Well, STFU dumb-asses and then that's a good start. Any reduction in free speech should start in Congress.
How do these tools get elected anyway? I mean - WHY would even a corporation pay to get some of these clueless morons elected?
And how's that for free speech?
Go ahead and try to take away free speech ass-hats, it doesn't mean I have to pay one bit of attention to what you say. I'm free, and that's that. I am entitled to free speech by the constitution of this country and your piddly-little laws will not change that.
So how much longer oh wonderful government 'of the people', before we must remove, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." from the internet and books?
How much longer before we degrade into a tyranny?
Can all the 'security' in the world buy back an ounce of liberty? If the world was secure, but not free; would it even be worth living in?
Oh and to add... if Movies were a buck a download.. I bet I'd spend more per month on movies than I do now..
Considering with the on-demand I have - other than my cable bill, I don't spend a red cent on buying movies. What's the point? I'm not paying $200.00 a month for cable AND $20.00 a movie, no way.
$200.00 a month for cable and maybe 5 more dollars for 5 more movies - yeah, I might do that.
Second, the assumption is that a single downloader only represents one consumer. But in a family of four, a single downloader pollutes 3 other people as well. If they "lend" those pirated movies on DVD to friends, they touch an even larger group.
Most downloaders on here will tell you that they have burned discs for family members, etc.
And people that buy them do that differently? So should that even be factored in?
Thing is - if I can buy a movie for $20.00 and only have $20.00; then I'll buy a single movie. Doesn't matter how many movies I want or anything else - I'm financially limited to one movie.
If I can download free, I might get 15 movies. But if I had to pay for each download, I might not get any. It's a severe misconception that a single download is a lost sale, much less 3 or 4 lost sales.
Personally, I pay enough for cable that I have all the on-demand I would ever want, plus I prefer to watch movies on my TV in the living room, not on the PC. Converting movies to playable format from the web is too much of a pain, when I have on-demand just waiting there. I only press a couple buttons, go to my on-demand subscriptions and watch all I want. I pay $200.00 a month for cable and all the movie channels.
So even if I download something that I could watch on-demand - is it really 'stealing'?
Once upon a time, 2+2=4. Now it all depends on how it is presented in statistics.
Well - see if you write it on a chalk board, it would still stand that 2+2=4.
But the RIAA and MPAA way of looking at it is for each person that *thinks* about 2+2 equaling 4, that's a lost number. So therefore in RIAA/MPAA mathematics it would go like this:
In the Hypothetical Classroom there are 30 students.
The teacher writes 2+2=4 on the board. But since Sandy, Jen, Billy and other other 27 students also thought about the equation - or potentially thought about it (this math ignores uninterested persons) you also have to add 4 for each of them.
So... 2+2=4, now add 4 for each of the 30 students and 4 once more for the teacher.
So in the RIAA/MPAA skool of mathematics - 2+2=128.
On the post: Amanda Knox Is Guilty... Of Making Newspapers Jump The Gun On Guilty Headlines
It's not, that's just what people who make money being somehow the 'official news' would have us believe.
What makes them 'official' and a site like this one 'not' official?
On the post: Adult Swim, Cartoon Network Piss Off Fans By Removing Free iPad Streams; Now Only For Cable Subscribers
It's like Jr. High School level 'comedy' I guess, all laughing about anatomy or whatever. Har har.
On the post: TSA Force Breast Cancer Patient To Submit To Patdown, Refuse To Let Her Show ID Card About Implants
On the post: NY State Senators Say We've Got Too Much Free Speech; Introduce Bill To Fix That
How do these tools get elected anyway? I mean - WHY would even a corporation pay to get some of these clueless morons elected?
And how's that for free speech?
Go ahead and try to take away free speech ass-hats, it doesn't mean I have to pay one bit of attention to what you say. I'm free, and that's that. I am entitled to free speech by the constitution of this country and your piddly-little laws will not change that.
On the post: Patent Troll Says Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'
On the post: Psystar Loses Again: Appeals Court Says It Can't Install Legally Purchased OSX On Other Hardware
On the post: Time Warner Cable CEO Remains In Denial About Cord Cutting
On the post: Hurt Locker File Sharing Lawsuit Lists Hockey Stadium IP Address
So no worries, not only will I not download it for free, I won't watch it for free on cable!
On the post: Bethesda Turns Down Quake Fight Over Scrolls Name; Takes Guaranteed Loss By Going To Court
I'm with you there. That was just annoying.
On the post: Conan O'Brien Has The Inside Scoop On More Netflix Changes
Sure, my cable costs more, but there is no wait when I want to watch a movie. So jack up the price all you want NetFlix, you aren't all that, lol.
On the post: Tallahassee Mayor Accused Of Being On AT&T's Payroll While Allegedly Diverting Federal Funds To AT&T Lobbying Group
On the post: US Marshals Service Asks Us To Remove A Comment
How much longer before we degrade into a tyranny?
Can all the 'security' in the world buy back an ounce of liberty? If the world was secure, but not free; would it even be worth living in?
On the post: Wasn't The PATRIOT Act Supposed To Be About Stopping Terrorism?
On the post: Craigslist Continues To Be A Legal Bully When It Comes To Aggregators
I suspect the future of most companies, with that opinion may well be shorter than those that prefer to just stride forward and innovate even more.
On the post: Forget Wiretapping Laws, Now You Might Be Able To Use Copyright Law To Stop Anyone From Recording You Ever
On the post: Google Kills Tricorder Android App After CBS Sends A DMCA Takedown?
On the post: MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year
Considering with the on-demand I have - other than my cable bill, I don't spend a red cent on buying movies. What's the point? I'm not paying $200.00 a month for cable AND $20.00 a movie, no way.
$200.00 a month for cable and maybe 5 more dollars for 5 more movies - yeah, I might do that.
On the post: MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year
Most downloaders on here will tell you that they have burned discs for family members, etc.
And people that buy them do that differently? So should that even be factored in?
Thing is - if I can buy a movie for $20.00 and only have $20.00; then I'll buy a single movie. Doesn't matter how many movies I want or anything else - I'm financially limited to one movie.
If I can download free, I might get 15 movies. But if I had to pay for each download, I might not get any. It's a severe misconception that a single download is a lost sale, much less 3 or 4 lost sales.
Personally, I pay enough for cable that I have all the on-demand I would ever want, plus I prefer to watch movies on my TV in the living room, not on the PC. Converting movies to playable format from the web is too much of a pain, when I have on-demand just waiting there. I only press a couple buttons, go to my on-demand subscriptions and watch all I want. I pay $200.00 a month for cable and all the movie channels.
So even if I download something that I could watch on-demand - is it really 'stealing'?
On the post: MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year
Well - see if you write it on a chalk board, it would still stand that 2+2=4.
But the RIAA and MPAA way of looking at it is for each person that *thinks* about 2+2 equaling 4, that's a lost number. So therefore in RIAA/MPAA mathematics it would go like this:
In the Hypothetical Classroom there are 30 students.
The teacher writes 2+2=4 on the board. But since Sandy, Jen, Billy and other other 27 students also thought about the equation - or potentially thought about it (this math ignores uninterested persons) you also have to add 4 for each of them.
So... 2+2=4, now add 4 for each of the 30 students and 4 once more for the teacher.
So in the RIAA/MPAA skool of mathematics - 2+2=128.
On the post: MPAA So Thrilled With Zediva Ruling, It Offers To Help The Court Spread It
And knowing now, how easy it is to replicate media - a fair price is not what it used to be.
A movie is certainly not worth $40.00 to me now, not even $20.00...
I can just wait a bit and catch it on the on-demand subscriptions I have..
Next >>