The only question at this point is how long until they are forced into doing this. It's becoming easiesr and easier and cheaper and cheaper to get entertainment without a cable subscription. At the same time it's becoming more and more expensive to maintain a cable subscription that is technologically equivilant to the online options (HD boxes, DVR).
I never saw myself as someone that would even consider cancelling cable. Live sports and blackout restrictions have me stuck into paying the crazy bills, and a few other quality channels like HBO, AMC, and FX have helped me justify it. That's until now, when I realized that its just not worth the $750 dollars a year I pay for essentially 3 or 4 services that I want.
Eventually the prices just aren't going to be justifiable for people that can see more and more quality entertainment going over the top, priced closer to what they are actually worth
This is what happens when the relationship between government and corporate interests is allowed to spiral out of control. Whether its money or people constantly swapping between government roles and high industry positions.
The corruption will come out on top every time and the rest of us all pay the price
Mike keeps forgetting these things called "elections" where the public gets to say their piece and select the candidate that most fits their positions. They do represent the public, because that is the way the system operates. We do not have a 100% democratic system that allows every citizen to vote on every law and to suggest wording changed to every document, etc.
And heres another example of a major hole in our election system. You really think that by electing politician X people are making their opinions heard on an issue like copyright and SOPA? The election outcomes are determined on issues that cover sweeping generalities and burning issues at the time of the election. Just because i agree with politician Y on abortion does NOT mean i agree on SOPA. And since its a low profile issue publically I am unlikely to ever know the candidates stance on this issue until its too late.
Mike also seems to forget that not everyone in the public agrees with him, and in fact a link he had up yesterday shows that 60% or more of people surveyed want the content grifting companies to do something about the problems.
Could you be any more blatantly dishonest? The piece, clear as day, said the majority oppose SOPA specifically. The service providers already DO do something within reason about the "problems", and thats by complying with the current DMCA provisions.
What is important to realize is that most of the debates are made up of 1% on one side, and 1% on the other end. Sometimes a few more percentage points at one end of the other rises up, but that is about it.
Consider OWS: Even if they managed to get 500,000 people out across the US to support them, they would still wouldn't be much more than 1/10 of 1 percent... certainly not the 99% they pretend to represent.
You seem to not know what the word represent means. Either way, this is irrelevant to the subject and just a diversion.
Techdirt (a lobbyist site now) will give you a one sided view of things, and Mike will try hard to make you think there is a massive grassroots swell against SOPA. But the reality is very different, most people, when asked a straight question that doesn't invoke government control or the "censorship" boogieman find it very reasonable for action to be taken.
The lobbyist site moniker is getting played out. If you are going to continue to throw that out there can you provide some substance? Otherwise it just discredits everything else you say. Its irrelevant any way, and makes you afraid of debating the real points Mike makes.
Don't use this site as your only source, you will be mislead.
Hilarious that they are using terms like bipartisan as a way to spin this as something that is being done properly. They're smart enough to know that the partisan BS in politics is aggravating everyone, so throwing out the buzz word makes people feel good about the topic even when its irrelevant to the matter at hand