Slashdot Mirror

[[The Prospero message boards require people to log-in in order to access this message. Here is the text of the message that started that thread so people can read it without creating an account and logging in.]]

From: 11th Hour (11thHour) Oct-24 2:38 pm
To: ALL (1 of 500)

Here's an email intro sure to startle the heart of any Browncoat:

"This firm represents Universal Studios Licensing, LLLP ("Universal"). As you presumably are aware, Universal owns the valuable copyrights and intellectual property in and to an assortment the theatrical motion picture "Serenity" and all images contained therein ("the Universal Property"). [See, e.g., Walt Disney Productions v. Filmation Associates, 628 F.Supp. 871, 876, 878, 879-80 (C.D. Cal. 1986) (defendant's use of plaintiff's protected images in defendant's promotional trailer, brochures and other materials found infringing)]."

[edit]

"11th Hour Art's offering for sale and sale of unauthorized "Serenity" shirts may give rise to multiple violations of law, giving rise to various causes of action for copyright infringement, counterfeiting, and unfair competition, among other claims. Recovery on one or more of these claims may include attorney's fees, treble damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages."

The Demand continues, and includes such stipulations that within 72 hours I must agree to: pay a retroactive $8,750 licensing fee; the permanent closing of my shop; turn over any merchandise referring to the Universal Property; and provide the last 12 months complete sales records... there's more, but that's the gist... oh, except for the threat of federal court and the statutory damages thingy of $150,000 per infringed work... don't want to go leaving that part out.

The questionable image in my shop were, for the most part, already pulled down by Cafe Press after the first email notice I got last week. I was then already going through my shop and revising the wording in some descriptions as needed to fully comply with the notification. At present, the only instances where the word "serenity" is mentioned is to explain the translation of the Chinese characters, but without any references to the movie of that name.

I can confidently state that my Cafe Press shop is totally free of any associations with "Serenity" the movie... unless of course Universal now claims ownership of the actual word "serenity", no matter how it is used, both in English and Chinese. In that case, there's a certain adult diaper manufacturer who's in deep doo doo now... pun is like, totally intended...

I'm exhausted, emotionally and physically. I've spent most of the past few days since the notification overhauling my shop. I've put aside all other projects, and haven't gotten that much sleep doing this. I'm actually starting to feel ill... this whole thing is just sickening...

11th Hour

P.S.
I found this particuar excerpt from the Demand rather ironical:

"That, no later than close of business on October 30, 2006, 11th Hour Art agree in writing to permanently cease and desist from the advertising, promoting, marketing, sale or distribution of any products bearing or referring to Universal Property" Guess that could be seen as Universal telling me to stop guerilla marketing too. Good job Universal, can't be having a loose cannon like me running around promoting Serenity. Think of the damage that could do.

Good bye guerilla marketing posters too?

Hello Serenity Valley.

11th

.
.
.
Edited to say I can be contacted by clicking on my member name, and to add a link to my Cafe Press shop for reference:
www.cafepress.com/11thhourart

Google's design sense is abysmal. The simplicity of the original (pre-portal) home page was refreshing - and it helped set Google apart. But Google seems to take pride in the butt-ugliness of its interfaces (I assume that stems from its engineering culture). Look at its recent offerings, such as Blog Search and Base, not to mention the ubiquitous AdSense box that's become an ever-widening esthetic stain on the web - they're not pleasant to look at or use. As Google moves into different, more complicated application services, particularly those with a desktop component, its weakness in interface design will hinder its ambitions. It's well behind Yahoo, not to mention Apple, in this important area.

If you look at the taskbar in the screenshot, it proves that Netscape was already around in the 30's :)

Exactly - they're also breaking consistancy in Windows. They have the file menu on the upper right corner instead of the left, like almost every windows app out there.

The numbers on the counters are manually recorded, then manually transferred to a central registrar. That's two places with human intervention, and opportunity for error or, more remotely, fraud

There are at least four witnesses to the counting: the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk, who are nominated by the two leading parties, and at least two from the public (who are usually, but not necessarily, agents of two different candidates)

All the totals get printed in the newspapers so the witnesses can check their own poll and anyone can check the sums

Your system does nothing like that. Even where the ballots are counted by hand, all the numbers disappear into Voter News Service, which then reports what it wants. (I don't know what's replaced VNS. I understand it was dissolved after it so badly botched the con in 2000. It was a pretty secret society and its successor can be expected to be even more so.)

People want to know sooner than the morning paper

The results don't take effect for months; why the fuck the indecent hurry?

BTW all I get out of the forum anchor is "cyclic link". I guess konqi users are locked out >:(

Absolutely. Here's the run-down:

The original Fox "OB" (official board) -- the navigation on this site takes a bit of getting used to (you should immediately go to preferences and set the number of posts displayed per page to the max when you register/sign in) and you should stay out of the off-topic forum if you don't have thick skin (there are a lot of political threads and it gets very heated at times); however, this is among the oldest and largest FF communities, it's very friendly and chatty (some threads look more like IM/IRC chat logs than newsgroup threads -- say a quick hello in the infamous "Serenity Saloon" thread if you want to see what I mean) and folks like Chris Buchanan and Adam Baldwin post there (Adam mostly in the political threads; Chris mostly to announce news)

FireflyFans.net -- also one of the first FF sites, the volume is lower than the OB (although some would argue with a better S/N ratio) -- threads here stay pretty show-focused, with only an occasional political thread that is easily avoided. Includes a great "blue sun room" section for fan-created artwork, fanfic, and filk (fan lyrics)

The new official movie site forum. still getting its legs under it, and not as popular yet as the two major sites above, but it's growing (11K+ members) and they have a point earning system to win T-shirts and stuff (note my restraint in not giving you the URL that would have given me recruitment points!) ;)

Also, be sure to check out BrownCoats.com -- it's not a forum but a great resource/catalog/archive/pedia of firefly information (episode info, bloopers, costuming, history, interviews, etc.)

Actually, it seems to have been saved (although they haven't released who did it or how yet)

Taken from www.andromedatv.com (The official site)

Kevin Sorbo Excited About
Andromeda's Fifth Season

Kevin Sorbo expressed his enthusiasm for the fifth season of Gene Roddenbery's Andromeda Wednesday, saying that he is looking forward to working once again with the program's tremendously talented cast, and fleshing out new adventures as Capt. Dylan Hunt.

"I think the show is going in a great direction, and that the fans will find it interesting to see how Dylan handles the next round of challenges that come his way. It's great to be back with a cast that's so professional and fun to work with."

Tribune Entertainment Vice President of Programming Bill Hamm says it will be a season that no sci-fi fan should miss.

"It's going to be a thrilling and exciting new adventure -- one that I'm sure will keep fans of Dylan and the crew glued to the screen."

Be sure to catch Season Five of Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, every Friday on the Sci-Fi Channel at 8:00pm starting Sept. 24. Fans can also catch year five of the Andromeda's adventures in syndication beginning the week of Sept. 27 -- check local listings.

and from the (soon to be closed) official forums

Sorbonut broke the news first, but Ashley Edward Miller over at Ex Isle confirmed it: S5 starts production this month. And a bonus: he and Zack Stentz have sold a freelance script for S5 (possibly the fourth episode of the season). So if nothing else, we've got one goodie coming... :)

From: JeremyTII Apr-21 7:51 pm
To: Rayhana (27 of 56)
11360.27 in reply to 11360.26

While I cannot answer every question everyone has about the issues discussed in this thread, I believe I can offer some encouraging information.

From speaking with TPTB, I can tell you this: Mutant X and Andromeda have not been written off; Tribune very much wants to produce another season (meaning S4 and S5, respectively) of both shows.

Beyond that, I really don't know many details.  Bottom line: You, the viewers, want the shows to come back.  Tribune is trying very hard to make sure that happens, I assure you.

On another note, Marta is no longer with Tribune.  In the interest of preventing future rumor-mongering, I will say that she was not fired or laid off; she left voluntarily, and on good terms. She may log in here again sometime, but that's up to her.

Hang in there, folks; we're tryin' our hardest.
   Jeremy D. Horowitz
   Website Producer/Moderator
   Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda

The best way to influence the future of the show is buy the DVDs in record numbers in the hopes of Universal exercising their rights to make the movie.

In the meantime:

• My Firefly FAQ
• My Firefly Fanzine (please feel free to help!)
• The official bulletin board
• UK mailing list

Keep Flyin'

In case anyone would like to discuss DVD's or Firefly in general:

http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly

This was the official Fox board, and is now run by Mutant Enemy.

see my comment 204.

Results are here.

I think if you read the full posting you'll see that they were actually destroyed. The wording was, "They did not fold and hold them..." They could certainly be rebuilt, though. And the latest glimmer of hope came just last week.

I think if you read the full posting you'll see that they were actually destroyed. The wording was, "They did not fold and hold them..." They could certainly be rebuilt, though. And the latest glimmer of hope came just last week.

I appreciate the points of view you brought up, perhaps we can both learn more here.

If you are Christian than this forum should interest you.

I know many Slashdotter's may not want to listen to religious lectures so fair warning to readers.

As you will note in the forums, probably the two most important things discussed are 1)God is always in control 2)God does not contradict himself.
So if God is always in control and always shaping the world and events towards his plan for the future than there is no need for debate, he is in control. If God doesnt contradict himself than all the times it is documented in the Bible when God told the Hebrews to wage war and not leave one enemey alive than why would war be wrong now, considering God is always in control?

It would probably be best to move this discussion to the forum I linked to above as others can help with your issues.

BTW, the commandment from the OT in the original Greek was "Thou shalt not murder", which is given its on definition seperate from kill.

Just passin' it along for y'all...

Hello all! Hope your winter/spring has been as productive and busy as mine. I've had my nose to the grindstone looking for work. Been hanging with castmembers and remembering the "good times" as we like to call them. We are all still waiting to hear Joss' news about Firefly. He has been hard at work and keeping us all updated, it looks as though something is close! I can't wait to get those tightpants on again. I've had a little time on my hands, been able to go hiking much more than i used to during crazy Firefly hours. Visited the Fox lot yesterday to see that they have dismantled the ship. Not to worry, I'm told it can be put together in a jiffy, and the crew is anxious to do just that. Meantime, I'm auditioning like crazy, praying for a job I can love as much as Firefly. FAT CHANCE!

I haven't been lurking for some time, so I'm not up on all the news, but just to dispel rumours, I DO have a computer, I DON'T have internet. So long, all.

Nathan "Captain Tightpants" Fillion

Here is the link.

Bogus?? How about the best sci-fi TV ever made. Try downloading some episodes off Kaaza and come back with an informed opinion.

There were 12 episodes aired and 15 made. It didn't fail because it was bad (it wasn't), it failed because, as usual, Fox TV failed to get behind it, they barely advertised it, they bounced it around (because of baseball coverage), and they played it completely out of order (like playing the pilot LAST!)

Excellent Firefly discussions at:
http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages

As for the actual Firefly software thingie, I liked it, too bad Microsoft smothered it. :(

Terminate the agreement.
Bill for the bandwidth, or sue for damages.
Various technical measures (which are prohibited by the agreement)
Point out to your contacts at Amazon that this is pointless and dumb in such a manner they actually listen.

Here's an idea.... How about politely posting a question or two about it in the appropriate forums? Who knows, something crazy might happen, like responsible people at Amazon might respond and turn the bot off while they investigate. Then, they might post a reasonable explaination and take reasonable steps to make sure they're not abusing associate's servers.

Here's another idea.... Try reading the pages that slashdot linked to. I know that's a lot of work, so I'll save you a bit of effort by posting each slashdot link, and a brief summary of what you would have found had you bothered to click on it and ACTUALLY READ it (before posting here with a subject advocating actually reading the terms and conditions).

• Amazon Associates and Web Services developers are crying foul over the hammering they're taking - Alan Richmond comments that the bot made 13406 hits in 17 hours on November 26, transfering a total of 200 megs. Many posts preceed this, and several follow it. It's all pretty level headed discussion. Many people seem to feel the bot is not designed that well and ought to be improved, but very little of it amounts to "crying foul". Even Alan says he want an explaination. Nobody is terminating their agreement, attempting to recoup significant losses, threatening to sue, advocating blocking (other than discussion of robots.txt). People in the forum are expressing their concerns "in such a manner they actually listen", which happens to be a polite, level-headed manner... which you would know of had you actually read the forum, rather than blindly posting here that the associated should read the terms and conditions before they "sign".
• Amazon fessed up - Amazon explains what they're doing, and why, and the steps they've taken to avoid abusing servers. They claim they've designed the bot to avoid accessing any server more than once every two seconds (Alan's example is 13406 hits in 17 hours, or one hit every 4.56 seconds, on average)
• Amazon acknowledged problems exist - They actually say they're investigating, and while they're investigating their bot's impact, they've taken it off-line. They also answer the question that appears frequently in the forum... the purpose of "ia_archiver" vs "amzn_assoc". It's not clear what they'll actually do, but they obviously are trying to respond to people's legitimate concerns
• but points to recent Operating Agreement changes - Yes, while Amazon appears to be taking the matter seriously, they also are making it clear that they expect to be able to verify the accuracy of links from associates. They explain the purpose in the agreement (and it's really not that unreasonable, is it?)

This just isn't that sensational of a story. Yet another 'bot that needs some refinement, but a it IS designed to avoid more than one hit every 2 seconds (and the evidence posted seems to be consistent with that). They at least did respond to people's concerns and they took the bot off-line while they investigated it. Sounds pretty reasonable. It's not clear what might actually be done, and some of it appears that Amazon is claiming the problem isn't so great... but clearly they are attempting to respond to people's concerns.

Amazon feels they have a right to check the links on associate sites, and they put it in the terms. Again, it's really not that unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is the inflamatory summary appearing on the main slashdot page. Yes, timothy and other slashdot "editors" can claim it's all just editorial from "theodp" who submitted the summary. But what kind of editing it that?

The summary concludes with:

... Amazon and any of its corporate affiliates the right to do so, but also to use unstated technical means to overcome any methods that are used to try to block or interfere with such crawling or monitoring. Interesting stance from the folks who called on the Senate to prosecute those who degrade the technical quality of service at web sites.

The link is to Amazon's position on DDOS attacks... there's really no similarity to a well-intentioned 'bot, which clearly identifies itself, limits itself to 0.5 Hz access rate, AND was responsibly taken off-line and reexamined when some people complained that it used too much bandwidth.

Terminate the agreement.
Bill for the bandwidth, or sue for damages.
Various technical measures (which are prohibited by the agreement)
Point out to your contacts at Amazon that this is pointless and dumb in such a manner they actually listen.

Here's an idea.... How about politely posting a question or two about it in the appropriate forums? Who knows, something crazy might happen, like responsible people at Amazon might respond and turn the bot off while they investigate. Then, they might post a reasonable explaination and take reasonable steps to make sure they're not abusing associate's servers.

Here's another idea.... Try reading the pages that slashdot linked to. I know that's a lot of work, so I'll save you a bit of effort by posting each slashdot link, and a brief summary of what you would have found had you bothered to click on it and ACTUALLY READ it (before posting here with a subject advocating actually reading the terms and conditions).

• Amazon Associates and Web Services developers are crying foul over the hammering they're taking - Alan Richmond comments that the bot made 13406 hits in 17 hours on November 26, transfering a total of 200 megs. Many posts preceed this, and several follow it. It's all pretty level headed discussion. Many people seem to feel the bot is not designed that well and ought to be improved, but very little of it amounts to "crying foul". Even Alan says he want an explaination. Nobody is terminating their agreement, attempting to recoup significant losses, threatening to sue, advocating blocking (other than discussion of robots.txt). People in the forum are expressing their concerns "in such a manner they actually listen", which happens to be a polite, level-headed manner... which you would know of had you actually read the forum, rather than blindly posting here that the associated should read the terms and conditions before they "sign".
• Amazon fessed up - Amazon explains what they're doing, and why, and the steps they've taken to avoid abusing servers. They claim they've designed the bot to avoid accessing any server more than once every two seconds (Alan's example is 13406 hits in 17 hours, or one hit every 4.56 seconds, on average)
• Amazon acknowledged problems exist - They actually say they're investigating, and while they're investigating their bot's impact, they've taken it off-line. They also answer the question that appears frequently in the forum... the purpose of "ia_archiver" vs "amzn_assoc". It's not clear what they'll actually do, but they obviously are trying to respond to people's legitimate concerns
• but points to recent Operating Agreement changes - Yes, while Amazon appears to be taking the matter seriously, they also are making it clear that they expect to be able to verify the accuracy of links from associates. They explain the purpose in the agreement (and it's really not that unreasonable, is it?)

This just isn't that sensational of a story. Yet another 'bot that needs some refinement, but a it IS designed to avoid more than one hit every 2 seconds (and the evidence posted seems to be consistent with that). They at least did respond to people's concerns and they took the bot off-line while they investigated it. Sounds pretty reasonable. It's not clear what might actually be done, and some of it appears that Amazon is claiming the problem isn't so great... but clearly they are attempting to respond to people's concerns.

Amazon feels they have a right to check the links on associate sites, and they put it in the terms. Again, it's really not that unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is the inflamatory summary appearing on the main slashdot page. Yes, timothy and other slashdot "editors" can claim it's all just editorial from "theodp" who submitted the summary. But what kind of editing it that?

The summary concludes with:

... Amazon and any of its corporate affiliates the right to do so, but also to use unstated technical means to overcome any methods that are used to try to block or interfere with such crawling or monitoring. Interesting stance from the folks who called on the Senate to prosecute those who degrade the technical quality of service at web sites.

The link is to Amazon's position on DDOS attacks... there's really no similarity to a well-intentioned 'bot, which clearly identifies itself, limits itself to 0.5 Hz access rate, AND was responsibly taken off-line and reexamined when some people complained that it used too much bandwidth.

Terminate the agreement.
Bill for the bandwidth, or sue for damages.
Various technical measures (which are prohibited by the agreement)
Point out to your contacts at Amazon that this is pointless and dumb in such a manner they actually listen.

Here's an idea.... How about politely posting a question or two about it in the appropriate forums? Who knows, something crazy might happen, like responsible people at Amazon might respond and turn the bot off while they investigate. Then, they might post a reasonable explaination and take reasonable steps to make sure they're not abusing associate's servers.

Here's another idea.... Try reading the pages that slashdot linked to. I know that's a lot of work, so I'll save you a bit of effort by posting each slashdot link, and a brief summary of what you would have found had you bothered to click on it and ACTUALLY READ it (before posting here with a subject advocating actually reading the terms and conditions).

• Amazon Associates and Web Services developers are crying foul over the hammering they're taking - Alan Richmond comments that the bot made 13406 hits in 17 hours on November 26, transfering a total of 200 megs. Many posts preceed this, and several follow it. It's all pretty level headed discussion. Many people seem to feel the bot is not designed that well and ought to be improved, but very little of it amounts to "crying foul". Even Alan says he want an explaination. Nobody is terminating their agreement, attempting to recoup significant losses, threatening to sue, advocating blocking (other than discussion of robots.txt). People in the forum are expressing their concerns "in such a manner they actually listen", which happens to be a polite, level-headed manner... which you would know of had you actually read the forum, rather than blindly posting here that the associated should read the terms and conditions before they "sign".
• Amazon fessed up - Amazon explains what they're doing, and why, and the steps they've taken to avoid abusing servers. They claim they've designed the bot to avoid accessing any server more than once every two seconds (Alan's example is 13406 hits in 17 hours, or one hit every 4.56 seconds, on average)
• Amazon acknowledged problems exist - They actually say they're investigating, and while they're investigating their bot's impact, they've taken it off-line. They also answer the question that appears frequently in the forum... the purpose of "ia_archiver" vs "amzn_assoc". It's not clear what they'll actually do, but they obviously are trying to respond to people's legitimate concerns
• but points to recent Operating Agreement changes - Yes, while Amazon appears to be taking the matter seriously, they also are making it clear that they expect to be able to verify the accuracy of links from associates. They explain the purpose in the agreement (and it's really not that unreasonable, is it?)

This just isn't that sensational of a story. Yet another 'bot that needs some refinement, but a it IS designed to avoid more than one hit every 2 seconds (and the evidence posted seems to be consistent with that). They at least did respond to people's concerns and they took the bot off-line while they investigated it. Sounds pretty reasonable. It's not clear what might actually be done, and some of it appears that Amazon is claiming the problem isn't so great... but clearly they are attempting to respond to people's concerns.

Amazon feels they have a right to check the links on associate sites, and they put it in the terms. Again, it's really not that unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is the inflamatory summary appearing on the main slashdot page. Yes, timothy and other slashdot "editors" can claim it's all just editorial from "theodp" who submitted the summary. But what kind of editing it that?

The summary concludes with:

... Amazon and any of its corporate affiliates the right to do so, but also to use unstated technical means to overcome any methods that are used to try to block or interfere with such crawling or monitoring. Interesting stance from the folks who called on the Senate to prosecute those who degrade the technical quality of service at web sites.

The link is to Amazon's position on DDOS attacks... there's really no similarity to a well-intentioned 'bot, which clearly identifies itself, limits itself to 0.5 Hz access rate, AND was responsibly taken off-line and reexamined when some people complained that it used too much bandwidth.

Terminate the agreement.
Bill for the bandwidth, or sue for damages.
Various technical measures (which are prohibited by the agreement)
Point out to your contacts at Amazon that this is pointless and dumb in such a manner they actually listen.

Here's an idea.... How about politely posting a question or two about it in the appropriate forums? Who knows, something crazy might happen, like responsible people at Amazon might respond and turn the bot off while they investigate. Then, they might post a reasonable explaination and take reasonable steps to make sure they're not abusing associate's servers.

Here's another idea.... Try reading the pages that slashdot linked to. I know that's a lot of work, so I'll save you a bit of effort by posting each slashdot link, and a brief summary of what you would have found had you bothered to click on it and ACTUALLY READ it (before posting here with a subject advocating actually reading the terms and conditions).

• Amazon Associates and Web Services developers are crying foul over the hammering they're taking - Alan Richmond comments that the bot made 13406 hits in 17 hours on November 26, transfering a total of 200 megs. Many posts preceed this, and several follow it. It's all pretty level headed discussion. Many people seem to feel the bot is not designed that well and ought to be improved, but very little of it amounts to "crying foul". Even Alan says he want an explaination. Nobody is terminating their agreement, attempting to recoup significant losses, threatening to sue, advocating blocking (other than discussion of robots.txt). People in the forum are expressing their concerns "in such a manner they actually listen", which happens to be a polite, level-headed manner... which you would know of had you actually read the forum, rather than blindly posting here that the associated should read the terms and conditions before they "sign".
• Amazon fessed up - Amazon explains what they're doing, and why, and the steps they've taken to avoid abusing servers. They claim they've designed the bot to avoid accessing any server more than once every two seconds (Alan's example is 13406 hits in 17 hours, or one hit every 4.56 seconds, on average)
• Amazon acknowledged problems exist - They actually say they're investigating, and while they're investigating their bot's impact, they've taken it off-line. They also answer the question that appears frequently in the forum... the purpose of "ia_archiver" vs "amzn_assoc". It's not clear what they'll actually do, but they obviously are trying to respond to people's legitimate concerns
• but points to recent Operating Agreement changes - Yes, while Amazon appears to be taking the matter seriously, they also are making it clear that they expect to be able to verify the accuracy of links from associates. They explain the purpose in the agreement (and it's really not that unreasonable, is it?)

This just isn't that sensational of a story. Yet another 'bot that needs some refinement, but a it IS designed to avoid more than one hit every 2 seconds (and the evidence posted seems to be consistent with that). They at least did respond to people's concerns and they took the bot off-line while they investigated it. Sounds pretty reasonable. It's not clear what might actually be done, and some of it appears that Amazon is claiming the problem isn't so great... but clearly they are attempting to respond to people's concerns.

Amazon feels they have a right to check the links on associate sites, and they put it in the terms. Again, it's really not that unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is the inflamatory summary appearing on the main slashdot page. Yes, timothy and other slashdot "editors" can claim it's all just editorial from "theodp" who submitted the summary. But what kind of editing it that?

The summary concludes with:

... Amazon and any of its corporate affiliates the right to do so, but also to use unstated technical means to overcome any methods that are used to try to block or interfere with such crawling or monitoring. Interesting stance from the folks who called on the Senate to prosecute those who degrade the technical quality of service at web sites.

The link is to Amazon's position on DDOS attacks... there's really no similarity to a well-intentioned 'bot, which clearly identifies itself, limits itself to 0.5 Hz access rate, AND was responsibly taken off-line and reexamined when some people complained that it used too much bandwidth.

Goofballs.

Seems like Alexa sold Amazon a whole lotta nothing when they agreed to verify the links on AWS sites.

According to one of the posts here:

Again, I don't get how my links can be broken since Amazon is delivering the content.

If, like me, you'd like to keep firefly on the air there's a lot of things you can do:

Check out Firefly Immediate Assistance

Sign the Online petition

Post on the show's bulletin board

Email Fox

Write to fox at:
FOX BROADCASTING CO
ATTN: SANDY GRUSHOW, CHAIRMAN, FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP
10201 WEST PICO BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90035

Write to the sponsors

If you live in the UK email Sky (Fox UK) to pick up the show

More than anything if anyone you know is a "Neilsen Family" then please get them to what the pilot "Serenity" when it airs in December.

Fan campaigns do work and have in the past entended the runs of both Buffy and Roswell.

There is already a fan-contribution paid-for full-page advert going into the December 9th issue of L.A. Variety.

Don't give up hope yet! :-)