On one hand, what is the difference between serial movies and a TV series, besides episode length? On the other hand, they show movies on TV. So I am going to have to go with TFG's comment below, it's a distribution issue, not a quality issue. Then I also have to agree with this Anonymous Coward's take where if the only theaters that count are ones in LA and those are easily manipulated by the big studios, then what is the value of requiring a theatrical release?
The proof is in the pudding, when the pudding is a myth
"And unlike UK law, the onus in the US was on Leidig to prove the statements were false (rather than on Buzzfeed to prove they were right)."
One or the other of these requires one party or the other to prove a negative. I thought the math people have proven that proving a negative was not possible.
Re: Dumb criminals go to jail. Smart criminals get a badge
"Conviction requirement of the owner with an ironclad link between crime and individual property, and not one cent going to the department/individuals that make the seizure, with all proceeds going to the public defenders' office as an added bonus to their budget. Change those two things and robberies at badgepoint like this would plummet, I've no doubt."
That has to happen at both the federal and state levels in order to be truly effective.
"Handling livestreaming safely includes having more than enough professional content moderators to handle the workload. Those workers also must have appropriate access to mental health support and safe working environments, so that even Facebook employees and contractors are not unduly scarred by brutal violence posted online."
Does that mean that you need one counselor for every 5 or 7 moderators, 24/7/365 cause you never know when the next idiot might jump the shark?
Does that mean that the counselors need special training, or would off the shelf therapists be applicable?
Does that mean that the moderators be housed in rubber rooms with nerf furniture?
Does that mean that they have to have moderators available for every language on the planet, or can they make their determinations from the video portion alone?
Or does that mean something much more drastic?
And in the end, after she has mandated these enormous expenditures, what will she have achieved? Not much, because there will be a different streaming media outlet that will not be considered social media and not subject to these draconian rules.
A lack of competition will, in the long run, create competition.
But are we, or should we be willing to wait?
I am waiting and watching for the new cable replacement, Silo's R Us, to get to the point where not only will each silo have to have something worth watching, but might also have to compete price wise in order to get or maintain subscribers.
One effect of such a phenomenon will be a decline in revenue for the producers of such content. Of the possibilities of how those producers react I bet raising prices to content delivery systems will be the first gambit, except when they are also the content delivery system.
The second will be reduce the cost of the content which also means a likely decline in quality. The big problem in their whole line of thinking is that their profits need to not just remain static, but grow quarter after quarter, while income declines. That is not sustainable, and they will be very, very sad when that realization comes to light.
I think the third probability will be in silo consolidation, which is a move back to a single subscription with multiple channels. Like cable is today. Then I am betting that the cycle will repeat itself. The single silo entity will raise prices to pay for the increased demands from the content creators and we will be back to where we are today. With one big caveat. There will likely be more than one single silo content deliverer and they won't own the connection to your view screen.
I cannot imagine what the mess will look like after that. With cost/quality of content so low they will have a hard time enticing people to their services. And that might lead to the possibility that society decides that there are better ways to spend their time other than watching the tubes. What those 'entertainments' will be is part of the unknown, but it will take a decade or two to run through the scenario above, and as we all know, a lot can happen in a decade or two.
Careful Mike, you used the sex word and that might cause some companies heads to explode.
Isn't it fascinating that even without any kind of provable majority there is a movement toward reverting to Puritanism every so often? There doesn't seem to be any indication that a lack of Puritanism is actually harmful, except to those who think Puritanism is the bees knees. When they work in a subterranean fashion to foist their Puritanical views on others, simply because they want to 'protect' those that don't see things the way they do from coming across things they don't like. Protection that isn't necessarily wanted, or needed.
It is certainly possible that keeping information about sex from those who are becoming sexual is more harmful than giving them all the information they need. Biology came first. It created the need for procreation. Denying biology and withholding information is not going to stop the biological imperative from happening. Having society create unnatural rules for nature to follow is just folly. Society cannot control nature, try as they might.
When they start getting false positives recognizing influential individuals and tossing them out of some store, and then those individuals get on Facebook and/or Twitter and lets the community and all their friends, and their friends friends, and their local relatives know about it, things will start to change. Think about what this might do to a national chain that starts to get these types of reactions in multiple locals. Those stores may have some very difficult times. It will take a lot more than some coupons and apologies to overcome such accusations.
I understand stores wanting to reduce their shrinkage (theft whether by the public or employees or vendors) it still seems to me that they would be better off spending some money on security in the form of humans doing discrete and appropriately judgmental surveillance (interview the suspect before you toss them out without regard), rather than wholesale let the tech do the job for you. The tech solution might look cheaper than the humans, but when they add the cost of lost sales to the formula it might be different.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Freomnt, CA: claims transparency, but
"It is a subject of interest because I represent parties who litigate on both sides..."
Since a lobbyist would not represent both sides, should we assume you are a lawyer? If so, could we have your opinion, as a lawyer, as to whether it is legal to destroy records that might become part of a future litigation, as well as who it is that decides whether some record might or might not be part of a future litigation, under California law of course? Are there any other statute of limitations that might be impacted? I am not seeking actual legal advice, just an opinion.
While you might not be concerned with whether a destruction of potential evidence is moral or ethical, for the purpose of the discussion here, we are.
But not irresponsible action by those that hold those records who just happened to get rid of all the records they could, legally, just as this bill was being discussed by the state legislature? You seem to think that reading motives into that timing is improper. Why is that?
I find it interesting that all of your now 23 comments are on this subject. They all seem to be against this law being retroactive or telling us why the unusual destruction of public records is OK.
Tell us, which department/union are you employed by?
What is the statute of limitations for murder? I am not suggesting that any of the information destroyed was evidence of murder, but then maybe there was evidence of a murder has just not been charged...yet.
Didn't someone come up with a search ability to find like images on the internet? They did, didn't they. How hard is it to implement a search for an image Getty is trying to 'sell' you and then find that same image on, well let's say NASA's site, then use the image from NASA's site and not Getty's? I suspect Getty might object, but then what could they do? They wouldn't be able to claim copyright.
I think it is called caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware. Knowing something about Getty Images, and then checking for the source of the image, or if it is really old or from space questioning the copyright seems like an appropriate amount of due diligence before spend hundreds of dollars on a picture.
"...USTelecom (which is a policy and lobbying vessel for AT&T and Verizon) ..."
It's the 'policy' part of that description that bothers me. according to Wikipedia the difference is:
"For a secret agreement by people to commit something criminally or civilly wrong or illegal, see Conspiracy. For other uses, see Collusion (disambiguation)."
So, which is it? They both have anti net-neutrality policies. They both have below the line charges. They both have means to supply content without impacting impertinent and unneeded data usage caps, etc.. Having a policy (probably advisory, but how often is the advice ignored?) entity common to both organizations seems like they are trying get around the legal requirements that they not collude or conspire seems fishy at the very, very best.
The oath of office for every position within the US Government states that the oath taker 'will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. So how can one define a compelling state interest that can override the constitution when everyone working for the state has sworn to protect and defend it?
On the post: German Government's Bullying Of FOI Group Provides A Warning Of How EU's New Upload Filters Will Be Used For Censorship
Re: This is what a puppet government looks like
Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, a German company.
On the post: DOJ Warns Academy That Being An Anti-Streaming Luddite Could Violate Antitrust
Re: Re:
On one hand, what is the difference between serial movies and a TV series, besides episode length? On the other hand, they show movies on TV. So I am going to have to go with TFG's comment below, it's a distribution issue, not a quality issue. Then I also have to agree with this Anonymous Coward's take where if the only theaters that count are ones in LA and those are easily manipulated by the big studios, then what is the value of requiring a theatrical release?
On the post: Court Tosses $11-Million Libel Lawsuit Brought By The 'King Of Bullshit News'
The proof is in the pudding, when the pudding is a myth
One or the other of these requires one party or the other to prove a negative. I thought the math people have proven that proving a negative was not possible.
On the post: Pai FCC Tours The Country Promising Better Rural Broadband, But His Policies Routinely Undermine That Goal
Re: Pai Lies
Is that now a regular segment?
On the post: DOJ Warns Academy That Being An Anti-Streaming Luddite Could Violate Antitrust
Re:
Why? Does he want it renamed 'The Donald's'?
On the post: Judge Rips Drug Task Force For Going On Asset Forfeiture 'Shopping Sprees'
Re: Dumb criminals go to jail. Smart criminals get a badge
That has to happen at both the federal and state levels in order to be truly effective.
On the post: Complete Overreaction: Professor Calls For Shutting Down Facebook Live, Post-Christchurch
Subject to some to be determined requirements
Does that mean that you need one counselor for every 5 or 7 moderators, 24/7/365 cause you never know when the next idiot might jump the shark?
Does that mean that the counselors need special training, or would off the shelf therapists be applicable?
Does that mean that the moderators be housed in rubber rooms with nerf furniture?
Does that mean that they have to have moderators available for every language on the planet, or can they make their determinations from the video portion alone?
Or does that mean something much more drastic?
And in the end, after she has mandated these enormous expenditures, what will she have achieved? Not much, because there will be a different streaming media outlet that will not be considered social media and not subject to these draconian rules.
On the post: Wall Street Thinks The Cable TV Sector Could Easily 'Unravel.' That's Probably A Good Thing.
A lack of competition will, in the long run, create competition.
But are we, or should we be willing to wait?
I am waiting and watching for the new cable replacement, Silo's R Us, to get to the point where not only will each silo have to have something worth watching, but might also have to compete price wise in order to get or maintain subscribers.
One effect of such a phenomenon will be a decline in revenue for the producers of such content. Of the possibilities of how those producers react I bet raising prices to content delivery systems will be the first gambit, except when they are also the content delivery system.
The second will be reduce the cost of the content which also means a likely decline in quality. The big problem in their whole line of thinking is that their profits need to not just remain static, but grow quarter after quarter, while income declines. That is not sustainable, and they will be very, very sad when that realization comes to light.
I think the third probability will be in silo consolidation, which is a move back to a single subscription with multiple channels. Like cable is today. Then I am betting that the cycle will repeat itself. The single silo entity will raise prices to pay for the increased demands from the content creators and we will be back to where we are today. With one big caveat. There will likely be more than one single silo content deliverer and they won't own the connection to your view screen.
I cannot imagine what the mess will look like after that. With cost/quality of content so low they will have a hard time enticing people to their services. And that might lead to the possibility that society decides that there are better ways to spend their time other than watching the tubes. What those 'entertainments' will be is part of the unknown, but it will take a decade or two to run through the scenario above, and as we all know, a lot can happen in a decade or two.
On the post: Welcome To The Prude Internet: No More Sex Talk Allowed
Re:
Censorship is censorship, but it is only illegal when the government does it. You can rest now.
On the post: Office Depot And Partner Ordered To Pay $35 Million For Tricking Consumers Into Thinking They Had Malware
Re:
Depends. Was the trick your installation of Windows, or forking over the money for it?
On the post: Welcome To The Prude Internet: No More Sex Talk Allowed
It's the demon you can see, or so they say
Careful Mike, you used the sex word and that might cause some companies heads to explode.
Isn't it fascinating that even without any kind of provable majority there is a movement toward reverting to Puritanism every so often? There doesn't seem to be any indication that a lack of Puritanism is actually harmful, except to those who think Puritanism is the bees knees. When they work in a subterranean fashion to foist their Puritanical views on others, simply because they want to 'protect' those that don't see things the way they do from coming across things they don't like. Protection that isn't necessarily wanted, or needed.
It is certainly possible that keeping information about sex from those who are becoming sexual is more harmful than giving them all the information they need. Biology came first. It created the need for procreation. Denying biology and withholding information is not going to stop the biological imperative from happening. Having society create unnatural rules for nature to follow is just folly. Society cannot control nature, try as they might.
On the post: Another California City Allowed Police To Destroy Misconduct Records Ahead Of New Transparency Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freomnt, CA: claims transparency, but
Thank You!
On the post: Facial Recognition Tech Now Capable Of Getting You Kicked Out Of The Mall
Until
When they start getting false positives recognizing influential individuals and tossing them out of some store, and then those individuals get on Facebook and/or Twitter and lets the community and all their friends, and their friends friends, and their local relatives know about it, things will start to change. Think about what this might do to a national chain that starts to get these types of reactions in multiple locals. Those stores may have some very difficult times. It will take a lot more than some coupons and apologies to overcome such accusations.
I understand stores wanting to reduce their shrinkage (theft whether by the public or employees or vendors) it still seems to me that they would be better off spending some money on security in the form of humans doing discrete and appropriately judgmental surveillance (interview the suspect before you toss them out without regard), rather than wholesale let the tech do the job for you. The tech solution might look cheaper than the humans, but when they add the cost of lost sales to the formula it might be different.
On the post: Another California City Allowed Police To Destroy Misconduct Records Ahead Of New Transparency Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Freomnt, CA: claims transparency, but
Since a lobbyist would not represent both sides, should we assume you are a lawyer? If so, could we have your opinion, as a lawyer, as to whether it is legal to destroy records that might become part of a future litigation, as well as who it is that decides whether some record might or might not be part of a future litigation, under California law of course? Are there any other statute of limitations that might be impacted? I am not seeking actual legal advice, just an opinion.
While you might not be concerned with whether a destruction of potential evidence is moral or ethical, for the purpose of the discussion here, we are.
On the post: Another California City Allowed Police To Destroy Misconduct Records Ahead Of New Transparency Law
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But not irresponsible action by those that hold those records who just happened to get rid of all the records they could, legally, just as this bill was being discussed by the state legislature? You seem to think that reading motives into that timing is improper. Why is that?
On the post: Another California City Allowed Police To Destroy Misconduct Records Ahead Of New Transparency Law
Re: Re: Freomnt, CA: claims transparency, but
I find it interesting that all of your now 23 comments are on this subject. They all seem to be against this law being retroactive or telling us why the unusual destruction of public records is OK.
Tell us, which department/union are you employed by?
On the post: Another California City Allowed Police To Destroy Misconduct Records Ahead Of New Transparency Law
Re: Re:
What is the statute of limitations for murder? I am not suggesting that any of the information destroyed was evidence of murder, but then maybe there was evidence of a murder has just not been charged...yet.
On the post: Getty Images Sued Yet Again For Trying To License Public Domain Images
Re: Oh, come the fuck on
Didn't someone come up with a search ability to find like images on the internet? They did, didn't they. How hard is it to implement a search for an image Getty is trying to 'sell' you and then find that same image on, well let's say NASA's site, then use the image from NASA's site and not Getty's? I suspect Getty might object, but then what could they do? They wouldn't be able to claim copyright.
I think it is called caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware. Knowing something about Getty Images, and then checking for the source of the image, or if it is really old or from space questioning the copyright seems like an appropriate amount of due diligence before spend hundreds of dollars on a picture.
On the post: Telecom Lobby Suddenly Pretends To Care About Accurate Broadband Maps
Collusion or Conspiracy?
It's the 'policy' part of that description that bothers me. according to Wikipedia the difference is:
So, which is it? They both have anti net-neutrality policies. They both have below the line charges. They both have means to supply content without impacting impertinent and unneeded data usage caps, etc.. Having a policy (probably advisory, but how often is the advice ignored?) entity common to both organizations seems like they are trying get around the legal requirements that they not collude or conspire seems fishy at the very, very best.
On the post: 7th Circuit Punts On Border Smartphone Searches; Says Riley Decision Doesn't Affect Anything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Numbphile
The oath of office for every position within the US Government states that the oath taker 'will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. So how can one define a compelling state interest that can override the constitution when everyone working for the state has sworn to protect and defend it?
What you are defining is actually Tyranny.
Next >>