I agree, we do live in a police state...in the name of freedom, of course. And yes, each of those allegations you have listed, has documented reports or hard evidence to back it up. The question is, how do we solve the problem without ending up in a civil war? That's where I see this heading. If things do not change, some one will get fed up with it, and we will be in a state of war, internally.
Well, what about going over to a friend's house when he or she rented a movie. With local tv, there are movies, but they are paid for with advertising. Simply watching a non-advertising-supported film which you did not pay for is not a crime. It's not an issue of having the right to watch it or not.
Isn't that just for a few pilot states? I was under the impression that there would be 13 or so states with that access for the first year. However, I am often wrong and this could be one of those times. Anyone know?
I can see it now, "We've lost an estimated $2 billion so far this year; all due to peer to peer file sharing." There's a big flaw in their argument. Who is to say that users would pay for these movies in the first place?
Let me explain. I have downloaded a few movies and songs in my day, but I would not have paid for them in a store. The studios are claiming lost revenue, but the reality is that the people are downloading them simply because they are there and a movie may be cool to watch. I have downloaded exactly one (1) movie that the MPAA would consider theirs, but I never would have paid to see it in the theater or purchase it at a store. There was no lost revenue, not even close. So, as we know, these numbers come straight out of people's asses.
I suspect that many others share similar views about the movies. They are downloading them becuase they are there and may be entertaining, but would never actually pay money to see them because that would be a waste.
That's a really good point. If there were people who were unsure at this point about switching, having to call Microsoft just to reinstall something they paid for will help them make the decision. What a foolish move.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think the best solution would be to fire everyone, and I mean everyone, and start with a clean slate.
Hopeful libertarians would be a more accurate description, I think.
I agree, we do live in a police state...in the name of freedom, of course. And yes, each of those allegations you have listed, has documented reports or hard evidence to back it up. The question is, how do we solve the problem without ending up in a civil war? That's where I see this heading. If things do not change, some one will get fed up with it, and we will be in a state of war, internally.
Well, what about going over to a friend's house when he or she rented a movie. With local tv, there are movies, but they are paid for with advertising. Simply watching a non-advertising-supported film which you did not pay for is not a crime. It's not an issue of having the right to watch it or not.
Isn't that just for a few pilot states? I was under the impression that there would be 13 or so states with that access for the first year. However, I am often wrong and this could be one of those times. Anyone know?
I can see it now, "We've lost an estimated $2 billion so far this year; all due to peer to peer file sharing." There's a big flaw in their argument. Who is to say that users would pay for these movies in the first place? Let me explain. I have downloaded a few movies and songs in my day, but I would not have paid for them in a store. The studios are claiming lost revenue, but the reality is that the people are downloading them simply because they are there and a movie may be cool to watch. I have downloaded exactly one (1) movie that the MPAA would consider theirs, but I never would have paid to see it in the theater or purchase it at a store. There was no lost revenue, not even close. So, as we know, these numbers come straight out of people's asses. I suspect that many others share similar views about the movies. They are downloading them becuase they are there and may be entertaining, but would never actually pay money to see them because that would be a waste.
That's a really good point. If there were people who were unsure at this point about switching, having to call Microsoft just to reinstall something they paid for will help them make the decision. What a foolish move.