All those thieving consumers out there need to be punished. I can only hope that the MPAA members carry forward with step #2 on their route to newfound profits: Stop releasing films, period. That will show those thieving consumers.
Stop 1 - Make movies Stop 2 - Don't release them to the public Stop 3........ Stop 4 profit!/sarcasm
Wow, if these guys has spent a little more time pulling the wings off of flies when they were kids, they might not be so prone to anthropomorphizing a machine. The quality of mankind to find feelings for things that really shouldn't be given any is truly amazing, but perhaps this best explains some sports fans ability to watch their team lose year after year.
I'm pretty sure that they don't have feelings for a floor jack, or won't until it can move on its own. Now is the time for people to think about and begin establishing 'rights' for machines... WTF?
The difference is that not everyone *HAS* to have a passport. Making a mandatory national ID is wrong. Passports are your ID internationally, not for use when buying cigarettes. A national ID would lead to ever more invasive tracking of citizen's activities. This is wrong.
While there may be laws in Thailand against such pictures, there are none in most of the rest of the world. King or not, you cannot regulate the entire network. Perhaps by law, YouTube must remove such offending pictures in their Thailand based servers, but if anyone, I mean ANYONE thinks they can regulate the entire Internet... they are in for a surprise.
In fact, since this story has come out in the open now, you are sure to see even more pictures of the king in all sorts of not-so-pleasant-for-him ways.
I guess they have to try until they learn....
Queue the viral news stories with funny pictures of the king in 3... 2... 1..
We can get memos and emails to leak out of redmond, D.C., Apple etc. but not the offices of the RIAA or their associated law partner's offices?
It would only take one memo or email showing that they knew a defendant was not guilty or that they have no real proof or that they know they are fishing for information in court to seriously harm their cause.
I think (and IANAL) that if this could be shown once, it would be proper to ask for all communications between the RIAA and their lawyers regarding any particular case in discovery. That should pretty much shut down their tactics.
And you think that the financial equivalent of this isn't happening as we type? Debt and cost of entry to the market is as good as a bullet in many cases. It is the gun that the RIAA uses to control the distribution of content in order to line their pockets now.
Mickey Mouse copyrights no longer support Walt, they support a business. That is not what they were meant to do. When Walt died, copyrights are gone, end of story. business interests should not be able to inherit the rights of individuals. If Walt sold the copyrights to his company, they should still fall to public domain when he dies, no arguing. If you want to argue that he should be able to bequeath such benefits to his children, I might compromise at 5 years past death, but at that point they fall to public domain. Copyright is to protect the content creator in order to allow them to profit from their art, not a business, not their heirs, not some person who has never even met the artist. In my view, business owned copyrights should be pushed to public domain after a maximum of 10 years, or revert to the original artist(s) if they are still alive.
at least in my opinion. Remember, my opinion is worth what you paid for it.
Nobody is against copyright per se. What people are against is how copyright is used to damage the principle for which it was founded. Artists should have copyright to their work. Distribution companies should not. If you write some really nifty software you should have copyrights to it, not a patent unless it seems to revolutionize the software industry or some part of it.
What people (/. in general) are against is using that copyright authority to run roughshod over the public with it. Nobody really wants musicians to give their art away for free. What we see today is a backlash on the business model of the RIAA and their member companies. I don't think that there are many people that aren't willing to pay a modest/reasonable price for a CD. They do however want to be able to use that CD and its content where ever they want to, including loaning it to a friend, reselling it, or making backup copies so they don't have to purchase it multiple times. These issues have nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with how the **AA (and consequently the government) abuse copyright law to line their own pockets.
The people who write OSS software deserve the copyrights to that, and I often contribute to those projects that I feel I use and enjoy. Hell, I even once bought a copy of winzip. As far as patents go, even the USPTO/courts are starting to realize that the patent situation is totally out of control, and harming business interests as well as damaging the public good that it was meant to foster. Notice that recent rulings may invalidate the patents that Verizon holds that were used to nearly drive Vonage out of business. That is exactly the opposite of what they were meant to do.
To say that the F/OSS community in general doesn't like copyright or patents is absurd. What they don't like (and I'm taking liberties in speaking for them) is how they are used to drive unjust revenues at the expense of the public and the original content producers. iTMS is evidence that people will pay for content if it is usable, though I have some questions about how ultimately useful iTunes DRM'ed music actually is.
If patents and copyrights were applied in a logical and fair manner, producing the productivity and benefits they are supposed to, nobody on/. would have much of a problem. This truly is a case of the people speaking with one mind, even if there are people who can't figure out what is being said.
I personally would vote for subsidies to small businesses (VARs) that provide free or low cost training to home user's with kids on how to secure their home networks or PCs in order to protect themselves and kids from unwanted spam, and malicious websites. That means everything from mandating user friendly books on how to install and maintain software tools etc. to subsidies for Linux distributors who put up web pages that explain how to protect themselves. It wouldn't take much effort to get this going in a way that it becomes common knowledge. The money most needed is for public awareness campaigns. Everyone knows how expensive that sort of advertising is and I think that the government could well sponsor that with subsidies so as to avoid promoting one product over another. Its always political, but any news of it all would increase awareness of how to use tools and equipment that would help protect users from malicious entities on the Internet.
Remember what was done when conmen were conning old people out of their savings? This isn't much different in its roots. Prey on the naive to take their money or resources. (warning MS bash coming) MS and others have done the worst thing that they can possibly do; they proclaim their product to be the safest OS yet, or safest way to surf etc. This is false and misleading, and leads to bewilderment by users. They can't trust anyone it seems and they don't know where to look or who to ask on how to protect themselves. Many blindly think that having a 6 month old copy of Symantec means they will be safe. Many think that Vista will be better, and that reloading the OS will clean out any virii that are on their machine. Many believe that there is no way to stop malicious software or protect against it.
The government could do several things to sponsor awareness, promote it... alas sadly, that will never get them any money so it is difficult to get them to see what needs to be done. Businesses only want to do such things in as much as it will further increase their revenues. I think that the F/OSS community at large has the most to gain by an awareness program.
Yet another attempt to regulate the Internet. Apparently, governments need help to understand that there is no way to line their pockets by regulating the internet, and no matter what they make into law, it will never apply to people in other countries.
They need to spend money on educating users, and supporting people that will help users protect themselves from the threats that will continue to happen. Just as MS or antivirus software vendors: as soon as they plug one hole another appears. Spam is even worse. They were never able to stop people from sending junk mail to your mail box, they can't stop people from stealing ID information, and they will never be able to control the bits on the Internet to stop emails from getting to your inbox with laws.
Parents need to protect their own children, and admittedly, they could use some sound solid advice. Why don't government groups spend time with that problem?
But, a little more on topic, YouTube's response is just silly, threatening the internet? Is this supposed to become the tech people's "Think of the Children" meme? No offense but if YouTube goes down the internet won't be affected at all. However the accusation is also silly, YouTube pushing football (non-American) in order to raise it's profile. YouTube needs a bigger profile? I mean, is there really any person with internet access for the last couple years, or who simply watches the news, who doesn't know about YouTube? The statement may sount silly, but look at it like this: if litigation is the only reaction that content businesses use, it will kill the Internet content business, and likely hurt the usefulness of the Internet as we know it today. Rather than litigate, content owners should be finding ways to get their content out to users at a reasonable cost. Youtube and Google can offer them many services in doing just that. But if content owners simply want to restrict access, overcharge users, and misuse the courts it will turn into a bigass game of Internet Whack-a-Mole(TM) As for the copyright issues wasn't there some law that said that people posting to a site (text) were responsible for their posts, not the hosting company? I may be wrong about that but if there was such a law would not this fall under it? This is the safe harbor portion of the DMCA, and IIRC as long as Youtube does take down content when requested, they are protected by this.
Seems like a good idea, anyway. What's the point of having a debate if you don't let people debate the debate? I think this is a good trend. Once the debate is recorded, let it be debated over and over again on the Internet. Perhaps this will one day lead to more honest campaigns and candidates. I'd like to see each of the debaters face the record of their campaign, by being presented with whatever the Internet has to say about them, including their voting history (what they supported and didn't) for the last 15 years or so. I would hope that this would keep the debates and election from being about the buzzword issues only.
If the VT shootings hadn't happened, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.
If nobody read his comics, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.
There are many reasons that this episode shouldn't have happened, but people are afraid and over-react to 'err on the side of caution'. For many, better safe than sorry is the catchphrase of the week. They don't stop to think, or try to figure out what might be the level headed way to handle things.... like ask why they are talking about guns at work!
Now, why is it that the US in particular is so fearful? That is the better question, not 'is this guy going to shoot people?' For fscks sake, my retired mother has a 9mm which she uses at the gun range. I don't think that anyone will fear that she is a terrorist. Why should people think anyone that talks about guns is going to go on a killing rampage. If they were going to go kill people, the probably wouldn't be talking openly about guns!! There are millions of guns in the US and save for a few whackjobs, they generally are doing no harm to anyone. (street/drug/mafia crimes not counted) The point is that not everyone with a gun is a murderer. Not everyone from the middle east is a suicide bomber in training.
While this case may well end up bad for TPB (unless they can show that the MPAA was involved) it won't stop the next group from starting a TPB-like service. It will take more money than its worth to keep shutting down copyright infringement systems and people who use them.
In the end, DRM does not work, won't work. What the entertainment industries need to do is come up with a better product, better pricing, or both. They are trying to sell content to an audience that has about a 16 second attention span, and they haven't really done anything to deserve that full 16 seconds never mind something to convince people to spend their money in the way that the **AA wants them to. Despite any legislation that might be enacted or in place now, people will keep doing what they are doing. Until the entertainment industry changes their business plan the only thing that they have to look forward to is more court time and cost, more loss of face to the public, ever decreasing revenues.
Whether that is fair or not is now a moot point. It's happening, and all the **AAs of the world seem to be doing is fanning the flames that are lapping at the foundations of their business. There have been a few positive changes so far, but that is far outweighed by the harm they are doing to their own businesses. IWaM(tm) won't ever work, it's a suckers game, not much better for the player than 3 card monty. Sure, TPB might be in for some 'rough seas' in the coming months, but while everyone is busy with that case, more file sharing will continue unabated. Until the entertainment industries learn that they are behaving very foolishly and get on with creating real value products to earn revenue with, they will continue to burn bridges with the public, their customers, and their shareholders.
Good luck to them, they are going to need it to avoid having to learn the 'did you want large fries with that' sentence.
You might try to ask this question on some of the robotics yahoo groups. They are filled with people that do this kind of thing for a hobby and spend a great deal of time thinking about such things not to mention that they do their work with small home brew or cheap microprocessor systems.
People that make their own CNC machines know a LOT about monitoring position of things etc. This might be your best bet for initial and longer term answers and help about how to accomplish what you wish to do.
One piece of advice though is think through what you want to ask. When you ask, explain the system in some detail, your thoughts on what might be monitored, how, and what your end goal is with your monitoring. They may have suggestions that go beyond your knowledge scope if you explain more about the system so they can think about the problem with all the requisite information.
Perhaps it's bad form to reply to your own post but I was just thinking. Even before the **AAs revenues started their downward spiral, the sneaker-net file sharing was in full force. That is to say that today's college students are making no more of a dent in their business revenue than college students of 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Any college student with 25000 songs in their MP3 collection wouldn't have paid for that many if buying them was the only method of acquiring them.
I continue to fail to see the **AA's point. They have yet to prove that file sharing is what has ruined or is ruining their business. The auto industry, airline industry, buggy whip industry, dotcom industry and many others have gone through bleak times. Why should the entertainment industry be immune? Why should they deserve federal protection measures? I want to know why my tax dollars are being spent to support a broken business model and the people who profit from it. Tax dollars are spent on legislation, courts, law enforcement etc. The entertainment industry is probably spending more of our tax dollars on this impossible quest of copyright infringement litigation than they could possibly have made if no copyright infringement ever occurred.
Internet Whack-a-Mole is a game that you can not win, not even if congress tries to help you. The problem is that when the **AA tries to play IWaM(TM) they don't have enough hammers, and never will. Colleges are one of those places where people who want to share music can and will share music. Refer back to the sneaker-net theory of file sharing:
One student and 25 of their best friends join a pool. The pool members make a list of the music they would like to have a copy of. Each of the pool members buys a music CD from the list and 25 blank CDs. After making the requisite 25 copies, they all get together for some beer and a CD swap party. If done with discretion, nobody at the RIAA will ever know. The quality of the music is high, there is no record of the transaction that the school or ISP can hand over to the RIAA, there is no way to detect this copyright infringement. BTW, 26 x 25 = a loss of 650 CD sales in one night, in one location.
If the RIAA continues on their path to destitution, this is how music will be shared in the future, the same as it was shared in the past. IWaM is stupid, stupid, STUPID.
If the RIAA member companies were to do something that would make their product (distribution of someone else's content) more desirable, or valuable then they would again see rising revenues. Their business is outdated, and dying. Congress can't save them. God himself (if he exists) couldn't even save that business model.
Slashdot Mirror
All those thieving consumers out there need to be punished. I can only hope that the MPAA members carry forward with step #2 on their route to newfound profits: Stop releasing films, period. That will show those thieving consumers.
........ /sarcasm
Stop 1 - Make movies
Stop 2 - Don't release them to the public
Stop 3
Stop 4 profit!
Wow, if these guys has spent a little more time pulling the wings off of flies when they were kids, they might not be so prone to anthropomorphizing a machine. The quality of mankind to find feelings for things that really shouldn't be given any is truly amazing, but perhaps this best explains some sports fans ability to watch their team lose year after year.
I'm pretty sure that they don't have feelings for a floor jack, or won't until it can move on its own. Now is the time for people to think about and begin establishing 'rights' for machines... WTF?
The difference is that not everyone *HAS* to have a passport. Making a mandatory national ID is wrong. Passports are your ID internationally, not for use when buying cigarettes. A national ID would lead to ever more invasive tracking of citizen's activities. This is wrong.
I think it's more like Yes, No, Neither
GWBush was depicted as a monkey and that never hurt his ratings.... oh, wait, nevermind
While there may be laws in Thailand against such pictures, there are none in most of the rest of the world. King or not, you cannot regulate the entire network. Perhaps by law, YouTube must remove such offending pictures in their Thailand based servers, but if anyone, I mean ANYONE thinks they can regulate the entire Internet... they are in for a surprise.
In fact, since this story has come out in the open now, you are sure to see even more pictures of the king in all sorts of not-so-pleasant-for-him ways.
I guess they have to try until they learn....
Queue the viral news stories with funny pictures of the king in 3... 2... 1..
We can get memos and emails to leak out of redmond, D.C., Apple etc. but not the offices of the RIAA or their associated law partner's offices?
It would only take one memo or email showing that they knew a defendant was not guilty or that they have no real proof or that they know they are fishing for information in court to seriously harm their cause.
I think (and IANAL) that if this could be shown once, it would be proper to ask for all communications between the RIAA and their lawyers regarding any particular case in discovery. That should pretty much shut down their tactics.
Can someone tell me why this doesn't happen?
Okay, you can go back under the rock you came out from under.
And you think that the financial equivalent of this isn't happening as we type? Debt and cost of entry to the market is as good as a bullet in many cases. It is the gun that the RIAA uses to control the distribution of content in order to line their pockets now.
Mickey Mouse copyrights no longer support Walt, they support a business. That is not what they were meant to do. When Walt died, copyrights are gone, end of story. business interests should not be able to inherit the rights of individuals. If Walt sold the copyrights to his company, they should still fall to public domain when he dies, no arguing. If you want to argue that he should be able to bequeath such benefits to his children, I might compromise at 5 years past death, but at that point they fall to public domain. Copyright is to protect the content creator in order to allow them to profit from their art, not a business, not their heirs, not some person who has never even met the artist. In my view, business owned copyrights should be pushed to public domain after a maximum of 10 years, or revert to the original artist(s) if they are still alive.
at least in my opinion. Remember, my opinion is worth what you paid for it.
/. would have much of a problem. This truly is a case of the people speaking with one mind, even if there are people who can't figure out what is being said.
Nobody is against copyright per se. What people are against is how copyright is used to damage the principle for which it was founded. Artists should have copyright to their work. Distribution companies should not. If you write some really nifty software you should have copyrights to it, not a patent unless it seems to revolutionize the software industry or some part of it.
What people (/. in general) are against is using that copyright authority to run roughshod over the public with it. Nobody really wants musicians to give their art away for free. What we see today is a backlash on the business model of the RIAA and their member companies. I don't think that there are many people that aren't willing to pay a modest/reasonable price for a CD. They do however want to be able to use that CD and its content where ever they want to, including loaning it to a friend, reselling it, or making backup copies so they don't have to purchase it multiple times. These issues have nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with how the **AA (and consequently the government) abuse copyright law to line their own pockets.
The people who write OSS software deserve the copyrights to that, and I often contribute to those projects that I feel I use and enjoy. Hell, I even once bought a copy of winzip. As far as patents go, even the USPTO/courts are starting to realize that the patent situation is totally out of control, and harming business interests as well as damaging the public good that it was meant to foster. Notice that recent rulings may invalidate the patents that Verizon holds that were used to nearly drive Vonage out of business. That is exactly the opposite of what they were meant to do.
To say that the F/OSS community in general doesn't like copyright or patents is absurd. What they don't like (and I'm taking liberties in speaking for them) is how they are used to drive unjust revenues at the expense of the public and the original content producers. iTMS is evidence that people will pay for content if it is usable, though I have some questions about how ultimately useful iTunes DRM'ed music actually is.
If patents and copyrights were applied in a logical and fair manner, producing the productivity and benefits they are supposed to, nobody on
I personally would vote for subsidies to small businesses (VARs) that provide free or low cost training to home user's with kids on how to secure their home networks or PCs in order to protect themselves and kids from unwanted spam, and malicious websites. That means everything from mandating user friendly books on how to install and maintain software tools etc. to subsidies for Linux distributors who put up web pages that explain how to protect themselves. It wouldn't take much effort to get this going in a way that it becomes common knowledge. The money most needed is for public awareness campaigns. Everyone knows how expensive that sort of advertising is and I think that the government could well sponsor that with subsidies so as to avoid promoting one product over another. Its always political, but any news of it all would increase awareness of how to use tools and equipment that would help protect users from malicious entities on the Internet.
Remember what was done when conmen were conning old people out of their savings? This isn't much different in its roots. Prey on the naive to take their money or resources. (warning MS bash coming) MS and others have done the worst thing that they can possibly do; they proclaim their product to be the safest OS yet, or safest way to surf etc. This is false and misleading, and leads to bewilderment by users. They can't trust anyone it seems and they don't know where to look or who to ask on how to protect themselves. Many blindly think that having a 6 month old copy of Symantec means they will be safe. Many think that Vista will be better, and that reloading the OS will clean out any virii that are on their machine. Many believe that there is no way to stop malicious software or protect against it.
The government could do several things to sponsor awareness, promote it... alas sadly, that will never get them any money so it is difficult to get them to see what needs to be done. Businesses only want to do such things in as much as it will further increase their revenues. I think that the F/OSS community at large has the most to gain by an awareness program.
Yet another attempt to regulate the Internet. Apparently, governments need help to understand that there is no way to line their pockets by regulating the internet, and no matter what they make into law, it will never apply to people in other countries.
They need to spend money on educating users, and supporting people that will help users protect themselves from the threats that will continue to happen. Just as MS or antivirus software vendors: as soon as they plug one hole another appears. Spam is even worse. They were never able to stop people from sending junk mail to your mail box, they can't stop people from stealing ID information, and they will never be able to control the bits on the Internet to stop emails from getting to your inbox with laws.
Parents need to protect their own children, and admittedly, they could use some sound solid advice. Why don't government groups spend time with that problem?
Actually, I made that up during a conversation at the water cooler at work. We manage to come up with a good one now and then.
It gets kind of ridiculous.
If the VT shootings hadn't happened, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.
If nobody read his comics, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.
There are many reasons that this episode shouldn't have happened, but people are afraid and over-react to 'err on the side of caution'. For many, better safe than sorry is the catchphrase of the week. They don't stop to think, or try to figure out what might be the level headed way to handle things.... like ask why they are talking about guns at work!
Now, why is it that the US in particular is so fearful? That is the better question, not 'is this guy going to shoot people?' For fscks sake, my retired mother has a 9mm which she uses at the gun range. I don't think that anyone will fear that she is a terrorist. Why should people think anyone that talks about guns is going to go on a killing rampage. If they were going to go kill people, the probably wouldn't be talking openly about guns!! There are millions of guns in the US and save for a few whackjobs, they generally are doing no harm to anyone. (street/drug/mafia crimes not counted) The point is that not everyone with a gun is a murderer. Not everyone from the middle east is a suicide bomber in training.
While this case may well end up bad for TPB (unless they can show that the MPAA was involved) it won't stop the next group from starting a TPB-like service. It will take more money than its worth to keep shutting down copyright infringement systems and people who use them.
In the end, DRM does not work, won't work. What the entertainment industries need to do is come up with a better product, better pricing, or both. They are trying to sell content to an audience that has about a 16 second attention span, and they haven't really done anything to deserve that full 16 seconds never mind something to convince people to spend their money in the way that the **AA wants them to. Despite any legislation that might be enacted or in place now, people will keep doing what they are doing. Until the entertainment industry changes their business plan the only thing that they have to look forward to is more court time and cost, more loss of face to the public, ever decreasing revenues.
Whether that is fair or not is now a moot point. It's happening, and all the **AAs of the world seem to be doing is fanning the flames that are lapping at the foundations of their business. There have been a few positive changes so far, but that is far outweighed by the harm they are doing to their own businesses. IWaM(tm) won't ever work, it's a suckers game, not much better for the player than 3 card monty. Sure, TPB might be in for some 'rough seas' in the coming months, but while everyone is busy with that case, more file sharing will continue unabated. Until the entertainment industries learn that they are behaving very foolishly and get on with creating real value products to earn revenue with, they will continue to burn bridges with the public, their customers, and their shareholders.
Good luck to them, they are going to need it to avoid having to learn the 'did you want large fries with that' sentence.
I hadn't thought of that yet, but that is a 'rockin' idea... pun intended for those who like rock music.
You might try to ask this question on some of the robotics yahoo groups. They are filled with people that do this kind of thing for a hobby and spend a great deal of time thinking about such things not to mention that they do their work with small home brew or cheap microprocessor systems.
People that make their own CNC machines know a LOT about monitoring position of things etc. This might be your best bet for initial and longer term answers and help about how to accomplish what you wish to do.
One piece of advice though is think through what you want to ask. When you ask, explain the system in some detail, your thoughts on what might be monitored, how, and what your end goal is with your monitoring. They may have suggestions that go beyond your knowledge scope if you explain more about the system so they can think about the problem with all the requisite information.
that the newest batch of CD players won't be hot enough to reveal the secret disc art on NIN's new CD?
Perhaps it's bad form to reply to your own post but I was just thinking. Even before the **AAs revenues started their downward spiral, the sneaker-net file sharing was in full force. That is to say that today's college students are making no more of a dent in their business revenue than college students of 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Any college student with 25000 songs in their MP3 collection wouldn't have paid for that many if buying them was the only method of acquiring them.
I continue to fail to see the **AA's point. They have yet to prove that file sharing is what has ruined or is ruining their business. The auto industry, airline industry, buggy whip industry, dotcom industry and many others have gone through bleak times. Why should the entertainment industry be immune? Why should they deserve federal protection measures? I want to know why my tax dollars are being spent to support a broken business model and the people who profit from it. Tax dollars are spent on legislation, courts, law enforcement etc. The entertainment industry is probably spending more of our tax dollars on this impossible quest of copyright infringement litigation than they could possibly have made if no copyright infringement ever occurred.
Internet Whack-a-Mole is a game that you can not win, not even if congress tries to help you. The problem is that when the **AA tries to play IWaM(TM) they don't have enough hammers, and never will. Colleges are one of those places where people who want to share music can and will share music. Refer back to the sneaker-net theory of file sharing:
One student and 25 of their best friends join a pool. The pool members make a list of the music they would like to have a copy of. Each of the pool members buys a music CD from the list and 25 blank CDs. After making the requisite 25 copies, they all get together for some beer and a CD swap party. If done with discretion, nobody at the RIAA will ever know. The quality of the music is high, there is no record of the transaction that the school or ISP can hand over to the RIAA, there is no way to detect this copyright infringement. BTW, 26 x 25 = a loss of 650 CD sales in one night, in one location.
If the RIAA continues on their path to destitution, this is how music will be shared in the future, the same as it was shared in the past. IWaM is stupid, stupid, STUPID.
If the RIAA member companies were to do something that would make their product (distribution of someone else's content) more desirable, or valuable then they would again see rising revenues. Their business is outdated, and dying. Congress can't save them. God himself (if he exists) couldn't even save that business model.
is that we are spending so much time talking and thinking about something so fscking stupid.
Technically, that would make you a mole in the IWaM game, congratulations!