Well, everything you said is pretty compatible with what I was trying to get across. I think I just needed to caveat it a bit more. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the current cable monopolies, including crap services like Hulu. It's taking the new, non-scummy models, like Netflix, DVD purchases, episode purchase and rentals, and making those the predominant distribution model.

However, if you're trying to say that, if you have the choice to buy a DVD of a show you love, and instead chose to download it off the TPB and try and dress it up as anything other than out and out theft.. well, there we part ways. I don't think that's what you're saying, I'm just trying to draw a very clear line in the sand about piracy as a legitimate means to an end (Non-availability or excessively unreasonable availability - draconian DRM, or monopolistic distribution channels), and piracy because it's free and damnit, I deserve to own every show ever made for free.

But that's my point. What you're suggesting there would work, if everyone signed up for it and agreed to it. Possibly the only way to really change it - because yes, the current model is broken all to hell - is a couple steps:
- Buy DVDs to the shows you actually like. Don't download them from Pirate Bay
- Access them via Netflix - It's a small amount comparatively, but Netflix makes sure the owners get some profit based on how much they're watched
- Convince Netflix, and other streaming sites like it, that they should start making their own shows, that are not beholden to the existing networks. Screw the Nielsen outdated ratings, allow limited free viewing, but utilize smart use of subscription models and "pay per episode" ownership for people who like the show enough to watch it.
- But as part of that, the content consuming public as a whole needs to stop robbing the content creators blind through sites like the Pirate Bay. Today, Pirate Bay has a valid function. In many cases, it's actually almost impossible to get a hold of TV episodes in a reasonable time frame or even get some more obscure shows. But to really make a transition to a healthy, affordable digital marketplace, people need to stop stealing and pretending it's not. There is, however, a serious cart before the horse conundrum that consumers have every right to be very skeptical of.

That is, of course, perfectly valid, but refuse it for long enough, and given the entitled "media should be free" attitude of the last 20 years.. Pretty soon, you should assume there will be no more high quality productions. No commercials, and most people completely unwilling to pay for anything because they're somehow entitled to it, and.. You'll have a lot of YouTube reality TV and some random indie projects of mixed quality from people who do it just for the love of it. But all other programming will go away.

I hate advertising as much as the next person, but unless a pay to own model comes out that meets the needs of helping a show make money to pay for the next show, and the sometimes reasonable, sometimes insane, demands for "complete and total control over my media! I own it!!!".. We're killing our own entertainment avenues.

This is really just a ploy to develop cheaper virtual machines. "No copy of Windows needed! Your Mac just THINKS it's Windows"

http://weeklypaper.blogspot.com/2008/01/touring-johnstown-pennsylvania.html

It's fairly blatant. Not much sympathy for a priest who feels the need to take some other groups branding to sell god. I don't know about suing, if actual money is involved, but asking him to politely "Get his own brand" is entirely appropriate, rather than stealing one that Best Buy has spent a lot of time and money building. This doesn't even touch the issue that as a company, Best Buy would probably prefer not to be associated with the Christian church, and alienate the 3.5 billion non-christian potential customers on the planet.

So, using that graph.. E&D turned a profit 7 out of the 13 quarters listed. Maybe not stellar, but also not exactly the doom and gloom of most game industry companies. Could it be better? Sure. And... E&D is only subsidized in the sense they pull from the same money pool as all divisions in the company. Their profitability, or lack, is purely driven by their divisional P&Ls.

Interestingly enough, may people who like Bing like this feature. In general, when I use Bing, I'm using it because it does tend to provide much more focused results. The fact that, if I'm curious, I can also see a cool picture with a number of interesting bits of information about that shot (be it something, somewhere, or somewhen) is just a nice "learning something outside of what I'm focused on" moment. Beauty and a moment to learn something is not something that send me into rage.

I use Google and Bing almost equally now, but i use them for different types of searches. Given how much market share Bing has gained in such short time, your anecdotal "lot of the comments I saw were" observation just reads as hyperbole, rather than something that is a real plus or negative about a non-Google search engine.

Mind you, Bing's market share is still tiny in comparison at about 11%, but it's the first time that an MS driven search engine has actually gained significant market share, helped by the fact that Bing is a really good search engine, whereas every other attempt they've ever done has been.. well, uhm.. Crap.

"device that frequently refused to charge batteries even when plugged in, in case you're wondering."

Source? I'm not denying it could be true, but would love to see a source. I've seen lots of claims that company did X or Y, but rarely see any citation, and just something about the wording yells unsubstantiated anecdote, rather than fact. No offense intended, just curious. I've not seen any reports about this problem that are definitely traced to MS's implementation of ACPI. A Google search shows a number of forum posts, as well as a few about the requirement that the laptop support the 2.0 spec for Vista, but nothing from any major cites that usually document this sort of problem.

What you call terrorism, most people call civil dissent or civil disobedience. If those in power choose to abuse that power, they will get called on that abuse, including making any and all information about them public record.

We really need to stop abusing the word terrorism into yet another fear talking point.

Wow.. Modded down for confirming a valid point, while v1 gets modded up for being "part of the problem". Slashdot at it's finest. I'll just stop bothering to convince thieves to stop being thieves.

$5 in my pocket from supporting a spurious, ludicrous lawsuit is $5 I wouldn't take. I hope the originators of the lawsuit get slapped with all the defendant's legal fees on top of their own. "We broke the terms of service but.. waaaaahhhhh.. pay us anyway!". And ultimately parent is right. This is nothing about "protecting the rights of legitimate modders", and entirely about lining the pockets of the law firm with other people's money.

Then in the interest of balance:

At the other extreme, you have consumers not wanting to pay at all, and resenting every time someone tries to profit from the blood, sweat and tears of their labor, and expecting the corporate content producers to somehow feed their families and pay their bills through the fairy dust gratitude of the appreciative masses.

Because, don't think for a second that corporate content producers are the same thing as the RIAA and MPAA. They may represent some, but most of us making content are people who go to work, pay our bills, create the content the public consumes voraciously, and just want to get paid for the work we do.

Quite simply, anyone who pirates has ZERO respect for the people who actually make that content. You can justify it all you want, as screwing the RIAA or Microsoft, or Sony, or whoever. But really? You're screwing me and other people who make the stuff you watch and play.

Interesting.

Let's try a list!
- Roads.. maybe you don't use them?
- Well regulated skies so the plane you're landing in doesn't have an unexpected conjoining with another one taking off
- A nationwide electrical grid
- Required emergency care, regardless of ability to pay (that comes out of a similar source as medicare/medicaid - without it, no pay, no treatment.. got hit by a car walking down the street? No insurance? Tough luck, bub)
- Regulated banking sys...ok. bad example.

Government may do a lot wrong, but most people take for granted the stuff they do right, that they use every day. That's a small list, but not anywhere near complete. Almost every mass transit system in the US wouldn't exist if not for public funds, and often public involvement in their yearly operations.

Mind you, most of the actual politicians need their brains washed out with lye, and lobbyists should be sequestered 20,000 leauges under the sea, and there's billions in waste every year, but if not for those governments, I doubt you'd be online right now saying how little they do. LHC is one great example of where they really shine, it's true.

Buying car parts is entirely legal. The automakers support it. A console is basically worthless without games to run on it. Pirating games is illegal, as it should be, in my opinion. Since this circumvention has about a 1% chance of being used for legal purposes, making it illegal to circumvent these sorts of protections in a for-profit manner seems perfectly acceptable. There's a reason I at least called out the difference between hobbyist and for-profit. I have never, once, seen data to indicate this sort of operation is used for anything other than to facilitate piracy. With that in mind, since he's just enabling the ability to pirate, he's just "doing his job"? No more culpable for the illegal actions he's enabling than those already accused in this thread of the Nuremberg defense?