Jump to content
News Ticker
  • Empornium Invites and Buffered Accounts in Stock! Message Ethan!
  • Empornium | Pornbay | Pornbits | AnimeBytes | Redacted | EXIGO | MoreThan.tv | PTP now in Stock! Message Ethan!
  • 100 New VIP Giveaway's! Donate to become a VIP today!
  • HDBits | Cinemageddon | Redacted | CHDBits | PassThePopcorn Invites Available! Message Ethan!

Welcome to InviteHawk - Your Open Source for Sharing Torrent Invites -

  • We are the best invite forum on the internet! Here you will find free invites, free seedboxes, free bonuses, and you can also Buy/Sell your torrent invites or accounts
  • InviteHawk gives you the opportunity to get into the best private trackers out there either by buying your way in or just grab free invites given by our members
  • Grab your free Invite to IPTorrents or BitSpyder once you register. Earn points by being active and claim free invites from the Members Shop!
  • Become a VIP today and get free invites to the most exclusive trackers! We have more than 100 Open Giveaways for VIP Members
  • Never miss a chance to signup on a tracker with open registrations. InviteHawk sends you regular updates about sites with open signups. Just subscribe to our Open Signup Section
  • Get to know everything about a tracker with all the updated information by checking out the tracker reviews

Wilhelm

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    2,774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8
  • Feedback

    100%
  • Points

    21,655 [ Donate ]

Wilhelm last won the day on August 22 2018

Wilhelm had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

614 Prestiged User

6 Followers

About Wilhelm

Recent Profile Visitors

2,047 profile views
  1. avistaz pt.keepfrds chdbits hdsky gztown hyperay pt.upxin Ptp open.cd available!
  2. Have All major Chinese trackers invites including TTG PTP Ourbiits
  3. Trackers invite for sale Many more movie trackers available! Pm for more Available sites Accept all major Crypto 100% safe Trusted member
  4. Members: To celebrate the Mid-Autumn Festival PT station will be open for registration at 2018/9/21/22:00-2018/9/24/22:00 Please tell the friends who love Chinese films. Note: If you register multiple accounts with the same IP, you can resell the account and delete it. Gangzhitang Community Management Group 2018.9.21
  5. 系统升级 System Upgrade 我们将于北京时间2018年09月05日 23:00:00开始,对服务器进行优化升级。 期间可能出现Tracker无法连接或者报错,网页无法正常打开等,均属正常,预计3-4小时左右即可恢复正常。 Tracker and website will be suspended on 23:00 05Sep2018 for system upgrade. The process takes around 3 to 4 hours. Pls note.
  6. Temporary solution to recent difficulties in mobile broadband access Site backup line: Https://www2.totheglory.im Tracker backup line: Https://tracker2.totheglory.im/ Please visit the difficult user to use the alternate line and manually replace the "seed" server address with tracker.totheglory.im with tracker2.totheglory.im Please convey each other, thank you for your understanding and support!
  7. Announcement: Please rest assured that we are not hacked Perhaps everyone has noticed that the anonymous chat on the home page of a bunch of old xxx xxx is gone. Changed a black window. Please rest assured that we are not hacked. The current frds server is free for the cat, and the domain name is also a personal purchase. In order to provide a better experience for everyone in the future, we are now open to donate through webpage mining. I hope that my friends can work and study and live. When the machine is idle, click on the donation next to the new one---"New The window opens, and then click on the green tick. The default cpu usage limit in the small black frame is 50, which is 50% of the cpu computing power. Please adjust it according to the actual situation. Today is the summer, it is getting cooler, pay attention to the quilt at night.
  8. wrong section! Moved to request sections. also, no begging for invites!
  9. Minneapolis lawyer made millions from sham porn copyright scheme A Minneapolis attorney has admitted his role in a multi-million dollar fraud targeting people who had downloaded pornographic movies. Paul Hansmeier, 37, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court on Friday to orchestrating the sham copyright scheme that he used to extort payments from victims. Along with another lawyer, Hansmeier and John Steele – who has previously pleaded guilty – created a series of sham companies that they controlled to obtain rights to porn movies, some of which they filmed themselves. They would then upload these movies to illegal file-sharing websites like "The Pirate Bay" to lure people to download them, the U.S. Attorney's Office said. Once downloaded, the pair would file a bogus copyright infringement lawsuit that masked their role in distributing the movies, and used the courts to subpoena internet companies to reveal the identities of the people who downloaded the content. They would then use phone calls and letters to threaten them with potentially huge financial penalties "and public embarrassment" unless they agreed to pay a $3,000 fee. Between 2010 and 2014, the pair made approximately $6 million from the scheme. "Paul Hansmeier’s guilty plea today closes a sad chapter in the career of an attorney who abused his license to practice law and disgraced the bar," said Special Agent in Charge of the Minneapolis Division Jill Sanborn. "Hansmeier’s role in a brazen multi-million dollar fraud scheme exploited victims by misusing his position of trust as an officer of the court. The FBI will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners to detect crimes such as this and bring the perpetrators to justice."
  10. As part of its dynamic improvement efforts, US movie industry trade body the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has announced the first update of its Content Security Best Practices since the formation of the Trusted Partner Network (TPN), which was launched in April 2018 in a joint venture with the Content Delivery and Security Association (CDSA), to raise and standardise the quality of assessors and to improve efficiency by reducing wasteful duplicative audits. With the launch of TPN, current and future vendor assessments will be based upon the MPAA Best Practices, which are built into the TPN platform to create its core Common Controls. CDSA’s Content Protection Standard (CPS) remains in effect for previously audited facilities through March 31, 2019. Moving forward, the Best Practices will continue to be maintained by MPAA and will be updated regularly to reflect changes in the entertainment industry’s security landscape. “This new MPAA Best Practices update finalises the programme’s transition to the TPN and reflects our association’s continued, 30-year-old commitment to strengthening security processes across production, post production, marketing and distribution,” explains TPN Chairman and MPAA Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel Dan Robbins. “The MPAA Best Practices are designed to provide current and future third-party vendors with an understanding of general content security expectations, as well as a framework for assessing a facility’s ability to protect a client’s content,” says TPN Chief Operating Officer Kurt Fischer, “Understanding and applying the MPAA Best Practices is a great way for a facility and vendor to prepare for their TPN assessment.”
  11. Earlier this year, we wrote about a thought-provoking article by Zeynep Tufecki discussing how some people were deliberately trying to use the open "marketplace of ideas" to effectively attempt to poison the marketplace of ideas. Also mentioned in that article was an excellent Yale Journal Article called Real Talk About Fake News by Nabiha Syed, which raised similar issues, and wondered if we needed a new framework for thinking about free speech online. We later had Syed on our podcast to discuss this further. Both Tufecki and Syed were raising important, thought-provoking issues that were not at all like the usual attacks on free speech -- because neither was an attack on free speech. Instead, they were attempting to protect free speech by pointing out that the way we often frame these discussions may not be the most effective way of thinking about these issues -- and that might actually lead to the silencing of voices. This has certainly spurred many more thoughtful discussions on these topics. But... it won't surprise you that some are now looking to exploit this open discussion in their own way. The MPAA recently filed some comments with the NTIA, and what's striking about them, is how they appear to be co-opting the language of Tufecki to attack free speech online, and push for legal changes that would lead to massive censorship. But, in doing so, they claim these changes are necessary to "protect" free speech. The MPAA's VP Neil Fried also put out a somewhat snarky blog post about the filing, in which the MPAA insists that CDA 230 and DMCA 512 must be changed because "the status quo does not seem to be working." Is that so? CDA 230 became law in 1996. DMCA in 1998. Let's take a look at how movie box office revenue has been over the years since (2018 numbers are projected based on tickets so far): I don't know, Neil, but it sure looks like Hollywood is doing just fine under these conditions. But, the MPAA has basically invested so much of its identity into the idea that infringement is an existential threat, that it has to keep going with it. Remember, this is the same organization that insisted the VCR was going to be "the Boston Strangler" to the movie industry -- and that was said in Congressional testimony just four years before home video revenue surpassed box office revenue. So, the MPAA does not exactly have a credible track record on claiming that the threat of piracy is a real problem for the industry. But, it just can't let things go. So now it's trying again with this comment to NTIA. And I find it notable that it appears to be trying to co-opt the framing that Tufecki used in order to argue for a regime that would stamp out free speech online: Responsible businesses refusing to facilitate such activity are not squelching speech. They are not stifling speakers wishing to communicate ideas, but thwarting culprits engaged in malfeasance. In fact, curbing such illicit activity promotes free expression by creating a safer, virtual forum where individuals feel comfortable to engage and communicate. In this sense, it is leaving lawlessness and bullying unchecked that is chilling free speech. But, of course, a large part of the problem is that the MPAA's entire framing here is simply incorrect. It claims that platforms have no incentive to clean themselves up -- which is laughable when you consider just how far various internet companies have bent over backwards to try to appease everyone complaining about the crap on their platforms. Many of the platforms are not living up to that bargain, shielded behind the broadly interpreted limits on liability that ensure few if any consequences, and failing to apply the same innovation to address internet harms that they do to other areas of their business. This statement has zero basis in reality. Of course all of the major internet platforms regularly moderate content, and these days are under tremendous public pressure from basically all sides, to "do something" about content deemed dangerous. In fact, the worries about over-censorship from this kind of pressure and motivation is already well documented. Hilariously, the MPAA pretends that the platforms don't have much incentive to do anything -- which ignores all of the pressure from their own users, the media, politicians and more. Bizarrely, later in the filing, the MPAA admits that platforms are, in fact, moderating content heavily (something that it spends pages insisting isn't happening). Yet, when it does so, the reasoning is equally perplexing: The rebuttal is often that there is a risk that efforts to combat illicit conduct online will be overbroad, and inadvertently chill speech. But the platforms appear increasingly willing to curb things like hate speech. As odious as such speech is, it is quintessentially expressive. Efforts to combat it are fraught with challenges of under- and over-inclusiveness. Such activity is more susceptible to a chilling speech argument than attempts to curtail clearly illicit conduct, which present a brighter line. So... let's get this straight. The platforms have no incentive to get rid of illegal content on their platforms -- even though all of them do so. And, to prove that there's no problem with overbroad censorship, we'll point to the fact that they do the kind of moderation we previously said they don't... and then admit that that moderation itself is chilling speech. Incredible. The MPAA seems so wedded to its desire to take away the DMCA safe harbor and the CDA immunity provisions that it really doesn't care that no mainstream platform is eagerly courting "illegal" content. But, in order to undermine the open internet, and push for one in which all things must be licensed, it has to keep up the charade that platforms encourage illegal behavior and refuse to deal with it. And it's adopting the language of those who were trying to have a more serious conversation about dealing with bad actors online. It's the ultimate troll move.
  12. Hopes that the safe harbour reforming European Copyright Directive would be passed by the European Parliament earlier this month were scuppered in no small part down to some last minute lobbying efforts led by Google. Now over in the US the music community fears major copyright reforms in Congress could also be scuppered by some last minute lobbying efforts, though this time by someone closer to home. A number of the organisations involved in constructing American’s Music Modernization Act yesterday hit out at the owner of licensing firm the Harry Fox Agency and collecting society SESAC. Campaigners argue that very-late-in-the-day efforts by private equity outfit Blackstone to amend the copyright reforming legislation could result in the whole act falling down at the final hurdle, preventing much needed music licensing reforms. There are various elements to the MMA – which actually brings together a number of different music-related copyright proposals – but at its core are efforts to fix the mechanical rights mess that has hindered the streaming music market Stateside. Streams exploit both the performing rights and the mechanical rights of the song copyright. In most countries there are collecting societies (often a single society) that can provide streaming services with blanket licences covering both elements of the copyright. This means a service is fully licensed for all the songs streaming on its platform, even where it doesn’t have a direct deal with a music publisher. In the US, there are four collecting societies that together represent performing rights – BMI, ASCAP, GMR and SESAC – but there is no society for mechanical rights and therefore no blanket licence available. Which means that services need to have relationships with each publisher and songwriter whose songs appear on their platform. There is a compulsory licence covering mechanical rights in the US, so the process for licensing those rights and the rates services must pay is set in law. However, services still need to identify what songs they are using and who owns them, so they can provide the paperwork and payments required by the compulsory licence. With no one-stop central database of music rights ownership information available, streaming services (and US record companies, who license mechanical rights on CDs and downloads) often rely on third party agencies to identify rights owners and do all the admin required to make sure they get paid. Agencies like the Harry Fox Agency, which used to be owned by the American music publishing sector, but which was acquired by SESAC in 2015, which in turn was bought by private equity types Blackstone last year. It has to be said that HFA hasn’t done a great job in ensuring every music publisher and songwriter has been paid their mechanical royalties, resulting in multiple copyright infringement lawsuits against its streaming platform clients, most notably Spotify. The MMA, if passed, will set up a new collecting society that will be empowered to grant a blanket licence to streaming services relying on the compulsory licence to cover song rights. It will work a lot like SoundExchange, the US collecting society that administers another compulsory licence, in that case for the exploitation of the digital performing rights that come with the sound recording copyright. This new society and licence should go some way to sorting out the massive mess that is mechanical rights licensing in the US and bring the American system more in line with what happens elsewhere in the world. Though the creation of the new society and the new licence might mean a lot less work for companies like HFA. Although said new society will need suppliers and HFA – and its competitors – could compete for that work. Either way, current HFA owner Blackstone has been busy trying to get last minute amendments made to the MMA, which was passed by the House Of Representatives in a super speedy fashion, but which is getting more scrutiny in Senate. Although its proposals are seemingly designed to mainly protect HFA’s interests, Blackstone is appealing to the innate suspicion most American politicians have for anything that looks like a monopoly. Although negotiations continue, one of the organisations backing the MMA – Nashville Songwriters Association International – said in an email to its members yesterday that what Blackstone are currently proposing will likely cause the whole act to collapse. It states: “The Music Modernization Act provides a simple answer to a very complex problem in music licensing. One of the main reasons the streaming companies have agreed to a fair rate standard that will likely result in a royalty hike for songwriters is efficiency; so they won’t have to go to a large number of multiple sources to obtain mechanical licenses. Instead they will get one blanket licence from the new Music Licensing Collective (MLC) run by songwriters and music publishers”. Regarding the new amendments now being touted, it goes on: “Blackstone’s proposal would legally require each streaming service to hire another company to issue licenses, collect and distribute royalties in addition to the MLC. This added step would be costly to songwriters, who will pay nothing to the MLC and collect 100% of their royalties, because we’ve already negotiated with streaming companies to get them to pay the admin costs!” It then adds: “This proposed amendment is an attempt to make sure the Harry Fox Agency keeps their current business by forcing the death of the MMA, or gets more business because their proposal forces streaming companies to hire an agency in addition to the MLC to issue and administrate mechanical licences”. NSAI then confirms that the Digital Media Association, which represents the streaming companies, will not back Blackstone’s proposed amendments. “Neither will music publishers, record companies, NSAI or anyone else who worked for years to create a bill that Blackstone is trying to kill at the very last minute” it then adds. Another campaigning group which has been working hard on the MMA – Songwriters Of North America – also wrote to their members and supporters yesterday about the Blackstone proposals. It states in no uncertain terms: “The performance rights organisation SESAC, along with some other very recent players, is actively pushing an amendment in the US Senate that could effectively kill the Music Modernization Act”. Noting that HFA could pitch its services to the new society that the MMA will create, it goes on: “Nothing in the MMA precludes Harry Fox from competing to become a vendor of the MLC. Vendors will be required under the new law to curate data, match claims, locate rights-holders, etc. And if they can convince the board of songwriters and publishers that they can do the best job for us, then they will get the gig. But Blackstone doesn’t want to do that. They want to kill the MLC and have the playing field all to themselves”. Referencing the recent intervention of a certain Senator Ted Cruz on all things MMA, SONA then adds: “Lucky for [Blackstone], they found a friend in one senator from Texas who loves the free market and hates government-created entities, particularly ones with the word ‘collective’ in them”. “In their amendment proposal”, SONA continues, Blackstone “describe the MLC as ‘a single, European-style government regulated monopoly… antithetical to the free market'”. This, of course, ignores the parallels between the new society the MMA will create and the very American-style SoundExchange. SONA then points out all the negotiating that has gone on at their end to ensure that self-publishing songwriters have representation on the board of the new society. “In the Blackstone amendment, an MLC governing board has little to govern”, it says. “It practically mandates that the Harry Fox Agency take the place of the MLC, and without any of the oversight and accountability that we all fought so hard for”. Although Blackstone’s intervention is about protecting the interests of its HFA business, the fallout could have a negative impact on SESAC, which relies much more on its relationships with songwriters themselves. Most collecting societies are owned by their members, making SESAC’s ownership – by private equity – unusual. If Blackstone’s wheelings and dealings cause the MMA to fall, it could make songwriters allied to SESAC question whether the owners of their collecting society really have their best interests at heart. And it’s the timing of that intervention that is proving most controversial among MMA supporters. While there may well be compromises that can be made to allay some of Blackstone’s concerns without destroying the MMA entirely, many are asking why SESAC and HFA didn’t raise these issues previously. It has been much noted how lobbying efforts to push the MMA through has seen unprecedented collaboration between organisations representing artists, songwriters, labels, publishers and streaming services. There were therefore numerous opportunities, campaigners say, for Blackstone to join this conversation when the MMA was being drafted, so that HFA and SESAC could have been part of the music community consensus in Congress, rather than leading the charge against it. This was a point emphasised by another of the collecting societies involved in this debate, BMI, which yesterday said it hoped these last minute issues could be resolved. In a statement, the society stated: “The Music Modernization Act represents an historic opportunity to enact meaningful music licensing reform. The bill is the product of unprecedented collaboration among music stakeholders and passed unanimously through the House Judiciary Committee, the full House, and the Senate Judiciary Committee”. It went on: “BMI is disappointed that at this late stage, the MMA is being endangered by last minute asks. During the long process of drafting this bill, BMI, like many others, had to compromise on certain provisions in order to achieve a final result that benefits the industry as a whole. We hope that the parties currently in disagreement can work together to resolve their issues, allowing this important piece of legislation to move forward”. For its part, Blackstone told reporters yesterday that it “strongly supports music modernisation, and we are confident legislation will be signed into law this year as long as all parties continue working in the same cooperative spirit that has characterised the process so far”. Meanwhile a spokesperson for SESAC said it was “committed to working towards a version of the Music Modernization Act that retains all of the benefits for writers, publishers and [streaming services] and which will move music licensing into the 21st Century while supporting a competitive market in music rights administration. We expect that as the Senate continues to work through these issues with input from concerned and well-meaning stakeholders, an appropriate resolution will be reached and the MMA will be passed before the end of the year”.
  13. Elsie Fisher appears in Eighth Grade / Photo Courtesy: A24 Is the MPAA rating for Eighth Grade the reason the movie underperformed at the box office? As Eighth Grade heads into its second weekend in a wide release, the question of how well Eighth Grade will do at the box office may boil down to who CAN see it without supervision – thanks to a strange move from the MPAA, which may be to blame for the low numbers. No matter how well or poorly Eighth Grade ends its theater run, it’s difficult to doubt the hard ad campaign A24 is conducting for the Bo Burnham drama-comedy. The film has been blessed to be one of the pre-video videos when you click on a random YouTube video that, more likely than not, you have skipped to get going. Bo Burnham and the film’s star, Elsie Fisher, have gone on a well-publicized campaign across America to promote the film. A24 has put the same amount of effort into promoting Eighth Grade as they have with the acclaimed commercial success Hereditary. However, Burnham’s film has not received nearly the amount of box office success as the Ari Aster horror film. In fact, the two are not even close in terms of box office appeal. Hereditary managed to nab an impressive $13 million in its opening weekend and its strong legs at the box office helped carry it past last year’s Lady Bird to officially be crowned the highest grossing A24 film ever at almost $80 million. Quite impressive for an art-house horror film, with a D Cinemascore, of all things. Despite its polarizing reception with the general audiences, people’s fascination with the film helped contribute to the film’s unlikely success. The same cannot be said for Eighth Grade, unfortunately. Although the premise of Eighth Grade is significantly less macabre than Hereditary, the box office numbers aren’t as kind, seeing as how the film expanded into a wide release last weekend and somehow only came away with just over $2 million. That’s not to say Eighth Grade is a bomb, which it truly isn’t. The film’s estimated low-budget could be beneficial in not losing money, and though this is the first week of its wide release, it’s far from a brand-new release. The film had a limited release in a few cities at first, which managed to nab it some fairly sizable numbers (Eighth Grade currently holds the record for the best per-theater average gross of the year so far with $63, 071), which may have faded away by the time the wide release came about. There are loads of factors that lead to Eighth Grade‘s numbers, but one that I haven’t heard much mention of might have to do with the MPAA themselves. The MPAA, which are responsible for the age ratings given to art such as films, TV shows, and video games, are notoriously strict with their ratings. They view any potential profanity and language as a legitimate reason for slapping an otherwise tame film with a surprisingly mature rating. It appears to be the same case for Eighth Grade, which is currently rated R for American audiences. R for restricted implies that the film you are about to see may contain strong language, heavy drug use, sexual content, nudity, bloody and gory violence, etc. This rating is typically reserved for horror films that push the envelope or incredibly violent action films. Hereditary itself had an R-rating, which could’ve been detrimental to its success, but with the majority of people interested in the film being young adults who are old enough to see the film without supervision, the film became a success nonetheless. Eighth Grade, A24. Photo courtesy A24 via EPK.tv If that film could experience loads of success, why isn’t it the same for Eighth Grade? For one, let’s look at the premise of the film: a young girl is heading towards the end of her middle school life as she tries to deal with the problems of eighth grade before she officially enters high school. Now I will ask this: who do you think this film will resonate with the most? Burnham may try to spin it by saying that everyone will relate to Eighth Grade, but let’s be real: the film is pretty much a hilarious cautionary tale for pre-teen girls who are currently going through the same thing. The film’s protagonist isn’t even in high school, so it’s pretty obvious that this is the case. Those pre-teen girls (and boys for that matter) that Eighth Grade is appealing to may very well be interested in seeing the film for themselves. Only one problem: they can’t go in by themselves due to the film’s R rating. If you try to get into an R-rated film by yourself, you WILL be turned away (I know from experience). Eighth Grade, A24. Photo courtesy A24 via EPK.tv But the kids’ parents can take them into the movie, right? Well, they can, but that doesn’t mean every parent is going to WANT to. Sometimes parents are busy, not around, and some even follow the MPAA ratings down to a tee. If the film is rated R, parents may simply assume that the film will be a profane mess that’s trying to corrupt their children’s minds. I mean, the film has the same rating as It, the scary movie about a clown master that eats small children. “That gave my daughter nightmares for weeks. Why would I take her to see Eighth Grade?“, a parent might say to themselves. You may be thinking the comparison is silly and lacking in logic. I’m here to tell you that it absolutely is, but it’s the logic that the MPAA is going by. Eighth Grade‘s most controversial scene is a sequence in a car that might hit a little too close to home for some people, which is understandable. But by slapping the film with an R rating, the MPAA is preventing an otherwise awkward and heartwarming coming-of-age film from being easily accessible to children. Without the children to support the film, Eighth Grade could unwillingly be left in the dust. Yeah, the movie business isn’t always fair, but this is just silly. BEVERLY HILLS, CA – JULY 12: Elvis Mitchell, Elsie Fisher and Bo Burnham attend Film Independent at The WGA Theater presents screening and Q&A of “Eighth Grade” at The WGA Theater on July 12, 2018 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Araya Diaz/Getty Images) To further illustrate the silliness of the rating, I’d like to bring up another unfairly scrutinized film. The film I’m referring to is the charming holiday buddy comedy known as Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. The film, which stars comedic legend, Steve Martin, and the late, great John Candy, focuses on a father trying to make it back to his home in Chicago for Thanksgiving, all the while dealing with a good-natured, but incredibly talkative and overbearing shower curtain ring salesman, played to perfection by Candy. The film is memorable for its many quotable lines, the heartwarming performance of John Candy, and the its message of positive karma and the importance of being kind to your neighbors and acquaintances. On personal terms, I even have an old friend from high-school who claims that she STILL considers this a holiday tradition with her family, akin to something like A Christmas Story. In many ways, it is the perfect family film and one that you can introduce your child to. Except if said child tries to purchase the film at a store, they would be turned away, because this charming and emotional holiday comedy is too profane for them. Yes, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles remains one of the most perplexing and downright baffling R-rated films in existence. I don’t feel I’m exaggerating at all because for the most part, the film is tame in terms of “profane” content. The language, for the most part, is relegated to a few cheeky lines, the violence, when it appears in the film, is cartoonish and not worth shielding your child’s eyes over it and no sexual content (apart from the bed sequence with Martin and Candy, which is more awkward than disturbing). But, Steve Martin’s f-bomb tirade in the middle of the film is too much for the MPAA to handle. An R rating it is! Steve Martin’s now-infamous scene at the car rental place, where he chews out the receptionist for not receiving the car he’d wanted to rent to drive home, is quite literally the only clear reason the film received an R rating. Martin continuously says the f-word time after time in a moment of hilarious anguish, but it’s because of that one scene that the film, much like Eighth Grade, received an unwarranted R rating. Here is the clip in full to see what I’m talking about, but warning, the f-bomb is thrown out a bit, so you’ve been warned. Now sure, the scene itself does contain a fair amount of heavy swear words (though understandable, given Martin’s situation and the overall context of the film), realize that this is the film’s ONLY instance of profanity, which was enough to get it slapped with a restricted rating. Films such as Jaws and Airplane!, which contain far more mature and adult-orientated content, still have a measly PG rating to this very day. But to drive the point home, I will show one more scene from Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, one which I feel encapsulates the tone and message of the film into a perfect ending for the family to enjoy. Viewer discretion is not advised, because why would it be? If you’ve watched the clip, then ask yourself: is this a movie truly deserving of the R rating it received? A movie about a man wanting to reunite with his family and making a friend along the way is less child-friendly than something like a bloody shark film? The MPAA rating system has been flawed way before then, but this is one of the instances where the rating is simply baffling and history is repeating itself with Eighth Grade. The film’s rating is so baffling that Burnham and A24 took it upon themselves to create a special one-night screening of the film this past Wednesday in theaters across America where the rating was not enforced and tickets were free. Children could get in without supervision and finally see what Eighth Grade is really about. It’s sad that this is potentially the only way for the film to be seen by many kids and it’s not even something the company could profit off of, given that the tickets are free. Makes one wonder what exactly is child-friendly anymore, you know?
  14. The decision by the NCC prevented the copyright body from collecting royalties on behalf of artists in the country and was put in place after COSON declined a directive asking it to organise another election following the leadership claims of two persons, Efe Omorogbe and Tony Okoroji. A group has now asked for the suspension to be reversed even as the tussle for COSON leadership remains unresolved. The NCC has now been asked by the Music Publishers Association of Nigeria (MPAN) to reconsider its position in a recent statement signed by the board of trustees’ chairman, Olumide Mustapha along with its secretary, Isioma Idigbe. “MPAN recognises that the NCC’s actions regarding COSON are well intended especially in light of the fact that the NCC under the impressive leadership of Mr Afam Ezekude has been one of the biggest contributors to the significant positive developments of copyright administration in Nigeria. “However, we believe that the NCC can achieve its objective – of ensuring rights owners and creators are well represented by their designated CMO – without adversely affecting COSON’s members who are feeling the heat of NCC’s decision to suspend COSON’s license.” Other parties to have waded into the COSON dispute include Audu Maikori, 2Baba and Victor Uwaifo. A group within COSON itself demanded that Okoroji's actions as head of the body since its creation be probed. None of the interventions so far has proven effective at resolving the issues dogging Nigeria’s most well-known collecting organisation, which has been in the news more for the conflict than for paying out royalties over the past few months. MPAN's statement added that: “The continued suspension has created uncertainty about the stability of music business in Nigeria, and is ultimately driving away much needed foreign and local investment in the music industry as funding plans literally have to be put on hold pending the resolution of this matter. “MPAN thus firmly but respectfully calls for the NCC to not throw away the baby with the bathwater and lift the suspension of COSON’s licence without further delay as MPAN, investors and thousands of helpless copyright owners across Nigeria and beyond continue to suffer otherwise.” The Nigerian Communications Commission is yet to respond.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.