Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [cerebus] Re: semi-OT: Copyright (was: Jews must support Barack Obama or else!

Expand Messages
  • Margaret
    On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Steve Bolhafner ... For those that want to take action against this bill - at least write an email or
    Message 1 of 642 , May 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Steve Bolhafner <sbolhafner@...> wrote:
      You'll see why I call this semi-OT by the time you finish it.

      --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W <show_me68508@...> wrote:
      > > Likewise, your argument that in order to protect it's own
      > > trademarks, a company like Disney has to fight for YOUR right to
      > > own
      > > YOUR creations isn't the slam dunk you think it is. More likely,
      > > they fight for an expensive system of copyright registration
      > > making
      > > it more likely that small individuals can't afford to protect
      > > their
      > > own rights.
      >   --------  "You create it, it's yours."  Gonna be hard to overcome
      > that one.

      Actually Chris, they're working a sneak attack on this one.

      The "Orphaned Works" bill, versions of which are currently in the
      House and Senate, were *intended* to allow reprinting of old works
      that would be public domain by now under the old pre-1976 law, which
      weren't important enough at the time for anyone to keep track of, but
      which now are presumably copyrighted, or at least possibly
      copyrighted, because the creators might still be living, only nobody
      knows how to get hold of them.

      For those that want to take action against this bill - at least write an email or send a fax or snail mail to your senator and rep, here is some info the bill:

      It is bill S.2913 in the Senate "Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 (Introduced in Senate)" and in the House it is bill H.5889 "Orphan Works Act of 2008 (Introduced in House)".

      If the above two links don't work, go here: http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html and you can search for "Orphan Works" and they'll both pop up in the search results.

      To find out who your senator & reps are, go here: http://www.votesmart.org/ and they have a search in the upper left corner by zip code and then will show links to your legislators, where they give you a bio of the person, along with a link to that person's official website, their contact info, etc.

      Take care,
    • rainmandu2
      ... was ... NEW ... person s ... to ... difficult ... isn t ... that ... never heard of Moving Pictures until I finally found out who did that What About Me
      Message 642 of 642 , May 21, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W <show_me68508@...> wrote:

        > Rainmandu says:
        > No, it's not the same thing. I agree. But it's THEIR thing. The hunt (as we engaged in it)
        > OUR thing. THEIR hunt is different, it's easier, it's... (I'm going there, I'm going to say it)
        > BETTER. Like I said, I have all kinds of nostalgia for the hunt, but I wouldn't trade the
        > hunt (online) for the old hunt. My point is that there's no... what should I call it? Let's try
        > "spiritual weight" to yours, mine, ours, or theirs. It's "our" thing. It's "their" thing. It IS an
        > old person's game to say that what we had was better, and it's DEFINITELY an old
        > game (verging on the kind of thing that comedians make jokes about old people doing)
        > say that because "our" thing was harder, it was BETTER, or that it had a "spiritual weight"
        > to it, or, heck, that it even "built character." We had to hunt the record stores for music.
        > They have to hunt online. Neither one is more likely to build character or make one a
        > better person, and neither one speaks in any way to the quality of the music or the love
        > that one might have for it, or the nostalgia that one might one day feel for it. It's hard to
        > get out of my own nostalgia, and the value that I placed on things because of how
        > they were to acquire through the hunt. But that's just me. And it's just you. We're not
        > them. It's not the same. Your position (much of which I agree with, by the way) really
        > all that different from saying that Queen is better than The Killers. It's all subjective, and
        > trying to pretend that it's not is... well, it's an old person's game. Oh, yes, I DO think
        > the music I grew up with was better than the music (or what passes for music) today.
        > Absolutely. Does that MEAN anything? Only to me. And popularity has never spoken to
        > quality. And neither has LASTING popularity.
        > ========= It's not subjective. It's the genuine change between generations. I had
        never heard of Moving Pictures until I finally found out who did that "What About Me" song
        that I remembered all these years. If it was a brand new song that I'd heard, there'd have
        been nothing, just google a few lyrics and bam, there it is. I agree that it's better, and I'm
        grateful to get what I want with a few clicks on a keyboard instead of having to wait years
        and hope to remember it when I find it, but I'm aware of the difference. Spending years to
        learn to lift a couple hundred pounds over several minutes is a different experience
        entirely from people who've grown up never needing to lift more than twenty pound
        weights for a few seconds.

        Rainmandu says:
        It's still subjective. THIS generation likes what it likes, THAT generation liked what IT liked.
        What's good, what's bad, what's the most wonderful thing ever... all subjective. THAT
        generation has no more insight into what's great, no more profound understanding of
        what MAKES a thing great. It's "they like this, we like that," and nothing more. It goes no
        deeper. To quote a line from "Starstruck," "There's less going on than meets the eye."

        > === And LASTING POPULARITY is exactly how this stuff gets determined in the long
        run. The Beatles outclass the Dave Clark Five, or even the Monkees who outsold them in
        the short-term. Jack Kirby didn't sell anywhere near as well as whatever artists worked on
        Dell Comics. Orson Welles didn't put a huge number of asses in theater seats, even
        though he had a few commercial hits in his day. And to this day, the Beatles, Jack Kirby,
        and Orson Welles are still regarded more highly by people who weren't remotely born
        when they quit (the only Welles movie I ever saw in theaters was a commercial failure, but
        y'know, "Transformers: The Movie" somehow lasted despite that).

        Rainmandu says:
        The Beatles are only as popular as they are today because there are people who still like
        them, combined with people who have grown up hearing about THE BEATLES (drop to your
        knees now!), because their name has been carved in stone for so long, and so forth. Harry
        Knowles at aintitcool.com complained a few years ago about an issue of "Sight and Sound"
        in which directors and others compiled lists of their favorite movies and none of them
        included a movie from the last thirty years. His point (and it's one I agree with) is that
        people compiling such lists are as aware of what people will think of them based on their
        choices as they are being honest about what is truly their favorite movie. The Beatles were
        more popular than other bands because more people liked them and what they were
        doing. Yes, they were talented. Yes, they made music that "spoke" to people, and yes, they
        earned their following. But if the next few generations aren't interested, if they don't like
        the Beatles, there's nothing beyond what people like and what people think they should
        like and people's awareness of how freakin' HUGE they were to keep them holding on. Do I
        think that another band will ever achieve what the Beatles did? Probably not. But that
        doesn't mean that other bands won't (and haven't) made better music. Popularity is
        nothing to do with quality.

        > > And just to clarify (and I thought I was being very clear
        > > about this), I'm not talking about song written FOR commercials, I'm talking about
        > > that existed before and were bought and used in a commercial. Like "Revolution" in a
        > Nike
        > > ad. And, yes, I DO think that people hearing that song ("Revolution") WERE swayed.
        > to
        > > buy Nike shoes, but to buy "Revolution."
        > >
        > > --- You didn't specify songs licenced for commercials compared to songs made for
        > commercials. Gee, John Lennon has more popularity than Moby, go figure.
        > Rainmandu says:
        > I thought I was pretty clear, since I was talking about hearing songs by Queen and so
        > forth. I guess not.
        > ===== You're also talking about people who hear songs in commercials. Has "Bat
        Out Of Hell" I or III gained any fans because "I Would Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do
        That)" was played on some commercial? Van Halen's "Right Now" led to any sales of
        "1984"? Not to mention all the other music available. You ever heard a "Mike Post Theme"
        (as the new Who song was called?) Catchy, huh?

        Rainmandu says:
        None of which really knocks out my point. We can throw names of songs back and forth all
        day. You're arguing popularity in WAY high numbers. I'm talking about songs and people
        (in WHATEVER numbers) finding them and liking them. ANY song, in ANY venue, has the
        potential to catch someone's interest. It might only sell a couple dozen CDs. Among the
        people who buy those CDs, maybe only one or two of them will like it enough to become
        fans for life, seeking out their other CDs. That's really the only chance the Berlin Trilogy
        has, because unless something happens to really put those songs in front of a potential
        audience (and, even then, no guarantees), they'll always be just some really cool CDs that
        a bunch of people (but not a huge majority) really like. But if we're throwing out names of
        songs, "Lust for Life," by Iggy Pop. I win. Heh.

        > > And while CD sales ARE plunging... Well, audio
        > > tape sales plunged when CDs came along. More and more people are getting their
        > > over the internet, and while sales are down, "plunging" isn't the word that I would use.
        > > We'll see how things shake out when this transitionary period is over. I'm more
        > optimistic
        > > than you, but, uh, that's still not very optimistic. But speaking as someone who has
        > always
        > > liked bands that required me to seek out their hard-to-find release at the indie record
        > > store, and then shortly after that, the band disappeared, well, a lot of those songs are
        > still
        > > my favorite songs, and the fact that the bands were never successful, or even close to
        > > successful, takes nothing away from that.
        > >
        > > -------- Would it kill you to specify that you're someone who would rather find your
        > fave new song at an indie store than to admit that most music listeners aren't even
        > remotely the same way?
        > Rainmandu says:
        > It wouldn't kill me, but it isn't true, so I wouldn't specify it, no. I USED to HAVE to find
        > that way, because I liked a lot of obscure bands. I'm THRILLED that I no longer have to
        > so. Most music listeners are NOT that way, and I'm one of them. Not that way. Not at all.
        > What I was addressing there was your thing about popularity, overwhelming popularity,
        > and how more diversity means less chance of same. Basically, I don't see it as a
        > because a number of my favorite bands were never even close to being famous. More
        > diversity, lower CD sales does not mean fewer good to great songs.
        > ======= It does mean a diminished field for them to become available, and less
        chance for success even if they find a few people who like them. Any comic-book self-
        publisher has a chance to be sold in comic book stores, but in the diminished market, the
        chance of a "Bone" much less a "Watchmen" type of success, is pretty much impossible.
        Hell, "Glamourpuss" #1 is selling way more than a number of Marvel and DC comics. But
        where's it going to go? Straight down. Just like a new Guns'n'Roses, Nirvana, whoever.

        Rainmandu says:
        To paraphrase Chuck Palahniuk, On a long enough timeline, everyone's chances drop to
        zero. What you said above is what I was talking about when I said that I've always liked
        small, obscure bands. I'm used to the things I like going unnoticed by most people, and
        disappearing quickly, and while one always wishes that the things that one likes achieve a
        level of popularity (perhaps not great popularity, but enough) to give them a decent
        career, so that they can keep making music, there are always more good bands that don't
        "catch on" than there are ones that do. I don't own a record company. Good music is good
        music, and if it doesn't sell, it's still good music. Another "Watchmen"-type success IS
        possible. But only if whatever it is connects outside of the comics world. Odds are not
        good. But even if there will never be another band as ridiculously, insanely huge as the
        Beatles, that doesn't mean (in any way) that there will never be another really great band.
        Really great music is really great music, whether it sells a hundred copies or a million. You
        occasionally come across like you do, but I sincerely hope you really don't believe that
        whole "the way we know if a thing is great is if it resonates with people and sells like

        > > ------ They're not. I absolutely loved whatever Beck songs I've heard (dunno which
        > ones they are at this point, since my mixtapes are long-buried in storage) but his status
        > "buried in the 90s", if not a "one-hit wonder", is pretty solidified.
        > Rainmandu says:
        > Every once in a while you say something that leads me to believe you're not as divorced
        > from the popular culture as you like to portray yourself. But then you say something like
        > this, about Beck, who isn't close to being considered "buried in the '90s" OR a "one-hit
        > wonder" and it just confirms it for me all over again.
        > ====== Get it straight, I'm divorced from popular culture. Just because I
        misremembered something I read on Wikipedia (which wasn't even on the Beck page itself)
        doesn't mean anything else. Would it have been better if I cited Alannis Morissette or Dave
        Matthews (both of whom I heard "everyone" talking about much more than Beck, both in
        the 90s and afterwards), or Marilyn Manson?

        Rainmandu says:
        It would have been better if you had given some indication that you were just "winging it."
        That line about his status being "pretty solidified," coming from YOU (the guy who jumps
        all over me for using "everybody" to describe the pop culture saturation of Michael Jackson
        in the '80s and how it felt to be around at the time), well, one expects that you at least try
        to apply the same standard to yourself, so, no, when you said what you said, I didn't think
        you were just pulling out a random name.

        > > ---- Maybe it's maturity. Y'know, realizing that there are much more important
        > things that go on in life than a song, movie or comic book? You're not capable of getting
        > that far, but guess what, most people are, and that means writing off the mass
        > since the over-40's don't buy the same music or watch the same movies as the
        > under-40's. You can have one or the other, except for freaks like yourself.
        > Rainmandu says:
        > Okay, if you're going to play THAT card. Everything you just said also applies to people
        > your age and being married or on the road to being married. How's that going for you
        > there? Guess you need to grow up. Oh, and, bringing us back to the divorced from the
        > popular culture thing, while it's true that the over-40s don't go for the same music, etc.,
        > as twelve-year-olds (Hannah Montana and that sort of thing), actually, more and more
        > over the last couples of decades, yes, the over-40s and THEIR tastes really DO tend to
        > blend with the late-teens / twenties. But if you're going to play THAT card, don't you
        > read comic books? Oh, DO grow up.
        > ====== I don't read Spidey Super Stories any more. I couldn't care less about what
        the X-Men are doing. But sure, I still read comics.
        > ===== Being married seems to go in line with the maturity of leaving behind one's
        youthful interests, to be sure, just as discovering girls is often synonymous with quitting
        comics. I could see 40 year olds liking Hannah Montana for not too different reasons than
        liking Britney Spears (including the chance of nude scenes once she hits legal age). I don't
        see too many 40 year olds looking for Eminiem's latest, or anything.

        Rainmandu says:
        I don't see too many of them buying anything. I'm not stalking them. And neither are you. I
        would agree that more young people are buying Eminem than people MY age, but I
        wouldn't say that someone MY age (or even older) is immature or refusing to grow up or
        clinging to their youth because they like Eminem (he said, remembering that he's an old
        guy who likes "Gossip Girl". A lot.) There ARE new bands that are REALLY good. To ignore
        that because one has reached a certain age... Nonsense.

        > > ------- Everyone I know likes hip-hop. And yet hip-hop doesn't remotely sell to the
        > largest possible audience. If a top-40 song is a good song, you'll go nuts for it, and
        > to buy everything that artist ever made. You said so, even if the song is selling shoes
        > now. I'm saying people will retreat to what they like, even if that differs from what a
        > completely different cohort likes, making the modern mass audience impossible.
        > Rainmandu says:
        > Yes. And GOOD. Who CARES? And I didn't say that I HAVE to buy everything by that
        artist. I
        > said that if I liked it enough I WOULD. And if you're going to play THAT card, were you
        > were you not pre-sold on ANYTHING Dave might do next?
        > ====== Sure, but I've been reading Dave for roughly half my life. Why would you
        buy Van Halen's first album just because you liked their latest (the one with Gary Cherone
        singing)? The references to Superman and Batman in whichever song it was?

        Rainmandu says:
        Why would you buy it? Why would you NOT buy it? Why would you buy some solo Sammy
        Hagar? Who knows? It's all down to the individual. I'm not arguing that everyone who likes
        the new thing will like the old thing. I'm saying that people DO make decisions based on
        so many random, hard to pin down variables, that it's equally ridiculous for you to say that
        it never happens as it is for me to say that it always happens. It doesn't always happen,
        but it does happen. I liked the Go-Go's, and I liked the solo projects by some of the girls
        in the band. The girlfriend (who's a few years younger than me) liked Belinda Carlisle first,
        but liked her enough that she wanted to try out her older band. She bought a Best of, liked
        it a lot, and so bought all three of the band's albums. I heard "Baby I'm a Star," by Prince,
        liked it, bought the album it's on ("Purple Rain"), and then went out and bought his earlier
        stuff. No, everyone is not like me. But quite a few of them are. People who like music DO
        like to find more stuff by people they like. Maybe not you.

        > > ------ Sounds like lowering the barriers is what you're talking about. Ok, the
        > platinum status only came along in the 70's. I'd bet more albums went platinum in the
        > 80s than do so now, unless you lower the bar for going platinum. And since most
        > aren't going to be interested in those great new movies/tv shows/music/comics, they'll
        > just ignore it and get on with what they like. Mark "Kingdom Come" Waid and George
        > "Crisis/Titans/Infinity Gauntlet/JLA-Avengers" Perez are failing with "Brave and the
        > starring Batman. If they can't make Batman (of all characters) work to a modern
        > then who the hell else will?
        > Rainmandu says:
        > Maybe JMS, since he'll be taking over the book coming up any day now. As for making
        > Batman work, oh, quite a few people can make him work for a modern audience. And
        > doing that very thing.
        > ======= Really? Who? That movie that is leading to a sequel, even though
        anybody paying attention before it came out could see that it was intended to lead to a
        sequel, just like "Superman Returns", "Spider-Man", "X-Men", "Daredevil", "Hulk", etc. Or is
        someone in comics making the character work for a modern audience? It couldn't be
        Grant Morrison, with that three-parter about Batmans of other lands ("Dead Man's Hand")

        Rainmandu says:
        Well, here I'll have to leave this one alone. Unless you can clarify what you mean by "work
        for a modern audience." Because, based on everything you've said so far, I'm convinced
        that what you mean is "sell Batman comics to millions of people who don't currently read
        comics." But "Batman" does sell. No one admits to liking it, but Frank Miller's "All-Star
        Batman" sells quite nicely. Just to clarify on my end, when I said "modern audience," I was
        talking about people who go to the comic shop and buy Batman comics. Just because Mark
        Waid's Batman comic isn't selling that well doesn't mean that NO Batman comic is selling
        that well.

        > > > ====== Why should they when there's another song just like that coming along,
        > > is just as easy to get a copy of?
        > >
        > > Rainmandu says:
        > > Why should they? How the fuck should I know? I used to work in a comic store. Being
        > > surrounded by comics and being able to read (for free) anything and everything (a
        > one
        > > coming along any second) didn't make it less likely that I would like a comic. It's just
        > > easy for me to get ahold of music as it is for the kids today, and the ready availability
        > > everything hasn't diminished my love of new music. Growing up, I heard new songs all
        > the
        > > time, every day, there were hundreds and thousands of songs all over the place (MTV,
        > > radio, friends, clubs, wherever), and my love for a great song was in no way
        > by
        > > the next great song that came along five minutes later.
        > >
        > > -------- And other people are like you because...? Or haven't you thought about the
        > mass audience that far before?
        > Rainmandu says:
        > If I haven't made it clear yet (despite actually, you know, saying it quite a few times), it's
        > not either / or, and if it comes down to it, we're arguing percentages. There will always
        > someone who's really into the Berlin Trilogy, but not an overwhelming majority of
        > because the Berlin Trilogy had its day in the sun. Now, like back issues of "American
        > Flagg!" it's something new readers will discover, but in much smaller numbers.
        > ====== While "Watchmen" and "Bat Out o fHell" continue to sell better than most
        new releases. Hmmmm.

        Rainmandu says:
        What? Oh, the "throwing out names thing." Yeah, SOME titles do earn a reputation for
        themselves and attract the curiosity of new readers. Unless you were being sarcastic, in
        which case, Yeah, SOME titles are only popular for a while and then they fade into not-

        > > People hear> ------ And you completely miss my point. You know the difference.
        The later
        > generation doesn't. You know the difference between a girl you desperately want but
        > have, and a girl who's available the first time you notice her? Yeah, like that, only music
        > instead of sex. Or movies, or comic books, or tv shows, or whatever the hell you'd rather
        > do instead of *searching* for what you genuinely want.
        > Rainmandu says:
        > I addressed this WAY up there, just a few minutes ago. The part about "our" thing and
        > "their" thing and all that stuff about playing the old person's game.
        > ===== Getting food isn't remotely the same as it was where people had to hunt and
        gather for that night's meal. Getting spiritual food (like art) is also different, and the
        whole experience is completely changed. Get used to it.

        Rainmandu says:
        I AM "used to it." Since when have I been arguing that it hasn't changed? I haven't. It has.
        I'm the one who doesn't think it's gotten worse, or less satisfying for those who like what
        they like, or that something profound is missing because THEY don't have to walk ten
        miles through knee-deep snow to get to... wherever.

        > > ------ You've kept arguing that "some fans" will do such-and-such, regardless of
        > how the mass audience behaves. You want to search for bands that never came close to
        > the slightest possibility of a single hit song, while Beatles fans buy mash-ups in "Love"
        > nearly 40 years after the group broke up. You aren't acknowledging the mass audience.
        > Rainmandu says:
        > Because no matter how the mass audience behaves, "some fans" will always search out
        > Berlin Trilogy. You're far too concerned with how the mass audience behaves with
        > to people who like whatever they like and who will seek it out.
        > ======= So you're saing the mass audience *doesn't* like whatever it likes and will
        seek it out? They won't search out that Brian May song sang by Meat Loaf (and advertized
        on the back of Marvel comics one month during the mid-80s) if they're a Queen fan, but
        they do like what they like. That's how "Thriller' became so successful.

        Rainmandu says:
        The so-called "mass audience" is made up of individuals. You're an Ayn Rand fan. You
        should know this. Individuals like what they like. If enough of them like a thing... and so
        on. The so-called "mass audience" won't seek out the Adam Ant / Stewart Copeland single
        from the soundtrack to an Anthony Michael Hall movie (which featured an appearance by
        Siouxsie and the Banshess), but that doesn't mean that no one will ever seek it out. The
        internet, downloading songs, etc., makes it easier for those who DO want to find that song
        (after finding the movie on cable late at night and liking the song), especially if the
        soundtrack CD is out-of-print. "Thriller" was successful because a large number of
        individuals all agreed that "Beat It" and the rest were great songs. And, yes, because the
        market wasn't as "wide open," and so more people had the opportunity to hear those

        > > > ====== Is there something wrong with focusing on singles? Even as internet
        > > downloads? Don't tell me you're going on that time in your generation where albums
        > > became the primary focus point. That's like so twentieth century.
        > >
        > > > I think it's a bad thing, commercially, in that it doesn't help the artists, the
        > > or the retailers, ultimately damaging the musical marketplace. But hey, I'm
        > > from reality.
        > >
        > > Rainmandu says:
        > > No, that's pretty much why I think it's a bad thing. Also, because I like getting a whole
        > > bunch of new songs by a band I like, all at once, and when only a small handful of
        > > songs will be considered for singles, it allows the band to do other stuff, not single-
        > > quality, commercial stuff, but just fun, weird stuff, as well. If every song is being
        > > considered as its own thing, bought and sold individually, well, that does not bode
        > in
        > > the long run.
        > >
        > > ----- As opposed to TV shows, that required an audience for every single episode?
        > Comic books, that required buyers for every single issue? Or rock bands who treated
        > every single song on their albums as a potential single? If you're interested in a given
        > artist (of whatever medium) why would you *not* want every single release to be
        > considered as its own thing? At least George Lucas has trilogies to sell, what the hell do
        > Michael Moore and Oliver Stone have to offer? Or Axl Rose and Mick Jagger? Or Dave Sim
        > and John Byrne? Just to, you know, mention people who've appealed to a mass audience.
        > Rainmandu says:
        > Every single release of a serialized story in a comic book or every single episode of a TV
        > series IS its own thing. It's also a part of a larger whole.
        > Rainmandu
        > ====== If it doesn't work any further than its own single issue, it should work in
        that single format. I've gotten quite a few laughs from the few episodes of "Friends" I've
        seen, but have absolutely no desire to see any more, or even learn which characters are
        which. I absolutely loved "Mad About You" when I first discovered it in syndication,
        religously watched every episode until the network moved it off the schedule, at which
        point I didn't miss it. Later, it came back, and I went back to watching it religously, and
        then it was taken off again. As much as I loved "Mad About You", I have no interest in
        looking to keep watching. If it can't grab the audience (Ross and Monica, or Paul and
        Jamie, or Sam and Diane, or Hawkeye and Trapper -- don't ask, don't tell ) then it won't
        successful overall. So much for mass success.

        Rainmandu says:
        Well, right now the so-called "mass audience" wants serialized "soap opera"-style shows,
        that continue week to week, have ongoing storylines, large casts of characters, and, like
        any show like that, the individual episodes make SOME sense, but to really get into the
        "groove" of a show, you need to watch for a few weeks. Those are the shows that are doing
        well in the ratings, that are building their audience week after week, while shows like the
        ones you mentioned above are becoming scarce. The audience wants "Lost" and
        "Desperate Housewives" and that sort of thing, the networks want them, and the
        advertisers want them. What you said above sounds reasonable, but it's not reality. You
        can't wrap your head around people watching a show, not really understanding everything
        that's going on, but liking what they see (as confusing as it occasionally is) and sticking
        around for more, but that's what sells now. YOU have no interest in keeping up with a
        certain show. But plently of people DO. You say "so much for mass success." Well, there
        ARE successful shows. VERY successful shows. But you'll always "win" this debate, because
        you can always pick a number, call THAT number "success," and then say, "Well, no shows
        are reaching THAT number." Well, no, they're not. But there are still very many very
        successful shows on TV.


        "One Small Day (Extended Mix)" - Ultravox
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.