Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Big [Censored] Theory

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#431

Post by IX-103 »

coryfklein wrote: post #277
wrs wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a home version of this called ClearPlay that auto-redacts movies and TV. It actually started with DVD players (!) but now does streaming. Ref: https://amazon.clearplay.com/

My Mormon neighbors tend to use VidAngel, which got in huge trouble with an absolutely hilarious payment model. 1. VidAngel purchases a bunch of Blu-ray discs and stores them in a warehouse 2. Tag all the content of a film and create filters so the user can, for example, filter out all sex and violence but leave in vulgarity 3. User "purchases" a Blu-ray for $20 (!!) and VidAngel says, "since we now know you're the o…

What if they rented the customer the server that read and encoded the customer's copy of the Blu-ray on the fly and streamed it to them using bandwidth that was leased to the customer? Would that violate the studio's "performance" rights? What if the customer is in the same room as the server and loads the disk themselves?

I, as a citizen and a consumer, want to know what rights I have when I purchase a product. The free market depends on perfect information when making purchasing decisions, and this is an area that is vague as all heck. If the rights the sellers of these movies claim I have matched the minimum guaranteed by law (or were even a super-set) then it would be clear. But they continue to claim I would get fewer rights than they are legally obligated to provide (technically playing it is a copyright violation according to their terms, never mind format shifting). They actually have it so ambiguous that it even seems anti-capitalistic.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#432

Post by afiori »

jedberg wrote: post #227
nindalf wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s extraordinary that people are taken in by such videos. Those videos are selectively edited to make the creators point. Tell me, when Jimmy Kimmels producers go out on Hollywood Boulevard and find that not even one person can point to a country other than America on map ( https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o ) - do you think that’s real too? Or is that selectively edited for laughs?

I know the video was edited, it's by PragerU. That's not the point though, it was just a story to point out that not all things about other cultures are offensive. And it's funny you ask about Kimmel, because I actually know the person who did those bits (she was the offscreen voice for the first few years and is actually the interviewer in this video). She said that while it was edited, they didn't have to edit it m…

> 80% of the people really were that dumb.

Dropping in just to point out that ignorant, dumb, and uninterested are different concepts.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#433

Post by tomrod »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #423
MichaelCollins wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving aside the matter of Mormons and their weird puritan sensibilities, what this company essentially did was reinvent movie rental, but because they did it on the internet instead of a brick and mortar shop we're all expected to think it obvious and self evidence that what they did was horrible. In other contexts on sites like this, "do [common thing] but on a computer" patents get mocked and derided because "but…

Taken to it's logical extreme though, such a service could easily render copyright effectively useless. Break the movie into 10 second clips, "rent out" each of those clips during the 10 seconds they're being viewed and automatically return them after. There, you can now "legally" stream 720 concurrent copies of a 2 hour movie at once in perpetuity for near zero marginal cost. The only reason rentals worked was becau…

Sure, but that's an effect on tons of laws.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#434

Post by kelnos »

coryfklein wrote: post #277
wrs wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a home version of this called ClearPlay that auto-redacts movies and TV. It actually started with DVD players (!) but now does streaming. Ref: https://amazon.clearplay.com/

My Mormon neighbors tend to use VidAngel, which got in huge trouble with an absolutely hilarious payment model. 1. VidAngel purchases a bunch of Blu-ray discs and stores them in a warehouse 2. Tag all the content of a film and create filters so the user can, for example, filter out all sex and violence but leave in vulgarity 3. User "purchases" a Blu-ray for $20 (!!) and VidAngel says, "since we now know you're the o…

It's pretty ridiculous that this isn't legal.

Sure, VidAngel could have built some custom software to play back a real Bluray disc, skipping certain scenes based on configuration file per title, and then would mail the disc to customers, who then have to mail it back, but that would be a worse experience for customers, and would be more wasteful (unnecessary physical shipping, as well as wear-and-tear on the discs). I guess the studios would actually see more money from this kind of scheme, since the discs would wear out and need to be replaced after a while.

But... the world we live in where this sort of thing isn't allowed... is stupid. Calling this a "performance" is just a legal gambit to unreasonably restrict what people (or companies, even) can do with things they've bought and own.

The $20 "purchase" and $19 "buy-back" is creative, but it should also be fine to just charge an all-you-can-watch subscription fee, as long as they don't allow concurrent viewing at greater than the number of Bluray discs they've purchased. "Performance", my ass. Fucking copyright cartels.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#435

Post by smsm42 »

ginger2016 wrote: post #335
clouddrover wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in particular is racist about it?

If you have watched the show and failed see why it is racist, then we need to give some anti-racist education. It is affirming the stereotype Indian males lack confidence with women. Raj can’t speak with women without the use of alcohol, the show constantly mocks his accent, worshipping of cows etc.

Ah, the classic "you're racist and if you disagree, then you're double racist!" gambit. I think ESR coined the term "kafkatrapping".

> It is affirming the stereotype Indian males lack confidence with women

The whole show is about males lacking confidence with women. Did you even watch the thing? The only male there that has any screen time and doesn't have problems approaching women is Zack, I think. And he's a walking stereotype too and dumb as a ton of bricks.

> worshipping of cows etc

If you think Raj saying "I swear to cow" is supposed to be a portrayal of a real Indian person, as opposed to obviously completely ridiculous comedic gag, lampshading its own ridiculousness - maybe you shouldn't be watching comedy, it's not good for you. Stick to anti-harassment videos from HR, there's no comedy there.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#436

Post by IX-103 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #423
MichaelCollins wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving aside the matter of Mormons and their weird puritan sensibilities, what this company essentially did was reinvent movie rental, but because they did it on the internet instead of a brick and mortar shop we're all expected to think it obvious and self evidence that what they did was horrible. In other contexts on sites like this, "do [common thing] but on a computer" patents get mocked and derided because "but…

Taken to it's logical extreme though, such a service could easily render copyright effectively useless. Break the movie into 10 second clips, "rent out" each of those clips during the 10 seconds they're being viewed and automatically return them after. There, you can now "legally" stream 720 concurrent copies of a 2 hour movie at once in perpetuity for near zero marginal cost. The only reason rentals worked was becau…

Sorry. Each 10 second clip is a derivative work of the whole. So you can't sub-license portions of the work without permission.

Just like you can't lend out individual chapters of a book....

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#437

Post by Dig1t »

ginger2016 wrote: post #310
sudhirj wrote: post #58

We have this kind of censorship in India as well, even the in weirdly innocous places. In James Bond movies, and I think Gone Girl as well, scenes were by zooming into character's faces or just straight cuts. This is probably the only reason I maintain a US iTunes accounts (used to have to buy gift cards from sketchy sites online to keep this going, but I recently discovered that my Indian Amex card works fine with a…

Given the racist protrayal of Indian American Raj Kuthrapalli, I am of the opinion Indians are magnanimous in allowing this show to be aired there.

I mean, it's comedy, it's obviously not hateful.

The whole point was that all the main characters were stereotypical nerds and each displayed a different type social difficulty. I mean Sheldon was obviously supposed to be somewhere on the autistic spectrum, how is that not ableist or whatever?

It was also apart of his character arc! If you watch the show, Raj eventually overcomes his fear of talking to women and ends up dating multiple women (sometimes at the same time) later in the show.

There are a ton of jewish stereotypes present in the show as well, but they are hilarious, and > 50% of the cast is jewish (as well as almost all of the producers AND the director), and obviously they were not offended and CHOSE to write and direct the show that way. My point being, it's just comedy and if you actually watch the whole thing, it has a good message.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#438

Post by Sebb767 »

fluoridation wrote: post #406
the_doctah wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the rate of people identifying as gay has increased or decreased along with the general public's acceptance of it?

Do you mean publicly or privately? Publicly, sure it has increased. Most people won't admit to something that they'll be shamed for. Privately, how could we know? Has there always been more or less the same amount of gay sex going on behind closed doors regardless of the situation in the public sphere? My default assumption would have to be yes, unless I saw compelling evidence to the contrary.

I think it's pretty safe to say that people will act less on something if they feel it's bad (due to being educated like it is), even behind closed doors. Especially since this makes it harder to find a partner.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#439

Post by teawrecks »

> When the Netflix-produced Korean show Squid Game went viral and won awards worldwide, many Chinese netizens were asking on social media — when can a Chinese TV show be recognized in that way?

Fascinating. I mean, the answer is obvious to everyone else in the world, but it'll be interesting to watch them figure it out over the next few decades.

Is Squid Games even allowed in China?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#440

Post by jedberg »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #418
jedberg wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The producers swear up and down to this day that they did not use a laugh track. That that was legit audience reaction.

Is that really true? Or did they simply mean it's a group of real people recorded laughing, having been prompted to laugh? Which is still lame but very easy to believe

Well, I have no idea. But I attended a taping of a sitcom once, and the way it worked is they had mics hanging above all the parts of the audience. Before they show they had a warm up comic, which both put us in the laughing mood and gave them a chance to record our particular audience laughing really hard.

Then when the show was recorded, we actually did laugh pretty hard. You know how you laugh louder when you're at a comedy show or at a movie theater than when you're home alone watching the same thing? Because of peer pressure? It was like that. You laugh harder in the audience.

And then they would "enhance" the laughing by taking the recording of us from earlier and playing it over the spots where we laughed live, especially if they end up using a second or third take, since were didn't laugh as hard.

Also I remember in our episode there was a joke where as the live audience we could see the payoff right away, but on the TV the camera did a slow pull back to reveal the joke. They added in our recorded laughter for that. I remember because I laughed at home but not in the studio.

So it's sort of a combination. But except in those rare cases they don't really add in laughter where there was none. They just enhance the live audience.

Post reply on HN