Containers free shipping 9mm,cargo container ramps,container shipping routes australia,shipping containers for small parts vise - Plans Download

admin | Category: Container House | 25.08.2015
Containers — objects like books, DVDs, hard drives, apparel, action figures, and prints — are not free.
Continuing this metaphor: copyright monopolies are an attempt to dam up and control all the rivers, reducing them to a trickle. Under the Creative Commons Share Alike license, Sita Sings the Blues-containing objects can be manufactured and sold by anyone without my permission. As a filmmaker who has spent the last 5 years shooting, editing, and now distributing my film (at most of the same venues as you BTW) am I simply to give my work away for free, simply to get my name noticed?
I can see it now - "hey power company, I can't pay my bill, but do you know who I am?" Yeah, that will go far. The reality is that you ignored many people who told you not to use music that you did not have the rights to. First, Nina Paley has never said anything to insult her fellow filmmakers, whether they agree with her positions on freedom of information or not. You speak of these "rights" as though they're natural, unchangeable things, instead of government-granted monopolies whose exact terms are a matter of policy.
Regarding her so-called "radioactive" product: Nina is now struggling to keep up with all the emails from distributors who want to distribute her film under non-exclusive terms, and who want her endorsement or involvement. Finally, if there's money to be made selling DVDs, then the artist is just as free to sell them as anyone else, and is in the best position to do so. Whether or not a physical copy or a virtual copy is made, if it is illegally made and shared rather than purchased from the artist, the artist is harmed.
If somebody copies my film and then distributes it to others who in turn copy and distribute it, all without the artist being compensated, then the artists loses financially. Well, we're questioning a current monopoly policy, yes, on the grounds that overall it does more harm than good.
If someone hears about a film, becomes interested in it, but then decides NOT to give the artists who created it any money, "the artists [sic] loses financially", don't they?
And if the interested person tells 5 of their friends about the film, but none of them decide to give any money to the artists, either, then isn't that 5 times as bad?
But if one of their friends tells another friend, and that one does decide to financially support the artists -- then have the artists gained or lost, in a financial sense?
Would the artists financial situation be different depending on which of these things had happened?
But most strictly licensed movies have a much shorter Time window, since they cost more money (advertising) to keep in circulation. Now, let's say only 1 in 100 viewers of the freely shared movie contribute any money to the artist, via buying a T shirt or DVD, or making a donation.
Nina, we need you guys to make your arguments based in actual circumstances not false ones.
This model you point to above, 5 people hear about a film and number 6 chooses to support it. Still, though, I don't see why the existence of a monopoly-based business model that supports multi-million-dollar films automatically means that any attempt to get rid of that monopoly has to satisfy the burden of still supporting multi-million-dollar films. Suppose I build multi-million dollar space shuttles, with a government-granted monopoly on the technology, and someone comes along saying "Wait, we can do this better and cheaper, if you'll just let us use some of the same technology in our designs. It's as though what exists in front of our eyes at this moment is the only thing that can ever possibly exist, and we must do whatever we can to preserve it, even if it means criminalizing people for sharing culture. I don't feel that I have enough facts yet to comment on the economic aspects of all of this -- at this point, your argument is something I'm going to explore with an open mind.
I was a child that dreamt of "saving my favorite shows forever." From my early audio cassette recordings of my favorite TV programs, to twenty years of VHSs sitting gathering dust in my basement, to the couple hundred off-air recordings of shows I never got to see while I was working, I can say that both sides of this discussion have only part of the solution. I think the basic metaphor of culture, content, and container is good, but lacks another element -- the conduit. In this case the conduit is the Internet, but also represents official DVD releases, the TV broadcasters, cable providers, and the ships and trucks employed by pirates to move their DVDs.
The free content is free to those that can access it, collecting it in buckets (cameras, camcorders, word processors, all recording media). There are many flaws with the current model of movie, music, print, and other artistic endeavours. I think that when it is so easy to recreate exact duplicates of containers, it becomes dangerous to the creative environment. Revolutionize the conduit to ensure people that want money for their craft get what they deserve. I buy legal copies of most of what I want to watch eventually, and regret wasting money on blank media, and time and effort recording for my own enjoyment now. Most of the rest of the time, it just might be a waste of your life to worry about getting the latest video. And then people like me will never see it because I won't spend money on something I am not sure I will like. And if you don't like pirates making money selling bootleg DVDs then sell the originals for a fair price and put the pirates out of business.
It seems to me that it all depends on whether we treat artists as Investors or as Workers-- and I think that's a fair question to ask.
By that logic, I think somebody making a film would probably be acting on their own initiative, and therefore acting as an investor, not an artist. Anything else would be implying that Quality is valueless, and the only deserving trait is Marketability.
There might be a lost oppotunity to have a viewer, but external to that person's head, there is no difference between that person and someone who has never heard of the film. I sense a very strong arrogance and ignorance towards the artists that tries to make a living out of their work.
I would please see rational responses to this comment, and not some arrogant shameless shit. Here's the fundamental question - would a fair legal system prevent me from sitting in fromt of your bagel shop and giving away free bagels until you are driven out of business?  Would a fair legal system give you relief from me setting off stink bombs continually in front of your store?
Your stink bomb argument I don't get at all.  No one is arguing for some imaginary right to create public nuisances.  However, if you equate giving away free bagels with creating a public nuisance, then we won't find much common ground here, for I am a true lover of bagels!
Bagels cost money to make - it's unlikely someone would spend a bunch of their own money to stand outside a bagel shop and give them away for free. You might say that books and movies cost money to make too, but the difference between a bagel and a book or a movie is that when you buy a bagel, you eat it and then the bagel is gone, or else you let the bagel rot and its gone; whereas the movie you saw continues to exist and can be watched again, and generally doesn't have an expiration date.

Back in the days of Napster I downloaded a lot of music I'd have never been able to hear otherwise -- Rammstein, Pizzicato Five, Dariusz Paradowski -- whose music I later bought on CD.
Wish I'd known that before I paid my sound guys, camera people, video and audio editors, lighting crew, caterers, airlines, rental houses, and location permits. No matter how much you pay anyone, including yourself, you can't make your stuff non-copyable. As a filmmaker I absolutely SHOULD have the "monopoly" to decide who can get access to my art, and where it ends up. You confuse SHARING, which is where the artist willingly allows the art to be shared (as I have done with benefit screenings for charities), with STEALING - the unauthorized copying of my material, which deprives me of my rightful compensation.
I've often wondered why "creators" (or corporations) get so upset when the public accesses their oh-so-valuable work, after they've made it public. Sita Sings the Blues is tremendously valuable now, and its value increases every time someone watches it. If you don't believe that the value comes from the audience, and is instead inherent to the work itself, then by all means please keep your work safely hidden, and don't publish it.
Ms Paley, I'm starting to become more convinced that the free model you advocate may be one we should explore, but its the current economic situation driving that, not your arguments.
Most Filmmakers aren't asking for copyrights for 80 years either, just a reasonable amount to time that would allow us to turn a profit from our labor, since And the Overwhelming Majority of films DO NOT make their money back with in the first two to three years, seven to ten years, isn't unreasonable and is probably a number we could live with.
You, ONE person, the same one person, put in 7,800 long hard hours creating Sita, NO, ONE audience member has matched that contribution. Are you and your family so independently wealthy that you could do this all day everyday, and live off the attribution alone, or would you need to be paid for your work?
Whether Sita had an artistic value before being viewed can be debated but it had NO monetary value.
Someone who picks your lock, enters your house, and takes things actually deprives you of those things. Someone who copies your film deprives no one of anything: you still have as many copies as you had before, as does everyone else.
For some reason you insist on regarding a rather recent government-granted monopoly on copying with a property right. As for "stealing" vs "sharing": in stealing, one party has to actually lose the item that was stolen. If most artists made their livings from copyright royalties, your "rightful compensation" phrase might hold a little more weight. If you have a large garden, starting seeds at home can start to look like an expensive venture. Think of all those containers that come through your house from the grocery store on the way to the recycling.
Household items that are past their prime are also an easy way to collect seed starting containers. Food shells and peels make excellent containers for seeds because they are compostable themselves. Love this idea, the soup I buy comes in a box it would make a great seed starter, Thanks for the ideas, and sharing on Tuesdays With a Twist. Sarah, what a great post and since it’s almost time to start seeds indoors the timing is perfect! HOW TO BUILD A PYRAMID STRAWBERRY PLANTERHere is a unique tower for growing strawberries, flowers, herbs, and other garden plants.
ILLUSTRATED PLANS WITH PHOTOSWood plans include step by step instructions, measurements, angles, and photos from start to finish.
After purchase, the page will instruct you how to easily download the file to your computer. How to grow strawberries - Not only do strawberries taste good, they contain antioxidants and nutrients that help improve the body's immune system. June Bearing Strawberries produce a single crop in June (or early spring), depending upon the area. Everbearing Strawberries have two to three harvests: June, late summer and early in the fall. Any artist who has enjoyed a community of fans knows how the power in their name is generously granted by audiences. Stories and songs passed down from memory, freely available for anyone to listen and recall whenever needed.
Now you can't hop on the distribution train (which you admit you tried to do), and now that nobody wants to touch your radioactive product you are giving it away and trying to make it sound as if filmmakers who actually create art and actually (gasp) make money at it are douchebags? If distributors are stumbling over each other to get the rights to her film, they are obviously willing to pay the required licensing fees.
The culture is dead if the contained version becomes the only representation of the culture. The corporations that arose from the early pioneers of the industries wield great power over the direction creativity flows into containers, and are losing control of the conduits that transmit the containers to us.
Piracy will ultimately limit the corporation's and individual's who rely on tickets and container sales to continue to provide new content to you.
Investors can pump millions into a project, get no return, and nobody cares because they knew the score going in, and did it of their own initiative. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were small-budget films by nature-- "Primer" comes to mind. If you can't stand people looking at it without your permission, why not keep it locked up in a vault somewhere? Back when I finished the film in 2008, and hardly anyone knew about it, it wasn't worth much.
Those you may want to rethink arguing or leaving out your arguments all together, as they hurt them rather than help. Most filmmakers don't care what you do with a DVD you paid for, as long as you paid for it.
You can plant them in the ground with the seedling and it will help to give a boost of nutrients!
I made the mistake of buying regular plant containers years ago and they didn’t work as well as recycling using jars and stuff. A compact, pyramid-shaped design that is perfect for those with little room for a garden - the towers can even be placed on a deck or patio.

These strawberries don't have as many runners and are a smaller berry than the June Bearing berries.
The ability to store performances by writing (even dance movements can be rapidly described in notation) them down, allowing future performances to approximate great works after the originators are no longer able to repeat themselves.
Forced payment acts as a divisor, because with the barrier of having to pay at the gate, far fewer people will see the movie.
We're not taking about products that cost a few hundred grand to make, which is what this model your advocating is designed for! We forget that laws are completely arbitrary and were created by a small group of people to address a particular need or interest at a particular time -- so does this mean that by the mere fact they ARE law, they must never, ever be examined to see whether they are indeed serving us?
Workers on the other hand are paid in proportion to their effort, regardless of the outcome, and this is because they were asked to do it-- they're acting on someone else's initiative. You don't have to put in millions of dollars to make a good movie, and if 'Summer Blockbusters' are any indication, throwing money at a movie reduces the quality instead. As a consumer I would much rather have one good product than a hundred successfully marketed ones; and as an artist I would rather produce a handful of really good works than a flood of shoddy knock-offs. You try to justify some anarchy here, and your'e living in some fixed belief (old thinking) that its only possible to buy and sell materials. Bagels need to be replenished because they have to be consumed each time and so inherently cost money to use; a movie does not need replenishment and is basically only a one-time expense in most cases.
If all I had to go on to learn about Rammstein was that they're "some metal band from Germany" (and word of mouth also tends to misidentify them as Nazis for some reason) I don't think they'd have become my favorite band, and I would have ever nearly burned to death in 110 degree heat to be first in line for their autographs, or spent money buying RAMMS+EIN patches to sew on my luggage, or performed their songs at karaoke, etc. I can pick a lock to my neighbor's house does that give me the right to take his items because I can? No one's forcing you to publish it; why do you insist on doing so, and then feeling like a victim? I conservatively estimate the audience has contributed at least 300,000 hours to Sita, probably a lot more. But even still, again you are mistaken in your argument, it is not that we can't stand people looking at our work without our permission, and feeling victimized as a result. Make back-up copies, use it in your own work, whatever, as long as you paid for your DVD, they don't give a crap what you do with it.
The best performers inspire all before them, and create new performers with their own interpretations to suit their own times as the culture changes over time. Feel free to give your dinky Flash movie away, the rest of us would like cold hard cash thank you very much.
The strictly licensed movie still exists, but it's virtually impossible to find, thereby drastically reducing its audience. This is my first time really exploring the copyright concept, but so far I'm beyond impressed. No waiting for downloads, no signing up or giving your credit card, with just two simple clicks of button (the link to the film and play)! Why should we endorse a business model that supports such colossal wastes of money when we should be doing what we can to foster and preserve quality?
If the bagel shop loses business its stock and ingredients go bad and the shop loses money by remaining open; if no one buys your film it doesn't inherently cost you anything. Rammstein and their related companies have made much more money off me due to my illegal downloads of their songs in the 90s than they would have ever gotten had I not received that exposure. Since the majority of films are not created by studio's, but Independent Filmmakers, that statement says you may be sorely misinformed as to how indie filmmakers are paid. Unless you took a public Sita poll and knew Sita would have an audience before you created her, then Sita came first, and the audience came to Sita.
Over a two-year window - 104 weeks - the free film enjoys 104 weeks of prime circulation, while the strictly licensed movie just has 2 weeks of circulation.
I even easily found a Brothers Quay DVD rip that already own on the Pirate Bay and downloaded it, just to see how easily accessible obscure films are! We should at least be able to ask questions and analyze the facts, not just have emotional responses. They are not trying to sell you some nice book or this nice looking DVD plate so you can get some emotional stability from (or whatever), they're trying to sell the stuff it contains - and what does it contain?
I just acquired music rights for three pieces of classical music by three of the most prestigious composers in music history for FAR FAR less about 6 grand deferred, for both Sync and mechanical. All totaled I probably have close to 500 seedlings inside during the later winter and early spring, and I don’t buy a single pot for them! These DIY project plans will show you how to build these wooden pyramid strawberry planters from start to finish, with photos at every step! If you plant them in the towers you see above, they'll eventually spread to the ground and produce an area with even more plants.
Instead of spending vast sums on crappy advertising to sell "content" you've locked up, just free the content and let it advertise itself. Even Films without stars cost us between 1 and 5 million to make, try generating that in online compassionate donations! I take the runners and replant them in adjacent tiers - they'll grow roots once they're in the soil. The only other thing to keep in mind is that wildlife and birds like strawberries as much as we do, so be prepared to fend them off or use netting as necessary!
Unless we're going to increase the price of DVD's, we HAVE to charge people to view our work the first time they see it, or bring our budgets to under 500,000, in order to be able to turn a profit and make another film.
We are simply asking that you PAY us to view it, to pay for the work and millions that we spend creating it, to view it! Pinch off the flower buds on the June Bearing plants during the first year, and start harvesting the 2nd year. If films made more money being freely distributed and shared then why are 90% of indie's still losing money and more than ever before, in current sharing environment???

Container house detroit blues
Home depot plastic plant pots

Comments »

  1. | K_O_R_zabit — 25.08.2015 at 21:49:32 Remembering that first year of college sharing a dorm.
  2. | 100 — 25.08.2015 at 13:11:11 Since you couldn't see homes.
  3. | SeNSiZiM_KaLPSiZ — 25.08.2015 at 10:43:16 Diy organization makeover these models hampshire.
  4. | Rashid — 25.08.2015 at 14:45:31 Such as bloodmeal or an organic the container will cost more.
  5. | LEDI_RAMIL_GENCLIK — 25.08.2015 at 23:30:51 Minimize or fix it with corrective furniture nOT to use liquid detergent, because the.