Is "Trouble Man" by Marvin Gaye in the same way that "Blurred Lines" is by Marvin Gaye?

Yes. Yes it is.

Australia has lots of weird animals. Hell, they've got moths down there that are as big as cocker spaniels. Animals that look like Jim Henson rejects. They've got freakin' yowies down there that make Sasquatch look like Pee-Wee Herman. I didn't actually see a yowie, but after I saw something that looked like a three-way cross between a rat, a jackrabbit and Dwayne Johnson, I don't doubt for a second that they exist. I went there a few years ago and visited a huge national park and it was like Land of the Lost.

I mean, it's a nice place. Nice people. They find out you're from Chicago and you won't have to pay for another drink. Great looking women. Good food. If it wasn't for the annoying accents, you'd think you were somewhere on the West Coast. But the wildlife, man. Way too spooky for me.

When net neutrality splits the Comcast network from the Comcast/NBC/Universal content, and Netflix has to compete for bandwidth on a level playing field, the money to create original content is going to dry up quickly.

Don't you have that exactly backwards? "Net Neutrality" has been the default. The new neutrality laws don't create a level playing field, they preserve it. Why would Net Neutrality and having Comcast separated from the content creators make it harder for Netflix? They're already paying for bandwidth. And Netflix users are already paying for bandwidth. And with the incestuous relationship severed, what would Comcast's incentive to screw with Netflix be?

Or do you believe we've reached peak bandwidth?

Oh shit. I just realized I made a grievous error, in attributing the "Trouble Man" soundtrack to Curtis Mayfield instead of its true creator, Marvin Gaye. Curtis Mayfield did the soundtrack for "Superfly" (which by the way, is also unavailable to stream from Netflix, those bastards). If you are unfamiliar with the Trouble Man soundtrack, go check it out on Youtube right now. You will come away understanding why Pharrell Williams is a punk ripoff.

I just stuck myself in the leg with a pen knife to atone for this terrible mis-attribution.

It's probably a good thing that companies like Netflix are making good original programming, but I've noticed that their catalog of classic films has shrunk significantly.

What I really want is a service like Netflix that is more Spotify-like, with an enormous catalog of old films, classic foreign films, art films, shorts, animation, etc.

I guess the fact that copyright trolls are scrambling to take old movies out of the public domain and congress has seen fit to extend copyright to ridiculous lengths makes that a problem. So even though I subscribe to Netflix, I find myself looking to torrent sites and the Internet Archive to scratch my film noir, King Vidor, Vittorio De Sica and Busby Berkely itch. Because sometimes Jack Lemmon and Catherine Deneuve in "The April Fools" or Lee J Cobb in John Boorman's "Point Blank" is just what the movie doctor ordered. Sometimes, a creepy-as-hell Richard Widmark in the 1953 Sam Fuller classic, "Pickup on South Street" is preferable to watching Ryan Gosling try to create an expression on his face.

Hell, a little while ago, I just wanted to sit back and enjoy the 1973 blaxploitation classic, "The Mack" and learned that Netflix doesn't have it available for streaming (but you can get a DVD if you still use that legacy format). I mean, what the fuck. Who's gonna mess with physical media and snail mail just to watch a movie? Not only that, but they don't carry "Trouble Man" at all, and that has one of the greatest soundtracks ever by Curtis Mayfield.

In case you aren't familiar with cinematic masterpiece "The Mack", here's the scene where Goldy and Pretty Tony face off. Check the very young Richard Pryor: https://youtu.be/sdR_t5nsZqI

I'm spoiled because back in my university days, I worked as a projectionist at a revival house for seven years and got the most thorough education in film history one could ever hope for. But some of you younger folks might not know what came before The Avengers and Fast and Furious 7, and that makes me sad. Hell, the 1970s were a veritable golden age for independent films and hardly anybody gets to see those movies today. Even the "classic movie" channels on cable only play the same top forty old movies over and over again, never digging deep into back catalogs. There is so much cinema to be discovered. Don't fear the black and white or silent.

Look you ignorant cunt I've already fucking told you how she acquired the games on her account.

Do you need to borrow $5 so you can buy a game on Steam for your "niece"?

Let me know and I'll transfer $5 into your Steam wallet so you (I mean your "niece") can design hats for your (I mean, "her") TF2 character.

Bethesda then has the ability to take the $60 per copy they made on release day and subsequent months and use accounting to allot so much $$$$ per copy sold to cover the cost of services that THEY PROMISED ON THE BOX as part of the features of the game. In paying good money for the game on release, by extension,

It sounds like your beef is with Bethesda and not Steam.

You know they're two different companies, right?

Do you need to borrow $5 so you can play with Mod Workshop on Steam? If that's the problem, just say so. I'm willing to help.

But until/unless someone is generous on her behalf she can not fully enjoy the platform or the games she owns on it.

You mean to say she could afford the platform and the games, but not a one-time purchase of $5?

Or are you saying that some parent or relative bought her the platform and the games, but refuses to purchase a single $5 game on Steam for her?

Come on. If there is a computer gamer in the world for whom a single $5 purchase is impossible, I want to hear from them, not from someone making up a hypothetical niece who can't afford a $5 game for their watercooled i7-4550 with twin Titans.

And remember, this new threshold doesn't bar this hypothetical niece from playing her games, only from using Steam's Mod Workshop and social media services. Steam will still work just fine for playing her games.

Because these people put down on a AAA title in a retail outlet that isn't counted towards the Steam ecosystem, they have lost the ability to take part in the Mod discussion for the game they just put a good chunk of change on. They've also lost the ability to post Mods they've created to the Workshop. Valve just made the declaration: "Oh...you want to use the features of the game you just paid for? You need to pay us at least an additional $5 for that privilege.

So, you believe Valve should provide those services, the servers, the Mod Workshop to you for free?

Because of this small...minor..."harmless" move to reduce spammers, they've now guaranteed that they get none of my money

Since you already said you expect Steam to give you its service for free, I don't think Valve really cares if they don't get your money.

Also Steam sells Origin games and EA games with their always on line requirement

But if there's an online requirement for those games, and you don't have a persistent internet connection you're not going to be buying those games right? Even if you buy them at Wal-Mart, you won't be able to play them.

It's not Steam's fault that EA and Origin have those always online requirements.

OK. My friend's daughter. She has 3-4 games on her Steam account, one gifted by her father and the others gifted by me.

Five dollars. You can deposit five dollars into her Steam wallet right now and let her buy an indie game.

She's too young for a credit card, but not too young to build things for the Steam workshop

No credit card needed.

Yeah, you're right. $5 seems like a good threshold to keep out the spammers.

I prefer games with off-line/stand-alone play as my internet isn't reliable during the summer, when I have the time to play.

You don't need to be online to play games you bought on Steam, unless they are online games, in which case, guess what? you need to be online to play anyway.

Because the game bought in Wal-Mart includes features such as "Access to community updates" and "play with your friends".

The Steam version has exactly the same features. And you don't have to support Wal-Mart.

The people who are being shut out of Steam Workshop are not people who are buying games at Wal-Mart, and if you don't want to use Steam, then why would you complain about not being able to access Steam Workshop?

I want to hear from one single person who is being legitimately put out because of this $5 purchase requirement.

I would say some people may get annoyed due to following limitations:

So wait for a sale, buy a game for $5 that was $49 a year ago, and then you're good to go in Steam Workshop.

And why should Steam give you credit for buying games at Wal-Mart?