My guess is that most people are simply tired of being told how/what to think, and they're catching on that most newspapers no longer engage in journalism, but rather are editorializing to suit their own subjective beliefs and agenda.
Example: The NY Times, et al, have spent the last 8 years lambasting and demonizing the Bush administration--and especially the last 6 months or so for the credit and housing disaster that has spelled doom for the financial sector. Heck, Obambi was a shoo-in with everybody and their dog blaming Bush for every problem we have.
However, before Bush was even in office, the NY Times correctly and precisely predicted the ramifications of extending credit to low-income borrowers and the effect it would have on Fannie and the economy as a whole:
I bet they just hate it that anyone can search for this article and find that they clearly saw ahead of time, as consertatives have been echoing for many months now, that the Clinton administration, Fannie and especially Franklin Raines, are directly responsible for the problems we're now seeing.
For this reason, I wouldn't take the NY Times if it was free, simply because they're only in the business of expanding the liberal agenda, regardless if it's actually bad for the country. In fact, they want to country to get worse, in order to create even more dependence on the teet of the government sow.
And, like most MSM, they were/are totally in the tank for Obambi, who is about to mortgage the futures of generations to come with his Spendulus legislation.
We should stop describing these spending packages as economic stimulus.
A highway bypass in Cleveland, TN isn't going to help anyone except a handful of contractors in and around Cleveland, TN who'll pocket most of the cost as profit, and most likely they'll use immigrant construction crews who'll most likely send their pay back home to Mexico. Sorry if that sounds racist, but you haven't been to a construction site in the southeast US if you think it's not true.
$100 million for the National Endowment for the Arts? Yeah, that's really going to help John Q. Public. I hear fresh oil paintings taste better with salt and pepper, and it's a great colonic to boot.
We could go on and on.
This bill is rife with just this kind of pork barrel stuff. If you believe in faeries and rainbow ponies, then you'll believe it will have a favorable impact on the US economy. If you're a realist, then you know that this spending package will fill the purses of business owners while temporarily creating a few construction/specialty jobs, with a lot of that money simply trickling overseas in the end.
But, even with all the utterly ridiculous foolishness in this bill, it will pass thanks to our new Democrat majority and the lord and saviour Obambi (praise be unto him).
I thought most companies had foregone using actual employees' email addresses in favor or generic names, i.e. firstname.lastname@example.org. This way, the generic name simply follows whomever might be the real contact at the moment.
My company holds several domain names, but we don't get pinged every 6 months or even 6 years. The only time we get any communication is if the registration is about to expire and the registrar wants another payment.
Re: Re: Just stop buying from these goons already!
Who said anything about Palin (or McCain)? Not me. McCain wasn't my pick; Palin was the biggest mistake he could have made in an already dead campaign.
Of course, there is the fact that she at least has experience in government, unless you count voting present over 160 times in the IL Senate, never sponsoring a single piece of legislation in the US Senate, and never convening the committee to which he was appointed in the US Senate as experience in government. Maybe you count his work with the fraudulent ACORN organization as experience? Or is it the 2 years he spent running for president while a US Senator? But he sure is good at reading a teleprompter.
The next president is a product of the corrupt Chicago and Illinois political circle, and his VP doesn't even know which article of the constitution outlines the duties of the office. You can always tell when Joe Biden says something dumb: His lips move. But those Botox injections sure did make his forehead look smooth and shiny for the debate. Obama's cabinet and administration are full of Clinton cronies. Change we can believe in, my eye!
The man has never done anything of substance, and yet the people fawn over him as if he were the savior. He claims Christianity while having absolutely no regard for the unborn. He sat in a church for 20 years that teaches separatism and hate, and still does; have a look at their web site, but replace BLACK with WHITE and tell me it isn't blatantly racist and disgusting. He will stand with the Muslims if the wind should blow in a bad direction. You know, those people who hate us and want us all dead because we won't convert? Obama's short list of close associates reads like the FBI's most wanted list. I could go on and on.
I'm against piracy, personally, but I'm also against the gestapo-like tactics of this evil organization.
So piracy notwithstanding, why can't we get people to stop buying their products in the first place? Do that many people simply not care that they're supporting a corrupt, extortionate, evil group? I haven't bought a CD in over 10 years, and the last music I bought was only because my wife specifically asked for it. (Thank you, Walmart, for the $7.92 downloaded album instead of the $20 CD at FYE)
Wait a minute, 68 million people voted for the empty suit Obambi and the human gaffe machine Biden, so how could I expect most people to have enough brains to judge anything else of significance in life. My bad.
What you're missing is Mike's (and others') continual assertion that the only way musicians and record companies are going to make money in the digital age is to give the music away for free (advertising) while selling their "brand" (t-shirts and concert tickets) since infringers/thieves aren't willing to pay for the music they want.
How does one "accidentally" run across child porn while surfing the 'net? I've never seen any in my 10+ years of surfing. It seems pretty far-fetched that anyone could get these images in their cache without surfing some seriously freaky sites to begin with.
The consensus in that thread was that piracy isn't theft, and no one loses when content is pirated, along with ideas like piracy is convenient and free, paying for what you want costs too much, and besides, the DRM kills the whole experience because it's way too much trouble to have to sit for 30-60 seconds through the warnings or to have to forward through previews.
Someone else already stated it, but Mike's leveling the wrong argument in this article. Piracy has very little effect on theater sales, as no home system can compete with the huge screen and theater sound. I've got a sweet setup, but it ain't the theater. People who want the theater experience have no other option other than the theater. But it does have ramifications for the rental and DVD sales aftermarkets.
I know a guy who states he has over 700 movies in his collection, all DVD rips to physical media. He rips from his Netflix subscription, and from friends and family who have purchased the movies, but to my knowledge has never paid for a movie for himself, other than the cost of the blank DVDs.
He isn't ripping these to port them to other devices, or just to remove the annoying features, he's ripping them to watch on a TV at home and to avoid having to purchase anything in the process.
That's theft, but the majority of people who advocate piracy will find any number of reasons to justify it or use semantics to say maybe it's infringement, but not theft, or similar arguments.
I've been accused of being an industry shill, and of using multiple sock puppets because of my stance on this.
Glad to see at least a couple of people posting here who also see this for what it is, theft.
As for the geek sitting at his computer downloading pirated copies instead of renting, I don't have that kind of time. Netflix is quite adequate at keeping me stocked with stuff to watch and it doesn't require me to download or rip anything. And at $10/month, it's not worth the trouble to even consider the alternative.
Thank you for keeping this conversation going. I mean that sincerely. I'm trying to understand, really. I realize I've been the biggest asshat in this thread, some of it intentionally way over the top just to get some discussion going.
I don't shill for MPAA or any of the **AA's. As a general rule, I believe they're hurting themselves bigtime with the lawsuits and I agree that Sony should be buried under their own wreckage after the rootkit crap.
I have no problem with someone burning all the copies in the world of content they purchased. Decrypt it, clean it up of adverts and warnings, compress it, whatever, to use it the way you want. Really. Where I have to disagree, however, is with all of the people, many in this thread alone, who honestly think it's OK to just copy from anyone and anywhere and never buy anything themselves.
You stated that you believe copying content isn't stealing, and that's how you justify it for yourself. I can't justify that ethically or morally for myself. You live with your actions, I'll live with mine.
Do I believe that some file-sharing actually helps sales? Yes, absolutely. But the producer of that content should get some say as to whether their product is freely shared.
Do I believe that someone who pirates everything and has never contributed a cent to the industry adds value to the system? Absolutely not.
I feel like this is in the same realm as stealing satellite programming. I mean those satellite providers are just beaming that signal willy-nilly down to the earth, and if I just so happen to have a receiver with the right decryption to allow me to watch for free, then I should be off the hook? I don't think so. But in your argument, you're just accessing a copy of something, not the actual product. In the case of satellite, the encrypted programming is the product, so it is theft in my mind to decrypt it and use the content for yourself.
Trying to be reasonable here, but feel like I'm still going to get hammered.
Just wanted to throw this into the mix, since the assumption that's being put forth by the pro-piracy contingent here is that most people who pirate either can't afford the high prices, or don't want the inconvenience of not being able to port the content to the device of choice because of DRM. (Annoyance at the warnings, previews, and commercials is just comical to me. That's when you should be freshening up your drink and getting the popcorn ready.)
I know a person who can easily afford to purchase what he wants. Both he and his spouse have high-paying, professional careers.
He has stated that he has over 700 ripped movies in his collection, all on physical DVD media. He rips his copies from his Netflix subscription, and from friends or relatives who have actually purchased the product, and to my knowledge has never purchased a single movie himself.
He doesn't rip it so he can watch it on an iPod, phone, PC, etc. He rips straight to DVD to watch it on his home TV. He also usually makes multiple copies to give away to other people in the process.
Now tell me where he fits into your pro-piracy thinking. If this isn't outright theft, then what is it?
This guy can easily afford to buy the product, but uses and keeps hundreds of ripped movies only to watch on a TV at home, and apparently does this just because he can get away with it, and stick it to the rich movie companies in the process.
I think a lot more of the pirates out there are like this guy than most people would like to admit, but they use the excuses of DRM and high cost to justify their theft in their own minds.
I'm not an MPAA fanboy, but I can see both sides of the issue, and I see the above scenario as outright theft.
I see your point. I was overly harsh in my choice of words. You're not stupid because you don't appreciate great movies and sports viewing at home, you're stupid because you automatically start talking penis size in a Blu-Ray debate.
But as for my POS TV, it has a better, brighter, crisper and clearer picture than any of the avaiable LCDs of the time, and was 6 times less expensive than any LCD or plasma of the same vintage of 60" or more in size. Let me say it again: The only TVs that beat this one for picture quality are plasma, and they were too expensive, IMHO, to even be considered by the average person. Sorry if that makes you feel bad about the huge chunk you laid down for that 42" or smaller set you bought.
I just made the decision that when I finally got a big screen TV, I wasn't going to settle for the small, over-priced TVs that everyone else got duped into buying early in the market.
So I bided my time, finally found a TV with everything I wanted and at the right price and size, and I bought it (at Sear's if you can believe that). Adding Blu-Ray was right for me, as my penis is painfully average in size and my wife says it's big enough to get the job done, anyway. I don't like to steal copyrighted content and can't stand to watch standard definition content on this huge monster if I can help it.
While those of you with circus-large penises can steal content and watch crappy low-def stuff, I guess those of us who are average will go on paying for what we want and getting the better experience for the trouble.
Whatever it takes to rationalize your stance that it's OK to steal content, I guess.
So you're saying you hate Blu-Ray, love piracy, and you believe you can exorcise the souls of dead space-aliens from yourself using $cientology and Dianetics?
I have an e-meter you might be interested in...
By the way, although The Cruiser is a $cientologist and believes in the whole space cootie thing, I like his movies for the most part, and wouldn't mind seeing at least some of them in Blu-Ray on my massive TV.
I think you must be unaware that every BR player made in the last couple of years also has an ethernet connection and the ability to upgrade firmware whenever necessary. Now, it's still possible that Samsung will stop supporting the unit I have, and I'll have to live with that if it happens, but it's still not going to sour me on the whole idea of Blu-Ray.
I didn't realize that an ethernet cable and an internet connection were considered "special hardware and cabling".
I have no worries about my setup, except for the cost of the replacement lamps for the DLP TV when they burn out.
BTW: 42" is perfect for the normal single-wide trailer, but for my triple wide, I need the 65". The 42" goes on the outhouse door so I can watch Jerry Springer while I'm "visiting the library".
Thanks for the follow-up. It's not everyday on TechDirt that someone avoids flamebait mode in favor of real communication.
"I don't think most people would get their money's worth out of your system, I know I wouldn't."
That speaks well to what kind of system people are using to view the content. If someone is OK with watching their 27" CRT or worse yet, their PC monitor, then DVD or even VHS is sufficient.
I'm comparing the experience to that of the traditional theater, where one can easily lay down $100-$150 for a family movie night (family of 4). At home, the cost is negligible, and while an 80ft. screen and theater sound is definitely better, my home system is excellent and a much better value for the money.
While I agree with your last paragraph for the most part, I still believe the loudest complainers just want something for free, illegally if need be. It is not worth my time or my dime to be able to watch a movie or TV show on a phone, iPod, PSP or any other knick-knack that can't compete with my home theater. And if I'm going to watch it on the home theater, then I want it to look great, not just OK.
@Yakko Warner: Yes, I'm compensating for something. I'm one of the only people evidently who actually pays for what I want and realizes that it's my money and no one is holding a gun to my head to make me spend it. Don't want DRM, don't buy it. But don't steal it, either. Therein lies the problem, eh?
All the whiners keep saying that DVD is just fine, and who needs BR anyway? It's too expensive, it requires a special player, it's encrypted, bitch, moan, piss, cry...
Those are the same people who have tiny, little 42" and smaller TVs, where BR and upconverted DVD look virtually the same, especially 10 feet away on your couch.
Well, they don't look the same on my 65" HDTV. Yes, upconverted DVD looks OK, but BR is perfect. There is a huge difference and only the legally blind (or stupid) can't see it.
Now maybe I'm some kind of special case, in that I like to watch movies and sports in full HD and actually take advantage of a superior experience. Maybe I'm special because I enjoy a crystal-clear picture and enhanced digital audio. Then again, I don't think I'm a special case at all. I just decided not to listen to all the idiots who said it was too hard, too expensive, has too much DRM, and assorted other nonsense.
DRM is a non-issue. If I really want a movie to own, I'll buy it. $20-$30 isn't really too much to pay for the BR experience on a huge TV, when you know you're going to watch that movie dozens of times. What, you don't think you'll watch it over and over again? Pro-tip: Don't buy it, rent it instead. Like anyone, I would like BR to be cheaper, and in time it will be, but I'm not going to bitch and moan about it. IT IS THE BEST HOME VIEWING OPTION AVAILABLE FOR MOVIE LOVERS, PERIOD! Unless you have the misfortune to have purchased an HDTV that's too small to tell the difference, that is.
And now more and more new BR titles are coming out with the digital copy option, so you have the BR disc for home viewing on your big screen, and a digital copy that will play from your PC or personal player.
For the record, my TV, BR player and home theater system combined cost under $2500, which is probably less than many of the whiners paid for their much smaller HDTV by itself if they went with LCD or plasma.