> Yes, even scumbags have rights, absolutely! No, > don't ever paint this egotistical, opportunistic > allegorical hyperbole of a man as any sort of "hero"

> Yes, even scumbags have rights, absolutely! No, > don't ever paint this egotistical, opportunistic > allegorical hyperbole of a man as any sort of "hero" > or "freedom fighter". Larry Flint stood for freedom too, doesn't mean he's a humanitarian only thinking of the greater good of mankind. Even the 'Founding Fathers' of the US were rich landowners that didn't want to get taxed by England. For all of the "fluff" that the history books talk about them being warm and fuzzy about human rights, their philosophies didn't disagree with their pocketbooks. > When actually they do not make less money now than > they did 15 years ago. Their profits/revenues do fluctuate, but they use piracy as their scapegoat for everything. Is the economy down, so people have less disposable income to spend on consuming entertainment media? It's piracy at fault! It definitely could not be because people have less money to spend, therefore they spend less money in aggregate. Are other industries encroaching into the consumption media space (e.g. video games industry)? It's piracy at fault! It definitely could not be because people are now choosing to distribute spending of their finite amount of disposable income in other industries (e.g. buying few movies, and more video games).