In a recent Xomblurb I (and probably you too) noticed Bill O`Reilly getting fed-up with unconscienable(?) Chris Dodd over an unneeded, unseemly, relatively-appalling picture featured on the front page of some website.

It's not that he thinks whoever posted the image didn't have "the right" to post that image; it's that the person must be too stupid to deserve the right to post that picture, because there are surely better pictures the person could have posted if they weren't so stupid!

Another Xomba-article discussed his statement on The O`Reilly Factor saying-that FOX Entertainment was being stupid buying an upcoming "OJ Simpson"-special, -that O`Reilly Factor-viewers should avoid the special, and -that advertisers should boycott FOX Entertainment-people who try to sell them that airtime.

In short, he's serving the people's best interests (in that case). If you find out that it's just some marketing-ploy, that's fine for you; what I hear is that he's serving the people's best interests.

In the best interests of Xombees (who are also people ... sometimes), Idlewild asked a question:

... sites where they can watch or download movies. Almost all the content on these sites is illegal and constitutes copyright infringement....

He also directed readers to the company's statement that forbade "Any other content that is illegal, promotes illegal activity, or infringes on the legal rights of others," going on to say,

Viewing/downloading bootleg movies is clearly "illegal activity," it would seem, and posts that encourage people to go to these sites would, in my mind, be promoting that activity.

Well, "viewing" them is just as legal as 'witnessing murder.' ... You've seen the Kennedy-asassination several times, nobody's pullin` you in for that. But the difference is that you are–in providing traffic to the free movie sites–actually condoning the illegal display!

But "downloading" them is illegal for several reasons, no matter what excuses you give.

IdleWild also warns Xombees:

... They have canceled the ... accounts of many thousands of users who engage in click fraud or commit other violations.

Anyone who is posting links to illegal movie/TV sites, or is thinking about doing so, might want to consider if making these posts is worth the potential risk of having his or her ... account shut down permanently.

Now, it's very-possible that people who promote the viewing have done some of their due diligence in making sure that the holders of the content are the holders of the copyright, but they fail to do their due diligence if they promote any site where they know that the content is 'liftable.'

There's kind of a 'dualistic condition' there, in that you-and-I know that all the content on the web is 'sold' to the media-managers etc. Often (as is the case with this) content, it's done with the understanding that the contributor will get 'a cut' of the revenue from its posting.

And I trust that you understand that these words are not your words (unless you're a party to the agreement made between myself and the providers of this media-space).

Speaking of 'trust,' (Sayeth the MythMan):

[P]eople (myself included, I'm not ashamed to admit) sometimes don't consider 'Laws' in deciding which 'Rules' to follow (or they don't consider 'Rules' in following 'Laws' ... those get mixed sometimes).

For example, many of the names in the title were (surprise surprise!) taken from a list of the recently most-searched words. Were there any rules written against using those words, I either-considered erasing the words during an editing of this article or -was unaware of how any such rule made the erasure necessary.

An example of justified rule-breaking happened a couple of times above in the two links I just made. I only made them to extend my writing (notice the title-bar of the sites). You could look at it and see the traffic-exchange aspect of it, and complain that it goes against part of rule #5, but I assure you the only "party" getting traffic is my social-web (my MySpace, maybe soon my Hi-5 and Facebook ... which all send traffic here) ... and that's only if you decide to see what I'm talking about AND decide to see what somebody else is talking about there.