Broadcasters Want Cash For Media Shared At Home

marcellizot writes "What would you say if I told you that there are people out there that want to make sharing your media between devices over a home network illegal? According to Jim Burger, a Washington, D.C attorney who deals with piracy in the broadcasting industry, certain broadcasters want to do just that. Speaking in a recent podcast, Burger remarked that the broadcasting industry is keen to put controls on sharing media between devices even if those devices are on a home network and even if the sharing is strictly for personal use. When pressed as to why broadcasters would want to do this, Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right.'"

And this is news?

[Ollabelle]

I've always known the end-goal for all media companies is pay-per-play, every single time.

I have paid for that right.

[loteck]

I paid for that right when I made the initial purchase.

Duh

[Trigun]

If they could get away with it, they would make you pay for content you don't even watch, but have the ability to.

Crooks, fighting to uphold a dying business model, and squeeze every penny out of it the entire way.

Re:Duh

[HTH NE1]

If they could get away with it, they would make you pay for content you don't even watch, but have the ability to.

They're called premium channels.

isnt this about 25 years too late?

[192939495969798999]

If they don't want us to have the rights to content, why are they selling us the content on a disk? Does no one see how dumb this is? The summary makes it sound like they want me to pay 5 more dollars or something to take a DVD upstairs and play it vs. downstairs... there is just no chance people will pay it. Movie tickets are an example of a license to view that doesn't include a physical copy of the content, so I refuse to believe they don't know they're selling you your own copy of the content.

Non-electronic example?

[hellsDisciple]

Would you pay for the privilage of bringing a CD into your 'unlicensed' bath room to listen to?

I wish a judge would stop their bullshit campaign!

[garcia]

Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'.

I already did, with my taxes. I have fair-use rights that trump the media industries desire to make money.

Discussion over.

Losing customers

[ktappe]

I'm meeting more and more people who are shunning traditional TV and audio content--the very content that is being proposed to be locked down in TFA. The rush away from such content will become a stampede if such controls are enacted. Imagine not being allowed to record your favorite show in your living room while you're at work and then play it in your exercise room when you get home. The sheer lunacy of it will turn consumers off extremely quickly and therefore these companies will lose even more money. But they are far too short-sighted to realize this, so we will all suffer. Well, except for book publishers, who will see sales soar as we revert to earlier (and fully portable) media forms.

Well, I'm as polite as possible when I say to them

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself!

You have to get closer to the average idea of what a consumer should be able to do, not further away. If you continue to make these outrageous claims, there's a good chance that you can't even hold your more reasonable points.

in order for that to be true

[NynexNinja]

first you would have to dismantle the fair use doctrine in the copyright act...unfortunately for them, sharing copyrighted material between devices at home currently is considered fair use... you paid for the material once already -- its going to be hard for them to prove that paying over and over and over for an audio music file is reasonable... I'm sure if you had to pay for repeat broadcasts of television shows, people would probably stop watching television...

It's not just broadcasters

[frovingslosh]

I want $1 from everyone who does this too. And I have just as much right to it as they do.

Maybe you didn't...

[SanityInAnarchy]

What I would like to see is certain terms very, very clearly defined.

For example, you should not be allowed to hijack domains and call yourself an ISP. You can still hijack domains and sell some sort of service, but you shouldn't be able to call it Internet service.

You should not be allowed to sell a CD with any kind of copy protection (let alone rootkits) and call it a CD. You can still sell them, but they should include a fairly large disclaimer to the effect of "This is not a CD." Ditto for DVDs with any copy protection beyond CSS, especially deliberately breaking the spec to where it won't even play on your own players (I'm looking at you again, Sony) -- you could call it a movie, but not a DVD, and it should be very clear that it is not intended to be able to play in DVD players.

And you should not be able to sell media that has its fair use restricted and call it "selling" -- indeed, you must make it very clear that the customer is renting the media.

At least if we had a clear definition of terms, I could buy a movie and know it will play on anything.

As it is, they don't even need additional legislation to make this work. All they need is what they already have -- DRM + DMCA. They can use DRM to prevent you from copying the media around your house, and the DMCA will make it illegal to crack that DRM, even if you have the right to copy the media around your house.

Re:specifics?

[capt.Hij]

I guess the most heartening thing to consider is these guys eventually cross that threshold where the consumer resentment goes from smoulder to explosion, and maybe the backlash settles it once and for all.

You should not underestimate people's ability to bow to these kinds of pressures. We live in a world where most people do not think twice about waiting for a dvd from netflix in the mail. Sneakernet as a way to deliver bits is alive and well.

I read the articles but did not listen to the mp3, and the articles had little information. The surprising thing though is the openness at which the real issue here is control. Some people are so bent on control that they fail to see the difference between information/ideas and physical things. Sadly we are still a long way from the day that people can produce and distribute their own media. There are a few people who are able to do it, but it seems that even those small gains are under constant attacks from a wide variety of powerful entities.

Re:Pay per play is a great innovation.

[newgalactic]

No

No You Didn't

[asphaltjesus]

The media conglomerates are training consumers otherwise.

The whole point behind those stupid trailers in front of DVD's, stupid FBI warning and RIAA lawsuits is to instill fear.

They want you to believe *they* are the ultimate authority. So far, it's working great.

Re:And this is news?

[Kamokazi]

Actually their end goal is to charge everyone per second for every media playback, whistled/hummed tune, movie reference/quote, looking at a sign advertising their media, up to and including every personal thought about their media.

But for now they'll settle for this...total control of crappy, unimaginitive content doesn't happen overnight afterall...it takes many nights of boozing up senators, tropical vacations, and 4,000 sq. ft. summer homes before that can happen.

Absurd Scenarios

[smackenzie]

First, many of us already are kind of doing this with the premium iTunes music. I pay $1.29 so I can listen to a song on my laptop, my iMac at home, my home office PC and my computer at work -- without worrying whether I've gone over the five computer limit because I keep changing my home office PC and have to reauthorize.

Second, if I buy a song online to listen to in my home office, are they going to charge me to upload it to my media center PC in the living room? Now, what if I install a second set of speakers from my home office into my living room? Does that count? What's the difference?

What if I have it on a removable drive that I then bring from room to room and listen to the music on it on different computers? Charge me for that? What if I just walk from room to room with an iPod? Music in the office, music in the kitchen? What's the difference? Obviously, I can argue the fine points here, but that is just it. The various gray scenarios are absurd...

I should be able to buy music and listen to it (me and anyone within earshot) in any fashion, on any machine, no matter where I am.

Re:Maybe you didn't...

[mosch]

You can still sell them, but they should include a fairly large disclaimer to the effect of "This is not a CD."

This is not a CD, it's a MegaDisc! MegaDisc gives you the hot new music video, footage from the concert Live in Moscow, and behind the scenes footage showing you a day in the life of the artist!

So don't settle for a CD, when you can have a MegaDisc!

Re:I wish a judge would stop their bullshit campai

[kebes]

I already did, with my taxes.

You should have just said: "I already have those rights." As long as people think that they only have access to rights as long as they pay for access[1] and/or pay through taxes,[2] we've already lost. Rights are not commodities to be purchased.

[1] E.g. You don't have to buy a copy of content to exercise fair-use, like excerpts, etc.

[2] You don't have to pay taxes to have rights. Children, people who are unemployed, homemakers, and many other classes of people may not pay taxes but still have these rights.

Re:Losing customers

[kebes]

This is why everyone should take note of the file-sharing debate. Though many people do not support the plight of the file-sharers (after all, they just want to watch content for free, don't they? cheap bastards!), I think what the file-sharers are going through is really a preview of what the "fair use" crowd is going to have to deal with a few years later, and what the general public will have to deal with a few years after that.

Right now the file-sharers are experiencing technical and legal roadblocks to doing what they want to do. The media companies are trying to expand this war, year by year, to include activities that were previously legal. (As Lawrence Lessig puts it, previously most actions related to media were presumptively legal... in a digital age we're now seeing most actions being presumptively illegal.) So whereas laws and technological restrictions may have been originally intended to stop file-sharing (and other "bad stuff") they will inevitably be expanded by the media companies to include things like "fair use" and other things which were previously presumptively allowed (listening to a purchased recording more than once... using the same copy of a recording in your home CD player and in your car...). These things are not even "fair use"... there was no name given to them because they were so obviously allowed! (But not anymore!)

Year by year it will get worse. You may not be breaking the law today... but don't worry, you'll be breaking the law soon enough... and it will cost you money to be "legit."

We need a model for production and distribution that gets away from this insane control and this slippery slope towards paying for every single minute fraction of "media" every single time we experience it. We need to look towards supporting creative commons, and actively reducing the scope of copyright. It should be possible to create a system where content creators are rewarded, but where the audience is not burdened. File sharing and payment to artists are not mutually exclusive.

Unless, of course, you like paying more and more for less and less.

Where did this idea come from?

[TheWoozle]

Whenever I hear a scheme like this, I wonder where these people got the idea that copyright gives them the right to tell people how they can use the copyrighted work after they've sold them the copy.
AFAIK, there's no law preventing me from purchasing a book then using a magnifying glass or opaque projector to read it. Why do they think that copyright for music or movies prevents me from using different technology to access the paid-for content?

The Who: "We're Not Gonna Take It"

[HTH NE1]

Actually their end goal is to charge everyone per second for every media playback, whistled/hummed tune, movie reference/quote, looking at a sign advertising their media, up to and including every personal thought about their media.

So put in your earplugs, put on your eyeshades, you know where to put the cork.

Re:specifics?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Run wires to speakers in another room and there is no charge.

Do this with a wireless replacement and there's a fee?

Shoot these bastards. Leave their bodies in the river.

Re:And this is news?

[neoform]

Whatever. Let them come up with their insane schemes.

I stopped buying DVDs and CDs years ago once they made their intentions clear.

Anyone wonder why the thepiratebay.org makes $9,000,000 a year even though they don't sell anything?

The idiots who control the media would probably make us pay per eyeball per frame of video if they could.

Fuck them, I'm not going to support their lobby by funding them in any way.

Re:No You Didn't

[Anonymous Coward]

and its entirely because of people like him that we have DRM. To stop thieving scum like your mate taking the worlds entertainment output and not paying a bean to it's creators.

Re:specifics?

[OrangeTide]

why does everything have to be illegal? are the artists who create the content having difficulty feeding their families on their meager earnings? What horrible situation are we trying to correct or prevent with all these restrictions?

I say if you broadcast a message over public airwaves using the community's radio spectrum, you probably shouldn't get the same rights that you do if you are publishing a book or releasing a new CD. If you don't like that idea, then maybe you can not use public airwaves, which belong to the community.

Lawyer is a Fool

[imstanny]

"When pressed as to why broadcasters would want to do this, Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'."

A 'right' is something that you can do without asking anyone else's permission. Once you have to ask someone's permission, then it no longer becomes a 'right' but a 'priviledge'. He just admitted that they want to charge people for exercising their right to use their own property. At best, he's just not that bright; at worst, this is yet another unwarranted advance on our freedoms.

Re:Maybe you didn't...

[SanityInAnarchy]

What I'd like to see is people relax a little bit. The reality is that, even if the tech was there to could charge people per media exchange, you likely wouldn't be earning any more money: you'd be out of customers.

First, the tech is there now, and has been for several years. There's just no real way to make it interoperable.

Second, this is a Libertarian philosophy, and it doesn't really hold up. The free market does not always sort itself out. If it did, why does everyone still use Windows?

In any case, my examples of CDs and DVDs are pretty clear: Customers are, in fact, willing to put up with ridiculous DRM schemes that prevent them from watching the movie, because they expect technology to not work all the time. Their expectations actually are that low, and their tolerance is even higher with new tech -- HDMI should, by all respects, be more reliable than DVI or RCA. But it isn't, because of HDCP. But nobody cares, because it's new, and you expect this sort of thing, so they just wait for it to be "fixed".

If they change the rules, talk to someone who can change them back, or stop using their product.

Again, I'd really, really like to.

But ultimately, this means I have to stop using all legitimate media, and only use pirated media (or nothing at all). This is because I have no reasonable way to distinguish between actual CDs and CDs that are designed not to play properly in computers (and some car stereo systems), or actual DVDs and DVDs that are designed not to play in computers (and some more expensive DVD players) other than to actually buy the product (or rent it), bring it home, and try it. At which point they already have my money, even if it doesn't work.

Pirated media, however, always works. I'm far more likely to have trouble playing a physical DVD due to copy protection bullshit than I am to be caught for copyright infringement, and any movie I download is pretty much guaranteed to play every time. The only time I haven't been able to get one to play was that my computer was too slow to actually play 1080p HD in realtime, so I re-encoded it.

If I could pay for a better experience, I would. Unfortunately, the "free market" doesn't allow me to.

Re:specifics?

[Anonymous Coward]

People like her have kids...Where is her means of getting around cheaply, dependably?

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Tell the whore to keep her legs together until she can afford to feed the kids that she is producing.

Re:specifics?

[bhalter80]

The flip side of this is that the government decided that it was in the public interest to have a broadcast communication network and that it was unfeasible for them to build it themselves as it would be infrequently used. The result is that they awarded some privileges to the people who did build the network and whom in exchange for the right to restrict the fair-use of their broadcast allow the government use of their network in times of emergency. Now i do believe that anything that the public should benefit in a non-trivial way from any private enterprise that traverses a public good be it railways, entertainment broadcasts, etc... and that any signal that you can receive should be yours to do with as you please as long as you don't interfere with the production of such signal.

Rights?!

[Scutter]

"Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'."

You don't pay for rights. Rights are inherent (or God-given, if you prefer). You pay for privileges.

Ahem

[airencracken]

Fuck that.

That is all.

Re:specifics?

[kimvette]

As the son of a musician, a musician myself, and in a word yes. Many artists live the 'starving artist' lifestyle because it is generally not a line of work with which you can make any money at all. The popular musicians we hear about are 1 in 5,000,000 that get very lucky with a record contract, or in attracting enough interested people to buy a record (painting, or other artwork), or in some other way 'get lucky' enough to support themselves.

In which case those "artists" could use their art as a hobby/pastime activity, and seek out paying work like the rest of us.

Re:specifics?

[Himring]

Exactly. A lot of clueless, ivory-tower folks around here. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how they don't get that not everyone is privileged, or lucky, or given the same chances in life. Before most common people have a chance they are addicted to big tobacco, have kids they can't afford and credit card debt they can't pay back. To top it off, they've changed bankruptcy laws so that, now, they can't even escape that massive debt. And these people haven't even finished getting their wisdom teeth most times.

People are raised in environments that affect them. Rich inherit wealth, poor inherit poverty. People struggling and trying are tempted by credit cards. They end up both working at and buying everything from walmart which is fast becoming the modern equivalent of the early 20th century's "company store...."

Meanwhile, mod me off topic, again, for addressing something that original parent brought up (gas prices) and also by stating, again, that in light of the economic woes of the U.S., music trading, copyrights laws, is just such an oddity....

Odd, I thought this place was full of democrats....

Monopoly powers

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they have abused monopoly powers, that's why.

Besides, I meant "useful to society" not merely "having some use" ... if there's anything you think is truly useless in the sense of having no use, it's either useless by definition or you don't have enough imagination.

As for the "sheep" bit, I don't like sheep and I'm not from NZ or Australia. There are no "sheeple" here (although there are plenty of gullible idiots) and I hope it stays that way.

Re:I have paid for that right.

[Tombstone-f]

Not sure our copyright law gives you the right to have a copy on your computer, your iPod, your computer at work, etc. Could you provide a pointer to the law that says you can have multiple copies on multiple devices?

Copyright law doesn't give you any rights it only takes them away.
You don't need a law that says you can have multiple copies on multiple devices unless there's law that says you can't. In the US everything is legal unless there's a law against it.

Re:specifics?

[Master of Transhuman]

"The surprising thing though is the openness at which the real issue here is control"

It was ALWAYS about control. Intellectual property is and always was about control. It was NEVER about "stimulating invention for the benefit of the species." That has never been established anywhere in history or in theory.

And if you accept the basic premise of IP, it leads inexorably to exactly this situation - total control over your behavior.

And it's not just the state that wants total control of your behavior - it's everybody else, too.

Basic primate psychology: "If you're right, I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'm dead - and that can't be allowed. So I'm right and you're wrong. And that means I have to control everything you think and do - assuming I let you live at all."

And since we have the state, the easiest way to do that is to bribe it to pass laws so I can draw on the state's "monopoly on violence" to my own benefit. Because I'm afraid I don't have the power to compel you the way I want to without the state's support. Which is also why I bow to the state - because they might kill me otherwise.

This is the way the human species works - non-stop, pervasive fear. The only solution is: transcend human nature so it is no longer ruled by primate emotions.

Fortunately that is likely to happen in this century as nanotechnology and biotechnology allow us to alter the human body and brain into new configurations.

In the meantime, things will get worse before they get better.

Operative: It's worse than you know.

Mal: It usually is.

Re:specifics?

[CharlieHedlin]

It isn't impossible for something to go from luxury to necessity. I need food and shelter for myself and my family. In order to get those things I need money. In order to make money I need a job. It is very hard to find a job within walking or riding distance of my house. In our current society (at least in a city that has suffered from sprawl) it is very hard to call my car a luxury. Now that I choose to drive a small luxury car that only gets 30mpg instead of a true economy car pushing 50mpg is a choice, and that extra gas is a luxury. But the purchase of gas itself is a need if not very close.

I guess I could move to another city.. Oh wait, that would use gas too.

Re:And this is news?

[CelticWhisper]

And the torrent can't simply be hosted in more places than one?

Re:specifics?

[sleigher]

Gas maybe cheaper than it was in the 50's adjusted for inflation. How is that minimum wage doing adjusted for inflation?

Re:specifics?

[Kjella]

BUT PEOPLE NEED GASOLINE.

They do? Oh shit, what happens if you don't get it? 'cause I haven't bought gasoline in...let's see...ever.

Having lived in a couple different places, I've used public transportation most of my life. There are a few of those places where there's no way in hell I'd live without a car, if I couldn't have one I'd move to the city immidiately. Just because *you* don't need a car doesn't mean there's a lot of places where you do. Plus that's just me, if you have to deliver kids to daycare or whatever, the opportunities are often few. Sure it's not a basic necessity to survive, but it's not like I'm going to back to the stone age (hey, people survived back then too) voluntarily. It's necessary to live what I would consider a normal, average life.

Maybe in your absolute view of the world some 95%+ of the world is living in luxury because they're able to afford more than food, clothes, shelter and medicine (roughly 0.1% of the population starve to death by comparison), but I'd say that's a very fucked up definition of luxury. That doesn't include the luxury of sending your kids to school instead of working to support the family. It doesn't include the luxury to earn anything to buy or own anything, it's basicly what you'd get at an emergency aid camp. Anything on top of that is luxury? I dare you to live one month without any of your "luxuries", I bet they won't feel that way afterwards.

Re:specifics?

[torkus]

Hasn't it occured to people (read: idiots who write, propose, and pass laws) that by making something that's commonplace in society illegal they just make "fake" criminals? Even worse, by passing laws that people are either 1) not even going to even KNOW about 2) not care about or 3) intentionally break because they dislike the law ... they take yet another step towards total disregard for our laws and lawmakers and courts. I say: WAY TO GO!!! Yet another excuse to totally ignore laws being passed solely for the benefit of large corporations.

Re:specifics?

[Slaimus]

I would like them to try to prove that a 1 to 1 wireless connection can be considered "broadcast" at all.

Re:specifics?

[broggyr]

I can argue that. Remember the old kid's joke "How do you eat an elephant"? One bite at a time. Who says you can't cut said coconut-sized rock into juicy, bite-sized pieces?

Now, if you were referring to just swalllowing it whole...

As one with a fairly big capitalistic house

[Travoltus]

I say that's BS.

I don't care if he squats on the MIT campus. And he has a MORAL reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stallman#Personal_l ife

Professing to care little for material wealth, he explains that he has "always lived cheaply... like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me what to do."

Calling him a loon because he doesn't live the way you do, or the way you want him to, is... well... they stuff NERDS in lockers because of the same mentality.

Re:Maybe you didn't...

[PopeRatzo]

The free market does not always sort itself out.

Bless you for telling truth.

It's indicative of where we've come as a society that in a "free market" we have the corporations now making demands on its customers instead of the other way around. Supply and demand has become a fiction. We now work for the companies instead of the other way around (and I don't mean as employees). I believe the revolutionary concept of the next generation is going to be that the workings of the "Marketplace" have never been anything like related to free-market economics. In fact, it's been some time since capitalism as practiced has been anything like a free market.

Re:specifics?

[jahudabudy]

Who says you can't cut said coconut-sized rock into juicy, bite-sized pieces?

I'm not a geologist, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say cutting a rock isn't gonna make it juicy.

Re:specifics?

[lessthan]

Please, this whining about bottled water is childish. Fine, you don't think paying for purified water is a good idea. Good for you. Mind your shoulder, you don't want to sprain it while patting yourself on the back. Some of us have good reason [forbes.com] to worry about the water we drink though, so keep it to yourself.

Re:specifics?

[Artifakt]

Pure unfettered greed is control! Millions of dollars buys a lifestyle. The only thing that only Billions can buy is Power.
Look at the situation with films. A few people, i.e. Roger Corman, turn out movies on shoestring budgets. Corman never had a single over budget film or a single flop. His Autoiography is entitled "How I Made a Hundred Movies in Hollywood and Never Lost a Dime". He trained some of the best modern directors still working today in their fledgling years, and people such as Speilberg have given him praise for his skill. While his own work was chiefly 'B' movies such as the many Edgar Allen Poe 'adaptations' he directed, his guidance and funding played a large part in many more prestigious films such as "The Lion in Winter" (O'Toole/Hopkins/Hepburn version, not the Patrick Stewart remake). But while directors and actors generally like Corman, He still gets no respect at all from most of the Hollywood producers and certainly not from studio management, and is often treated in a way no one else who even once had the clout to get even a single picture made would expect. With admittedly a very few exceptions, the studios have ignored his methods of getting pictures out on time and budget totally.
          Why? Because it's not just about making money to them - it's more about having a film that gets number one's right and left in publicity, that afterwards people will be saying it impacted a whole nation or generation, a film that says you have had more power over the rest of reality, particularly political reality, than all the other guys in the business. Studios routinely take huge chances and lose millions without anyone getting fired.
          People who want another good example might read up on the original Planet of the Apes series and what the studio did with the profits from those films.

          Or look at Audio. Why did an RIAA member decide that, with rumors of child molestation already developing before they started negotiation, they should put nearly their full year's promotion budget into a Michael Jackson comeback album? Especially, when his last album had sold less than half what Triller did, and he also had developed physical problems with his appearance (also pretty well known within the industry by then)? Maybe you can claim that's still all about money, but to me, it looks more like somebody thought they could reshape public taste any way they wanted, that they had the sheer power to override all the negatives accumulating and turn him back into a literal billion buck ultra-platinum income source. Scarier, there's talk of another comeback attempt this fall. If this is all about money, do you think there there are any real financial arguments for such a second attempt that can sway even a semi-rational corporation into taking such a gamble again? Powerlust makes people take gambles even greed can't.

Re:As one with a fairly big capitalistic house

[thegnu]

And again I said "He's free to do whatever the heck he wants". But we're still free to call him a loon.
Yeah, and while we're on the topic, what's up with that Jesus guy? Walking around, talking to people, not paying taxes, telling people they shouldn't kill each other...

And Ghandi! What a fuck THAT guy was. Sitting around, changing the world. And that's to say NOTHING of the Buddha, who left his kingdom without king so he could sit around and meditate...

I sure hate people like RMS. Why doesn't he do what everyone else does?

Re:specifics?

[xappax]

I'd say that's a very fucked up definition of luxury ... I dare you to live one month without any of your "luxuries"...

For the record, I have done exactly that for much longer than a month before, but that's beside the point. I do have luxuries, just like you and everyone else, and if I had to get rid of them all forever, my life wouldn't be as fun. I also often catch myself taking them for granted - beginning to believe that they're not luxuries at all but things I need in some absolute, urgent sense.

They're not. There's nothing wrong with having luxuries, but call them what they are. Calling something a "need" has an implicit subtext that we have an inherent "right" to have it. I'm not calling for the elimination of all luxuries, I'm calling for perspective. Realize that we can go without a lot of the things we take for granted, and it's a lot easier to reconsider how much we want of them, and if it's worth all the consequences. By refusing to acknowledge this reality, we give ourselves a free ticket to continue doing exactly as we like, without caring about the result.