Broadcasters Want Cash For Media Shared At Home 426
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.'"
specifics? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read the referenced article, I fear listening to the 16 minute audio as I'm not entirely sure I have DRM clearance to do so, and do not want to be sued or accused of piracy.
That said, I'd be interested in more specifics on this. Does this mean potentially my Squeezebox from which I listen to my music stored on the mp3 server may no longer be a legal "share". Does that potentially mean mp3's on my samba share are no longer fair game on my XP box via WinAmp?
About a year or two ago I'd have accused people making these claims (that they're trying to do this) as ludicrously insane and paranoid. Today, I'm not so sure. 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.
But then again, maybe not. I know people who pay more for bottled water price-per-gallon than gasoline... and they complain about the price of gasoline.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do this with a wireless replacement and there's a fee?
Shoot these bastards. Leave their bodies in the river.
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really good for environment - drinking water and all that.
But I agree with the sentiment...
How's that saying go: "soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box"? So far, I don't see the first three producing reasonable results. I'm sure I won't miss a few RIAA/MPAA/media Execs/Lawyers...
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Interesting)
As one with a fairly big capitalistic house (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care if he squats on the MIT campus. And he has a MORAL reason.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 wh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 g
Re:specifics? (Score:4, Funny)
Personally, I'll pay them as soon as the Broadcast executives post youtube video of them actually removing their heads from their anus so they see the real world and not their fantasy world they create inside the colon.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but you can't drink gasoline.
I guess these guys forgot about 'fair use'.
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Funny)
You can, you just can't do it twice.
Re:specifics? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh they didn't forget about it, they are trying to brainwash people into believing Fair Use means not owning what you paid for.
Re:specifics? (Gasoline- Serious) (Score:3, Interesting)
If you smell it inside your car you should really get it fixed.
I had a relative who was apparently going crazy and then we rode in their car and my friend (I missed it) pointed this out. In about 30 days her apparent sanity improved enormously.
And Microsoft patented a TV that watches you... (Score:2, Interesting)
Was someone reading 1984 for "good" ideas again, or what? I wish the media middlemen would h
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Informative)
OTOH- if this gets written into any sort of trade treaty, I will be fully justified in calling the writers of that treaty FREE TRAITORS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:specifics? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
The down side, is that none of these record companies have any interest in making sure the artist makes money. Even if you end-up with a record contract, you can still end-up broke like all of those other musicians we see in those VH-1 documentaries, Dick Dale, and many others.
This is why I don't buy records or albums from a record store anymore. Not only is there little of interest that I want to hear, but I know for a fact that those musicians aren't receiving much of the money I'd spend on an album anyway. I do wonder what Rob Zombie would have to say on this topic.
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind those... (Score:5, Interesting)
(But those aren't shared devices! Oh yes they are. Well, if you're running PCI-e 2.1, or virtual machines, or have sharing enabled through the OS, or a myriad of other options.)
Oh yeah, this means that Plan 9 users will presumably need to have factorial the number of nodes in their system licenses for each CD and DVD they buy in order to play any CDs or DVDs at all, as hardware location is largely unimportant under that OS. And I dread to think of what happens to people who actually run Beowulf clusters...
How will they get away with such an obviously unfair, unreasonable and obnoxious burden on unconventional desktops? Well, it'll be very easy. Most users are ignorant of the capabilities of modern machines, most users are ignorant of the fact that modern computers ARE a home network, and so most users will assume it's someone else's problem, not theirs. Once a few precedents are set in court, the broadcasters can bill who they like what they like, with no fear of retribution and an almost total guarantee of winning in court. Ignorance - even of technology - is not a valid defence in the legal system, which is reasonable enough when not taken too far. Here, it could be exploited by gold-diggers to create a perpetual stream of income.
Would the judges go for it? If the attacks start with "obvious" targets and then move to subtler and subtler definitions of home network, provided they keep winning, they'll create case law. Judges don't necessarily understand technology too well, but they do understand case law very well. A clever enough team of lawyers could easily manufacture a legal understanding of what a network was that could include a cluster that could only ever act as a single machine, any PC with a PCI-e 2.1 bus, a box running VMWare or Xen, or anything else in which multiple "top level" devices (physical or virtual) can access a single data source.
Rent-seeking behavior... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking [wikipedia.org]
Basically, the idea is that in classic economic theory (Adam Smith et. al.) you make money either through wealth creation (mining stuff that's useful, producing food, manufactured goods from raw material) or by trade (I buy tea in china and sell it for more in England).
When companies/individuals try to "game the system" and have the regulatory environment changed to suit their interests.
A simple example would be, say the US government was talkin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you don't drive and use a bicycle, you're still paying the extra energy costs passed down to consumers through the logistics chain.
Like comparing apples to cute orange flip-flops.
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Informative)
and quite often that water comes from the tap anyway!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Quite often? MOST of the time. Dasani and Aquafine are both just bottled municipal tap water; they usually have higher bacteria counts than the tap they came from because the water sits stagnant in the bottle.
You're better off refilling the bottle than opening a "new" one that's been on the shelf for a month.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The health issues presented by bacterial and municipal tap water are different. You aren't going to get sick from drinking either, but there might be a couple more incidences per million people of cancer due to the PCBs and other nasties in the tap water.
Re:specifics? (Score:4, Interesting)
They do? Oh shit, what happens if you don't get it? 'cause I haven't bought gasoline in...let's see...ever. And neither have a whole lot of people on this planet, who somehow seem to be getting by okay, and are even enjoying themselves most of the time.
Characterizing luxuries as "needs" is just a cop out that spoiled people use to justify being greedy. "I need my cellphone", "Oh, I need my coffee", "I just have to have my car"...fuck that. You need food, you need clothes, you need shelter, and sometimes you need medicine. Maybe you'd like more than that, maybe you deserve more than that, but you don't need it.
The implication of "needing" something is that no matter what it takes to get it, that's ok. CO2 emmissions? Government repression? Child slavery? Hey, that sucks, but what can we do, we
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I could move to another city.. Oh wait, that would use gas too.
Re:specifics? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rich inherit wealth, poor inherit poverty.
Most millionaires are first generation in the USA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
You Can't Do That On Television (Score:2)
Kid watching TV: Mo-om! The pay-TV people want more money again!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The Who: "We're Not Gonna Take It" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:And this is news? (Score:4, Funny)
Because they make billions (if not trillions) of dollars of work available for free?
I know that's why I go there.
Disclaimer:
RIAA and MPAA and others, this post is obviously satire. I would only ever go to the piratebay.org for Linux distros (so I can help relieve the mirrors) and movie trailers, but never CDs, TV shows, movies, or games.
Re:And this is news? (Score:4, Informative)
Many, if not most, modern Linux distros use Bittorrent as an offficial distribution method. You can simply go to their main trackers rather than going to The Pirate Bay for Linux distros.
So that argument is no longer valid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
broadcasters want cash (Score:2)
I have paid for that right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you didn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Maybe you didn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 a
No You Didn't (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:No You Didn't (Score:5, Interesting)
I have not met a computer illiterate person who gives a shit about copyrights. For many, they don't even think it's illegal to download. After all, plenty of ISP ads are along the line: download music and movies at blazing speeds!
Re: (Score:2)
"Just a little more...."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just curious.
Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Crooks, fighting to uphold a dying business model, and squeeze every penny out of it the entire way.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But survival at a higher price can be better than death. Firefly might still be around if fans could have voted with their wallets.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
isnt this about 25 years too late? (Score:5, Insightful)
More like 10 years too late (Score:5, Interesting)
Essentially, all they have to do to make it illegal to share around your house is to implement DRM which prevents you from doing that. Since it's illegal to circumvent DRM, you're fucked.
And this does, in fact, prevent you from exercising your fair use rights, and, indeed, even the rights inherent in purchasing a physical disk (or a download, even).
I'd love to see it go to court, though. If anyone from the media industry is reading this, I dare you to sue me for playing my movies on Linux, or even ripping and time-shifting a rental. Come on, make my day. Who knows? Maybe it would end in new legislation banishing DRM at all, unless it allows all forms of fair use.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Non-electronic example? (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish a judge would stop their bullshit campaign! (Score:5, Insightful)
I already did, with my taxes. I have fair-use rights that trump the media industries desire to make money.
Discussion over.
Re:I wish a judge would stop their bullshit campai (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The addition of the government as a protection method just bothers me. They haven't been looking out for my constitutional interests for quite some time. So why would they protect me, as an individual, from being oppressed by someone else? Police don't help me in the matter at hand, they come into play after the fact.
I really take the inalienable rights concept to heart. While you stated:
you can always do whatever you wa
Losing customers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Losing customers (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The best part is that in such a model you can still have middlemen. Imagine independent companies get set up to collect these donations. Like you have a "top 20 songs consortium," a "historic drama consortium," a "sci-fi consortium," and so on. So instead of sci-fi fans going to dozens of websites and adding to the tip-jar, they just pay a lump s
Re: (Score:2)
Make this about the World Series or the SuperBowl and the proles will infact revolt. You just have to figure out where the line is and what they actually care about.
In other news (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if you outlaw ... only outlaws will ... (Score:2)
in order for that to be true (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just broadcasters (Score:4, Insightful)
they want you to pay for that right (Score:2)
Of course they want it.
Will we let them have it?
Absurd Scenarios (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I have 2 Choices (Score:5, Interesting)
If this happens, I have 2 choices -- either ignore the new laws or cut back/eliminate the consumption of media. I only have so much money available per month for entertainment, and with the cost of fuel and everything else going up (but not my salary), entertainment will be the first to go. I can live just fine without big Media -- there are still books, and that big room with the real high blue ceiling that I can reach through my front and back doors.
If big media wins, they lose. I (and many others on this planet) cannot just create more money every time someone wants more $ for the same or less service and/or product.
What happend to FAIR USE (Score:4, Interesting)
What part of 'FUCK OFF' don't you understand. We already pay a 'piracy tax' on all blank media, pay way too much for music as it is, and now you want me to pay for sharing my music on my internal LAN? Uh, I seem to remember something called "Fair Use".
Our response as tech savvy consumers (Score:2)
If we do not do these things, then we have no right to complain ab
Want cash for vewing... (Score:2)
Scumbags
Re: (Score:2)
i dig it (Score:2)
wireless only (Score:2)
Well this sounds like it applies to WIRELESS networks but NOT to WIRED networks.
So, I'm good.
Please (Score:2)
Nothing you say or do can stop them. Even if you passed a law saying people would be put to death for it, most people still would.
So please. Spend your money and time trying to stop us.
Where did this idea come from? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
A foolproof plan? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm going to turn up the volume in the lounge till I can hear the music in the bathroom.
Hang on...what if someone introduces a volume tax? Imagine the payments for turning the dial to 11!
Lawyer is a Fool (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It's all a conspiracy.... (Score:3, Funny)
Look how far they have come, in a few short years most TV sets will no longer be capable of receiving over the air broadcasts unless the user buys a new digital set or tuner. That will drive more people to cable if they can afford it. At which point the cable companies and the show producers will up the ante and start trying to charge for each viewing of a show.
The decline of theaters is on going. Fewer people go to the movies now, many wait for the DVD to come out because it is cheaper at the moment to buy a DVD than go to the theater. Now that they have people conditioned to that they will increase the price of DVDs so most can not afford them or put DRM systems in place that make it impossible to use a DVD.
Librarian's around the world are all working toward this end.
Rights?! (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't pay for rights. Rights are inherent (or God-given, if you prefer). You pay for privileges.
Remember... (Score:3, Informative)
They never learn (Score:3, Interesting)
This is crap - yet another group who haven't learned that ruining the experience for the customer and attacking how the customer wants to acquire and digest their media not only doesn't work, it actually works against their bottom line in the end and ruins their image in the process.
We can speak out about this, write a million posts, contact congresspeople (who are mostly bought and paid for), but, like many things these days I get the feeling that the decision has already been made and that any "process" involved is likely just for show.
If this turns out to be correct, then since this government and it's corporate whoremasters doesn't listen to us, subvert our rights, sell us out to each other, and do a whole host of other illegal, extralegal, and unethical things - that I am just going to do what I want when it comes to my media regardless.
These media conglomerates can keep trying, but they're too big and too slow; and there will always be a way around DRM/restrictions -and that's not even looking at market based solutions; because if they cripple their devices there will always be somebody innovative enough not to cripple their offering to the public, or to at least leave back doors to easily enable features technically advanced users want, kind of like what Philips does with some of their products.
They can kiss my ass (Score:4, Interesting)
And now you want to charge me again (and again and again) because I've ripped all my CDs to my server so I can stream them through a password protected web page (usually from work)? I don't think so. Fair Use Bitch!
I have not purchased a music CD in over a year because of the RIAA. Nor have I downloaded anything. I'll be content with what I already have until I see some serious change in the music industry. Most likely when the revolution comes and we put your asses in front of a wall and put a bullet through your collective brain cell.
Re:What if... (Score:5, Funny)