And then it STILL does not hurt anybody, when that other person would not have bought it anyway.
Which by definition makes it no crime.
Not true.
A real crime has to hurt somebody in some way. Everything else is no crime, but a law that only exists to give some people an unfair advantage.
Also not true.
Which makes that law, that is hurting the people that are punished because of it, by definition a crime.
And, yet again, not true.
This is how things really look. But it seems you have already bought their newspeak dictionary.
Ironic, since you just tried to make up your own definitions as well. As much as I hate what copyright law has become, and how it's being abused by the media industry, you're not helping by trying to do the same thing. You're just providing a weak argument that is easily shot down, making those opposed to copyright law in its current incarnation look like morons. Don't do that.
I guess we'll just have to disagree then. I suppose that at some point they'll either come up with a foolproof DRM scheme, which people will reject and they'll face major financial problems, or they'll go too far with one of the laws they buy from Congress and face a major backlash. Either way it will bring change. It just hasn't happened yet since it's so easy to just bypass their crap completely.
Not all downloading is done just because people want something for free. Hell, I download MP3s of albums that I own, just because it's easier than ripping them. I've got boxes full of PC games that I've bought over the years, but I've probably downloaded at least half of them again since then, just for convenience sake. I get a version without the DRM crap installed, and often one that's patched up to date and doesn't require any long install process even. Of course the industry probably considers all of this piracy anyway.
Allowing those who took the crazy risks to profit from it simply ensures that we'll see the same thing happen again, because people can get rich off of it and keep their profits while the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.
Deregulation of credit default swaps back in late 2000 allowed AIG to basically insure insane amounts of these securities without having to maintain any sort of capital reserve in case the housing market did fall. They were essentially given a license print money, without having to do anything for it. Utterly insane.
You want to compare that to any other Wall St. CEO who spent 50 years on Wall St., doing things like helping to found NASDAQ?
Like I said, quite modest in comparison. You are regurgitating pap for the uninformed who like to think they understand and think this is lavish and that's where tens of billions went.
Nope, sorry.
rd
Modest my ass. Not sure what you're comparing to, but it's still not modest. It's obscenely lavish by damn near any measure that could mean anything to an average person. And that's just what they're reporting so far. His silverware cost almost as much as my mom's house. Wonder how much he managed to squirrel away in accounts that the US government can't even find out about, let alone touch.
The kicker is that this incredibly lavish life was funded by stealing from others. While many got paid along the way, he was living like this through theft. I suppose it's easier than robbing liquor stores.
You seem to think that there's some sort of inalienable right to own ideas. There isn't. While you say that the need for copyright law reform doesn't justify piracy, I don't know how you justify the currently ridiculous state of copyright. I think it certainly justifies piracy. I don't necessary pirate everything because of this, as I do understand the need for creators to earn a living, but I also know that the public interest has been all but completely cut out of copyright law by the media industry's lobbying. I don't see why I should give a damn about their interests either.
But that's not my point - legal distinctions aside, "copyright infringement is theft" is used because it is an easy way to make your case. We may not agree with that connection but as it takes root the legal distinctions will be moot.
No, it's an easy way to distort the issue.
Congress has already started to consider the issue with the "Artist Protection and Theft Prevention Act" so are some point the distinction in federal law may cease to exist as well.
Because congress is in the pocket of the media industry that has a vested interest in distorting the issue as much as possible. They're they reason copyright law is so amazingly ridiculous now.
At any rate, the common vernacular leans to theft; and that's the usage, form a non-legal standpoint, that will probably win out as well. Though, in the end, what you call it doesn't change that it it is wrong to use copyrighted material without permission, except in a few very limited cases.
Actually it's illegal to infringe on a copyright. I'm really not convinced that it's wrong to do so given the current state of copyright law. Also, the Supreme Court has already made it clear that copyright infringement is not theft:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Several of these come down on the side of "intent to deprive", most are ambiguous, and some support the taking of things you don't have the right to, eg. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law says "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent".
I think intuitively both work and any native speaker could prefer either. I'm a native speaker and taking without consent is how I would have defined it if you just asked me directly.
The problem is that historically, there has rarely been a difference. Nevertheless, we've long had the verbal concepts like "stealing my idea" or "stealing my thunder" that only work with the "no consent" interpretation (or with the deprivation of potential gain from your idea or your "thunder" or whatnot, which still applies).
The thing is, something like "stealing my idea" was never considered to actually be theft under the law because you couldn't own an idea. Then when copyright and patent law came around, you were granted a monopoly on the distribution and/or use of an idea, with certain limitations. Those laws defined the violation of these rights as crimes, none of which is referred to as "theft". So theft is not the applicable term here. Copyright infringement is the proper term.
Arguing from a devil's advocate perspective, the "owner" in the above statutes would be the holder of the copyright, and the "property" is their right to exclude others from use of their intellectual property. By using it, you are permanently depriving them of their right to exclude you from using the property - thus, you are permanently depriving the owner of their property.
As I already replied to another post, there's already a much more specific law that covers that scenario, and it calls it "copyright infringement" rather than theft. They could have called it "copyright theft" or just "theft", but they didn't. It's something else altogether.
Can we all please start calling it was it is rather than coming up with tortured analogies and faulty reasoning to try to call it theft?
I would say it depends on how you define property - an argument could be made that you have deprived the owner of the the property - control of the distribution - and so it would be theft. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but see where it could be made.
Sure, except that there's already a much more specific law that covers that scenario, and it calls it "copyright infringement" rather than theft. I'd say that's case closed.
However much they want to advertise it is certainly up to them. Not you. Apparently it wasn't advertised enough for you to know about it. It's not even comparable to raffling off a car. They're selling the book, not raffling them off. There's no deception here.
Neat idea that needs to be advertised! Not every one enjoys being tricked into support of charities.
How is it really any of your business what the authors/publishers do with the money they make? If they want to make it public, fine, but they're certainly not remotely obligated to. Do you demand to know what the charities a car dealer gives to before you buy a car from them? What about the other companies or individuals you purchase things from?
You can't focus on the girl specifically. It destroys the whole point of objectivity... what would you do if this was some random 4 year old off a milk carton? Your kid? Miley Cyrus? David the Gnome?
In the end, the decision shouldn't be based on who, as so much as what.
So you're saying that pasting a 4 yr old's face onto an adult nude body should be treated exactly the same as a 16 yr old's face on the same body? How about the face of a 16 yr old that has often posed for highly sexually suggestive, yet non-nude pics?
Justice that blind is always going to miss the mark. You might as well get rid of all those lesser charges like manslaughter, and 2nd and 3rd degree murder and just treat everything as premeditated first-degree murder. Context doesn't matter after all, right?
I was thinking something like that while reading. I recall a/. story remarking that stupid people don't realize how stupid they are and, in fact, think they are quite brilliant, and rate themselves thusly. Conversely, very intelligent people realize there is so much they don't know, and rate themselves lower than the morons rate themselves.
I think you just explained where politicians come from...
It was only $65 Billion on paper. Remember that the gains were imaginary. The estimate I saw this morning was that there was only $13 Billion in actual principal invested. Most of the money probably went to pay off earlier investors. The rest was spent by Madoff and friends.
That's been the most conservative estimate so far, and the judge acknowledged it and said that he suspects that the true number is far higher.
You do not expect the head of the major exchange to be a Ponzi schemer. Just like a head of police is very unlikely to be a drug dealer.
Sure, but when people keep providing information that suggests that such a thing is true (and really the info did more than just suggest in this case), you should probably really look pretty closely at it.
The reason why third party regulators didn't step in before the FDA is because people back before The Jungle was published were blissfully ignorant. There was no internet, newspapers had a tiny circulation (as in, news of such a thing wouldn't leave town), and a lot of Americans didn't use pre-packaged meat. Remember, this was in 1906, information didn't spread very fast.
I don't think today would be much different. Instead of no information, you'll have a hundred different sources that all conflict on the facts and/or conclusions, and people still won't know who to trust.
For the investment firms, most Americans didn't really care how they were investing. Rather than doing research they decided to hire someone to put their money in a bunch of stocks that they didn't pick out. Thats what carelessness gets you.
They were investing in companies and securities that were supposedly being watched by regulators, and were being given high marks by "independent" ratings agencies. Turns out that the regulators were being paid by those that they were regulating, and were competing to see who could be the most lax with the rules, while ratings agencies were handing out AAA ratings to securities that they couldn't even comprehend. Basically everyone was lying and getting rich by it.
Believe me, If everyone you know who smoked wore a big neon sign that said "I smoke pot sometimes", you'd realize that for most people, which smoke occasionally and responsibly, those kinds of "personality effects" don't happen.
Yes, but if that were the case, then the side-effect of wearing neon signs would probably be enough for me to want to strengthen the ban rather than remove it.:-/
There are some shows I'd be willing to pay for, much as I pay for premium channels when I like their content. I wouldn't even mind them throwing in some ads too if it helps keep the cost lower. This would at least put the decision to keep shows running in the hands of those that watch rather than the network execs that tend to decide that they could make more money with another "reality" show or "are you smarter than a chihuahua?" type game show.
I tuned in every week to watch. Moreover, as pathetic as it is for someone my age, I took part in the e-mail campaign and sent an e-mail to Fox asking them to renew the show. Honestly though, Season 2 was very uneven. Do you disagree? I am very sorry the show was mishandled, because much of the show was very good television, as far as I'm concerned.
As to what the hell do I consider a good show -- as much as I liked SCC, I think Firefly was significantly better. Sorry to say though that my opinion carries very little weight with television executives.
While Firefly was better than SCC, SCC was still a good show. All those "filler episodes" were interesting for character development, and getting some insight into what makes them tick. The resolution to the Riley arc was pretty interesting, even though everyone ragged on them for introducing the character in the first place. People don't generally give a shit about characters or story. They want to see robots killing stuff and lots of explosions. I just want a show with an interesting story.
I thought the characters were developing well between halfway through the first season to halfway through the second. By then things were getting very interesting. Between the multiple machine factions and competing AIs, and what happens to Derek and the way the last episode ended, I was very intrigued. Sucks for it to end like that. Some shows take a little time to really get rolling, but the development they do along the way makes the story so much better. Sad when they don't even get the chance to really hit their stride. This show had a lot of potential that was just beginning to be realized.
Just for the record, Fox execs can burn in hell. They obviously have no clue how to market a show like this, as they proved with Firefly as well. Both could have been great had they not been mishandled and practically sabotaged by Fox. We really need a new way to get shows made. I'd even be willing to pay directly for a good show rather than have it suffer at the hands of a network. How soon can we get rid of the networks and start funding shows through more direct means? It could still be supplemented with ads and I'd be fine with that. It wouldn't need a timeslot though, and wouldn't be axed at the whim of some jackass network exec.
But it IS exactly like that - the basic plot has not changed, ever - always exactly one "good guy" and one "bad guy" sent back in time and they duke it out for survival of humanity. As a very short synopsis, the main plot has not changed.
Sure. If you'd watched more than a few episodes, you'd know that you're completely wrong about the plot.
Its also a problem with the terminator concept that as the terminators spend more and more time as humans and less and less as menacing robots the concept gets boring. The best parts of the first movie were when Arnold had all his skin burned off and he is a very menacing machine at the end.
WTF? How exactly is a robot trying to pass as human less interesting than a walking robo-skeleton that just shoots people? People suck. This is why we can't have nice things...
With all the people here posting about how they only watched a few episodes, or they fast-forwarded through the "boring stuff", it's no wonder that all you people with the attention span of a gerbil couldn't follow the story or understand the meaning of those "filler" episodes. Just because shit wasn't blowing up every five seconds doesn't make it a bad show. I feel bad for you if you just couldn't understand the story. It was well-written and the characters were developing nicely. Unfortunately all most people want to see is 40 minutes of robot fights every week. No wonder TV is mostly shit.
Slashdot Mirror
And then it STILL does not hurt anybody, when that other person would not have bought it anyway. Which by definition makes it no crime.
Not true.
A real crime has to hurt somebody in some way. Everything else is no crime, but a law that only exists to give some people an unfair advantage.
Also not true.
Which makes that law, that is hurting the people that are punished because of it, by definition a crime.
And, yet again, not true.
This is how things really look. But it seems you have already bought their newspeak dictionary.
Ironic, since you just tried to make up your own definitions as well. As much as I hate what copyright law has become, and how it's being abused by the media industry, you're not helping by trying to do the same thing. You're just providing a weak argument that is easily shot down, making those opposed to copyright law in its current incarnation look like morons. Don't do that.
I guess we'll just have to disagree then. I suppose that at some point they'll either come up with a foolproof DRM scheme, which people will reject and they'll face major financial problems, or they'll go too far with one of the laws they buy from Congress and face a major backlash. Either way it will bring change. It just hasn't happened yet since it's so easy to just bypass their crap completely.
Not all downloading is done just because people want something for free. Hell, I download MP3s of albums that I own, just because it's easier than ripping them. I've got boxes full of PC games that I've bought over the years, but I've probably downloaded at least half of them again since then, just for convenience sake. I get a version without the DRM crap installed, and often one that's patched up to date and doesn't require any long install process even. Of course the industry probably considers all of this piracy anyway.
Allowing those who took the crazy risks to profit from it simply ensures that we'll see the same thing happen again, because people can get rich off of it and keep their profits while the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.
Deregulation of credit default swaps back in late 2000 allowed AIG to basically insure insane amounts of these securities without having to maintain any sort of capital reserve in case the housing market did fall. They were essentially given a license print money, without having to do anything for it. Utterly insane.
You want to compare that to any other Wall St. CEO who spent 50 years on Wall St., doing things like helping to found NASDAQ?
Like I said, quite modest in comparison. You are regurgitating pap for the uninformed who like to think they understand and think this is lavish and that's where tens of billions went.
Nope, sorry.
rd
Modest my ass. Not sure what you're comparing to, but it's still not modest. It's obscenely lavish by damn near any measure that could mean anything to an average person. And that's just what they're reporting so far. His silverware cost almost as much as my mom's house. Wonder how much he managed to squirrel away in accounts that the US government can't even find out about, let alone touch. The kicker is that this incredibly lavish life was funded by stealing from others. While many got paid along the way, he was living like this through theft. I suppose it's easier than robbing liquor stores.
You seem to think that there's some sort of inalienable right to own ideas. There isn't. While you say that the need for copyright law reform doesn't justify piracy, I don't know how you justify the currently ridiculous state of copyright. I think it certainly justifies piracy. I don't necessary pirate everything because of this, as I do understand the need for creators to earn a living, but I also know that the public interest has been all but completely cut out of copyright law by the media industry's lobbying. I don't see why I should give a damn about their interests either.
But that's not my point - legal distinctions aside, "copyright infringement is theft" is used because it is an easy way to make your case. We may not agree with that connection but as it takes root the legal distinctions will be moot.
No, it's an easy way to distort the issue.
Congress has already started to consider the issue with the "Artist Protection and Theft Prevention Act" so are some point the distinction in federal law may cease to exist as well.
Because congress is in the pocket of the media industry that has a vested interest in distorting the issue as much as possible. They're they reason copyright law is so amazingly ridiculous now.
At any rate, the common vernacular leans to theft; and that's the usage, form a non-legal standpoint, that will probably win out as well. Though, in the end, what you call it doesn't change that it it is wrong to use copyrighted material without permission, except in a few very limited cases.
Actually it's illegal to infringe on a copyright. I'm really not convinced that it's wrong to do so given the current state of copyright law. Also, the Supreme Court has already made it clear that copyright infringement is not theft:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
Several of these come down on the side of "intent to deprive", most are ambiguous, and some support the taking of things you don't have the right to, eg. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law says "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent".
I think intuitively both work and any native speaker could prefer either. I'm a native speaker and taking without consent is how I would have defined it if you just asked me directly.
The problem is that historically, there has rarely been a difference. Nevertheless, we've long had the verbal concepts like "stealing my idea" or "stealing my thunder" that only work with the "no consent" interpretation (or with the deprivation of potential gain from your idea or your "thunder" or whatnot, which still applies).
The thing is, something like "stealing my idea" was never considered to actually be theft under the law because you couldn't own an idea. Then when copyright and patent law came around, you were granted a monopoly on the distribution and/or use of an idea, with certain limitations. Those laws defined the violation of these rights as crimes, none of which is referred to as "theft". So theft is not the applicable term here. Copyright infringement is the proper term.
Arguing from a devil's advocate perspective, the "owner" in the above statutes would be the holder of the copyright, and the "property" is their right to exclude others from use of their intellectual property. By using it, you are permanently depriving them of their right to exclude you from using the property - thus, you are permanently depriving the owner of their property.
As I already replied to another post, there's already a much more specific law that covers that scenario, and it calls it "copyright infringement" rather than theft. They could have called it "copyright theft" or just "theft", but they didn't. It's something else altogether.
Can we all please start calling it was it is rather than coming up with tortured analogies and faulty reasoning to try to call it theft?
I would say it depends on how you define property - an argument could be made that you have deprived the owner of the the property - control of the distribution - and so it would be theft. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but see where it could be made.
Sure, except that there's already a much more specific law that covers that scenario, and it calls it "copyright infringement" rather than theft. I'd say that's case closed.
I think you just explained where politicians come from...
I recall similar jokes in that article's comments :)
I bet. I only wish I was more than half-joking :)
However much they want to advertise it is certainly up to them. Not you. Apparently it wasn't advertised enough for you to know about it. It's not even comparable to raffling off a car. They're selling the book, not raffling them off. There's no deception here.
Neat idea that needs to be advertised! Not every one enjoys being tricked into support of charities.
How is it really any of your business what the authors/publishers do with the money they make? If they want to make it public, fine, but they're certainly not remotely obligated to. Do you demand to know what the charities a car dealer gives to before you buy a car from them? What about the other companies or individuals you purchase things from?
You can't focus on the girl specifically. It destroys the whole point of objectivity... what would you do if this was some random 4 year old off a milk carton? Your kid? Miley Cyrus? David the Gnome? In the end, the decision shouldn't be based on who, as so much as what.
So you're saying that pasting a 4 yr old's face onto an adult nude body should be treated exactly the same as a 16 yr old's face on the same body? How about the face of a 16 yr old that has often posed for highly sexually suggestive, yet non-nude pics? Justice that blind is always going to miss the mark. You might as well get rid of all those lesser charges like manslaughter, and 2nd and 3rd degree murder and just treat everything as premeditated first-degree murder. Context doesn't matter after all, right?
I was thinking something like that while reading. I recall a /. story remarking that stupid people don't realize how stupid they are and, in fact, think they are quite brilliant, and rate themselves thusly. Conversely, very intelligent people realize there is so much they don't know, and rate themselves lower than the morons rate themselves.
I think you just explained where politicians come from...
It was only $65 Billion on paper. Remember that the gains were imaginary. The estimate I saw this morning was that there was only $13 Billion in actual principal invested. Most of the money probably went to pay off earlier investors. The rest was spent by Madoff and friends.
That's been the most conservative estimate so far, and the judge acknowledged it and said that he suspects that the true number is far higher.
You do not expect the head of the major exchange to be a Ponzi schemer. Just like a head of police is very unlikely to be a drug dealer.
Sure, but when people keep providing information that suggests that such a thing is true (and really the info did more than just suggest in this case), you should probably really look pretty closely at it.
The reason why third party regulators didn't step in before the FDA is because people back before The Jungle was published were blissfully ignorant. There was no internet, newspapers had a tiny circulation (as in, news of such a thing wouldn't leave town), and a lot of Americans didn't use pre-packaged meat. Remember, this was in 1906, information didn't spread very fast.
I don't think today would be much different. Instead of no information, you'll have a hundred different sources that all conflict on the facts and/or conclusions, and people still won't know who to trust.
For the investment firms, most Americans didn't really care how they were investing. Rather than doing research they decided to hire someone to put their money in a bunch of stocks that they didn't pick out. Thats what carelessness gets you.
They were investing in companies and securities that were supposedly being watched by regulators, and were being given high marks by "independent" ratings agencies. Turns out that the regulators were being paid by those that they were regulating, and were competing to see who could be the most lax with the rules, while ratings agencies were handing out AAA ratings to securities that they couldn't even comprehend. Basically everyone was lying and getting rich by it.
Believe me, If everyone you know who smoked wore a big neon sign that said "I smoke pot sometimes", you'd realize that for most people, which smoke occasionally and responsibly, those kinds of "personality effects" don't happen.
Yes, but if that were the case, then the side-effect of wearing neon signs would probably be enough for me to want to strengthen the ban rather than remove it. :-/
There are some shows I'd be willing to pay for, much as I pay for premium channels when I like their content. I wouldn't even mind them throwing in some ads too if it helps keep the cost lower. This would at least put the decision to keep shows running in the hands of those that watch rather than the network execs that tend to decide that they could make more money with another "reality" show or "are you smarter than a chihuahua?" type game show.
I tuned in every week to watch. Moreover, as pathetic as it is for someone my age, I took part in the e-mail campaign and sent an e-mail to Fox asking them to renew the show. Honestly though, Season 2 was very uneven. Do you disagree? I am very sorry the show was mishandled, because much of the show was very good television, as far as I'm concerned.
As to what the hell do I consider a good show -- as much as I liked SCC, I think Firefly was significantly better. Sorry to say though that my opinion carries very little weight with television executives.
While Firefly was better than SCC, SCC was still a good show. All those "filler episodes" were interesting for character development, and getting some insight into what makes them tick. The resolution to the Riley arc was pretty interesting, even though everyone ragged on them for introducing the character in the first place. People don't generally give a shit about characters or story. They want to see robots killing stuff and lots of explosions. I just want a show with an interesting story.
I thought the characters were developing well between halfway through the first season to halfway through the second. By then things were getting very interesting. Between the multiple machine factions and competing AIs, and what happens to Derek and the way the last episode ended, I was very intrigued. Sucks for it to end like that. Some shows take a little time to really get rolling, but the development they do along the way makes the story so much better. Sad when they don't even get the chance to really hit their stride. This show had a lot of potential that was just beginning to be realized.
Just for the record, Fox execs can burn in hell. They obviously have no clue how to market a show like this, as they proved with Firefly as well. Both could have been great had they not been mishandled and practically sabotaged by Fox. We really need a new way to get shows made. I'd even be willing to pay directly for a good show rather than have it suffer at the hands of a network. How soon can we get rid of the networks and start funding shows through more direct means? It could still be supplemented with ads and I'd be fine with that. It wouldn't need a timeslot though, and wouldn't be axed at the whim of some jackass network exec.
But it IS exactly like that - the basic plot has not changed, ever - always exactly one "good guy" and one "bad guy" sent back in time and they duke it out for survival of humanity. As a very short synopsis, the main plot has not changed.
Sure. If you'd watched more than a few episodes, you'd know that you're completely wrong about the plot.
Its also a problem with the terminator concept that as the terminators spend more and more time as humans and less and less as menacing robots the concept gets boring. The best parts of the first movie were when Arnold had all his skin burned off and he is a very menacing machine at the end.
WTF? How exactly is a robot trying to pass as human less interesting than a walking robo-skeleton that just shoots people? People suck. This is why we can't have nice things...
With all the people here posting about how they only watched a few episodes, or they fast-forwarded through the "boring stuff", it's no wonder that all you people with the attention span of a gerbil couldn't follow the story or understand the meaning of those "filler" episodes. Just because shit wasn't blowing up every five seconds doesn't make it a bad show. I feel bad for you if you just couldn't understand the story. It was well-written and the characters were developing nicely. Unfortunately all most people want to see is 40 minutes of robot fights every week. No wonder TV is mostly shit.