 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 29/07/2012 9:28 AM, Warp wrote:
> > I don't think sending an mp3 to someone constitutes "borrowing"...
>
> Just keeping to the niceties amongst friends.
you should wait about, hmm, 65 more years to make the dead author happy with his
royalties?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 29.07.2012 04:23, schrieb nemesis:
>
> > it's not random at all.
> >
> > Dave gets near the monolith and utters "It's full of stars", then a long
> > sequence of abstract psychdelic patterns and figures resembling galaxies and
> > planets
>
> The association with galaxies and planets is pretty far-fetched.
It's not. Amongst this very long sequence there are landscapes in funky
photographic coloring and some early special effects like milk diluted in water
in slow motion to make it look like galaxies. The other caleidoscopic patterns
do look a bit like what SW would do to represent hyperspace traveling a decade
later...
> > suggests Dave has entered some kind of portal into hyperspace for a very
> > long travel. Obviously, this is the doing of some alien intelligence.
>
> Uh-huh... that, or he(*) has taken some funky pills. Occam's razor
> suggests the latter.
>
> (*that is either Dave or the script author)
could be. Dave shut off the computer who ran the ship and with no way to get
back home safely, decides for suicide via overdose of LSD. A valid
interpretation no doubt. Drugs can always explain all scifi speculations, like
in Matrix too...
except, of course, why speculate in the first place then only to explain it all
as the doing of drugs or a bad dream? That's a hallmark of bad fiction.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> > On 29/07/2012 9:28 AM, Warp wrote:
> > > I don't think sending an mp3 to someone constitutes "borrowing"...
> >
> > Just keeping to the niceties amongst friends.
> you should wait about, hmm, 65 more years to make the dead author happy with his
> royalties?
Probably not going to help as long as Disney exists. And they are going
to exist for a long time.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2012-07-29 03:28, Warp wrote:
> I don't think sending an mp3 to someone constitutes "borrowing"...
Unless you delete your copy when they have it, and they delete theirs
after sending it back to you...
Simpler would be to just throw the file on a flash drive and loan
/that/, I guess.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 29/07/2012 18:54, Warp nous fit lire :
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> On 29/07/2012 9:28 AM, Warp wrote:
>>>> I don't think sending an mp3 to someone constitutes "borrowing"...
>>>
>>> Just keeping to the niceties amongst friends.
>
>> you should wait about, hmm, 65 more years to make the dead author happy with his
>> royalties?
>
> Probably not going to help as long as Disney exists. And they are going
> to exist for a long time.
>
Well, if the author was a human people, it's 70 years past its death.
If a company, it's 95 years after publication or 120 years after
creation (but unpublished..)... In the USA.
other countries have different rules, and might have different
calculation and duration (e.g. the Bern convention only requires 50
years past the death of the author, or 50 years since creations for
cinema, 25 years for photo).
So, even if Mickey Mouse is not public domain worldwide, it might be
already free of use in some countries. Just be cautious with the borders
you might cross.
The real shame with MM, is that the Oswald's case was the root of the
story. Next time, let the rabbit to the drawing man!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2012-07-29 03:28, Warp wrote:
> > I don't think sending an mp3 to someone constitutes "borrowing"...
> Unless you delete your copy when they have it, and they delete theirs
> after sending it back to you...
It would still constitute distribution over a network, which is illegal
in many countries, even those were borrowing of physical copies is legal.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2012-07-29 03:28, Warp wrote:
> > I don't think sending an mp3 to someone constitutes "borrowing"...
>
> Unless you delete your copy when they have it, and they delete theirs
> after sending it back to you...
>
> Simpler would be to just throw the file on a flash drive and loan
> /that/, I guess.
yep, because that's the very purpose of technology: to make life more difficult.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2012-07-29 13:46, nemesis wrote:
> yep, because that's the very purpose of technology: to make life more difficult.
No, that's the purpose of the RIAA ;)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/07/2012 08:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2012-07-29 13:46, nemesis wrote:
>> yep, because that's the very purpose of technology: to make life more
>> difficult.
>
> No, that's the purpose of the RIAA ;)
No, their purpose is to make life more /expensive/. (Well, for people
who aren't RIAA members, anyway.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> 2001 starts nowhere, goes nowhere, and ends up nowhere. It's almost
> >> /literally/ a series of random shots with no connecting narrative at
> >> all. (Except the middle part on the space station. /That/ almost makes
> >> sense.)
> >>
Stephen wrote:
> > The book has more of a beginning, middle and end than the film. I've
> > just finished listening to the audiobooks of 2001 & 2010.
>
> I think I read the sequel, and that seemed reasonably sane.
The book 2001 was better than the movie 2001. The movie 2010 was better than
the book 2010 (although I don't know why the movie had to kill off Brailovsky).
In both the movies and the books, I could follow 2010 much easier than 2001.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
