Ah the peanut gallery speaks. Learn to type your name, shill! There's significantly more PEOPLE these days too. If 1% of a given population is musical, then more people = more music. Same as there's more pollution, higher food requirements and all the rest that goes with a larger population. Did you even -think- before posting ? I bet not.
Re: You're all misunderstanding Murdoch's strategy
"It could easily become very expensive and a greater revenue source for Murdoch."
Pfft. LOL! If it's valueless now, why will an arbitrary price tag make it worth more ? Just means less people will see his vomit.
Here's the top 5 items from the news.com.au feed on iGoogle at the moment :
Breast cancer hope from pigs (a pig has been forced to grow breasts .. eww)
'Get off the boat and we'll resettle you' (This site implies the new offer's OK but the Australian a paper owned by the same company is quoted as saying it's been rejected.)
Parking inspector bitten in the face (the only extra detail is a location and car type)
Man forced girl, 11, to 'abort after rape' (a Fritzl type case)
Shark-on-shark attack shocks aquarium (no mention of the fact it was pregnant in the headline and had babies after)
Based on those headlines, I saw no need to click a link, but I did to show the dross the site vomits onto my screen.
Yes it's all really indepth stuff. The world would be better off without it. In fact I just removed the news.com.au gadget from igoogle.
I think the idea's appalling. Sure it would likely be OK in Japan but someone shoulda realised someone in the US was bound to sue .. Not much else happens over there does it ? :)
Anonymous Coward, arguing with yourself is pointless. For the record, from my perspective if you can't be bothered to type a name, it devalues whatever you say by about 90%.
Techdirt has, when viewed under a very narrow definition, a window. I don't subscribe to it, in fact I get what I need from the site without having to pay for it, but others can get a little more information a little earlier if they pay. So ? I am sure the movie company will give you their movie for free 24 hours later. Err .. or not. If you're a techdirt regular you'll know the main premise of the post is to note how stupidly the movie industry is behaving from a *business model* sense. Mike may 'rant and rave' but the fact of the matter is, he has a point. He's offered a few suggestions and raised a few points, whereas the naysayers are only managing to type "you have a window too" which is the debating equivalent of a four year old's retort of "I know you are, but what am I?"
Simply put, the last movie I paid to see at the cinema was .. err .. jeez .. anyway it'd be Shrek2, I think. The last time I rented a movie was last week, the time before that .. err .. 6 months maybe. To me movies aren't that valuable at all. 90% of them it wouldn't worry me if I missed them. There's the odd exception, sure.
Overall, I'm like most other commenters - by the time it comes out on DVD, I've pretty much forgotten about it, so generally I don't buy any. Those that I have bought are backed up onto my PC anyway, so I can watch them without ruining that stupid, ridiculous physical object the industry is obsessed with (I bet it's because they're shiny).
The cinemas bug me - I'm not agoraphobic, but I'm most comfy at home, like most people. I'm not inclined to pay and go watched forced advertising while being squeezed in with noisy teenagers and smelly old people and then have the "experience" ruined by some peanut with a mobile phone. Screw that! If I could pick up a DVD of an at-the-cinemas movie at the supermarket or whatever same day it was released I might buy it, but if by the time the DVD is released most people know a fair chunk about it due to hype and word of mouth, why the hell would I pay full price for the least interesting half of a story ? A DVD in Australia is about $27, a movie ticket is usually $12ish (I live outside a major city), so why would I pay twice as much if I already know the good bits (they are shiny though..)?
The movie industry needs to realise that some people just want to be able to watch it at home, but by the time they can legally buy it and do so, the movie's close to worthless to them. It would also mean the companies could get all their profit in one go if there were only one release window, and then they can go home and have a circle jerk about how much money they screwed the world for sooner.
$714mill from a movie, and expecting a further 2.2b (assuming that what was written above is what was meant) that's just obscene.
Is that it's not even to stop terrorism or save the children. It's like the keeper isn't watching at all as it gets tapped over the line.
Seriously though, this is a horrible outcome - I can see it start to become more prevalent, that other countries will pass similar laws.
I sit here at the moment with one always-on unsecured wireless somewhere nearby, and an occasional other one - this isn't in a high rise area either. Anyone could use either of them when they're on.
@AC : I don't watch the news so it's understandable the gourmet subject would have missed it without Twitter.
Do you USE Twitter ? "on someone else's site" - it quite possibly arrived as an SMS on her mobile.
Re: Re: Re: shell gas analogy...Re: Re: (1) not quite so cut-and-dried (2) failure to read RFC 2142
"How about this one? Is a flea market liable if a vendor in the market is repeatedly selling counterfeit goods? After of course multiple warnings about the vendor have been provided to the flea market?"
Err .. what are the police supposed to be doing at the time ? I mean you're typing with counterfeit logic there, dleather - should your ISP get sued because you're using their bandwidth to provide a counterfeit item?
Comment 2, Anonymous Coward :
"Mr. Patry and I are in total agreement"
So who the hell are you ? (probably more accurate why do you think you're important?)
Comment 3, are you the same person ?
I really think the sooner society gets over this 'me too' mentality we'll be a hell of a lot better off. The biggest problem with patents and IP is that it's totally unnecessary. It's just a way for people to get money (which really, humans could manage without and we'd probably have a lot less problems).
I agree with John - the idea of paying again to read the same content you already pay to get *delivered* is ludicrous. Starting the business model with that premise it's bound to be EPIC .. FAIL.
"The idea is that a newspaper probably has 10 or 15 percent of its audience who are the most engaged, who come to that Web site all the time. Those are the people who will be asked to pay a small portion. "
Of those who visit regularly what point do people not get asked to subscribe ? That's the level of involvement those users will then have.
Now then let's go the opposite way. I appreciate Mike recognising that frequenting a website does not mean you also want to pay to run it. Now then of all the sites I've visited while I've been using phone lines to get my PC to talk to another (and yes I started with a 300 baud modem), I reckon, there are TWO I have paid money towards. One was a social 8 line chatline (1988) which I was almost always on, and was in hardship so I helped out as did 2 other users. There were 400 users onsite - that means 3 people voluntarily contributed, out of 400, after an emotive plea for help from a FRIEND who ran a BBS. 3/400 = 0.0075, so 3/4 of 1/100th.
The other was a text based MUD game. It was really good, I really got into it. I found if I paid a bit extra I could buy additional skills. That was great. Until there were no more skills to buy, at which point I lost interest. The closest example I could give is cheating yourself god mode in your favourite game, then not enjoying it 'coz the achievement wasn't there. I found a good proportion of that was paid for by users. That said, there were about 8 admins on at any time, plus you had a suite of coders happily programming in some form of LPC, so I imagine the financial gain they got was chewed by overheads.
So that's two sites. I have 1200 separate domains in my bookmarks (excluding history) which goes from whenever Firefox 2 came out.
So in 21 years, with (at least) 1202 sites, I have contributed to 2.
I would respectfully suggest that most net savvy users would be similar. Ergo this guy's got it way wrong.
I think that what should happen is what looks to have happened.
Google receives a legal request. They forward that on to the relevant party and advise them of what has transpired. The person can then take whatever action they see fit.
Google shouldn't breach the law for a vitriolic individual. To improve user's rights sure, but not for some sheila who may or may not be accurate in labelling the other party a skank. It's the blogger's opinion so -they- should defend it. Google's given them opportunity to avoid it in the case mentioned above.
"..revolutionary enough that "TiVo" is used as a verb to indicate the generic act of recording something onto a DVR device.."
You don't have the word "record" in your country ?
We have TiVos here and to be quite honest it may be great, but I don't want one. If you can patent "categorising shows and automatically recording them based on user selected criteria" which is my (limited) understanding of what one does .. does that mean when I tell my partner to record any scifi shows that she's breaching their patent ? Get off it. A TiVo is a HD in a box with some capable software. When you boil it down to that, it just becomes "an external HD"..
That'd be the first time your post's been longer than your sig. And you managed to malign most readers while giving out your contact details. Excellent work. Here I was thinking lawyers weren't stupid, then I remembered where I usually your name..
On the post: Verizon Starts Passing On RIAA Infringement Letters To Users
Re: iiNet
On the post: New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music
Re: Re: You can't legislate or bribe creativity
On the post: Newspaper Industry Lawyers Attack Fair Use, Claim Google Is Illegal
Re: You're all misunderstanding Murdoch's strategy
Pfft. LOL! If it's valueless now, why will an arbitrary price tag make it worth more ? Just means less people will see his vomit.
On the post: Is Murdoch's Move Against Google Really About Twitter And Facebook?
They post crud though
Breast cancer hope from pigs (a pig has been forced to grow breasts .. eww)
'Get off the boat and we'll resettle you' (This site implies the new offer's OK but the Australian a paper owned by the same company is quoted as saying it's been rejected.)
Parking inspector bitten in the face (the only extra detail is a location and car type)
Man forced girl, 11, to 'abort after rape' (a Fritzl type case)
Shark-on-shark attack shocks aquarium (no mention of the fact it was pregnant in the headline and had babies after)
Based on those headlines, I saw no need to click a link, but I did to show the dross the site vomits onto my screen.
Yes it's all really indepth stuff. The world would be better off without it. In fact I just removed the news.com.au gadget from igoogle.
On the post: A Look At All The Sites Owned By Rupert Murdoch That 'Steal' Content
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Bad Idea Central: Toyota Sued After Viral Marketing Attempt Convinced Woman She Was Being Stalked
#35 is spammy :)
Not sure about 34 tho either :)
On the post: Dear Hollywood: Don't Be Idiots; Don't Delay Movie Rentals
Interesting viewpoints
Techdirt has, when viewed under a very narrow definition, a window. I don't subscribe to it, in fact I get what I need from the site without having to pay for it, but others can get a little more information a little earlier if they pay. So ? I am sure the movie company will give you their movie for free 24 hours later. Err .. or not. If you're a techdirt regular you'll know the main premise of the post is to note how stupidly the movie industry is behaving from a *business model* sense. Mike may 'rant and rave' but the fact of the matter is, he has a point. He's offered a few suggestions and raised a few points, whereas the naysayers are only managing to type "you have a window too" which is the debating equivalent of a four year old's retort of "I know you are, but what am I?"
Simply put, the last movie I paid to see at the cinema was .. err .. jeez .. anyway it'd be Shrek2, I think. The last time I rented a movie was last week, the time before that .. err .. 6 months maybe. To me movies aren't that valuable at all. 90% of them it wouldn't worry me if I missed them. There's the odd exception, sure.
Overall, I'm like most other commenters - by the time it comes out on DVD, I've pretty much forgotten about it, so generally I don't buy any. Those that I have bought are backed up onto my PC anyway, so I can watch them without ruining that stupid, ridiculous physical object the industry is obsessed with (I bet it's because they're shiny).
The cinemas bug me - I'm not agoraphobic, but I'm most comfy at home, like most people. I'm not inclined to pay and go watched forced advertising while being squeezed in with noisy teenagers and smelly old people and then have the "experience" ruined by some peanut with a mobile phone. Screw that! If I could pick up a DVD of an at-the-cinemas movie at the supermarket or whatever same day it was released I might buy it, but if by the time the DVD is released most people know a fair chunk about it due to hype and word of mouth, why the hell would I pay full price for the least interesting half of a story ? A DVD in Australia is about $27, a movie ticket is usually $12ish (I live outside a major city), so why would I pay twice as much if I already know the good bits (they are shiny though..)?
The movie industry needs to realise that some people just want to be able to watch it at home, but by the time they can legally buy it and do so, the movie's close to worthless to them. It would also mean the companies could get all their profit in one go if there were only one release window, and then they can go home and have a circle jerk about how much money they screwed the world for sooner.
$714mill from a movie, and expecting a further 2.2b (assuming that what was written above is what was meant) that's just obscene.
On the post: EU Parliament Pressured By France, Removes Clause That Bans Kicking People Off The Internet
The saddest part
Seriously though, this is a horrible outcome - I can see it start to become more prevalent, that other countries will pass similar laws.
I sit here at the moment with one always-on unsecured wireless somewhere nearby, and an occasional other one - this isn't in a high rise area either. Anyone could use either of them when they're on.
On the post: Yes, The CPM Is Holding Back Online Advertising
Err .. ads ? Where ?
Wonder what happens if I turn adblock off .. nah ..
On the post: More People Realizing That The News Finds Them... Not The Other Way Around
Do you USE Twitter ? "on someone else's site" - it quite possibly arrived as an SMS on her mobile.
Get a name, will you ?
On the post: Software Patents Just As Ridiculous As Literary Patents?
Let me know when this passes
You've gotta wonder though, will that mean you have to get your for each loops cleared with a lawyer ?
I can see some really long variable names in the future..
On the post: Dreadful Ruling: Web Hosts Hit With $32 Million Judgment For Content On Customers' Websites
Re: Re: ISP or infringer?
On the post: Dreadful Ruling: Web Hosts Hit With $32 Million Judgment For Content On Customers' Websites
Re: Re: Re: shell gas analogy...Re: Re: (1) not quite so cut-and-dried (2) failure to read RFC 2142
Err .. what are the police supposed to be doing at the time ? I mean you're typing with counterfeit logic there, dleather - should your ISP get sued because you're using their bandwidth to provide a counterfeit item?
On the post: Europe Pushing For An Orphan Works Law Also
Err AC enter your name ..
"Mr. Patry and I are in total agreement"
So who the hell are you ? (probably more accurate why do you think you're important?)
Comment 3, are you the same person ?
I really think the sooner society gets over this 'me too' mentality we'll be a hell of a lot better off. The biggest problem with patents and IP is that it's totally unnecessary. It's just a way for people to get money (which really, humans could manage without and we'd probably have a lot less problems).
On the post: Brill Gets More Delusional: Now Thinks 10 to 15% Of Online Newspaper Readers Will Pay
15% !? Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'
"The idea is that a newspaper probably has 10 or 15 percent of its audience who are the most engaged, who come to that Web site all the time. Those are the people who will be asked to pay a small portion. "
Of those who visit regularly what point do people not get asked to subscribe ? That's the level of involvement those users will then have.
Now then let's go the opposite way. I appreciate Mike recognising that frequenting a website does not mean you also want to pay to run it. Now then of all the sites I've visited while I've been using phone lines to get my PC to talk to another (and yes I started with a 300 baud modem), I reckon, there are TWO I have paid money towards. One was a social 8 line chatline (1988) which I was almost always on, and was in hardship so I helped out as did 2 other users. There were 400 users onsite - that means 3 people voluntarily contributed, out of 400, after an emotive plea for help from a FRIEND who ran a BBS. 3/400 = 0.0075, so 3/4 of 1/100th.
The other was a text based MUD game. It was really good, I really got into it. I found if I paid a bit extra I could buy additional skills. That was great. Until there were no more skills to buy, at which point I lost interest. The closest example I could give is cheating yourself god mode in your favourite game, then not enjoying it 'coz the achievement wasn't there. I found a good proportion of that was paid for by users. That said, there were about 8 admins on at any time, plus you had a suite of coders happily programming in some form of LPC, so I imagine the financial gain they got was chewed by overheads.
So that's two sites. I have 1200 separate domains in my bookmarks (excluding history) which goes from whenever Firefox 2 came out.
So in 21 years, with (at least) 1202 sites, I have contributed to 2.
I would respectfully suggest that most net savvy users would be similar. Ergo this guy's got it way wrong.
On the post: How Far Should Google Go To Protect User Privacy In Lawsuits?
Hosting blogs .. ur doin' it rite
Google receives a legal request. They forward that on to the relevant party and advise them of what has transpired. The person can then take whatever action they see fit.
Google shouldn't breach the law for a vitriolic individual. To improve user's rights sure, but not for some sheila who may or may not be accurate in labelling the other party a skank. It's the blogger's opinion so -they- should defend it. Google's given them opportunity to avoid it in the case mentioned above.
On the post: Wouldn't The Last Thing We Want During A 'Cybersecurity Emergency' Be For The Gov't To Take Over Private Networks?
Seriously though, if you have your own network secured, you won't have control over any major networks - and that's what they'll go for.
On the post: Fresh Off Victory Over Dish, TiVo Sues AT&T, Verizon
Re:
You don't have the word "record" in your country ?
We have TiVos here and to be quite honest it may be great, but I don't want one. If you can patent "categorising shows and automatically recording them based on user selected criteria" which is my (limited) understanding of what one does .. does that mean when I tell my partner to record any scifi shows that she's breaching their patent ? Get off it. A TiVo is a HD in a box with some capable software. When you boil it down to that, it just becomes "an external HD"..
On the post: Open Source Textbooks Gaining Traction
Re: This has merit-there is a difference
Next >>