/sarcasm
The following cutting comes from [http://imdb.com/news/sb/2007-06-04/#tv5|a June 4, 2007 post] at IMDB.com:
A Chicago man has found himself caught in a tangled web after admitting that he found four never-before-broadcast episodes of Fox's 24 on an unnamed website, then uploaded them in January to the website LiveDigital.com. Acknowledging that the man, Jorge Romero, was not the first to post the pirated copies on the Internet, the FBI said that he was nevertheless being charged with distributing them. He was identified after Fox TV, which airs 24, subpoenaed LiveDigital demanding that the uploader by identified. In a statement, Fox said that it hopes Romero's case "will serve as a powerful warning that uploading copyrighted TV shows and movies to the Internet can be a crime with significant penalties and will be prosecuted as such."
YEP, that's right--the FBI is going after, not the men behind 911, not the guys in the White House (who have broken a few laws, themselves), not again drug runners, but are in fact going after (apparently) something much more important, bootleggers. That's right, uploading unaired episodes of 24 can get you in front of a judge.
This is so unbelievably absurd, it's not even funny!
"So, Agent Johnson, you got any leads on domestic terrorism?" Agent Smith asks.
"Oh, no, but I'm real close to nailing this guy who watches 24 illegally!"
"Snap! Get that bastard! Uh, say, did you have to snag any episodes, you know, for evidence? I hear the new shows are kind of good."
"Of course, man! I'll email them to you!"
OK, so the dude in Chicago got in trouble for distributing the episodes, not just watching them. But so friggin' what? Is the money the Fox people lost worth a man's freedom? Worth more than putting FBI agents on jobs that actually keep humanity safe, as opposed to oppressed?
I used to know a guy who worked in the (paraphrasing here) Copyright Enforcement Department at Warner Brothers. I asked him how he handled bootleggers when he found them. He told me they'd find them at scifi conventions and rather than arrest the bootleggers they'd just scoop up the tapes and throw them away because actually prosecuting these guys would cost more than the company was losing.
Of course, now they don't have to do it themselves, they just call the FBI who are more than happy to put aside their jobs protecting Americans to protect their big, fat bottom line.
Don't you just love it when companies get better treatment than us normal citizens?
Pete, in all fairness I'm sure the FBI does more than just go after (poor, misunderstood) bootleggers.
ReplyDeleteReally? Where's bin Laden? Where are all those nasty Islamic terror cells that we're all supposed to be afraid of? All I see them doing is arresting people for doing things they haven't done and aren't capable of doing whether it's those religious loons down in Florida or those 6 Jersey boys who were somehow going to invade a US Army base.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the phrase "in all fairness" doesn't really apply here since the government is the one arresting people for costing mega-corporations an immeasurably small/large (no one can prove an actual number) amount of money. That's not very fair to remove a person's freedom for a crime that does not involve violence or even political motivation (so it's not a hate-crime/terror-crime).
In my mind "fairness" is not really being applied in the direction of the citizens and I believe that I am being fair to expect certain things from my government (especially when they already promise them). I'd like an accounting of the work being done by my government to keep me safe and unlike most Americans, I care to know whether they're spending my tax dollars well. I'm tired of trusting government to do it right only to hear about instances of civil and human rights abuse and downright screw-ups like 911.
Sorry, words like "fairness" kinda get under my skin these days. They always seem to apply to me but not to the government.
From allwords.com:
ReplyDelete"Idiom: in all fairness (to be fair)
"One ought to remember or take into consideration, if one is fair; being scrupulously fair."
In the above entry, you make it sound as if the FBI only goes after video pirates.
My point is, that's not all they do, in all fairness.
(p.s. my late grandfather was FBI.)
Dear Rant-boy -
ReplyDeleteYou are reading FAR too much into a simple statement. "In all fairness" is idiomatic. You're taking it far too literally.
So let me rephrase: Surely you concede that the FBI does more than hunt down bootleggers.
I mention my grandfather simply because you have a habit of dehumanizing those you hate and/or despise. TheGovernment, TheFeds, TheRepublicans, TheDemocrats and -- yes -- even TheCorporations are made up of REAL FLESH AND BLOOD PEOPLE. That may be a hard truth for you to swallow, but Fox is not operated by a secret cabal of reptoids intent on world domination. Not all FBI men want to haul you and your anarchist brethren to some secret hoosgow on the dark side of the moon.
I read your posts and cringe about half the time. If you were this big of an extremist in real life, we'd never get along.
Count to ten, and respond.
... oh yeah, and you sure showed me by quoting every definition of "fair" from Websters.
ReplyDelete(Except, of course, for the idiom. Which is how I used it. Arguing with you is pointless.)
HAve you heard the new one? We're looking to put missiles on Russia's doorstep adn we're surprised that he's talkng about resuming russia's cold war stance of having missiles pointed at europe and america..he actually whipped out the phrases " resume the Cold War" and "American Imperialist power" according to NPR Canadian sister outfit.\\This time though, Russia is sitting on on an economic boom and the world second largest oil reserves next to Saudi Arabia( maybe even better) and we're mired down in two middle East countries....
ReplyDeleteBush claimed to have looked into Putin's eyes and saw in hus soul a good man...I think he saw his reflection
Woo Hoo...Dr. Strangelove here we come!
Okay, seriously: How can you possibly go on and on like that and not understand why I used the (vastly unfair and inflammatory) pejorative "Rant-boy"? Pete, I expect footnotes on your next response. And section headers.
ReplyDeleteFrom your original post, and what started this whole nasty ball a-rollin':
YEP, that’s right–the FBI is going after, not the men behind 911, not the guys in the White House (who have broken a few laws, themselves), not again drug runners, but are in fact going after (apparently) something much more important, bootleggers. That’s right, uploading unaired episodes of 24 can get you in front of a judge.
I get it now. You were merely being absurd and extreme to make a point.
So, I’m an anarchist now? Also, I never said anybody wants to haul me anywhere.
I'm referencing your coverage of the whole Josh Wolf debacle. Again, going to extremes to make a point. Guess I'm not allowed to do that.
Then don’t read my posts, man. Nobody’s forcing you.
Hey, go right on preaching to the choir.
Regarding your use of that phrase in an idiomatic fashion, I am not sure what difference it makes what fashion you use it in. I already explained that my understanding of the word “fair†was incorrect. Hell, at this point, I’m not sure what “idomatic†even means. Webster.com’s definition didn’t clear things up, either.
This is why arguing with you is pointless. If you can't be bothered to understand what I'm trying to say, we're just chasing our tails here.
Wow, so much for a friendly debate! Nice how you add the “reptoids†line in to go after my character rather than address my argument.
What, you're the only one who can go to extremes to make a point?
Go right on preaching to the choir. I read your stuff because I appreciate a wide variety of viewpoints. You're the one who said: "You know me in real life and I’m nowhere near this obnoxious in person (I’m not saying I’m not obnoxious, of course!) This website is for me to vent and blow off steam. It reflects just one part of me. The loudmouth. (In other words, nothing personal.)" I'm just agreeing with you.
Get that: agreeing with you. Wow. It can be done.
I really hope you don’t think I’m some David Icke-type freak who thinks Bush is a shape-shifting lizard.
Me and the Illuminati are looking into this.
The formatting went all screwy on me. Some of what I posted is out of order. Oops.
ReplyDeleteWell, if you're going to an extreme to make a point, then it should be consistent, in my mind. As in, your whole argument should be extreme. But really, that's not the most polite thing to do on someone else's site. But who am I to dictate terms, even on my own site? This is the Internet after all. :)
ReplyDeleteAnd by going on preaching to the choir, do you mean you are a member of the choir regarding most of the "serious" stuff I blog about? I thought most of my stuff made you cringe? Or are you agreeing that no one's forcing you? :)
Re: Anarchy and the Josh Wolf fun--wow, that was a while ago. But I'm glad you remembered that story. It's a good example of how the USG is all oppressive and whatnot. I can't recall who said it, but if one person is imprisoned all people are--metaphorically speaking. As in, you don't really know who is next, do you?
You said: "If you can’t be bothered to understand what I’m trying to say, we’re just chasing our tails here."
I don't know why you'd even say that when I explained just before that I went to Webster.com to try and understand how you were using the word. I'm a loud mouth, not closed-minded (is that a word?). The point is, if I didn't want to hear other people's opinions, why would I allow comments on my site?
Regarding your use of "reptoids" as a form of going to an extreme to make a point. This is a character thing--accusing me of believing something completely absurd, as opposed to just accusing me of not making my point well. It accuses me, as a person, of being of questionable character, as opposed to sticking to the facts--even the exaggerated facts. I didn't say the FBI was too busy covering up JFK's murder to go after the real dangers, I said they were going after non-threats--which is true. My suggestion that they weren't going after real threats is actually not that exaggerated since I have no real evidence that they do. I just have to assume that they're doing their job, which is clearly not the case all the time.
All right, well, my apologies if I took your reply a bit too seriously than I should have. Personally, I think it was a bit mutual, but it's cool. I think we both understand what we're trying to say, so all is cool. And believe me, I won't be offended if you don't read this blog anymore. But I'm glad you still do. :) I'll try to include at least one thing a week that'll make ya cringe! ;)
Oh and sorry it's taken me this long to reply--life's been hectic, as usual. Anyway, thanks again for your opinion, man! And it was great to see you last Friday night--I hope you got my email.