There is no way in Hell I'm going to sit and watch 15 minutes of that guy....

Man, it's like capitalism, law, and politics are all inextricably linked without a nod of the head to rational or reasonable insight, in the horrific mess of a country we both love and hate that is, the United States.

Splinshints: There is no way in Hell I'm going to sit and watch 15 minutes of that guy....

He's got plenty of good points, but holy hell is he annoying.

Emposter: Splinshints: There is no way in Hell I'm going to sit and watch 15 minutes of that guy....

He's got plenty of good points, but holy hell is he annoying.

I liked him better when he was talking about why The Phantom Menace was the worst thing ever.

i lasted three seconds

Teh ghey is strong with that one...

BiffDangler: i lasted three seconds

blastoh: isn't this the third or fourth time this has been posted to fark?

first time i saw it.
For the tl/dr crowd:

The very entities that distributed the file sharing software's (mainly cnet, aol, msnbc) are owned by the entertainment industry. They knew the programs would create piracy so they could go to congress and ask them to give censorship abilities to control the internet to combat the very piracy they created.

The facts are all there, but why couldn't he find someone less face-melting annoying to narrate the whole thing?
Really, I watched the whole thing before and found myself subconsciously reaching for the close and mute button multiple times.

Emposter: Splinshints: There is no way in Hell I'm going to sit and watch 15 minutes of that guy....

He's got plenty of good points, but holy hell is he annoying.
Splinshints: There is no way in Hell I'm going to sit and watch 15 minutes of that guy....

He's got plenty of good points, but holy hell is he annoying.Splinshints: There is no way in Hell I'm going to sit and watch 15 minutes of that guy....

He's got plenty of good points, but holy hell is he annoying.Splinshints: There is no way in Hell I'm going to sit and watch 15 minutes of that guy....

He's got plenty of good points, but holy hell is he annoying.

Know who else staged an attack on himself as a pretense for his real goal?

mr lawson: blastoh: isn't this the third or fourth time this has been posted to fark?

first time i saw it.
For the tl/dr crowd:

The very entities that distributed the file sharing software's (mainly cnet, aol, msnbc) are owned by the entertainment industry. They knew the programs would create piracy so they could go to congress and ask them to give censorship abilities to control the internet to combat the very piracy they created.

Err...I'd buy into that if they owned TPB or something. BitTorrent itself isn't illegal since it has a number of legal and valid uses, so why shouldn't cnet distribute a BT client?

If what AnnoyingGuy53 was saying was true, then cnet/aol/msnbc would be designing new P2P applications and getting them in use. So cnet designs a new BitTorrent application or protocol.

BiffDangler: i lasted three seconds

But how far did you make it into the video?

badabing badaboom. It's called Racketeering. The entertainment industry is as much organized crime as the Mafia, and it doesn't just end with copyright racketeering.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: BiffDangler: i lasted three seconds

[www.collegeflavor.com image 262x400]


yeah I knew i set myself up for that the second i hit send

Captain_Ballbeard: Know who else staged an attack on himself as a pretense for his real goal?

Hitler.

enry: Err...I'd buy into that if they owned TPB or something. BitTorrent itself isn't illegal since it has a number of legal and valid uses, so why shouldn't cnet distribute a BT client?

Because on the site where they were distributing it they were encouraging piracy by giving examples of copyrighted works to search for...

BiffDangler: Leo Bloom's Freakout: BiffDangler: i lasted three seconds

[www.collegeflavor.com image 262x400]


yeah I knew i set myself up for that the second i hit send

Without a doubt, but I am agreed in that the guy is insufferably annoying despite any possibly valid points.

jst3p: enry: Err...I'd buy into that if they owned TPB or something. BitTorrent itself isn't illegal since it has a number of legal and valid uses, so why shouldn't cnet distribute a BT client?

Because on the site where they were distributing it they were encouraging piracy by giving examples of copyrighted works to search for...

Meh. Having an owner meddle in the affairs of their properties is a good way to lose credibility and thus viewers.

/see Fox broadcasting "Married With Children" and "Family Guy" while FNC decries the crap that's on TV

Captain_Ballbeard: Know who else staged an attack on himself as a pretense for his real goal?

Palpatine?

hawcian: Captain_Ballbeard: Know who else staged an attack on himself as a pretense for his real goal?

Palpatine?

Standard operating procedure for a site that provides software downloads, and the co-branding is a real stretch. It's a logical argument, not a factual one. Interesting, but "Disney" did not put an mp3 article on C|Net's ESPN branded site. The editor, who probably doesn't work directly for anyone employed by Disney, did.

Most of these examples are from when media did not understand digital distribution. Most likely this was okayed, if at all, at a meeting where most people didn't understand anything but page clicks.

TL;DR - the guys in charge didn't know what was going on. They never have, and never will.

Splinshints: There is no way in Hell I'm going to sit and watch 15 minutes of that guy....

Yeah, way more annoying than SOPA. I mean, who wants to take this info and use it for anything?

Splinshints: There is no way in Hell I'm going to sit and watch 15 minutes of that guy....

Listen to him.

He may be a bit annoying, but he makes a very good point.

The RIAA/MPAA engineered this mess. They created this problem so they could profit from it.

heinekenftw: He may be a bit annoying, but he makes a very good point.

Maybe, but I need no convincing. Despite my general disdain for the typical filesharer and my belief that the majority are just cheap-ass bastards, I think the **AAs are far worse and I'll gladly oppose them on every level in everything they do every chance I get.

So, luckily, there's really nothing he can be saying that will make me hate them any more than I already do.

Xenu's Giant Pink Replicock: Standard operating procedure for a site that provides software downloads, and the co-branding is a real stretch. It's a logical argument, not a factual one. Interesting, but "Disney" did not put an mp3 article on C|Net's ESPN branded site. The editor, who probably doesn't work directly for anyone employed by Disney, did.

Most of these examples are from when media did not understand digital distribution. Most likely this was okayed, if at all, at a meeting where most people didn't understand anything but page clicks.

TL;DR - the guys in charge didn't know what was going on. They never have, and never will.

All true, but it's the same sort of logic that is used by the MPAA/RIAA when they go after people and create laws like PIPA and SOPA.