Because I can’t deal with this. And it’s not even that I download stuff that often. It’s the principle of the thing.
Companies are arguing that the entertainment industry is losing money due to pirating, right? But how do they know that? Have there been any actual studies done? Have they polled the people on the internet who would be able to answer best and give them the most conclusive data?
Of course they haven’t. If they had, they would find out that the reason they’re losing money is because everything is so fucking expensive and their biggest buyers are people who love television and movies and music but are not necessarily able to buy everything they want.
If they had, they would find that the reason people don’t upload things for profit. They do it so that others can discover something they love. And the people who download it either decide it isn’t worth their time or they go out and buy it because they love it so much.
This whole thing is just absolutely ridiculous. Movie industries are complaining about box ticket numbers? Well, maybe if you didn’t put every fucking movie in 3D and make us pay twelve dollars to see it you would get more profit. Higher ticket prices = less consumers. The same can be applied to television or music. Everything is so expensive. That is why companies are losing money (if they even are, I have not seen conclusive evidence of this) - not because of pirating. They are losing money because people can’t afford to buy their products.
So instead of thinking things through and realising that there is a simple way to increase their profit and audience (i.e. lowering prices so it is more accessible to their targeted audience), they have decided that the best course of action is to attack and make themselves completely unaccessible by alienating the people that buy their products.
To put it simply, the entertainment industry does not understand this one, basic principle: a consumer is not going to spend egregious amounts of money on a product they do not already know they will enjoy. If they know they will enjoy it, they will gladly pay for the expensive product. But unless I know I am going to love a television show, I am not going to pay sixty dollars for it.
can somebody foward this to them? they need to read it!
- Anti-Same-sex marriage argument: "Joseph Backholm, executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, told Bloomberg News...that marriage was not about 'affirming relationships' but about creating 'the greatest likelihood that children will be raised by their mother and father.' "
- Response: Er...the "greatest likelihood that children will be raised by their mother and father" is created when heterosexual couples who boink and produce offspring DECIDE TO BE COMMITTED TOGETHER throughout child-rearing (i.e., by the 'reproductively-capable' heterosexual marriage/divorce rate).
- -NOT by same-sex marriage's existence or non-existence.
- Am I the only one seeing the apples vs. oranges, here???
- Anti-Same-sex marriage argument: "Ex-Sen. Rick Santorum came to the fore as critique [sic] of 2003 Supreme Court ruling that tossed out Texas’ anti-sodomy statute, and continues to equate gay marriage with polygamy and bigamy as [sic] 2012 presidential candidate. On Monday he railed against gay adoption as 'robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to.' "
- Response: Umm...okay. Now wait just a minute: Aren't children up for adoption because they were relinquished or abandoned by BOTH (female and male) parents?
- So, the ones "robbing" children of "something they need, they deserve, they have a right to" are THEIR BIOLOGICAL MOTHER AND FATHER, by ABANDONING them, are they not?
- And maybe it's just me - but I think most children abandoned by both (male and female) biological parents would be ECSTATIC over ANY LOVING PARENT(S) who WANTED THEM that THEY GOT - don't you? I mean, I would.
- Anti-Same-sex marriage argument: "Cardinal (just elevated) Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, has warned: 'We see in our culture a drive to neuter religion,' and has warned that marriage equality and other measures could 'precipitate a national confrontation between church and state of enormous proportions.' "
- Response: Oh, sir: There's this new-fangled dealio called "the separation of Church and state" which is - conveniently - packaged right there into the U.S. Constitution.
- So don't you worry none, there, lil' missy.
- Now I know it's pretty untested, and unclear in its application <HEAVY SARCASM>, but how much'ya wanna bet that it'll just neatly take care of all your little problems?
- Anti-Same-sex marriage argument: “ 'The state has long recognized the societal benefits of promoting strong families because they establish a framework for healthy permanent male, female relationships,' said Archbishop J. Peter Sartain."
- Response: *blinks*
- *stares* *re-reads*
- *re-reads again*
- *shrugs* 'Kay..? (Is he...speaking in some kinda ~code~ I don't understand?)
- Anti-Same-sex marriage argument: "The most fiery statement for the 'anti's' came from Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the California-based Ruth Institute. The cause of 'equality' is becoming a 'battering ram' in a 'war against nature,' she argued, warning lawmakers: 'History will not be kind to you' if same-sex marriage is approved.
- 'The gay community is not responsible for today's generation of fatherless children, but will be for the next,' she added."
- Response: It...will?
- Okay, forgive me if I'm just unpardonably stupid, here - but isn't the responsibility for ANY fatherless children with...the father? The father who gets a woman/women pregnant, and then abandons his child/children?
- And...am I stupid, or...? -Won't it ALWAYS be for this, and ONLY this, reason?
- But, you know - hey. I'm pretty dumb. Maybe I just don't understand that somehow gays are legally capable of stripping men of their fatherly rights and ripping their children away from them. You know - those men who want them and don't abandon them.
- And...hey, gosh - what about those unwanted children who were abandoned by their birth fathers (& mothers) who end up with TWO (adoptive) fathers, instead? How are those kids "fatherless"? *scratches head*
- Anti-Same-sex marriage argument: "Roman Catholic Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, who has urged Catholics to lobby legislators against marriage equality, warned of 'the grave challenge this legislation poses to the common good.'
- 'The natural structure of human sexuality orders the transmission of human life through man and woman,' said Sartain. 'Because only the union of a man and a woman can generate new life, no other human relationship is its equivalent.' "
- Response: -In the reproductive sense, yes.
- But the fact that no human relationship but the physical union between a man and a woman can generate offspring has exactly WHAT bearing on same-sex marriage again-?
- For that matter - WHY doesn't it have some kind of bearing upon male-female couplings/marriages which for whatever reason are reproductively "crippled"? (i.e., impotence, or other reproductive defect which renders them incapable of 'generating new life')
- Anti-Same-sex marriage argument: "Some threatened to fight the bill with a referendum, if it's passed.
- 'I am confident that this state, like every other state, that has had the option will weigh the evidence and ultimately conclude that moms and dads do matter,' said Joseph Backholm, Family Policy Institute."
- Response: *blinks*
- Is this about that...gay couples 'stealing people's babies' thing again?
- *wanders on...*
- Anti-Same-sex marriage argument: "Dan Folden with New Heights Christian Church said redefining marriage is like rerouting the Columbia River. He said if the river were to be rerouted, lawmakers would require an environmental impact statement — but that nothing similar is being done with this legislation. He said he doesn’t approve of passing the bill first to find out what will happen to society."
- Response: Umm...what exactly does he THINK will happen to society? *blinks* *scratches head again*
- All indications from psychologists who have studied children raised by committed, loving same-sex partners are that they see well-adjusted, "normal" young people venturing out into the world as products of such a family.
- But, here - don't take my word for it. Listen to THIS kid ►
- "Sixteen-year-old Brennen Smith told the story of his gay parents, and the household he grew up in – which included 30 foster children.
- 'Child rape victims, drug affected families, incarcerated parents, parents with extreme mental health issues and victims of childhood neglect. I wonder why these parents, even though they are incapable of providing a safe and stable household, can marry an infinite amount of times while mine cannot marry once,' he said.
- 'My house is proof that the stability and quality of a couple's parenting has nothing to do with the combination of their genders,' he said."
Washington state has its 25th (last needed for a majority) Senate legislature vote, today, for its marriage equality bill.
Senator Mary Margaret Haugen’s [D-Camano Island] statement from this articleis one of the most beautiful Christian statements I’ve read.
As a Christian and a bisexual woman, I embrace it and applaud it wholeheartedly. [It also represents the kind of American patriotism that I’m proud of.]
Senate has votes needed to pass gay marriage legislation
Haugen announces stance on marriage equality
OLYMPIA - Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen issued the following statement today following the Senate hearing on Senate Bill 6239 to allow same-sex marriage:
“For several weeks now, I have heard from the people of my district. They’ve shared what’s in their hearts and minds.
“I have received many letters, emails, phone calls, very heartfelt, from both sides of the issue. I’ve also received a number of very negative comments from both sides.
“For some people, this is a simple issue. I envy them. It has not been simple or easy for me.
“To some degree, this is generational. Years ago I took exception to my parents’ beliefs on certain social issues, and today my children take exception to some of mine. Times change, even if it makes us uncomfortable. I think we should all be uncomfortable sometime. None of us knows everything, and it’s important to have our beliefs questioned. Only one being in this world is omniscient, and it’s not me.
“I have very strong Christian beliefs, and personally I have always said when I accepted the Lord, I became more tolerant of others. I stopped judging people and try to live by the Golden Rule. This is part of my decision. I do not believe it is my role to judge others, regardless of my personal beliefs. It’s not always easy to do that. For me personally, I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe, to this day.
“But this issue isn’t about just what I believe. It’s about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It’s about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed.
“For as long as I have been alive, living in my country has been about having the freedom to live according to our own personal and religious beliefs, and having people respect that freedom.
“Not everyone will agree with my position. I understand and respect that. I also trust that people will remember that we need to respect each other’s beliefs. All of us enjoy the benefits of being Americans, but none of us holds a monopoly on what it means to be an American. Ours is truly a big tent, and while the tent may grow and shrink according to the political winds of the day, it should never shrink when it comes to our rights as individuals.
“Do I respect people who feel differently? Do I not feel they should have the right to do as they want? My beliefs dictate who I am and how I live, but I don’t see where my believing marriage is between a man and a woman gives me the right to decide that for everyone else.
“I’ve weighed many factors in arriving at this decision, and one of them was erased when the legislation heard today included an amendment to clearly provide for the rights of a church to choose not to marry a couple if that marriage contradicts the church’s view of its teachings. That’s important, and it helped shape my decision.
“My preference would be to put this issue on the ballot and give all Washingtonians the opportunity to wrestle with this issue, to search their hearts as I have, and to make the choice for themselves. But I do not know that there are the votes to put it to a ballot measure. So, forced to make a choice, my choice is to allow all men and women in our state to enjoy the same privileges that are so important in my life. I will vote in favor of marriage equality.
“I know this announcement makes me the so-called 25th vote, the vote that ensures passage. That’s neither here nor there. If I were the first or the seventh or the 28th vote, my position would not be any different. I happen to be the 25th because I insisted on taking this much time to hear from my constituents and to sort it out for myself, to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy.
“This is the right vote and it is the vote I will cast when this measure comes to the floor.”
And without the so-called piracy, you would never have discovered or gotten into it to begin with.
All the time.
Hi, Criminal Minds. Hi, Doctor Who.
Nearly every CD I’ve bought or received as a gift was from a group whose songs I first pirated off the internet.
Hai Lost Girl, Hai Legend of the Seeker, HAI HUNDRED OF BOOKS
Fanvids are always inspiring me to buy new music and watch new shows. Most music I buy these days I’ve discovered through fanvids infact.