YUMMY…Detroit has some of the most diverse food! The “Paczki” is pronounced PUNCH-KEY.
It all started centuries ago when the Kazak’s were invading Poland.
The Poles, who were a passive, but very ingeniuitve tribe were caught off guard while celebrating Lent. But fortunately, the Poles had prepared for Lent by feasting on their seasonal treat, the Paczki donut.
When the warring Kazak’s approached the Polish border, the Poles quickly grabbed the Paczki’s that had not been consumed prior to Lent, and they loaded the stale donuts into the “KEY” on their only weapon, the Catapult. (The “key” is the part of the Catapult in which medievil folks would put a boulder or flaming bail of hay…)
So, the Poles hurled the rock hard Paczki’s at their enemies, and when impacting the enemy line the impact “PUNCHED” holes in the enemy defenses.
Movies Plus just reached our goal of 100,000 subscribers, and I plan to add more and more great content, without commercial adverts.
How can I do it?
Whatever you donate or gift me, it all goes into Movies Plus. 5 bucks…$50…whatever you send will be greatly appreciated by me. AND if you like, comment here or via the PayPal/email, and I can add your name to our list of supporters here on this blog and/or on MoviesPlus. Thank you.
To send money via PayPal to my webmail (DeanLach@yahoo.com) it’s pretty simple, or click the donate button below and it will be an easy process too.
Dean Lachiusa, curator for Movies Plus.
Today I visited Amazon to read a few of the latest comments about my latest publishing venture, a Fire TV channel.
Like many of the big-league channels on Amazon Fire TV, my ratings are 3 stars. Don’t ask me how or why really. It could be because I don’t have allot of the Bruce Willis movies or other Hollywood studio films that (some) folks expect to see on TV for free.
Maybe it’s for more abstract reasons: My Movies Plus channel is free, and people just don’t believe that anything good is free. Or the fact that Movies Plus doesn’t have any advertising…and people like to have commercial-breaks so that they may get a snack while watching TV.
Okay, so I admit my “abstract” examples are not abstract, they’re just plain dumb.
This brings me to “Diversity.” Maybe people just don’t get it, or they don’t want to accept it. When I read a comment today that was simply stated: “Hate it.” I said to myself…What’s to hate? There’s over a dozen genres/categories on my channel that offer over two hundred programs to choose from.
For example, there’s Slow TV programming that is designed to help you relax, like the 2 hour fireplace video…My “Slow TV” shows are yours to watch for free, when the same content is offered for $2 or more elsewhere on Fire TV. And there’s Boxing Matches that are typically a PPV event. Yes, Boxing would cost you a few bucks to watch on ANY platform, but it’s here free if you choose to watch it.
In addition to the special programming on Movies Plus, there are TV shows and Movies of all Genres, including award winning 3D animation shorts like “Doroga.” And there are new, Indpependently produced Science Fiction movies, Horror films, Action, Drama, Comedy programs…Plus Classics like “Virus,” and the film-purist’s delight “Phantom Carriage.”
And there’s some of the best documentary movies found anywhere, like the infamous “Yes Men,” and the topical/world-changing movie “Billions In Change.” And I have to mention my sub-genres and categories that highlight the work of Darkstone Entertainment (Plan 9, Skeleton Key, etc.) Plus of course there’s Music, Lifestyle stuff like Yoga, and News programs by DW. Ohh, and one more off the wall category: Fan Films by Star Trek, Star Wars, and Warcraft filmmakers.
So my question is…How can anyone “hate” so many different TV shows and Movie programs? I mean, you cannot…you simply cannot “hate” all of the material on a mult-genre channel like mine, so therefore how can anyone leave a comment that they “hate” an entire Channel.
I guess, if you are not comfortable with Diversity or the expression of independent viewpoints…then maybe you can “hate” an entire channel like mine.
And there you have it, congrats to me — because I managed to write an entire article voicing my opinion of someone else without writing angry or meaningless one-word expressions of how I feel about folks who think the way a “hater” thinks.
Doh! Haters, I hate that 😉
Recently I posted two new videos on the Movies Plus Fire TV channel. Purely by coincidence, the titles are “Down River” a feature film about soldiers behind enemy lines, and “In the River,” a music video that generates support for the American Indians who suffer from the oppression brought on by the scheduled construction of an Oil Pipeline on Indian land threatening their water-table and the Missouri River.
A second part of the coincidence is the fact that the producers of these videos have similar names. Alex Raye Pimentel is responsible for the Future of Film production “Down River.”
And Raye Zaragoza is the beautiful talent behind “The River” music video.
And guess what? I think it’s fair to say they also have something in common when it comes to their content. Because both of them have produced wonderul content that is relevant to what’s happening to nearly everyone everywhere.
Their production quality is excellent, and the response that they are getting is outstanding.
Raye and Raye are getting great response on their websites and social media. Meanwhile, on Movies Plus things will only get better…
- In September of 2016, the first video to load on my Fire TV channel is the “welcome to Movies Plus” introduction. This video had over 50,000 views last month.
- A few weeks later (from October 1 to October 16) Movies Plus had 175,000 hits in the U.K. And U.S. statistics look similar.
- At the time of this writing (October 26th) Amazon reported that 65,295 people have subscribed to Movies Plus.
So, as you can see we’re growing. So…….if you know of a filmmaker who would like to have their movie broadcast to our audience of indie-lovers on Amazon Fire TV, then I hope that you tell them about Movies Plus. It’s free to for a filmmaker to use, and it’s free for anyone to watch.
Cheers, Dean Lachiusa
I love movies and television, and I enjoy watching when and where I want. But lately I’ve been thinking: Does this in some way reflect negatively on me? I mean, I’m not a bad person. But am I greedy or selfish for playing movies and TV shows on my Roku and Laptop PC, rather than on my big screen TV?
Maybe AT&T thinks so. Because the other day I received a mailer entitled “Updates to Internet Usage Allowances.” It says that AT&T will be increasing the U-verse Internet data allowances for many customers. Okay, I’ve expected this because as consumer demands increase, so will the bandwidth delivered. And we’ve all heard the rumors that companies like Comcast and Verizon are building bigger and better Internet delivery systems in order to meet customer demands. But then the mailer states “…there’s a $10 charge for each 50GB of data you use over the allowance amount.”
This worries me. Because I don’t consider myself a data-pig. I do watch a good deal of video on my PC and my Roku, but I don’t download large movies, and I don’t require full HD when I stream. And therein lies “the catch.”
When I stream on Hulu or a site like Crackle, I cannot control the exact quality of the content I watch. In Hulu, I am allowed to select their settings “gear” and choose a low or medium setting – but I have no idea how much bandwidth this uses. I’d like to select SD or Widescreen SD because I know this would use much less “Internet Data” than true HD. And in most cases the resolution is just fine for me. Why?
Television resolution is Relative. In most cases you cannot see the difference between 720P or Full-HD or Ultra HD.)
I’d have to line up two TV’s next to each other and broadcast the same video in order to appreciate the difference in the details. You think you need Full-HD or the 4k Ultra HD. The TV manufactures have been pushing bigger and bigger TV sets on us, and insisting that the Big Screen TV or “10-foot experience” can only be appreciated with a 1920 x 1080 quality video. And of course to support your Internet TV, you should expect to use large amounts of Internet bandwidth to get the true HD experience – if you can tell the difference that is. And that’s going to get expensive.
So who is going to pay to deliver HDTV quality video to me? Is it AT&T’s responsibility to deliver Internet-bandwidth that will support the demands of my PC and Roku while not charging for these upgraded services?
In other words: I’ve been talking with Netflix, Roku and other Connected TV uses for months now about a conflict of interest which is:
How and why would Comcast, AT&T and others want to make TV and Movie programming available to you over the Internet when they already deliver it to you via their Cable/Fiber-Optic/SAT to your TV?
Somethings gotta give, and I’m afraid the folks out there who thought that they could enjoy Full-HD via their Internet connection on a PC and especially on TV’s like the Roku 4K Ultra HDTV or Samsung Smart TV are in for a price hike.
Roku 4 requires a 15mbps connection, but they don’t talk about how much data you will use to enjoy Full-HD on your TV. And like I say, if you watch a television program on your PC via Hulu or another service you might be able to select a low or medium resolution, but you won’t know how much data you are using. For the AT&T customer, 50GB’s goes very fast and I don’t want to spend 10 bucks just to watch Sharknado.
What can we do? I for one try to encourage people to set their connected TV (Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV) to the SD setting. Not all Set Top Boxes have this feature, so I bought the low end Roku 1. It has component (RCA) plugs. I use these plugs instead of the HD port , and I setup my television in the Standard Definition (4×3) mode. I also went into my Roku’s display setting and selected SD (4×3.) For programs like Star Trek, I get a 4×3 display. And somehow, my set up still delivers a widescreen picture when a film is formatted to support it. It requires much less data for SD than HD.
If you must have HD, then Roku’s most expensive model 4 is $129 and it promises to up-rez 720HD videos to a full HD 1920×1080 experience. But I cannot recommend this as a way to save Internet data use, because for one, the unit requires a very strong Internet connection of 15mbps, and that tells me it’s demanding a large amount of bandwidth (data.)
Have I been able to insure that my Roku settings are really saving me money? Not yet, AT&T won’t allow me to monitor my data usage until May 23rd! Haa! There’s always a catch.
05-02-16 From CreativeFuture.org
By Robin Sax
This article originally appeared on Psychology Today.
I am a lawyer and I love movies. You may be thinking, “Of course. That makes sense – what else does an attorney do to unwind?” While I do love zoning out watching other people’s lives unfold via movies, these two parts of my life have become connected in a manner I never would have imagined just a few years ago.
Complex conversations about the value of movies (and other creative works) in the digital age are rendered even more complicated when arguments arise over copyright and free speech.
Did I just put those two words in the same sentence? I hesitate to write “copyright” and “free speech” too close together for fear that I might unwittingly contribute to the work of those who attempt to confuse the two.
First, let’s get this out of the way: Piracy is not free speech. I repeat PIRACY is not free speech. As a matter of fact, piracy, plainly speaking, is illegal. It is a crime. Therefore, attempts to eliminate the for-profit digital theft of creative works is not an attack on free speech; it is prudent crime prevention.
When I first heard about CreativeFuture, I was inspired by the organization’s efforts to fend off the widespread theft of creative work via the internet. But I was equally compelled by their mission to combat the notion that this effort was in some way anti-technology, or even more far-fetched, anti-free speech.
These issues – and others – convinced me to become a member of CreativeFuture’s Leadership Committee. Part of my own mission is to help clear up some of the misinformation that, ironically, tends to proliferate best on the internet, where speech is so free that fact and fantasy commingle with an elegance that can render reality indistinguishable from opinion.
This brings me to another blunt fact: Those who want you to believe that the fight against piracy impinges on the right to free speech are doing so on purpose.
Some organizations, such as the Google-supported Electronic Frontier Foundation, take every opportunity to defend piracy at all costs and call any attempts to protect copyright a threat to free speech – even when those attempts include voluntary agreements between trusted stakeholders.
It is no secret that Google treats copyright as a nuisance. Time and again, the tech monolith lobbies Washington and foreign governments to water down existing law or to block any new initiatives designed to help curb rampant digital theft of copyrighted works.
They also criticize (directly and through organizations they underwrite) the various voluntary industry initiatives that can help take the profit out of piracy.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution was drafted with the intention to “…promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” This applies as much to an app as it does to a song. If this sounds like an assault on free speech, you need to get your head out of your (patented) virtual reality helmet.
The U.S. Supreme Court has written: “It should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be an engine of free expression.” (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 1985.) In the same decision, the Court stated: “…copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.”
Somehow, groups like the EFF always ignore the essential idea/expression distinction inherent in copyright law. The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the ability to convey ideas no matter how objectionable those ideas may be to government or society. The First Amendment isn’t about trying to guarantee people’s ability to copy the particular fixed, creative expression of others. What free speech interests are protected or maintained by the wholesale infringement of full copyrighted works (e.g., piracy)?
We live in exciting times. The digital age has promised us a virtual utopia where information is freely available to all. Yes, there are bad actors that stifle free speech online and governments that censor the internet to eliminate thought or action that undermines regimes. Activism is noble and needed, especially in times of great change, to act as a check against overreach and injustice. But activists become victims if they are armed with misinformation. And make no mistake about it – calling the protection of copyrighted works a threat to free speech is misinformation.
If you agree with me and appreciate this argument, feel free to steal it. Share it on your preferred social media channels and spread the word. As its author, I grant you permission. See? That wasn’t so difficult, now was it?
The FB commentary followed:
Liza Moon may i quote you on that? and if so. as owner of an often pirated property ( google the word “daredoll”, – we are the fully clothed options – the current pirate on spankbang sells our work for higher prices than we do?
Ted Folke When Hollywood and the music industry have been robbing artists for decades, this strikes me as a bit disingenous. American copyright laws are out of date – please see Lawrence Lessig for more!:)
Jonathan Boose Lessig is a tool of Big Tech, which has been doing more to rob artists than Hollywood or the Music Industry ever did.
John Kawakami Copyright is increasingly obsolete because the technology of speech has changed. With computers, you make perfect digital copies. (It’s harder to make them imperfect!) With the internet, you have the ability to track all downloads, of a work, and with decryption or digital rights management, the ability track all uses of a work.
On the one side, you have a space where intellectual property can’t really exist – it’s a property that quickly becomes a public good, part of a commons.
On the other side, you have a space where intellectual property has more “private-property-like” qualities than it ever did when it was published as books or analog recordings. It’s actually invading your privacy; it’s property that can probe into your private life more than the government can (unless they get permission from the courts). Intellectual property becomes a kind of wedge that can drive privacy-invading contracts into your life.
There are different ways around this polarization. CC is one way – it preserves copyright by adapting it to the new reality of perfect digital copies and the internet. (And, Lessig is not a tool – he’s a moderate liberal reformer.) DRM with extensive “sharing” features is another way, because it incorporates “internet-like” features into the privatized surveillance system. This is in the tradition of neoliberal privatization of public space, analogous to things like shopping malls.
Mark Grady John, are you kidding me? Why shouldn’t someone who spends weeks or years working on a book or film have rights associated with that work? This “public good” argument is a silly one. It reminds me of the people who want to legalize pot, so they can use it. There is only one reason people are fighting intellectual property laws – because they want something for nothing.
John Kawakami I’m not advocating for piracy. I’m just saying the world has changed fundamentally and we need to work with it. My general feeling is that the privatized spaces need some regulations to protect privacy because drm is totally invasive. I think they ine…See More