"Stefan Persson" <azy### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4a2e3692@news.povray.org...
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4a2e2473$1@news.povray.org...

> > If a movie makes 50 million a weekend, you can call it rubbish all you
> > want
> > atop your high horse, but it shows people see value in it, and are
willing
> > to pay for their enjoyment. Fortunately, you cannot legislate taste or
> > force
> > yours on everybody else. Someone sells something, someone else buys it,
> > what
> > is it to you? Of course unless you are a closet fan but too cheap or
> > embarrassed to get in on the action through normal/legal channels.

> First thing, it's not stealing.

OK, it's self-entitling then. Whatever, we had that discussion before too.

> But I'm not going into that discussion here.
> If I read between the lines you accuse me of downloading the work.
> Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's beside the point. Where did I say I
> was pro-download? Nowhere.

You are correct. My mistake.

> I say that they earn those $50M because they are allowed to hype their
> product
> in a way that we have laws againts for other products.
> Taste has nothing to do with it. You have yours, and I have mine. I am
> saying
> that their delivered product should live up to what they promise.

What criterion, besides taste, do you have to judge fullfilment of promise?
Yes, you are arguing taste.

> And I also have to object to that you put $==Value. How many of those
> went out of the cinema and swore they would burn the movie company to the
> ground?

I did a quick Google earth scan, but didn't notice any of the movie theaters
being particularly bright, so I'd say not more than a couple of psychotics,
if that.

> Your figure doesn't really say what people thought of the movie,
> only
> what was reported by the box office.

People speak with their monies. The box office is an excellent measure of
the tastes of the populace. You might not like that the general public
prefers Dumb and Dumber over King Lear, but that's the way it is.

> So, what I ask (again) is that the product, in this case the movie, lives
up
> to what
> was promised me in the trailer. Not to much to ask for, right?
> Sure, I might not like it, but that's life. But if you market a movie for
> being the baddest,
> most scary and evil movie of all times, you'd expect some chilling
moments,
> wouldn't you?

Depends. I've grown out of my phase of being scared at movies. That genre
doesn't interest me, and I make an informed decision to avoid such movies.
But even if I were, I'm not a total idiot (you are probably using you as the
indefinite pronoun as well, but let's say it's about me) and I wouldn't
automatically assume that a movie poster claiming it's the "scaries thing
you have ever seen" is to be taken literally. Hyperbole is deeply ingrained
in art, and there's no universal yardstick for emotions that can be evoked.

> Of course not. And of course a first hand review by someone that really
was
> there
> should give you a fair picture of what it was like. I agree. But how does
> that give the Industry the right to lie? Or perhaps lie is a strong word.
I
> prefer hype in the very most negative of meanings.

Do you think WWE lies too?

> > I see that, but you need more consistent arguments and/or pick your
fight
> > more wisely and one at a time.

> I'm glad you are here to tell me these things.

Glad to be of service.

Post a reply to this message

I don't know about the Swedish Pirate Party, but I really don't like the
attitude of the Finnish one.

  Basically their attitude is that anyone should have the God-given right
to copy and use any software they want, freely and legally, and that
software companies must not have the right to impose any limitations on
what people can copy and use. If a programmer cannot earn his living
because of this, then he should seek a job in a different form of business.
In other words, programmers have no right to demand money for their work
from the users. In other words, in their opinion *I* don't have the right
to earn my living by writing computer programs.

  This kind of asshole attitude pisses me off so badly that I will never
vote for the Pirate Party, even if I somewhat agree that music copyrights
have gone too far and should be alleviated.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Basically their attitude is that anyone should have the God-given right
> to copy and use any software they want, freely and legally, and that
> software companies must not have the right to impose any limitations on
> what people can copy and use. If a programmer cannot earn his living
> because of this, then he should seek a job in a different form of 
> business.

I wonder if they expect all the other non-programmers in the software 
company (managers, designers, finance, admin, marketing etc) to also work 
for free?  And do they expect all the sub-contractors working for the 
software company to also do their work for free, just because they are 
working for a software company?  I think not.

Post a reply to this message