Is This Real? Is This Recall? MPAA Hosts Screening Of Total Recall To 'Educate' Congress On 'Benefits' Of IP Protection
from the is-that-real?-do-you-recall? dept
It's been said that Hollywood is completely out of ideas, and all it does these days is the same thing over and over again. That seems to be the case both on the policy front and with its movies. So how perfect is it that the MPAA's gift-of-the-month to Congress is a showing of the remake of the movie Total Recall? As we noted in our post about the MPAA's special showing of the latest Batman flick, to get around breaking gift giving guidelines, the MPAA includes a special "educational component," before its movies, which somehow makes it okay. We heard from attendees of the Batman showing that (amazingly) no mention of copyright or piracy issues was made in the "educational" component. Rather it was a presentation about the Natural History Museum and how it was doing things with IMAX, as well as a Time Warner presentation about its online offerings like HBO GO, TV Everywhere and Ultra Violet.However, this month, the MPAA will more directly address the copyright issue, as you can see in the invite below, where they note the "educational" component will be about "the impact of film in the global economy and the benefit of IP protection to global trade."
If Congress wants an educational lesson on the role of IP and international trade, they might want to "recall" that the MPAA is just about the last place to go to get any sense of "reality."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, education, ip, screenings, total recall, trade negotiations
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Now with four tits instead of three!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Spoiler: She basically guest-starred in every TV show ever made....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I was also amused to see that she played Ensign Sonya Gomez on ST: tng, a fact I'd have thought the BBT guys would have known.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/19/total-recall-3-boobd-chick-revealed-kaitlyn-leeb/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please grant us more IP protections, so that we may hold onto our exclusive right to continue ironically cheapening our brand with crappy remakes and sequels to classic movies before piracy can cheapen it for us.
Thank you,
MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The 5th one has been greenlighted into Rob Schneider comedy and I'm not sure which fate is worse....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since when do watching commercials and seeing advertisements constitute education?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's look at what you said then: "By the way, we're hearing that the MPAA hosted a "special screening" of the new Batman movie for members of Congress and their staff. Now, that would normally run afoul of gift giving guidelines... but they worked around that by spending the first 15 minutes "educating members and staff on important issues" (take a guess what those might be)." http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/14310819747/holy-conflict-interest-tell-congress-that-publ ic-good-is-more-important-than-their-chance-to-cameo-batman.shtml
Funny how you don't even bother to link to that article. But now you're saying that the educational component wasn't even about copyright. LOL! Jump the gun much? Your idiocy knows no bounds--and now you're trying to make predictions about this one? LMAO! Could you be any more of a tool?
And I'm still waiting for you to explain whether Senator Leahy *actually* violated Senate ethics rules. Remember? You claimed that he did, but then you refused to even name the specific rule that he violated. Fact is, you didn't have all the facts and you couldn't actually make that conclusion. Fact is, you were doing what you always do--spreading lies and manipulating your readers. You will go to any length to discredit anyone and anything to do with copyright. Reality be damned.
We both know that all you care about are the headlines. All you care about is spreading FUD. It doesn't matter if it's true. It only matters if you can say it and conceivably, maybe (perhaps in an alternate reality) it's ""true"" (one set of quotation marks just doesn't capture how far you are willing to go). We all know that you don't consult the actual law when making your "legal arguments." You've admitted that much explicitly.
When you said Leahy was violating the ethics rules, you didn't mean that he was *actually* violating the rules. Your dishonesty is (and I say this honestly) one of the most despicable things I've ever seen on the 'net. And if you think I'm going to get tired of calling you out--you're dead wrong. I haven't even started yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know, like giving Leahy a role in a batman movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A Member, officer, or employee may accept an offer of �free attendance� at a widely attended event if: (1) invited by the organizing event sponsor; (2) at least 25 persons from outside Congress will be attendance, (3) attendance at the event is open to members from throughout a given industry or profession, or to a range of persons interested in an issue; and (4) it is connected to the official�s Senate duties. See Senate Rule 35.1(d)(1).
* May also accept free attendance for one accompanying individual.
* May accept a meal that is offered to all attendees as part of the event.
* May accept local transportation to the event, if offered by the event sponsor.
* May not accept a gift bag, unless it is valued below the Gifts Rule limit or qualifies for an exception to the rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
18 USC 201(b)(1).
If a civil servant can be charged for this, a congress-critter (as defined under 18 USC 201(a)(1)) should also be held to this standard.
And it is a wonder why Congress has to pass a bill to make government employees (including congressional staff and ethics officers) pay their taxes. Since Congress doesn't follow the rules, why should anyone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As someone who follows techdirt posts I have never seen anything of the sort said by Mike.
Or are you talking about some other Mike and not Mike Masnick of techdirt fame?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tywebb is just being one of the lamer trolls, making things up.
You know, Techdirt used to have a regular set of critics who, despite being a bit acerbic, actually engaged in discussions without having to lie. Whatever happened to them? The current crop of trolls are just boring, repetitive, and don't foster debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can only assume the lobby's are employing cheaper trolls who have even less brain cells. And anyone with a brain who was on the pro copyright side have been converted by logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If not - tywebb, you seem to be addressing a position that the AC trolls claim exists but doesn't outside of a lying distortion of the truth. Unless you can cite where this was ever claimed by "piracy apologists" here, you're attacking a strawman.
Feel free to address my, or any other regular commenter's actual positions. My comment history is free for you to peruse should you need to address my words, but citations will be needed if you're going to attack me as supporting piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But it's the Senate RULES that explicitly state no gifts from lobbyists unless it fits an exception. I'm sure that there'll be 25-26 industry persons in attendence. I'm also sure Dodd made sure to slip in that bit about fair market value ($11.50? Not if it's in 3D it's not) as a red herring. And, if a movie is valueless, as you say, why list it as $11.50?? Treating a member of Congress out to a nice little event won't sway them??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not possible. You know too much about tech to be a Senator. A Senator wouldn't know what rip means (other than ripping your pants or ripping paper,) and wouldn't have a clue about central network storage drive or multimedia systems. To them, the internet is a series of tubes which dump-trucks sometimes crash in and cause congestion which means they can't send email.
You could be an aide, or a member of the Senator's staff...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seeing a movie for free. Hence unetical gift from lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Would those congress critters get their asses to a another movie with 15 minutes talking about the evils of copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not what we said. What we said was that giving a Senator a *ROLE* in a movie that he's obsessed with and which he wants a role in, is giving him a gift, possibly in violation of Senate ethics rules.
In all other contexts, however, the movie industry makes worthless content that doesn't merit any sort of respect or protection online. So which is it?
Have never made any such claim, so it's good to see that the best you can do is lie about us. We think many movies are quite valuable. In fact, we've said that many times, and have shown how smart content creators are able to capitalize on that value. But being valuable does not mean that you should have the ability to take away rights of the public just because you can't figure out how to put in place a reasonable business model.
Figures that you can't actually attack what we say, but rather make up completely fictitious strawmen.
By the way, who do you work for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's compare!
What you said two weeks ago:You unequivocally said that Senator Leahy had in fact violated Senate ethics rules (without, of course, identifying the actual rules that you think he violated--an analysis you couldn't possibly make without having more facts).
And now? The tune has changed:Hello, equivocation!
Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!
You: "He definitely violated the rules!"
Me: "Oh yeah, which ones? And isn't it completely douche-like to state definitively that a U.S. Senator has violated the ethics rules without even knowing which rules you're talking about and without having all the facts? Just sounds like your bitter and trying to discredit him."
You: "I mean, I mean,,, He possibly violated the rules! That's it!"
ROFLMAO! Classic yellow journalism, Pirate Mike. Classic. You don't have a fucking clue. It's just discredit, discredit, discredit. The facts and the law don't actually matter to you when you're making those uber-insightful legal analyses of yours.
Tell us again how copyright law violates the limited times restriction, even though it's settled law that it doesn't! I want a bedtime story! Ooh--tell me the one about how SOPA/PIPA/Operation in our Sites/any enforcement of copyright law in general violates the First Amendment.
Don't bother with looking at the actual law--we don't need that! Just find some book or article that some extremist wrote that says the same thing. As long as it agrees with you, we don't even need to consider the actual law, right?
ROFLMAO! Ciao, chubby!
"He
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right. There's no other way to describe the impression you seem to having about winning the discussion. LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Update: By the way, we're hearing that the MPAA hosted a "special screening" of the new Batman movie for members of Congress and their staff. Now, that would normally run afoul of gift giving guidelines... but they worked around that by spending the first 15 minutes "educating members and staff on important issues" (take a guess what those might be).
And the comment Mike made you refer to is right at the beginning. If memory serves he updated a while after when he found out about the 'educational' part that made it actually abide by the ethic rules so he was right with the knowledge he had before updating. And his current comment is in line with that update, there's a possibility.
But none of this matters. In my eyes and in the eyes of many Americans it is a gross breach of ethics and one hell of a conflict of interests. Stop dodging the real issues sonny. Mike recognizes his errs and I've seen him apologize more than once for misunderstandings and whatever. You on the other hand has never ever even tried to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously?
You need to click-out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just call us Two Techs, One Dirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can see opposing views just fine. Your mouse button broken? Or just too dumb to follow the simple instruction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Respecting others is the only way to get respect in return.
Plus, flagging leaves the comment on techdirt for all to read so not the "omg evul sensorshipz" you say it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ENOUGH, MASNICK!
And don't give me this bs about the 5 people in it that actually seem to care. Acting lessons are cheap.
When will you finally concede that the US government system (like most government systems) is totally corrupted by greed and totally broken?
Isn't the huge failure of Obama to accomplish jack for any normal human proof enough? He might be better than Romney (then again, so is a steaming pile of dog turd), but the system was destroyed by greed long ago and even Albert Einstein couldn't fix it (especially by whining)!
It's well past time to get rid of them ALL, not time to act all naive and hope bought and paid-for subhumans change their stripes.
IT'S OVER AND IT'S TIME TO CLEAN THE SLATE AND START AGAIN!
Put you efforts there and stop bitching about how the bad guys have control if you aren't going to do anything about it.
That isn't going to be fixed by whining about greed to the greedy and naively hoping they'll change their ways!
Grow a pair and DO something or shut up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!
Grow a pair and DO something or shut up! "
What, precisely, do you suggest ?
I'll wait, I'm a 'regular' here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!
I'll wait with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!
2. Shut up
.
.
.
3. New World Order
4. ? Profit ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!
He could grow a pair, do nothing and shut up.
He could grow a pair, do something and ALSO shut up.
He could NOT grow a pair, do something and not shut up.
He could grow more than a pair, do nothing and not shut up.
He could also do all of the above sequentially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!
Or maybe he simply ignores you and does as he damn well pleases. Wanna take a guess what's more likely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soup Kitchen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soup Kitchen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Soup Kitchen
cause, ya know.... i might be interested in that case....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Soup Kitchen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Soup Kitchen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then One Day...
Reminds me of Wall-E's Buy n' Large...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To bad both of the Corrupt Parties can't be thrown out and tarred & feathered.
And to the MAFIAA Go lick a dog's butt.I will rejoice when I see the day you go extinct.
Buy & Support the INDIE & Local Art Scenes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
2) Bash the MPAA
3) Claim not to support piracy. No really, he's serious.
4) Mom, meatloaf!
5) Cry himself to sleep because he is utterly inconsequential outside of his silly blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
Par for the course with you trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
They think getting something for free leaves no reason to buy despite the fact pirates spend more on media than non pirates. They claim piracy = lost sales despite not looking into WHY people pirate.
They say Mike times things to make himslf look better and then do it themselves.
They say Mike spouts bullshit and doesn't back it up all while doing just that.
They talk about how everyone calls them names while calling Mike names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
Bashing mike without calling him piratemike... thats new
(/me wishes to have suchs an awsome nickname like piratemike)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
Or PACMAN for short.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
0/10
You need to brush up and work harder next time, who knows, you may even hit 3/10 some day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TyWebb's list of Daily Activities:
2) Suck the MPAA's collective dick.
3) Claim not to support anything intelligent.
4) Mom, meatloaf!
5) Cry himself to sleep because he is utterly inconsequential since he doesn't even have a blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
1) Set up troll login
2) Bash Mike
3) Whine when people point out he's a lying asshole
4) Return to commenting anonymously rather than admit the fact he's a troll with nothing better to do than lie about people
5) Cry himself to sleep when he realises that lies and attacks don't change reality to save the industries we're trying to point out are failing due to their own actions
"5) Cry himself to sleep because he is utterly inconsequential outside of his silly blog"
Oh, and I love this one. If he's so inconsequential, why are you people so obsessed with attacking him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
Unlike you who's not even consquential on his blog. Sucks to be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Is it real, is it Rekall"
otherwise I read it as "is this really happening, is he realy recalling a long lost memory." not what it was intended to be "is this really happeneing, or is it just the implanted fake memory"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the MPAA is educating congress about the types of laws it wants passed in return for these gifts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not so with a free movie night. The point of making and selling a movie is that people generally pay to see the movie. You can't call being allowed to see the entire movie a sample, like you would being allowed to sit in a driverless car once or looking at a few gadgets. Same goes for being allowed to cameo in two box office movies, especially when the only ties Leahy has with Batman/Bob Kane/Warner Bros is the fact he's received a ton of lobby money from them and campaigns for laws they want. Would Leahy have been allowed to cameo otherwise? No. Anyone who says yes he would is a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike may not have explicitly said that content is "worthless," but tthe fact that his website is ddicated to criticizing content owners' - whether its for using the DMCA, litigating against websites that are clearly dedicated to solely profiting from piracy, or daring to call Kim Dotcom a crook rather than an innovator, clearly he has no respect for businesses that produce content. He believes they deserve to be subjected to piracy because they don't give away their content for free. Oh, and when was the last time that Mike complimented content owners when they did something to provide consumers more choice, eg ultraviolet, Hulu or the myriad legal platforms that continue to emerge on a weekly basis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong x 4
"Believes" - wrong. He KNOWS that disseminating information without permission is the only thing the Internet does. he knows that laws requiring permission are oppressive, either explicitly or (like SOPA/PIPA) inherently.
"deserve" - wrong. They ARE dealing with alternative distribution problems because they produce digital goods, which have no value beyond access.
"Subjected to" - wrong. They DEAL WITH alternative distribution concerns because they distribute digital media. These days, anyone in media has deliberately chosen to go into this business knowing how you make money and how people will access the work you handle. Don't let a couple of bad decisions by a couple of judges fool you into thinking Dumb and Dumber style "So you're saying there's a chance of making this all go away."
"piracy" - wrong. As David Lowery made clear a month ago, old-school distributors and artists are concerned about ALTERNATIVE ACCESS, their customers' dwindling interest in paying for media by the piece. The legality of what they do instead is irrelevant, and the difference between bootlegging stolen master tapes and making a mix CD is irrelevant to them. The RIAA's recent graphic made that clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Go ahead, though, keep fellating the phallus of the industry that had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the big evil Big Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
... but I'm now going to make up a load of conclusions that I've drawn because it fits the conversation in my head and the comment that I want to write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So much wrong in one massive run on sentence. I have tremendous respect for the businesses that produce content, which is why I want them to succeed -- and constantly point them to examples of smarter ways to run their businesses, including examples of success stories.
I regularly celebrate artists who embrace new business models that make money.
My issue with the strategy you discuss is that it's *anti-consumer* and does *NOTHING* to actually get people to pay the copyright holders. It's a complete waste of time. I don't talk about them because I "support piracy" but because I support not wasting your time on stupid ideas that make it harder for you to actually make money.
He believes they deserve to be subjected to piracy because they don't give away their content for free.
No. I don't believe anyone "deserves to be subjected to piracy." I just know that it exists, and I also know that there are effective strategies to deal with that. The legal strategy does not appear to be one of them.
Oh, and when was the last time that Mike complimented content owners when they did something to provide consumers more choice, eg ultraviolet, Hulu or the myriad legal platforms that continue to emerge on a weekly basis?
Hmm. I highlight good examples all the time. I've talked about Hulu, Spotify, Netflix and more. Though I've also highlighted how once those are successful, the industry folks always seek to kill them off, rather than continuing to innovate with them.
But, it seems, once again, that you've built up an idiot strawman in your head of what you think I've said and what you think I represent. You might want to check your totally wrong assumptions at the door. It will make you seem less foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My issue with the strategy you discuss is that it's *anti-consumer* and does *NOTHING* to actually get people to pay the copyright holders. It's a complete waste of time. I don't talk about them because I "SUPPORT PIRACY" but because I support not wasting your time on stupid ideas that make it harder for you to actually make money.
A direct quote from Pirate Mike himself that proves my inane rantings were right all along!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course it might be he/she just has a search routine that looks for text strings like that and triggers an automatic comment posting. Which would explain why they rarely have any relevance to the actual point being made in the original post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Drew, I have to love your pre-emptive personal attacks and slurs. It's too bad you can't use that critical thinking to understand that Mike is shoveling a load of shit at you from time to time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're also assuming that I agree with everything Mike writes; I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That tidbit alone proves you're full of shit. DRM offers NO benefit to the consumer, ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What was the last film the MPAA itself (not a member studio like Time-Warner or Viacom) screened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bit petty
What is relevant is that this is just another thinly disguised lobbying function, a meet and greet with industry reps who will undoubtedly advance their causes. Also, the fact that Leahy was offered a high profile cameo role as a reward for his legislating probably violates no rules, but still points out how cynical and elitist this system is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of all the reboots I've seen, Total Recall 2012 will be the biggest disappointment.
As for Rekall, don't go to that place. A good friend of mine nearly got lobotomized after the procedure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it ironic....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plenty of industries have receptions for politicians, and display their products and pump why they are good for the economy. You may not like it, but movies are big business, employ a lot of people, and have plenty of echos in the economy. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to do what every other company in the US has the right to do?
Stop whining Mike. It takes away from your (weak) message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh that's what Obamma says about Job Creation. Very few average joe full time job people work on set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Second, read my post again. They employ a lot of people. I didn't say "on set". Mike has put up the numbers before, even his narrow interpretation still came off with tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity.
Do you think they should be denied the same rights that everyone else does, just because they are an "IP" business? That's what Mike thinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you people keep saying. I've never seen him say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To address your point: no, I agree with you, they should have the rights to what other industries do.
But it should be recognised as lobbying and recorded as such - and yes, this should be the case for every industry.
And then the rules should be enforced.
Please keep the debate coming, but please lay off with the unnecessary digs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No he/it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, fair enough, they get to show educational content before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JOIN US.....it's BLIIIIISSSSSSS....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MUHAHHAHAHAHAH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]