Matter of factly, my first thought seeing this summary is, "I don't know enough about these things" (little to nothing, really) "but every time I see some 'simple' solution to a security hole like TOTAL SHIFT OVER it seems to be some kind of propaganda by interested parties to undermine something widely adopted the works for something obscure and promising" (HYPED) "that likely works in their favor." Of course, then counter-propaganda may ensue...the safest bet is to hide in the closet till you starve to death.

Still not the point: the point is, the issue here was copyright. Throwing-in sleights and attacks based on something else, ridiculous. Then protesting that it's being narrow? hah. And it isn't being black-and-white, it is being "correct", meaning precise, honest, to-the-point. If you wanted to make it something else you might say, "on another issue, these people..." but otherwise I simply won't appreciate what you're saying by saying and not saying. That kind of allusive dishonest (intended or not--context does matter) should be called-out every time.


The unfortunate truth is, the businesses serving the general that survive are typically those who DON'T care--they keep their problems separate from customers' to a great degree. In niches and technical services there are exceptions. But you don't see Google putting-up easy means to contact them very directly, not anyone that matters--and the unspoken 'secret' is that proficient people don't use gmail anyway, they go with AOL, Comcast, or CenturyLink e-mail services...and all of those [quite unacceptable] companies actually take huge losses supporting crap that really aren't their issues: to the point that to survive you either turn-off empathy and keep it a very distant professionalism, or your quite (I know this first-hand). I'm talking the fact that...tens of thousands of the idiots call screaming that they're not paying for what they can't use (because their computer is broken) or they demand the company sends someone to install everything they have for free (because though using DSL they removed their own phone jacks while re-doing the basement) or their iShit isn't working (which constantly have problems connecting properly because the networking software is improperly done) or [I won't accept that last agent's explanation that my computer is broken, it's been working 6 years!!!!] and more...

All of those are just examples from my last hour handling such people last night: they're not even very important in the light of the fact that simple support of what you actually are either responsible for because it's your stuff or because you've agreed to do it usually means dealing with someone whose verbal and technical ability is about on par with an advance form of dementia. Now magnify this over millions and then ponder why (a) large companies would be i. secretive ii. defenive iii. lobby to-death in their advantage (when politicians will gladly come tear them apart for being tze 'evilz') (b) selectively empathetic (c) push costs and quality down as much as possible while raising prices (d) etc. They can't keep-up the contact with these idiots--it's only getting worse with the downward spiral of Amerika obsessing over its [bad] food and [bad] "entertainment" rather than working to understand real things and doing real work.

Castigating someone who is whining on behalf of those who have little to no intelligence on such topics is therefore not a good way to stifle intelligent discussion, but a good way to point-out the bullshit that passes for intelligence. And the point is: if you want big-budget info/enter-tainment for nuthin', oh well. If you feel like you deserve a service that someone else refuses, it's probably not discrimination, it's probably not even about you at all (nobody is thinking of entering eastern Europe any time soon in a big way, haven't been and especially now really really aren't: thanks Eur-asian progressivism! The latter really being, by the way, the self-describing term used by those movements that gave us the darling gems stretching from Russia's western borders to the pacific, and down through to the Indian ocean.) If you want it...build it yourself. Take the risks (it may be a colossal failure and you may not get your life back but at least you can exchange former dreams for future respect for trying), don't demand it from somebody else--you could go to convince them or their shareholders, however.

Thinking at a tank pointed at your face--or your friends' or allies'--is wishful thinking of the kind that certainly is appropriate to faux intellectualism. Have at it. :)

Not the point. The point is distraction from the actual issue: yours wasn't even a counter-point. It's a separate issue. ;)

Except I was talking only about generic infringement of movie copyrights by those who very likely aren't investors. Your comment is therefore irrelevant--no offense. It is an interesting case of an breach of trust, potential failure to uphold a contract, and a whole host of other issues.

What is pertinent however, is that you have no entitled to be cared for (by movie executives)--and it's stupid to think "the industry" would. They don't get ahead by caring, they get ahead by crushing the competition (in their minds). They don't sell care, they sell violence, sex, raw emotion...

And people happily buy it up from those who mock them for so easily blowing their cash on bullshit. You don't care for complete strangers to whom you sell a little more wasted time (life). You care if you tell them "get out of here" (theater) or "drop this subscription and get off the couch" (at home) "and do something real with your money." idk, like have a kid--buy the kid some art supplies and learn something together, transmit [worthwhile] "values"...

But should a group invest in a project and it fails...let them claim their legal entitlement in court to disgorge the wrongful takings as well as lost opportunities and enjoyment and whatever else they can validly claim, don't drop a SPECIFIC "they were entitled" in the middle of discussing GENERAL copyright infringement as a protest "slimy pretentious publicaly-vapid assholes who think [their own] emotion is everything don't care about us!" WAAAAAAA The problem in a liberal society is their kind of mental illness can go unchecked (and it spreads); the problem in a conservative one is that worse actors simply won't limit the beatings to superficiality but extend it as far and wide as possible. xD

Except I was talking only about generic infringement of movie copyrights by those who very likely aren't investors. Your comment is therefore irrelevant--no offense. It is an interesting case of an breach of trust, potential failure to uphold a contract, and a whole host of other issues.

What is pertinent however, is that you have no entitled to be cared for (by movie executives)--and it's stupid to think "the industry" would. They don't get ahead by caring, they get ahead by crushing the competition (in their minds). They don't sell care, they sell violence, sex, raw emotion...

And people happily buy it up from those who mock them for so easily blowing their cash on bullshit.

You mean, like talking to a psychopath's tanks? There are wackjobs and radicals who don't want solutions, they want their way: if in their irrational furor they'll nuke you but they're rational enough to want to self-preserve, and know that you in your rational prejudice respecting such things you'll nuke back out of principle, then they probably won't make that move. Certain great leaders wrote in their own journals how the damn accursed evil unfair B52s circling them (loaded with nukes) at all times made them think before every move, and kept them from expanding further...blasted capitalist rats!

"capitalistic" simply means "unfettered human cooperation", and it's the "unfettered" that's the problem; but your socialist rhetoric is about two hundred years out of date and every experiment ever done in it failed miserably. The problem isn't "capitalism", but that we have the wrong fetters: none for the greedy and powerful in the name of protecting the [true] needy and weak from their under-feet, all in the name of protecting the latter to restrain and impair their ability to compete--to join-together. Government stance: "it's for your own good don'tcha know...so break the rule and we'll fuck you."

xD Wasn't saying that it's the only factor. x)~ And the intention wasn't to say it is cut-off that brings collapse, either; if you can be cut-off, then perhaps you're cutivation of a given set of skills, and mores and beliefs underneath them (that is, as drive, direction, etc.), are together simply less effective to animate and spur you in the face of another set of ideas. Or perhaps you're just small; perhaps your mores are alright but in a week generation autokrats, kleptocrats, or some other crushing/corrupting/taking regime rises and ruins you for the impending onslaught. BUT...a commonality is that whether because these take over an area or because you're cut-off despite not being like these...you fall. So I think it may be a significant, though by no means the only, factor. xD

Even ancient empires, once cut-off from trade from across the world, tended to wither. x*D

"Entitlement" is clearly understood...and people are assholes about it. And "entitled to other people's work" is simple: it's what you get when "the customer is always right" is believe or practiced, hence all the beat-up (like an abused dog) service workers crushed between both the scumbags that have been referenced here and the supposed "corporate-enslaved" folks whining because the impossible hasn 't been done and, "GIVE ME YOUR MANAGER, I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU DEAL WITH!!!" (though they're idiots who won't be getting nuttin').

e.g. easiest example: the thousands of calls I've taken with huffy people demanding we refund them "cause I can't use my service and haven't been able to for weeks!!!!!" (their device is broken).

For those who don't know, this idea you have a right--because you are willing to pay--to another's authorship, movie, services, goods, etc., is that very idea of entitlement which is so repugnant: it means having a right to the extension of the lives and labors of those, with no natural relations to yourself, whom owe you nothing but to respect that you too exist, and should be permitted to unfettered. Whether that's achieved through one or another means, it means you're a tax on an other's life.

There are some arguable exceptions, e.g. a truly public-beneficiary water system or [GASP!] hospital system (if you can afford it) unlike, say, what we have where the boomers have promised themselves their children's and children's children's inheritances so they can live fat and drive-up the prices of housing for millions around the globe as they begin flocking to Panama, Belize, and etc. (like the old crass, careless European classes were once notoriously hated for), all while ignoring that what they're buying was stolen from some poor farmer to build their cute little abode by an ocean/golf course/exotic mountain/suburban home (--this is a big one, ask the farmers).

p.s. simply put, there is a remedy (hard to obtain in this day and age of progressive jurisprudence married with no-natural law): it's called disgorgement. I care for government-funding of studios only to the extent it robs poor people of the ability to held themselves and society of the charity that could be granted to the ones who want to, while access to shit packaged as media you just must swallow as the next big thing, shit that ain't your shit, I care not at all about: it doesn't truly help the leisure class or those whom they stomp on while whining they're put upon.

p.s. being willing to pay still doesn't entitle you to service, nor does it mean that them accepting your pay woudn't actually be in many ways harmful to them, e.g. doing business in a jurisdiction like Russia is always a bad idea should they try to reinterpret the laws and apply the new school ex post facto. There's this thing call natural liberty, which means neither payment nor force entitles you to what is another's. On the other hand, if you want to pay someone here to ship you a movie and the government tries to stop them...then they (not you) have a valid suit for abuse of law, conspiracy to wield government as a hedge for business interests and to do the bidding of a cartel, etc.

e.g. those who argue that a man's law should be upheld simply because that man is powerful...I have no interest in doing business with (do you wonder why the bureaucrats scream for class-status and laws protecting their "right" of access to businesses and services, as does everyone else?). Similarly, your "willing to pay" tidily goes along with the class of assholes who like to buy others' rights, "I'm willing to pay!"

But work for? I help people fix computers. So be careful with who you libel and accuse, lest God judge you. x)~

xD Says the guy who uses "corporate slaves." I'm not moaning about entitlement--I didn't pick that up from the media or libertarians or even conservatives. I picked it up working in thousands of houses of ordinary Americans demanding free services, products, extra attention, etc., which neither I (nor those I worked for, including companies large and small) could afford. Neither I (nor those I usually work for--often including the larger companies) could even always afford what we install or build, yet those chatter-boxes would yammer-on how you can do without. "Entitled asshole" comes from recent experiences which I would write here, but I think I might try to publish them cause, ya know, the potential to make some money for your experience is nice when you're homeless. To you people who think you deserve entertainment and comfort yet would likely vote against something like a damn ratty-looking homeless guy living next door...YOU terrorize people, enslave them, and then cry about tyranny you've brought on yourselves: if you want it to stop you not only have to not pay those corporations you whine about (and demand from, which in turn to be "profitable", i.e. remain operating must become more and more psychopathic, even while they do, indeed, harm themselves by promoting the mentality of "you deserve it"), but also stop consuming their dung. You do want to avoid eating dung, don't you?

Either your government is in some kind of treaty that we also hate, or else you're just not looking hard enough, but you don't have a right to consume entertainment--neither do I. You can make your own--it has nothing to do with discrimination--and I don't shill for anyone: I do tech support these days and deal with assholes who feel like we should give them everything and more all day, as though they deserve (all the services + also all our labor + setting-up all their networking, configuring all their computers, cleaning them because they won't stop surfing porn--or let us know when it would be useful--and worse).

If you were crying about access to textbooks then I'd side with you--maybe (if our system weren't so twisted). But you feel discriminated and butthurt cause you can't catch an episode of the Walking Dead, 24, or the next movie? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

To put this into perspective folks: I'm homeless. I work out of hotspots for my job, and I don't feel like I MUST be able to watch anything, and basically I don't. Yet all around me people who say how you just have to have this or that, a smartphone, such and such style, be able to read something, etc...I would settle living in a tent off a campus and having access to a university library. :(