| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234645 is a reply to message #234549] |
Mon, 27 March 2006 11:52   |
|
|
Originally posted by: Beowulf Bolt
videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Who here thinks my decision to >take< the X-Files instead of giving
> ~$500 to the workers/writers who created the show, is an acceptable
> act?
Hey I can make weak (and total bullshit) analogies too. See, I never
had a chance to see the X-Files on teevee because I was in a 9-year coma
after a terrible moose bite. Then I discovered I could connect to my
hotel's hi-speed cable, and download it for FREE to my laptop.
Having seen these poor-quality rips, I decided that I *had* to have
good quality permanent versions of them and I went out and spent $500 to
buy all 9 seasons of the X-Files. Thanks to the ability to try them out
for free the workers/writers who created the show gained a combined $500
gross income (or, rather, Fox and their lawyers and accountants did,
whilst shielding this income from Carter et al so they could continue to
hose them out of their share)!
- - -
In all honesty, there have been a few things I've downloaded.
Episodes of shows I normally watch, but missed for whatever reason
(which I've subsequently deleted). The unbroadcast pilot episode for
_Global Frequency_ which I would not have been able to see by other
means. All the episodes of _Firefly_ (including the pre-edited pilot),
which I kept around until they actually sold the series on DVD. A
couple of episodes of South Park which, likewise, were not available yet
on DVD and which I subsequently deleted.
Did I steal money from the mouth's of the creator's children by these
acts? No. My acts were the equivalent of time-shifting; the way I'd
use a VCR. Products worth purchasing I subsequently purchase, without
regard to their availability as poor-quality free downloads.
And I hardly think that I'm unusual in this.
>
> .
--
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIADOWNLOADING [message #234648 is a reply to message #234614] |
Mon, 27 March 2006 15:29 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Brian Henderson
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:28:20 -0500, Jack Bohn <jackbohn@bright.net>
wrote:
> Then you're running with a bad crowd, because it is wrong.
Yet another person who likes to claim things but can't back it up.
> How is it different from sneaking into a half-empty movie house
> to see a show free? Or don't you think that is wrong?
Depends on how you look at it. Since the movie theater doesn't lose a
penny by you seeing it for free, I don't really see the harm. They
don't pay more in fees, it doesn't cost them more to cool a theater
with one more seat taken than it does without, etc. Same electricity,
same payroll, same everything.
Now of course, since they're in business to make money, they're not
going to be all that happy about it and they might get you on
tresspassing, which you're certainly guilty of, but watching the movie
itself? No, I don't think that's wrong at all.
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIADOWNLOADING [message #234649 is a reply to message #234639] |
Mon, 27 March 2006 15:31 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Brian Henderson
On 27 Mar 2006 05:13:39 -0800, videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
> He owns the $$$$$ he takes home with him. He trades his labor for
> money.
Which isn't what you originally claimed. You said that he owns what
he makes with his own hands, which is absolutely false. Likewise,
Chris Carter doesn't own the X-Files, Fox does. He created something,
they paid him for it. He traded his labor for money. Now part of his
contract says that he gets a tiny percentage of DVD sales and that's
fine, but you make it out like you're holding a gun to his head and
he's losing a ton of money.
He isn't. Never has. You can keep repeating it over and over if you
like, but you're still a moron.
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234650 is a reply to message #234643] |
Mon, 27 March 2006 16:49 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Brandy Alexandre
<videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
> Via downloading Xfiles, I stole the writers' pain & sweat & labor.
> They worked their asses off to produce a quality product, and I
> took Their Sweat/Labor without payment. (somewhat like slavery,
> except writers can choose to quit).
>
> It IS theft.
> Theft of Labor.
>
> It's basic human rights philosophy. The very foundation of this
> nation & western european civilization.
Funny, this started with you asking about "what if" you downloaded it.
Now you're saying you've done it already. Certainly what I expected of
your kind. Nonetheless, I guess you can sit down and shut up now. It's
a moot point since you're now a thief.
BTW, I would, in fact, like to see your credentials, as offered, as
well as the cover pages of the inserts for all the shows you allegedly
bought. Here's my eFax: 928-569-1463
--
Brandy Alexandre
-- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234651 is a reply to message #234641] |
Mon, 27 March 2006 19:52 |
wfw
Messages: 125
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 27 Mar 2006 08:15:54 -0800, videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>> At ~350 megs they're better than DVD quality :P. DVD quality sucks due
>> to backwards compatibility and resolution. You need a special DVD
>> player to play them reasonably on any modern HDTV and the ratio is
>> usually still fucked. .......
>
> .
>
> I thought HDTV's have a mode for the old analog signals?
I can hook up the DVD player just fine. The catch is that HDTV is 1080
horizontal lines while DVD is like 525. As such you need to go buy an
upconverter DVD player with an HDMI connector in order to view your
old DVD's properly. Otherwise the HDTV tries displaying a 525 image on
a 1080 line screen and the results viewable but not pretty to look at.
Just something to keep in mind if you go to buy that snazzy new HDTV,
plan on getting a new DVD player along with it.
> i.e. With bars on the left & right of the screen? That way you get the proper
> ratio, even with old TV shows?
Oh.. i can get the disc to work fine. The main problem with DVD's is
that the protocol predates widescreen televisions becoming widespread.
As such, a movie is stored on the disc in a 4x3 frame. If its a
widescreen movie, like at 2.35:1 ratio its stored within that 4x3
frame. So on a normal widescreen display without anything turned on
and playing a normal DVD at normal ratio it has bars top, bottom,
left, and right with the actual image being reduced to like 50% of the
actual screen size available. Who the fuck wants that.
Basically in answer to the actual question.. yes shows like I Love
Lucy will have bars left and right because they fill up the entire 4:3
cell but anything in 16:9 or 2.35:1 add more bars top and bottom.
Widescreen televisions then provide a 'fill' feature which allows you
to stretch the image horizontally to the extents of the screen and
then you can zoom in a bit approximating a 2.35:1 image while cutting
off negligable portions of the image left and right. Most big screens
are even more egregious in that they'll format said image for a 16:9
box and really cut shit left and right while elongating the picture.
They added the 'anamorphic widescreen' horseshit to help it stretch
with as little loss as possible... but a stretch is still a stretch.
For shits and giggles I went ahead and downloaded the nvidia DVD
software codec for my new system and video card and lit it up. I
nearly died laughing when I lit it up to find black bars top, bottom,
left, and right on the windows media player window. They actually had
to program that shit in to remain compliant or get sued for violating
someones copyright by transforming the image to fit the screen. After
all.. TPTB would really rather sell you brand new versions on HD-DVD
or Blu-ray designed to do just that.
The nice part about getting television programs in divx format is that
they come allready in near their correct aspect ratio and when you
send them full screen they actually fill the screen at that ratio. As
an example... on my 1280x768 resolution.. Sopranos season 1 showed on
a roughly 4:3 image(its original format) center screen while every
season since has been 16:9 and really fills most of the screen size
with around a .25 inch black bar top and bottom. Have to say its
awesome watching it that way and you can really tell the difference
between watching something without the screen torque and with. Its a
pretty clear picture... mind you you'll get some artifiacts from time
to time.. visual quality isn't perfect.. but for me simply being able
to watch it at proper ratio and size far outstrips the benefits of
anything DVD or normal TV has to offer.
Basically.. where i'm at right now is even if I bought the DVD i'd get
a picture I don't like and can't stand formatted for a standard that
has become obsolete. Why pay for that?
-MJ
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234652 is a reply to message #234642] |
Mon, 27 March 2006 21:11 |
tutu
Messages: 111
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 27 Mar 2006 08:16:40 -0800, videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>> On 25 Mar 2006 02:27:53 -0800, videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Now Carter, Duchovny, Anderson..... and more importantly the
>>> barely-known Episodic Writers who created the brilliant ideas.... get
>>> paid NOTHING. They lost a combined $500 gross income.
>>
>>> Who here thinks my decision to >take< the X-Files instead of giving
>>> ~$500 to the workers/writers who created the show, is an acceptable
>>> act?
>> Your $500 doesn't go to the creators, it goes to Fox.
> And Fox, per contract, has to divide up that money & give it out as
> "residuals" (similar to commissions in retail sales) to the producers,
> actors, and writers. Even though Xfiles is done, these people still
> get a biweekly paycheck of a few dollars.
I suggest you have a word to David Duchovny about that.
[snip]
> It IS theft.
> Theft of Labor.
You aren't depriving them of anything if you weren't going to buy it. Yes
it is illegal but as others have said the crime is copyright violation.
Trying to make it out to be theft is almost as bad as the rationalisations
that a large proportion of downloaders indulge in to justify their
behaviour.
> It's basic human rights philosophy. The very foundation of this nation
> & western european civilization.
Oh bullshit, do some research into the history of copyright laws.
--
You can't stop the signal
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234653 is a reply to message #234610] |
Mon, 27 March 2006 23:26 |
wfw
Messages: 125
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:24:52 -0800, Quiet Desperation <x@x.com> wrote:
> In article <mjnb22p4jueqfn8035rom2ao9i4kvs0adq@4ax.com>,
> Michael Johnson <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>> Your comment here betrays you.. wtf.. downloading cam videos and not
>> expecting crap quality? Once the movie hits the streets on DVD,
>> someone dvdrips it to more than acceptable quality.
>
> Betrays me how? It was just a side comment. We're talking about copying
> TeeVee shows, not the bloody Monroe Doctrine.
Betrays you in the sense you were talking about cam quality(bootlegged
theater recordings) and trying to use that to talk about the quality
of ripped TeeVee shows.
>> [stuff about broadcast quality snipped]
>
> Gosh, I guess that's why I was talking about copying the DVDs.
And what you seem to not understand is that copying, ripping off from
the video store, swiping granny's discs.. whatever.. its still a lower
quality then i get with bittorrent. DVD is a suckass format on today's
technology.
-MJ
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234655 is a reply to message #234652] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 10:35 |
|
|
Originally posted by: videonovels@yahoo.com
Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2006 08:16:40 -0800, videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> get a biweekly paycheck of a few dollars.
>
> I suggest you have a word to David Duchovny about that.
>
>> It IS theft.
>> Theft of Labor.
>
> You aren't depriving them of anything if you weren't going to buy it.
..
What part of "theft of [David Duchovny's] labor" did you not
understand? He worked his ass off (14-15-hour days) to create a great
character for our entertainment. By refusing to purchase the dvds,
David is not getting paid for his labor (residuals). THEFT OF LABOR.
..
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234656 is a reply to message #234651] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 10:58 |
|
|
Originally posted by: videonovels@yahoo.com
Michael Johnson wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2006 08:15:54 -0800, videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I can hook up the DVD player just fine. The catch is that HDTV is 1080
> horizontal lines while DVD is like 525. As such you need to go buy an
> upconverter DVD player with an HDMI connector in order to view your
> old DVD's properly. Otherwise the HDTV tries displaying a 525 image on
> a 1080 line screen and the results viewable but not pretty to look at.
> Just something to keep in mind if you go to buy that snazzy new HDTV,
> plan on getting a new DVD player along with it.
..
DVD (and all old analog signals) = 480 scanlines
HDTV = 480 or 720 or 1080
It should be simple for the HDTV to display 480 lines using the 480
mode
Or convert 480 to 720 (multiply by 1.5) for a nice clean picture.
------> The catch is: Do you have an LCD or plasma? Then you have to
deal with a fixed resolution (like a 1600x1200 image on a 1280x1024
computer lcd = distortion). Yuck. I hate LCD/plasmas, and would
recommend CRTs (tubes) as the best picture option.
..
>> i.e. With bars on the left & right of the screen? That way you get the proper
>> ratio, even with old TV shows?
>
> Basically in answer to the actual question.. yes shows like I Love
> Lucy will have bars left and right because they fill up the entire 4:3
> cell but anything in 16:9 or 2.35:1 add more bars top and bottom.
> Widescreen televisions then provide a 'fill' feature which allows you
> to stretch the image horizontally to the extents of the screen and
> then you can zoom in a bit approximating a 2.35:1 image while cutting
> off negligable portions of the image left and right.
..
Couldn't you just NOT zoom in? Leave the bars on top & bottom?.....
because using black bars is the only way to make a superwide Ben Hur
2.3:1 image fit inside a 1.8:1-shaped HDTV.
And what's wrong with anamorphic DVD?
..
> Sopranos ...has been 16:9 and really fills most of the screen size
> with around a .25 inch black bar top and bottom. Have to say its
> awesome watching it that way and you can really tell the difference
Yeah. Of course. Sopranas was >designed< for HDTV. The old movies
like Ben Hur were not, so they don't fit perfectly.
..
> Basically.. where i'm at right now is even if I bought the DVD i'd get
> a picture I don't like and can't stand formatted for a standard that
> has become obsolete. Why pay for that?
No idea. I know I won't be buying Star Trek Enterprise for that
reason. It was broadcast in HD, and that's the version I want (via
Blu-ray). NOT the low-quality analog version currently on DVD.
..
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234657 is a reply to message #234650] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 11:07 |
|
|
Originally posted by: videonovels@yahoo.com
Brandy Alexandre wrote:
> <videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
>
>> Via downloading Xfiles, I stole the writers' pain & sweat & labor.
>> They worked their asses off to produce a quality product, and I
>> took Their Sweat/Labor without payment. (somewhat like slavery,
>> except writers can choose to quit).
>>
>> It IS theft.
>> Theft of Labor.
>>
>> It's basic human rights philosophy. The very foundation of this
>> nation & western european civilization.
>
>
>
> Funny, this started with you asking about "what if" you downloaded it.
..
No it didn't. "I was planning to buy [like I bought Star Trek TNG and
DS9].....But instead, about a year ago, I discovered I could connect to
my hotel's hi-speed cable, and download it for FREE to my laptop."
The act is already DONE as I stated in post #1.
You called me "troll" but at least I know how to READ. Go learn it
yourself.
..
> BTW, I would, in fact, like to see your credentials, as offered, as
> well as the cover pages of the inserts for all the shows you allegedly
> bought. Here's my eFax: 928-569-1463
Cover pages?!?!? Fat chance. I have no desire to rip apart my DVDs.
I like to keep them in pristine condition. Especially when I spent
~$100 for each season of Star Trek.
But I'd be more than happy to fax you copies of my invoices for
everything I've bought in recent years. It's several thousand dollars
worth of "stuff".
And if you want my official college transcript, you'll need to cough up
the Fee.
..
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIADOWNLOADING [message #234658 is a reply to message #234649] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 11:19 |
|
|
Originally posted by: videonovels@yahoo.com
Brian Henderson wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2006 05:13:39 -0800, videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>> A person owns his/her body.
>> A person owns whatever his/her body produces.
>
> Nope, sorry. Joe Blow on the assembly line doesn't own the cars he
> produces. Try again.
==================================================
>> He owns the $$$$$ he takes home with him. He trades his labor for
>> money.
>
> Which isn't what you originally claimed. You said that he owns what
> he makes with his own hands, which is absolutely false.
..
No it was not false. Here's what I said:
- A person owns his/her body. And whatever his/her body produces.
"Labor" IS a product of a person's body. And it can be kept by the
original owner, or it can be sold for wages. My statement needed some
clarification, but nevertheless was 100% correct.
..
> Chris Carter doesn't own the X-Files, Fox does. He created something,
> they paid him for it. He traded his labor for money. Now part of his
> contract says that he gets a tiny percentage of DVD sales and that's
> fine, but you make it out like..... he's losing a ton of money.
..
I did exaggerate a bit, in order to make my point. I apologize for
that.
Nevertheless it does not change the fact that Carter (and others) ARE
entitled to their residuals. It's no different than a salesperson who
works a flat $6.00 an hour (direct pay) plus ~3% commission for
products sold.
It would not be fair to a saleperson to not get paid his ~3%
commission. Likewise, it is not fair to deny the X-Files
actors/writers their ~3% of residuals. YES you are correct. It's a
small amount. BUT it is still theft of wages. Theft of labor.
> He isn't. Never has. You can keep repeating it over and over if you
> like, but you're still a moron.
Moron????? Next you'll be calling me "nigger". Why don't you learn
some manners? Name-calling is just making you Brian look juvenile &
barbaric.
..
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIADOWNLOADING [message #234659 is a reply to message #234648] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 11:23 |
|
|
Originally posted by: videonovels@yahoo.com
Brian Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:28:20 -0500, Jack Bohn <jackbohn@bright.net>
>
>> How is it different from sneaking into a half-empty movie house
>> to see a show free? Or don't you think that is wrong?
>
> Depends on how you look at it. Since the movie theater doesn't lose a
> penny by you seeing it for free, I don't really see the harm. They
> don't pay more in fees, it doesn't cost them more to cool a theater
> with one more seat taken than it does without, etc. Same electricity,
> same payroll, same everything.
..
Uh huh. But what if >everybody< (or even 50%) of the audience snuck in
without paying?
The movie house would have to hang a "going out of business" sign due
to not having enough ticket sales to pay the electricity, payroll, et
cetera. To sit here and say "there's no harm" when people sneak into a
theater w/o paying.... well, it's naive.
..
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234660 is a reply to message #234657] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 12:05 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Brandy Alexandre
videonovels@yahoo.com <videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
>
> Brandy Alexandre wrote:
>> <videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
>>
>>> Via downloading Xfiles, I stole the writers' pain & sweat &
>>> labor. They worked their asses off to produce a quality
>>> product, and I took Their Sweat/Labor without payment.
>>> (somewhat like slavery, except writers can choose to quit).
>>>
>>> It IS theft.
>>> Theft of Labor.
>>>
>>> It's basic human rights philosophy. The very foundation of
>>> this nation & western european civilization.
>>
>>
>>
>> Funny, this started with you asking about "what if" you
>> downloaded it.
>
> .
>
> No it didn't. "I was planning to buy [like I bought Star Trek TNG
> and DS9].....But instead, about a year ago, I discovered I could
> connect to my hotel's hi-speed cable, and download it for FREE to
> my laptop."
>
> The act is already DONE as I stated in post #1.
> You called me "troll" but at least I know how to READ. Go learn
> it yourself.
Perhaps you need to learn how to write. I generally expect that
college grads know how to compose an article, which generally is to
outline the point they intend to make in the first paragraph. You
didn't say you stole it until, like, the third now that I look at
it, where you only implied you could in the beginning.
Goes to show that the only thing a college "education" proves is
that you can get a passing score on a test. Not that you ever
actually learned anything.
> Cover pages?!?!? Fat chance. I have no desire to rip apart my
> DVDs. I like to keep them in pristine condition. Especially when
> I spent ~$100 for each season of Star Trek.
Haven't figure out how to work a scanner, eh?
> But I'd be more than happy to fax you copies of my invoices for
> everything I've bought in recent years. It's several thousand
> dollars worth of "stuff".
Please do.
> And if you want my official college transcript, you'll need to
> cough up the Fee.
You're the one who made the offers. Nice backpedal.
--
Brandy Alexandre
-- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234661 is a reply to message #234655] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 12:25 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Beowulf Bolt
videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>>
>> You aren't depriving them of anything if you weren't going to buy
>> it.
>
> What part of "theft of [David Duchovny's] labor" did you not
> understand? He worked his ass off (14-15-hour days) to create a great
> character for our entertainment. By refusing to purchase the dvds,
> David is not getting paid for his labor (residuals). THEFT OF LABOR.
What part of "it's not theft if you weren't going to purchase them" do
*you* not understand, Troy?
The Olson twins have worked their ass off for years to produce such
fine films as "How The West Was Fun," "The Case of the Volcano Mystery,"
and "Billboard Dad". By refusing to purchase the complete set of their
movies *you* are denying them the payment for their labor just as much
as someones theoretical refusal to purchase the 'X-Files' denies
Duchovny his residuals. EQUIVALENT THEFT OF LABOR.
Hell, do you have a bug up your ass about people lending out DVDs?
Someone borrowing the X-Files DVDs have 'stolen' Duchovney's labour as
well, if we subscribe to your moronic logic.
Without an intent to buy, there is no legitimate case for theft, only
the lesser crime of copyright violation. This has been pointed out
repeatedly, but apparently you are too busy doing the usenet equivalent
of covering your ears and screaming LA-LA-LA to notice.
(I don't even need to go into the fact that these laws themselves vary
from place to place. While it might be immoral for me to download any
media file I want, it is inarguably *legal* for me to do so. At least
at the moment. AFAIK.)
Biff
--
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234662 is a reply to message #234661] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 15:22 |
|
|
Originally posted by: rgorman
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:25:25 GMT, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@shaw.ca>
wrote:
> videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>>>
>>> You aren't depriving them of anything if you weren't going to buy
>>> it.
>>
>> What part of "theft of [David Duchovny's] labor" did you not
>> understand? He worked his ass off (14-15-hour days) to create a great
>> character for our entertainment. By refusing to purchase the dvds,
>> David is not getting paid for his labor (residuals). THEFT OF LABOR.
>
> What part of "it's not theft if you weren't going to purchase them" do
> *you* not understand, Troy?
>
Hey. That'll work. I'll just say, "I wasn't planning on purchasing
the Lamborgini I took for a joy ride, and I didn't keep it, so what's
the big deal?"
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIADOWNLOADING [message #234663 is a reply to message #234658] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 16:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Brian Henderson
On 28 Mar 2006 08:19:39 -0800, "videonovels@yahoo.com"
<videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nevertheless it does not change the fact that Carter (and others) ARE
> entitled to their residuals. It's no different than a salesperson who
> works a flat $6.00 an hour (direct pay) plus ~3% commission for
> products sold.
I don't know that they're entitled to them. They have contracts that
guarantee they get them, but if they had signed away their rights to
residuals, they wouldn't be entitled.
> It would not be fair to a saleperson to not get paid his ~3%
> commission. Likewise, it is not fair to deny the X-Files
> actors/writers their ~3% of residuals. YES you are correct. It's a
> small amount. BUT it is still theft of wages. Theft of labor.
The salesperson gets paid his 3% commission on things that they sell.
If the customer walks out of the store and goes down the street to buy
it, the salesperson can't complain that they're still entitled to that
commission because they "lost the sale".
The actors on X-Files only get commissions on actual sales. If there
are no actual sales, they neither get, nor deserve, money.
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIADOWNLOADING [message #234664 is a reply to message #234659] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 16:20 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Brian Henderson
On 28 Mar 2006 08:23:07 -0800, "videonovels@yahoo.com"
<videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Uh huh. But what if >everybody< (or even 50%) of the audience snuck in
> without paying?
Then I'd say the theater ought to lock the side door, their security
needs help.
> The movie house would have to hang a "going out of business" sign due
> to not having enough ticket sales to pay the electricity, payroll, et
> cetera. To sit here and say "there's no harm" when people sneak into a
> theater w/o paying.... well, it's naive.
But of course, 50% of movie goers are not sneaking in the side door,
nor are 50% of X-Files viewers downloading the DVDs. You're trying to
inflate the numbers to make your argument look rational when the
actual numbers are miniscule.
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234665 is a reply to message #234655] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 16:21 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Brian Henderson
On 28 Mar 2006 07:35:03 -0800, "videonovels@yahoo.com"
<videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What part of "theft of [David Duchovny's] labor" did you not
> understand? He worked his ass off (14-15-hour days) to create a great
> character for our entertainment. By refusing to purchase the dvds,
> David is not getting paid for his labor (residuals). THEFT OF LABOR.
Yes, he *DID* work hard, 10 years ago, to make the X-Files. And he
got paid for it. He hasn't lifted a finger to work on the X-Files
since it went off the air. So why do you think he's still entitled to
get paid for work that he's already gotten paid for several times
over?
Please explain the logic behind that.
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234666 is a reply to message #234656] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 16:49 |
wfw
Messages: 125
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 28 Mar 2006 07:58:27 -0800, "videonovels@yahoo.com"
<videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2006 08:15:54 -0800, videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> I can hook up the DVD player just fine. The catch is that HDTV is 1080
>> horizontal lines while DVD is like 525. As such you need to go buy an
>> upconverter DVD player with an HDMI connector in order to view your
>> old DVD's properly. Otherwise the HDTV tries displaying a 525 image on
>> a 1080 line screen and the results viewable but not pretty to look at.
>> Just something to keep in mind if you go to buy that snazzy new HDTV,
>> plan on getting a new DVD player along with it.
>
> .
>
> DVD (and all old analog signals) = 480 scanlines
> HDTV = 480 or 720 or 1080
>
> It should be simple for the HDTV to display 480 lines using the 480
> mode
At least on my HDTV you have 1080 or however many set lines. Now.. if
the TV cherry picks those 1080 spread out to provide 480 thats fine..
but it looks like shit, but you can't just add or remove lines. When
you have a TV with 1080 scanlines you typically buy a DVD player with
the upconversion to 1080i feature. That then constructs the 1080i
image using doubling when it can in as little a loss as possible. It
has an HDMI connector that you hook a cable from the DVD player
straight to one on the HDTV.
> Or convert 480 to 720 (multiply by 1.5) for a nice clean picture.
>
> ------> The catch is: Do you have an LCD or plasma? Then you have to
> deal with a fixed resolution (like a 1600x1200 image on a 1280x1024
> computer lcd = distortion).
HDTV LCD 32" monitor. Can be used as a straight TV or it has a VGA
connector you can hook your computer right into it.
> Yuck. I hate LCD/plasmas, and would recommend CRTs (tubes) as
> the best picture option.
My normal TV for just watching the basic cable in the rare times that
I do is the widescreen CRT... really can't buy them anymore. Pretty
much because its like 150+ pounds and takes two guys to move it heh.
But it still suffers from stretch syndrome.
>>> i.e. With bars on the left & right of the screen? That way you get the proper
>>> ratio, even with old TV shows?
>>
>> Basically in answer to the actual question.. yes shows like I Love
>> Lucy will have bars left and right because they fill up the entire 4:3
>> cell but anything in 16:9 or 2.35:1 add more bars top and bottom.
>> Widescreen televisions then provide a 'fill' feature which allows you
>> to stretch the image horizontally to the extents of the screen and
>> then you can zoom in a bit approximating a 2.35:1 image while cutting
>> off negligable portions of the image left and right.
> .
>
> Couldn't you just NOT zoom in? Leave the bars on top & bottom?.....
I assume you mean with the 'fill' kept on so it fits left and right?
> because using black bars is the only way to make a superwide Ben Hur
> 2.3:1 image fit inside a 1.8:1-shaped HDTV.
What you get happening is a super elongation of the picture. Keep in
mind with everything off you have 4 bars on all sides while still
getting the full frame.. 'fill'ing stretches the image like a rubber
band to the extents of the screen and the zoom is meant to clip a
little left and right while compensating for that stretch, so it
brings it back to more of a 2.3:1 picture from a 2.8:1 or whatever it
would be on 'fill'. A 2.3:1 picture with straight fill is one funky
ratio to watch a movie at.
> And what's wrong with anamorphic DVD?
That whole 'morph' part. In order to take advantage of it feel free to
watch your 2.35:1 video in a 16:9 format with severe cropping
left/right and people looking like toothpicks. Fuck that.
>> Sopranos ...has been 16:9 and really fills most of the screen size
>> with around a .25 inch black bar top and bottom. Have to say its
>> awesome watching it that way and you can really tell the difference
>
> Yeah. Of course. Sopranas was >designed< for HDTV. The old movies
> like Ben Hur were not, so they don't fit perfectly.
Actually.. its the other way around. Sopranos was >originally< first
season in 4:3. Subsequent seasons were filmed in 16:9. Ben-hur was
FILMED in a 2.35+ ratio(i think it was a little higher then normal
2.35:1) and looks grand on HDTV when formatted for it. Even the normal
widescreen tv its not too bad with the compromises of fill and a zoom
of 1.15.
The reason the shit doesn't fit perfectly is what i said before. I'll
repeat it for you again. When the DVD protocol was being developed
widescreen TV's were rare to say the least.. figure circa '95 or so.
As a result.. all of the videos that are stored on them are stored in
a 4:3 frame. When you play your DVD player it is this frame that is
being displayed on your TV. One of the entire points of HD-DVD and
Blu-ray is that we now go from a 4:3 frame to a 16:9 frame. Once that
happens, not only do the left and right black bars go bye bye, but the
image grows some vertically and gets put on the frame at its proper
ratio of say 2.35:1.
>> Basically.. where i'm at right now is even if I bought the DVD i'd get
>> a picture I don't like and can't stand formatted for a standard that
>> has become obsolete. Why pay for that?
>
> No idea. I know I won't be buying Star Trek Enterprise for that
> reason. It was broadcast in HD, and that's the version I want (via
> Blu-ray). NOT the low-quality analog version currently on DVD.
Man.. i'm trying to keep my composure here but you're a bit dense when
it comes to this stuff.
1) DVD's are digital versatile(or video if you like) discs. The key
being digital.. they store those funky 1's and 0's. There isn't a way
you can have an 'analog version' on DVD.
2) Paramount doesn't take analog versions that they got off the air
somewhere and put them on disc. They aren't 'low-quality'. They're
formatted for the DVD format. The limitations are in the format itself
and what it was built for. If they format them for HD-DVD or Bluray..
you get them in that format. Typically higher scan lines resulting in
clearer image and larger data file.
3) The reverse is also true. You want HD-DVD or Bluray? Its gonna be a
16x9 frame so short of having to try to display shit on your old 4x3
tube using an extra convertor either built in to the dvd player or
attachable just go buy yourself an HDTV now or don't bother.
-MJ
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234668 is a reply to message #234662] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 19:34 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Beowulf Bolt
David Johnston wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:25:25 GMT, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>>
>> What part of "it's not theft if you weren't going to purchase them"
>> do *you* not understand, Troy?
>>
>
> Hey. That'll work. I'll just say, "I wasn't planning on purchasing
> the Lamborgini I took for a joy ride, and I didn't keep it, so what's
> the big deal?"
We've already established that there are well-defined differences
between intellectual property and physical property, David. Differences
recognized by the law for centuries.
Do try to keep up.
Biff
--
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234669 is a reply to message #234665] |
Tue, 28 March 2006 19:42 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Beowulf Bolt
Brian Henderson wrote:
>
> On 28 Mar 2006 07:35:03 -0800, "videonovels@yahoo.com"
> <videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What part of "theft of [David Duchovny's] labor" did you not
>> understand? He worked his ass off (14-15-hour days) to create a
>> great character for our entertainment. By refusing to purchase the
>> dvds, David is not getting paid for his labor (residuals). THEFT OF
>> LABOR.
>
> Yes, he *DID* work hard, 10 years ago, to make the X-Files. And he
> got paid for it. He hasn't lifted a finger to work on the X-Files
> since it went off the air. So why do you think he's still entitled to
> get paid for work that he's already gotten paid for several times
> over?
>
> Please explain the logic behind that.
It's in his contract (I'm sure) that he's entitled to residuals on
future *sales*. This money is his regardless whether he lifts a finger
or not. I've got no problems with this. As long as it's earning a
profit for Fox Home Video, he's entitled to a cut (assuming his contract
gives him one).
Where Troy goes wrong is by conflating *all* unpaid views of those
episodes with lost sales.
Biff
--
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234671 is a reply to message #234669] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 06:49 |
wfw
Messages: 125
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:42:33 GMT, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@shaw.ca>
wrote:
> Brian Henderson wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Mar 2006 07:35:03 -0800, "videonovels@yahoo.com"
>> <videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What part of "theft of [David Duchovny's] labor" did you not
>>> understand? He worked his ass off (14-15-hour days) to create a
>>> great character for our entertainment. By refusing to purchase the
>>> dvds, David is not getting paid for his labor (residuals). THEFT OF
>>> LABOR.
>>
>> Yes, he *DID* work hard, 10 years ago, to make the X-Files. And he
>> got paid for it. He hasn't lifted a finger to work on the X-Files
>> since it went off the air. So why do you think he's still entitled to
>> get paid for work that he's already gotten paid for several times
>> over?
>>
>> Please explain the logic behind that.
>
> It's in his contract (I'm sure) that he's entitled to residuals on
> future *sales*.
Well.. thats fine... but I have a contract with myself stating I'm
entitled to download whatever the fuck I want.
> This money is his regardless whether he lifts a finger or not.
> I've got no problems with this. As long as it's earning a
> profit for Fox Home Video, he's entitled to a cut (assuming his contract
> gives him one).
My contract gives me a cut too btw... i'm glad you don't mind equating
'entitled to' with some piece of paper being signed, cause anybody can
do that.
-MJ
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234672 is a reply to message #234660] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 07:12 |
|
|
Originally posted by: videonovels@yahoo.com
Brandy Alexandre wrote:
>
> Perhaps you need to learn how to write. I generally expect that
> college grads know how to compose an article, which generally is to
> outline the point they intend to make in the first paragraph. You
> didn't say you stole it until, like, the third now that I look at
..
That's funny. You called me a "troll", but you're lecturing me on
essay writing?!?!? PU-LEEZE. Your name-calling is a much more serious
offense. An insult. Why don't YOU go read a book about proper
manners?
..
Besides, this isn't an "article".
Usenet is a casual conversation & that's how I write.
I've been writing in that "conversational" style since I joined Usenet
in 1987.
When I need to write formally for my job, I follow the rules you listed
about an intro paragraph, concluding paragraph, and so forth. BUT
Usenet does not fit that bill. Usenet is a >casual< conversation that
reflects casual speaking.
..
>> And if you want my official college transcript, you'll need to
>> cough up the Fee.
>
> You're the one who made the offers. Nice backpedal.
AGAIN YOU NEED TO LEARN TO READ. I clearly stated, "I am even willing
to send you an official college transcript, if you pay the ~$25 fee."
Clear as day. Can't you understand that simple sentence?
..
> Goes to show that the only thing a college "education" proves is
> that you can get a passing score on a test. ......
At least I know not to call people "troll" or "nigger" or other rude
words.
You lack manners.
You also can't read.
Sad Brandy. Sad.
..
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234673 is a reply to message #234666] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 08:01 |
|
|
Originally posted by: videonovels@yahoo.com
Michael Johnson wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006 07:58:27 -0800, "videonovels@yahoo.com"
>> Couldn't you just NOT zoom in? Leave the bars on top & bottom?.....
>> because using black bars is the only way to make a superwide Ben Hur
>> 2.3:1 image fit inside a 1.8:1-shaped HDTV.
>
> What you get happening is a super elongation of the picture. Keep in
> mind with everything off you have 4 bars on all sides while still
> getting the full frame.. 'fill'ing stretches the image like a rubber
> band to the extents of the screen and the zoom is meant to clip a
> little left and right while compensating for that stretch,
..
Hmmm. I guess I don't understand. I thought there would be a
"horizontal width" adjustment such that you could stretch the
anamorphic movie to its original widescreen width (same way a movie
camera works). No fill. No zoom. Just Horizontal Width adjustment.
You would still have bars top/bottom, but that's how it's supposed to
look.
..
>> I know I won't be buying Star Trek Enterprise for that
>> reason. It was broadcast in HD, and that's the version I want (via
>> Blu-ray). NOT the low-quality analog version currently on DVD.
>
> Man.. i'm trying to keep my composure here but you're a bit dense when
> it comes to this stuff.
..
ANGRY: Dense?!?!? Grrrr.
If you're "losing your composure" then maybe you should learn some
patience. I'm an >electrical engineer<. I DO understand, mostly, what
you are talking about. Please don't insult my intelligence. Why can't
we just keep this a FRIENDLY conversation? Why you gotta go calling me
"dense"? That was totally uncalled for.
CALMS DOWN.
..
Let me summarize my knowledge just to prove I'm not "dense"
- Pre-1950s movies are filmed in 1.333:1 ratio (mostly)
- In the 50s/60s widescreen was invented with varying ratios (1.7 upto
2.5)
- Modern movies mostly use Panavision which is a 1.333:1 film using an
anamorphic lens to make a wider image
- TVs/DVDs are 1.333:1 ratio.
- In order to fit the old 1950s/60s widescreen movies onto anamorphic
DVD, they use an anamorphic (like Panavision) to squash the image into
the 1.333:1 ratio.
- Or if the movie is already filmed in Panavision 1.333:1, then it's
just a direct transfer to the DVD's 1.333:1 ratio.
..
I don't own an HDTV, but as I understand it, the proper way to view
these is >not< to use fill/zoom. The proper way is to adjust the
Horizontal Width until there are no left/right bars. Leave the
vertical height alone. Do that Michael, and I think you'll have a much
better-looking picture.
..
As for Star Trek Enterprise, when I said "low quality" all I meant was
"low resolution". And when I said "analog" I was merely referring to
the OLD TV standard = analog NTSC. So if you re-read what I wrote:
>> Enterprise was broadcast in HD, and that's the version I want
>> (via Blu-ray). NOT the low-quality analog version currently on DVD.
..
What I meant was:
>> Enterprise was broadcast in [1080 digital HD], and that's the version I want
>> (via Blu-ray). NOT the low-quality [480 analog NTSC] currently on DVD.
Sorry I was not more precise with my words. I didn't realize you were
so anal-retentive. But then what do you expect from someone who is
just a "dense" electrical engineer?
(laughs)
..
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234674 is a reply to message #234661] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 08:06 |
|
|
Originally posted by: videonovels@yahoo.com
Beowulf Bolt wrote:
> videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>> What part of "theft of [David Duchovny's] labor" did you not
>> understand? He worked his ass off (14-15-hour days) to create a great
>> character for our entertainment. By refusing to purchase the dvds,
>> David is not getting paid for his labor (residuals). THEFT OF LABOR.
>
>
> What part of "it's not theft if you weren't going to purchase them" do
> *you* not understand, Troy?
..
What part of "I would have purchased the X-files, if I did not know
about BitTorrent" do >you< not understand?
If I had not discovered BitTorrent a year ago, I would now have a ~$400
charge on my amazon.com credit card. I >was< going to purchase the
X-Files.
There WAS an intent to purchase.
..
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234675 is a reply to message #234668] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 08:06 |
|
|
Originally posted by: videonovels@yahoo.com
Beowulf Bolt wrote:
> videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>> What part of "theft of [David Duchovny's] labor" did you not
>> understand? He worked his ass off (14-15-hour days) to create a great
>> character for our entertainment. By refusing to purchase the dvds,
>> David is not getting paid for his labor (residuals). THEFT OF LABOR.
>
>
> What part of "it's not theft if you weren't going to purchase them" do
> *you* not understand, Troy?
..
What part of "I would have purchased the X-files, if I did not know
about BitTorrent" do >you< not understand?
If I had not discovered BitTorrent a year ago, I would now have a ~$500
charge on my amazon.com credit card. I >was< going to purchase the
X-Files.
There WAS an intent to purchase.
..
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234676 is a reply to message #234671] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 08:22 |
|
|
Originally posted by: videonovels@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:42:33 GMT, Beowulf Bolt
>> Brian Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, he *DID* work hard, 10 years ago, to make the X-Files. And he
>>> got paid for it. He hasn't lifted a finger to work on the X-Files
>>> since it went off the air. So why do you think he's still entitled to
>>> get paid for work that he's already gotten paid for several times?
>>
>> It's in his contract (I'm sure) that he's entitled to residuals on
>> future *sales*.
..
YES. Same as a salesperson gets (for example) a flat $6.00 an hour
wage + 3% commission. According to Brian the salesperson is not
entitled to that extra 3%. To paraphrase Brian:
"The salesman *DID* work hard. And he got paid his $6 an hour. Why do
you think he's still entitled to get paid for that extra 3%
commisison?"
..
ANSWER: Because according to the >legally-binding< contract, the
salesperson's extra 3% is part of his payment. He is entitled to get
that extra 3%. ----- Likewise, David, Gillian, the Morgan writers, et
cetera, are entitled by contract to get paid their extra ~3% of
commissions (residuals) on every DVD sale or TV rerun.
..
And I have no problems with that. Like the salesman, the X-files crew
deserve to get extra cash above-and-over their regular wages. Just as
a salesman gets rewarded an extra 3% for selling a product, likewise
actors should be rewarded with an extra 3% for selling dvds.
..
..
..
To repeat: I was just using 3% as an example.
I don't know the actual percentage.
But I do think salespeople & actors/writers are entitled to that extra
cash bonus.
..
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234677 is a reply to message #234554] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 09:20 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Goro
videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
> Brandy Alexandre wrote:
>> Sean Huxter <sean.huxter@SPAMverizon.net>
>>
>>> Well, no. You weren't going to go out and shell out the $500.00.
>>> You're just bullshitting.
>>
>>
>> Interesting take on the subject. I don't the dork ever had $500
>
> .
>
> I think you meant "I don't [think]..." Don't drop words.
>
> I'm a college grad earning the wages of an electrical engineer. I am
> well paid. I shelled out $700 for Star Trek the Next Generation &
> another $700 for Deep Space Nine. Also $200 for Neon Genesis
> Evangelon, $100 for Earth Final Conflict, and $500 for Babylon 5.
>
> I was fully-prepared to do the same for the X-Files. So now that I've
> (hopefully) convinced you I like to spend money..... Do you think my
> decision to download the X-Files for free, rather than buy, is wrong?
> Immoral?
beautiful.
lots of bate in the water.....
Gaza could learn a thing or two from you.
-goro-
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234678 is a reply to message #234556] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 09:25 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Goro
Quiet Desperation wrote:
> In article <1143282472.941516.284910@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "videonovels@yahoo.com" <videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Who here thinks my decision to >take< the X-Files instead of giving
>> ~$500 to the workers/writers who created the show, is an acceptable
>> act?
>
> I tried doing the whole bittorrent (or whatever) download and burn to
> disc thing. It was annoying. Half the time the files were poor quality
> or were in one of the godawful, ratshit video formats that the ignorant
> Windoze kiddies favor or some other problem.
>
> I really love the theatrical movies recorded with a shaky video camera.
> WTF? Could you make the movie viewing experience any more joyless?
>
> Just get a Netflix account and copy the DVDs. That way you at least toss
> a few cents per disc back to the poor homeless X-Files folks. ;-)
There are other MUCH more efficient and reliable methods than BT for
dvd images right now. You can grab dvd5s and now often full dvd9s
..ISOs at full connection speed. You set it up for overnite and you can
fill up 50GB quick.
and if you're even moderately active, you can easily pick high quality,
high bitrate Xvids, either HD encoded at 720p (if the show is HD) or
dvd rips at 480p. Yes, there are Telesyncs and Telecines all over the
place as well as a few handcams, but they are easy to find and easy to
ignore; but there are also quite a few DVD screener copies out,
incluidng, ironically, MUNICH.
No, I'm not justifying or anything, just pointing out that the entire
mindset of "All the available pirate bootlegs are of crappy quality is
patently untrue."
-goro-
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234680 is a reply to message #234675] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 11:53 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Beowulf Bolt
videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> What part of "it's not theft if you weren't going to purchase
>> them" do *you* not understand, Troy?
>
> What part of "I would have purchased the X-files, if I did not know
> about BitTorrent" do >you< not understand?
Then *you* are a thief.
That doesn't mean that everyone who downloads such things is. Or even
a majority of them are.
Biff
--
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234682 is a reply to message #234671] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 12:04 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Beowulf Bolt
Michael Johnson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:42:33 GMT, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Brian Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, he *DID* work hard, 10 years ago, to make the X-Files. And he
>>> got paid for it. He hasn't lifted a finger to work on the X-Files
>>> since it went off the air. So why do you think he's still entitled
>>> to get paid for work that he's already gotten paid for several
>>> times over?
>>>
>>> Please explain the logic behind that.
>>
>> It's in his contract (I'm sure) that he's entitled to residuals on
>> future *sales*.
>
> Well.. thats fine... but I have a contract with myself stating I'm
> entitled to download whatever the fuck I want.
I wouldn't count on the legality of that particular contract. As
versus the one Duchovny (theoretically) posseses. ;)
>> This money is his regardless whether he lifts a finger or not.
>> I've got no problems with this. As long as it's earning a
>> profit for Fox Home Video, he's entitled to a cut (assuming his
>> contract gives him one).
>
> My contract gives me a cut too btw... i'm glad you don't mind equating
> 'entitled to' with some piece of paper being signed, cause anybody can
> do that.
Not in a legal sense. Fox has a legal control (aka copyright) over
distribution of X-Files episodes. You don't, regardless what you sign.
(I seem to be arguing with all sides here. My position is that making
electronic versions of the shows available is a clear violation of Fox's
copyrights. That does not mean that I agree that downloading said
products is comparable to theft, much less that you can make simple
calculations of how much people have "stolen" from Fox by downloading
said episodes.)
Biff
--
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234684 is a reply to message #234672] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 13:34 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Brandy Alexandre
videonovels@yahoo.com <videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
> That's funny. You called me a "troll", but you're lecturing me on
> essay writing?!?!? PU-LEEZE. Your name-calling is a much more
> serious offense. An insult. Why don't YOU go read a book about
> proper manners?
>
Manners? On Usenet? Shirley, you jest.
> Besides, this isn't an "article".
> Usenet is a casual conversation & that's how I write.
> I've been writing in that "conversational" style since I joined
> Usenet in 1987.
>
> When I need to write formally for my job, I follow the rules you
> listed about an intro paragraph, concluding paragraph, and so
> forth. BUT Usenet does not fit that bill. Usenet is a >casual<
> conversation that reflects casual speaking.
Oh, back to the "can say anything on Usenet" issue. If you were a real
writer, you couldn't help but do it no matter what you were writing.
If you have to consciously consider how to compose an article when
you're busy being a "real writer," then you are FAR from being a "real
writer." You're even further from being a maximum of a B in English
comp.
> At least I know not to call people "troll" or "nigger" or other
> rude words.
> You lack manners.
> You also can't read.
> Sad Brandy. Sad.
You better quote where I called ANYONE a nigger, ever. You know, they
are cracking down and making libel awards to people who are slandered
on Usenet, and Mr. Bush passed a bill that you can't do any of these
foul things anonymously, so I need you to state your real name when you
make such a vulgar accusation.
--
Brandy Alexandre
-- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234686 is a reply to message #234669] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 15:39 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Brian Henderson
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:42:33 GMT, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@shaw.ca>
wrote:
> It's in his contract (I'm sure) that he's entitled to residuals on
> future *sales*. This money is his regardless whether he lifts a finger
> or not. I've got no problems with this. As long as it's earning a
> profit for Fox Home Video, he's entitled to a cut (assuming his contract
> gives him one).
While yes, it is in his contract and as such, he is contractually
entitled to it, that doesn't mean that he's actually done anything to
deserve it. All it proves is that he was good at negotiating his
contract.
It's kind of like the relatives of the Three Stooges. You can't even
fart in the direction of a Three Stooges movie without them whining
about getting money for it and what did any of them do to earn it? Oh
right, their mothers were sperm recipients from a famous person.
Gotcha.
> Where Troy goes wrong is by conflating *all* unpaid views of those
> episodes with lost sales.
That's exactly the same argument the RIAA and MPAA make. Their
numbers are made up almost exclusively of these "fantasy" lost sales.
Never mind the fact that the recording industry has been having
record-breaking sales every single year, it's all these "lost" sales
that they're really out to recover!
Screw them.
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234687 is a reply to message #234676] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 15:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Brian Henderson
On 29 Mar 2006 05:22:38 -0800, "videonovels@yahoo.com"
<videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote:
> YES. Same as a salesperson gets (for example) a flat $6.00 an hour
> wage + 3% commission. According to Brian the salesperson is not
> entitled to that extra 3%. To paraphrase Brian:
>
> "The salesman *DID* work hard. And he got paid his $6 an hour. Why do
> you think he's still entitled to get paid for that extra 3%
> commisison?"
Because it's in his contract. But the salesman can't say "I worked
for you last year, one of the customers I sold something to came back
and bought something else, give me money for it". That's what you're
advocating.
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234688 is a reply to message #234673] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 17:38 |
wfw
Messages: 125
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2006 05:01:32 -0800, "videonovels@yahoo.com"
<videonovels@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2006 07:58:27 -0800, "videonovels@yahoo.com"
>>> Couldn't you just NOT zoom in? Leave the bars on top & bottom?.....
>>> because using black bars is the only way to make a superwide Ben Hur
>>> 2.3:1 image fit inside a 1.8:1-shaped HDTV.
>>
>> What you get happening is a super elongation of the picture. Keep in
>> mind with everything off you have 4 bars on all sides while still
>> getting the full frame.. 'fill'ing stretches the image like a rubber
>> band to the extents of the screen and the zoom is meant to clip a
>> little left and right while compensating for that stretch,
>
> .
>
> Hmmm. I guess I don't understand. I thought there would be a
> "horizontal width" adjustment such that you could stretch the
> anamorphic movie to its original widescreen width (same way a movie
> camera works). No fill. No zoom. Just Horizontal Width adjustment.
> You would still have bars top/bottom, but that's how it's supposed to
> look.
Actually.. i've done some experiments on the new HDTV with the
software DVD player via the computer. The disc i was playing
apparently wasn't anamorphic. Using one of my other discs the player
now does play it properly. I may actually go get the upconvertor DVD
player for it now that i know the new screen will display the image
properly. For reference.. what anamorphic widescreen did was adjust
the image so that it plays at proper ratio on the 16x9 screen. No
selections involved.
>>> I know I won't be buying Star Trek Enterprise for that
>>> reason. It was broadcast in HD, and that's the version I want (via
>>> Blu-ray). NOT the low-quality analog version currently on DVD.
>>
>> Man.. i'm trying to keep my composure here but you're a bit dense when
>> it comes to this stuff.
>
> .
>
> ANGRY: Dense?!?!? Grrrr.
>
> If you're "losing your composure" then maybe you should learn some
> patience. I'm an >electrical engineer<. I DO understand, mostly, what
> you are talking about.
You like tossing that out there. Being an >electrical engineer< means
you can sit around all day making and adjusting schematics. It doesn't
give you carte blanche on everything outside of that.
As per dense... i'm saying the words you are using don't apply to what
is actually going on. 'low-quality analog version' on a DVD? Thats a
sentence that makes no sense.
> Please don't insult my intelligence. Why can't
> we just keep this a FRIENDLY conversation? Why you gotta go calling me
> "dense"? That was totally uncalled for.
>
> CALMS DOWN.
>
> .
>
> Let me summarize my knowledge just to prove I'm not "dense"
>
> - Pre-1950s movies are filmed in 1.333:1 ratio (mostly)
Correct. The television tube was designed to be compatible to the
movies of the day. The movies of the day, wanting to distance
themselves from TV came up with new ratios for movies that allowed for
a much wider horizontal than vertical. Cinemascope et al were born.
> - In the 50s/60s widescreen was invented with varying ratios (1.7 upto
> 2.5)
Yes.
> - Modern movies mostly use Panavision which is a 1.333:1 film using an
> anamorphic lens to make a wider image
Film does not have a ratio. Your cell size on that film would be
1.333:1 because all other used ratios fit inside of that. The
projector just needs to know which it is and when viewing it only
displays that portion of the frame. The film itself came in two
flavors depending on its width.. 35mm or 70mm. Big screen epics
typically used the more expensive 70mm while the lesser stuff got put
on 35mm. Pretty much these days they only film in 35mm as far as i
know.
As per anamorphic lens.. i assume you mean the widescreen lens?
> - TVs/DVDs are 1.333:1 ratio.
The frame size is 4:3 or 1.33:1 yes.
> - In order to fit the old 1950s/60s widescreen movies onto anamorphic
> DVD, they use an anamorphic (like Panavision) to squash the image into
> the 1.333:1 ratio.
You're tossing terms that cloud what you really mean. I will have to
admit I was wrong a bit when it came to anamorphic. From what I
understand of the process.. when it takes that 2.35:1 image in a 4:3
cell it stretchs it out to the extents of the 16x9 screen both in the
horizontal and the vertical. When anamorphic was introduced it was a
way of adding in extra information so that when it stretched the image
it did so as clean as possible. But your term of an image being
'squashed' to the 1.333:1 ratio is incorrect... they centered the
image in the 1.333:1 ratio and left out everything above and below.
'Squashing' the image implies purposefully distorting the image from
what it originally was. Not the case.
> - Or if the movie is already filmed in Panavision 1.333:1, then it's
> just a direct transfer to the DVD's 1.333:1 ratio.
>
> .
>
> I don't own an HDTV, but as I understand it, the proper way to view
> these is >not< to use fill/zoom. The proper way is to adjust the
> Horizontal Width until there are no left/right bars. Leave the
> vertical height alone. Do that Michael, and I think you'll have a much
> better-looking picture.
Once the anamorphic kicked in I didn't have to do anything. I'm not
sure why the old widescreen CRT never kicked it in but i have a
nagging suspicion it was cause it predated the whole anamorphic stuff.
The set was bought in like 2000 or so. I also noticed on my
ex-roommates old big screen(and his is huge like 60") this also never
kicked in before. The only time i have ever seen it come to life was a
little bit ago off a software DVD player on the new HDTV monitor.
> As for Star Trek Enterprise, when I said "low quality" all I meant was
> "low resolution". And when I said "analog" I was merely referring to
> the OLD TV standard = analog NTSC. So if you re-read what I wrote:
>>> Enterprise was broadcast in HD, and that's the version I want
>>> (via Blu-ray). NOT the low-quality analog version currently on DVD.
>
> .
>
> What I meant was:
>>> Enterprise was broadcast in [1080 digital HD], and that's the version I want
>>> (via Blu-ray). NOT the low-quality [480 analog NTSC] currently on DVD.
After all this.. what you are ACTUALLY trying to say is that you want
a version formatted for 1080i rather than the 480 line DVD version.
Understood now.. but both 'analog' and 'NTSC' have no mearing in this
context. You like to make technological spaghetti by tossing in terms
for flavor when they really have no bearing on what you actually mean.
> Sorry I was not more precise with my words. I didn't realize you were
> so anal-retentive. But then what do you expect from someone who is
> just a "dense" electrical engineer?
Well.. if you want to disregard and invalidate the "dense" part... I
would actually expect you to be very precise with your words if you
are an electrical engineer.
And hey.. its ok.. not like we haven't had our disagreements before.
If this is the same person i'm remembering. Troy Heagy isn't it? Or
was that someone else?
-MJ
|
|
|
|
| Re: I was going to buy X-Files; But i saw I could get it free VIA DOWNLOADING [message #234689 is a reply to message #234682] |
Wed, 29 March 2006 17:59 |
wfw
Messages: 125
Registered: March 2005
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:04:00 GMT, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@shaw.ca>
wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:42:33 GMT, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@shaw.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Henderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, he *DID* work hard, 10 years ago, to make the X-Files. And he
>>>> got paid for it. He hasn't lifted a finger to work on the X-Files
>>>> since it went off the air. So why do you think he's still entitled
>>>> to get paid for work that he's already gotten paid for several
>>>> times over?
>>>>
>>>> Please explain the logic behind that.
>>>
>>> It's in his contract (I'm sure) that he's entitled to residuals on
>>> future *sales*.
>>
>> Well.. thats fine... but I have a contract with myself stating I'm
>> entitled to download whatever the fuck I want.
>
> I wouldn't count on the legality of that particular contract. As
> versus the one Duchovny (theoretically) posseses. ;)
Hehe... I was just extolling the virtues of claiming a simple contract
is what 'entitles' you to the money. If that were the case we'd all be
rich. If you want to know the truth.. what 'entitles' you to the money
is a government willing to uphold and enforce that piece of paper.
Nothing else really does.
>>> This money is his regardless whether he lifts a finger or not.
>>> I've got no problems with this. As long as it's earning a
>>> profit for Fox Home Video, he's entitled to a cut (assuming his
>>> contract gives him one).
>>
>> My contract gives me a cut too btw... i'm glad you don't mind equating
>> 'entitled to' with some piece of paper being signed, cause anybody can
>> do that.
>
> Not in a legal sense. Fox has a legal control (aka copyright) over
> distribution of X-Files episodes. You don't, regardless what you sign.
As long as nobody ever busts down my door... its perfectly legal. Its
only illegal if you get caught. Even then, it would be incredibly hard
to prove. Copyright violations by individuals have been basically akin
to Jaywalking. Sure, its a violation of the law.. but you rarely, if
ever get cited for it. Only when copyright violations are done on a
large scale by groups with large distrubutions or businesses that
someone usually steps in.
> (I seem to be arguing with all sides here. My position is that making
> electronic versions of the shows available is a clear violation of Fox's
> copyrights. That does not mean that I agree that downloading said
> products is comparable to theft, much less that you can make simple
> calculations of how much people have "stolen" from Fox by downloading
> said episodes.)
Oh.. i'm certainly with you on it not being theft or "stolen".
Copyright violation sure.
-MJ
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
