Originally posted by Bardock42
Well it has to do with things I mentioned in one of the posts you didn't read.
K.
We can talk about it later...literally talk about it.
I still think that guy is an idiot...saying that he hoped someone would figure something out for hosting sh*t.
What do you propose is a solution to that, other than my centralized hosting suggestion?
Originally posted by dadudemon
K.We can talk about it later...literally talk about it.
I still think that guy is an idiot...saying that he hoped someone would figure something out for hosting sh*t.
What do you propose is a solution to that, other than my centralized hosting suggestion?
I think your solution is a fine technical solution. I didn't read any of what he said as saying that there are actual technical limitations at the moment. The way I understand it all the problems are bureaucratic or legal.
I agree with everything you said about technical aspects. I just don't view the article author as the "enemy", rather than a journalist giving an objective overview.
In fact I think considering his position, it is very remarkable how he put no bias in it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think your solution is a fine technical solution. I didn't read any of what he said as saying that there are actual technical limitations at the moment. The way I understand it all the problems are bureaucratic or legal.I agree with everything you said about technical aspects. I just don't view the article author as the "enemy", rather than a journalist giving an objective overview.
In fact I think considering his position, it is very remarkable how he put no bias in it.
He seemed to be hung up on the idea that more money is to be made with TV spots when that isn't the case. For me, he was justifying the problem. He made it worse when he acted a fool at the end there...basically being ignorant to a multi-billion dollar industry.
Originally posted by dadudemon
He seemed to be hung up on the idea that more money is to be made with TV spots when that isn't the case. For me, he was justifying the problem. He made it worse when he acted a fool at the end there...basically being ignorant to a multi-billion dollar industry.
Wait, are you saying that atm, without any changes, there's more money to be made online, and that the TV money could be disregarded?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Wait, are you saying that atm, without any changes, there's more money to be made online, and that the TV money could be disregarded?
I don't expect you to have read all my post contents, as I didn't yours.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course, the viewer have to be setup to watch online in their "main viewing area", and that's another problem. It's a slow change but it is happening.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't expect you to have read all my post contents, as I didn't yours.
I read everything you said as I am interested in your input, but my problem is that your argument is the same as the authors, just going further, but you always seem to focus on a different part to disagree with him. But I don't want to bother to go through the happenings in this thread, as it will be pointless anyways, to me it is clear that we both agree, and imo it is clear that what the author of the article said is factually true, even if he disagrees on the implications, even though he didn't discuss them, so I don't see a point why we should argue, I only replied as I was under the impression you disagreed with the facts in the article, now that it is clear that you don't we don't need to debate it.
This topic is just another way for them to rip us off for millions..
So.....let’s see..
If they get an average of $600 each user.
And sue 9,000 people for eg.
That’s $5,400,000
Not a bad scam to get into folks. People should just make some shit with their home cams, post on You Tube, wait for 9000 hits and sue them all for $600.
Instant millionaire.
Originally posted by The Nuul
This topic is just another way for them to rip of us for millions..So.....let’s see..
If they get an average of $600 each user.
And sue 9,000 people for eg.
That’s $5,400,000
Not a bad scam to get into folks. People should just make some shit with their home cams, post on You Tube, wait for 9000 hits and sue them all for $600.
Instant millionaire.
Also they have made millions so far but why stop there, when they can make billions or even trillions and destroy peoples lives to get it. Cops dont care about this crap for a reason( I know a ton of cops that pirate stuff ). They are after the real criminals and only the money sucking Vamps are after us!
Originally posted by Robtard
Ultimately I agree with you, if this flick had brought in massive cash, they wouldn't be doing this. It's an ego trip, their film which went up against Avatar, yet made 1,000 times less. That's got to be a kick right in the balls.
My favorite part is the smugness the berch had about her film.....compared to her ex-husband.
If both went to a major studio company and asked for funding for a $400 million film, who do you think will get approved first?
hahahaha
Cameron can always say: Score board, berch!