Do these people not understand how the Internet works? If they diminish Google and/or Facebook to the point that they are heavily censored, then some other site is going to pop up, and then another and another. That's the beauty of the Internet. Short of completely taking it down, and I very much doubt that is possible these days, I don't see how these people really think they can stop expression on the Internet.
If it wasn't so scary/dangerous, it would be funny how the powers that be are scurrying around like cockroaches now that their corruption can be so easily exposed to everyone.
Yes it's fun to poke at Lamar for this infringement and I think Mike says it right that this illustrates how easy it is to infringe.
If I were to guess his web designer simply didn't understand what Creative Commons means or maybe s/he didn't care. It's going to be easy for Smith to brush this off as a mistake and either give Mr. Schulte proper attribution or simply get another piece of photography that is properly licensed.
On the other hand, if he's going to play the part of copyright avenger, he better make sure he's 100% complaint with the laws/bills he supports.
The only problem I see with this is that it's just as one-sided as the House Judiciary Committee hearing was. I've very much against SOPA but we should be giving the pro's a chance to get their rhetoric shoved in their faces directly.
If I didn't see the movie in the theaters, then I clearly didn't think it was worth the price to see it there and thus I would prefer to watch it at home. Thus why would I pay $20-30 for a newly released DVD/Blu-Ray when I didn't pay the $9+ to see it in the theater?
Now being able to rent it for a couple dollars I may find that I enjoy the movie enough to buy the disk (or not). But delaying the availability of that rental isn't going to drive me to buy the disk.
Now I'm not one to go pirate the movie either. I'll wait for it to be on RedBox or perhaps On-Demand. I suspect this is more about supporting On-Demand from the cable companies than it is about selling physical media (at least for WB).
This reads more like a strategic move than a reduction of support. Perhaps they are seeing the reduction of support and rather than have the bill completely smashed they are suggesting making some compromises to get it through. The 'something is better than nothing' mentality.
My thinking is that the bill is poisoned at this point, even if good and reasonable changes are made to the bill to ease our fears, those who support it (even if 'fixed') will be labeled as supporting the original intent of the bill, even if they don't.
The bill is becoming more than it's language, it's about what it represents.
This has come up in these discussions before. It's censorship if you, as the end user have no control. Filtering if you do. I have no issue with the feature being there, but give users who don't want/need it the ability to turn it off.
I hate to be negative as I like Google and their products, but I think this is more politically motivated than anything else. Not to suggest that Google wouldn't have done anything but perhaps not as swiftly or decisively.
Google is under pretty serious scrutiny right now and they have to react like this to prevent giving their enemies any further ammunition.
My guess is that the government is trying to setup the case that there is some terroristic threat going on using Twitter.
Silence the dissenters and toss them in Guantanamo.
I don't personally care if they have the legal ability to do this, it's NOT right. The government hides things from the public left and right and then expects the people to just trust it without question? Yea...no.
I don't agree with you on the inflation statement. The dollar has deflated or been stagnant for the last few years. Additionally other costs, such as food and gas have risen significantly.
At the end of the day most movie goers have a very limited budget. They are going to focus on the necessities first and entertainment second. Theaters are providing less entertainment value while services like Netflix and RedBox are providing the same content (delayed sure but not an issue) at a much lesser price.
I've been to theaters that had amazing service, great projections and brain rattling audio. I didn't mind paying for that experience, but my local theaters are barely better than sitting at home watching on my flat screen.
To summarize, $8+ for a movie isn't terrible but the theaters have to provide an experience that is worth the money spent. As others have said, movies, as entertainment have a lot of competition now, and all of that legal.
Piracy as a factor is so minor as to be ignored, as Ebert did.
I personally find myself asking, "Is this movie worth the cost of going to the cinema or can I just wait for it to be on RedBox?" There are just some movies that you WANT to watch in the theater but many more that as just as enjoyable at home on Blu-Ray
Secondly, many of my friends with kids have stated they simply can't afford it. A movie night is pushing $100 in some cases. That's not an easy investment for some to make regularly.
The thing is, I think if people had to pay those fees it wouldn't be fun but most would shrug it off. It'd be like getting a speeding ticket. You know you were speeding, you got caught. The Hwy Patrol wins that round.
Of course the issue is that police aren't involved (and that's not a bad thing) and the cost of bringing these 'pirates' to court are certainly more than the actual damages.
So there would be little to no incentive for the rights holders to take casual downloaders to court if they couldn't swing those huge fines around. How else is it going to be worth their while?
Of course what they should really be doing is listening to their customers and what they want, but that's probably wishful thinking.
Even if 20-20 was unwilling to sell Real View a copy of the software directly, I'm sure that someone at Real View could have purchased the license, perfectly legally, as an individual.
Since the court determined that reverse engineering wasn't illegal in this case, it really doesn't matter how Real View got it's copy.
But since Real View did get their copy of the software illegally, that issue has to be resolved. It seems to be all other factors about what they did with the software afterwards are irrelevant to that specific case. Those other issues may still warrant cases of their own, but it wouldn't matter if the software was obtained legally or not.
So the fine should simply be put on the illegal download, IMO.