 |  | | | | 
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs: | Re: Dumb... I laughed when i heard that Mr Garrett contact the MPAA's ISP to have infringing software removed | |
| | | | mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Mishawaka, IN | Re: Dumb... One day you'll find this in Webster's dictionary... it'll be listed under "Irony".
I'm LMAO too. | |
| | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| said by Lumberjack  :So instead of trying to stop piracy, we want to remove privacy. As much as I dispise the GPL for it's viral properties I think this is great  . What's to despise? Developer X says "you can redistribute my work as long as you show people what you changed". If you don't like it, don't redistribute his frickin' code. Why is that a bad thing?
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
| | | 
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Dumb... said by B :said by Lumberjack :So instead of trying to stop piracy, we want to remove privacy. As much as I dispise the GPL for it's viral properties I think this is great . What's to despise? Developer X says "you can redistribute my work as long as you show people what you changed". If you don't like it, don't redistribute his frickin' code. Why is that a bad thing? -- B The GPL as a business license is a crock. While in theory, it's nice to think the GPL should be applied to all free software, you would be surprised how many businesses won't use GPL'd software due to the grey areas and license loopholes it leaves wide open. We just had to make such a comparison and decided we can't use MySQL, so we went with PostgreSQL.
We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success.
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™ | |
| | | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Re: Dumb... I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done.
Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers?
I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral".
That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow!  Lesser companies don't even think twice.
-- B
P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent...
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
| | | | |
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Dumb... said by B :I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done. Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers? I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral". That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow! Lesser companies don't even think twice. -- B P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent... The GPL is too vague ... we aren't modifying any of the GPL code we use, but the guts of our software is patented. What's to stop someone from forcing us to open our code and prove it's not violating the GPL?
We enjoy supporting the FOSS community ... as I said we donate to every open source project we utilize ... and those amounts will do nothing but go up as we make more money ... but just because I want to embed a SQL server in my code doesn't mean I should have to expose HOW I use it. If I take your SQL server source code and modify it, then by all means hell yes I should release that modified portion of the code ... but the GPL is too vague and being sued or having to sue because someone is claiming "fair use under the GPL" could sink companies like us.
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™ | |
| | | | | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Re: Dumb... Okay. Being neither a lawyer nor a hard core developer I can't really argue with your conclusions, though from my limited understanding there are ways to honor the GPL while keeping the sources of your "value added" parts closed. (Diffs and hashes and 3rd party audits, etc. After all, if you can prove that the GPL sources you DO provide recompile back to the corresponding pieces of GPL binary you ship, that should be enough.)
I mean, lots of companies do it! I come across them all the time, and some of them even appear to make money. Fonality / Trixbox is one that I was just looking at a few days ago. They have a "Free" version and several paid premium versions, but ALL of them see to be GPL licensed.
»www.trixbox.com/about-us/terms-a···nditions
They do have a more closed, hosted companion service.
No, I don't have any idea how they keep from getting ripped off when their paid customers decide to redistribute. Frankly, if it takes going to the evil lengths that Sveasoft has gone to (essentially waging a war against its own customers) then I'd rather people just take your approach and stay closed.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
| | | | | | 
steelingbox
join:2005-07-09
Altamonte Springs, FL
clubs:
| said by MattE :said by B :I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done. Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers? I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral". That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow! Lesser companies don't even think twice. -- B P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent... The GPL is too vague ... we aren't modifying any of the GPL code we use, but the guts of our software is patented. What's to stop someone from forcing us to open our code and prove it's not violating the GPL? We enjoy supporting the FOSS community ... as I said we donate to every open source project we utilize ... and those amounts will do nothing but go up as we make more money ... but just because I want to embed a SQL server in my code doesn't mean I should have to expose HOW I use it. If I take your SQL server source code and modify it, then by all means hell yes I should release that modified portion of the code ... but the GPL is too vague and being sued or having to sue because someone is claiming "fair use under the GPL" could sink companies like us. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
steelingbox
join:2005-07-09
Altamonte Springs, FL
clubs: | I will stand corrected, the PostgreSQL server is released under the BSD license. | |
| | | | | 
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
 ·Cox HSI
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by B :I understand; that's well written and sounds well-meaning, but isn't it just a bit ridiculous? The GPL is "holding back" these projects because the stubborn writers of the code YOU WANT TO SELL won't let you do it? But... they have no obligation to let you sell their code on your terms! You're perfectly free to seek separate alternative licenses from those developers or to seek alternatives, as you've done. Why aren't you just as mad at all the OTHER developers (you know, your closed-source competitors who write software that competes with yours) for not letting you freely redistribute /resell THEIR code on your terms? Why be angry only with GPL developers? I understand your point, but it's just backwards. It's only "holding back" projects that seek to close up their sources, like your own. Agreed, I suppose that much is arguably "viral". That said, I'm certainly glad you're respecting the license anyhow! Lesser companies don't even think twice. -- B P.S. I'd point out how funny the part about "damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code" is for someone who wants to take advantage of redistributed "Free" (GPL) software, but I think it's self-apparent... I don't know where you came up with anybody being "mad" at authors of GPL applications. I don't hate the people, I dislike the license. I'm sure I may offend a lot of people but I see the GPL as a "hippie" license with the bravado of "hey may, everything should be free man".
It hinders commercial software development on two fronts, one, a commercial software company that doesn't release source code for trade-secret reasons can't use it and two, even if a company agreed to release the source, they can't charge for their own improvements.
If you look at the BSD community you will find a different story. Software is truly free and open-source. Companies can improve it, resell it for profit whether the source is re-released or not. The BEST example ever of this is Apple and OS X. Apple was able to take the BSD operating system and use it under the hood and not be worried by GPL clauses. They also in turn were able to recontribute back to the base BSD operating system teams without fear of GPL licensing war-mongers.
The bottom line is this, if you want to give it away, give it away and let it be free. Don't be anti-greedy with the "I don't want to sell so dammit, nobody else can make any money either, even if they improve it." In general I'm sure most GPL authors don't really care, they just end up with that license because it's trendy and more than likely they have something in there code that is GPL licensed.
Honestly, as my argument is what it is I am thankful for tools like GNU's compiler and the various Linux flavors. And if the authors only thought they would be successful under the GPL, so be it. On that note I should say that I'm a NetBSD user/supporter and eventual developer if ever have the time. That said, any code I work on will either be BSD or commercially licensed. If it's going to be free, it's going to be free.
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
| | | |
steelingbox
join:2005-07-09
Altamonte Springs, FL
clubs:
| said by MattE :said by B :said by Lumberjack :So instead of trying to stop piracy, we want to remove privacy. As much as I dispise the GPL for it's viral properties I think this is great . What's to despise? Developer X says "you can redistribute my work as long as you show people what you changed". If you don't like it, don't redistribute his frickin' code. Why is that a bad thing? -- B The GPL as a business license is a crock. While in theory, it's nice to think the GPL should be applied to all free software, you would be surprised how many businesses won't use GPL'd software due to the grey areas and license loopholes it leaves wide open. We just had to make such a comparison and decided we can't use MySQL, so we went with PostgreSQL. We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success. | |
| | | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| said by MattE :We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success. Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from. | |
| | | | |
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Dumb... said by wtansill :said by MattE :We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success. Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from. You can't use another license if the code used in your project is GPL code. You are forced to use GPL as your license by including GPL code so really, they have to find other code to reuse or re-invent the wheel themselves.
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
| | | | | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| Re: Dumb... said by Lumberjack :said by wtansill :said by MattE :We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success. Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from. You can't use another license if the code used in your project is GPL code. You are forced to use GPL as your license by including GPL code so really, they have to find other code to reuse or re-invent the wheel themselves. My point was exactly that -- find code that uses another license, but it was late, and I did not make my point clearly. D'oh!
--
"In every generation, there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be master."
--Daniel Webster
| |
| | | | | | 
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
Gainesville, FL
| said by Lumberjack :said by wtansill :said by MattE :We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success. Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from. You can't use another license if the code used in your project is GPL code. You are forced to use GPL as your license by including GPL code so really, they have to find other code to reuse or re-invent the wheel themselves. Not exactly. I can write an application that uses MySQL for database storage but that doesnt mean I need to make my code GPL. Of course if I include MySQL binaries to make install easier I need to distribute the source for MySQL and MySQL will always be licensed under GPL.
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir | |
| | | | | | | | 
evilghost
join:2003-11-22
Springville, AL | Excellent. Excellent. The GNU GPL is there for a reason; modify the works of someone else freely but you must provide the source code to those modifications upon request.
I don't have much issue with the MPAA but I do have issue with GPL infringement. | |
| | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Excellent. The GPL is commonly thought of as a "copyleft" or some sort of anti-copyright. In reality, however, it relies on copyright law just as much as any conventional licence or infringement action does.
So what has been exposed here is pure hypocrisy. The Hollywood cartel talks about respect for copyright when it makes them money, but just like the pirates they crusade against, they don't want it applied to limit their own behavior.
Remember folks, whenever anyone spouts some rubbish about copyright enforcers being the good guys: corporations are sociopaths, and a cartel of corporations is even worse. They have no principles, only greed. | |
| | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Excellent. said by swhx7 :The GPL is commonly thought of as a "copyleft" or some sort of anti-copyright. In reality, however, it relies on copyright law just as much as any conventional licence or infringement action does. So what has been exposed here is pure hypocrisy. The Hollywood cartel talks about respect for copyright when it makes them money, but just like the pirates they crusade against, they don't want it applied to limit their own behavior. Remember folks, whenever anyone spouts some rubbish about copyright enforcers being the good guys: corporations are sociopaths, and a cartel of corporations is even worse. They have no principles, only greed. Yeah, well... It's not like this is the first time code has been stolen by an *AA or an *AA member in their bids against piracy. One of Sony's anti-piracy self-installing malware a year or so back consisted, in part, of stolen code. The *AA's also love to plagiarize the various anti-IP websites for their own campaigns. The list goes on and on. But, since the *AA's have an army of lawyers and the ones they rape, pillage and burn don't, they run roughshod over everyone.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| i just find humor in the trade group that is all over pirates like flies on shit, goes and violates GPL without second thought. too bad this was software and not some kinda media, he could take the MPAA to the tune of 150k per violation then.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| bored_in_nh
join:2003-01-04
Stamping Ground, KY
·RoadRunner Cable
| something I never understood So the record and movie companies say they are losing money from pirated material. How? If someone downloads something without paying for it, isn't that usually because they want that item and don't have the resources to be able to afford it? So if they can't afford it, they won't buy it. Does that count as losing money too? What's the difference between losing money because someone couldn't afford it and downloaded it, and someone who didn't download it or buy it either? OMG I don't listen to hip hop. Those record producers are losing money on me!
What if a friend of one of these pirates listens to the music or sees the movie the pirate has downloaded, and then decides they want to buy it? Hasn't this turned into a profit for the record company or movie prodcer?
--
In 2000, CEO pay was statistically 300:1 to minimum wage. In 2005, it's 431:1. If minimum wage matched growth rate with CEO pay from 1990 to 2005, it would now be $19.00/hr.
Is Ann Coulter a transexual? What's with that adams apple? | |
| |
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: something I never understood Your reasoning is right on target. They talk about billions in "losses" to piracy, but if they listed amounts on their balance sheets as debits incurred because of non-purchase of their products when potential customers decided against buying, the SEC would put them in jail. Such hypotheticals do not comport with "generally accepted accounting principles". | |
| | 
hehe
@ssa.gov
 from:
dadkins
| said by bored_in_nh :So the record and movie companies say they are losing money from pirated material. How? If someone downloads something without paying for it, isn't that usually because they want that item and don't have the resources to be able to afford it? So if they can't afford it, they won't buy it. Does that count as losing money too? What's the difference between losing money because someone couldn't afford it and downloaded it, and someone who didn't download it or buy it either? OMG I don't listen to hip hop. Those record producers are losing money on me! What if a friend of one of these pirates listens to the music or sees the movie the pirate has downloaded, and then decides they want to buy it? Hasn't this turned into a profit for the record company or movie prodcer? I agree with you. So if i decide to not pirate something this must somehow make them some money (or not lose money). I want my fair share of that money for everything I choose to not pirate. | |
| | | bored_in_nh
join:2003-01-04
Stamping Ground, KY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: something I never understood said by hehe :
I agree with you. So if i decide to not pirate something this must somehow make them some money (or not lose money). I want my fair share of that money for everything I choose to not pirate.
Me too! I haven't downloaded anything since the L0pht ran on an old SEII with a 2GB SCSI drive. I want some reward for my good behaviour!
--
In 2000, CEO pay was statistically 300:1 to minimum wage. In 2005, it's 431:1. If minimum wage matched growth rate with CEO pay from 1990 to 2005, it would now be $19.00/hr.
Is Ann Coulter a transexual? What's with that adams apple? | |
| | dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
| said by bored_in_nh :If someone downloads something without paying for it, isn't that usually because they want that item and don't have the resources to be able to afford it? No. The MPAA (or RIAA) claims that a lot of the people downloading movies and music have the resources to buy it but choose to steal it, instead. Given the people the RIAA has successfully bullied into paying them gone after have had the resources to pay the thousands demanded; that money would buy a few CDs and DVDs, I'm sure.
That said, the numbers are clearly inflated since lots of people download far more movies and music than they would, in fact, purchase. For software, the inflation is far worse since people often won't pay for a retail copy but will pirate it. But again, it's not that they don't have the resources, it is that they don't think the software is worth the asking price.
So while the MPAA (or RIAA) is inflating the numbers, they do also have a case; they are losing money to piracy, just not the billions and billions they claim.
Note that this is my opinion based on what I've seen; I don't have industry studies at hand. | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: something I never understood said by dda :Given the people the RIAA has successfully bullied into paying them gone after have had the resources to pay the thousands demanded; that money would buy a few CDs and DVDs, I'm sure. Oh, Puhhlease....
Gee, you don't think the threat of total financial ruin and maybe a lifetime mountain of debt is what motivated them to scrape up the settlement money? The settlements are outrageous, but court judgements and fines appear beyond ridiculous to the extreme.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
| Re: something I never understood said by KrK :Gee, you don't think the threat of total financial ruin and maybe a lifetime mountain of debt is what motivated them to scrape up the settlement money? I'm sure it did motivate them but I find it very hard to believe that they had no resources and so had to pirate movies and music. The industry is losing money to piracy just not as much as they claim. | |
| | | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: something I never understood said by dda :I'm sure it did motivate them but I find it very hard to believe that they had no resources and so had to pirate movies and music. Well I agree-- with some exceptions. I suspect most pirated stuff are things that people wouldn't of paid for anyway.... And I also believe that people who have copied DVD's or MP3's also still spend money buying some DVD's and Music they really like.
I strongly believe, that let's say piracy was somehow impossible, that it wouldn't lead to sudden massive sales by RIAA and MPAA members. I suspect 99% of the pirated content would simply be done without.
Teenagers are an exception.... they have a limited amount of money, but are large consumers of entertainment. I believe many teenagers copy music, games, movies etc because they really don't have the money to just buy them. Nonetheless this group still purchases large amounts of various entertainment, they just have to be selective.... and they often will pirate the rest.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | 
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| said by KrK :said by dda :Given the people the RIAA has successfully bullied into paying them gone after have had the resources to pay the thousands demanded; that money would buy a few CDs and DVDs, I'm sure. Oh, Puhhlease.... Gee, you don't think the threat of total financial ruin and maybe a lifetime mountain of debt is what motivated them to scrape up the settlement money? The settlements are outrageous, but court judgements and fines appear beyond ridiculous to the extreme. The understatement of the year!!
"The settlements are outrageous, but court judgements and fines appear beyond ridiculous to the extreme."
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ | |
| 
Jameson
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Fallbrook, CA
clubs: | Wow. One bad PR after another.. | |
| | NoOneButMe
join:2001-08-24
TX | Re: Wow. Aint it kinda funny | |
| | |
Jameson
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Fallbrook, CA
clubs: | Re: Wow. yep totally | |
| 
Cudni
La Merma - Ciudad Fronteriza
Premium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire | Brilliant and now to claim damages for the infringement
Cudni | |
| 
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Sterling Heights, MI
| Do as we say...not as we do It isn't our property, so that makes it okay to steal it. Worked for Sony, so it is good enough for the MPAA.
Both of the **AA's need to figure out that they need a new electronic method of delivery that is easy to use, cost effective for the users, and not tied down to the machine you use to download it.
Yes they can make money from the PSP, DVD, HD-DVD, and Bluray versions, but think how much more you could sell if everyone only had to buy it once. How about personal licensing, something along the lines of Steam. What you buy you can access from anywhere with your user name and password.
--
How hard does DRM have to bite before business abandon it? | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
edit:
December 4th, @12:25PM
| mpaa caught again Isn't it kind of funny the riaa and the mpaa keep getting in trouble. I find it absolutely hilarious and ironic that a company supposedly trying to thwart copyright pirates does so on their own accord. great news.
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me
Edited: thanks Dadkins for catching the typo | |
| | old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: mpaa caught again The **AA groups think the ONLY copyright/license that matters is their own. They are the **AA, no one would dare to sue them! (sarcasm) Just picture how funny it would be if Microsoft found out that the RIAA had hundreds of computers in their offices cloned off a single legal copy of Windows! Seriously, the **AA's entire model has fallen behind technological reality. Wasting the court system's time trying to enforce something instead of coming up with something that really works in the current market. Look at networks pulling content of iTunes leaving people with no legal way to download the shows then complaining about piracy. Sheesh | |
| | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| how... 'surprising' i'm hoping a day will come in which the MPAA and RIAA will get it's own personal congressional investigation to how they run themselves and their tactics. i'm sure a lot of people agree that the MPAA and RIAA needs a drastic change, personally i wouldn't mind if they were banished from existance. | |
| 
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| Send the racketeers to jail Extensive and repeated bribery, extortion, willful copyright infringement; .the MPAA is a criminal enterprise if there ever was one.
--
Help keep cable rates low; support "Big Cable" in their fight against the extortionists at the NFL Network! | |
| | | | | | jhebert121
join:2002-06-03
Little Rock, AR | Another loss for the corn farmers I guess this is another loss for the corn farmers? | |
| |
|
|
MPAA 'University Toolkit' Violated Copyright
·
·
·