Was it treated as a joke or what? I'll look for it on torrent sites to try to watch. Hey, being part of the popular culture is good publicity.

OK I found it. Downloading that 1st episode out of curiousity.

 Music, I think, is from Jerry Springer, The Opera. The Blasphemy Challenge bit is right at the beginning of that sequence.

Have thought about this some. The writing is very clever. The posessed atheist has apparently been an atheist for a while, but only became posessed when baptised (at Mother Teresa's mission). Idea being that baptism is a form of exorcism and exorcism without faith on the part of the individual being exorcised does nothing - it leaves a void. No idea if this is actually part of Catholic dogma or not.

It seems crafted to leave christians and more agnostic "spiritual but not religious" types to think that atheists are incorrect in their lack of belief.

I found it quite entertaining in the same way that I find the new Dr Who entertaining; as fiction set in a world that has an unfeasible backstory and relies upon that backstory to be entertaining. Only difference being that the backstory to Dr Who has been developed and reshaped over the course of 50 or 60 years, and that of Apparitions over the course of a few thousand.

I can't find it in the US and no one appears to have put it out as a torrent so I can't comment on the content.

But I think it is a great idea IF it is done properly. By properly I mean it is dirt cheap and suitable for the retarded to make movies with computers these days. If there is any basis for the reports of pea soup and levitation then there is absolutely no excuse for not documenting it.

At least that is what I posted to a guy trying to get me to read books about possession and it shut him up.

I wish the mere statement of a requirement for physical evidence before reading anything would work on the OT believers on this board.

Err, Matt, linking to a torrent site isn't exactly the smartest thing to do.  Many websites that contain links like that have been shut down. 

First.. Fuck people who think they're entitled to creative content for free.   I'm not buying the political stand on it.  It's an excuse because you're cheap (and probably lazy), and you figure it's super easy to do and no one will ever get caught.  

That aside (which right now isn't the point,) this has more to do with putting the RRS at risk.  If they allowed people to post directly to torrent rips, they'd be responsible and would expose them to legal risk.  All you need is some group to complain and they could be easily sued for more money than they have.  So in this case when you're doing the "fuck the man" routine, it's really just the owners of this site and shows no gratitude for the service they're providing you/us.

 If only that were his argument, Bob.  

Was more specifically what I responding to. (and putting the site at risk)

I see boards all the time where people mention downloading stuff, but linking to it directly is the issue here.

I have no intention of getting into the issue as it gets people on their moral high horses. Suffice to say TV torrents are exactly what one could get off the air. The only rational objection to a TV torrent is the manner in which one receives it. RIAA is music and MPAA is movies. I have never heard of single case regarding TV even though there is a market for DVDs of TV series.

Granted I can't get Brit TV stations but so what? It is not like their advertisers are losing business if I get it without commercials. I don't like take away curry anyway.

OTOH, one of these days a US cable channel is going to buy the six episode Jekyll miniseries and the BBC should pay me something for hyping it as the best TV dramatic series I have ever seen and I have been watch TV since the late 40s.

Getting anything else is hardly worth it. If a series is good it gets rerun until you memorize it. Home burned disks last maybe 4 to 5 years. It takes that long to forget a series before watching it again. (Anyone going to rerun Vengence Inc. some time soon?) So if that is the idea then you buy the stamped DVDs which are good for 50 years and more.

I guess all that explains why there are no complaints about TV.

As for movies half the complaints I have read are about pirate DVDS which are cases, printing, liners and everything to the point of counterfeit. The other half have been of cameras in the theaters. Given the small fraction of good movies to duds I presume they are against it because they warn people off of seeing duds. But watching the box office returns people seem to know a dud in 24 hours which is far short of the time any camera-in-the-theater copy can spread.

I do not like today's music and haven't since Jerry Lee got screwed and Hollywood made rock wholesome. But if music is anything like the movies it is likely the same reason.

So not only am I not encouraging anyone to break the law I am giving several reasons not to waste your time.

But for those encouraged to break the law, here is a hint, it is civil law not criminal law save when it comes to counterfeiting as described above. Barrotry is a legitimate countersuit. (check the spelling on that one)

=====

Here is a little secret knowledge. All the sleeper hit movies come out in February. Why? Because that is the month they release all the movies they expect to be duds. So any of them that make significantly more than expected are hyped as sleeper hits. Anyone who has watched The Blair Witch Project after the hype died down knows it is all hype.

The only reason they've gotten away with it is due to where their hosting is and who they are, just as it says in their statement "this website might be shut down if operating in the US or by US citizens".  The RRS website is both, hence we have to cover our arses here, hence why I say it's not exactly the smartest thing to do.  Our liking of takedowns for torrent tracker hosting and/or linking, our thoughts on these actions, our thoughts on the legalities of these actions etc is all irrelivant.  I myself usually refer to them as the MAFIAA for that very reason, to my observation their actions are nothing more than extortion and running of a protection racket.  For our situation though, arses must be covered and a strict "don't even think about it" rule must apply.

It is not a secret the US has the best legislature money can buy. It could run afoul of laws which make facilitating a crime also a crime. Almost none of those prosecutions have succeeded and are usually won on 1st amendment grounds. The Anarchist's Cookbook is still around despite regular attempts to criminalize its publication and promulgation. The US tradition of winning by legal costs is one that needs to be stopped with countersuits that the original suit was for profit not equity.

I see no legal grounds for shutting down a website that does not in fact contain or spread and copyrighted material. I do not see it much different from advertising theaters and show times for the same material. It is simply telling where to "see" the material.

At the other end of the spectrum is Project Gutenberg which deals solely in material which was never copyrighted or for which any copyright it may have once had has expired.

Although we all "know" what they are doing that is insufficient for legal knowledge which can be established in court. For example Michael Moore announced his Slacker Nation was for free and encouraged people to copy and spread it. The next day someone piped up claiming to own the non-US rights. So Americans can spread it to non-Americans but non-Americans cannot spread it to other non-Americans? I have no idea. I am not an expert in copyright law.

Which leads to the ultimate issue. Unless a person has a law degree and has specialized in both statute and case law he cannot claim to know a damned thing about the subject.

Three Oscar seasons ago contenders were giving away copies of movies to Academy voters and were complaining that they were being spread on the internet. That is a whole new layer of legalisms. Who speaks for control of a movie and is only the first violator responsible or is everyone who participates even without legal knowledge of its status?

Is a movie of a movie a copy of a movie? No. Who owns the movie of the movie? The person who made it of course. Did he make it illegally? That depends upon the laws of the state or country in which is was made and they are all different.

Most DVDs for sale give a reason to buy them, the extras. When there are no extras reviewers consider it a negative.

Other than actual counterfeiting of DVDs it is not clear how copies of movies actually harm anyone. No harm then nothing to sue for. Way back when it was VCR tapes for copying it was a social event where another couple brought over their VCR to dupe rented tapes. Very few people did it but Hollywood still tried to make it illegal even though it qualified as a personal copy and the rental company was the only loser.

When it comes to music I have no opinion as I have not thought about it.

 Here's a fun bit of dialogue from the last episode :

Nun : "Are you an atheist ?"

Psychologist : "Yes"

Nun : "That won't save you"

The nun, of course, is one of the good guys, burdened with the unthankful task of protecting us gullible unbelievers from the scary demons.

This would be enjoyable to watch if it didn't take itself so unrelentingly seriously. It's actually listed as a "drama" in my tv-guide. That's kinda like calling Doctor Who a history program.

They had another show like this on the beeb a few years ago. It was called "Strange", I think, and that one, at least, was mildly amusing.