On: SOPA lives—and MPAA calls protests an "abuse of power"

[MatthewPhillips]

> I'm not paying to be advertised to. I'm not paying to be threatened with FBI notices. So my solution is I'm just not paying.

So, I take it you feel entitled to the content one way or another? Your way or the highway, right?

[pork → MatthewPhillips]

Not at all. He feels that he has the right, as a lawful paying customer, not to be threatened and preached to. Imagine if you sat down at a restaurant, and the server lectured you about dining-and-dashing before serving you. It's his right to be pissed off about sanctimonious bullshit from the MPAA

[MatthewPhillips → pork]

I understand, these are the grandparent's conditions for purchase. Someone else might have a different set of conditions. What the grandparent is asking for, then, is prices (and the product itself) to be set per-purchase, per-customer. This does not scale to Hollywood movies.

[HeyLaughingBoy → MatthewPhillips]

No, he's not. He is simply saying that they have made the product unpalatable so therefore he is not going to consume it.

[dhimes → pork]

I think I understand why the copyright notice needs to be un-skippable. But the ads/previews/whatever-else-you-may-want-to-call-them have pissed me off since they started putting them on VHS (LONG time ago).

I don't like paying for ads.