If you hate it soo much…

I was reading another article on the Internet and now I’m mad.

“What! An article on the Internet made you mad? How shocking!”

OK, actually, it was the comments that made me mad…

“WHAT! Internet commenters made you mad?! How? Where? Have you even been on the Internet before?!?!”

(╯°□°)â•Żïž” ┻━┻

Ok, I get it. Reading Internet comments is stupid. They’re full of flamewars, trolls, fan boys/girls, opinionated jerks, and people who are just plain rude.

But here’s the thing I came to realize in my (╯°□°)â•Żïž” ┻━┻ rage.

(that’s “table flipping” for you non-internet speakers)

This particular article was about a new type of popup in Windows 10. If you don’t use the Edge browser, apparently it will pop up a little notification-bubble-like popup (like a square version of the old bubble notifications in Windows) that tells you how Edge is so much faster and you should give it a try.

Then you click the “X” and it goes away.

Will it ever come back? IDK I use Edge all the time, so it never bothers me. I’m also a Windows Insider so I get notifications all the time telling me about new features and asking me to rate them.

Apparently, however, you can turn off “suggestions” and other similar notifications in Windows 10.

But people aren’t happy about that. According to the Internet, no other software developer shows tips, hints, tricks, or suggestions upon first installing or using the software….

Right.

Even websites will show “tutorials” or “tips” when you first sign up.

But did you know that Windows is constantly communicating with Microsoft servers!

Did you also know that in order for your computer to get updates it has to?

But this guy, man, he turned off all that stuff, and the computer was still sending packets to Microsoft servers!

(╯°□°)â•Żïž” ┻━┻

Well, first, let’s try and go this route: Microsoft is a big company. They run servers for their own software which includes but is not limited to Windows Updates, Windows Store updates and app updates, Office, Windows Defender, Xbox services, and more.

brb I have to catch this Paras…

… I guess that was pointless, because you’re not reading me typing in real time… but, hey, I caught it!

Besides these services, Microsoft runs Azure servers that many other companies use. There might be a server out there that some program on your computer uses that technically belongs to Microsoft so it looks like your computer is communicating with a Microsoft server, when in fact it is some other program communicating with what happens to be a Microsoft server which is where their information, data, storage, or applications are stored. Not to mention that the computer could be downloading emails, sending usage statistics (that everyone collects, btw), or downloading updates that you just can’t refuse I’m sorry get over it.

This isn’t even the worst of it, though. If you don’t like Windows, I don’t care. Go to Apple, Linux, Chromebooks, or whatever. I really don’t care if you’re one of the idiots who thinks it’s OK to continue to use Windows XP; an operating system that will never get whatever security holes it still contains patched up. You do you.

But the issue is when these people whine and complain about having to use a system with so many “problems” from a company they believe is trying to control their software! How dare they?

The solution is simple: stop using Windows if you don’t want to use Windows!

“But what about all the Windows software I’ve continued to purchase for the last 20 years?”

“I’ve built up a library of programs that I can’t just move to Linux.”

“You’re a butt face!”

(╯°□°)â•Żïž” ┻━┻

If you don’t like Windows, and you’ve been tired of Microsoft for some time now, why didn’t you move to MAC years ago? Then you wouldn’t have this big library of software that you could only use on Windows machines…

You would have had to purchase a duplicate at some time, maybe. But if you would have switched computers when you upgraded your software, you would have successfully removed yourself from the Windows ecosystem years ago.

The fact that these people stay on Windows, even though they could purchase software for other systems (or put up with the free software you can find for Linux systems, even) tells me that they don’t really care about the OS they use.

They don’t want to move off of Windows. They just want to complain about how bad it is because it makes them feel better. And every time something so small as an unobtrusive popup notification appears, that is just as easily dismissed, that’s fuel for the flamewar.

My point is, if you hate it so much, then why don’t you divorce it?

Don’t tell me how much you think Windows sucks when you keep on buying software for Windows.

-Diggs out

P.S. – (╯°□°)â•Żïž” ┻━┻

Official Support Destroys Choice

I’m going to say something you will most likely vehemently disagree with. (look at me using big words… Hopefully correctly…)

I love Internet Explorer.

Ok, maybe “love” is a strong word. Lets say I prefer to use IE. I just do. Maybe it’s my rebellious nature. How can I rebel to the most widely used (and somehow the most widely hated) web browser? It’s simple really, but not obvious to the typical computer user.

I work in technology and education. Whatever you hear about corporations needing IE for legacy applications is most likely true. However, try and find one educational website which actively supports IE and you will quickly and sorely be out of luck. They say their web applications and websites “should” work in any modern web browser. IE has been a modern web browser since IE9, supporting the newest HTML 5 and CSS 3 standards… right? So, what’s the problem?

The problem is that some web developer drank the Google cool-aide and began writing code which utilized Google API’s and the special way that Google’s Chrome browser engine handles the different HTML and CSS web elements. Then, he tested his web apps and sites in Chrome and it all works great. He used standard code, so the website should work well in any modern web browser… right?

Here’s my biggest peeve with this:  if all these educational websites officially support Chrome, redirect you to Chrome, ask if you’re having the same problems in Chrome, wonder if your organization could possibly switch to another web browser, such as, oh, I don’t know, there are so many, say, maybe,… Chrome, then is there really choice here?

Of course there is! The developers get to choose what platforms and browsers they support. But the end user, the consumer, does not get to choose. Unless you call barely getting to use a website and all of it’s features because you chose a web browser you like – whereas the website only technically runs properly in another browser – a choice. That’s a choice, right?

In essence what I’m trying to say is that while people like to choose what browser they use (or more specifically they want to use something else besides IE), in reality the developers have chosen which browser you will (or won’t) use because they officially support certain browsers over others. Choosing to use IE puts me in a place where some websites (especially all these educational websites) don’t function properly, or some of their features are useless. This isn’t IE or Microsoft’s fault. It is the fault of the web developers who choose to only support one web browser. Official support of web browsers – something, like the Internet, which is supposed to be about user preference, open to everyone, and standardized so the WWW works across the globe – essentially destroys choice. You want to use regular websites that claim to be accessible to everyone across the web? Better make sure you use the browser they chose for you.

Dear Internet Explorer Team

Dear People Responsible for Internet Explorer,

You suck. You have no idea how much I have tried to incorporate IE into my daily routine. You have no idea how hard I have worked to convince people that IE is actually a good web browser. You have no idea how much I want to use IE. And most importantly, you have no idea how many times IE has let me down.

I understand that some devs choose a platform and stick with it. They will pick something like the Blink engine Chrome uses, dig into Chrome and Google APIs, and incorporate other snippits and code bases that all work well together. Then, all their web apps, web pages, and other documents will be coded as such. But for the love of Pete! Why does everyone support Chrome, and only Microsoft supports IE?

I’ve run into at least 4 websites that just don’t like IE in the past week alone. These aren’t super apps or technical previews either. These are simple websites, on which something as mundane as a text field is completely useless. I click in the text field but nothing happens. I type in the text field and instead of typing in the text field, either nothing happens or the web page has a seizure. Sometimes links don’t act properly, with menus and navigations structures fluctuating or simply not working.

The thing that irks me the most is how EVERY ONE OF THESE WEBSITES WORK JUST FINE IN GOOGLE CHROME! So what the hell are you doing, Microsoft? Why does IE suck so much? If IE is based on the same web standards as every other web browser out there, why does yours suck the most? IE is on the most computers in the world! Of course, it has sucked so bad in the past most of the people with a Windows computer has replaced it with something else…

Sincerely,

Every IE user who has had to switch to another browser for at least a handful of websites

P.S. – I really do love IE. Why can’t it just fricken work?!?

Is it Okay to Download a Pirated Copy of a Game Youve Already Purchased?

Is it Okay to Download a Pirated Copy of a Game Youve Already Purchased?.

Once again I come across an article discussing the legality of downloading software from various sources on the Internet. As I read the article above I already had my own view on downloading content through “other” channels. As I read through the comments, I came across very few arguments I have never heard before. All-in-all, my personal thoughts about the matter didn’t change. I always get frustrated with people who take the supporting side, for many reasons; which I will bring up here. But first, let’s go over a few things.

Thing 1: the Evil Studios just want more Money

The MPAA, RIAA, and everyone else with billion dollar content claims piracy is ruining their business and destroying them financially. This is simply not true. Sure, if all those pirates out there bought their copies instead of downloading free copies the studios would have more money. Since those people aren’t, however, it would seem the studios are losing the money those persons would have given them. The key word here is IF – if those people would have bought copies, the studios would have that much more money. However, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t have spent any money for that content. The “free is free” mentality usually gets the better of us and leaves us with junk we would never, in a million years, have paid for. So, just because someone downloaded it off the Internet for free doesn’t mean they would have bought it in the first place. These free screenings do promote future releases, regardless of what studios claim. A person who watched Iron Man on some crazy, free movie website and liked it might have decided to see Iron Man 2 in theaters; expecting it to be as good or better than the first. While it’s true the studios want money, it’s not necessarily true they are greedy; at least not more so than any other profitable company. Sometimes it’s about the art, and sometimes it about the business.

Thing 2: Just because the Studio is Evil, does that make them Wrong?

I’ll bet there are millions of people out there who have pictures and videos from a concert they attended. There’s likely to be many of those videos on YouTube. When a person or group performs live in a public venue, it’s hard to say, “NO PICTURES!” I want memories I can share with others. So I snap a picture. Even if you had to pay to get into the concert I don’t think anyone will argue with your grainy, distorted, personal copy of a live performance of “Dude looks like a Lady.” And I’m almost positive Aerosmith just don’t care. The big thing studios are against, and rightfully so, is when you make money off of their hard work. And yes, playing music is work; or rather a lot of time spent practicing. Even more work goes into producing an album, a movie or TV show, and even video games. When these studios whine about compensation they are a little justified. They hold the Copy Right on that content. This means they are the ones who decide who gets access, who can make copies, who can hold showings, and who can sell the merchandise. I wish it was as simple as this: if you made a chair and someone else made a chair which looked exactly like yours and people bought it because of that fact, you would be mad and try to stop them… simple. However, this debate is not so simple. While the studios are correct when they say, “stealing is illegal,” most people don’t view digital media as a thing which can be stolen. When you download a copy of a movie off the Internet, the original is still there. Did you really steal it? The same thoughts apply to TV shows, music, e-books, photographs, software/programs, and video games (also software, but different enough to name separately). You’re not taking a copy off of store shelves, robbing them of a product they could have sold. Neither are you compensating the studios for their hard work, however. They put all the hard work, time, and effort into making the movie and you’re essentially saying, “I don’t have to pay you for your hard work. I’m watching the movie for free!” Nevermind the greediness of the studio, taking something without permission is wrong; even if it exists infinitum.

Thing 3: LIEcenses, Copy Right, and Fairy Dust

There are tons of people who talk about Copy Right and licensing. None of them ever bother to explain what those are or how they work. This is one reason people feel no shame in watching movies online from places like FreeMoveez.info (not a real site btw). People think that they own the DVD when they buy it. It’s quite natural a thought when you think about it. You go to the store, pickup an item off the shelf, pay the cashier, and it’s yours. But it’s never yours in the sense that the design, name, function, or content now belongs to you. You can’t buy a TV and claim all rights to every TV. You can’t buy a spatula and claim all rights to flat cookware. You can’t buy a car and claim all rights to the motor vehicle. You can’t purchase something and claim it was your idea. Now, I haven’t really heard anyone make this argument, “I bought Lord of the Flies. I wrote Lord of the Flies. I now own the rights to the kids-get-stranded-on-a-deserted-island-and-create-their-own-government storyline.” Nor have I heard someone take credit for the spatula. So, on the surface these analogies do seem out of place. Until we go back to the chair. If I bought a chair, and then made my own chair (for my own use; not to profit from it) I would have made a copy of that chair. I did not deplete the number of items on store shelves. I did, however, rob the company of money. How, you ask? Instead of paying them for another chair I just made a copy. This loss is negligible until everyone starts doing it. Still, the question remains: it is right? Do I have the right to make copies of that chair? Remember, I’m not just making any ol’ chair. I’m precisely copying that specific chair, because that’s the chair I want. The studios tell us they are not selling us a movie; they are selling us a DVD disk which contains the movie and giving us a limited license to have our own private screenings. In essence, we are paying for the right to watch the movie on the disk (along with materials) – we are not paying for the movie on the disk. The DVD even has a disclaimer at the beginning saying it is a federal offense to copy and redistribute the contents of the DVD. The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copy Right Act) does allow you to make a copy of DVDs, but only as a replacement, should something happen to your originals. It does not say you can obtain a copy made from someone else’s DVD over the Internet because you scratched yours up. This license also only allows you to watch that movie on a DVD player. If you are buying DVD disks expecting to play them on an iPod you are buying the wrong item. Do I want to pay $15 for a DVD and then another $5 for a copy I can watch on my mobile device? No, I do not. This is why many studios put out DVDs or Blu-Rays which come with a digital copy, or a license to view a streaming copy. Again, though, it’s always a license to view, not to copy nor distribute. They’re not trying to trick you or get more money out of you. Quite frankly, I don’t think the studios understand what is right or wrong any more than the digital peanut gallery fighting about it in blogs and article comments.

Thing 4: Wherefore art thou, Avengers Blu-Ray

The article which set me off today has a very specific question. The OP (original poster – for those of you new to the century) paid for the video game and then downloaded it from an illegitimate source – meaning he did not download it from the studio who made it nor the distributor in charge of releasing it. It would seem that any arguments about his actions might be moot. What does it matter? It would be similar to a situation where I give Amazon $500 and then take my neighbors iPad. Amazon got their money, why should they care if I don’t get the iPad from them? Now, this isn’t exactly the same, because my neighbor lost an iPad and I’m probably in jail.  But I haven’t told you the whole story yet. [SPOILER ALERT as if you were going to read that article] The OP pre-ordered and paid for the game, but then downloaded the game from the illegitimate source a few days early – before the game was released. It would probably be more similar to say I pre-ordered and paid for the iPad 4, but then got one from a guy at the docks a week early. Now I have the iPad 4 before the intended release date Apple had initially setup. So what if I get a few extra days to play with mine before you get yours? I still paid for it and you will get yours eventually. The bigger issue here is the license. Where did that copy come from? How did you obtain it? Remember, the studio gave you a license to play that DVD, not any copy of that movie where ever you can get it from. The same goes for video games. You actually cannot go to your friend’s house and take his disk media, install it on your computer, but use your key code. When the company sold you the game you had a license for that copy, not any copy you can get your hands on. Disk rentals work (at the disdain of the studios) because only that one copy exists. When you return it you no longer have it and can no longer play it. That license also restricts you from making copies of the disk or software. You cannot copy a DVD to your computer and redistribute it. Neither can you take downloaded software and redistribute it (unless, of course, it is freeware or shareware; two terms I don’t hear too often anymore). That means the person who ripped the DVD and placed it on the Internet violated the terms of the license they bought into when they purchased the DVD. But does that mean you did anything wrong by downloading it? Yes, it does. There are official channels and illegitimate channels. Some of the official channels are free. Likewise, just because it costs money doesn’t mean it’s legit. No matter how you feel about the copy you own or how much money you paid for it, if you aren’t getting it from official channels it’s just not right. The other issue here is this nasty operation known as hacking. The game our OP downloaded early was modified to make it playable. Many video games come with DRM (digital rights management) software embedded into their core. Even though it was originally a legitimate copy of the game, someone had changed the code to remove or bypass the DRM, making an otherwise useless piece of software a working game. This is most likely definitely a no-no according to the terms and conditions of the game’s EULA (end-user license agreement); many of which typically say “you don’t own our code,” and “don’t mess with our code,” and even, “don’t use software which bypasses, restricts, or modifies our code.” So, even though the OP had paid for the game (negating the fact he obtained the game before the official release date) the copy he obtained was an illegal copy because it’s code had been modified. Once again, when you purchase a video, song, e-book, or game you are really only buying the license to view/listen to that specific form of the media through that specific outlet (e.g. If you purchase a movie in iTunes, you can only watch it in iTunes or on your iDevice. You cannot do anything to it to make it playable on your Xbox.)

Thing 5: Last thing, I promise

Who do you think you are? Nevermind, I don’t want to get into a philosophical “who am I” debate. (and yes, we are really puny compared to the universe…) The question I want answered does remain, though. We just have to step back to see it all clearly. A person creates a chair. You buy that chair, paying him for the materials he used to construct said chair as well as his time spent working on the chair. Likewise, you pay the plumber for his time working on your throne, even though you’re not purchasing a product from him. It just seems like these people who work on movies, TV shows, books, music, and software deserve to be compensated for their time and effort. These people spend their days and nights filming scenes, acting, writing scripts and books, building props and sets, practicing their art, recording their art, and finalizing their art so the rest of us may enjoy it. Saying things like this is stupid: “art is meant to be done for yourself, not others – do your art for the joy of the art.” That’s like saying, “don’t make iPads for others, people starving in China, make them because you like making iPads.” These people want to make a good movie for you in a similar way that your real estate agent wants to find you a house you love. They’re not gonna do it for free. I’m going to say this and then explain it: just because that lot is full of cars nobody is using doesn’t mean you can just go take one. Now, as I said before, software and digital copies of movies and music exist infinitum. You download a copy and the original is still there; you did not take away from the stock. Neither did you pay for an item which the creators or Copy Right owners do charge for. Right now there are copies of Heroes, Season 2 on a store shelf somewhere. It will cost you money to take that DVD set home. Why would anyone think it’s OK to download that collection off the Internet for free (through Torrents or P2P software and websites)? Ford sells Mustangs: why should they be OK with you obtaining one for free?

Conclude Already!

Draw your own conclusions. I believe it’s wrong. It’s hard to argue with people who bring up the fact that it’s out there. If it’s out there, why not download it? However, they don’t realize it’s out there illegally, which is what makes it illegal to download. Even still many people agree that if they own a purchased copy, that entitles them to have other copies of the same content however and where ever. Again, this is a license issue; another thing most people don’t understand. Then there’s the people who understand everything I’ve said, but continue to download stuff for free simply because free beats expensive. Some of them even do it just because they feel the system is so messed up and this is a form of vigilante justice. And finally, there are those out there who are just as greedy as the studios they slander. All they want is the content, whether or not they make any money off it. They just do it because they do. No matter what you say or do, the studios won’t agree with you. And no matter what the studios say or do (unless they start giving stuff away for free as policy) chances are people will always want more for less and play the greed card every time.

The Problems with Digital Content

I was going to remove my notes for this post, and just write a nice little story about the stupidity of mankind. However, I decided to use my notes as bullet points, all bulleted and everything. So first, here’s what I wish to discuss:

  • people whine but don’t and aren’t expected to do anything about it
  • studios are greedy
  • people are creatures of habit
  • change is for other people – or – change is just conforming to someone else’s opinions
  • the internet is an awesome collaboration tool – but it’s anonymity is riddled with deceit

Now on to the meat of my blog cow.

The Internet is a vast, virtually unlimited place. Sure, it’s limited by laws and regulations, standards, TOS and Privacy Policies, actual hard drive space, mods and administrators, and let’s not forget about the forced takedown. But besides that, and the occasional fallen utility pole, the Internet is an always-on connection to every other Internet user in the world. As such, the Internet works much like a public forum. I know there are actual forums out there, but really the entire Internet works like one big (not as orderly as, say, a Gaia website) forum. Any grief you have, opinion you’d like to share, or point you’d like to make can be done on one of many websites. You can voice your concerns in your own, personal blog. You can share your opinion in the comments of a news article. You can even belligerently attack other people on any forum, comments section, or your own blog. If you’re lucky, you’ll find someone on your side. If you’re really lucky, you’ll find a large group of people who think what you think: maybe even gather a following. If you’re really, really, really lucky you’ll even find people who despise your very existence, they hate your views so much.

No matter how popular you are, how popular your opinion is, or who shares or opposes it all this work sharing these opinions is practically pointless. Most people are only interested in voicing a distaste for current events and the people involved. But when it comes right down to it most of these people aren’t actually interested in taking any action against the perpetrators of these villainous crimes against humanity (as so these posters and commentors might have you believe). Further more, no one really expects anyone to do anything about it. Sure, every now and then a commenter will say, “do something about it if you hate it so much.” But people rarely ever do anything more than simply comment back with a usually insulting, and useless, rebuttal.

Want an example? *sigh* OK, let me get out my example box… *dig, dig, dig* AH! Here we go!

Sony Music wants way too much money for CDs, downloadable songs, or licences for streaming companies. If you are fed up with paying so much for something which doesn’t seem so valuable (something you believe you get for free from Pandora or the local radio stations) then you need to do something about it. Stop buying music. Don’t buy the CD, don’t buy the MP3, and don’t use services such as Pandora, Slacker, Last.fm, or any other streaming service, including traditional radio (all of which pay licensing fees to Sony Music in order to be able to play their songs). If you boycott Sony Music, it’s not going to make much of a difference. If you get all your friends and their friends (real and digital) to boycott Sony Music, it might get some attention, but it will still be virtually useless. Now, if you can get 100s of 1000s of people across the web to boycott Sony Music, then they will probably start losing money. It’s at that point they will finally realize pirating is not as big a concern as no one buying any of their music. If you are worried about harming the artist who has very little, if anything, to do with licensing and pricing… don’t be. If the studio is losing money, then yes, the artist will lose out on money. But we need them to join us, and maybe this is the only way to get them on board. Currently, the studio might be the only way an artist can get their music out. It’s my understanding that once you sign a contract with a recording studio they own everything you do now and will do in the future. You cannot, in many cases, release music on your own (per the contract you signed). So if everyone is feeling the financial pinch, perhaps they will finally do something to please consumers. After all, studios are greedy. They will not enjoy not having your money.

This is why we’re in the situations we are in now. This is why DVD’s come with digital copies that you need to activate or pay fees to stream to your devices. This is why you listen to incessant ads on music streaming sites. This is why gaming companies are trying to find a way to keep you from selling used games and book publishers charge the same price for a digital copy as they do a printed book. This is why cloud storage such as Amazon’s cloud and Google Music (which let you access music you have purchased from any Internet connected device on the planet) are in the sights of the RIAA and MPAA. Greed. The studios want you to buy content from them, but they don’t want you to actually use it. Well, they do want you to use it, but only once. If you purchase content on a computer, then that’s where you can use it. Want to use it on a phone, MP3 player, game console, TV, tablet, work computer, or other device? They want you to pay a fee for each device you want to use. Maybe they don’t get it. Maybe consumers don’t get it. Maybe no one truly “get’s it.” Get it?

Whatever the issues, whatever the problems, whatever the solutions nothing will change. People are creatures of habit. Some of us are creatures of the night… but that’s a completely different topic. If someone has been listening to music – no, wait… I’ve got a better example. Let’s say you bought a TV. You can enjoy any of the local TV stations without having to pay a dime to anyone. You already paid $100 to $300 dollars for a TV (we’re talking old CRTs… you probably paid much more if you bought a flat screen TV within the past few years). Now you can enjoy years of TV programming without having to pay another dime. Wait? What? You have to buy a special device which will convert the brand new broadcasting signals to a format your old TV can handle? Well, how much is that going to cost? WHAT! $50 to $100 for a decent converter box!? You have got to be kidding…?

Ok, this isn’t that great of an example. The government mandated this because they felt we were too far behind Europe. TV networks didn’t make money off this, either. But it is kind of annoying. Here’s something which is essentially free, and now you have to pay to continue enjoying it. People were not happy about this. This is why we used our tax money to fund the DTV voucher program. People did not want to pay to continue to use their televisions. Not just that, but once they began watching DTV streams, they were not happy with what they saw. Sure, the video quality was consistent among all the channels; even beautiful if you only had poor signal, or now have an HDTV. But that’s only if you got a good signal. Say goodbye to poor but still viewable signals and hello to “slow Internet connection streaming” channels (with no ability to buffer). This all goes to show that people just simply do not like it when things change. I know what you’re going to say: “but change is good. Change forces innovation and allows us to move towards the future.”

That’s a pretty simple, positive view of change. In actuality, most people think of change mush differently. Have you heard the one about the scientist and the priest? A scientist and priest meet up every Sunday afternoon to talk about philosophy, science, and religion. The scientist puts his “faith” in observable facts. The priest puts his faith in God. Both men talk to each other about how they need to change. The scientist thinks the priest needs to face the facts and realize God cannot be proven and “miracles” can be scientifically explained. The priest tells the scientist that he needs to realize the facts are not as important as the truth, and science can’t explain everything.

Sorry, that wasn’t supposed to be a joke, but I did start it off like one. My bad. The point is both men think the other needs to make some changes in their life. These “changes” are no more than the opinion of one person about how to live, what to think, how to act and who to be. When we tell the record, movie, and gaming studios they need to change their strategies for a digital world, it’s really just our opinion. They’re opinion is not to change, but simply use the same strategies they’ve been using in the digital world, with little to no change. Why should they anyway?

They should because everyone seems to think so. They should because people are pirating their content anyway. They should because it would be smart. But this just brings us back to the nature of the Internet. It is a great collaboration tool, with millions of people contributing to projects, sites, and petitions. It is very difficult, as I’ve stated before, to get all of these contributors to act. Unless you want to right wrongs. The hacking group Anonymous has recently shown just how powerful their might can be. Studios are afraid of what this kind of power can mean for their precious content. Already people can upload movies, music, and any software to the web for other to download. There’s the concept of “free is free” where people download these things because they’re free, not necessarily because they wanted it. This concept in action has made studios think there is a huge market for their content which isn’t paying for the content but getting it anyway.

Merge Anonymous and others like them with pirates, viruses and malware, phishing sites, spam, and identity thiefs the Internet looks like (and in reality, can be) a dangerous place. Despite its power for bringing people together, all that’s wrong with it is pushing studios away from its customers. Which, in turn pushes certain people *cough* anonymous *cough* together against the studios. Which in turn pushes the studios further away from its customers. Is there no end?

Digital content can, for all intents and purposes, be thought of as nothingness; and only as valuable as the consumer believes it to be. After all, what is a digital song? What is the music on a vinyl record for that matter? At least you can hold the record in your hand. I think studios put too much value on their content. Sure, it might take $2 million dollars to make a movie, but that doesn’t mean I want to pay 20 bucks for it. It also doesn’t mean I’ll pay any more for a movie that cost the studio $34 million to produce. And now it all comes back to greed. If people want to watch a movie, TV show, or sports game a studio will charge them as much as they can before people say, “no way!” They do this out of greed. The studio wants as much money as they can milk out of its customers. And they want to get as much money as often as they can. At least that’s how it looks, which is why Megaupload existed. People are as cheap as studios are greedy.

But it’s not about us, right? We’re not the problem. Consumers are where the solutions lies. Right? We don’t need to change, the studios need to change. It’s a fact! Who’s with me?!