I certainly hope so. The last 3D film I went to was Tron: Legacy, and the reason it was my last was before the movie started, there was a disclaimer that said that all scenes were not in 3D, but to keep the glasses on. If everything is not in 3D than what the hell am I paying an extra six dollars for? I also never liked 3D anyways since I do not enjoy having to wear an apparatus to view it.

That's not really the point. Yes, Usenet is old, but it was generally unknown to the majority of your average computer users. For years, the MAFIAA has been going after torrenting, with seemingly no knowledge of the capabilities and common use for Usenet. Now all of the sudden, NZB sites and Usenet providers have been getting hit with the DMCA notices. Again, seemingly it's apparent that the MAFIAA has only recently become aware of Usenet, so spagthorpe was using a funny and appropriate movie reference to point out that a lot of people couldn't keep the Usenet secret to themselves.

This is one of the fundamental reasons why we have the issues we have. Including amendments or clauses that have absolutely nothing to do with the main content of the bill itself should not be allowed. It has historically and currently used to sneak in laws that are not openly discussed with the public in order to pass those laws without public knowledge. This is because they know it is harder to eliminate a law after it has passed than it is to block a law before it passes.

While arguments could be made that legitimate laws that should be passed would take too long to get passed, this ability is abuses far more frequently than being used for legitimate laws. And for that reason, things like this need to stop.

Well, as a provider, they are not legally allowed to ban customer owned eqipment. By law they are required to let customers use their own equipment. But all the services are still controlled by the provider.

Unfortunately, it's not a violation of DMCA since as a customer, you are allowed to suspend your DVR service. That doesn't require a different box, the provider just eliminates your access to DVR functionality. If that doesn't violate DMCA, why would blocking the ability to FFW through commercials? Sorry to say, it doesn't.

You also should try to keep in mind that a lot of your service functionality is not decided on by the service provider, but instead contracts with the content providers (NBC, CBS, Viacom, etc).

Which is why Dish network put themselves in hot water with the network companies over their Hopper dvr box, which allows customers to skip commercials on recorded programs all together.

That doesn't directly apply in this specific case, but it could also be what is pressuring TWC to do this. Either way, it's not a violation of DMCA.

Source: I work for a major service provider. We suck, I know, but unfortunately everything I said is true.

Because you don't own the equipment or its software. And per the subscriber agreement you agreed to upon activating service, your provider retains the right to alter their service features and pricing.

There is a lot of hostility against TWC for this. Let me be the first to say, just because TWC got this patent does NOT mean that they will be utilizing it. If anything, they are doing consumers a favor, because now in order for any other provider to do it, they would have to pay royalties to TWC. There is absolutely no indication that TWC will actually implement disabling fast forwarding on their DVRs.

Since when do we need any privacy bill of rights? The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution already applies here. Or at least they should.

Also, calling it a "bill of rights" is extremely deceitful about what a bill of rights is. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are rights that protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT. This 'privacy bill of rights' conveniently EXEMPTS the GOVERNMENT from it's protections. So in reality what this is doing is conditioning people into falsehoods regarding privacy, and the bill of rights.

1. Privacy is only applicable to private institutions, and the people should not expect privacy from the Government.

2. A 'bill of rights' again does not apply to the Government, but instead private entities. This is extremely important when the Government decides to pass laws that are in direct violation of the Bill of Rights. To say it won't happen is naive, as it already has happened (PATRIOT Act and NDAA being two examples).

Yes, the percentage that fell is specifically their profit margin. And while 43.7% to 42.2% is only a 1.5% difference, that is a 1.5% difference in millions of dollars. Since their business practices are centered around huge profit margins, this decrease is pretty significant for them. Please don't think of me being sympathetic towards them, I am not. I could care less if they only made $250 million dollars last year rather than $260 million (these numbers are not based in fact, just using it as an example).

However, when their business model is dependent on them making $260 million, they either have to scale back some where or raise service rates in order to compensate for the $10 million that they were expecting to be there but isn't. Where it gets ridiculous, is that for tax purposes, they are actually able to write off this $10 million as a "loss". Even though in reality they didn't lose anything instead they just made less than what they were expecting.

I decided to look for more info about her on Princeton's website, and she definitely deserves massive respect. You can read a bio about her here: http://wendy.seltzer.org/shortbio.html

She works in support of the internet users, even heading up a website that helps internet users understand their rights when they receive cease and desist threats. I like her too.

That, of course, is not the intended purpose to freedom of religion. You are speaking more along the lines of freedom FROM religion, which is not guaranteed nor mandated by any federal or state document (thankfully).