JamesJazGuitar
-
Posts
35,217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Posts posted by JamesJazGuitar
-
-
Duryea in Winchester 73? I didn't look it up and it is just a wild guess but based on your nickname, I took a chance.
-
Hey, that last sentence was the funnies thing I have read all day!
-
You are correct Fred. And most likely it will be 'us folks' getting the short end of the stick from all three of the others.
-
I assume these rhythms and limericks are the latest tactic to get TCM to make McCrea SOTM.
I can see the TCM admin replying: In exchange for stopping all of this TCM will make Joel SOTM!
-
No. Only the DoJ can answer those questions.
But read a lot of the posts here. One of the myths is that website corporations like Google are fighting content provider corporations like Time Warner out of the goodness of their hearts or to protect free speech. Both sides are trying to protect their revenue stream and donating to politicans in order to do so.
-
Have you been reading my post on this topic (in this thread and others)? I'm the one getting beaten up by the vast majority here as some dirty capitalist!
I generally agree with you that many people are just complaining and often just wish to get something for nothing. I also wasn't the initial one that used the term 'scam' in this regard. But yes, scam isn't the correct term.
But it is true that the city or county determines what cable company services the area and thus consumers are only left with one option with regards to which cable company to use. In my view this gives that cable company too much power over consumers (but the blame for this rest with the city or county leaders). The good news is that today there are many more options and thus, at least in theory, cable companies have to be more responsive to consumers needs.
PS: I'm a major red wine lover. I go to Napa at least once a year and France and Italy, every other year. Not just for the wine of coruse but wine is always part of the trips. Not sure why you showed that picture but if it was to suggest 'hey, folks, chill out' that advise is a good one.
-
You know I didn't think of that at the time, but you are on to something. Now I cannot get that Letterman look out of my head. But it did look like some type of Saturday Night Live or late night TV bit.
-
The battle here is clearly between two sets of "megacorporology".
Why does post after post assume this is some type of fight between corporations and 'the little guy'?
Companies that host websites are some of the largest and riches companies. These companies also give donations to politicians.
Also not every copywrite is owned by a major corporations. There are a lot of angles to this complex discussion but also a lot of myths floating around.
-
I didn't like the movie and turned it off. As you noted the color was real bad (I don't know if that was intended or it was just a washed out version), Bergman's character was very annoying and Cotton just didn't fit his role. To me he looked like a guy from the 20th century just wearing silly clothing.
-
Well I couldn't of said it any better!
They both being something very different and I enjoy both of them.
-
My cable (Cox here in So Cal), also has 3 tiers: Basic which is local stations and the 4 networks, than extended which has ESPN, TCM, Food, etc... The final tier is where one pays for each station like HBO, or for my mom the Japanese network or my wife the Italian one.
As for a scam; Well when there was no other choices (e.g. before directTV or other services), one could say cable was a scam because consumers had no other viable options.
This isn't the case today (well unless one lives in the high, remote mountains!).
-
I grant you that if the colorized process was very good, some of the movies you noted, especially outdoor ones might be improved.
But I assume you enjoy these movies 'as is'. That was the point MissW and I were making. There is so much in these movies that we enjoy and the fact the movies are in B&W in no ways take away from these other aspects.
If one doesn't love these other aspects like we do, having the movie in color isn't going to make the movie appealing enough.
-
There are three differences between what your dad did and getting copywritten material over the internet for free. I'm sure you are smart enough yourself to know what these are (really, I'm not being a wiseguy). But I'll explain them anyhow;
One is quality; The quality of what your dad recorded was poor.
Two is the scope of the material. Typically the radio only played a limited number of tunes. So while one could get top 40 hits and some other music, one was limited to what the radio stations would play. This is a lot different than, say, what Napster had (one could get almost anything when it was at its heyday).
Three is ease of use. To get music from the radio one has to listen to song, after song, and than wait for a song one wants, than record it. This takes a lot of time and effort. Again, using a service like Napster, where one can scan a category of music, hit a few clicks and get what they want, is a lot easier.
I still fail to see what point you are making: Yes, people have always stole copywritten material. Granted, you are correct there. But again, you being Internet savvy, must understand how much easier it is to trade in music (and now movies due to increased streaming speeds), today.
What your dad did was a pain so the losses to content creators was minimal. That isn't true today. It appears your POV is that, since it is easy to steal, stealing is A-OK and should be legal.
PS: I'm really having fun with all of this and I'm really trying to understand people's POV here. What I wonder the most about is what is your vision for a business model that will provide fair compensation to those that create music, movies and other content? I get the impression from many here that creators shouldn't even be able to copywrite their work and that they should just make it available for free in the public domain. If that isn't the business model, please explain your vision of the future. I'm just not getting it.
-
Do you know how Fox is airing these 'limited' commercials?
In another post at this thread, I indicated that it wouldn't be 'that bad' if a movie channel aired commercials, even during a movie IF they did so with respect to the movie. e.g. only 3 or 4 breaks during a 90 minute or so movie, with the breaks tied to major scene changes in the film.
Hey, I love TCM and no commercial breaks while a film is running but sometimes I wish they had a bathroom break (Ok, sometimes it is so I can make popcorn). Again, I would rather have NO commercials but if a movie channel decides to have some they must do so with respect to the movie. AMC will show a 'showdown at noon' gunfight where the guns are fired, then break for a commercial, and when they return to the action we then see which guy falls to the ground!
-
As I said, I find this 'take' interesting so keep posting these reviews, especially if you can time them to reflect movies TCM is about to show or has just shown.
As for him being negative. Ok I see your point, but I don't think Irene Dunne would agree!
-
It is a crime to house stolen property. i.e. if someone steals a TV set and stores that stolen TV set at someone's home, the homeowner has committed a crime. By law the homeowner has a duty to ensure any property stored at their home is NOT stolen.
I give you credit for helping highlight one of the key issues in this debate; Who has the duty to ensure unauthorized copywritten material isn't made readily available on an Internet website; the copywrite owner or the website.
Years ago Napster tried to claim they were unaware that people were using their website to pass around music. Everyone knows that was a lie. The website was created to assist in the stealing of music.
But YouTube and other websites are indeed different. A majority of the material on YouTube is NOT copywritten material.
You clearly believe it should be the duty of the content owner. While a large corporation (e.g. Time Warner), has the resources to do this, smaller content owners do not. Also, by the time a content owner discovers someone has violated their copywrite, a lot of damage has been done. e.g. thousand if not millions of copies may have already been stolen.
I admit I don't have a solution and what would be best is some type of joint cooperation between content producers and content providers. I just disagree with those that have such a strong feeling that content producers are the bad guys and that content providers have no responsiblity.
-
The streaker looks like Sonny Bono.
-
I wonder if people that are not interested in movies or music not created in the last decade or so feel the same way about books? I had an older uncle and when I was around 20 he made me a list of around 20 classic books to read. Some of these books were written decades before I was born and some a few centuries. It took a lot of time to read them all but they really helped me mature and grow as a person.
The good news is that there are young people interested in classic movies based on who has joined the CFU (where younger people often state their age, while us older folks don't dare!). So like jazz and other art form, classic movies will continue to be enjoyed by future generations but only by those that wish to broaden their perspective beyond what is popular or current.
-
Some of the richest, most profitable companies in the USA are website companies like Google. But I guess these companies are not corporations. What about when they go public and sell stock (like Google did)? Are they then corporations?
-
What I find hard to believe is the idea that 'if only these movies were colorized, people would be willing to watch these movies'.
I'm not buying that. I think there are many reasons why people are not willing to seek out 'old' (i.e. classic, studio era), movies, with the fact they are B&W being just one reason. What would be next? Adding in cruse words so these movies have more realistic dialog. Adding nudity? (ok, that isn't such a bad idea,,,, Ava, Rita, with simulated nudity,,,, maybe I should be more opened minded).
-
I don't thing Sanfin, you and I are really that far apart on this and I appreciate the civil discussion. I do agree with Sanfin that comments made about content and quoting content as part of an editorial about content is free speech. So I can see legit concerns that this law goes too far in that regard.
Fred points out that copywritten material is already protected and that YouTube will remove it, when it is pointed out to them. Yes, that is true also but I feel YouTube should do more to ensure copywritten material isn't posted in the first place. I do understand how hard that would be. But as we see with the Chinese just trusting them to do the right thing (not steal copywritten material), doesn't work either and cost American companies and content creators a lot of money.
All I'm asking is the right balance to ensure creators of content get a reasonable return without impacting all the wonderful improvements in communication and information sharing. For example, I use YouTube a lot to learn how to play songs. Man I wish I had this 25 years ago! But of course I'm watching videos voluntarily posted by people wishing to get free tips.
-
So I take the time and expense to record, say, 10 songs, copy write this material, and someone should be able to post this on the Internet, where anyone can then download them? Thus I get paid nothing, and I'm the greedy one? I'm the one taking advantage of people?
You also imply companies like YouTube don't 'reap the benefits'. Do you know how much that company is worth? They didn't gain their vast wealth by creating content. While they don't charge for viewing content they make money off ads. They are paid for those ads only because they provide access to said content. Thus indirectly they are making money off this content.
Why would anyone finance the cost of a movie if the movie can be passed around and the creators get little to nothing in return? Where would the producers of the movies get the money to pay the actors and all the other people who worked on the creation of the movie?
The only valid point I see in your reply relates to free publicly. Yea, if I post my songs on YouTube then I'm doing so to create interest in my work. But that should still be a choice that only I make.
You point about individuals not making a profit is also flawed. That paradigm would allow someone to make copies of a movie and pass them around as long as they don't charge for them. Don't you see how that hurts the people that paid to create this content?
As for YouTube existing. I will openly admit that if the main purpose of YouTube is too allow people to view content without having to pay for it (unless permission is granted by the owner of said material, or the content is in the public domain), than yes, YouTube shouldn't exist.
-
Hey, thanks for posting all of these Agee criticisms. They appear to be generally negative. Is this because you are only posting negative ones or that he is generally negative?
I would be interested in reading his take on movies he really loved.
-
Yes, politicians are crooked. So because of that artist, musicians, movie makers shouldn't be paid for creating their works.
The issue is complex but as a software developer and a musician, I don't want companies or people taking the 'stuff' I have created and putting it all over the Internet without my expressed permission. Does that make me greedy?
Why Were They Nominated for an Oscar?
in General Discussions
Posted
Well then I assume it was either Fred MacMurray or Jose Ferrer.
By the way Duryea is one of my favorite actors. He was very good as the bad guy but he also had a few star roles as a good like, like World For Ransom.