I don't know about Kitchen Nightmares, but Hell's Kitchen IS a bunch of out of work actors and family/friends of people on the staff. There is no actual Hell's Kitchen restaurant, it's just part of a TV recording studio.
That's why some of them seem like they're there just to make a big enough fuss to get themselves on TV, because they are.
I've always thought this was true. It's like they raid the out-of-work (or over-aged) modeling agencies in LA.
If the camera company didn't make the camera, then this film would've never been created, and therefore, Google would not be involved. Put the camera company execs in jail instead. Makes about as much sense.
So, let see if I have this. When he took the file from the other computer he erased the original file. Is that correct? I guess that would be stealing, since the studio wouldn't have the original anymore.
Or maybe, he copies the file, and left the original still on that computer. How is that stealing again? Definition fail on your part.
It's odd that "Anonymous Coward, Nov 10th, 2011 @ 6:54pm" attributes all lost sales to piracy. Take me, for example. Lost sales from me are a result of me not buying movies and music anymore (and I don't infringe/download, either). I spend my money elsewhere, so the tax revenue is unaffected. I would bet there are many more like me that have decided not to support the MPAA and RIAA by buying what they offer.
One exception to my music purchases: I bought some songs from Trent Reznor directly from his website. Also, Radiohead. See, I guess I do buy music from those that provide a reason to buy. I bet my purchasing directly from the artist are part of your "lost sales" calculation. They aren't lost sales; they are just not being filtered by the RIAA.
I think we are mostly adults here, who recognize sarcasm when we see it. Nobody is glorifying anything. If Mike's joking nature feel on deaf ears for you this time, rest assured, he'll keep trying in future "tongue-in-cheek" posts.
Also, say goodbye to Facebook. I cannot count how many infringing photos I've seen on peoples' photo galleries. Facebook better get going now, so by the time this bill is in effect, they won't be hosting infringing photos anymore.
Asking Flea Market operators to police their occupants' stalls is like asking the NFL officials to diagnose concussions during the game. How is the Flea Market operator supposed to know what is real/fake?
Since some pro-SOPA/E-PARASITE people like to relate the digital realm to the real world, I have an analogy to offer.
Blocking a DNS for a domain that has multiple non-infringing sub-domains just because one site is infringing is like closing down an entire mall because one store is selling counterfeit socks. In what world, be it digital or real, does that make sense?