Torrent-Only Movie Denied IMDb Listing 207
An anonymous reader writes "A film set to be released for free via BitTorrent has been denied a listing in the Internet Movie Database. The Tunnel is currently in production and despite pleas from the makers, IMDb won't allow it on their site. The creators of this horror movie believe that because they have shunned an official distributor and chosen a BitTorrent model instead, this has put them at a disadvantage with the Amazon-owned site."
Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:5, Informative)
IMDB has a very clear rule requiring traditional distribution in order to make their site. Search for your favorite podcast there, even if it comes from CBS-owned CNET or Comcast's G4, and you get comical results of other uses of the words in the title with the exception of only those that had TV runs at some point in the past. TV shows are allowed on the site, but saddled with a "(TV)" mark every time the title is mentioned in the DB.
IMDB's purpose for living currently is a place for Amazon to collect data on video entertainment products that more likely than not will eventually show up as a product Amazon is going to carry. Even if you've got a huge budget, if you're going to go for non-studio Internet downloads, you're not going to end up in Amazon's catalog and offend the big media types that IMDB depends on.
Don't like it? Create your own directory of legal download video projects and lock big content out unless they embrace the download format. Better yet, help people download their picks onto whatever device they want. Oh, wait, that's MediaFly. [mediafly.com]
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:5, Informative)
Because it doesn't exist yet. FTFA: "IMDb told the team that if a movie is not set up with a production company with a history of theatrically released movies, getting it listed at the early stages of development would not be possible."
Re: (Score:2)
I know there has been some flexibility to those rules, but honestly they make sense.
I could come out and say I'm making a movie, but don't have a script, actors, or a production company. They could list every person with an idea, but that would just pollute the database. It doesn't totally appear to be the case. The two guys were involved in an Australian television show, "Getaway", and some other works. I'm not familiar with them, so I'll have to just go with what I did fi
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, The Tunnel has completed principal photography and is in post-production, according to the Open Letter referenced in the article. And they supplied references to major media tracking their work, as IMDB requested.
It sounds like IMDB may be reconsidering (Score:5, Informative)
Posted earlier today in the Sydney Morning Herald [smh.com.au]
They probably get hundreds (or more) of requests to list all kinds of screwy things every day, and this probably just flew under the radar of people who didn't take the time to do the due diligence of verifying that it's a real project that's well underway and that actually does have a good chance of being released and relevant. I suspect that with all of the attention, they'll probably change their mind in pretty short order and all will be well again. I find both the filmmaker's frustration and IMDB's reticence understandable. It is a valuable resource, and I don't want it trashed with every schmo who thinks that his kid's birthday party video should be listed.
Besides, as mentioned before, the publicity doesn't hurt, and IMDB did them a huge favor in an indirect way. I had never heard of the project before, but I think it's an awesome idea, one I've actually thought of and wished on many occasions that someone would take up. I hope they do awesome, and their project has motivated me to pitch in and buy some frames.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:5, Informative)
Your obviously not an Aussie, saying Denton has no history in the industry is like saying Hitchcock knew nothing about suspense.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems some real skill on Australian TV and other docos.
I hope they get listed. If not it shows just how closed the site really is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So a company with no history in the industry is annoyed because IMDB won't list their pre-production film.
No.
A company with a long history in the industry is annoyed because IMDB won't list their pre-production film.
How is their problem different from any other production company without a history of releases behind them?
It's different because they *do* have a history of releases behind them.
Your problem is that you're parroting the IMDB's response, and ignoring reality.
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:5, Informative)
Under 'what constituts general public interest', the rules include:
Re: (Score:2)
So a movie isn't a movie until it's been to a festival? Is that like a rite of passage?
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:5, Informative)
Denton is famous for his short stature but he is anything but an obstinate child. He is highly intelligent, has a razor wit, and IMHO makes some of the best Aussie TV shows on air, he also served as executive producer and script editor for "The Chasers". His company goes by the name of "Zapruder's other films" ( Zapruder being the guy who filmed JFK's assasination ).
He has not moaned about it being unfair, nor has he thrown a tantrum, the media have picked up the story because he is such a well known and popular figure in Aussie TV. Denton of course is getting a bunch of free publicity for his free film but everyone here in Oz already knows the guy is way too smart to knock back free publicity.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For what it's worth, which isn't much, Denton was involved in the greatest piece of television in the history of the world, but it was in 1988 and mostly he's be farting through his mouth ever since.
I refer of course to the Great Lubricated Goat Episode of Blah Blah Blah. It shall not be forgotten. I thought at the time, "Finally, television is going to be good", but it was not to be.
Sigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubricated_Goat [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The best thing for IMDB to do would be to man up and accept everybody's home videos, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do tend to agree with your idea.
I may still visit IMDB to learn about a film, but I will never ever purchase a movie from Amazon or any other selling site mentioned therein.
I doubt if I would like The Tunnel, but I will purchase a copy simply to help them and to tweak Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
I may still visit IMDB to learn about a film
I haven't been to IMDB since wikipedia came along. Wikipedia has made IMBD redundant; the IMBD artocles usually have far less to them than the Wikipedia articles.
Re: (Score:2)
The only useful thing I've found on IMDB are the "person" pages which generally have a very complete listing of what an actor/actress has been in, so I can figure out where I've seen them before. Wikipedia generally doesn't have that sort of detail. Also, sometimes the IMDB page for a TV episode will have minor guest stars listed that Wikipedia doesn't
Nasty Old People (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IMDB was much better before Amazon took over. When it was independent it was easy to submit updates and corrections, and while it was not a free-for-all like the Wikimedia (the Wikipedia) back end is, it was very easy to submit updates and watch for the managers (or "editors" in Wikipedia nomanclature) to accept the changes and publish them. That all changed quickly right after Amazon took over. I quit volunteering my time to improve the site, as did many other casual readers who simply wanted a better syst
Re: (Score:2)
Wikimedia gets its money from PBS/NPR-like "pledge drives" where they basically tell the public you're getting something valuable for free, please pay to keep it going.
IMDB gets its money from Amazon, who'd love to keep the pay-for-content model going, and that explains its bias.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW: His wife is also a well know Aussie TV personality and is drop dead gorgeous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:5, Informative)
That all changed quickly right after Amazon took over. I quit volunteering my time to improve the site, as did many other casual readers who simply wanted a better system for their own reference and entertainment. I still use IMDB to discover older movies and television series which might interest me, but I have no desire to try to submit corrections.
You may want to consider TheMovieDb.org [themoviedb.org] and TheTVDB.com [thetvdb.com]. They started up in response to IMDb restricting their content and images, and exist to provide community-sourced metadata and artwork for use in HTPCs.
RottenTomatoes (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ [rottentomatoes.com] is way better then IMDB for movie reviews
ie. Their ratings aren't done by 14 year-olds on a scale from"sucks" to "awesome" (although they have included "user ratings" in the last few weeks, ack)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thankfully the "community" comments and ratings are kept separate and are not factored in to the actual rating of the movie.Avoid the "RT Community" tab if you want to avoid reviews authored by spambots and the "omg i lolled and milu jovinich is hot " crowd.
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:4, Insightful)
I was thinking the same thing. I'm not impressed with the direction IMDB has been going in recent years, more and more paywalls, I think it's about time someone create an alternative to IMDB and I think it's rather scary that one website has wielded so much power over a movie database for as long as IMDB has.
Like Field of Dreams said "If you build it they will come". Judging by the torrent movies I've seen there's quite a few that would love a site where they might get better exposure than buried under Avatar and Iron Man
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:4, Interesting)
You should check out http://www.themoviedb.org/ [themoviedb.org]
XBMC can download information directly from their database, which is how I was introduced to it. I believe this is what you are looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:5, Informative)
So IMDB has a clear tradition and quite likely violated it for...
Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning
The Guild
The Legend of Neil
Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog
Frankly, if any web series also deserves to violate this rule, it's Doraleous and Associates. Awesome web based show that very easily deserves to be in IMDB, yet currently is not. Not unlike those other awesome shows which also avoided standard publishing paths. I know nothing about The Tunnel, but I think IMDB damn well should have a vetting process for things worth mentioning because they appear to already have one in spirit if not in their own law.
Anyway, these did not originate or target standard distribution channels, yet they got into the IMDB database. Was the only reason those shows got on IMDB is because some of the people working on or for them are well known, and IMDB actually has a flexible policy of supporting those who they like or are well known when clear traditions are broken? I don't think Star Wreck even had known actors, and yet it's original distribution channel was, *gasp*, torrent.
So yes, maybe the folks at The Tunnel kind of have a valid complaint, even if their show is as bad as parts of Star Wreck. Hell, it can't possibly be as bad as Neverending Story 3, which is listed on IMDB and most certainly should be forgotten by all who exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard of Legend of Neil, but Star Wreck, The Guild, and Dr. Horrible are all available on DVD.
Re: (Score:2)
"sold on DVD" (Score:2)
Every one of those examples you listed was sold on DVD. That's the very rule this article is about
Does "sold on DVD" have the ordinary meaning of the work being distributed to the public in copies playable on DVD players, or is it stricter? For example, once the film is finished, will a competently self-mastered DVD + short-run duplication [discmakers.com] + self-distribution count? Or does it have to be through a mainstream distributor?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should IMDB carry podcasts? They don't carry radio shows at all.
Gayniggers from Outer Space is a movie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using wikipedia for *years* for the things I used IMDB for a decade ago. I've found wikipedia to be much more cleanly laid out, loads faster, doesn't ask me to log in every five minutes, and oddly enough, better written, and often much more detail is available.
If you need to catch up on a show for the water cooler, then wikipedia's your place, not imdb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IMDB has a very clear rule requiring traditional distribution in order to make their site.
I thought it had more to do with being within six degrees of Kevin Bacon... otherwise, YouTube and other sites would cause massive data storage and retrieval problems.
THE POWER OF SLASHDDOT! (Score:2)
I just googled to see if wikipedia listed "The Tunnel", and the first google hit was IMDB! The second was a wikipedia article about a New York night club. The third was a trans-Hudson rail tunnel, #4 was the movie's web site.
Did the slashdot story get it listed? I'm at work, so of course torrentfreak is firewalled off. I doubt seriously if torrentfreak got it listed.
OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OTOH (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OTOH (Score:4, Informative)
The Age [theage.com.au]
But please don't let me get in the way of a good anti-establishment rant...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
I love IMDB for keeping track of movies I've seen but they have some really annoying policies around what gets included. How is this any different than the 60 or Funny Or Die movies in IMDB right now? http://www.imdb.com/company/co0215655/ [imdb.com] I don't think any of those have gotten anything other than web streaming distribution.
A while back I thought I'd add a few obscure short Russian films that are included on a DVD set I have. Mostly fascinating propaganda from the 1950s or so. About half of the films are in IMDB. I spent a good hour or so using their ancient and difficult to use system entering all of the data that I could find which was relatively substantial. Go figure, they actually had a lot of production information in the credits for the main one I wanted to submit. So I put all the data in, got the e-mail that said OK we'll take a look! Waited. Waited. Got another automated e-mail saying well you don't have enough information. Please add more. So I tried to clean things up a bit. Waited.. Waited.. finally got an e-mail saying Well, sorry, none of our staff have looked at this yet, and don't expect them to. Resubmit with more information if you want us to maybe consider it. !!!
What do they want?? There's tons of movies in there that don't even have things like director and producer credits much less acting credits. After that I just don't see the point in trying to help.
I feel bad for these guys with this torrent movie. Can't imagine they'll get very far on their own with them.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Huh, if that's true I was unaware of it and stand corrected. (I know, a rare situation on Slashdot.)
those have been released (Score:2)
This hasn't.
http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?titleeligibility [imdb.com]
Once a movie is released, it's pretty easy it on from the "has been downloaded a large number of times from a site" criteria. This is surely how the funnyordie stuff got up there.
But the movie in question hasn't been released yet. So it can't meet those criteria. So it must wait a little bit longer.
Ying/Yang (Score:3, Funny)
I guess the real argument is what is considered a Production. Surely if the movie is of the quality as many B titles the means of distribution are irrelevant.
That said, the flip side is a IMDB that is littered with amazing Productions such as "Football to the Groin" and "Cat Gets Tasered, In Bathtub"
I guess for some of us the real IMDB will be reduced to .NFO files and their summary. That'll learn em' :O
No shit (Score:3, Funny)
If it doesn't come out in theaters, it's a home movie, not a real motion picture.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yep. Even HBO stages small theater runs for their serious productions to qualify them for Oscar contention. Otherwise, all they could get would be Emmy awards.
Re: (Score:2)
.. but IMDb includes straight to video, straight to television, TV shows, and computer games in their database without a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Song of the South (Score:2)
Theaters vs. Everything else (Score:2)
Defining what is a "real motion picture" by whether or not a handful of companies decide to play it is not the best option. I fully support capitalism, but for it to work, we must be able to move beyond reasoning that the level at which something is marketed is the definition of it's quality.
Media companies practically have an oligarchy, and people have been eating it up. However, as they pump out more trash, the people seek more substance. When comapanies want control, users want usability. In a time when
Re: (Score:2)
SO Firefly is a home movie. Star Trek DS9, TNG, and TOS are all home movies.. Babylon 5 is a home movie...
Honestly, the last 4 films I saw at a theater, I'd rather watch shakey cam home movies of someones kid on a fricking swing than the tripe that they convinced my wife to drag me to.
Entertainment industries in two parallel universes (Score:5, Funny)
In the other universe, digital distribution doesn't exist at all and is no more potent a force than than a barely perceptible breeze.
Amazon? (Score:5, Insightful)
this has put them at a disadvantage with the Amazon-owned site.
That explains why the site has been getting so "design" heavy it is almost unusable. It can only be viewed with flash and javascript blocking.
Excuse me? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These guys are either... (Score:4, Insightful)
...idiots or trying to drum up publicity (my bet is the second).
Really - IMDB can't do what they want them to and remain a reliable source of movie information. IMDB clearly told them what was needed: be at a late enough period of production or at release so they can tell it isn't simply a hobby or publicity stunt or have a major publisher sign off. So they resubmitted without *any* of that happening and *gasp* got rejected each time! I mean, there is only one explanation right - they are protecting Amazon.com business of selling movies!!!!!! BitTorrent is a *distribution method*, not a distributor. They are following their rules for self published movies and those are in place for a reason. It's like complaining that a CentOS repository will not take your half baked project like sourceforge would - after all you have other half baked projects that made it! It's not some grand conspiracy, they list professionally made published movies and some publishers are reliable enough that they allow them to "pre-publish" information. Any other database that is looking for a similar reputation (again, take a community accepted CentOS repository) and they have to do the same thing. Nothing wrong with either way and there is place for both, but do not expect one striving for the higher reputation to take anything.
Further this is what you pay publishers to do and is the tradeoff one pays for saving that money. To use another computer analogy no reason you can't self publish your own x.509 certificate, set up a secure server, and rely totally on that. Just do not complain when people do not trust it like they would a certificate signed by Verisign - you are not really paying for the distribution, you are paying for the trust and connections that the publisher (or CA) has. Lots of examples there too - have your home for sale by owner? You aren't going to get the ability to advertise like a real-estate agent would. Service your own equipment? The place you purchased your items from aren't going to refund your money because you hit something with a hammer you were not supposed too. Yea, they have a few other movies with them but I bet they were not added unless: the movie was released, at the end of production, or had a publisher backing it. Even then one has to note the number of movies that are "in production" and never make it, by that observation the standards are already low.
IMDB is *not* looking to be a repository for information on any and all movies out there (they aren't looking to be a sourceforge of movies, they are looking to be a community wide accepted CentOS repository). Yea, some "real" movies may very well end up with much worse production values than this one - but they aren't going to take your word for it. If they release a quality movie and IMDB refuses *then* lets blast them, until then these guys are only marginally better then me submitting my upcoming movie to IMDB.
indie films must be released before listed (Score:5, Informative)
IMDB requires indie films be released before they are listed.
http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?titleeligibility [imdb.com]
This movie isn't out yet. He can submit the movie for inclusion once it comes out.
Is there no website that won't fall for a fake outrage story like this one? Is it really this easy to manipulate "new media"?
Re: (Score:2)
And one of the criteria for General Public Interest is "has become famous for some reason and is widely talked about/referenced in non local media or the 'film community' or is now of general historic interest for some reason." By virtue of it being discussed on Slashdot, it now meets that requirement.
(And will probably also meet the "has been downloaded in 'large' numbers from some website(s)" criteria as well, due to Slashdot.)
I don't see why it shouldn't be included since even porn is allowed in the dat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a rhetorical question or are you new to Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really this easy to manipulate "new media"?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this makes sense. While it might seem like you're just favoring the big studios, there's no point in making a bunch of "pre production" entries for indie projects because indie projects are probably a lot more likely to dead-end or get cancelled. Big studios have problems too, but I don't expect it to be nearly as big of a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. I stumble across films listed that are still in-production all the time. Some have been "in production" for years and still aren't out yet. But they're in IMDB.
Considering how much low-budget porn is in IMDB, it's quite obvious that Amazon's issue here is anti-torrent and has absolutely nothing to do with the production status of the film, the content of the film, or the credentials of those making the film.
Frankly, IMDB needs to be replaced (Score:3, Insightful)
No public API, only some ambiguous statement saying they *might* be willing to license you you for at least $10,000, maybe, if they are feeling ok about it that is.
There needs to be an open web platform that does what IMDB does, but allows it's information to be used freely. While I can understand there needs to be a standard as to what get's in, not including something solely because it's internet distribution only shows that though they exist on the net, they don't really care for it. We deserve better.
Too late for a film at 11 joke again... (Score:2)
Torrent-distributed movie that vows never to be sold in stores denied listing at online retail giant's movie database. We've got a team working on the story overnight and will have complete details on tomorrow's Wicked Early News, we start now a half hour earlier than before normal people wake up.
Seems like an opportunity to me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are competing movie databases which feature user contributed content.
In fact mythtv supports an alternate movie and poster database out of the box.
I actually added the entire content for one movie simply because it was not listed on IMDB and there was nothing I could do to change this. (I Sell The Dead). It was a horror comedy flick and while not my usual genre I was pleased enough. At the time there was no IMDB listing and this was surprising because it had Dominic Monaghan as the lead star. (Charlie
Re: (Score:2)
"Now hopefully they won't pull a gracenote with all of that user contributed content."
Like IMDB did? I've been around the 'net long enough to remember when it was the user-contributed 'rec.arts.movies movie database', a collection of text files and shell scripts, before it even moved to the web as the 'Cardiff University Movie Database'. What happened after that was like a beginners HOWTO for the CDDB guys.
But apart from that, anyone who relies on IMDB for accurate info has rocks in their head. Anything pre
it would set a bad precedent (Score:2)
If anyone who decides to torrent a home movie could add to IMDB the site would, in my opinion, become less useful. If I want to wade through cruft I'll search with google.
IMDB refute the claims (Score:2)
IMDb's head of public relations and marketing said the company would "review this specific case", but brushed off the producers' claims of bias.
"To the contrary, we already list many titles that were initially or solely distributed online and/or via BitTorrent," Emily Glassman wrote in an email from Seattle, where the company is based.
"As a pioneering internet company - we are celebrating our 20th anniversary on 17 October! - we are fully aware of and totally embrace digital distribution."
Re: (Score:2)
It's the job of the PUBIC RELATIONS department to answer these queries. You know, RELATING information to the PUBLIC.
It's not the listings reviewers job to respond. The listing reviewer's job is to review listings. It's not even really the CEO's job. The CEO created the PR department for a reason, after all.
What exactly IS the fair standard? (Score:2)
Imagine if this exact same article were written, but instead of "torrent-only", it said "Youtube-only". Are there Youtube-only full-length movies of good quality that probably should be listed in major movie DB sites? Yes. For every one of those, however, there's thousands upon thousands that really shouldn't. A database of everything ever filmed with a camera would be utterly useless, because all of your searches would return mountains of crap you don't care about.
The question then is, "what standardized s
Amazon (Score:2)
The producers of the movie don't have a legit case (Score:3, Interesting)
IMDB (Score:5, Interesting)
I think if they just released a trailer and got more press (which Slashdot should fix) they will be added. I think it's a matter of them simply trying to avoid adding films that most likely will never be seen by anybody but the people involved in creating them.
Here is a link to our trailer in case your curious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aZquMQhAmo [youtube.com]
IMDb is corrupt. Thank-you Amazon. (Score:4, Informative)
Amazon is selling the IMDb as a marketing tool to Hollywood.
How?
Astro-turfing in the reviews section of the IMDb is not just allowed, (and I suspect, sold as a service to big film releases), but when you write a review pointing this out, that criticism vanishes. Or rather, it doesn't vanish, but only appears present to the IP address it came from while remaining invisible to the rest of the world.
Give it a try!
Next time a big block buster release comes out, head over to the IMDb in the first couple of days of release and after wading through the swamp of 10 star rave reviews, down to the bottom where the balanced reviews by real people are buried, and write your own pointing out that Amazon is selling favorable reviews to Hollywood marketing firms and that the movie in question probably sucks just badly enough to require the kind of manipulative push an astro-turfing tactic offers.
Then watch your review mysteriously vanish.
Go on! It's frustrating good times!
-FL
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
write your own pointing out that Amazon is selling favorable reviews to Hollywood marketing firms and that the movie in question probably sucks just badly enough to require the kind of manipulative push an astro-turfing tactic offers.
Then watch your review mysteriously vanish.
You know, given that reviews are supposed to be reviews of the MOVIE in question and not rants about amazon's business tactics (even if they're rants that are factually accurate), I don't think this is actually a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, given that reviews are supposed to be reviews of the MOVIE in question and not rants about amazon's business tactics (even if they're rants that are factually accurate), I don't think this is actually a bad thing.
Well. . , sheesh, you still review the film. Plenty of reviews there make reference to other reviews. In any case, what's worse? A bunch of fake reviews which deliberately try to mislead you, or a criticism of the fact that you're being misled?
-FL
What about Sita Sings The Blues (Score:2)
Sita Sings The Blues has an internet-only publication, and is listed. This sounds like more of a non-story.
I never us IMDb (Score:2)
There's some wiki thing I look at when I want to get info about a movie. But this movie wasn't listed there, either. So I guess maybe it's not a real movie.
fork it! (Score:2)
IMDb is a community-built site, which Amazon is monetizing on.
And now, it is hindring its users apparently.
So, I guess it is time to fork IMDb, and make something like wikipedia out of it.
So... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you beat Frustration Trivia?
No because like everything else it wants registration to play, and I'm tired of getting spammed.
(Creating a throwaway Hotmail or GMail account is NOT a solution, as it merely diverts the spam for someone else to deal with).
Re: (Score:2)
I've thought of allowing linking of Twitter/AIM/Facebook/Myspace/MSN/Google accounts as a alternative to registering with me directly... but can't figure out which one to do first.
Just support OpenID (Score:2)
If people can login via OpenID, they can use their google account or their yahoo account or other accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be missing the point.
All this spam clogs up the pipes. It doesn't matter is it get's filtered by your personal e-mail client, or by Yahoo or GMails spam filtering software. The point is, it still has to travel multiple hops from source to destination, slowing down multiple servers and sucking bandwidth, just to tell you "you successfully registered and can now play".
You could do all that ON THE WEBPAGE, with no email addresses involved. Chose a username, choose a password, YOU'RE IN. Finished.
Fo
Re: (Score:2)
For 99% of registrations, there is NO need to use email addresses (unless they want to send you spam now or in the future)
BS. In the case of forums, those forums don't want to get spam any more than you do, and sending you an email with a user verification link cuts down on a TON of the accounts that are registered by spambots with fake addresses.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Guild is available at Amazon as DVDs.
Mainly-online projects that have a small traditional distribution deal qualify for IMDB mention... those who don't do not.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, excepting the 1% of people at the lowest hierarchical levels actually creating things, these groups ARE lawyers...