"The DNS hijacking attack was resolved within an hour, Moore said."

Is that a DNS joke?

And if the floor price for a used game is 35£ that creates a much narrower window for Steam-style sales. You wouldn't price a new copy below a used one.

I'm thinking here of ACTA that uses the intellectual property label around counterfeiting and lumps in copyright violations. I think I'm with you on the idea that copyright has its set of legal rules and counterfeiting another. Increasingly they seem to be talked about in the same terms though that doesn't sit right with me.

"I want to encourage clear thinking about copyright law. Separately, I want to encourage clear thinking about patent law." I have also seen (in these days of international trade pacts) counterfeiting lumped in with copyright infringement and patent violations. I am unsure of how the law looks upon this, but to me it seems different enough. If one illegally downloads a song or a movie and violates copyright, they know it is not an official copy, and are getting an exact copy of the original. I think of counterfeit products as in-exact copies being passed off as official ones. I don't want to put a value judgement on these scenarios here, but point out that grouping this too under "Intellectual Property" is a barrier to clearly thinking about these activities and how they should be dealt with.

No. See here. http://thesocialmuser.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/olympics-started-3000-years-ago-twitter_14.html

But it's only 2012!

Banning people from the Internet will take away "the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online" in an overbroad and potentially inaccurate attempt to punish piracy.

So I guess the government's position that access to the Internet is as important as freedom of speech only applies to communist countries http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-15/politics/clinton.internet_1_internet-freedom-repression-expression?_s=PM:POLITICS

I always pictured a black panther http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_panther which isn't the same as a Puma.

Nope; the two sets (upper and lower ship) were both contiguous sets since the TV series. I don't think there are shots even close to the movie's opening in the TV show (given the nature of TV and when commercials need come in), but the two ship sets were always contiguous, complete with roofs, practical lighting, etc. It's one of the more impressive sets in TV history.

Joss Whedon's Serenity features a nearly ten-minute long scene with no visible cuts (there is technically a seamless dissolve half-way through for technical reasons -- watch the DVD commentary and you'll see what I mean). Whedon didn't do it to show off or grab attention, but actually to make the audience feel safe and trusting after the rapid cuts and scene/flow changes found at the very beginning of the film.

I find rapid cuts annoying and a way to draw the viewer away from a lack of detail or a scene that can't carry itself on the acting/sets/dialog/action alone. I don't seek out long takes though -- like most things in movies: if they're done really well you shouldn't be thinking about them, but rather about the plot.

It's Jon St. John, not John St. John.