>> ^qfan:

My point was that his condescending nature of religion makes him look like a hypocrite when he refers to a moral code, making him as "preachy" as those he slanders on a regular basis. It's not consistent.
Then he needs to define where this morality comes from. But that's another topic altogether.
>> ^Asmo:
>> ^qfan:
"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM
What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.

Morality does not require religion... Paedo priests are a classic example...
As for Bill, he even says outloud why PIPA/SOPA are useless... "Every time we took one of them down, another would pop up". So basically they can't stop them popping up but they (not Maher) were willing to take the risk of impinging on legitimate sites on an impossible mission.
He may be playing the devil's adovcate but he sort undermines any position he had there. He doesn't have figures on piracy vs purchase, he doesn't have figures on how many pirated and then purchased, he doesn't know if his movie was promoted to greater success due to personal piracy.
I wholeheartedly agree with shutting down piracy for profit, but personal privay is kinda like taping the radio, government's can't stop it and they shouldn't bother because it'll cost them more in the long run, and the media companies aren't picking up the tab...



I "think" he has addressed that, but I can't remember specifically where. I think more of his criticism of religion is centered on believing in magical entities despite a lack of evidence and how that opens people up to manipulation by others.

I wouldn't say it makes him a hypocrite on the subject of morality, but he certainly does have his own unsupported beliefs (such as his anti-vaccine stance... not sure if he changed it).

He also seems to be supporting SOPA with the mindset of "it's aimed at a real problem that affects me, so it sounds like something worth supporting". Again, he's believing in something despite not really understanding it, so you can make somewhat of a case for hypocrisy on those grounds.

>> ^heropsycho:

So media today isn't as high quality as it once was?

It isn't the quality of the product so much as the quality of the alternative.

Orchestras are having a much harder time these days, in part because the sound quality of recordings is so much higher now that it was in the past. I'm not really sure why people go to movie theaters... that's never been a pleasant experience for me, but I suppose it's an experience that's difficult to replace.

I do wonder how high-budget video games are going to fare as the quality of $1-%5 games increases.

And of course people are going to be less likely to buy something when they can get it for free. The real question is will they buy it once they can't pirate it, knowing there's plenty of other stuff they can get for free.

>> ^heropsycho:

Honestly, both are problems. I'm sorry, but they are. When I was a kid, we pretty much bought our music. Kids now? There's a very large percentage who don't buy music whatsoever, and download it illegally.
I'm not saying SOPA is a good idea, because it's a terrible law, but feigning ignorance to the problem of piracy whether it's selling the content or just spreading it around for free without personal gain costs content producers significant money. I don't even know what the solution is if there is one, but I agree with Maher it's a problem.
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^heropsycho:
Maher has a point. There is a section of the population who want quality content without paying for it, and they'll continue to do it no matter what, and that is wrong.
True, people do that, but if they can't find what they want they're still unlikely to buy it. It's also entirely possible to get nothing but free legal content.
Still, that isn't what the legislation is targeting. The real problem isn't end users downloading free stuff, it's people making a living from selling unauthorized copyrighted material.




The problem isn't that people are downloading stuff, it's that they aren't buying what is for sale. Those are two separate issues.

If a magic wand could be waved to to stop "illegal" downloading, I can still get so much legal content via Hulu, Comedy Central, or wherever that there is no reason to spend extra money on entertainment.

The old days where kids bought CDs because it was the only option are gone and aren't coming back. The people stuck in that old mindset are still trying to punish people into spending money when their content is barely worth the time invested in finding it for free.

Yes, reforms are needed, but the first thing we need to do it have people working on that actually understand the issue to begin with.

>> ^heropsycho:

Maher has a point. There is a section of the population who want quality content without paying for it, and they'll continue to do it no matter what, and that is wrong.

True, people do that, but if they can't find what they want they're still unlikely to buy it. It's also entirely possible to get nothing but free legal content.

Still, that isn't what the legislation is targeting. The real problem isn't end users downloading free stuff, it's people making a living from selling unauthorized copyrighted material.

>> ^qfan:

"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM
What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.


Well, I think he's always held the opinion that morality does not come from religion.

I keep seeing people like Maher talking about how much money they're losing based on the number of people pirating their stuff... this is a fantasy.

There is so much free legal content out there these days that a lot of people have come to the conclusion that there's no reason to spend money on it at all (or very little at least).

The choice isn't "buy it or pirate it"... it's become "pirate it or watch something else".

*promote

>> ^VoodooV:

I really want to get a dash cam for myself. Should be standard issue for crying out loud. Everyone drives nice when the cops are around but turn into Mr. Hyde when they're gone. Dash cams for everyone would put a stop to that.


Get a window mount and use a smartphone as a dashcam.

Technically that would be much closer to "traditional marriage" than what a lot of conservatives preach.

I'd add an eia tag if I could.

>> ^siftbot:

Moving this video to Psychologic's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.


WRONG!

Safety glasses are optional when you're pretty sure nothing will go wrong.

>> ^mas8705:

>> ^Psychologic:
Siftbot, obey!

Here... Take my whip... and if that doesn't work, here is some water to throw at siftbot...


... and if that doesn`t work... well, I think I have a Windows ME disk around here somewhere. >=)

OBEY!!!

Siftbot, obey!