Cool site that is creating controversy because you can download a FREE copy of "Farenheit 9/11". There is a quote from Moore about copyright laws that the owner of the site says gives them permission to do this. Read the webmaster's commentary from today. Good stuff as well.

Funny stuff.

What comes around, goes around. TIME TO GET YOURS FAT BOY!!

STLouis Blazer Wrote:Cool site that is creating controversy because you can download a FREE copy of "Farenheit 9/11". There is a quote from Moore about copyright laws that the owner of the site gives them permission to do this.

Funny stuff.

What comes around, goes around. TIME TO GET YOURS FAT BOY!!

So you're saying that wacko right-wingers don't like laws?

My knowledge of copyright law is practically nil but I'm willing to bet that this guy would lose very quickly in court if Moore sues him. Also, the webmaster needs to learn the difference between comments made to a reporter and a binding contract between two parties. I can say I'm coming to your hometown to buy you a beer but when I don't show up, you can't sue me for not doing so.

MAKO Wrote:My knowledge of copyright law is practically nil but I'm willing to bet that this guy would lose very quickly in court if Moore sues him.  Also, the webmaster needs to learn the difference between comments made to a reporter and a binding contract between two parties.  I can say I'm coming to your hometown to buy you a beer but when I don't show up, you can't sue me for not doing so.

I'm shocked. From reading your posts, it appears that you are a self-proclaimed expert on everything, including all of those things that you are absolutely clueless on. What the heck, you're a liberal. You are credentialed to opine on everything, supported by nothing.

sherman&grant Wrote:

MAKO Wrote:My knowledge of copyright law is practically nil but I'm willing to bet that this guy would lose very quickly in court if Moore sues him.  Also, the webmaster needs to learn the difference between comments made to a reporter and a binding contract between two parties.  I can say I'm coming to your hometown to buy you a beer but when I don't show up, you can't sue me for not doing so.

I'm shocked. From reading your posts, it appears that you are a self-proclaimed expert on everything, including all of those things that you are absolutely clueless on. What the heck, you're a liberal. You are credentialed to opine on everything, supported by nothing.

i think you need to formulate a post that actually has some content in it. Straight up bashing is not welcome here.

flyingswoosh Wrote:i think you need to formulate a post that actually has some content in it.  Straight up bashing is not welcome here.

Fair enough swoosh. I'll deal with content, though I find the situational application of the rules kind of silly.

I know a lot about copyright law. Moore should sue immediately; there are few things in life more rewarding than seeing a bloated gasball like him slammed in the very forums of "truth" that he pretends to defend. Ask Al Franken.

Moore's a fat lying bag of crap, worse than anything he has ever pretended to expose. He now finds it necessary, in true Clinton fashion, to hire reams of truth squad lawyers to defend him from those who can prove what a lying piece of poo he is. And one of those pieces of poo is ----no names mentioned here, out of deference to the rules.

STLouis Blazer Wrote:What comes around, goes around. TIME TO GET YOURS FAT BOY!!

:roflol: :roflol:

:eek:

St. Louis Blazer is my new hero!!

I also think that Sherman & Grant had some good points too. :D

If he stood by his convictions and beliefs that the information the movie presents is true, then he wouldn't mind having the movie being posted on the internet for free download. You would think that he would want to expose the truth at any costs, even if it means he can't buy that new Porsche Cayenne (sweet SUV btw) with the profits of that film. Moore is just another money-grabbing Hollywood filmmaker.

moloch_322 Wrote:Moore is just another money-grabbing Hollywood filmmaker.

Is that worse that being a war profiteer?

HuskieDan Wrote:

moloch_322 Wrote:Moore is just another money-grabbing Hollywood filmmaker.

Is that worse that being a war profiteer?

No, but how artists get pi$$ed about people sharing files really irks me. But in an update to this thread...

Fury as Fahrenheit 9/11 director backs illegal not-for-profit downloads
By Iain S Bruce, Online Editor


Controversial film-maker Michael Moore has welcomed the appearance on the internet of pirated copies of his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and claimed he is happy for anybody to download it free of charge.
The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.

“I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that,

[quote="moloch_322"] But in an update to this thread...

Fury as Fahrenheit 9/11 director backs illegal not-for-profit downloads
By Iain S Bruce, Online Editor


Controversial film-maker Michael Moore has welcomed the appearance on the internet of pirated copies of his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and claimed he is happy for anybody to download it free of charge.
The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.

“I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that,

HuskieDan Wrote:I believe in the right of the artist and his/her investors to protect their product and investment. If the artist has no problem with free downloads, and his investors/distribution companies have no problem with it, I have no problem with it. But please don't say that consumers are entitled to free copies of an artist's material because one person bought it. That'd be akin to saying that I deserve a free car because my neighbor bought one.

I compare downloading music via Kazaa, LimeWrie, ect. as so...

I remember when I was younger how I used to record songs from the radio to my tape deck because I had no money, no transportation, store was far away, and also as a sample to see if I will eventually bug my parents for money to buy that cassette or CD. If I liked the tunes I would get that album knowing that I would like it and that there was more than just one good song. I guess you can call it smart and selective listening and shopping. I want going to listen to a cassette recording of some song I liked often with my mom yelling at me to clean my room!

This is the thing that these services provide, often a poor quality recording of a song which lets people become knowledgeable and selective about their future purchases. I still do purchase lots of music, more often I purchase music that is not mainstream and difficult to find, which the internet, and sometimes file sharing services provide. Sometimes these services help rediscover older songs and artists as it did for me. Yes it is true that music sales have lagged recently, maybe in due part to downloads, but the truth to the fact is that the talent pool has also declined.

Me and GTS will disagree about this but.......

I am TOTALLY opposed to downloading someone else's property without due compensation. However, I do it all the timeon Kazaa. Am I a hypocrite? Well, in this aspect.....you bet'chur sweet *** I am. Damn, I hate myself. :laugh:

I'm more than extremely naive about the music downloading services, but are most artists working with these downloading sites?

The artists have the right to earn a living off their art. If they want to use these sites to disseminate their craft, I'm all for it.

HuskieDan Wrote:I'm more than extremely naive about the music downloading services, but are most artists working with these downloading sites?

The artists have the right to earn a living off their art. If they want to use these sites to disseminate their craft, I'm all for it.

Well, from what "I've" heard, a lot of bands that are small, local, and underground, like this medium. However, the big bands do not as they are trying to sell CD's. I am NOT against that as, you know, I'm a capitalist. I do NOT, however, like the monopoly on prices on CD's. I think the artists should be able to determine the price. I also DESPISE buying a CD off ONE SONG that I heard on the radio and buying a CD when that's the ONLY song I like. It's like a 16 dollar song and I feel like I just bent over and took it up the tailpipe.