Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 11:17am
Re: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em
What, you reckon a kick-starter project to raise, ooo say around 30 or 40 million to "hire" some on behalf of the public would work? Who knows... but last time I looked the public supposedly already hired them once!
That doesn't make caps wrong. And that doesn't support the original thesis that "caps are wrong because nobody knows what a MB is."
No, caps are wrong because they measure the wrong thing. In fact, if you think about it, they can have a negative effect on the thing that does matter, i.e. data rate.
Look at it this way (a litle simplistic I'll admit but bear with me):
Everyone seems too agree (because it's true) that the actual limit on the network is not amount of data it can transfer but the maximum sustainable data rate, because that's the thing that costs money.
Imagine everyone you sell broadband to has a 20GB download limit per month. Everyone starts merrily downloading and gets a warning they're getting close to the limit. They stop downloading until the "next month", when they start again.
If this happens to lots of your customers at once they what you've done is artificially create a high burst data rate at the beginnning of the month that your network has to cope with, when a sustained data rate would actually give you less capacity problems.
I think the problem is that broadband providors advertise and sell the wrong thing because it sounds sexier. Most sell a maximum speed e.g. 20Mbps (which people don't understand either but can be easily dressed in "download a film in 10 minutes a song in 20 seconds" type language). First it often turns out if it's over a traditional phone line that the line infrastructure isn't up to the delivery (hence the kludge "legal" wording of "up to" 20Mpbs broadband). And second that figure doesn't take into account contention ratios (link aggregation at the local exchange) or actual network capacity. That means that when the sustained data rate ends up sucking the customer says "but you said I'd get [irrelevant nice big number]".
I reckon it would be better if ISPs sold lines on the basis of "mean guaranteed data rate" and were contracted as such. It might not sound as sexy but it would be a lot more honest and would get rid of stupid absolute amount of data limits. For ISP's that cared it would make capacity planning easier because it gives a definitive taget to aim for and for those that are cowboys that never upgrade their networks while sell-sell-selling it would empower the customer with a harder to wriggle out of provable contractual breach.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 6:48am
Re: Re:
So what you're saying is they should have spied on every single file to be 100% sure? You know who's responsible for the copyright infringement? THE PEOPLE UPLOADING IT!
Unless I'm missing the relationship between Carpathia and Megaupload (i.e. hosting company providing infrastructure and company creating and running a service on that infrastructure) I'd be very suprised if it was not breaking several illegal computer use laws for Carpathia as the hosting company to even look at the data much less change it. I certainly wouldn't deal with a hosting company that wanted (or indeed was capable of without hacking) access to my confidential business data.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 16 Apr 2012 @ 6:39am
Re:
What more do you want?
I want to be able to read a book on my spare 4-year old windows mobile phone, my media box on the TV, any PC or other computing device I please whether Windows, Linux, MacOS, or other flavour yet to be invented no matter what kind of e-book reader it has or indeed whether it has one at all. I want to be sure that the book will stay where I put it unless the device dies or I delete it and I want to be able to back it up adequately using a method that I choose. I want to be treated as a customer not a criminal when I buy a book and to be free to use it as I see fit. And most of all I want to be able to do all of that when the company that sold me the book and all support for their products and software has gone the way of the Dodo.
In short I do not want to have any sort of DRM or format shifting issues on any book I buy.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Apr 2012 @ 3:15pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They Have Got It
still at this point the most functional and highest grossing model around
Which means what exactly? Simple inertia and size mean that even a bad model will last quite a while especially when there is so much effort thrown into trying to strangle any other model that rises up to challenge.
Where I have a problem, and where I see a disconnect is that much of the chanting here is to f**k the **aas, get rid of the labels,
That's what you see and yes there's some of that, perhaps even an amount equal to 1/2 the pointless invective that usually comes from the "other side". Both are annoying. At least the arguments of Mike et al show consistent internal logic. It's extremely rare there's anything similar the other way.
and in it's place... t-shirts?
case in point. I'm going to assume you can't really be obtuse enough to assume that's the argument and yet rather than debating merits you try and belittle at every turn.
I am trying to figure out why you trash a multi billion dollar business
And again that's what you read into it. Me I see a change in technology that means that things cannot possibly keep working the same way and that the same or bigger industry will adapt to new ways but with likely less money for each individual company since there will naturally be more players to share the enlarged pot.
It's a real disconnect that nobody is really talking about unified models that would allow the "new" music business to move forward with direction,
Again, your own failing. There is no "magic model" that will suddenly replace one model with something that works for everyone. IN fact there never was. What's left of the models you revere so are the biggest sharks in the tank. How many "big" studios and "major" labels are there now compared to, say, the 60's and 70's?
Right now it seems to more like stumbling around in a dark crowded room with a sharp knife in your hand.
Well given the **AA propensity for trying to kill any competition, if I had to use a nebulously scary-sounding metaphor like that I'd characterize it more as "carefully feeling around a dark room where everyone else has a knife but you."
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Apr 2012 @ 11:20am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't be daft. If 60% of the file are either accessed once or never, there represent a very small amount of traffic and requests. 1% is GENEROUS.
And yet again (and again and again and....) you ignore the purpose of a cyberlocker and cherry pick your favorite figures.
Traffic is not usage. Putting a file there and leaving it there until you need it is just as much "usage" as downloading one already there. So the best that can be said for the "facts" is that if 60% of the files aren't regularly downloaded then they are significantly less likely to be infringing. These files, whether they have "traffic" statistics or not are very much part of the "usage" of the site no matter how loud you scream and rant.
I also note that you seem to be attempting to imply that a "download only" account is de-facto infringing when a/ there are plenty of provable legitimate downloads and b/ it seems as per the article that some portion of the download traffic labelled as infringing is, in fact, not infringing at all and is therefore also legitimate.
So that leads me to 2 conclusions; 1/ It seems obvious there are significant non-infringing usages of the site.
and
2/ You, apparantly much like Mr. Zebrak, appear to have a significant resemblance to someone full of the brown sticky odiferous stuff.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Apr 2012 @ 10:35am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They Have Got It
Selling t-shirts, no matter how "unique", at a high price is just another way of ripping off the "real fans"
So then you'll be able to point to the many reviews saying things like "I bought one of their shirts and now I wish I hadn't, what a rip off".. right?
You might think it's a rip-off, but it seems like the people shelling out the money don't. Me, I think shelling out around $20 to see something as egregiously bad as Pirates of the Caribbean 4 is a rip-off, but there are those who rave about that too so I'm guessing they wouldn't feel the same way.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Apr 2012 @ 10:24am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They Have Got It
Not really - it would be the ultimate example of a non-sustainable business model
And there in a single sentence is your problem as well as that of the **AA companies you are so fond of. No business model is "sustainable". Markets change and short- or long-term if you stick to a business model no matter how successful it'll eventually not work any more. You on the other hand (along with the **AA's) seem to think that once you find an idea that works it should work forever. These guys are making money out of what they do, they are therefore smart enough. When the market changes, is they are still making money that makes them very smart.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 9:01am
Re: Re: Re: Nice and all but
Be careful with your assumptions about art that you classify as "a few squiggly lines of paint".
I wasn't making assumptions I was being facetious to a fatuous objection to the band's mechandise. A painting when it comes down to it is literally a few squiggles of paint (usually made from assorted freely available minerals) on canvas (cotton or flax - i.e. plants). The value of it is in its ability to elicit an emotional response from the viewer, which is wholly subjective and also a completely seperate thing from monetary value i.e. price. As is often said here Value != price. I've seen paintings that can be bought for peanuts that moved me far more than many "old masters".
My point was that to dismiss someone as stupid because they'd pay 100 for a shirt is a fatuously elitist view. I wouldn't pay 80M for a painting I totally loved (even if I had it) and yet I accept that people do and that's their choice. Clearly the people buying the shirts think they're getting some sort of value out of it so who's to say they are wrong?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 5:44am
Re:
It's the [whatever kind of band the article isn't talking about] kind, obviously. To be followed by a rant that basically defines "success" in music to be "being a world-wide mega-star in the purely traditional sense of huge world-wide CD sales and massive international stageshow tour" and everything else as irrelevant.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 5:38am
Re: Nice and all but
I'm really worried about people who would spend 100 pounds on a shirt some guy made the night before.
Well I'm worried about people who spend Tens of millions on a few squiggly lines of paint on a canvas some guy no-one alive knows first hand did but I guess I'm in the minority there. Value is in the eye of the beholder.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 10 Apr 2012 @ 2:22am
Re: Re: Re:
It's a poor choice. There is no way to find the defendant without filing, and at $10,000 or more per case, it's painful to file to discover that the defendant is a welfare bum without 2 cents to rub together.
This is the same "welfare bum without 2 cents to rub together" that would suddenly magically spend thousands of dollars on entertainment if only they would stop being a "dirty thieving pirate"... right?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 10 Apr 2012 @ 2:09am
Re:
But the CEO fails to address what happens when everyone is playing pirated games, and nobody feels the need any longer to buy any game.
A less bitter and twisted person without a 1-track mind might assume that, having been flexibly-minded enough to cope well with the current problem, he will again change his strategy and possibly even his product offering if and when the market changes.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Apr 2012 @ 9:05am
Re: Re: Re:
Like the Youtube that is being sued, or hosting services such as megaupload that are being arrested and sued? When observably these people think "piracy" = "anything that doesn't give most if not all of the money straight to the **AA companies" it rather sounds like you did nothing to challenge Mr Rhodes' point.
On the post: Revolving Door Between The MPAA And The Federal Government
Re: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
Look at it this way (a litle simplistic I'll admit but bear with me):
Everyone seems too agree (because it's true) that the actual limit on the network is not amount of data it can transfer but the maximum sustainable data rate, because that's the thing that costs money.
Imagine everyone you sell broadband to has a 20GB download limit per month. Everyone starts merrily downloading and gets a warning they're getting close to the limit. They stop downloading until the "next month", when they start again.
If this happens to lots of your customers at once they what you've done is artificially create a high burst data rate at the beginnning of the month that your network has to cope with, when a sustained data rate would actually give you less capacity problems.
I think the problem is that broadband providors advertise and sell the wrong thing because it sounds sexier. Most sell a maximum speed e.g. 20Mbps (which people don't understand either but can be easily dressed in "download a film in 10 minutes a song in 20 seconds" type language). First it often turns out if it's over a traditional phone line that the line infrastructure isn't up to the delivery (hence the kludge "legal" wording of "up to" 20Mpbs broadband). And second that figure doesn't take into account contention ratios (link aggregation at the local exchange) or actual network capacity. That means that when the sustained data rate ends up sucking the customer says "but you said I'd get [irrelevant nice big number]".
I reckon it would be better if ISPs sold lines on the basis of "mean guaranteed data rate" and were contracted as such. It might not sound as sexy but it would be a lot more honest and would get rid of stupid absolute amount of data limits. For ISP's that cared it would make capacity planning easier because it gives a definitive taget to aim for and for those that are cowboys that never upgrade their networks while sell-sell-selling it would empower the customer with a harder to wriggle out of provable contractual breach.
On the post: Judge Preserves Megaupload Evidence For Now, While Gov't Tries To Pin Blame On Hosting Company
Re: Re:
On the post: Facebook Has Been Sued Five Times For Patent Infringement In Two Months Since Filing For Its IPO
Re:
On the post: Another Reason Why DRM Is Bad -- For Publishers
Re:
In short I do not want to have any sort of DRM or format shifting issues on any book I buy.
On the post: The Odd Future Approach: Give Away The Music, Sell Awesome Stuff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They Have Got It
That's what you see and yes there's some of that, perhaps even an amount equal to 1/2 the pointless invective that usually comes from the "other side". Both are annoying. At least the arguments of Mike et al show consistent internal logic. It's extremely rare there's anything similar the other way. case in point. I'm going to assume you can't really be obtuse enough to assume that's the argument and yet rather than debating merits you try and belittle at every turn. And again that's what you read into it. Me I see a change in technology that means that things cannot possibly keep working the same way and that the same or bigger industry will adapt to new ways but with likely less money for each individual company since there will naturally be more players to share the enlarged pot.
Again, your own failing. There is no "magic model" that will suddenly replace one model with something that works for everyone. IN fact there never was. What's left of the models you revere so are the biggest sharks in the tank. How many "big" studios and "major" labels are there now compared to, say, the 60's and 70's?Well given the **AA propensity for trying to kill any competition, if I had to use a nebulously scary-sounding metaphor like that I'd characterize it more as "carefully feeling around a dark room where everyone else has a knife but you."
On the post: Report Shows MPAA 'Experts' Seriously Misrepresented The Uses Of Hotfile
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Traffic is not usage. Putting a file there and leaving it there until you need it is just as much "usage" as downloading one already there. So the best that can be said for the "facts" is that if 60% of the files aren't regularly downloaded then they are significantly less likely to be infringing. These files, whether they have "traffic" statistics or not are very much part of the "usage" of the site no matter how loud you scream and rant.
I also note that you seem to be attempting to imply that a "download only" account is de-facto infringing when a/ there are plenty of provable legitimate downloads and b/ it seems as per the article that some portion of the download traffic labelled as infringing is, in fact, not infringing at all and is therefore also legitimate.
So that leads me to 2 conclusions; 1/ It seems obvious there are significant non-infringing usages of the site.
and
2/ You, apparantly much like Mr. Zebrak, appear to have a significant resemblance to someone full of the brown sticky odiferous stuff.
On the post: The Odd Future Approach: Give Away The Music, Sell Awesome Stuff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They Have Got It
You might think it's a rip-off, but it seems like the people shelling out the money don't. Me, I think shelling out around $20 to see something as egregiously bad as Pirates of the Caribbean 4 is a rip-off, but there are those who rave about that too so I'm guessing they wouldn't feel the same way.
On the post: The Odd Future Approach: Give Away The Music, Sell Awesome Stuff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They Have Got It
On the post: The Odd Future Approach: Give Away The Music, Sell Awesome Stuff
Re: Re: Re: They Have Got It
On the post: The Odd Future Approach: Give Away The Music, Sell Awesome Stuff
Re: Re: Re: Nice and all but
My point was that to dismiss someone as stupid because they'd pay 100 for a shirt is a fatuously elitist view. I wouldn't pay 80M for a painting I totally loved (even if I had it) and yet I accept that people do and that's their choice. Clearly the people buying the shirts think they're getting some sort of value out of it so who's to say they are wrong?
On the post: The Odd Future Approach: Give Away The Music, Sell Awesome Stuff
Re:
Hope that helps.
On the post: The Odd Future Approach: Give Away The Music, Sell Awesome Stuff
Re: Nice and all but
On the post: Yet Another Copyright Troll Case Kicked Out Of Court, With Excellent Reasoning From The Judge
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Stardock CEO Wants To Maximize Sales, Not Stop Piracy
Re:
On the post: Stardock CEO Wants To Maximize Sales, Not Stop Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Dont be ignorant
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>