A DARING EXERCISE IN ULTRA-VIOLENT EXTREMES.

Ryuichi is a mobster driven by his desire for power and memories of his lost childhood. His younger brother Toji has just returned from his education in America. Together they will experience the rough life lessons of gangster existence. Meanwhile, Detective Jojima finds himself increasingly drawn into the Yakuza world as he becomes more and more involved in mafia affairs to raise money for a life-saving operation for his daughter.

TRAILER

IMDb.com || letterboxd.com

  • Sergio@slrpnk.netEnglish
    1·
    9 hours ago

    Hmmm… lemme think this through… I guess there are three categories:

    • licensed stream provided by a company. i.e. tubi (which is free and adblockable) and I guess Fawesome but I never used Fawesome so dunno. ofc Amazon Prime and those other “stream rental” places like Disney and Paramount fit here.
    • companies that provide places for you to upload videos. like Youtube and Dailymotion. I guess Archive fits here.
    • sketchy websites that provide free streams of movies that are almost always pirated. I think these are ad-driven? I dunno much about them.

    Now I distinguish btween these because of the following use cases:

    • a) the community !fullmoviesonyoutube@piefed.social only allows posts in the second category. you don’t really post Tubi links or sketchy website links there.
    • b) on Mastodon, the Monsterdon watch party requires that any movie have a free (possibly ad-driven) viewing option in the first category. ofc it’s great if there are also options in the second category.
    • c) This community’s sidebar says “If posting links for people to watch the movies let them be legal ones. (Free is best but not when it’s shady, you dig?)” Clearly the first category is OK bc it’s legal and not shady. Clearly the third category is NOT ok bc it’s not legal and it is shady. What about the second category? hmmmm… it might vary by country. I’m not a lawyer but I think the US law is that the company (like youtube) cannot be sued by the copyright owner for hosting a movie that someone uploaded, IF they appropriately respond to a request to take it down. I don’t know for sure what the legality is for the viewer, and for the uploader. I think that: whether the uploader has monetized the video plays a part, maybe? And it seems odd to expect the viewer to confirm that all the media (including the music) has been properly licensed, in a video that they are about to watch. For that reason, I think youtube videos are OK. And I think archive is in the same category as youtube, right? I believe archive does respond to copyright takedown requests, so they are a legal and not shady place to find media.

    I’m not 100% sure about any of that tho.