the movie business is based on human psychology: people have some sort of unexplainable need to congregate in groups and experience something transcendent. no home theatre system can replicate this need, ever, no matter how impressive the tech. enjoy your dolby 100" home threatre... by yourself, in stony cold isolation. yuck
the need that moviehouses satisfy is basically the need to go to church. moviehouses satisfy pretty much what churches satisfied in the 1800s. people need to go out, sit in a group, and experience something dramatic. understand that, or understand nothing of the subject matter. fact is: the movie house business will wiggle up and wiggle down due to various business changes, but the basic underlying business model just isn't going away, and is in no way threatened by home theatres and the internet
people want to go to the theatre to see movies. beginning and end of the story. if hollywood screws up and drives moviehouses out of business, so what? the demand is still there, and someone will capitalize on that with new theatres. the point is: the underlying business model is still sound, no matter what detail you can point to in terms of numers jiggling up or down in minor ways
no one wants to sit in stony cold isoltion by themselves in some home theatre, no matter how impressive the tech. really. its psychological. moviehouses are kind of like what churches were for the 18th century, satisfying the same pseudosocial need people have to congregate and experience something transcendant in groups. its a human need that moviehouses supply, and the need for which is not going to abate
that's the next horizon for moviegoing, none of which you can do at home (cheaply)
what you describe is very personal, and very historical. coming from times square myself, believe me, i can describe similar changes, notably: the death of the porn theatres in the 1990s due to porn going private with the rise of vcrs and dvd and the internet. which is wonderful. sure, some freaks in new york decry the disneyfication of times square, but for me, prostitutes and heroin addicts and midnight cowboy is not a wonderful environment. no more seedy sticky theatres. yeah!
meanwhile, all of the changes you describe are just unimportant churn. everything changes. just deal with it. there is no grand death of some undescribable quality that is so important to you. in terms of quantifiable terms, your complaints are completely unimportant. you have a lot of nostalgia, but so what?
the whole story is built around the changes in moviegoing. its a nice weepie that nicely tracks what you just wrote above. but it has nothing to do with a valid commentary on the moviegoing BUSINESS, which, by the way, is all about giving people what they want, and people seem to be gettig what they want, by financial returns. and financial returns is a better indicator of the health of moviegoing than any nostalgic yarn of yours. you're just fixated on the past. which is fine. but it renders your judgment on PRAGMATIC reality invalid
here's the financial reality, which is all that matters, and its all upside:
which is a shame, because downey jr is the perfect actor for this story line arc. look to iron man 3 for that story. and if they don't ever do the alcoholism story line, they are fools, because this is a fantastic goldmine, in terms of a good story, and in terms of the perfect actor for the role, like mickey rourke for the wrestler
its just a bunch of geeks hanging out in a bar chewing the fat. none of this is important. which makes the subject matter completely valid
in that context, the only thing more irrelevant than this story, is some comment attached to the irrelevant story earnestly informing us all about how irrelevant it all is
we get it, its irrelevant. but that renders your thinking one more degree of irrelevancy. so why did you even comment?
psychologists have proven that the oohs and aahs and giggles from the audience heighten the movie going experience
factor in the negatives of cell phones, teenagers yapping, and babies, and you still have a net positive
granted, some people, such as yourself, are hyperaware of the insults to your attention to the movie, but you are a psychologically a small minority, as most people just aren't as sensitive to random interruptions like you are
develop some thicker skin, or stay home. where you can watch your movie in stony cold isolation. which is somehow superior to you for some reason
that's not that contentious a statement of mine, nor that original an observation either
as for the squid, eh. it's very lovecraftian, and, as you demonstrate, can be a blank canvas all sorts of symbolism, implied, imagined, explicit, or otherwise. but, honeslty, i really don't think the squid cuts it, even in the source material. unlike bombadil, who is sort of a connection to the wider story of middle earth, perhaps if the watchman universe were expanded outwards like the universe of middle earth was with silmarillion and such, then maybe the squid could develop more legitimacy. but otherwise, fuck the squid. sorry fanboys, that's just my opinion, you don't have to take me seriously, i'm not presenting myself as some sort of authority, so don't react to my words as if i were, just my opinion
bombadil was a sort of connection to the larger story of middle earth. i read the silmarillion, i love tolkien's work
and how about this: we're talking about adopting a book to a movie, which i don't think jackson needs any defending: he hit the ball out of the park. please don't segue the conversation into one of how i've insulted your romantic relationship with the source of material. of course bombadil is important. but we're not talking about raping the source material for the hell of it, we're talking about adopting the material to a movie. in THAT context, there is no need for you slight my judgment that bombadil is expendable
in the context of fanboydom, saying bombadil is expendable is treason. in the context of adopting the book to a movie, saing bombadil is expendable is good sense. notice something here please: the actual fucking context of our actual fucking conversation. whic is it? small hint: it involves making a movie. so: don't change the subject matter, and then use that as a reason to insult me
so i'll start taking slights from random self-important yahoos on comment boards seriously when you show me your credentials from tolkien establishing yourself as the mystical authority on determining lotr fanboy stature. until then: fuck off fanboy, your out of context, and out of line
there's always cranks, which is what you clearly are
fact is, they could make movie tickets $15/ head, have crying babies and cell phones all the time, and movie houses would still do gangbustersd business
why?
because its still better than sitting at home watching vin diesel on a 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself
sure, you can talk about home theatre systems, which most people can't afford, and you can talk about inviting your friends over, which is not something easy to coordinate
and finally, psychologists have shown that all of the oohs and aahs and giggles in the audience heighten your experience, so over all, its a win, in spite of all the complaints you can muster
tv was supposed to kill theatres, then vcrs, then dvds, the internet, then hd theatre... bullshit, bullshit, bullshit
the movie going experience has a long and profitable future ahead of it, in spite of all the whiny cranks like yourself
because, in the end, your spoken words don't actually match your actions (that is, you whine, but still go back to the theatre nayways), or, if you actually don't go to the movie theatres for what are actually minor complaints, then you are just a vanishing small minority that can be safely ignored: the chronically unsatisfiable crank
the history of file sharing clients is more obfuscation. what would happen if more ants were stepped on is the ants would use a better client. where would it come from? from those same legions of poor but technologically astute teenagers
its cat and mouse, but every time the cat catches the mouse, the mouse comes back with thicker armor, until the mouse goes about its way completely unaffected by the cat
that moviemakers gut the mythology of a work in order to bring it onto screen
they didn't do that here
sure, they got rid of the squid, but peter jackson also got rid of mr. bombadil from lotr and no one seems to give him that much flak for that. both the squid and mr. bombadil are kind of completely out of context of the stories they inhabit, so really, no big deal
obviously, the filmmakers, directors, writers: they had passion for the work. but that's actually the source of the criticism they get: that it was TOO committed to the material. the issue was that they made the movie a slavish devotion to a frame-by-frame reading of the material, which was a herculean task, and also mostly successful, but only on that measure
and yet they get flak for it: that it was hollow, eeriely emotionally empty for being a frame-by-frame remake. that's been the substance of a lot of critical reviews
the lesson: you can't satisfy everyone. if you are adopting a major literary work to film, just go with your gut, be prepared to piss off the fanboy fundamentalists, and be prepared to go over the heads of a lot of the audience. because if you pander too much to the fanbots or the general public, you either water down what makes the material great, or you make a cult movie that you will still be hypercriticized for, because, in the end, there just is no satisfying the fundamentalist fanboys
the best anyone can do is hope for success like peter jackson and lotr. he's pretty much the gold standard now for adapting much loved literary works to screen. meanwhile, watchmen was received lukewarm critical, and lukewarm popular
that my attitude is responsible for what riaa assholes do?
so we should submit to the spanish inquisition because they are brutal, nevermind their entire rationale is bullshit?
nah, its all my fault jews and muslims were tortured to death. why? because i say their rationale is bullshit and we should ignore their tactics. no, we should submit to their wishes and demands, simply because they are cruel
the p2p client can be built so no one can catch you. and say they DO catch you. ok, they caught you, not the other 10 billion POOR teenagers hungry for media and understanding the tech better than any ip lawyer (ie, watch what the next client can do), and not really caring that much if they get caught (since teenagers have acted since time immemorial)
its an arms race, and those defending can only lose
furthermore, do you really thinking harsh punishments for sharing files wil hold up to moral scrutiny from other sectors of society (please leave your dystopian cynicism at the door, and ask yourself this question honestly: no, they won't tolerate harsh punishment for filesharing, since the moral bankruptcy of the whole charade is wearing thin)
plenty of big budget movies to come. because movie houses aren't dying. the tv was supposed to kill them. the vcr was supposed to kill them. the dvd was supposed to kill them. the internet was supposed to kill them. all the time, people kept packing movie houses. mainly because watching vin diesel on a 17 inch monitor in your basement just isn't the same thing
as for games: WoW could charge nothing for its client and still rake in big bucks. it controls the access to an online arena. there's only one arena. but yes, games where you play by yourself are free now
if some great silver age content is smouldering in some warehouse because assholes don't understand that they would get more ancillary revenue from that material if people could actually fucking use it, then liberate it
"Countries are considering laws to remove your internet privileges for file sharing."
you do understand this is impossible and ridiculous right? the technology can just obfuscate the activity and masquerade it as allowed activity. as long as it is legal in some other country, game over. on the internet, legal somewhere is legal everywhere
"People are having to waste countless time and resources fighting them and working around the laws."
you always have to pay some sort of tax for assholes in your life who don't get it. nothing changes this reality
"And we don't even know what great technologies the law has stopped. The next YouTube? The next Google?"
we have yahoo and google. if the technologyi sreally useful to someone, do you really think some stupid law written by fools who don't understand the technology will stop it? your supposition is logically impossible. no one, especially clueless idiots, make laws against things they don't understand, nevermid no one else. the best the idiots can do is actually shut down the internet. and no one will allow that. with the internet, its all or nothing. and any attempts to gum up the works is just routed around, masked, obfuscated, bounced, whatever
"Just because they can't win doesn't mean we don't lose."
this is just the state of the world. no one has ever lived, or who has ever lived, who is not limited in some way by the fools on their environment. by the same token, each of us is enabled by other people in our enviroment as well. the other people in your life represent sources of enabling you, and sources of stroppping you. you just have to learn how to navigate your world
since they are real world objects. you can steal an object
as for purchasing his digital content, this is called the tip jar. nothing wrong with that. but there's no coercion involved. you do it because you want, to, not because you are forced to. totally different dynamic
as for the rest of what you say, you are completely wrong. the way it works economically now is a band puts there stuff out there, for free. and they make money when people show up at their concerts and pay a covercharge/ entrace fee/ ticket to get in. and they do advertising. and they do other specialty ancillary stream for revenue
but anything on the web, anything digital, is nothing more than the equivalent of a sales flier. theres no way to monetize that, so its just free advertising
all we have are a bunch of old people who don't understand the implications of a new technology
copyright is nothing more than damage to be routed around, and that's what the internet does
let them pass any law, appoint any stooge they want. why does anyone here care?
the whole of intellectual property is simply defunct and unenforceable
now, if they actually could enforce the laws they pass, then this would be an issue
but they can't. they simply can't. they can bankrupt the occasional grandmother or soccer mom, but to what end?
the technology routes around whatever they do
game over
copyright has died. it does matter what anyone thinks, it matters what the technology allows. and the technology allows unfilterable file trading. no one can stop that. no law on earth, that does also destroy the technology as well, which no one wants to do
all that is happening is a bunch of people live in denial about the truth of a new technological reality
HA. Typical non-evil mastermind thinking! you will never get anywhere thinking like that! The question is, "SO which lawyer do you want to mount this on?"
stupid prediction, 1980s style: computers would reduce the use of paper in offices
fact: paper use in offices has gone right on up, as people seem to print all sorts of crap, as my boss who prints out articles for bathroom reading can attest
stupid prediction, 1990s style: the internet would render cities obsolete
fact: cities have continues to grow, as life in the country is pretty boring, although real estate prices in manhattan are finally beginning to follow the rest of the country down (but not in the tank)
stupid prediction, 2000s style: university classrooms are obsolete
MY prediction: 18-21 year olds are interested in socializing and sex. if you cut their legs off and left them in a desert, they will claw their way to the nearest coed dorm, and then slough themselves to university classrooms the next day, since they need somewhere to sit and update their facebook page on their netbook
but shoes serve a function beyond performance in the real world: protection from sharp stones and hot asphalt for the bottom of the feet, and for the knees, a little springy give to protect from pounding concrete
there is an editorial in the new york times today saying that entire branch of the military should be shut down, since the marines, the army, the navy: they all have their own fighter wings
the airforce is redundant. of course it won't actually be shut down, but its usefulness is certainly doubtful. i think it should be decimated, and become nothing but a shell to contain the icbms and other missiles, a few other esoteric military projects, and nasa should be moved into its domain. all the other large countries have their space wings under the military, i think the usa should to, if for no other reason than increasing funding for nasa
and then, at some distant future date when spacefaring is more common, we can talk about how the space marines are nothing more than a wing of the air force, the navy is a quaint historical oddity whose functions are now served by the coast guard, and the army should be folded into the world government police force
Slashdot Mirror
the movie business is based on human psychology: people have some sort of unexplainable need to congregate in groups and experience something transcendent. no home theatre system can replicate this need, ever, no matter how impressive the tech. enjoy your dolby 100" home threatre... by yourself, in stony cold isolation. yuck
the need that moviehouses satisfy is basically the need to go to church. moviehouses satisfy pretty much what churches satisfied in the 1800s. people need to go out, sit in a group, and experience something dramatic. understand that, or understand nothing of the subject matter. fact is: the movie house business will wiggle up and wiggle down due to various business changes, but the basic underlying business model just isn't going away, and is in no way threatened by home theatres and the internet
people want to go to the theatre to see movies. beginning and end of the story. if hollywood screws up and drives moviehouses out of business, so what? the demand is still there, and someone will capitalize on that with new theatres. the point is: the underlying business model is still sound, no matter what detail you can point to in terms of numers jiggling up or down in minor ways
no one wants to sit in stony cold isoltion by themselves in some home theatre, no matter how impressive the tech. really. its psychological. moviehouses are kind of like what churches were for the 18th century, satisfying the same pseudosocial need people have to congregate and experience something transcendant in groups. its a human need that moviehouses supply, and the need for which is not going to abate
that's the next horizon for moviegoing, none of which you can do at home (cheaply)
what you describe is very personal, and very historical. coming from times square myself, believe me, i can describe similar changes, notably: the death of the porn theatres in the 1990s due to porn going private with the rise of vcrs and dvd and the internet. which is wonderful. sure, some freaks in new york decry the disneyfication of times square, but for me, prostitutes and heroin addicts and midnight cowboy is not a wonderful environment. no more seedy sticky theatres. yeah!
meanwhile, all of the changes you describe are just unimportant churn. everything changes. just deal with it. there is no grand death of some undescribable quality that is so important to you. in terms of quantifiable terms, your complaints are completely unimportant. you have a lot of nostalgia, but so what?
go watch cinema paradiso
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Paradiso
the whole story is built around the changes in moviegoing. its a nice weepie that nicely tracks what you just wrote above. but it has nothing to do with a valid commentary on the moviegoing BUSINESS, which, by the way, is all about giving people what they want, and people seem to be gettig what they want, by financial returns. and financial returns is a better indicator of the health of moviegoing than any nostalgic yarn of yours. you're just fixated on the past. which is fine. but it renders your judgment on PRAGMATIC reality invalid
here's the financial reality, which is all that matters, and its all upside:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
in iron man 2. at least accord to downey jr:
http://www.superheroflix.com/news/NEo0LvouqGg1rr
which is a shame, because downey jr is the perfect actor for this story line arc. look to iron man 3 for that story. and if they don't ever do the alcoholism story line, they are fools, because this is a fantastic goldmine, in terms of a good story, and in terms of the perfect actor for the role, like mickey rourke for the wrestler
its just a bunch of geeks hanging out in a bar chewing the fat. none of this is important. which makes the subject matter completely valid
in that context, the only thing more irrelevant than this story, is some comment attached to the irrelevant story earnestly informing us all about how irrelevant it all is
we get it, its irrelevant. but that renders your thinking one more degree of irrelevancy. so why did you even comment?
psychologists have proven that the oohs and aahs and giggles from the audience heighten the movie going experience
factor in the negatives of cell phones, teenagers yapping, and babies, and you still have a net positive
granted, some people, such as yourself, are hyperaware of the insults to your attention to the movie, but you are a psychologically a small minority, as most people just aren't as sensitive to random interruptions like you are
develop some thicker skin, or stay home. where you can watch your movie in stony cold isolation. which is somehow superior to you for some reason
with huge chunks missing
if they were to do the whole book frame-by-frame, you'd have a 78 hour movie
that's not that contentious a statement of mine, nor that original an observation either
as for the squid, eh. it's very lovecraftian, and, as you demonstrate, can be a blank canvas all sorts of symbolism, implied, imagined, explicit, or otherwise. but, honeslty, i really don't think the squid cuts it, even in the source material. unlike bombadil, who is sort of a connection to the wider story of middle earth, perhaps if the watchman universe were expanded outwards like the universe of middle earth was with silmarillion and such, then maybe the squid could develop more legitimacy. but otherwise, fuck the squid. sorry fanboys, that's just my opinion, you don't have to take me seriously, i'm not presenting myself as some sort of authority, so don't react to my words as if i were, just my opinion
bombadil was a sort of connection to the larger story of middle earth. i read the silmarillion, i love tolkien's work
and how about this: we're talking about adopting a book to a movie, which i don't think jackson needs any defending: he hit the ball out of the park. please don't segue the conversation into one of how i've insulted your romantic relationship with the source of material. of course bombadil is important. but we're not talking about raping the source material for the hell of it, we're talking about adopting the material to a movie. in THAT context, there is no need for you slight my judgment that bombadil is expendable
in the context of fanboydom, saying bombadil is expendable is treason. in the context of adopting the book to a movie, saing bombadil is expendable is good sense. notice something here please: the actual fucking context of our actual fucking conversation. whic is it? small hint: it involves making a movie. so: don't change the subject matter, and then use that as a reason to insult me
so i'll start taking slights from random self-important yahoos on comment boards seriously when you show me your credentials from tolkien establishing yourself as the mystical authority on determining lotr fanboy stature. until then: fuck off fanboy, your out of context, and out of line
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/business
after factoring in advertising (-) and dvd (+), the whole thing should be a wash: they should make a small profit or small loss
so it wasn't a success, but it wasn't a failure. just an exercise in moving a lot of dollars around to little overall effect
be glad it wasn't a failure, but also be glad it wasn't a success: if it was a success, we would have to deal with "watchmen ii: electric boogaloo"
(whoa! holy double '80s reference batman!)
there's always cranks, which is what you clearly are
fact is, they could make movie tickets $15/ head, have crying babies and cell phones all the time, and movie houses would still do gangbustersd business
why?
because its still better than sitting at home watching vin diesel on a 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself
sure, you can talk about home theatre systems, which most people can't afford, and you can talk about inviting your friends over, which is not something easy to coordinate
and finally, psychologists have shown that all of the oohs and aahs and giggles in the audience heighten your experience, so over all, its a win, in spite of all the complaints you can muster
tv was supposed to kill theatres, then vcrs, then dvds, the internet, then hd theatre... bullshit, bullshit, bullshit
the movie going experience has a long and profitable future ahead of it, in spite of all the whiny cranks like yourself
because, in the end, your spoken words don't actually match your actions (that is, you whine, but still go back to the theatre nayways), or, if you actually don't go to the movie theatres for what are actually minor complaints, then you are just a vanishing small minority that can be safely ignored: the chronically unsatisfiable crank
the history of file sharing clients is more obfuscation. what would happen if more ants were stepped on is the ants would use a better client. where would it come from? from those same legions of poor but technologically astute teenagers
its cat and mouse, but every time the cat catches the mouse, the mouse comes back with thicker armor, until the mouse goes about its way completely unaffected by the cat
that moviemakers gut the mythology of a work in order to bring it onto screen
they didn't do that here
sure, they got rid of the squid, but peter jackson also got rid of mr. bombadil from lotr and no one seems to give him that much flak for that. both the squid and mr. bombadil are kind of completely out of context of the stories they inhabit, so really, no big deal
obviously, the filmmakers, directors, writers: they had passion for the work. but that's actually the source of the criticism they get: that it was TOO committed to the material. the issue was that they made the movie a slavish devotion to a frame-by-frame reading of the material, which was a herculean task, and also mostly successful, but only on that measure
and yet they get flak for it: that it was hollow, eeriely emotionally empty for being a frame-by-frame remake. that's been the substance of a lot of critical reviews
the lesson: you can't satisfy everyone. if you are adopting a major literary work to film, just go with your gut, be prepared to piss off the fanboy fundamentalists, and be prepared to go over the heads of a lot of the audience. because if you pander too much to the fanbots or the general public, you either water down what makes the material great, or you make a cult movie that you will still be hypercriticized for, because, in the end, there just is no satisfying the fundamentalist fanboys
the best anyone can do is hope for success like peter jackson and lotr. he's pretty much the gold standard now for adapting much loved literary works to screen. meanwhile, watchmen was received lukewarm critical, and lukewarm popular
so the final commentary is: meh, its ok, whatever
whats your point?
that my attitude is responsible for what riaa assholes do?
so we should submit to the spanish inquisition because they are brutal, nevermind their entire rationale is bullshit?
nah, its all my fault jews and muslims were tortured to death. why? because i say their rationale is bullshit and we should ignore their tactics. no, we should submit to their wishes and demands, simply because they are cruel
pffffffft
the p2p client can be built so no one can catch you. and say they DO catch you. ok, they caught you, not the other 10 billion POOR teenagers hungry for media and understanding the tech better than any ip lawyer (ie, watch what the next client can do), and not really caring that much if they get caught (since teenagers have acted since time immemorial)
its an arms race, and those defending can only lose
furthermore, do you really thinking harsh punishments for sharing files wil hold up to moral scrutiny from other sectors of society (please leave your dystopian cynicism at the door, and ask yourself this question honestly: no, they won't tolerate harsh punishment for filesharing, since the moral bankruptcy of the whole charade is wearing thin)
plenty of big budget movies to come. because movie houses aren't dying. the tv was supposed to kill them. the vcr was supposed to kill them. the dvd was supposed to kill them. the internet was supposed to kill them. all the time, people kept packing movie houses. mainly because watching vin diesel on a 17 inch monitor in your basement just isn't the same thing
as for games: WoW could charge nothing for its client and still rake in big bucks. it controls the access to an online arena. there's only one arena. but yes, games where you play by yourself are free now
if some great silver age content is smouldering in some warehouse because assholes don't understand that they would get more ancillary revenue from that material if people could actually fucking use it, then liberate it
"Countries are considering laws to remove your internet privileges for file sharing."
you do understand this is impossible and ridiculous right? the technology can just obfuscate the activity and masquerade it as allowed activity. as long as it is legal in some other country, game over. on the internet, legal somewhere is legal everywhere
"People are having to waste countless time and resources fighting them and working around the laws."
you always have to pay some sort of tax for assholes in your life who don't get it. nothing changes this reality
"And we don't even know what great technologies the law has stopped. The next YouTube? The next Google?"
we have yahoo and google. if the technologyi sreally useful to someone, do you really think some stupid law written by fools who don't understand the technology will stop it? your supposition is logically impossible. no one, especially clueless idiots, make laws against things they don't understand, nevermid no one else. the best the idiots can do is actually shut down the internet. and no one will allow that. with the internet, its all or nothing. and any attempts to gum up the works is just routed around, masked, obfuscated, bounced, whatever
"Just because they can't win doesn't mean we don't lose."
this is just the state of the world. no one has ever lived, or who has ever lived, who is not limited in some way by the fools on their environment. by the same token, each of us is enabled by other people in our enviroment as well. the other people in your life represent sources of enabling you, and sources of stroppping you. you just have to learn how to navigate your world
since they are real world objects. you can steal an object
as for purchasing his digital content, this is called the tip jar. nothing wrong with that. but there's no coercion involved. you do it because you want, to, not because you are forced to. totally different dynamic
as for the rest of what you say, you are completely wrong. the way it works economically now is a band puts there stuff out there, for free. and they make money when people show up at their concerts and pay a covercharge/ entrace fee/ ticket to get in. and they do advertising. and they do other specialty ancillary stream for revenue
but anything on the web, anything digital, is nothing more than the equivalent of a sales flier. theres no way to monetize that, so its just free advertising
all we have are a bunch of old people who don't understand the implications of a new technology
copyright is nothing more than damage to be routed around, and that's what the internet does
let them pass any law, appoint any stooge they want. why does anyone here care?
the whole of intellectual property is simply defunct and unenforceable
now, if they actually could enforce the laws they pass, then this would be an issue
but they can't. they simply can't. they can bankrupt the occasional grandmother or soccer mom, but to what end?
the technology routes around whatever they do
game over
copyright has died. it does matter what anyone thinks, it matters what the technology allows. and the technology allows unfilterable file trading. no one can stop that. no law on earth, that does also destroy the technology as well, which no one wants to do
all that is happening is a bunch of people live in denial about the truth of a new technological reality
HA. Typical non-evil mastermind thinking! you will never get anywhere thinking like that!
The question is, "SO which lawyer do you want to mount this on?"
stupid prediction, 1980s style: computers would reduce the use of paper in offices
fact: paper use in offices has gone right on up, as people seem to print all sorts of crap, as my boss who prints out articles for bathroom reading can attest
stupid prediction, 1990s style: the internet would render cities obsolete
fact: cities have continues to grow, as life in the country is pretty boring, although real estate prices in manhattan are finally beginning to follow the rest of the country down (but not in the tank)
stupid prediction, 2000s style: university classrooms are obsolete
MY prediction: 18-21 year olds are interested in socializing and sex. if you cut their legs off and left them in a desert, they will claw their way to the nearest coed dorm, and then slough themselves to university classrooms the next day, since they need somewhere to sit and update their facebook page on their netbook
became unprofitable not because of anything the new york times did wrong, but because changing times made them obsolete
kind of like the air force
yeah sure, go barefoot
but shoes serve a function beyond performance in the real world: protection from sharp stones and hot asphalt for the bottom of the feet, and for the knees, a little springy give to protect from pounding concrete
there is an editorial in the new york times today saying that entire branch of the military should be shut down, since the marines, the army, the navy: they all have their own fighter wings
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/opinion/21kane.html
the airforce is redundant. of course it won't actually be shut down, but its usefulness is certainly doubtful. i think it should be decimated, and become nothing but a shell to contain the icbms and other missiles, a few other esoteric military projects, and nasa should be moved into its domain. all the other large countries have their space wings under the military, i think the usa should to, if for no other reason than increasing funding for nasa
and then, at some distant future date when spacefaring is more common, we can talk about how the space marines are nothing more than a wing of the air force, the navy is a quaint historical oddity whose functions are now served by the coast guard, and the army should be folded into the world government police force
any movie starring denise richards as a nuclear physicist has to be scraping the bottom of the barrel