tv-links.co.uk Shut Down

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Most of the shows I tried (Spaced! was an exception) had bad links because the chinese host was almost always offline.  The site barely worked for me anyway so I don't see why they bothered to close it.

[radiowaves]

Yeah, they didn't work for me too. Only things that worked were documentaries, and that was probably the only place where I could watch them... I loved documentaries section.

At least I found a new site with divx quality movies.

[FSi++]

FSi:
1. You have to be kidding me: Do you even know anything about copyright?
So, for you, I make something, I put all my efforts, everything onto it, my dreams etc, and you want to:
a. take it and use it as your own (due to lack of copyright, thus steal it and claim it is yours)
b. take it and use it without rewarding me for the huge ammount of time+money+knowedge+talent+ideas I put onto it
c. Make money out of it
This is what you mean?

a. It's silly - nobody rejects the right to attribution; I mean the right to use it as YOUR own - for, say, educational purposes
b. if I have to; consider the people around the globe who can't afford to 'reward' 'them' for the huge amount of work 'they' put onto it. $40 for new Harry Potter book? Come on, that's my monthly allowance. (well, I'm a student and my parents do help me - actually I bought D.Knuth's books which cost a bit less than that - just because they aren't of many help in scanned form). If antipiracy laws were REALLY enforced here, about 70% of people would be completely cut off modern culture, simple uneducated pieces of russian redneck shit they are, but some bright kids have come out of there. Where would they be without proper education (and self-education, which would be impossible if they had to pay dozens of bucks for each book/movie/music album).
So yeah, go on and advocate copyright - it would keep us farmers away from your bright aristocratics white buildings, except when we're working as maids or 'dvornicks'.
c. It depends on the way I'm going to make money out of your work.
- selling it off internet - nobody would buy it, especially if it could be found for free at the nearby site
- selling it on a CD - then I did put some effort in these CD's too, don't you think? At least I bought a bunch of blank cd-r's and spent a night or two burning them to make these great tunes available to local public
- playing it at local disco/radio/taxi - now that could be considered at least mauvais tone - especially if I won't notice you; especially if I made some money out of it.
- listening pirated copy at home/other non-commercial uses - now I don't make you lose anything. If I liked the tune, I'll probably buy it (better sound quality, and some 'feelie' to keep on shelf).

2. How it doesn't support it? Can you explain a bit further? Information is free. Why should MY scores be free? (which they are, as I said earlier)

They should be available at least if you want them to stay alive virtually forever. DRM-infested piece of commercial music is going to die eventually - when the format goes old, when the distributor dies. If there were no non-drm'd copies, hasta la vista baby. Look at early 1990's commercial games - how many of them support nowadays OS'es? A little, I must say. They ARE available via emulators/wrappers and such programs, but that's not what I mean. Rogue dates as back as 1980 and still works fine. As do its forks and clones.
Another issue is the meanings of the word "free". You

3. I never said "stealing" in any way, I didn't even use the word. Don't mention that to me, I don't agree to that either. What happens is that you (you in a general sense) is taking advantage from something I (again in the general sense) did

Oh yeah, be a cheapskate and lock all your stuff and sell it for $80 a piece. I wonder how many hits will you get that way, if any.
Yes, you did put an effort in your tune - and that increased the price. A lot. Now let's see how that price distributes per copy.
Distribution via internet is pretty much free nowadays - so you can sell up to 1,244,449,601 copies (with as much effort as you can sell any other number of them) - and all your cost-price will virtually vanish over such a spread. And as in the future new people will born and will connect to the Net, it will make your (your publisher's) revenue almost infinite. What that means? Now we come the simple mathematical task. You can sell same thing over and over again, but you can't make INFINITE revenue (because you're not the only person in the world), so the only way to make it FINITE is to set an infinitely low price (i.e. one that almost equals 0).

But my POV seems tight and narrow?? I've been there, I've been to the other side, I've been everywhere, and as I mentioned I've downloaded stuff myself. Have you tried to live as a creator yourself? Or maybe your opinion is too tight and narrow?

I do create stuff. I don't care if it wass posted at piratey UseNet conference (it really did), no, actually I do care, I am actually HAPPY that some people cared enough about that as to share it on piratey UseNet conference.

Problem with piracy which rather bothers me, is that people who have put 0.1 effort are getting the money, while the real owners and effort people (bands + company + artists + whatever) get nothing.

You mean, like, distributors? These bastards! They would charge you for air to breathe if they had a legal possibility to do so!

In short, if I take a cracked copy of a... game, let's say, and make money out of it, I find it simply disgraceful. There is nothing supported and NO idealistic idea behind that AT ALL. At least give it for free, although again I don't agree fully...

It's not how it usually happens. People download a cracked copy of a game and play it; sometimes they share it with their friends. How could THAT be disgraceful?
You found a great piece of art and want to share it with people you like - today you can't. You probably even can't give your LEGAL copy to a friend due to license agreement...
Shouldn't de facto free stuff (as information really is) be free de jure?

p.s. my writing is all crappy and messy, sorry for that

[Nikolas]

a. It's silly - nobody rejects the right to attribution; I mean the right to use it as YOUR own - for, say, educational purposes

Want it or not copyright is ALSO that!

b. if I have to; consider the people around the globe who can't afford to 'reward' 'them' for the huge amount of work 'they' put onto it. $40 for new Harry Potter book? Come on, that's my monthly allowance. (well, I'm a student and my parents do help me - actually I bought D.Knuth's books which cost a bit less than that - just because they aren't of many help in scanned form). If antipiracy laws were REALLY enforced here, about 70% of people would be completely cut off modern culture, simple uneducated pieces of russian redneck shit they are, but some bright kids have come out of there. Where would they be without proper education (and self-education, which would be impossible if they had to pay dozens of bucks for each book/movie/music album).
So yeah, go on and advocate copyright - it would keep us farmers away from your bright aristocratics white buildings, except when we're working as maids or 'dvornicks'.

Honestly you need to relax and stop putting words in my mouth, ok? This is getting rather annoying. Farmers? Aristocratic whit buildings? WTF are you talking about here?

Harry Potter, starting from 9.50$. If you wait a little bit it'll drop at 4$. Now 4$ to 40$ is 10% for your little mind. Want to tell me that you HAVE to get it the minute it's released? I can wait, and always do, no matter the game, book, CD or whatever. I suggest you do the same.

don't give me crup pricing.

sure pricing sometimes, sucks, but I have failed to find a way to secure that something costing 4$ in russia, won't be bought from someone in the UK, who would normally get it at 20$ or something.

Pricing sucks, let's agree on that. But the latest book of Harry Potter is NOT necessary to survive, nor necessary to get it first week. Wait and you'll find it cheap as hell: There you go! Harry Potter 5 fro 4.50$. Is that pricey as well?

c. It depends on the way I'm going to make money out of your work.
- selling it off internet - nobody would buy it, especially if it could be found for free at the nearby site
- selling it on a CD - then I did put some effort in these CD's too, don't you think? At least I bought a bunch of blank cd-are's and spent a night or two burning them to make these great tunes available to local public
- playing it at local disco/radio/taxi - now that could be considered at least mauvais tone - especially if I won't notice you; especially if I made some money out of it.
- listening pirated copy at home/other non-commercial uses - now I don't make you lose anything. If I liked the tune, I'll probably buy it (better sound quality, and some 'feelie' to keep on shelf).

So you would really like it to work your arse off for something you love doing, and then learn that someone is taking advantage of that, while all he did was to copy the CD? I certainly wouldn't like that.

They should be available at least if you want them to stay alive virtually forever. DRM-infested piece of commercial music is going to die eventually - when the format goes old, when the distributor dies. If there were no non-drm'd copies, hasta la vista baby. Look at early 1990's commercial games - how many of them support nowadays OS'es? A little, I must say. They ARE available via emulators/wrappers and such programs, but that's not what I mean. Rogue dates as back as 1980 and still works fine.

WE agree. I gate DRM and antipiracy devices (dongles etc) as much as everyone. Learn who you talk to before you spit out rubbish!

As do its forks and clones.
Another issue is the meanings of the word "free". You

3. I never said "stealing" in any way, I didn't even use the word. Don't mention that to me, I don't agree to that either. What happens is that you (you in a general sense) is taking advantage from something I (again in the general sense) did

Oh yeah, be a cheapskate and lock all your stuff and sell it for $80 a piece. I wonder how many hits will you get that way, if any.

Once again.

I'm here.

I work FOR FUCKING FREE when the project is free. My tunes are there. I also work for money as well, when the project is not free.

Go to my website and get my tunes, my scores, and my info, as well as my feedback (being 30 and almost done with a PhD in composition, I'd say rather valuable) along with anything else you want. I've been around for something like 3 years and all I've done is offer (and accept offerings as well, for which I'm greatful!)

80$? Where? What?! WTF are you talking about again? I think that you are rather confused and you think you are talking to somebody else mate.

Yes, you did put an effort in your tune - and that increased the price. A lot. Now let's see how that price distributes per copy.
Distribution via internet is pretty much free nowadays - so you can sell up to 1,244,449,601 copies (with as much effort as you can sell any other number of them) - and all your cost-price will virtually vanish over such a spread. And as in the future new people will born and will connect to the Net, it will make your (your publisher's) revenue almost infinite. What that means? Now we come the simple mathematical task. You can sell same thing over and over again, but you can't make INFINITE revenue (because you're not the only person in the world), so the only way to make it FINITE is to set an infinitely low price (i.e. one that almost equals 0).

I don't know, you would like that effort would not equal something rewarding? you are breaking every sense in every country in the world. I put effort thus there is a price (some times). Thank god, few people think like you, thus people like Dave and Vince and Herculean Efforts make games, and put tons of effort, and do get rewarded with the sales, as many as they are.

But my POV seems tight and narrow?? I've been there, I've been to the other side, I've been everywhere, and as I mentioned I've downloaded stuff myself. Have you tried to live as a creator yourself? Or maybe your opinion is too tight and narrow?

I do create stuff. I don't care if it wass posted at piratey UseNet conference (it really did), no, actually I do care, I am actually HAPPY that some people cared enough about that as to share it on piratey UseNet conference.

Excellent I would be happy too. Do you sell those stuff btw? (<-honest question, nothing here)

Problem with piracy which rather bothers me, is that people who have put 0.1 effort are getting the money, while the real owners and effort people (bands + company + artists + whatever) get nothing.

You mean, like, distributors? These bastards! They would charge you for air to breathe if they had a legal possibility to do so!

Do you even have an idea what it takes to make a commercial CD?

I'm afraid that you are completely ignorant and thus speak like this...

In short, if I take a cracked copy of a... game, let's say, and make money out of it, I find it simply disgraceful. There is nothing supported and NO idealistic idea behind that AT ALL. At least give it for free, although again I don't agree fully...

It's not how it usually happens. People download a cracked copy of a game and play it; sometimes they share it with their friends. How could THAT be disgraceful?
You found a great piece of art and want to share it with people you like - today you can't. You probably even can't give your LEGAL copy to a friend due to license agreement...
Shouldn't de facto free stuff (as information really is) be free de jure?

p.s. my writing is all crappy and messy, sorry for that

But, but, but... you said that you have no problem with making money out someone elses copyrighted material. This is rather confusing...

And either way, if any AGS game (since we are in AGS) sold 100 copies, and got downloaded another 5000 cracked, it seems a bit of a shame I say. It wouldn't of course get a further 5000 sale, but even 100 more would be better.




In short, it seems that you have rehearsed this discsussion with other close minded people, but hit a problem here, cause I'm not that.


Go back, read what I'm saying, relax, and repost. I'll be here waiting.


EDIT: fixed quotes

[FSi++]

Go back, read what I'm saying, relax, and repost. I'll be here waiting.

Have a good time. 

[Nikolas]

Have a good time. 

I will stay up all night, wondering what you edited!

Either way thanks, and you too

[Pumaman]

Looks like the cops are on a roll this week:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7057812.stm

[Becky]

Nikolas, most internet piracy, which I believe we are talking about, has no money involved.  So no money is going to all these people who did "0.1 effort", it is rather that no money is going to XYZ distributor, music store shelf stacker, CD compressor, and maybe 50p to my favourite artist.

[Nikolas]

I know Becky As I said I'm no saint...

But actually in Greece, Russia, china and other countries pirates just sell CDs, games, programs. It's happening quite a lot! In addition tv-links, or if not them, many others, make huge profit from piracy...

In general I can agree and understand that I can share a CD (physical form) with a friend, and do the same with an mp3, since it's convinient. but when someone comes to me and tells me about abolishing copyright alltogether etc etc, or when someone uses pirated software to make money (try before buy for example), it's something a bit different for me.

[MillsJROSS]

Personally, I don't condone the use of websites that host, or point to hosted copyrighted material. The only thing I will let go, is if it posts to material that is no longer being supported by the holder of the copyrighted material. In the case of tv-links, this isn't the case.

I love the excuse that because it's expensive, people will obviously take it for free, and that somehow, big corporations will see that they aren't getting the money they should be, and lower their prices. That's based on the assumption that everyone is going to steal. In reality, there are plenty of honest people who won't steal, and so corporations will raise the prices, and it's those people who pay the new price hike. Even if the corporation lowered their prices, most of the people who steal would still steal if it was freely available, anyway.

-MillsJROSS

[Darth Mandarb]

I'm not sure what you mean by:

I love the excuse that because it's expensive, people will obviously take it for free, and that somehow, big corporations will see that they aren't getting the money they should be, and lower their prices.

These production companies should come to the [brain numbingly obvious] realization that the internet isn't going away.  No matter what they do/try they will never stop people downloading stuff from the 'net for free.  This is a no-brainer.

They shouldn't lower their prices because piracy is keeping their sales down.  They should lower their prices because their too-high prices are causing people to get it for free so as to not pay the too-high prices.  Sure, as you said:

Even if the corporation lowered their prices, most of the people who steal would still steal if it was freely available, anyway.

But there are those, like myself, that would happily pay for music again if the prices were reasonable.  I know it's not my product to manufacture, distribute, etc and I don't get to determine the cost of the product.  However, it is my money and I decide what I will spend it on.  They don't seem to grasp this concept.

So ... when they get their heads out of their arses and lower their prices I, for one, will gladly pay for it again.

Though, again, I must stress ... I'm not arguing the right/wrong aspect of this debate.  I'm just pointing out the fact that these people are spending way too much time combatting something they will never defeat.  Take down OiNK this week, next week two or three more will pop-up to take it's place.

These resources they waste could be much better spent on activities that will actually accomplish something.

[Nikolas]

But Darth,

When something is expensive and you can't afford it you simply don't buy it. End of story. Isn't this how life works? Want a Mac? sorry too much, you have to go for a crappy PC. Want a Steinway piano? Sorry too much, go for a Yamaha, or nothing. And so on.

The point that mills is making is that there is no excuse to get cracked software or pirate stuff or whatever, especially when it comes to mp3s. Because I can accept someone starting out (a student perhaps) and he would like to try out PS, or Cubase or something, but can't really accept that he wants to try out the new Metallica mp3s...

finally, I'm pretty sure that no matter how much the prices were people would still get them for free through other routes. why I say that? Because, as I mentioned earlier there are millions of mp3s around the internet which ARE free, from unsigned artists. Why go after the commercial ones really? It's super luxury! If you are looking for film music stuff, go to my site and get my mp3s for free. Of course the quality is tons worst than LOTR but then again my budget for all these tracks was 0$, while LOTR had something like 300,000,000$...

But yes, to your point, they are battling a lost cause I also believe that. And as I mentioned earlier as well (I hope it was this forum and not any other), artists need to wake up and find alternative ways of getting money.

[Darth Mandarb]

When something is expensive and you can't afford it you simply don't buy it. End of story. Isn't this how life works? Want a Mac? sorry too much, you have to go for a crappy PC. Want a Steinway piano? Sorry too much, go for a Yamaha, or nothing. And so on.

In a Utopia perhaps.  Sadly ... that's not even close to the reality we live in.  I don't disagree with the sentiment of what you're saying, just the reality of it.  (Except the bit about "crappy" PC ... Macs are no better than PCs, but you're right ... they are rediculously over-priced)

The point that mills is making is that there is no excuse to get cracked software or pirate stuff or whatever, especially when it comes to mp3s. Because I can accept someone starting out (a student perhaps) and he would like to try out PS, or Cubase or something, but can't really accept that he wants to try out the new Metallica mp3s...

"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"
- Obi-wan Kenobi

From your point of view (and Mills') there's no excuse.  That doesn't mean the "poor" student doesn't have a reason that he thinks is justified.  And, from his point of view, your view is meaningless to him.  That's just, sadly, the way of human nature.  I totally understand what you're saying and can see your point of view.  But my point of view is; CDs are WAY overpriced and I'm not paying their prices for them even though I want the music.  Mp3 just offers a convenient solution to that over-priced CD problem.

Is it illegal?  Sure, by letter of the law it is.  Do I feel bad about it?  Like I'm doing something wrong?  Absolutely not.  I would feel FAR worse if I over paid for it.

finally, I'm pretty sure that no matter how much the prices were people would still get them for free through other routes. why I say that? Because, as I mentioned earlier there are millions of mp3s around the internet which ARE free, from unsigned artists. Why go after the commercial ones really? It's super luxury! If you are looking for film music stuff, go to my site and get my mp3s for free. Of course the quality is tons worst than LOTR but then again my budget for all these tracks was 0$, while LOTR had something like 300,000,000$..

The commercial ones are the ones they KNOW they like.  The commercial ones are the ones they want.  It's just, again, the reality of the situation that it's those they will go after.  If they had reason to hear the FREE mp3 bands somewhere I'm sure they'd go after their music too.  However, if those un-signed bands had the backing of the record lables (thus the exposure and notariety) their mp3 wouldn't be free anymore.  Cause and effect really.

It's ironic, in a way, that the rediculous prices they record labels charge is a result of the advertising/marketing they do to get those artists on their labels exposed and that that very exposure causes the downloading because more and more people know the music.  Cracks me up really. 

[FSi++]

When something is expensive and you can't afford it you simply don't buy it. End of story.

I am talking about the basic concept that it's impossible to put a correct price on a software (in general sence; not only programs, but also information, etc). It's free by nature, and nothing can stop its spread (as various p2p networks show us), and, more important, its spread benefits mankind (with the exception of VERY few people whose 'losses from sharing' are only imaginary), so why must we stop it?

Again, though I do dislike pirates here (some good releases are exceptional; but sometimes pirates DO a better job than legal distributors - as strange as it may sound, but I can give some examples) they are bringing modern culture closer to people.
Come on, some villages don't even have a local pirate, not to mention legal shop, not to mention the Internet access. Some steps have been made, but it's still a long shot here.
So: they LIKE it, they'd even buy it (IF they could afford it and IF it was available to them at all), but their only source is Vasya Pupkin. Sad.

[tube]

I am talking about the basic concept that it's impossible to put a correct price on a software (in general sence; not only programs, but also information, etc). It's free by nature, and nothing can stop its spread (as various p2p networks show us), and, more important, its spread benefits mankind (with the exception of VERY few people whose 'losses from sharing' are only imaginary), so why must we stop it?

I'm all for stopping software patents and all that nonsense, but honestly I can't see how your argument applies to pure entertainment of no actual information content whatsoever. A typical Hollywood blockbuster can hardly be considered beneficial (in the strict sense of the word) for us consumers. Unless you consider relieving boredom such a benefit. It definitely doesn't make us better in any way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not agreeing with all that piracy is stealing crap. Although as soon as you make money selling your pirated products, you cross the line. By the way, has anyone (outside of RIAA/MPAA and the ilk) ever shown any evidence to back the claim that things like file sharing actually have a negative effect on record and movie sales? Personally I'm not likely to ever buy entertainment I don't already know to be good. Books are an exception, mostly due to the price of a paperback being much lower than that of a movie.

[Nikolas]

FSi, a very important comment which seems to elude (seems) as well as the link you gave me, which I did follow up to a point.

you are confusing copyrights, with ideas.

Ideas are NOT copyrighted. ideas can be patented (Which is a rather small ammount of time and completely set) and is based on the prototype.

In music:

Drums, chords, orchestration and lyrics CANNOT be copyrighted. I mean if this was untrue, there would be 20 songs in total!

On the contrary patent is limited to the prototype and exactly what it does. Nobody can stop somoene else doing a variation. Take the example of always with wings :p. The first to think to have wings. They added a set size. 2 years later ALL had wings. different size, different style, different material.

Djing and jazz are all about ideas and this is where your website is wrong.

Other than that, I'll repeat it I'm not neither a saint, nor a fool, I do see instances were piracy is the only option.



I also agree that it's impossible to put pricing on a product, based on your customer, but this is not how it works. A simple example: I have £1000 rent and £1000 nursery fees. That's around 3000 euros, per month. I need to charge my services accordingly, so I can live. This is London for you. It doesn't matter to me what my customers want exactly. Of course I know the market and know what to charge, but unfortunately someone from India, won't be able to hire me... I need to survive first. By all means, if my survival is set, and clear, I don't think I would start going after for a better car, etc, I would probably give things for "free" or something. At least my thoughts for now.

But just an idea about pricing. It's a continuous struggle (especially for freelancers) to see what, where, who, the budget, etc. and the balance needs to be right.

[Meowster]

I purchased the most recent Freezepop album online. I then bought my favourite tracks on iTunes, because the CD was going to take a week to arrive and it was only 70p per track. Then I downloaded a torrent file of the entire album because even though I own one and a half copies of the CD legally already, I can't actually put any of it on my MP3 player because of all the copy protection.

That's stupid.

Had I not actually really liked Freezepop, the temptation would be - as it is with most bands - just to download their music already ripped, for free. That way I can put it on my MP3 player, I can do whatever I like with it.

I would really, really honestly be encouraged to buy music more often if it wasn't for copy protection. It's so stupid because, clearly people can easily get around the copy protection and upload the songs for the entire world to download for free. All it really seems to do effectively is stop people who legally purchased the music, from being able to enjoy it.

I feel very reluctant to pay £10 for a CD full of music that I will rarely actually get to listen to, unless I'm sitting on my PC at home.

It's like saying, "Oh! You bought it! But you can't actually DO anything with it."

Er... sorry this was a bit off topic really. Sorry. Rant over.

[LimpingFish]

I agree. DRM is true culprit in this situation. Happily, a few companies are now realizing the detrimental effect DRM can have on the industry's relationship with it's consumer base.

Nobody wants to be told how often they can play a CD/watch a movie/etc, and few people are rightly reluctant to pay for something that they don't feel they'll actually own.

You can't treat your customers like criminals, and not expect them to rebel.

Can this argument be applied to TV-Links? In a roundabout way, I suppose it can. Various media companies in the US offer free to view content, but block access to IP's from outside the US. Of course there are (semi-)legitimate reasons for doing so, but it annoys people that, because of their location, they are denied the right to view "free" content.

But the shows linked to on TV-Links are also generally available to buy on DVD in most countries/territories, so I guess you could argue that DVD sales could suffer because of such sites.

Of course, each side could probably produce reams of statistics to support/deny such arguments.

[MillsJROSS]

These production companies should come to the [brain numbingly obvious] realization that the internet isn't going away.  No matter what they do/try they will never stop people downloading stuff from the 'net for free.  This is a no-brainer.

They shouldn't lower their prices because piracy is keeping their sales down.  They should lower their prices because their too-high prices are causing people to get it for free so as to not pay the too-high prices.  Sure, as you said:

First off, I completely disagree that CDs are too expensive. I'd say the average CD is about $15 - $25. I've easily drop more than that on a meal and not even think about it. I also think these companies are smart enough to realize the internet is a factor, which is why people can download music on-line for money.

Now I don't honestly care about anyone else's perspective on this issue, in that, I live my life by my code, and you're free to live your life by yours. I'm just not going to cry over something being closed down, that I don't agree with.

I can afford DVDs and CDs, and I don't think their unreasonably priced (for the most part). As a programmer, I firmly don't like the idea of someone spreading around something I created to eek out a living, just because they can't afford to pay prices that are set by my rent, my car, and other things I need to survive.

I think the real issues with the tv-links website are whether or not linking to "illegal" material is wrong. Of course, if you think you should be able to get that material for free anyway, you won't really care. If, however, you honestly like a show (especially a current running show), isn't it far better to buy the DVDs and hopefully, tell the big wigs that the show should run for another season? Yes there are gray area's where there are shows that aren't being released to DVD, or just aren't accessible in your area. If you think hosting the sites is wrong than I can't see how linking the sites could be right.

-MillsJROSS

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

isn't it far better to buy the DVDs and hopefully, tell the big wigs that the show should run for another season?

Oh, is THAT what it does? Then I shall stop buying them forthwith, so that they learn not to stretch great shows for huge periods of time "just because". After all, all good things have a beggining, a middle and an end, and a belated end kills most of the whole thing. I don't want to be a part of that.

...ok, so I don't actually buy them. But if I did, I'd surely stop now.