![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Anyone know where I can Find This? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.172 ( talk • contribs)
What about Freedom of Speech? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.172 ( talk • contribs)
How the fuck does some random local judge have the authority to ban a film from release OUTSIDE his jurisdiction?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.65.187 ( talk • contribs).
Answer == Sadly, The United States is not a free country any more. National ID cards, Border Walls larger than the Berlin Wall, needing a passport to go to Canada or Mexico [and] to get back into the US, The Patriot Act, John Warner Defense Act of 2007 (no need for posse comitatus), the end of habeas corpus, torture, phone taps, gun bans, the WHOLE DRUG WAR, gay marriage bans, and countless 1000's of other bans and regulations. Need I say more. But given all this crap, I'll still fight to the death to preserve all the rights taken from you and me.
Welcome to the New and Improved CCCP. Nbbs 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
<< Arguing? No, I am just using the correct word. As in correct and non-ambiguous word better than ambiguous and possible incorrect word. -- Justanother 03:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There is an unfortunate connotation of pettiness attached to the issue of semantics, but the fact is that semantic differences - while often fine, sometimes even moot - are often valid nonetheless, particularly in the context of an encyclopædia. What you are debating goes beyond mere semantics and affects a reader's interpretation (both conscious and subconscious) of an article's subject. "Banned" has unavoidable inflammatory, provocative connotations that remind one of pornography, extreme horror, and so on. Think of A Clockwork Orange and what its ban (in the UK, certainly) did for its image and popularity. Bans are usually serious and usually permanent or at least long-term. If the film in question is subject to a court injunction - which is, by its nature, potentially temporary - then it should be described as an injunction or court order, not an outright ban. The practical effect may be substantially or wholly the same, but the inference is not. I hope that the two of you can remain civil over this issue, and not get into edit warring. At this time, I will confine my comment to the semantic issue, since that was the primary reason for the request for an opinion. But I will check through the diffs and history in detail anyway. Adrian M. H. 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please explain to me how a local judge has the authority to block a film's release nationwide? If it were released outside of Pinellas County, Florida, would that not be completely outside the judge's jurisdiction? 76.123.216.96 ( talk) 02:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How does mention of the fact that this film has been leaked a violation of WP:OR? Frotz ( talk) 02:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think the fact that it was leaked to the internet AND is barred from distribution is noteworthy. Thoughts? Hohohahaha ( talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If this is how you are going to begin dialogue on discussing changes for wikipedia, "This is great, two obviously biased editors?" Let me shift gears a bit to match you.....
Ok... got it.
81.227 is a poopie-head!, Stinkerpants!
I can do that way, and if, at anytime, you wish to discuss the article, I'm here Hohohahaha ( talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should a link to Pirate Bay with a copy of this film and Digg.com (itself a link to Pirate Bay) be allowed in the WP:EL section of this article? 13:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The Pirate Bay And Digg links were included to give verification to the statement "The complete film was leaked to the internet in late March 2008" contained on the page. A statement like this is meaningless unless backed up with evidence. These two links provide irrefutable evidence, therefore are entirely relevant and appropriate. The Pirate bay link being primary evidence is therefore highly appropriate. Primary evidence supersedes secondary evidence and hearsay ( as in the case of the lawyers letter ) Wogglelump ( talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Wogglelump ( talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wogglelump ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)No, no, and thrice no. Links to non-licensed copyrighted material or even just links to sites which explicitly provide a gateway to such material can get Wikipedia in a lot of trouble. That's why there are certain restrictions to the types of links one can include in articles. As the guideline says, "without exception". Steve T • C 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
While there is a distinction to be made due to the fact that The Pirate Bay technically only hosts the .torrent files, we all know that were their servers kept in the United States, they'd have been shut down long ago. Steve T • C 19:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)...if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ( Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).
My edit listing who the main characters were based on was reverted as it was "WP:OR and POV interpretations of who cast represent". I'm not sure if Cirt saw the movie, but the characterizations are thinly veiled. It's not an interpretation when it is made to be super obvious. Zach Carson, for example, is based on Jack Parsons. The name is barely changed. The " Babalon Working" is now the "Caliban Working". Carson put in $20,000 instead of Parson who put in $21,000 into selling sailboats. Legend has Parsons evocating Bartzabel to summon a typhoon in retribution, in the movie Carson evoked Satan. How obvious does it have to be not to be considered POV? Chiok ( talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The producers of the film had a court hearing on March 5, 2007 to ask that the injunction on the film's distribution be lifted. [1] On April 7, 2007, attorney Luke Lirot announced on the official website for The Profit that "We have absolutely no exposure for any repercussions from the court order." [2] Lirot also stated that there was still an impediment to the film's release, writing "all that's stopping the release of the movie is the legal battle with the partner who was compromised by Scientology (Robert Minton) and is currently using his power as partner to stop the release of the film." [2]
The complete film was leaked to the Internet in late March 2008, and in response Thomas H. McGowan, attorney for Bob Minton, sent a letter to Luke Lirot. [3] In his March 24, 2008 letter, McGowan wrote: "To say the least, I was astonished to learn that in spite of our correspondence, and in spite of what I know of your understanding of the misuse of proprietary materials to be, a complete version of the film 'The Profit' is now streaming on the internet." dead link [3] McGowan asserted: "I am not persuaded in the least that the direct responsibility for what has happened lies anywhere but directly at Mr. Alexander's feet." [3] McGowan requested that Alexander take action to remove the film from the Internet. [3] Luke Lirot responded to McGowan's letter on March 26, 2008, and wrote: "In response to your latest letter, I can unequivocally state that my people (Mr. Alexander and his affiliates) had absolutely nothing to do with the unauthorized distribution of the film "The Profit" and we have gone to great lengths to stop any further transmissions." [4] In his letter Lirot asserted "... my people believe it was either Mr. Minton, or one of his agents, who posted the film illegally, in order to give some manufactured or false grounds for some type of adverse actions or action against my client, so that Minton can fulfill his presumed agreement with the Church of Scientology to find any means whatsoever to 'harass and destroy utterly' his former 'partner,' Mr. Alexander, as is the policy of the entity whom my people believe is your actual client, the Church of Scientology." [4]
Some of the above links are now dead links. Moved some info to talk page, pending further research. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Profit (film)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*8 citations, 2 fair-use film posters. Smee 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC). |
Last edited at 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Anyone know where I can Find This? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.172 ( talk • contribs)
What about Freedom of Speech? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.172 ( talk • contribs)
How the fuck does some random local judge have the authority to ban a film from release OUTSIDE his jurisdiction?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.65.187 ( talk • contribs).
Answer == Sadly, The United States is not a free country any more. National ID cards, Border Walls larger than the Berlin Wall, needing a passport to go to Canada or Mexico [and] to get back into the US, The Patriot Act, John Warner Defense Act of 2007 (no need for posse comitatus), the end of habeas corpus, torture, phone taps, gun bans, the WHOLE DRUG WAR, gay marriage bans, and countless 1000's of other bans and regulations. Need I say more. But given all this crap, I'll still fight to the death to preserve all the rights taken from you and me.
Welcome to the New and Improved CCCP. Nbbs 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
<< Arguing? No, I am just using the correct word. As in correct and non-ambiguous word better than ambiguous and possible incorrect word. -- Justanother 03:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There is an unfortunate connotation of pettiness attached to the issue of semantics, but the fact is that semantic differences - while often fine, sometimes even moot - are often valid nonetheless, particularly in the context of an encyclopædia. What you are debating goes beyond mere semantics and affects a reader's interpretation (both conscious and subconscious) of an article's subject. "Banned" has unavoidable inflammatory, provocative connotations that remind one of pornography, extreme horror, and so on. Think of A Clockwork Orange and what its ban (in the UK, certainly) did for its image and popularity. Bans are usually serious and usually permanent or at least long-term. If the film in question is subject to a court injunction - which is, by its nature, potentially temporary - then it should be described as an injunction or court order, not an outright ban. The practical effect may be substantially or wholly the same, but the inference is not. I hope that the two of you can remain civil over this issue, and not get into edit warring. At this time, I will confine my comment to the semantic issue, since that was the primary reason for the request for an opinion. But I will check through the diffs and history in detail anyway. Adrian M. H. 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please explain to me how a local judge has the authority to block a film's release nationwide? If it were released outside of Pinellas County, Florida, would that not be completely outside the judge's jurisdiction? 76.123.216.96 ( talk) 02:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How does mention of the fact that this film has been leaked a violation of WP:OR? Frotz ( talk) 02:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think the fact that it was leaked to the internet AND is barred from distribution is noteworthy. Thoughts? Hohohahaha ( talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If this is how you are going to begin dialogue on discussing changes for wikipedia, "This is great, two obviously biased editors?" Let me shift gears a bit to match you.....
Ok... got it.
81.227 is a poopie-head!, Stinkerpants!
I can do that way, and if, at anytime, you wish to discuss the article, I'm here Hohohahaha ( talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should a link to Pirate Bay with a copy of this film and Digg.com (itself a link to Pirate Bay) be allowed in the WP:EL section of this article? 13:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The Pirate Bay And Digg links were included to give verification to the statement "The complete film was leaked to the internet in late March 2008" contained on the page. A statement like this is meaningless unless backed up with evidence. These two links provide irrefutable evidence, therefore are entirely relevant and appropriate. The Pirate bay link being primary evidence is therefore highly appropriate. Primary evidence supersedes secondary evidence and hearsay ( as in the case of the lawyers letter ) Wogglelump ( talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Wogglelump ( talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wogglelump ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)No, no, and thrice no. Links to non-licensed copyrighted material or even just links to sites which explicitly provide a gateway to such material can get Wikipedia in a lot of trouble. That's why there are certain restrictions to the types of links one can include in articles. As the guideline says, "without exception". Steve T • C 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
While there is a distinction to be made due to the fact that The Pirate Bay technically only hosts the .torrent files, we all know that were their servers kept in the United States, they'd have been shut down long ago. Steve T • C 19:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)...if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ( Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).
My edit listing who the main characters were based on was reverted as it was "WP:OR and POV interpretations of who cast represent". I'm not sure if Cirt saw the movie, but the characterizations are thinly veiled. It's not an interpretation when it is made to be super obvious. Zach Carson, for example, is based on Jack Parsons. The name is barely changed. The " Babalon Working" is now the "Caliban Working". Carson put in $20,000 instead of Parson who put in $21,000 into selling sailboats. Legend has Parsons evocating Bartzabel to summon a typhoon in retribution, in the movie Carson evoked Satan. How obvious does it have to be not to be considered POV? Chiok ( talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The producers of the film had a court hearing on March 5, 2007 to ask that the injunction on the film's distribution be lifted. [1] On April 7, 2007, attorney Luke Lirot announced on the official website for The Profit that "We have absolutely no exposure for any repercussions from the court order." [2] Lirot also stated that there was still an impediment to the film's release, writing "all that's stopping the release of the movie is the legal battle with the partner who was compromised by Scientology (Robert Minton) and is currently using his power as partner to stop the release of the film." [2]
The complete film was leaked to the Internet in late March 2008, and in response Thomas H. McGowan, attorney for Bob Minton, sent a letter to Luke Lirot. [3] In his March 24, 2008 letter, McGowan wrote: "To say the least, I was astonished to learn that in spite of our correspondence, and in spite of what I know of your understanding of the misuse of proprietary materials to be, a complete version of the film 'The Profit' is now streaming on the internet." dead link [3] McGowan asserted: "I am not persuaded in the least that the direct responsibility for what has happened lies anywhere but directly at Mr. Alexander's feet." [3] McGowan requested that Alexander take action to remove the film from the Internet. [3] Luke Lirot responded to McGowan's letter on March 26, 2008, and wrote: "In response to your latest letter, I can unequivocally state that my people (Mr. Alexander and his affiliates) had absolutely nothing to do with the unauthorized distribution of the film "The Profit" and we have gone to great lengths to stop any further transmissions." [4] In his letter Lirot asserted "... my people believe it was either Mr. Minton, or one of his agents, who posted the film illegally, in order to give some manufactured or false grounds for some type of adverse actions or action against my client, so that Minton can fulfill his presumed agreement with the Church of Scientology to find any means whatsoever to 'harass and destroy utterly' his former 'partner,' Mr. Alexander, as is the policy of the entity whom my people believe is your actual client, the Church of Scientology." [4]
Some of the above links are now dead links. Moved some info to talk page, pending further research. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Profit (film)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*8 citations, 2 fair-use film posters. Smee 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC). |
Last edited at 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)