I doubt there's much intersecting between people who watch big budget comic superhero action flicks, have the patience to read a script, and skip a trip to the cinema because the ending was spoiled. Hell, Titanic was one of the largest grossing movies of all time and everyone knew how that ends.

As I saw in the followup article, the quick donation to relief agencies came after the TN Attorney General's office announced an investigation into price gouging. Hopefully Kentucky jumps on as well and slams this bozo for not just hoarding supplies in an emergency, but trying to profit off his greed.

>"Cable giants might not be in dire straits, but they're clearly focusing on their most lucrative customers as others jump ship for the internet."

"Focusing on"? How? By holding on to more and more useless channels? By raising prices continuously? By offering only deceptive "introductory" pricing models? By constantly fighting and making life difficult for TiVo and other third-party box owners? If this is their "focus", they are doing to be in dire straits before they know it.

They don't necessarily have to stream to compete (because DVRs can provide an excellent experience), but one thing they need to do soon is to offer a pay-for-each-channel-wanted model and allow customers to customize what they want to watch. I am BEYOND SICK of paying for crap I don't want and subsidizing others' channels. Sports is perfect example. I bet a HUGE portion of my cable TV bill is poured into sports, something I have ZERO interest in, but yet comprises probably 30 or more channels. Now throw out all religious channels, infomercial channels, game show channels, non-English channels, and reality TV channels. I bet I am now up to about 85%.

Oh, and when they do offer streaming, it is just the same crap content on their existing channels, but with the bonus of being only in stereo not Dolby 5.1, with a crappy low-bandwidth picture, and often forced commercials. All with silly time limits, a poor interface, and sometimes flaky as hell.

Focus, indeed.

"You can afford it" is not a valid reason why you should have to do something for free.

Even if you can afford it, you shouldn't be required to pay $100k to provide evidence the prosecution wants for a fishing expedition. If the prosecution wants it, they can pay for it.

Then if you're guilty, maybe the judge will order you to pay that amount in addition to whatever other punishment you get.