"2001: The Secrets of Kubrick's Classic"
porti...@yahoo.com
Independent on Sunday (London)
October 23, 2005, Sunday
2001 THE SECRETS OF KUBRICK'S CLASSIC;
NEVER-SEEN-BEFORE FOOTAGE RELEASED TO THE IOS REVEALS THE
BY ANTHONY BARNES
It is the missing part of a cinematic classic. Almost four decades ago,
Stanley Kubrick gathered the world's scientific minds and asked them to
predict the future. Their thoughts would then form the opening sequence
of 2001: A Space Odyssey, his epic about a mission to Jupiter which
becomes a life or death battle between the space crew and their
on-board computer HAL 9000.
But the interviews were never screened and the collective thoughts of
21 eminent men and women of science appeared to have been lost for
ever.
Now the musings are to be made public for the first time when they are
published next month, giving Kubrick enthusiasts an insight into his
ultimate vision for the classic film.
A recluse who died at the age of 70 in 1999 shortly after the
completion of his film Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick had a lifelong
fascination with the possibilty that there was intelligent alien life.
He wanted to share his belief with the audience as a scene-setter for
his film by allowing them to hear the scientists' own words as they
discussed the possibility of benevolent alien cultures, the origins of
life and the future of man.
The interviews, conducted in 1966, reveal the thinking of many of the
eminent scientists in an era when man had still to walk on the moon.
Among those who contributed were the writer and academic Isaac Asimov,
the anthropologist Margaret Mead, and the astronomers Fred Whipple and
Sir Bernard Lovell. All agreed on the likelihood of there being
intelligent life on other worlds, while some spoke of the possibility
of genetic manipulation and the development of 'ultra-intelligent'
computers that could possess personality traits.
The leading mathematician Jack Good suggested the next stage in human
evolution could be the possibility of telepathic communication, an idea
accepted by Kubrick at the end of 2001 where the human body becomes
redundant.
Another interviewee, Constantine Generales, suggested the idea of the
internet. The physicist Freeman Dyson proposed that we might one day
colonise comets, and Asimov spoke of colonies on the moon, Mars or
Jupiter.
But even for Kubrick, not known for the brevity of his films, it became
clear his masterpiece would be far too long unless the sequence of
thoughts about the future was cut. The US-born director had built up an
enviable reputation with hits such as Spartacus, Lolita and Dr
Strangelove, but 2001 was a challenge to many cinemagoers when it was
released in 1968. Although dazzled by the artistic vision on-screen,
which influenced numerous other sci-fi films, they found the film
difficult to interpret.
Arthur C Clarke, who co-wrote 2001 and inspired it with his short story
Sentinel, has admitted: 'If you understand 2001 completely, we failed.
We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered.'
Kubrick, who wrote, produced and directed his films, was intrigued by
the possibility of other life forms, but was disappointed the film
world had until then tackled science fiction by portraying
blood-thirsty monsters attacking the earth.
His long-standing assistant Tony Frewin, who worked with him for 25
years, said: 'When the pre-production of 2001 began in 1965, the
position of science fiction in cinema was pretty much that idea of
Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, bug-eyed monsters and Mars Attacks. When
Stanley decided he wanted to make a futuristic science fiction film
about the existence of extra- terrestrial life it worried him people
would see it as just a bug-eyed monster film.
'So what he decided to do was interview 21 professional scientists for
a prologue to show that considering whether there was extra-terrestrial
life was a legitimate scientific question. Before then, if you spoke of
extraterrestrial intelligence people would have simply said 'what,
flying saucers?' and all that nonsense. But the film got longer and
longer and he realised there wasn't going to be enough time for the
prologue, and the film would have to stand on its own two feet, so it
was eventually nixed.'
Although long discarded, Frewin wanted to trace the film for a DVD
release of 2001, but despite a lengthy search was unable to find any
trace. He believes it probably still exists, perhaps mislabelled and
sitting with miles of other film reels in a laboratory.
'Stanley wouldn't have given it away and he wouldn't have destroyed it.
He never threw anything away. He still had chequebook stubs going back
to the 1940s,' said Frewin.
However, during his search, he found the transcripts of the interviews
that had been prepared by Kubrick's secretary, Vicky Ward, to help him
in the editing suite. Frewin has now edited them for a book of the
complete interviews to be published next month.
Some of the interviewees have looked back at their original comments.
Professor Good stood by his, including his suggestion that computers
might have personality traits: 'My Windows 98 computer tells lies and
often forces me to shut down improperly. Such behaviour in a human
would be called neurotic.'
One absentee from the list of interview subjects is the astronomer Carl
Sagan, who went on to find fame as the author of the book Cosmos and a
spin-off TV series. He responded by saying that he wanted editorial
control and a percentage of the film's takings, which was rejected.
QUOTES FROM THE CUTTING-ROOM FLOOR
' There may have been life on Earth for up to three billion years '
Isaac Asimov, CHEMIST AND SCI-FI WRITER
' A comet might be a very suitable place for us to start a colony '
Freeman Dyson, PHYSICIST
Copyright 2005 Newspaper Publishing PLC
Boaz
contains only fraction of those interviewed, and then the comments were
edited for the book. The only people whose remarks were published there
were (for those who don't have a copy of this book):
A. J. Oparin
Dr. Harlow Shapley
Francis J. Hayden, SJ
Gerald Feinberg
F. C. Durant III
Jeremy Bernstein
Freeman J. Dyson*
J. J. Drake
Fred J. Whipple*
Philip Crosbie Morrison
Norman Lamm
(*indicates those mentioned in the article below)
It will also be interesting to read what Constantine Generales had to
say about the Internet some forty years ago.
Anyway, I hope Tony Frewin doesn't find that footage too soon;
otherwise that would mean I'd have to buy the DVD of "2001" again right
away. ;-)
Boaz
("I must say you guys have come up with something.")
----------------------------------------------------
ichorwhip
(I sure hope you don't get sued for posting a copyrighted article
without permission. We all know how often that happens on Usenet.
Such a big moneymaker! This is only supposed to be a place to
criticize the critical, complain about complainers, sneer at the snide
and "poopoo" on everything and everyone in general(when "shit" is a far
superior sentiment).)
Anyway, I'm looking forward to this new book of some almost forgotten
stuff. Only one little quibble below:
This quote seems to be in the same vein as the one that Clarke made
saying "if you understood "2001" the first time you watch it then we
have failed." Kubrick responded to a question about this in the 1968
Playboy interview wherein he opined that Clarke was being facetious. I
don't have the interview in front of me, but Kubrick went on to explain
a little better what he meant. I may post it a bit later if the
copyright police don't come banging down my door.
i
"piop"
Boaz
> This is good news Gen.
>
> (I sure hope you don't get sued for posting a copyrighted article
> without permission. We all know how often that happens on Usenet.
> Such a big moneymaker! This is only supposed to be a place to
> criticize the critical, complain about complainers, sneer at the snide
> and "poopoo" on everything and everyone in general(when "shit" is a far
> superior sentiment).)
Shhhhhhhh! Be vewy, vewy qwiet. I'm hunting copywight infwingers.
Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh!
> Anyway, I'm looking forward to this new book of some almost forgotten
> stuff. Only one little quibble below:
<snip a widdle -- heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh>
> > Arthur C Clarke, who co-wrote 2001 and inspired it with his short story
> > Sentinel, has admitted: 'If you understand 2001 completely, we failed.
> > We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered.'
>
> This quote seems to be in the same vein as the one that Clarke made
> saying "if you understood "2001" the first time you watch it then we
> have failed." Kubrick responded to a question about this in the 1968
> Playboy interview wherein he opined that Clarke was being facetious. I
> don't have the interview in front of me, but Kubrick went on to explain
> a little better what he meant. I may post it a bit later if the
> copyright police don't come banging down my door.
>
> i
> "piop"
"Look! I'm a copyright infringer! Shoot me! It's copyright infringer
season! Look! I'm a Usenet troll! Shoot me! It's Usenet troll season!
Look! I'm an extra in a Kubrick film! Shoot me before I pinch
Katharina's bum! Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo! And by the way,
did you notice the tits on that girl?
Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo!"
Oh, right, we were discussing ACC's comments. Damn cartoon characters!
They always get in the way at the worst times.
Kubrick said this in the interview (and I hope you don't mind, Mr.
Agel, that we are quoting from the book you edited -- fuck Playboy):
"I don't agree with that statement of Arthur's, and I believe he made
it facetiously. The very nature of the visual experience in 2001 is to
give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not --
and should not -- require further amplification. Just speaking
generally, however, I would say that there are elements in any good
film that would increase the viewer's interest and appreciation on a
second viewing; the momentum of a movie often prevents every
stimulating detail or nuance from having a full impact the first time
it's seen. The whole idea that a movie should be seen only once is an
extension of our traditional conception of the film as an ephemeral
entertainment rather than as a visual work of art. We don't believe we
that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great
painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has
until recent years been exempted from the category of art -- a
situation I'm glad is finally changing."
Hope that clears things up, Ich.
Boaz
("Neahhh! -- smack, smack, smack -- what's up, doc?")
ichorwhip
Boaz wrote:
> ichorwhip wrote:
> > This is good news Gen.
> >
> > (I sure hope you don't get sued for posting a copyrighted article
> > without permission. We all know how often that happens on Usenet.
> > Such a big moneymaker! This is only supposed to be a place to
> > criticize the critical, complain about complainers, sneer at the snide
> > and "poopoo" on everything and everyone in general(when "shit" is a far
> > superior sentiment).)
>
> Shhhhhhhh! Be vewy, vewy qwiet. I'm hunting copywight infwingers.
> Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh!
aeiiiii! a la the Johnny Quest henchman of your choice.
>
> > Anyway, I'm looking forward to this new book of some almost forgotten
> > stuff. Only one little quibble below:
>
> <snip a widdle -- heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh>
>
> > > Arthur C Clarke, who co-wrote 2001 and inspired it with his short story
> > > Sentinel, has admitted: 'If you understand 2001 completely, we failed.
> > > We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered.'
> >
> > This quote seems to be in the same vein as the one that Clarke made
> > saying "if you understood "2001" the first time you watch it then we
> > have failed." Kubrick responded to a question about this in the 1968
> > Playboy interview wherein he opined that Clarke was being facetious. I
> > don't have the interview in front of me, but Kubrick went on to explain
> > a little better what he meant. I may post it a bit later if the
> > copyright police don't come banging down my door.
> >
> > i
> > "piop"
>
> "Look! I'm a copyright infringer! Shoot me! It's copyright infringer
> season! Look! I'm a Usenet troll!
<insert Brock Sampson twitch here>
> Shoot me! It's Usenet troll season!
> Look! I'm an extra in a Kubrick film! Shoot me before I pinch
> Katharina's bum! Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo! And by the way,
> did you notice the tits on that girl?
> Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo!"
>
> Oh, right, we were discussing ACC's comments. Damn cartoon characters!
> They always get in the way at the worst times.
>
> Kubrick said this in the interview (and I hope you don't mind, Mr.
> Agel, that we are quoting from the book you edited -- fuck Playboy):
>
> "I don't agree with that statement of Arthur's, and I believe he made
> it facetiously. The very nature of the visual experience in 2001 is to
> give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not --
> and should not -- require further amplification. Just speaking
> generally, however, I would say that there are elements in any good
> film that would increase the viewer's interest and appreciation on a
> second viewing; the momentum of a movie often prevents every
> stimulating detail or nuance from having a full impact the first time
> it's seen. The whole idea that a movie should be seen only once is an
> extension of our traditional conception of the film as an ephemeral
> entertainment rather than as a visual work of art. We don't believe
> that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great
> painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has
> until recent years been exempted from the category of art -- a
> situation I'm glad is finally changing."
>
> Hope that clears things up, Ich.
>
> Boaz
> ("Neahhh! -- smack, smack, smack -- what's up, doc?")
Yes, thanks very much Boaz. I would have gotten to it eventually. I
was planning on posting it from my cottage in Iceland where the
copyright cops can never put there hands up into me. You saved me the
trouble and I'm much obliged.
"Billy don't be a hero! Don't be a fool with your life! Billy don't be
a hero! Come back and make me your wife! And as he started to go, she
said, 'Billy keep your head low! Billy don't be a hero come back to
me.'"
ichorwhip
"peace is our profession"
Bill Reid
ichorwhip <icho...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1130391488.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Boaz wrote:
> > ichorwhip wrote:
> > > (I sure hope you don't get sued for posting a copyrighted article
> > > without permission. We all know how often that happens on Usenet.
> > > Such a big moneymaker!
> > Shhhhhhhh! Be vewy, vewy qwiet. I'm hunting copywight infwingers.
> > Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh!
>
> > > I may post it a bit later if the
> > > copyright police don't come banging down my door.
> > >
> > "Look! I'm a copyright infringer! Shoot me! It's copyright infringer
> > season!
> >
> > Kubrick said this in the interview (and I hope you don't mind, Mr.
> > Agel, that we are quoting from the book you edited -- fuck Playboy):
> >
> I was planning on posting it from my cottage in Iceland where the
> copyright cops can never put there hands up into me.
I'm confused again...let's get things nice and sparkling clear, OK?
You seem to have a lot of "issue" with copyrights. And the issue
seems to be that if you don't think you'll be arrested or sued for
your behavior, it's all just a big joke. Is that a fair summary of
your "thoughtful observations"?
And here I thought you just posted copyrighted stuff because
you have no ability to communicate original thoughts. But actually
you're a rebel, and you'll never be any good! Good for you,
chicks dig "bad boys"!
But how does this square with this previous explication of
self-righteousness?
Boaz <boa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129527804.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> But, living it a society where a president launches a war (because he
> can), where corporations can steal their employees pensions (because
> they can), oil companies price gouge at the gas pump (because they can)
> and a useless, vacuous human being like Paris Hilton becomes a
> celebrity (because she can), it should come as no surprise that many
> young people today have all the charm of a punk rock fan at a Young
> People's Concert with Leonard Bernstein conducting Beethoven.
>
So can we add, "where losers violate copyrights flagrantly
on Usenet and laugh about it (because they don't think they'll
get in trouble)"? Certainly that rises to the level of "rudeness"
of an innocent air-head like Paris Hilton being famous and
maybe just a skoosh beyond, doncha think?
Oh wait, I forgot, you don't think...never mind. Carry
on the chatter; "Yelps" clean the cages again, they're all
excited and the output is greater than usual...
---
William Ernest Reid
Boaz
> I'm confused again...let's get things nice and sparkling clear, OK?
>
> You seem to have a lot of "issue" with copyrights. And the issue
> seems to be that if you don't think you'll be arrested or sued for
> your behavior, it's all just a big joke. Is that a fair summary of
> your "thoughtful observations"?
I see. You have a background in copyright law, right? You work for a
company where you deal a lot with copyrights? You have a legal
background?
> And here I thought you just posted copyrighted stuff because
> you have no ability to communicate original thoughts. But actually
> you're a rebel, and you'll never be any good! Good for you,
> chicks dig "bad boys"!
But do they dig hecklers who are full of shit, like you?
> But how does this square with this previous explication of
> self-righteousness?
>
> Boaz <boa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1129527804.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > But, living it a society where a president launches a war (because he
> > can), where corporations can steal their employees pensions (because
> > they can), oil companies price gouge at the gas pump (because they can)
> > and a useless, vacuous human being like Paris Hilton becomes a
> > celebrity (because she can), it should come as no surprise that many
> > young people today have all the charm of a punk rock fan at a Young
> > People's Concert with Leonard Bernstein conducting Beethoven.
> >
> So can we add, "where losers violate copyrights flagrantly
> on Usenet and laugh about it (because they don't think they'll
> get in trouble)"? Certainly that rises to the level of "rudeness"
> of an innocent air-head like Paris Hilton being famous and
> maybe just a skoosh beyond, doncha think?
And your only talent is to dig up other posts on Usenet, like some
cyber archeaologist, and throw it back into other people's faces? Wow,
what skills!
> Oh wait, I forgot, you don't think...never mind. Carry
> on the chatter; "Yelps" clean the cages again, they're all
> excited and the output is greater than usual...
This is all bullshit, and you know it.
But I suppose you will continue to troll this group and post your
negative shit at us because you have no original thought in your head
either. You love to irritate people because you have nothing else to
contribute, your worthless piece of shit. And don't give me this
copyright infrigement shit either. I've had enough experience
professionally to know you don't know what the fuck you are talking
about.
So fuck you, Reid. Nothing you post here will change what Ich and I do.
Boaz
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote:
>
> > I'm confused again...let's get things nice and sparkling clear, OK?
> >
> > You seem to have a lot of "issue" with copyrights. And the issue
> > seems to be that if you don't think you'll be arrested or sued for
> > your behavior, it's all just a big joke. Is that a fair summary of
> > your "thoughtful observations"?
>
> I see.
What an accomplishment. 20/20?
> You have a background in copyright law, right?
Not really, I'm not a lawyer in any event. You DO seem to have a
lot of experience evading simple questions, which is kind of part of the
lawyer skill-set...
> You work for a
> company where you deal a lot with copyrights?
Well, yeah, I mean, a lot of companies have to deal with
intellectual property issues, and they've certainly come up
directly in my work many, many times.
> You have a legal background?
>
Asked and answered. Please ask your next question, counselor,
since you are apparently incapable of actually answering any.
> > And here I thought you just posted copyrighted stuff because
> > you have no ability to communicate original thoughts. But actually
> > you're a rebel, and you'll never be any good! Good for you,
> > chicks dig "bad boys"!
>
> But do they dig hecklers who are full of shit, like you?
>
This does remind me a little of that "Seinfeld" episode where
George is acting like a "bad boy" to impress a girl and he tells her,
"I bootleg movies by shooting them with a video camera, I could do
hard time, baby!"
It was funny because it was before some recent changes in the law
where now he really could do some real time for it...and because he's
such a fat bald stupid loser. The extant discusssion is of course is funny
for COMPLETELY different reasons...
> > But how does this square with this previous explication of
> > self-righteousness?
> >
> > Boaz <boa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1129527804.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > But, living it a society where a president launches a war (because he
> > > can), where corporations can steal their employees pensions (because
> > > they can), oil companies price gouge at the gas pump (because they
can)
> > > and a useless, vacuous human being like Paris Hilton becomes a
> > > celebrity (because she can), it should come as no surprise that many
> > > young people today have all the charm of a punk rock fan at a Young
> > > People's Concert with Leonard Bernstein conducting Beethoven.
> > >
> > So can we add, "where losers violate copyrights flagrantly
> > on Usenet and laugh about it (because they don't think they'll
> > get in trouble)"? Certainly that rises to the level of "rudeness"
> > of an innocent air-head like Paris Hilton being famous and
> > maybe just a skoosh beyond, doncha think?
>
> And your only talent is to dig up other posts on Usenet, like some
> cyber archeaologist, and throw it back into other people's faces? Wow,
> what skills!
>
Yeah, I had to scroll back up eight whole days on the server, which
retains plain-text Usenet posts for four months or more...
And your question-evading skills are still top-notch, if you're
looking for a stroke...in no way was I talking about "skills",
but you dodged that one like a fat bald stupid bullfighter.
And, why the intense allergy to your own words? Are
you ashamed of what you've said?
> > Oh wait, I forgot, you don't think...never mind. Carry
> > on the chatter; "Yelps" clean the cages again, they're all
> > excited and the output is greater than usual...
>
> This is all bullshit, and you know it.
>
Exactly! Except from monkeys which is even funnier!! You
get the joke, amazing!!!
> But I suppose you will continue to troll this group and post your
> negative shit at us because you have no original thought in your head
> either. You love to irritate people because you have nothing else to
> contribute, your worthless piece of shit.
Well, as soon as I find a copyrighted article that is as entertaining
as my own words, I'll be sure to post it, if only to be "one of the
gang".
> And don't give me this
> copyright infrigement shit either.
Now, see, here's the REALLY funny thing. I never used the words
"copyright infringement". I mentioned you post a lot of copyrighted
articles, and further clarified that you did that because you have no
original thoughts to post. I never once said anything about the legal
ramifications of posting copyrighted material.
Then you went "absolutely ape" jabbering about "cops" and
"infringement" for no apparent reason. Remember? You don't
need any particular research skills to find it, just undo your fierce
snipping skills to restore the post you were responding to:
ichorwhip <icho...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1130391488.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Boaz wrote:
> > ichorwhip wrote:
> > > (I sure hope you don't get sued for posting a copyrighted article
> > > without permission. We all know how often that happens on Usenet.
> > > Such a big moneymaker!
> > Shhhhhhhh! Be vewy, vewy qwiet. I'm hunting copywight infwingers.
> > Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh!
>
> > > I may post it a bit later if the
> > > copyright police don't come banging down my door.
> > >
> > "Look! I'm a copyright infringer! Shoot me! It's copyright infringer
> > season!
> >
> > Kubrick said this in the interview (and I hope you don't mind, Mr.
> > Agel, that we are quoting from the book you edited -- fuck Playboy):
> >
> I was planning on posting it from my cottage in Iceland where the
> copyright cops can never put there hands up into me.
---end of restored snipped material
> I've had enough experience
> professionally to know you don't know what the fuck you are talking
> about.
>
Since I wasn't talking about copyright infringement, I was/am again
lost as to what you were/are talking about. I was talking about you
being a foul-mouthed delusional unoriginal retard; is that what you do
"professionally"? If so, can you get me a job? I have references...
> So fuck you, Reid. Nothing you post here will change what Ich and I do.
>
Ah, so wrong. Again I must point out that my mere mention of the
word "copyright" set off an epileptic spasm of "chattering behavior"
on Monkey Island. You "ape" the words I use in a feeble attempt
to communicate like a human being, etc., all documented in the last
few days on your local newserver, but actual reading skills would
be required to access these facts...
However, here's something that I'm sure will stop you dead in
your tracks, because it is a simple question, which stumps you
every time:
Given your great knowledge of copyright law, please
inform us of the precise legal status of posting entire
copyrighted articles without obtaining permission to do so.
We can wait if you need some extra time to research this,
but do try to give a complete answer that truly convinces us
of your great "professional" expertise on the matter.
Particularly make the distinction between "I don't think I'll
be sued for it" and "it's completely lawful and moral behavior",
because so far my only point in the post you responded to was
that you don't RESPECT the difference, hence the irony of
your hypocritical criticisms of "rude" people who just do
stuff "because they can"...
Here's a little space for your answer, in case that's your excuse
for your failure to answer simple questions about your behavior:
---
William Ernest Reid
ichorwhip
Are these not your words Billy Nilly?:
"Ur so dum you don't know that straw dogs are much easier to
burn than real ones, you don't even need lighter fluid. I have NEVER
claimed to be "saint" of any kind; I clearly left that embarrassing
hypocrisy to the two-man self-righteous copyright-infringing
foul-mouthed murderous circle-jerk that just about constitutes the only
content of this pathetic forum."
Yep, he never used the words "copyright infringement." In addition I
find it clinically interesting that he calls us "foul-mouthed murderous
circle-jerk(ers)" all in the same rambling anti-comma sentence. "Circle
Jerk"? How foul! Just because "fuck" or "shit" doesn't appear in the
sentence, I guess that makes it not foul... Still trying to figure out
when I did murder. I don't recall that at all. In any event, I really
wish I had invested in William Ernest Turd's words. Seems like I get
50 of his for every 1 of mine. He's a liar too. Did you see where he
said that Josh Whatever's "Serenity" has made more money in the past
few weeks than the entire Kubrick oeurve? I guess that was supposed to
be one of those "inside jokes" or whatever, yawn. I try to avoid
talking to Billy whenever possible. He gets so pissy you can
practically feel his blood pressure affecting the universe a la "the
butterfly effect."
"Ow!"
ichorwhip
"peace is our profession"
>
Boaz
>
> Not really, I'm not a lawyer in any event.
I didn't think so. Talk about a retard! You're either that or you
suffer from sever memory problems. Or maybe you are just a hypocrite
too.
> You DO seem to have a
> lot of experience evading simple questions, which is kind of part of the
> lawyer skill-set...
Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment. And I will await one of your
"brilliant" sarcastic responses to my answer.
> > You work for a
> > company where you deal a lot with copyrights?
>
> Well, yeah, I mean, a lot of companies have to deal with
> intellectual property issues, and they've certainly come up
> directly in my work many, many times.
Such as?
> > You have a legal background?
> >
> Asked and answered. Please ask your next question, counselor,
> since you are apparently incapable of actually answering any.
That seems to bother you -- not that you haven't been evasive with your
own profession and identity whenever you've come into this forum to
spread your shit. It's anyone's guess what you do. And it's anyone's
guess why someone would hire you, especially issues regarding
"itellectual property."
<snip>
> And your question-evading skills are still top-notch, if you're
> looking for a stroke...in no way was I talking about "skills",
> but you dodged that one like a fat bald stupid bullfighter.
Eloquent analogy. Hemingway is turning in his grave.
> And, why the intense allergy to your own words? Are
> you ashamed of what you've said?
Not at all. Since we are on the subject of evading questions and the
like, let's cut to the chase and let me ask this: Where does posting on
a public forum, a non-profit entity like Usenet constitute copyright
infringement? And where is it that I and Ich are singled out for this
"infraction of the law"? Once can go back much further, if you like, to
find a great many "violators" cutting and pasting articles that may or
may not be relevant to Kubrick, but may be of interest to many of us
who visit this forum on a regular basis.
Nobody is "stealing" when posting an article on AMK. We are not
downloading anything to sell and make any money from. We are sharing
information, which is pretty commonplace on Internet newgroups, forums
and message boards. No one is putting anything on AMK for monetary
gain.
> > > Oh wait, I forgot, you don't think...never mind. Carry
> > > on the chatter; "Yelps" clean the cages again, they're all
> > > excited and the output is greater than usual...
> >
> > This is all bullshit, and you know it.
> >
> Exactly! Except from monkeys which is even funnier!! You
> get the joke, amazing!!!
If I'm a monkey, then you are the 800 pound gorilla that everyone tries
to pretend doesn't exist when he shows up to shit all over newsgroups
like AMK. Most of the time we have tried to ignore you. Unfortunately,
you flung one turd too many in my direction, Koko.
> > But I suppose you will continue to troll this group and post your
> > negative shit at us because you have no original thought in your head
> > either. You love to irritate people because you have nothing else to
> > contribute, your worthless piece of shit.
>
> Well, as soon as I find a copyrighted article that is as entertaining
> as my own words, I'll be sure to post it, if only to be "one of the
> gang".
I could think of a number of copyrighted articles more entertaining
than anything you write, but who has the time to post them all here?
> > And don't give me this
> > copyright infrigement shit either.
>
> Now, see, here's the REALLY funny thing. I never used the words
> "copyright infringement". I mentioned you post a lot of copyrighted
> articles, and further clarified that you did that because you have no
> original thoughts to post. I never once said anything about the legal
> ramifications of posting copyrighted material.
Oh, right. The words "copyright-infringing" isn't exactly the same
thing. I suppose you wish to split hairs about that like a lawyer
would.
"I clearly left that embarrassing
hypocrisy to the two-man self-righteous copyright-infringing
foul-mouthed murderous circle-jerk that just about constitutes the only
content of this pathetic forum."
Hmmmmm, infringing? Infringement?
By the way, how does "murderous" fit into all this? If I and Ich (among
others) have a finger pointed at us as "infringers," wouldn't the use
of the word "murderous" from you constitute a libelous remark? Not
slander, but libel. But, hey, I'll back off on the libel accusations if
you do the same about "copyright infringing."
> Then you went "absolutely ape" jabbering about "cops" and
> "infringement" for no apparent reason. Remember?
I didn't say anything about cops. "Absolutely ape"? You mean my attempt
to imitate Daffy Duck? Talk about a lack of irony! Anyway, here is what
you posted recently:
"I'm confused again...let's get things nice and sparkling clear, OK?
Hmmmmmm, quoting from ACO. And on AMK. Hmmmmmmm. That line is in both
novel and film. Hmmmmmmm...
But, moving on, you say:
"You seem to have a lot of "issue" with copyrights. And the issue
seems to be that if you don't think you'll be arrested or sued for
your behavior, it's all just a big joke. Is that a fair summary of
your "thoughtful observations"? "
Arrested, huh? Not for copyright violations. Sued? Yes. However, "cease
and desist" letters and e-mails are usually the first thing done, so as
to give the "violator" the option to stop before further action is
taken. In such cases the police are left out, and only a summons is
issued to the alleged "violator," but only after the "violator" has
ignored the warning.
And as for "having issues" with the subject, that's what you are doing.
You came in here and spewed your venom all over this forum, acting like
the "copyright police" yourself (despite all of your denial to the
contrary), and all you want to do is piss off everyone you respond to.
Now you've pissed me off and I responded in kind. I'm sure your mother
is proud of you. She sure raised her son right and proper.
<snip>
> > I've had enough experience
> > professionally to know you don't know what the fuck you are talking
> > about.
> >
> Since I wasn't talking about copyright infringement,
LOL!!! Like hell you weren't! You started talking about it last week.
> I was/am again
> lost as to what you were/are talking about. I was talking about you
> being a foul-mouthed delusional unoriginal retard; is that what you do
> "professionally"? If so, can you get me a job? I have references...
I'll dodge this question too, only because I am not about to dignify it
with a response.
<snip>
> However, here's something that I'm sure will stop you dead in
> your tracks, because it is a simple question, which stumps you
> every time:
>
> Given your great knowledge of copyright law, please
> inform us of the precise legal status of posting entire
> copyrighted articles without obtaining permission to do so.
>
> We can wait if you need some extra time to research this,
> but do try to give a complete answer that truly convinces us
> of your great "professional" expertise on the matter.
No problem at all. I have some information right here:
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl109-9.html
Notice Section 103, part 1, large A: "for purposes of commercial
advantage or private financial gain;" And part C [which I will save you
the trouble of posting to throw in my face, so I will do it here] says:
by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial
distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible
to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that
the work was intended for commercial distribution."
But since what I am doing (among many others here on AMK) is merely
sharing information, and not putting it on a website for the purpose of
making money, there is this item: "``(2) Evidence.--For purposes of
this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a
copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish
willful infringement of a copyright."
And, of course, you can read more from the link. You're intelligent
chelloveck, I'm sure you can read legalese with ease.
As for myself, I have several short films under copyright; I also have
been published, and I have worked at a few major studios here in L.A.
over several years. I am currently in a free-lance job with a studio
that is pretty Byzantine in its view of copyright infringement. I am
aware of what is "safe" and what is definitely a flagrant violation.
Our work has to go through the legal department for their approval. But
there is nothing I, nor my colleagues here at AMK, have done that
crosses over into "copyright infringement" territory.
If you wish to continue playing these mind games, trying to prove your
superiority by finding flaws in me and others here on AMK, that's your
prerogative. Enjoy. It's an open forum. Knock yourself out.
Boaz
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote:
> > Boaz <boa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1130429970....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Bill Reid wrote:
> >
> > > And don't give me this
> > > copyright infrigement shit either.
> >
> > Now, see, here's the REALLY funny thing. I never used the words
> > "copyright infringement". I mentioned you post a lot of copyrighted
> > articles, and further clarified that you did that because you have no
> > original thoughts to post. I never once said anything about the legal
> > ramifications of posting copyrighted material.
>
> Are these not your words Billy Nilly?:
>
> "Ur so dum you don't know that straw dogs are much easier to
> burn than real ones, you don't even need lighter fluid. I have NEVER
> claimed to be "saint" of any kind; I clearly left that embarrassing
> hypocrisy to the two-man self-righteous copyright-infringing
> foul-mouthed murderous circle-jerk that just about constitutes the only
> content of this pathetic forum."
>
"infringement", my mistake.
> Yep, he never used the words "copyright infringement."
No, I did. What are you, stupid? We have established your
archived post retrieval skills, however...
> In addition I
> find it clinically interesting that he calls us "foul-mouthed murderous
> circle-jerk(ers)" all in the same rambling anti-comma sentence.
Even more interesting is the excess of colons and semi-colons
in my Usenet sentences. Make of it what you will...
> "Circle
> Jerk"? How foul! Just because "fuck" or "shit" doesn't appear in the
> sentence, I guess that makes it not foul...
I was referring to the punk rock band, you heathen!
> Still trying to figure out
> when I did murder.
Murder most foul, in Jimmy Carter's heart. I've used my amazing
archived post retrieval skills many times to ask about this:
From: ichorwhip <icho...@netzero.net>
Subject: Re: Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Date: Saturday, March 12, 2005 7:27 PM
...
Personally I wish you'd laughed yourself into your
fucking grave with your infected worldview and very poor, convoluted
taste.
---end of archived excerpt
As a matter of fact, I retrieved that from the very post you quoted.
It is well and truly established that you wish death on people who
don't share your "taste" in movies. I'm still just trying to get an answer
as to whether that constitutes one of the elusive "thoughtful observations"
that are rumored to exist here, but so far no reply...
> I don't recall that at all.
If you'd stop snipping it out, your memory might be jogged.
> In any event, I really
> wish I had invested in William Ernest Turd's words. Seems like I get
> 50 of his for every 1 of mine.
If we needed any further evidence that my vocabulary is much more
extensive than yours, the above sentence proves it again...it's more
like a 100 to 1 ratio, and mine are bigger too!
> He's a liar too.
Just like you! Maybe I just want to join "The Circle Jerks"...
> Did you see where he
> said that Josh Whatever's "Serenity" has made more money in the past
> few weeks than the entire Kubrick oeurve?
Yeah, that is a true statement. You see, in the last few weeks Stanley
Kubrick's movies have made almost nothing, compared to about
$30million for "Serenity", because people have just been downloading
Kubrick movies using BitTorrent and the like and not paying. The
copyright holders sent out a few threatening letters, but they just got
the following responses:
> > > (I sure hope you don't get sued for posting a copyrighted article
> > > without permission. We all know how often that happens on Usenet.
> > > Such a big moneymaker!
> > Shhhhhhhh! Be vewy, vewy qwiet. I'm hunting copywight infwingers.
> > Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh!
>
> > > I may post it a bit later if the
> > > copyright police don't come banging down my door.
> > >
> > "Look! I'm a copyright infringer! Shoot me! It's copyright infringer
> > season!
> >
> > Kubrick said this in the interview (and I hope you don't mind, Mr.
> > Agel, that we are quoting from the book you edited -- fuck Playboy):
> >
> I was planning on posting it from my cottage in Iceland where the
> copyright cops can never put there hands up into me.
Clearly, the copyright infringers intend to use the insanity defense,
and this has the copyright holders stumped, since it is obviously
well-supported by the evidence...
> I guess that was supposed to
> be one of those "inside jokes" or whatever, yawn.
Yeah, simple math, WHAT-EVAAAA!!!
> I try to avoid
> talking to Billy whenever possible.
But talking about him, now that's the great thing, innit it? Behavior
modification noted...
> He gets so pissy you can
> practically feel his blood pressure affecting the universe a la "the
> butterfly effect."
>
Ah, I am quite sure even a delusional douche like you knows my
blood pressure is fine. It is well-documented that blood pressure
tends to drop during periods of pleasurable recreation, like
zoo-tending...
> "Ow!"
YOU STOLE THAT FROM "BUFFY", TELL THE TRUTH,
"BUFFY" INVENTED THE WORD 'OW!', YOU WATCHED
ALL 166 EPISODES, HOW ELSE WOULD YOU KNOW
THAT QUOTE, YOU BIG FAT LIAR!!!!
---
William Ernest Reid
Bill Reid
> > > You have a background in copyright law, right?
> >
> > Not really, I'm not a lawyer in any event.
>
> I didn't think so. Talk about a retard!
Let us now note that the new definition of "retard" is somebody
who isn't a lawyer. Doctor=retard, scientist=retard, President
of the United States=retard, uhh, well, you get the idea...
> You're either that or you
> suffer from sever memory problems.
I'm sorry, my corpus collosum was cut years ago because of
my frequent outbursts of vulgarity, what did you just say?
> Or maybe you are just a hypocrite
> too.
>
Maybe, just maybe...but no, not really. What?
> > You DO seem to have a
> > lot of experience evading simple questions, which is kind of part of the
> > lawyer skill-set...
>
> Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment.
Question evader=GENIUS!
> And I will await one of your
> "brilliant" sarcastic responses to my answer.
>
I'll try to be quick about it.
> > > You work for a
> > > company where you deal a lot with copyrights?
> >
> > Well, yeah, I mean, a lot of companies have to deal with
> > intellectual property issues, and they've certainly come up
> > directly in my work many, many times.
>
> Such as?
>
Question asker=GENIUS! What's with the third degree? Can't
you just answer a simple question without obfuscating the issue
with 100 irrelevant queries?
I grow weary of this stupid game, because I've played it so many,
many times before, and it leads to nil, but many times I've had to
use video, print, and music clips in my work and I have to say to
another human being, "Make sure we have the clearance to use
this stuff", and then they do it (oh hell, sometimes I've even done it).
Now don't ask me any more stupid questions, you dumb creep.
> > > You have a legal background?
> > >
> > Asked and answered. Please ask your next question, counselor,
> > since you are apparently incapable of actually answering any.
>
> That seems to bother you -- not that you haven't been evasive with your
> own profession and identity whenever you've come into this forum to
> spread your shit.
Uh, yeah, that's right, whatever you just said, but I commend you
on yet another way to avoid answering a simple question that doesn't
involve just asking a whole bunch of stupid questions. Now you've
progressed to non-sequitur psuedo-psychoanalysis, great, just
great...
> It's anyone's guess what you do.
I do try to keep my boss guessing!
> And it's anyone's
> guess why someone would hire you, especially issues regarding
> "itellectual property."
>
Frankly, I'm always suprised myself, then I meet somebody like
you there, and the next thing you know I'm asking for a 1000% raise...
> <snip>
>
Another attempt to avoid the issue, I see!
> > And your question-evading skills are still top-notch, if you're
> > looking for a stroke...in no way was I talking about "skills",
> > but you dodged that one like a fat bald stupid bullfighter.
>
> Eloquent analogy. Hemingway is turning in his grave.
>
Like a fat bald stupid DEAD bullfighter. I can turn a phrase
like a cape.
> > And, why the intense allergy to your own words? Are
> > you ashamed of what you've said?
>
> Not at all.
I simply don't believe you. That's the classic reason why the frequent
posters to Usenet get so "snippy" and hate having their own words
re-played for them. It's classic (and tedious) behavior.
> Since we are on the subject of evading questions and the
> like, let's cut to the chase and let me ask this: Where does posting on
> a public forum, a non-profit entity like Usenet constitute copyright
> infringement?
We WERE on the subject of evading questions, and you are nothing
if not completely on-topic!!! Criminy, how many retarded questions
are you gonna ask me just to avoid answering one simple one?
Do you honestly think this behavior fools anybody (except fools)?
> And where is it that I and Ich are singled out for this
> "infraction of the law"?
You're not, it's an epidemic throughout Usenet and the Internet
in general. For cryin' out loud, read a paper, or, since this is more
your style, copy'n'paste a copyrighted article on the subject and then
read your own "thoughtful observations". Guess what, you're not the
only idiot on Usenet, either, that doesn't mean you aren't one...
> Once can go back much further, if you like, to
> find a great many "violators" cutting and pasting articles that may or
> may not be relevant to Kubrick, but may be of interest to many of us
> who visit this forum on a regular basis.
>
Yeah, so, who cares? I mean, you could just provide a link, but I don't
really care one way or the other; if you want to copy the text so one
other creep can read it, knock yourself out. You're the one making
the big deal out of copyright infringement; guess what, you're an idiot
but that don't mean much to me neither...
> Nobody is "stealing" when posting an article on AMK.
Is that your "final answer"? I asked you to dazzle us with your
"professional" brilliance on the subject, is that it?
> We are not
> downloading anything to sell and make any money from.
You are aware that this topic has come up many, many, many,
many (OK many more manys, you get the idea) on Usenet and
the Internet in general, and this is always the response. It was
the response to peer-to-peer music downloading: "hey, we's jes'
sharin' our tunz, dudz, nobodyz makin' nuttin', mellow out man"...
You are not just a blithering idiot, you are the most tedious and
predictable of cretins. I hereby state that I am truly sorry I used the
word "infringement" that got you all riled up, because I swear I never
wanted to be any part of a discussion this typically mongoloidal...
> We are sharing
> information, which is pretty commonplace on Internet newgroups, forums
> and message boards. No one is putting anything on AMK for monetary
> gain.
>
OH LORD IN HEAVEN WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME!!!
> > > > Oh wait, I forgot, you don't think...never mind. Carry
> > > > on the chatter; "Yelps" clean the cages again, they're all
> > > > excited and the output is greater than usual...
> > >
> > > This is all bullshit, and you know it.
> > >
> > Exactly! Except from monkeys which is even funnier!! You
> > get the joke, amazing!!!
>
> If I'm a monkey, then you are the 800 pound gorilla that everyone tries
> to pretend doesn't exist when he shows up to shit all over newsgroups
> like AMK.
At least we've established I'm bigger and stronger than you. We
may be making progress here...does that bother you (he asks
pseudo-psychoanalytically)?
> Most of the time we have tried to ignore you.
Try harder. You might want to just shut the hell up entirely while
you're at it, for your own good.
> Unfortunately,
> you flung one turd too many in my direction, Koko.
>
Uh-oh, the little monkey's gonna go after the giant sentient ape.
Anybody wanna take bets on this one?
> > > But I suppose you will continue to troll this group and post your
> > > negative shit at us because you have no original thought in your head
> > > either. You love to irritate people because you have nothing else to
> > > contribute, your worthless piece of shit.
> >
No. Sorry, but you just don't get Usenet, despite being quite a
dedicated user of it. I am allowed to say I don't like "Dr. Zhivago" or
"Eyes Wide Shut", and you are allowed to disagree. I am allowed
to comment on the nature and tone of your discourse and your
apparent intellect. You are allowed to wish death on me, infringe on
copyrights, post endless off-topic articles about how terrible white
people are, hypocritically proclaim that you are not a "rude" person,
whatever. That's what we're fighting in Iraq for: freedom
of Usenet "discussion"!
> > Well, as soon as I find a copyrighted article that is as entertaining
> > as my own words, I'll be sure to post it, if only to be "one of the
> > gang".
>
> I could think of a number of copyrighted articles more entertaining
> than anything you write, but who has the time to post them all here?
>
So many articles by minimum-wage hacks who are always finding
"trends" like "more rudeness", so little time...
> > > And don't give me this
> > > copyright infrigement shit either.
> >
> > Now, see, here's the REALLY funny thing. I never used the words
> > "copyright infringement". I mentioned you post a lot of copyrighted
> > articles, and further clarified that you did that because you have no
> > original thoughts to post. I never once said anything about the legal
> > ramifications of posting copyrighted material.
>
> Oh, right. The words "copyright-infringing" isn't exactly the same
> thing. I suppose you wish to split hairs about that like a lawyer
> would.
>
> "I clearly left that embarrassing
> hypocrisy to the two-man self-righteous copyright-infringing
> foul-mouthed murderous circle-jerk that just about constitutes the only
>
> content of this pathetic forum."
>
> Hmmmmm, infringing? Infringement?
>
No, I've admitted I was wrong, I did use the word "infringement"
first.
See how simple that is: if you make a mistake, you just admit it.
You grow and learn. Oh wait, not YOU, make that I grow and
learn...
> By the way, how does "murderous" fit into all this?
Asked and answered elsewhere. You are truly killer apes, restrained
only by "cops" and the "laws" you so joyfully mock when you don't
think they will put a crimp in your "lifestyle". Take them away, for
just one second, and you'd shoot the first guy who said "Eyes Wide
Shut" was a boring piece of crap...
> If I and Ich (among
> others) have a finger pointed at us as "infringers," wouldn't the use
> of the word "murderous" from you constitute a libelous remark?
Probably not, just to really split hairs. If I said you "murdered
somebody", that would be one thing. Exuberantly wishing death on
people in public forums can reasonably be construed as representing
a "murderous" mindset. Even for a sewer like Usenet, it represents
unusual, loathesome, and in some cases, actionable, behavior.
> Not
> slander, but libel.
Maybe slander, I think the distinction is actually a little murky for
discussion groups.
> But, hey, I'll back off on the libel accusations if
> you do the same about "copyright infringing."
>
Ohhh, a plea bargain. But of course you have to have something
to trade, and you're no "copyright infringer", I mean, you've made
that clear as hell what with your 20,000 questions about my
resume, so I got nothin', very generous of you to trade for that...
> > Then you went "absolutely ape" jabbering about "cops" and
> > "infringement" for no apparent reason. Remember?
>
> I didn't say anything about cops.
Come on, cut me some slack, you know I can't tell one jabbering monkey
from another:
ichorwhip <icho...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1130391488.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> I was planning on posting it from my cottage in Iceland where the
> copyright cops can never put there hands up into me.
---end of archived "thoughtful observations"
Let's just say that when dealing with me, you either act like a
human being or I will not waste my time distinguishing between
simians with only slightly different hues of protruding red anal
fissures...
> "Absolutely ape"? You mean my attempt
> to imitate Daffy Duck?
You were aping a bird? I'm confused again...
> Talk about a lack of irony!
We weren't, so off-topic again (sigh)...
> Anyway, here is what
> you posted recently:
>
> "I'm confused again...let's get things nice and sparkling clear, OK?
>
> Hmmmmmm, quoting from ACO. And on AMK. Hmmmmmmm. That line is in both
> novel and film. Hmmmmmmm...
>
They also say it when making champagne too...
> But, moving on, you say:
>
> "You seem to have a lot of "issue" with copyrights. And the issue
> seems to be that if you don't think you'll be arrested or sued for
> your behavior, it's all just a big joke. Is that a fair summary of
> your "thoughtful observations"? "
>
Now, here we are, 18 billion megabytes into this nonsense, and
here comes the 19th nervous evasion of the simple yes-or-no question:
> Arrested, huh? Not for copyright violations.
Ah, yes, the "professional" shows us his chops here. It's getting
late, but let's just keep this one "for the archives".
As Bugs would say, "What a maroon!"
> Sued? Yes.
OK, so question answered right? If you don't think you'll be arrested or
sued, you have no problem "infringing" on a copyright, and laughing about
it. You don't kill people because you're afraid to be put to death. We now
know everything we need to know about your particular level of "morality".
On the plus side, you're not a "rude" person and you make a lot of
"thoughtful observations"...
> However, "cease
> and desist" letters and e-mails are usually the first thing done, so as
> to give the "violator" the option to stop before further action is
> taken.
And now we enter the part of evading the question where the answer is
so long and pointless that the hope is that everybody's eyes start to water
over with boredom.
The real point is: just because you haven't been threatened doesn't
mean what you're doing is right. This is even less of an excuse than
ignorance of the law.
> In such cases the police are left out, and only a summons is
> issued to the alleged "violator," but only after the "violator" has
> ignored the warning.
>
I hate to pull out some legal words here, but having prosecuted
several cases myself pro se in up to Superior Court, you are talking
about "demand", "satisfaction" (or lack of), followed by "complaint"
(the actual lawsuit). The "summons" is a notice from the court that you
have been sued and have so many days to respond ("denial" if you
wish to fight it).
> And as for "having issues" with the subject, that's what you are doing.
Nope. All of your Tweety-Bird impressions came from two mentions
of the word "copyright" and one of "infringement". I am quite sincere
when I say that I really don't care what you do (obviously, up to a
point). That doesn't mean I might not comment on it. Infringe away,
tiger.
> You came in here and spewed your venom all over this forum, acting like
> the "copyright police" yourself (despite all of your denial to the
> contrary),
I do deny that I acted like the copyright police. As far as I'm
concerned, George Constanza, you can video Joss "Jasper" Whedon's
stupid movie "Serenity" and distribute it all over the world, and I
won't breathe a word of it to the coppers (I should warn you though
that I just read that a guy who was doing that just got like 10 years,
but that wouldn't scare a big strong chelloveck like you, now would
it?).
> and all you want to do is piss off everyone you respond to.
Nope. All wrong. In fact, a lie.
> Now you've pissed me off and I responded in kind.
I think you were just a little worried about John Law too, but
you surely are one agitated little chimp...
> I'm sure your mother
> is proud of you. She sure raised her son right and proper.
>
My mamma!
> <snip>
And here he does his impression of Chicken Little to complete
his bird call repetoire...
> > > I've had enough experience
> > > professionally to know you don't know what the fuck you are talking
> > > about.
> > >
> > Since I wasn't talking about copyright infringement,
>
> LOL!!! Like hell you weren't! You started talking about it last week.
>
Yeah, all right <sheepish>.
> > I was/am again
> > lost as to what you were/are talking about. I was talking about you
> > being a foul-mouthed delusional unoriginal retard; is that what you do
> > "professionally"? If so, can you get me a job? I have references...
>
> I'll dodge this question too, only because I am not about to dignify it
> with a response.
>
I can see you're not dedicated to full employment, you heartless
bastard.
> <snip>
>
Pluck pluck pluck pluck...
> > However, here's something that I'm sure will stop you dead in
> > your tracks, because it is a simple question, which stumps you
> > every time:
> >
> > Given your great knowledge of copyright law, please
> > inform us of the precise legal status of posting entire
> > copyrighted articles without obtaining permission to do so.
> >
> > We can wait if you need some extra time to research this,
> > but do try to give a complete answer that truly convinces us
> > of your great "professional" expertise on the matter.
>
> No problem at all. I have some information right here:
>
Oh, boy, here we go...
> http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl109-9.html
>
> Notice Section 103, part 1, large A: "for purposes of commercial
> advantage or private financial gain;" And part C [which I will save you
> the trouble of posting to throw in my face, so I will do it here] says:
> by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial
> distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible
> to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that
> the work was intended for commercial distribution."
>
OK, I will save this for the "archives", but as I tried to tell you, this
is tediousness built upon tedium. I've read all of this stuff billions and
billions of times before and it's not getting any more interesting.
Just go ahead and put the entire Kubrick movie library on a binary
group or BitTorrent, or hell, just post "Eyes Wide Shut" here as an
attachment to one of your "thoughtful observations" and be done
with it. We're all "interested" in it, well, maybe just the super-model
nudity, but we can edit it down to the good stuff on our own PCs...
...and best of all, I'LL PERSONALLY MAKE SURE NOBODY
ACCIDENTALLY PAYS YOU SO EVERYTHING'S COOL, MAN!!!
What an amazing idiot...
> But since what I am doing (among many others here on AMK) is merely
> sharing information, and not putting it on a website for the purpose of
> making money, there is this item:
SCOTTY BEAM ME UP, ALONG WITH A PRE-RELEASE
COPY OF PETER JACKSON'S "KING KONG"!!!!!
It's not that you're a boring retard, it's that THAT YOU'RE SUCH A
BORING RETARD!!!!!!!!!
"``(2) Evidence.--For purposes of
> this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a
> copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish
> willful infringement of a copyright."
>
Ah, yes, the word "evidence", another legal term that you may
not really understand, despite the apparent common usage of the word.
Was there a sub-section in there that said, "(2)(a) However, if
some morons copy material and post it to Usenet and then start
screaming at the top of their lungs 'HEY JUST TRY TO SUE ME
YOU DUMB PIGS YOU GOTTA SEND ME A LETTER FIRST
I KNOW THE LAW YOU BASTARDS!!!' nothing in this section
shall prevent the Child Welfare Authorities from putting the
offenders into a foster home for retarded juveniles"?
> And, of course, you can read more from the link. You're intelligent
> chelloveck, I'm sure you can read legalese with ease.
>
But it's very boring, and STILL doesn't answer the question I asked.
Or actually it does, just in a very roundabout way. Bottom line is
still: you're just a stupid little creep who does whatever he thinks he
can get away with, but likes to hypocritically post his "thoughtful
observation" that everybody in the world is "rude" but him and
a VERY small group of other foul-mouthed idiots.
"What about THAT, Mr. Fung!?!?!?!!!" - Barry Scheck, OJ Trial
> As for myself,
Oh no, here comes the tedious resume of the Delusional Loser Monkey;
I can't believe this is what he was trying to use in his "appeal to
authority"
to evade the rumor that he is capital-offense copyright infringer:
> I have several short films under copyright; I also have
> been published, and I have worked at a few major studios here in L.A.
> over several years. I am currently in a free-lance job with a studio
> that is pretty Byzantine in its view of copyright infringement.
Wow, talk about a proud mother, except when she has to send
money...
> I am
> aware of what is "safe" and what is definitely a flagrant violation.
"What are they gonna get you for? Starting a riot? That's only a
misdemeanor for disturbing the peace and they probably can't even
get you for that...maybe shooting a horse out of season."
- Johnny Clay, "mastermind"
> Our work has to go through the legal department for their approval.
In other words, you're not a lawyer either, so by your own definition,
you're just as retarded as I am. Thank you for wasting just oodles
of everybody's time here...
> But
> there is nothing I, nor my colleagues here at AMK,
"Colleagues", Christ, WHAT A DELUSIONAL DOUCHE!!!
> have done that
> crosses over into "copyright infringement" territory.
>
But you may have "Berned" a few copyright holders, but who
cares, they're thousands of miles away on a glacier...
> If you wish to continue playing these mind games, trying to prove your
> superiority by finding flaws in me and others here on AMK, that's your
> prerogative. Enjoy. It's an open forum. Knock yourself out.
>
Thanks. I have. I'm a little woozy, truth to tell...kind of like I fell
into a "barrel of monkeys"...
---
William Ernest Reid
MickeyMoop
> Thanks for the post, Gen.
>
> Dr. Harlow Shapley
> Francis J. Hayden, SJ
> Gerald Feinberg
> F. C. Durant III
> Jeremy Bernstein
> Freeman J. Dyson*
> J. J. Drake
> Fred J. Whipple*
> Philip Crosbie Morrison
> Norman Lamm
>
>
>
>
> ("I must say you guys have come up with something.")
> ----------------------------------------------------
> >
kelpzoidzl
on the chatter; "Yelps" clean the cages again, they're all
excited and the output is greater than usual...
I guess I said, " F.... it" and just opened the cages and they all
ran off chattering into the abattoir. Neither humor, nor creativity,
nor civil behavior, nor deep thought, or pleasant conversation could
be sustained.