MPAA And Movie Theaters Issue A Complete Ban On Google Glass, Because They 'Have A Long History Of Welcoming Tech Advances'
from the welcoming?-we-meant-hating dept
There are days when you wonder what life must be like as a PR person for the MPAA. I mean, it must take an extraordinary amount of either cognitive dissonance or will power to avoid bursting out laughing at writing the opening sentence like the following in an announcement about how the MPAA and the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) are colluding to ban technologies like Google Glass:The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have a long history of welcoming technological advances and recognize the strong consumer interest in smart phones and wearable “intelligent” devices. As part of our continued efforts to ensure movies are not recorded in theaters, however, we maintain a zero-tolerance policy toward using any recording device while movies are being shown. As has been our long-standing policy, all phones must be silenced and other recording devices, including wearable devices, must be turned off and put away at show time. Individuals who fail or refuse to put the recording devices away may be asked to leave. If theater managers have indications that illegal recording activity is taking place, they will alert law enforcement authorities when appropriate, who will determine what further action should be taken.This is the same MPAA that tried to sue the VCR out of existence. This is the same MPAA has tried to block things like "day and date" releases so that movies might be released to home viewers more conveniently. This is the same MPAA that sued a variety of file sharing properties out of existence. This is the same MPAA that was the main backer of SOPA, a copyright bill that would have significantly hindered security on the internet. This is the same MPAA whose prominent member, Viacom, engaged in a years-long legal fight with YouTube. Yeah, it has a history of "welcoming technological advances"? I don't think so.
This particular policy is not too surprising. After all, the company did summon Homeland Security to interrogate a guy for deciding to wear his Google Glass (while it was turned off) during a movie. For groups so welcoming to new technology, they don't seem to recognize that Google Glass has terrible resolution and battery life and would be a really dumb choice for someone to use to record a movie (not the least of which is because when the video is recording there's a bright LED light shining from the device, making it easy to spot).
Of course, they're coming out with this policy after basically Google Glass has become a dead product. It didn't catch on, and it's not clear that Google is even taking it that seriously any more. There are others attempting similar things, but, really, at this point the MPAA seems to be barring a technology that was never a serious threat in the first place for no good reason. Because it's so "welcoming" of new technologies.
Next time, MPAA PR person, why not just be honest for a change. Here's the announcement translated for accuracy:
The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have a long history of trying to stop any even remotely innovative new consumer technology that challenges our existing business models. As part of our completely wasteful and pointless effort to stop file sharing of movies, we have a zero-tolerance policy that makes us look clueless and out of date, by doing things like having young people arrested for capturing a few seconds of a movie as part of a birthday celebration. As part of this long standing "screw the customer for no good reason" policy, all devices that might possibly record just seconds of a movie in terrible quality must be shut off. Frankly, if we could, we'd force everyone to dump them in a bin before going into the theater, but even we think you'd probably revolt at that step. Individuals who have basic common sense will be asked to leave and everyone will be reminded that maybe, just maybe, instead of paying $12 for a movie in a crappy theater, they'd be better off at home, futzing around on the internet. But, don't worry, we're looking for ways to make that illegal too.
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: film recording, google glass, movie theaters, movies, wearables, zero tolerance
Companies: mpaa, nato
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: I think they did the right thing
I look at it from the perspective of common sense: if you really think that cam versions are harming your bottom line, you should get your head checked.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Now rats, you stole my funniest comment of the week or maybe a double score with the most insightful too. Well played, sir. So I'm going to steal back and paste it here and vote for myself. And you can't do a thing because your articles are public domain! Take that, I'm getting a mention in the week tops at your expense! *sticks tongue out*
Ahem.
The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have a long history of trying to stop any even remotely innovative new consumer technology that challenges our existing business models. As part of our completely wasteful and pointless effort to stop file sharing of movies, we have a zero-tolerance policy that makes us look clueless and out of date, by doing things like having young people arrested for capturing a few seconds of a movie as part of a birthday celebration. As part of this long standing "screw the customer for no good reason" policy, all devices that might possibly record just seconds of a movie in terrible quality must be shut off. Frankly, if we could, we'd force everyone to dump them in a bin before going into the theater, but even we think you'd probably revolt at that step. Individuals who have basic common sense will be asked to leave and everyone will be reminded that maybe, just maybe, instead of paying $12 for a movie in a crappy theater, they'd be better off at home, futzing around on the internet. But, don't worry, we're looking for ways to make that illegal too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/united-states?page=2&status=closed
The staggering number of closed vs. open should be a a wake-up call to this industry, but instead, it'll just continue to fall in favor of "closed".
Not that it matters, since the MPAA found a new audience who'll not waste a second on spending good money for motion shit.
Wave to China, people. The new revenue stream.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They can keep their crappy over priced movies, I'm not interested and I don't want to get shot either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is the same MPAA who have kept their business model dependant on regional releasing, a tactic that once made sense but has been made obsolete by digital technology.
To be fair, they *do* have a history of welcoming *some* technological advancements (colour film, sound projection, Dolby sound, digital projection, 3D, etc.), but only when it's convenient to their bottom line. If it's more convenient or valuable for the customer without an increase in their own profits, they fight tooth and nail to try and block it first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"(MPAA) have a long history of welcoming technological advances" my arse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
welcoming tech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They just forgot to mention that they have a history of welcoming technological advances with torches and pitchforks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think they did the right thing
A 17 year kid that simply wants to earn a paycheck doesn't want the hassle of listening to every person coming in describe how their specific technology isn't infringing on others experience or recording the movie. It shouldn't be a call they have to make at all, ever.
A flat out ban like this make it easy for the kids selling tickets and the other patrons who are there to simply watch a movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think they did the right thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So with that in mind, I strongly encourage them to continue this approach: by all means, ban phones and watches, harass customers, include even more warnings about recordings, make the theater experience as miserable as possible. (Although that's a high bar to clear: it already sucks, sucks, sucks.) Please, by all means, enforce this decree with fascist precision and ruthless efficiency: spare no expense and don't hesitate for even a moment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sorry, but the moment some pimply-faced teen popcorn sweeper tells me they want me to open my jacket so they can do a security check is the moment I tell them off and walk out in full drama queen mode. They want to make my, expensive and rare, date night unpleasant. I'll skip the theatre and wait for the movie to come out on for sale. It's not like there aren't plenty of other things to do or vids to watch that don't violate my personal space or privacy rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cam movies
My belief is that this is just the MPAA being melodramatic and crying victim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think they did the right thing
Pretty much anything related to his employment, no matter what that happens to be, and especially if the job is fairly menial. However, most companies don't use the teen employees' desires as an excuse for their company practices.
"A flat out ban like this make it easy for the kids selling tickets"
It's arguable that a lot of the problems with modern cinemas come from trying to make it "easy" for people at the expense of the paying customer. Replace projectionists with digital projectors? That's easier (until the projection goes wrong and nobody can fix it). Shut ticket booths and make everyone buy their ticket from the concessions stand? Easier (unless you're stuck is a queue behind indecisive people buying popcorn just before your movie starts). Not employing enough people to make sure nobody's disrupting a screening? Easier (until paying customer start demanding refunds because nobody would kick out the asshole talking on his phone). Cutting costs and making things "easier" has actually reduced the quality of the cinematic experience in many ways.
You know what else would be easy? Not expecting the minimum wage ticket collector to act as a bouncer.
"the other patrons who are there to simply watch a movie."
I'm not entirely sure why they'd give a crap one way or another about the device he's wearing, at least not unless the light emitted is particularly disturbing. In which case, that 17 year old kid could ask the guy to stop using it when he's doing his ushering duties, just as he'd tell someone to stop texting, talking or any of the other things that can disturb others - but not expected to pre-emptively address.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google Now Record
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google Glass is a fight the MPAA and NATO won long before they ever fought it. Not because they were right, not because it's the right thing, but because Google Glass would just suck for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes, but only among the stupid, the clueless, the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing morons. Nobody of quality or value has the slightest concern with these because they know that anyone actually seriously trying to pirate a movie has vastly superior means at their disposal and won't waste their time with this crap.
Now I know that this is difficult for inferior people like you to grasp, so perhaps you should just run along and not try to tax your tiny little mind with matters far beyond its feeble processing ability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There IS one technology the MPAA would welcome!
They could sell the experience of watching a movie for the first time over and over again! But, of course, if you don't want that sort of benefit you can opt out - by paying a slightly increased ticket...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Indeed it does. Which is very strange to me, since there are many small independent theaters that, while they don't show first-run movies, do offer a truly excellent moviegoing experience -- so it clearly can be done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think they did the right thing
Technically these restrictions would uphold the spirit of MPAAs effort without an unflexible and potentially discriminatory ban.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One of these days, if we're lucky, some of them might just wake up and realize that there are too damn many lawyers on-board, and that it might be time to ship some of them off to the 'farm'...then again...
sigh....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Alternatively, or additionally, one could dress up as the US of the NSA, i.e. covered in cameras. When asked to remove them or leave, reply with with the question 'do you hate freedom?'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I think they did the right thing
That being said, I would support the most draconian of device banning up until the film can be found online for free. At that point further enforcement no longer matters, so record whatever you like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Check the definition, Mike.
It's funny how you make fun of this. They do welcome advances. Clearly you need to check the dictionary definition of 'welcome'.
From the MPAA Abridged Dictionary:
Welcome: Try to sabotage as best as one can, but then grudgingly go along with it once you realize you can't kill it and then actually make money off it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think they did the right thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I have been given 6 free cinema tickets with a promotion I signed up to (they expire after a year). Each time my partner and I have thought 'shall we go to the cinema' there has been fuck all on that we actually want to see so I still have 6 tickets remaining.
They literally cannot give away cinema tickets to me and have me go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There IS one technology the MPAA would welcome!
There is! Been around for centuries.
It's called beer. Cheap and readily available!
I hear there are some other similar products.
Of course, can't they can't promote that because children. And there are many films I wouldn't go to even if the 'cinema experience' was free as in beer.
Now I think about it, I've been to the cinema once in 15 years, can't say I've missed it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think they did the right thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There IS one technology the MPAA would welcome!
Don't you remember?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I've gone once in the last three years, and twice in the last six. I always went on someone elses dime, and never spent any money on food/drinks. I am not a cheapskate, I spend quite a bit on entertainment.
My biggest problem with going is something they said in their statement: "As has been our long-standing policy, all phones must be silenced and other recording devices, including wearable devices, must be turned off and put away at show time. Individuals who fail or refuse to put the recording devices away may be asked to leave." Absolute bullshit! If they actually enforced this policy, I might go far more often.
Every movie theater I've gone to in the last 10 years has been exactly the same...you get in and sit down, only to have chatty teenagers on their phones, guys sitting playing with their phones, tablets, and even a couple laptop computers during the show, rude people, ring-tones going off every five minutes, and a general lack of respect for other theater-goers.
I will happily rent movies (off Netflix) or even occasionally buy a DVD, invite friends over, and watch it on my TV/home stereo (which is often better maintained and displays a much better picture/sound than the theater,) than go to spend $15 bucks to sit in a crowded, noisy, and horribly mismanaged/unmaintained theater.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who cares?
Actually, this is a good thing. The few smart people who still go to movie theaters will quickly figure out how to get a better experience for less money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I think they did the right thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There IS one technology the MPAA would welcome!
Would they consider it piracy to keep a note of movies not worth seeing, so that when the memory fades you do not repeat the mistake of watching them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I PAID to see the movie in a theater, not be groped like they are the TSA and I am trying to board a plane. The moment this happens to me, from ANYONE in that place, even a cop, I demand a refund and proclaim very loudly that I am leaving and PIRATING the movie because of the treatment I received.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I think they did the right thing
Who's dreaming now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Personally this move is pretty freaking worthless. The market for this sort of thing is small. If they decide to ban a minor consumer market, that may become a major consumer market, then so be it. It is not like this is going to kill the technology. People aren't going to show up to a theater wearing google glass, get denied entry and go "Oh no, the MPAA and NATO banned google glass, I purchased dead tech." Then proceed to go into hysterics at the idea of wasting money.
More likely all they are going to do two things. Turn people away from a theater going experience, and provide some incentive for others to come up with more discrete technology (this is probably very unlikely). If they decide they want to take the risk of losing a customer base then so be it. That is there right.
As for those who use prescription google glass, I feel sorry for you. Not because you got turned away, but because you don't keep a non-google glass spare around. One day it may be entirely or mostly socially acceptable to wear them everywhere, but right now there are a lot of people who don't like you. As long as your not recording me, I don't care, but I have met many people who doing like them and have bad impressions of the people who wear them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the mpaa or riaa are NOT the law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: the mpaa or riaa are NOT the law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think they did the right thing
I stated that I think this is the right thing to do as a universal ban across all theaters a) makes it a consistent experience for employees and movie watchers alike.
No guesswork by employees, no lawsuits by uptight tech wearers that get different experiences from different theaters as they all will have the same policy. Heck I live in an area of high tech and there's plenty of diners, cafes and stores around here with no-glass policies clearly posted on the front entrances. These businesses aren't concerned with pirates, their concern focuses on the shoppers experience. It's not always about technology being used against some business. For these business owners it's all about customer experience, just like posting no smoking signs, or having a handicapped parking space.
b) Movie theater employees or the local business employees around my area shouldn't the gatekeepers making calls on what is acceptable and what isn't. They aren't trained to understand the latest gadgets or what is deemed offensive or even criminal. They do a job, they follow the rules written down in the employee handbooks and not allowing google glass in or the smoker to sit down and disrupt other patrons experience is the wholly justified in my view.
I can't stand the ownership society these groups like the MPAA are trying to make it. I don't agree with the length of copyright or many of the questionable patents out there but my comments aren't about the MPAA, they're focused on the local theater, the employees neither of which works for the MPAA or the studios.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm not surprised in the least, based on all the lies that have come down the pike directly from the MPAA/RIAA over the years.
All I can think of when discussing the MPAA/RIAA situation is the following lines from the M*A*S*H* tv series:
(Note: replace "Frank Burns" with "MPAA/RIAA", and "Hawkeye" with "everyday common citizen"
Frank Burns: I don’t have to take this kind of abuse!
Hawkeye: Oh yes you do, Frank. You invite abuse. It would be impolite not to accept it. (“George,” Season 2, Episode 46)
and
Frank: I’m here to relieve you.
Hawkeye: You do resemble an enema. (“Dear Dad,” Season 1, Episode 12)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Try the VCR. It was called the movie industry's "Boston Strangler". They campaigned quite heavily to have it banned.
However, within just a few years of it being declared fully legal, it was making more money for that very same industry than the cinemas were.
If the MPAA had had their way then, you would have no VCR, no LaserDisc, no CDs, no DVDs, no Blu-rays and probably wouldn't be allowed to write to our own hard drives.
That or the only such storage devices wouldn't be writable by the end consumer. Read devices only is what I guess would happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MPAA DOES have a history of welcoming technological advances....
Yup... some of the advances they've welcomed:
1) Audio
2) Color
3) Telesync
4) Stereo
5) 3D (with glasses)
6) Surround Sound
7) Digital Telesync
8) Digital projection
9) Region coding
10) Divx (the discs, not the codec) as well as various other DRM attempts (maybe not advances, OK....)
11) 3D (with different glasses)
Did I miss any?
Of course, it must be noted that the first one actually predates the MPAA itself, and was also resisted heavily for quite some time and touted as the death of the cinema.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What they'd like even better is a system that outright prevents you from experiencing/thinking about any properties that may compete with those owned by their members.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: MPAA DOES have a history of welcoming technological advances....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I think they did the right thing
This statement should win the most funny award. It's so mind numbingly ignorant that it has to be a joke.
Right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The MPAA are a waste of space bunch of hypocritally useless assholes who serve one purpose and one purpose only: to accept bribes from hollywood execs to go after whatever the hell hollywood has a bee stuck up its ass about this month....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
suing a woman that died in the 1960s for file-sharing, actively and openly claiming that CHILDREN should go to prison for copyright infringement and that the money-making ability of billion-dollar faceless/heartless corporations trumps all human and civil rights, then yes..they're in favor of advancement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An image of an empty theatre, seats covered in cobwebs and the message "piracy is killing the movie industry", then some drivel about poor quality cams etc....
Result? One older (about 70) woman next to me turned to her husband and said "you can just download films from the internet? I didn't know that"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
From http://www.filmsite.org/20sintro4.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Or another translation
From the MPAA: "Okay, studios, we know you're losing money on every movie you put out [due to funny accounting], but I guess it's time we did something to earn the dues you pay us. Normally we'd ask you to raise the quality of your product so people would be willing to pay for it, but since you're unwilling to do that, we'll make a press release about how bad Google Glass and camcording is. Oh, these aren't issues that the public cares about? No bother- we'll keep repeating these things until they do care."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Even if that were a valid concern (and it really isn't), are you seriously claiming that a movie recorded on Google Glass is an actual threat to movie revenues? I don't think you have a clue about what the result would actually look like. If fact I doubt you even understand why anti-camming efforts are so widely ridiculed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You can bet your back teeth that if the MPAA thought that projection devices, image stabilization, image and signal processing and graphics design could pose a threat to their bottom line they'd be all for killing them with fire, too.
Seriously, there are a ton of recording devices out there that don't even remotely look like cameras unless inspected extremely closely. What're you going to do? Ban all pens?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Just a suggestion, but snarky, personal put downs, while eschewing substantive discussion, does nothing to encourage others to take your musings seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The more steps they take to prevent recording, the more the kudos in certain circles for succeeding in filming a copy of a film. The successful camer displays the scalp by putting it online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Funny. If you've read all of these "screeds", you've also read numerous articles on all the specific instances that have been talked about. Each article will have directly referenced the technology being addressed. Were you perhaps too busy trying to defend the studios to keep track of what was actually being criticised?
"Obviously, products able to surreptitiously record movies while they are being shown raises substantial concerns."
Not least of which is the idea that the experience they're trying to offer is so poor that thousands will prefer sitting at home watching a recorded view from someone's head to buying a ticket themselves. I know I'd be substantially concerned if my audience thought those two things were equal in value, especially if I'd geared my business model against allowing them to obtain a good quality legal copy for home viewing if that's what my customers prefer.
"Last time I looked advances in audio were warmly embraced. The same with projection devices, image stabilization, image and signal processing, graphics design, etc., etc., etc."
Yes, the studios do tend to like those technologies that make their lives easier or improve their bottom line. Nobody questions that.
But, that's not the class of technology that they have been attacking for decades- the class that benefits their consumer and allows them to enjoy movies in ways no prescribed by the studios for maximum profit. they have a century's worth of history of freaking out and attacking those technologies until such time as they get them banned or are forced to deal with them.
Strangely, you seem to have completely ignored those technologies, despite things like the Sony/Betamax case, DRM, digital distribution, global distribution other directly relevant things being the fundamental basis of the majority of stories you're criticising. I wonder why you ignore the truthful basis of the articles you're attacking?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's a really, really bad reason to reject the first generation of a device. Put it this way - those are the same reasons why most photographers rejected digital cameras and filmmakers rejected digital movie cameras when they first came out. Look at the first versions of anything from the MP3 player to the Kindle, and the first versions to hit the market were almost always underpowered and relatively bad. it's after they overcame any mass production issues and proved the market for the devices that they really started to be up to scratch.
If history has taught us anything, it's that the quality will increase, and increase both quickly and exponentially. Whether there's a real market for the use cases or if it's ultimately seen as anything most than a novelty remains to be seen.
But, saying it'll never work just because the first generation hardware isn't up to scratch is foolhardy at best.
"my phone has better recording ability."
I'll bet the first mobile phone you owned had a far worse camera, if it even had a camera at all. Would that mean you'd reject the idea of phones being used as recording devices by a lot of people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I think they did the right thing
But why is this a desirable thing? From my point of view, it's nothing but bad.
1) It removes the ability of theater owners to make their own policy decisions.
2) It removes the ability of customers to have alternative theaters to go to if they object to the policy.
3) It totally bypasses the whole (admittedly often overstated) notion of a free market fixing bad behavior.
"Heck I live in an area of high tech and there's plenty of diners, cafes and stores around here with no-glass policies clearly posted on the front entrances."
Which is perfectly fine. What would not be perfectly fine would be some sort of mandate that all diners, cafes, and stores must do so.
"For these business owners it's all about customer experience, just like posting no smoking signs, or having a handicapped parking space."
These are legal mandates, and business owners do this because they have no other option, not because they're trying to improve customer experience.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Even if you are going to pirate, publicly proclaiming this as a protest is counterproductive. It immediately marginalizes you and causes you to lose the high ground and a lot of public sympathy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]