they have done so far is Google Groups2 - it looks totally awfull if you dare change font size, they try to reformat the text etc - and while it probably looked cool on the screen of the guy who did this, it looks like crap on mine (and they don't seem to care) - now the old groups looked fine... oh well.
I am so sick of this red herring fallacy. There is always something more worthwhile to spend our money on.
Then its not a fallacy. Just be honest: We don't really give a shit about others dying.
How can the government give money to the military when our schools and hospitals are so desperately in need of cash?
Because you need a bit army to illegally invade all the small defenceless countries of the world, and it wouldn't be possible if you actually had an educated population. Yes, of course we should provide money to other causes, but your argument is the top of a slippery slope that ends with the conclusion that we should devote ALL our money to the most worthy cause, with NO money for any other cause. This is clearly silly.
Its not silly from a humane viewpoint: Then the problems would be solved one by one and in the end you'd have money for fun.
Plus, it's THEIR MONEY. They can spend it however they want.
And we have a right to have an opinion about that.
I stole movies. Then they gave me Netflix, and that was more convenient and reasonable, so I don't download movies anymore. I stole music. Then they gave me iTuenes music store, and that was more convenient and reasonable, so I don't do that anymore. Now I download TV shows. Charge me $5 and episode for good quality, everlasting rights, and I'll happily pay for that.
Since downloading isn't stealing you probably didn't do any of that, but is a shill for the (corrupt?) industry.
TV shows exist for one reason, to make money for networks. They do this through ad revenue, which is tied to ratings. Higher ratings mean higher costs for a 30 second spot. However, fragment your viewing audience, say by spinning off part of them (who would likely be demographically different than those who don't download) and you've got a problem with your revenue stream.
No. When you know who watches you can target it better, and then they can make more money by showing the right adds to the right people.
Furthermore, allowing off network viewing of a show would not only hurt a network's bottom line, but also its brand image. People know FOX is channel 7, or 11, but what channel is it when you're downloading from a website?
Irrelvant. Channels are on the way out, its an obsolete concept. You only need to know where to buy your downloads, and those who advertise need to know where to sell them. Simple.
The problem of course is that no one will pay to watch a show they don't trust to be good, so this scenario only works for established shows everyone likes.
And by that token nobody will ever see a movie unless its based on established shows... tsk tsk
But the onus is on you, the individual recipient. If you don't tell people you don't want something, don't fault them for sending it.
Except that is bullshit. Then you would have to find millions of people and tell them to stop spamming you!? Not to mention, they all know they are amoral creeps, so they all hide under false alias - and if you do find one and tell them you don't want it all they think is "hey, that's a working email address!"
To think that commercial spam is "free speech" is only something that could happen in the greedy capital on the planet (and on Ferenginar)
... how are they going to rig elections over there if they get a better voting system? Next thing you know they'll be gettig rid of the electoral college... naaa.
...it's a safe bet that most will do whatever makes them the most money, regardless of right or wrong, and unfortunately the upper management of said companies could be considered to be in breach of their fiduciary duty if they didn't.
Then that duty is amoral. It isn't in the law is it?
No. Stealing 1000 DVD's would put you in felony territory in pretty much all states; that is to say, you get to spend some time in a mound-me-in-the-ass-state-prison, you lose the right to vote, you will have problems getting firearms legally (if that's your thing), and you will have great difficulties finding an employer willing to hire you. In the US, it really sucks to be a former felon trying to lead a normal life.
Yeah, the US is world renowned for its good crime universities - turning out criminal after criminal.
Is this a change in tactic for both of the *AA orgs? I was under the impression that up to now, they had only sued the uploaders or the people facilitating the sharing.
If you are using Bittorent you are facilitating the sharing.
Slashdot Mirror
...a webmaster can redirect people on his own site? Wow, the horror. (You can't place redirects on someone elses pages)
...I'll help them, until then it's Legos!
(Or as they say in the native tounge "Legoer")
Perhaps they are afraid that the US will invade them if they don't comply?
they have done so far is Google Groups2 - it looks totally awfull if you dare change font size, they try to reformat the text etc - and while it probably looked cool on the screen of the guy who did this, it looks like crap on mine (and they don't seem to care) - now the old groups looked fine... oh well.
I am so sick of this red herring fallacy. There is always something more worthwhile to spend our money on.
Then its not a fallacy. Just be honest: We don't really give a shit about others dying.
How can the government give money to the military when our schools and hospitals are so desperately in need of cash?
Because you need a bit army to illegally invade all the small defenceless countries of the world, and it wouldn't be possible if you actually had an educated population.
Yes, of course we should provide money to other causes, but your argument is the top of a slippery slope that ends with the conclusion that we should devote ALL our money to the most worthy cause, with NO money for any other cause. This is clearly silly.
Its not silly from a humane viewpoint: Then the problems would be solved one by one and in the end you'd have money for fun.
Plus, it's THEIR MONEY. They can spend it however they want.
And we have a right to have an opinion about that.
Oh he will be nailed in the final episode ;)
Tsk tsk.
...just look at Slashdot where the most popular pasttime is modding down people who's opinon you disagree with... tsk tsk.
There are folders
Bzzz. No. But thanks for playing.
Child you need to learn how to behave.
...it you could log into GMail without being logged into to Google.... and if only the introduced folders and got of their weird no folder notion.
I find the notion that any AOL users would actually like Carnivale surprising.
Problem: EVERYONE wants to make residual income, it requires no effort and is very lucrative.
Its also immoral and should be made illegal on the stop. Remember kids: VOTE for people who get this!
That is not the case.
This is unlikely to happen because television and movie rights are absurdly complicated, doubly so for defunct programs.
Which is basically crap - if they can figure it out for broadcast they could figure it out here.
I stole movies. Then they gave me Netflix, and that was more convenient and reasonable, so I don't download movies anymore. I stole music. Then they gave me iTuenes music store, and that was more convenient and reasonable, so I don't do that anymore. Now I download TV shows. Charge me $5 and episode for good quality, everlasting rights, and I'll happily pay for that.
Since downloading isn't stealing you probably didn't do any of that, but is a shill for the (corrupt?) industry.
TV shows exist for one reason, to make money for networks. They do this through ad revenue, which is tied to ratings. Higher ratings mean higher costs for a 30 second spot. However, fragment your viewing audience, say by spinning off part of them (who would likely be demographically different than those who don't download) and you've got a problem with your revenue stream.
No. When you know who watches you can target it better, and then they can make more money by showing the right adds to the right people.
Furthermore, allowing off network viewing of a show would not only hurt a network's bottom line, but also its brand image. People know FOX is channel 7, or 11, but what channel is it when you're downloading from a website?
Irrelvant. Channels are on the way out, its an obsolete concept. You only need to know where to buy your downloads, and those who advertise need to know where to sell them. Simple.
The problem of course is that no one will pay to watch a show they don't trust to be good, so this scenario only works for established shows everyone likes.
And by that token nobody will ever see a movie unless its based on established shows... tsk tsk
....if there was no DRM and it was in a format that I would like, ie DIVX/SVCD.
But the onus is on you, the individual recipient. If you don't tell people you don't want something, don't fault them for sending it.
Except that is bullshit. Then you would have to find millions of people and tell them to stop spamming you!? Not to mention, they all know they are amoral creeps, so they all hide under false alias - and if you do find one and tell them you don't want it all they think is "hey, that's a working email address!"
To think that commercial spam is "free speech" is only something that could happen in the greedy capital on the planet (and on Ferenginar)
... how are they going to rig elections over there if they get a better voting system? Next thing you know they'll be gettig rid of the electoral college... naaa.
Isn't that the guy from West Wing? ;)
...it's a safe bet that most will do whatever makes them the most money, regardless of right or wrong, and unfortunately the upper management of said companies could be considered to be in breach of their fiduciary duty if they didn't.
Then that duty is amoral. It isn't in the law is it?
Pretty much yes.
No. Stealing 1000 DVD's would put you in felony territory in pretty much all states; that is to say, you get to spend some time in a mound-me-in-the-ass-state-prison, you lose the right to vote, you will have problems getting firearms legally (if that's your thing), and you will have great difficulties finding an employer willing to hire you. In the US, it really sucks to be a former felon trying to lead a normal life.
Yeah, the US is world renowned for its good crime universities - turning out criminal after criminal.
>BitTorrent
Is this a change in tactic for both of the *AA orgs? I was under the impression that up to now, they had only sued the uploaders or the people facilitating the sharing.
If you are using Bittorent you are facilitating the sharing.