I want to up-vote this, it's a great movie (of it's day) but...
...And rasch187, you know this as well...

Sift Guidlines strictly prohibit the posting of Full movies. Section 35; Subsection 4 (http://videosift.com/faq-en.php)
I quote:
"Please do not post entire episodes of television shows or movies, unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are in the public domain. That's what BitTorrent is for."

As this movie has had some of the biggest copyright battles of any movie I know of - I'm pretty sure is isn't public domain. I think we should *discuss - Sorry rasch187 - plus we haven't discussed this issue in a while and it's a good idea to bring some of these up again once in a while to see if they still stick.

Cheers!

Look it's a public domain book that has been changed by one publisher so that people who find said word too offensive can enjoy the work. It is not an across the board alteration to every copy of Huck Finn sold hence forth. Stupid? Probably. Worthy of attention? No.

Its been a while since I roasted someone, so I maybe a bit rusty...

You know something, that hasn't been talked of yet is the channel that Mr. Fisk is in charged of, Controversy...

We all know that Mr. Fisk can be off his rocker at times, but what drives a man to be in charge of something like controversy? From what we can deciper from what Mr. Dotdude shared, I picked some of my favorite quotes from his 500 acceptance speech...

1) And to think, I was nearly permanently banned my first month here:
Meaning that this guy shouldn't be here in the first place? Not even one month on videosift and people were already trying to get rid of this guy... I mean seriously, compared to what he has gone through when he first started, this roast is pretty much a cakewalk...

2) Next up, I'd like to thank the rest of y'all suave mofos, for watching, upvoting, and appreciating my twisted sense of humor. And finally, I'd like to thank myself. It wasn't as easy as I made it look, pinpointing the greatest underground rap videos (often foregoing the luxury of thumbnails), locating full episodes and movies (the internet is public domain, so far as I'm concerned), posting political videos that I disagreed with but refused to ignore (how many did I take from you, qm and billo?), and of course, the controversy:
Can you believe that this was only three sentences? Besides writing an extra long sentence at the end that a grammar teacher would frown on (not like I have anything going myself with my three periods...), He acknowledge people as "Suave Mofos." Congrats people, when he hit 500 he complimented and insulted you at the same time and not many people can do that... He then goes off by saying reasons why he should have been banned, by confessing how he uses Licensed Underground Rap videos, full episodes and movies, political videos that discredit people, "and of course, the controversy." How is this man Ranked 39!?! He admitted that he lied, cheated, and stoled to get to where he is today!

3) What I found (Videosift), was a galaxy of videos, which have entertained, educated, appalled, and bored the fuck out of me:
I love how he puts "bored the fuck out of me" at the end since this indicates that while he was, "entertained, and educated" he was really "appalled" by videos he has seen and overall bored of what some people attempt to post... Mr. Fisk is saying that doesn't like you or the videos that you post people... Only a few things amuse him, but overall, he just, BORED!

4) Yes, I've been controversial in the past, it's in my blood, you see? But I think the community, as a whole, is able to realize that I'm more of a civil-siftdisobedient than an outright siftarchist. I'm delighted to earn this meaningless achievement:
And we reach the end where he finishes his confession. He is a controversial man, he enriches his heritage of causing problems for other and is a disobedient troublemaker who embraced a honor by saying it is meaningless... Truly you are someone who sets a good example... An example of how to be an evil mastermind trying to throw people off by confusing and angering others...

O and did I forget to mention that he I peddles cigarettes and booze for a living... I went ahead to look up the definition of peddle and here it is...

ped·dle/ˈpedl/Verb
1. Try to sell (something, esp. small goods) by going from house to house or place to place.
2. Sell (an illegal drug or stolen item).

That's right people, he sells illegal cigarettes and booze from place to place!! You make me sick and I hope to get in on that action once you are found and brought to justice... Keep up the good work so that when you are finally arrested, you will have so much evidence against you even your lawyer will try and find you guilty... Thank you!

((In all seriousness though, Mr. Fisk, keep up the great job, the videos you find are great to watch and if you haven't posted the controversy channel, videosift still be brainwashed moron with no direction to go... Thank you and I hope you didn't get offended, but then again that is how roasts works right?))

I don't think it should be abolished, however the current limits are getting absurd. People who had no involvement of the original copyright are now handling estates. 95 years now? Oh right... Disney...

The original limits seemed quite fair. Longer than an average lifespan seems just silly.

What really troubled me is that public domain hit a dead stop at 1923 with the new laws. It won't move again for a good while still. I bet you when that time comes it gets extended to 125 years or something equally stupid then.

@chilaxe, that's what I was afraid you'd say.

Claims like those require information, not hear-say and the absurd purging of a peculiarly biased and emotional Gawker writer. I refer specifically to the supposed rape case. I mean, the not-rape case. The bad touching accusation.

I'm not opposed to the idea that Mr. Assange is a douchebag, nor am I allied against the notion that he puts his dick in women who don't want him to - although this second claim requires far, far more evidence, and it would be insane and morally bankrupt to assume a position either way, considering the lack of that evidence. There's certainly nothing reliable in the public domain.

However, even if he immolated kittens, it would have no reflection whatsoever on the value, or lack thereof, of the leak of the Iraq reports and the information within. For the journalist to pursue him specifically on the point of those accusations is an attempt to obfuscate what is actually going on and is shoddy, stupid and disgusting.

His demeanor is secondary to the event of this leak, and she should not be insisting on rumour and bad publicity in the current situation. By all means, investigate the claims made against Assange, but the quotes you provided - and Chen in particular - is insufficient evidence and, further, irrelevant.

>> ^rasch187:

>> ^ant:
>> ^ponceleon:
Doesn't this violate rule #4 of posting: Please do not post entire episodes of television shows or movies, unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are in the public domain.
??

discuss
This shouldn't be here?

See the discussion on Dr. Strangelove and Religilous on this very issue. The consencus reached there still applies.
return


Thanks, we need to change that rule or something since it is confusing us!

>> ^ant:

>> ^ponceleon:
Doesn't this violate rule #4 of posting: Please do not post entire episodes of television shows or movies, unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are in the public domain.
??

discuss
This shouldn't be here?


See the discussion on Dr. Strangelove and Religilous on this very issue. The consencus reached there still applies.

*return

>> ^ponceleon:

Doesn't this violate rule #4 of posting: Please do not post entire episodes of television shows or movies, unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are in the public domain.
??


*discuss

This shouldn't be here?

Doesn't this violate rule #4 of posting: Please do not post entire episodes of television shows or movies, unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are in the public domain.

??

I didn't realize I was obligated to respond to you but, since I apparently am, here it is: I think net neutrality is a lose/lose situation.

First off, there's no 'neutral' option in this argument. The options are either to allow corrupt megacorporations to determine which traffic is prioritized or to allow a corrupt government agency to determine which traffic is prioritized.

Either way, us regular people are out in the cold. Basically, I mostly agree with you.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You never addressed any of my problems and instead fed the troll and then complain about him being a poor debater when not taking place in the actual debate? Do you also not have anything to say about net neutrality and just want to engage in an asinine debate over corrupt politics?
I laid out a very sound argument that the government has been involved with the regulation of the radio, and TV waves since 1934 and has helped aid in the corporate take over all during that time. The rule sets and regulations they put in place favor people who have large sums of capital and extra man power. The assume they would do anything different with the internet would be counter to 60 years of history. What started as an effort to "clean up the air waves" of both congestion and indecency has ended up with the larges concentrations of media power in free society. TV tells the same, and even worse story. AM radio stations are about the only public domain for broadcast, but is volumes times higher than your public access TV station. The corporate take over of the media was facilitated by gaming the regulation system in favor of large corporate pools of influence over time. The web resembles the early radio days in many ways. There is one key difference, the ones who own a lot of the pipes now are legal monopolies. Erase that status, and you will get what you almost had 60 years ago with radio, truly free communication. Undo the damage that has been done to the cause of net neutrality be undermining the monopoly power base of those companies that are growing out of size and scope with the level of their consumer fulfillment.
Trying to legislate net neutrality will ultimately undermine it. That is, unless you are going to fund lobbies on the level that some of the richest companies in all of humanity are going to. If not, then it is a bad idea.
( I have to learn to stop speaking in the second person, it sounds so accusatory)

You never addressed any of my problems and instead fed the troll and then complain about him being a poor debater when not taking place in the actual debate? Do you also not have anything to say about net neutrality and just want to engage in an asinine debate over corrupt politics?

I laid out a very sound argument that the government has been involved with the regulation of the radio, and TV waves since 1934 and has helped aid in the corporate take over all during that time. The rule sets and regulations they put in place favor people who have large sums of capital and extra man power. The assume they would do anything different with the internet would be counter to 60 years of history. What started as an effort to "clean up the air waves" of both congestion and indecency has ended up with the larges concentrations of media power in free society. TV tells the same, and even worse story. AM radio stations are about the only public domain for broadcast, but is volumes times higher than your public access TV station. The corporate take over of the media was facilitated by gaming the regulation system in favor of large corporate pools of influence over time. The web resembles the early radio days in many ways. There is one key difference, the ones who own a lot of the pipes now are legal monopolies. Erase that status, and you will get what you almost had 60 years ago with radio, truly free communication. Undo the damage that has been done to the cause of net neutrality be undermining the monopoly power base of those companies that are growing out of size and scope with the level of their consumer fulfillment.

Trying to legislate net neutrality will ultimately undermine it. That is, unless you are going to fund lobbies on the level that some of the richest companies in all of humanity are going to. If not, then it is a bad idea.

( I have to learn to stop speaking in the second person, it sounds so accusatory)

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Nope, I don't. Bush lost in the popular vote but he didn't steal the election. It's just a case of an anomaly in our screwy election system.
This was a good example of why you're such a poor debater, though. If you can't make an argument you just change the topic. You've apparently got nothing to say on the topic of Net Neutrality so you start whining about the election from a year and a half ago. When I call you on your crappy source, you strawman me and start whining about the election from almost 10 years ago.
Most of your "opponents" here are just as ignorant, I know, but you'll have to

>> ^littledragon_79:

You know what, I think we've all been had. This is just footage from the latest asshat convention and it's been taken out of context. You see, it's really just a gathering of juvenile douchebags that haven't evolved enough to know how to cooperate.
Isn't there something about not recording people without their consent? Although I'd worry what the cops/security guys would do w/o the camera...and no one should. That sucks.


I'm afraid you don't know jack shit about shit. Trolololololo, the previous sentence was because of your "asshat" remark. I thought you were trollin'.

As far as I understand it if a person is in the public domain you do not have to have consent to film them, or picture them; provided it does not constitute harassment or assault and any number of sexual offenses.

The general consensus that I've seen on Google is that if the video footage is for profit or inappropriate use (see my paragraph above) then it is a violation of law.

To video tape the amoral acts of police, and the assault of a citizen is not illegal. It is morally acceptable, and legal.

I find it difficult to disagree or agree with him, not on the historical context he gives which I don't know much about but on the principle. I would presume in the vast majority of regions in the US, institutional racism simply doesn't exist any more. Sure, there's the crackpot here and there who's openly racist, there's the few here and there that harbor racist thoughts but on the whole it's simply not there.


Study after study have proven this is not true, both in the private and public domains. I'm speaking about overt and institutional racism. Heck, they just codified a racial profiling and banned ethnic studies in Arizona.


I think the Civil Rights Act as it was, applying to both public and private entities served a purpose. It made people come together and realize that much of the animosity was more fear of the unknown and a lack of intercommunication between two cultures that had simply grown apart. Heck, there's a whole litany of (terrible) black/white buddy cop movies that symbolize bridging this gap.

In the South, there had always been interpersonal communications and relationships between individuals of different races. The problem was the discrimination,i.e., forced to give up your seat for whites, not being able to use the restroom in certain parts of the city, being banned from attending most Universities, etc.

So I don't think that it was really the legislation that changed the state of society but the effect that forcing two cultures to become accustomed to each other had on perceptions.

The civil rights act didn't just magically change the country when it was passed. It took years of enforcement and civil agitation to bring the spirit of the law into reality. The legislation was a crucial step, though.

As it is now, I think in the vast majority of regions he is right, businesses who if given the chance would exclude black people, would be shooting themselves in the foot.

May I assume you have the luxury of not having to take that risk?

Not to mention, ultimately given that most people today aren't racist, as a minority would you want to inadvertently end up working under someone who is racist?

In a world where one both has to eat, and is a minority, what is desired is not to change the hearts of the whole country, but to be hired. I think that a significant amount of people in the US are racist, you think they aren't, but ultimately, it all about ensuring behavior (e.g., hiring, service) fits the law, not someone's thoughts.

lertad had one up 2 years ago, removed, this one may be as well soon-"Terms of use" and what not...this song should be public domain by now...

In the off chance that Tiger Woods or an affiliate is reading this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>PLEASE sue this bastard for slander<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Everyone else on the sift, I think it's time we rally together and start doing something about this, I may even make a sift talk post soon. If you're interested now, here is a link to the FCC complaints section. The airwaves are public domain, do something about it if you find something offensive


http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm