viperfl’s Techdirt Profile


About viperfl

viperfl’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 23rd, 2011 @ 1:31pm

    (untitled comment)

    A medium sized retail company I use to work for was paying around $50k a month for broadband services. This was broadband access for the corporate office, linking to all the stores, retail website, and warehouses.

    It's the basic analogy, "Did the chicken come before the egg?" Without the ISP, would there be an internet? With internet content, would there be an ISP?

  • Dec 10th, 2010 @ 9:45am

    (untitled comment)

    I don't understand how this is new or a bad thing? Many companies disable the USB on company laptops to prevent employees from stealing company info. The company I work for supplies me with a laptop and the USB is disabled. What the military is doing should of been done a long time ago.

  • Jun 21st, 2010 @ 5:43pm

    find it funny

    I find it funny since 3 of the sites I know of are storage sites like Rapidshare. They are,, and Even if Google blocks these sites when someone does a search, the links are still all over the internet. BPI should be suing these sites, not Google. Of course BPI is going to go where the money is. Guess it easier to sue the one person that has billions rather than 100 people that don't equal to a 1/4 of that.

  • Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 2:10pm

    The schools are to blame

    I did stupid things when I was a teenager. I look back and think how stupid it was. I never went to the extreme as some kids do today. It's true kids will be kids and it's the parent's responsibility.

    What I find hypocritical is schools teach kids everything about sex and then go after kids when they practice what the school teaches them. Schools teach kids about sex because as they say, "kids are going to do it anyways." The schools are only adding fuel to the fire.

    The school should of notified the parent's of what the kids have done and let the parent's handle it. Personal life and work/school life was always kept separate but you have a few who put them together.

  • Oct 16th, 2009 @ 8:05am

    Knew there was a reason

    I knew there was a reason why I stopped listening to the radio. If a lot of the music radio stations go under because of this ridiculous act, you won't see me cry any tears. I am sure the RIAA will blame it on piracy since they would never admit that it was because of there failed business.

    The RIAA gets there money no matter what because it's a fee rather than per song. No matter how many songs a radio station plays, the RIAA still gets the same amount. That of course if the RIAA changes the rules and gets a fee plus money per song.

    In the end it will backfire since the musicians will get less airtime which means less money for the musicians and the RIAA.

  • Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 12:53pm

    (untitled comment)

    Even before the internet, we still had piracy. People traded music between each other which the RIAA considered piracy. Was able to record from a tape or record album to a tape, which the RIAA considered piracy. So what was the RIAA able to do back then about preventing people from so called pirating music? They couldn't do a darn thing about it. Even if you were to take away the internet or the means to copy music on the internet, you would still have piracy.

    It's been the RIAA's analogy that people can't live without music. They put it on the same footing that people can't live without food or water. There belief is if you take the instrument away to copy music, then those people who got kicked off the internet will buy the music because they can't live without it. Those people won't settle just listening to the radio.

  • Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 11:45am

    This guy has no clue

    I had to laugh at this so called presentation. This guy was portraying legitimate sites like Rapidshare into an illegitimate site. If you follow this guys philosophy, you can say a automobile is illegitimate because the automobile has been used to commit crimes. I can name so many products that are used in crimes, it's endless.

    He says Paramount has 200 deals in place, 600 movies for download and 200 movies to stream. Why are they offering only 600 movies when there movie library is bigger than that? Why is Paramount only allowing 200 movies to be streamed instead of 600? He fails to tell anyone that most if not all the movies they are allowing to be streamed or downloaded is not new releases.

    People want to buy but your company created a business model so people can't buy. Business makes money by selling products and services that people want. If the business limits to what the people can buy, then people will go somewhere else. Wal-Mart wouldn't be where it is today if they limited what they offered to people. Wal-Mart offers there customers more of a selection so they don't have a need to shop somewhere else.

    If it wasn't for the VCR, where would the movie industry be today? It would still be stuck with the old business model of people going to the movie theater. The movie industry grew with the VCR because it allowed people more choices. More choices equates to more sales. Of course the movie industry didn't see it that way.

    The other problem we have is the movie industry is using the government to protect there business model instead of creating one on there own. Government don't know how to run a business, they only create regulations to protect businesses and the people. Most politicians are lawyers, not business people. Because of that, politicians are suckers to what people tell them.

    These executives make huge money running billion dollar companies but they can't grab the concept of retail business. As a customer, I would buy more if I had more choices. If you limit me as a customer, then I will be limited to what I will spend.

    There is nothing wrong with the movie companies making profits. We live in a country where we all have the opportunity to make money. Don't create a business model where people don't have the opportunity to buy your products at a reasonable price and then blame everyone else because people look somewhere else to get it.

  • Jun 17th, 2009 @ 6:23pm

    (untitled comment)

    If radio stations have to pay then they have every right to choose who they want to play on the radio. We all know with the RIAA that it's never there fault. They don't seem to understand business because you can't charge for every little thing. A company ends up losing money when they do that. Customers get turned away because they think the company is trying to nit pick for every dollar.

    With the PRA, your going to find a lot of the smaller radio stations go out of business. The radio stations are going to lose money because of it. In the end, it's the RIAA and the musicians who are going to lose out. Of course they are not going to blame themselves for causing it.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it