[albyjimc2]

I am going to have to agree with Hollywood on this one. I also agree with musicians who don't want their music downloaded for free. Just because the liberals in Hollywood have a lot of money does not mean they should not care that copyright laws are being violated. I agree that a lot of filth is put out by Hollywood, but it is their right t do so in this country.

To go as far as saying "poisoning the minds" is a bit harsh. We watch these movies if we choose to do so. We rent them, we buy them. If "minds are poisoned" we have no one to blame but ourselves. An artist doesn't paint a picture of a naked woman then let the museum put a black bar from her neck to her knees.

In my opinion this is not disgusting, this is the law. Even if it is broken with good intentions, it's still the law.

[BenLurkin]

I agree that no one should work for free.

If these companies are making bootleg copies and selling them -- then they should be stopped.

But that isn't what the article says.

[Calpernia]

What about when a song that has a bad word in it gets bleeped when played on the radio?

Why is that different?

[jeremiah]

If the museum buys the picture, they can put whatever they want over it. If you buy a book, you can take pages out of it, and resell it. If you buy a movie, you can edit some scenes out of it. All three instances are of an owner changing his property.

[OKIEDOC]

Try answering back when you have young children.