Too bad you couldn't have been on the Operation Fastlink discussion. Mods cut me to ribbons for asserting the same thing.
Yes, there's a little more direct link between an mp3 file and a song... but, say the song was ripped at 128... Craigslist produces lower quality news (from what I hear, I've never read it). Same thing, more or less.
the CEO's may be milking the company for all it is worth, but it is their company, they can drive it into the ground if they want. they aren't doing anything illegal by taking a disproportiantely large pay check
Good. Then, as long as we both acknowledge that they are scum sucking leeches, then we can both agree that they've forfeited any rights they may have which address the good of society.
however someone that copies a program or song that doesn't belong to them is clearly doing something illegal and that has been illegal since the constitution was written
I'm sorry. The Constitution addresses inventors and creators. No where do I see a clause to protect the rights of a self-serving CEO who has set a company up to milk for all its worth. Are our laws doing anything proactive because, you know, the word "proactive" is in the science and arts claus. How about we hold these alleged pirates financially responsible for the support of an inventor or creator of their choice. THAT would be proactive. Instead, we send them through the courts and to prison where it'll cost everyone, INCLUDING the inventors and creators, more tax money to support the alleged pirate. That sounds like lose-lose to me.
If the newspaper publisher's policy was to give away the newspapers, then you'd be right.
Never worked for a newspaper, did you?
They give those things away all the time. We would routinely be shipped 200-300 extra copies to our station alone, every day. Did the newspaper fire any of us for taking our own copy home? No. Did they fire anyone for giving those copies away to their friends and family? No. Did they even care? No. We'd leave stacks of papers in front of stores, or on approved street corners, or at Churches. These were extra copies that no one would've paid for if we didn't leave them lying around.
Maybe the *AA needs to take a lesson from newspapers. They're not going to increase any profits by alienating customers. Newspapers figured out, long ago, that profits are much nicer if everyone has a copy. That one day that they don't have a copy, they may want one, and because they've been privy to free copies in the past, they're more likely to go out and buy one.
I suppose you never had to work growing up, so you never would've learned these finer points of business.
They aren't giving it out, they're SELLING it. For money.
Good. I've bought it. Now quit trying to squirm out of the deal by bring up these legal documents about "copyright". Did they sell it to me? Yes? Good. Let's keep this simple. The more complex you make it, the more it becomes obvious that it's no better than a cheap alley poker game.
What reality should the media companies face up to?
The reality that the product is easily reproduced and copied. The reality that they are not entitled to use my tax dollars to pursue unlimited profits. The reality that the laws, as written and enforced, have no Constitutional basis and are in all reality in clear violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.
but that does not make it OK to steal their product
Lets talk about stealing IP. Go to Subway. Order one sandwich. Just one. Not all 25 or however many they have. Just one. Take it apart. Study it. Go to the store, buy all the proper bread and meats and cheeses yourself and make your own sandwiches. Give them away to your friends and family.
Subway has spent millions analyzing their store layout, their breadmaking, their toppings layout at the counter. Could they sue you for IP theft if you start distributing identical sandwiches? Forget for a moment about patents and copyrights. Don't be pedantic. It is Subway's IP which created that sandwich. You're not selling it. You're buying your own ingredients, making an identical sandwich with your own labor, and giving it away to your friends and family. Shouldn't that be counted as potential lost sales for Subway by your logic?
Where do you draw the line on the enforcement of IP? I don't want to hear legal arguments. I don't want to hear about your interpretation of copyright law. Where do you draw the line on the amount of power that someone else can wield with the authority of your tax money?
You don't. You don't ever draw a line. That's what makes you a sheep following lockstep.
Oh you're talking about you taxes that are used to enforce the law. Well if what is produced is crap as you say, then no one will want to infringe on his copyright anyways.
People collect and trade crap. That's part of society. No one's infringing on copyright, they're just trading crap. My tax dollars, however, are being used to prosecute them for infringing copyright and I don't approve of that expenditure of my tax dollars.
Everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Are my representatives guilty of faithfully representing my interests? Hardly. The case can be made for more than reasonable doubt. When dealing with the government I don't need to justify my suspicion. The government is here to serve the society and, because of the direction of this relationship, they should be subservient to the suspicion of the public.
Copyright infringement, for better or worse, is against the law.
Under what authority is it against the law? The authority which gives Congress its power is the Constitution, which addresses inventors and creators, not the mega-corps who bought the first copy and set up factories to produce the product. Congress has passed laws to take action which is completely out of their jurisdiction. Look over the signing contracts for artists, or, more generally, the employment contracts for anyone who works in an industry which deals in intellectual property. None of those contracts contain verbage which serves to protect the rights of the original inventor or creator. All of those contracts seek to tie up all possible ends in favor of the corporation straight away. You can troll and say,"Don't sign it." That would clearly demonstrate your complete disassociation from reality.
You're probably one of those people who claim that all music is crap, but you go and download all of Britney Spears latest songs.
Ummmm. Yeah. That's it. Don't forget to use your other/. accounts to mod me down.
Actually copying without paying (theft) is not a right. It says so right there in the US Code
Oh? And under what authority was that piece of legislation passed?
and does not mention anything about copying in the Constitution.
Care to point that out? The Constitution contains verbage for inventors and creators. Those are the people who are the furthest from any benefits obtained by raiding some college students. Quit talking out of your ass.
What's stupid but interesting is your theory that you have the right to take as much as you want, without ever asking me in person, for whatever your personal pursuit is. I'm all for IP, but where do you draw the line? You apparently don't. It's entirely a one-sided agreement. You produce crap, you want protection, and you take my money to give yourself that protection.
Where do you draw the line? Shouldn't that line be drawn at my approval if I, as the taxpayer, am the one footing the bill? Or would that be too logical for his kingship?
THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW! LAW ENFORCEMENT GOES AFTER THEM!
It's not my law and it's my right to speak out agains the frivolous use of my taxpayer money to enforce the rights of the yuppie next door to his latest finger-painting. Screw him. His work sucks, his art sucks, and it's not worth my protection.
Also, pursuit of unlimited profits IS a right. It's capitalism
You want to be a hard-nose? Fine. Copying is a right. It's called nature and nature existed long before capitalism.
providing jobs for millions of Americans
Has nothing to do with the DMCA or file-sharing. Artists existed long before any laws.
The movie industry funds a lot of other industries, and perhaps you should take an economics class to learn about it.
I did. I learned about monopolies, cartels, and money-laundering. Perhaps you slept through those classes.
This will come at no net financial cost to you, as you are so generously sharing what is yours. There is no profit involved
This is the heart of it. If you don't want it shared, don't give it out.
I, for one, will not be giving you my address but the media company will happily sell you a CD. It's time to tell the media companies to face up to reality.
I say no. I see it all the time. Every day actually. Companies - big and small - pirating infrastructure software on a daily basis from both big and small companies.
Good thing we're blaming all the lost profits on college kids and basement trolls.
Quite possibly the best perspective I've seen yet.
A new newspaper will be out tomorrow, and they'll still charge $1.75 for it. Who cares about today's copy? Why are we wasting taxpayer resources on today's copy?
ou had 5 volt to 1 volt so it is still recorded as a 0 and if you put it back it may be 6 volt by adding 5 vold then when you bring it back to 0 again it may be 0.01 volt again
That's pass 1. So, again, after repeated passes we should still see random r/w errors as all these little increments stack up. I assure you, my HDs are probably close to a hundred thousand passes on some sectors. If it's all proportional, then the residual effect equilibrates somewhere above 0.1... around 0.3 (for example). Making each bit indistinguishable from the other.
But... as another poster pointed out, it's about polarity, not voltage.
what gives someone else the right to take something that does not belong to them?
That's the way the entire world works. The sooner you come to grips with reality, the sooner we'll all be happier.
but because of it someone somewhere may be going without a paycheck because the company doesn't have enough revenue to pay them due to all the people using the software without paying for it.
The more important question is: Why are media CEOs still raking down $30 million/year + options + bonuses + perks when people are going without paychecks? Clearly the DMCA and "piracy" is a diversionary tactic.
So do you pay your rent/mortgage, cable, utilities, phone, etc. bills with good will and happy thoughts? Why are you so opposed to paying people for producing a product?
You're propagating the false myth that imprisoning file-sharers will result in a pay increase for the inventors and creators, who are the just recipients of the laws' protection.
It's a false myth. Accept it. The laws aren't helping anyone to pay bills. The laws are only helping CEOs and Directors buy bigger ranches.
I haven't taken anything from them. I'm simply ensuring that it's not enforced on me or my friends.
You want to make a real stand?
No. I don't. I like d&b, electro, ambient, trance. I don't want to make a stand. I just want to listen to music which artists are happy to produce. I don't want to have to worry that the web server, which allows me to listen to my own PAID FOR cd collection at work, will land me in prison.
Put your money in the right hands.
Y'know, if they'd quite scraping 35% out of my paychecks and another 6% at the register to fund these guido goons, maybe I could. You are familiar with,"Keep the farmer busy while stealing his chickens"? Taxes keep us busy so the mega-corps can fleece us blind.
If this is all about the Constitution and social responsibility... what gives Adobe the right to unlimited profit from society? Just because you scribble some code on the sidewalk and can convince a bunch of yahoos that it's the most prophetic thing since the Old Testament doesn't entitle you to unlimited profit. Eventually, society says,"Okay... you've made enough. The rest is free."
Please remember, software is their product, it is the sole means of how they make money, and when you pirate sofware, you are walking into their place of business and taking the product off the shelf and walking out without paying for it.
Why don't they care about their product to protect distribution proactively? Like... don't put it in a form where everyone can copy it?
I'm sorry if you don't know how to do that. It's not my problem. My business is 100% intellectual property. Essentially, I have no product. I don't see anyone shelling out tax dollars to protect me. Why? Because it's understood that there's only one real solution: if you don't want it mainstream, then don't put it out in public.
Yes, I agree, some of the companies out there are unscrupulous, hell, I don't like GM,I think that they make crappy cars, would it be ok if I walked onto a car lot and drove off with a car?
No, because you've now deprived someone else of a car which cost about $3000 in materials and labor to build.
Forget about intellectual property for a moment. Just pretend it doesn't exist (if I can do it, and it's my primary business, so can you). Without intellectual property, what's the loss of the value of a CD? About $0.0000001. One song of a CD is about 1/10th that. So, even if he did distribute 100000 copies, that's still a loss of about 1 cent.
revenue losses due to the overwhelming popularity of piracy
How gullible are you? You got laid off because idiots had to go back and rewrite their accounting ledgers for the last 7 years because they'd been cooking the books.
And the laws aren't helping much because only a small percentage of file sharers have been fined.
How disjointed are your thought processes? The laws aren't working for the inventors and creators because they're working for Tony Brown.
In the meantime, consider the "artificial monopoly" that keeps millions of folks in business.
Fake. Artists will always make art. Painters will always paint. Musicians will always make music. Programmers will always write programs. Society will always survive. If it were any other way we'd be extinct or living in caves.
The business plan - relying on licensing and copyright protection - is the most viable one for major software projects.
There's a difference between the easiest way to do things and the right way to do things. The dividing line is in morality, not legality.
You simply can't produce works like...say, Doom 3, without having the ability to pay all those folks for their work.
They could. Too bad we're so far down the "mine! all mine!" patent/copyright route that we don't know how anymore.
Just because you don't want to pay for the software doesn't mean you have a right to steal it.
If you leave $100 in the middle of your front lawn don't come crying to me when someone else picked it up. The media companies know they're dealing in a product which has unlimited supply. Why the farcical act of surprise when people copy it?
Ever read a product service plan? They don't cover you hitting your stereo with a telsa coil. But you bought the stereo and should be able todo whatever you want with it.
Including copy the stereo and make a reproduction of it. But the stereo industry doesn't have to worry about that because parts and skill for copying a piece of electronic equipment is very difficult. The media companies KNOW that the starting materials and skills for copying their product are readily available. There's no surprise here.
It's the media companies which need to get their heads out of the clouds. They're high on unlimited profits.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad you couldn't have been on the Operation Fastlink discussion. Mods cut me to ribbons for asserting the same thing.
Yes, there's a little more direct link between an mp3 file and a song... but, say the song was ripped at 128... Craigslist produces lower quality news (from what I hear, I've never read it). Same thing, more or less.
the CEO's may be milking the company for all it is worth, but it is their company, they can drive it into the ground if they want. they aren't doing anything illegal by taking a disproportiantely large pay check
Good. Then, as long as we both acknowledge that they are scum sucking leeches, then we can both agree that they've forfeited any rights they may have which address the good of society.
however someone that copies a program or song that doesn't belong to them is clearly doing something illegal and that has been illegal since the constitution was written
I'm sorry. The Constitution addresses inventors and creators. No where do I see a clause to protect the rights of a self-serving CEO who has set a company up to milk for all its worth. Are our laws doing anything proactive because, you know, the word "proactive" is in the science and arts claus. How about we hold these alleged pirates financially responsible for the support of an inventor or creator of their choice. THAT would be proactive. Instead, we send them through the courts and to prison where it'll cost everyone, INCLUDING the inventors and creators, more tax money to support the alleged pirate. That sounds like lose-lose to me.
If the newspaper publisher's policy was to give away the newspapers, then you'd be right.
Never worked for a newspaper, did you?
They give those things away all the time. We would routinely be shipped 200-300 extra copies to our station alone, every day. Did the newspaper fire any of us for taking our own copy home? No. Did they fire anyone for giving those copies away to their friends and family? No. Did they even care? No. We'd leave stacks of papers in front of stores, or on approved street corners, or at Churches. These were extra copies that no one would've paid for if we didn't leave them lying around.
Maybe the *AA needs to take a lesson from newspapers. They're not going to increase any profits by alienating customers. Newspapers figured out, long ago, that profits are much nicer if everyone has a copy. That one day that they don't have a copy, they may want one, and because they've been privy to free copies in the past, they're more likely to go out and buy one.
I suppose you never had to work growing up, so you never would've learned these finer points of business.
They aren't giving it out, they're SELLING it. For money.
Good. I've bought it. Now quit trying to squirm out of the deal by bring up these legal documents about "copyright". Did they sell it to me? Yes? Good. Let's keep this simple. The more complex you make it, the more it becomes obvious that it's no better than a cheap alley poker game.
What reality should the media companies face up to?
The reality that the product is easily reproduced and copied. The reality that they are not entitled to use my tax dollars to pursue unlimited profits. The reality that the laws, as written and enforced, have no Constitutional basis and are in all reality in clear violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.
but that does not make it OK to steal their product
Lets talk about stealing IP. Go to Subway. Order one sandwich. Just one. Not all 25 or however many they have. Just one. Take it apart. Study it. Go to the store, buy all the proper bread and meats and cheeses yourself and make your own sandwiches. Give them away to your friends and family.
Subway has spent millions analyzing their store layout, their breadmaking, their toppings layout at the counter. Could they sue you for IP theft if you start distributing identical sandwiches? Forget for a moment about patents and copyrights. Don't be pedantic. It is Subway's IP which created that sandwich. You're not selling it. You're buying your own ingredients, making an identical sandwich with your own labor, and giving it away to your friends and family. Shouldn't that be counted as potential lost sales for Subway by your logic?
Where do you draw the line on the enforcement of IP? I don't want to hear legal arguments. I don't want to hear about your interpretation of copyright law. Where do you draw the line on the amount of power that someone else can wield with the authority of your tax money?
You don't. You don't ever draw a line. That's what makes you a sheep following lockstep.
Oh you're talking about you taxes that are used to enforce the law. Well if what is produced is crap as you say, then no one will want to infringe on his copyright anyways.
/. accounts to mod me down.
People collect and trade crap. That's part of society. No one's infringing on copyright, they're just trading crap. My tax dollars, however, are being used to prosecute them for infringing copyright and I don't approve of that expenditure of my tax dollars.
Everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Are my representatives guilty of faithfully representing my interests? Hardly. The case can be made for more than reasonable doubt. When dealing with the government I don't need to justify my suspicion. The government is here to serve the society and, because of the direction of this relationship, they should be subservient to the suspicion of the public.
Copyright infringement, for better or worse, is against the law.
Under what authority is it against the law? The authority which gives Congress its power is the Constitution, which addresses inventors and creators, not the mega-corps who bought the first copy and set up factories to produce the product. Congress has passed laws to take action which is completely out of their jurisdiction. Look over the signing contracts for artists, or, more generally, the employment contracts for anyone who works in an industry which deals in intellectual property. None of those contracts contain verbage which serves to protect the rights of the original inventor or creator. All of those contracts seek to tie up all possible ends in favor of the corporation straight away. You can troll and say,"Don't sign it." That would clearly demonstrate your complete disassociation from reality.
You're probably one of those people who claim that all music is crap, but you go and download all of Britney Spears latest songs.
Ummmm. Yeah. That's it. Don't forget to use your other
Actually copying without paying (theft) is not a right. It says so right there in the US Code
Oh? And under what authority was that piece of legislation passed?
and does not mention anything about copying in the Constitution.
Care to point that out? The Constitution contains verbage for inventors and creators. Those are the people who are the furthest from any benefits obtained by raiding some college students. Quit talking out of your ass.
And the Government investigates
Just how naive are you? Or how much of a troll?
Stupid, but interesting.
What's stupid but interesting is your theory that you have the right to take as much as you want, without ever asking me in person, for whatever your personal pursuit is. I'm all for IP, but where do you draw the line? You apparently don't. It's entirely a one-sided agreement. You produce crap, you want protection, and you take my money to give yourself that protection.
Where do you draw the line? Shouldn't that line be drawn at my approval if I, as the taxpayer, am the one footing the bill? Or would that be too logical for his kingship?
THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW! LAW ENFORCEMENT GOES AFTER THEM!
It's not my law and it's my right to speak out agains the frivolous use of my taxpayer money to enforce the rights of the yuppie next door to his latest finger-painting. Screw him. His work sucks, his art sucks, and it's not worth my protection.
Also, pursuit of unlimited profits IS a right. It's capitalism
You want to be a hard-nose? Fine. Copying is a right. It's called nature and nature existed long before capitalism.
providing jobs for millions of Americans
Has nothing to do with the DMCA or file-sharing. Artists existed long before any laws.
The movie industry funds a lot of other industries, and perhaps you should take an economics class to learn about it.
I did. I learned about monopolies, cartels, and money-laundering. Perhaps you slept through those classes.
This will come at no net financial cost to you, as you are so generously sharing what is yours. There is no profit involved
This is the heart of it. If you don't want it shared, don't give it out.
I, for one, will not be giving you my address but the media company will happily sell you a CD. It's time to tell the media companies to face up to reality.
I say no. I see it all the time. Every day actually. Companies - big and small - pirating infrastructure software on a daily basis from both big and small companies.
Good thing we're blaming all the lost profits on college kids and basement trolls.
Sheesh.
Quite possibly the best perspective I've seen yet.
A new newspaper will be out tomorrow, and they'll still charge $1.75 for it. Who cares about today's copy? Why are we wasting taxpayer resources on today's copy?
And without law enforcement support, what's that get you?
It would teach you the value of "take care of your own sh_t and quit whining for the taxpayers to cover for you".
it shows others that its a "real" crime
I don't care how big of a lobby you stack up. It will never be a real crime.
By your logic, a large enough lobby could make chewing gum a real crime, or riding a bicycle a real crime, or using Linux a real crime.
ou had 5 volt to 1 volt so it is still recorded as a 0 and if you put it back it may be 6 volt by adding 5 vold then when you bring it back to 0 again it may be 0.01 volt again
That's pass 1. So, again, after repeated passes we should still see random r/w errors as all these little increments stack up. I assure you, my HDs are probably close to a hundred thousand passes on some sectors. If it's all proportional, then the residual effect equilibrates somewhere above 0.1... around 0.3 (for example). Making each bit indistinguishable from the other.
But... as another poster pointed out, it's about polarity, not voltage.
what gives someone else the right to take something that does not belong to them?
That's the way the entire world works. The sooner you come to grips with reality, the sooner we'll all be happier.
but because of it someone somewhere may be going without a paycheck because the company doesn't have enough revenue to pay them due to all the people using the software without paying for it.
The more important question is: Why are media CEOs still raking down $30 million/year + options + bonuses + perks when people are going without paychecks? Clearly the DMCA and "piracy" is a diversionary tactic.
So do you pay your rent/mortgage, cable, utilities, phone, etc. bills with good will and happy thoughts? Why are you so opposed to paying people for producing a product?
You're propagating the false myth that imprisoning file-sharers will result in a pay increase for the inventors and creators, who are the just recipients of the laws' protection.
It's a false myth. Accept it. The laws aren't helping anyone to pay bills. The laws are only helping CEOs and Directors buy bigger ranches.
However... that's their right.
And it's my right to rip/burn/copy.
Who are you to take that away from them
I haven't taken anything from them. I'm simply ensuring that it's not enforced on me or my friends.
You want to make a real stand?
No. I don't. I like d&b, electro, ambient, trance. I don't want to make a stand. I just want to listen to music which artists are happy to produce. I don't want to have to worry that the web server, which allows me to listen to my own PAID FOR cd collection at work, will land me in prison.
Put your money in the right hands.
Y'know, if they'd quite scraping 35% out of my paychecks and another 6% at the register to fund these guido goons, maybe I could. You are familiar with,"Keep the farmer busy while stealing his chickens"? Taxes keep us busy so the mega-corps can fleece us blind.
so it indeed is a loss for adobe
If this is all about the Constitution and social responsibility... what gives Adobe the right to unlimited profit from society? Just because you scribble some code on the sidewalk and can convince a bunch of yahoos that it's the most prophetic thing since the Old Testament doesn't entitle you to unlimited profit. Eventually, society says,"Okay... you've made enough. The rest is free."
But in the case of software you're violating the EULA which is a contract
An EULA is as much of a contract as the boxer short lint on my butt. Lawyers have been called "dung-scrapers".
Please remember, software is their product, it is the sole means of how they make money, and when you pirate sofware, you are walking into their place of business and taking the product off the shelf and walking out without paying for it.
Why don't they care about their product to protect distribution proactively? Like... don't put it in a form where everyone can copy it?
I'm sorry if you don't know how to do that. It's not my problem. My business is 100% intellectual property. Essentially, I have no product. I don't see anyone shelling out tax dollars to protect me. Why? Because it's understood that there's only one real solution: if you don't want it mainstream, then don't put it out in public.
Yes, I agree, some of the companies out there are unscrupulous, hell, I don't like GM,I think that they make crappy cars, would it be ok if I walked onto a car lot and drove off with a car?
No, because you've now deprived someone else of a car which cost about $3000 in materials and labor to build.
Forget about intellectual property for a moment. Just pretend it doesn't exist (if I can do it, and it's my primary business, so can you). Without intellectual property, what's the loss of the value of a CD? About $0.0000001. One song of a CD is about 1/10th that. So, even if he did distribute 100000 copies, that's still a loss of about 1 cent.
revenue losses due to the overwhelming popularity of piracy
How gullible are you? You got laid off because idiots had to go back and rewrite their accounting ledgers for the last 7 years because they'd been cooking the books.
And the laws aren't helping much because only a small percentage of file sharers have been fined.
How disjointed are your thought processes? The laws aren't working for the inventors and creators because they're working for Tony Brown.
Has software piracy become a right? Perhaps sometime when I wasn't looking?
Software copying became a right when pursuit of unlimited profits using taxpayer subsidized guido goons became a right.
In the meantime, consider the "artificial monopoly" that keeps millions of folks in business.
Fake. Artists will always make art. Painters will always paint. Musicians will always make music. Programmers will always write programs. Society will always survive. If it were any other way we'd be extinct or living in caves.
The business plan - relying on licensing and copyright protection - is the most viable one for major software projects.
There's a difference between the easiest way to do things and the right way to do things. The dividing line is in morality, not legality.
You simply can't produce works like...say, Doom 3, without having the ability to pay all those folks for their work.
They could. Too bad we're so far down the "mine! all mine!" patent/copyright route that we don't know how anymore.
Just because you don't want to pay for the software doesn't mean you have a right to steal it.
If you leave $100 in the middle of your front lawn don't come crying to me when someone else picked it up. The media companies know they're dealing in a product which has unlimited supply. Why the farcical act of surprise when people copy it?
I'd want the help of law enforcement if someone was stealing things from my place of business
Every time you tell a joke, you're redistributing someone else's IP. What are YOU doing to make it right?
Ever read a product service plan? They don't cover you hitting your stereo with a telsa coil. But you bought the stereo and should be able todo whatever you want with it.
Including copy the stereo and make a reproduction of it. But the stereo industry doesn't have to worry about that because parts and skill for copying a piece of electronic equipment is very difficult. The media companies KNOW that the starting materials and skills for copying their product are readily available. There's no surprise here.
It's the media companies which need to get their heads out of the clouds. They're high on unlimited profits.