[HN Gopher] 'Minecraft Movie' Leaks Online: Full Unfinished Vers...
___________________________________________________________________
'Minecraft Movie' Leaks Online: Full Unfinished Version Shared
Author : austinallegro
Score : 34 points
Date : 2025-04-06 19:49 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (variety.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (variety.com)
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| nfo: https://pastebin.com/iLk9B0ef
|
| COMMENTS: | | THIS IS A WORKPRINT! THIS IS NOT A FINAL VERSION OF
| THE MOVIE! | | Contains unfinished CGI and different songs than
| the final release. | | Colors have been adjusted. | | Retail
| English audio synced. | | Logo and ads have been removed. | |
| English AI SRT Sub Also Added | | If You Have Any Cam Audio Or
| Video Send Me A PM | | or Email to will1869@protonmail.com or
| DLManic987@proton.me
| haunter wrote:
| The Telesync version is out for days too and it's pretty good
| quality.
|
| But honestly the workprint version's jankiness somehow makes it
| fun. Like those music videos with music removed on Youtube
| hifikuno wrote:
| I remember years ago seeing a prerelease version of one of the
| wolverine movies. As the CGI models were still grayscale, it
| was cool to see at what points the fights were actors and what
| points it was CGI.
| starshadowx2 wrote:
| That was X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I was also thinking about
| that when I heard about this leak. This was the infamous
| Deadpool scene from it without the finished special effects,
| it's actually pretty interesting to see it this way.
|
| - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R5ffysgVvA
| mystraline wrote:
| This is also why I like Yandex and non-US and non-european search
| especially in terms of censorship by copyright in the USA.
|
| If you go to Yandex and search "a minecraft movie torrent" the
| first 6 links are the preprint that variety.com 'claims' were
| mostly removed. In reality, the only sites deindexed were Google
| and Bing.
|
| This shows that the limits of the first amendment are speech when
| its convenient. Links, webpages, and more are speech, but also
| completely censored in the US media.
|
| Weirdly, Russian based companies have less a problem with the
| free speech the USA kicks us offline for.
| sepositus wrote:
| > This shows that the limits of the first amendment are speech
| when its convenient. Links, webpages, and more are speech, but
| also completely censored in the US media.
|
| I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying that publishing the
| text (speech) of a copyrighted book, and then having the link
| to that text de-indexed, is the equivalent of violating the
| First Amendment? I assume Google and Bing just treated this as
| any other copyright violation.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > This shows that the limits of the first amendment are speech
| when its convenient. Links, webpages, and more are speech, but
| also completely censored in the US media.
|
| For better or for worse, the US only has free speech protection
| which is binding on the government. Sometimes that's good (you
| can kick out people who don't behave). Sometimes that's bad
| (censored media). But even in the cases where it's bad, it's
| not clear to me that it would be worth it to enact freedom of
| speech laws that apply to private parties. It seems like the
| cure might be worse than the disease in that case.
| joshfee wrote:
| The problem with enforcing "freedom of speech" on private
| parties is that it essentially the same as infringing the
| speech of that private party.
|
| The only issue I have is when companies can play both sides
| and in one breath claim they're neutral for the purpose of
| section 230 protection, and then in the next breath take part
| in censorship because it's better for business.
|
| Pick a lane, either lane, but you shouldn't get it both ways
| jcranmer wrote:
| > The only issue I have is when companies can play both
| sides and in one breath claim they're neutral for the
| purpose of section 230 protection, and then in the next
| breath take part in censorship because it's better for
| business.
|
| The entire point of SS230 is to immunize companies for the
| consequences of that which you decry as censorship (i.e.,
| moderation).
| Fogest wrote:
| Anytime I am searching for my live TV PPV "linux iso" streams I
| always pull up Yandex. Same goes for pretty much anything
| piracy. Even sometimes searching for research/stats that are
| more "controversial" are often down-ranked in Google and hard
| to find. Unfortunately there is a lot of political bias I've
| noticed more and more often in Google Search results, and
| resorting to Yandex sometimes results in better results.
|
| I personally am a Kagi subscriber as well as find Google's
| search results in general to be terrible. Censorship/political
| bias/blogspam/terrible AI results are all the big factors for
| me switching away from using them much at all.
| Cheer2171 wrote:
| The
|
| First
|
| Amendment
|
| Applies
|
| To
|
| The
|
| Government.
|
| Google
|
| Is
|
| Not
|
| The
|
| Government.
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| YET
| furyofantares wrote:
| Growth mindset.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Weirdly, Russian based companies have less a problem with the
| free speech the USA kicks us offline for.
|
| Yes, Russia, a place always known for enabling free and
| unrestricted speech.
|
| You're not seeing some deep commitment to free speech. You're
| seeing a company in a foreign country not prioritizing matters
| that apply to another country around the world.
|
| Don't confuse one for the other.
| lolinder wrote:
| A more precise conclusion would be: "This shows that US based
| companies will actively self-censor to avoid getting sued for
| copyright infringement. Russian-based companies don't have to
| respect US copyright law, so they have no legal obligation to
| remove infringing content."
|
| Yes, copyright infringement is not protected speech in the US
| and you can be held civilly liable for it. Yes, adversarial
| countries don't enforce each others' laws. So yes, Yandex is a
| good place for finding pirated works. But that hardly makes it
| a bastion of "free speech", it just means that they don't have
| the same legal risks as Google does.
| mystraline wrote:
| DMCA 1201 indicates that I can be held criminally liable, not
| just civially, for free speech discussing a method of working
| around, bypassing, or defeating a perceived "technical
| measure of prevention".
|
| That alone is violation of the US govt's 1fa restriction
| purely in the favor of companies.
| refulgentis wrote:
| AFAIK the 1st Amendment is about _whether the government
| can prevent you from speaking_ , not _there are 0
| consequences to all speech_.
|
| When I think that, I also think, "but isn't it bad to
| Illegal talking decryption?"
|
| Then I think: Law is ambiguous compared to a logical proof,
| and can only be seen through cases.
|
| I resolve that I'll be the first to stand up and scream if
| they deport someone for simply discussing the academics of
| DVD decryption, and that's enough to make me feel
| comfortable saying it's okay the DMCA is used to prevent
| stealing.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| A common misinterpretation of the free speech concept as
| codified in the 1st amendment.
|
| The 1st amendment gives a freedom of association.
|
| All of these private organizations are choosing not to
| associate with that content, squarely in line with the 1st
| amendment. The 1st amendment just says the government won't
| criminally sanction anyone for not associating with someone
| else.
|
| This is in addition to the protections against the government
| for your speech and expression.
| mystraline wrote:
| Please.
|
| Its funny how Section 230 goes both advantageous ways for
| companies, without either of the downsides. But mere mortals,
| yeah, doesn't end well for us who try.
| Cheer2171 wrote:
| > censorship by copyright
|
| Sure, buddy, pretend piracy is all about freedom of expression,
| when all you libertarian trolls really want is to be able to
| consume content from the fountainhead of Western cultural
| hegemony without paying for it.
|
| Are we talking about a commentary or review getting taken down
| because it contains clips of the original? No. Are we talking
| about political speech that uses a character from a popular IP
| franchise as a mascot? No. We are talking about you wanting to
| see an in-progress draft of something people have been spending
| their time making and were not ready to show to the world yet,
| except for one person who leaked it. You feel you deserve to
| see that, for free, right now, on whatever spigot to the
| Internet you want, because you are a three year old child who
| thinks their immediate impulses and desires must be immediately
| satisfied or else they throw a temper tantrum.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > because you are a three year old child who thinks their
| immediate impulses and desires must be immediately satisfied
| or else they throw a temper tantrum.
|
| Once it leaks online, you can't take it back. The leaker knew
| this, Warner Brothers knows this and the editors for Variety
| do too. Their responses have all been adult and controlled,
| the only person jumping to conclusions and demonizing anyone
| here is you.
| userbinator wrote:
| Russia is just more interested in censoring political speech
| than going after copyright claims. The same applies to China.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Interesting! Do they also have the Navalny movie?
| sva_ wrote:
| It is a lot crazier when you Google politicians and the search
| page is clearly curated using the 'right to be forgotten' law
| in the EU. I don't feel like that was the intention behind the
| law, but then again, the ones abusing it are the ones who
| passed it.
| lm28469 wrote:
| You can't swear on TV between 6am and 10pm, absolute freedom of
| speech never existed, there are laws about libel, defamation,
| copyright, inciting crimes, &c.
|
| Grab a megaphone and go sing the national anthem at 2am in the
| middle of a residential area if you want to learn about freedom
| of speech
| os2warpman wrote:
| Yandex only became a Russian company fairly recently, after
| over 20 years of being based outside of Russia.
|
| It was sold, below market value, to a group of Russian
| investors last year for the specific purpose of controlling it
| and suppressing free speech.
|
| Nobody, not a single human being in the entire history of
| humanity, has ever died because they couldn't pirate a
| children's film.
|
| Many people have died, and continue die, because of Yandex's
| cooperation with the FSB in shaping opinion, controlling the
| dissemination of information, and directly reporting users to
| the FSB for problematic searches.
|
| Pirating children's films and controlling the availability of
| news articles are different tiers of free speech.
| jsheard wrote:
| I wish studios would share these behind-the-curtain versions more
| often, but I suppose that would go against their apparent belief
| that CGI is a dirty word that can never be acknowledged even if
| that means outright lying about how much they used. The last
| Planet of the Apes movie did go there though, the 4K Bluray
| includes a "raw cut" of the entire movie which shows exactly what
| the camera saw.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-06 23:01 UTC)