Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 10:31am
Re: Re:
So HBO isn't going to step over a dollar to pick up pennies - especially when it can get the dollar today and still pick up the pennies tomorrow too.
The problem is that they won't be getting those pennies tomorrow if they don't figure it out and start adapting now. Every day they wait, there will be fewer pennies that they can get later.
If the record labels got on board with digital distribution 10-15 years ago, they would not be having so much trouble now.
If HBO wants to entirely focus on short term profits, they can. But I don't want to hear them complaining to politicians and lobbying for laws to "fix" that decision in a few years.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 10:06am
Re:
25 petabytes of data stored on 1100+ servers isn't trivial.
Carpathia most likely does not own the facilities where some or all of the servers are located, which means they are paying another company for rackspace, network connections, power, cooling, etc. If Carpathia owns the physical servers, those servers could be reprovisioned for other purposes and can't be used for income generating purposes.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Jun 2012 @ 9:50am
Re:
The duped part should be said more than just twice. Mega is being denied access to data for their own defense in a criminal proceeding - and the government wants it deleted.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 1:07pm
Re: Re: Re:
Zach, think about it for a minute. How many books were made in the 1920s? Would you say that the great depression and the war that followed might have limited the number of works being made?
Are you implying that the Great Depression, which started after the market crash on October 29, 1929, but which didn't really get bad until a year or two later, somehow affected the number of books published in the proceeding ten years?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 12:55pm
Re:
Unlike the NYT, Wikileaks doesn't consult the government before posting classified material,
I don't remember 'consulting the government' being a requirement to the First Ammendment.
nor does it redact information that may lead to people being killed.
Fearmongering. There is no evidence to support that anyone was killed as a result of the leak. And again, the First Ammendment does not have a requirement to redact any information just because someone might get killed.
Assange is an egotistical shit-stirrer
Irrelevant.
not a journalist.
Who decides what constitutes a journalist?
So it's no surprise that Manning's treatment will be affected on who he put his trust in to protect him as a "whistleblower" or traitor as the case may be.
Just because its not a surprise that the government may treat someone differently based on which type of media they leak information to does not mean it is the correct, or ethical, course of action.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jun 2012 @ 6:52am
Re:
"The old fee was set in 2007/2008. The rapid development of compression algorithms e.g. for saving movies und the increased capacity of storage media demands adjustments of the fee".
I read that as: 'There have been technological developments that make it cheaper for us to distribute content. Therefore we have to charge the end user more money.'
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Jun 2012 @ 11:08am
Re: This leak actually lets the White House claim credit and look good.
Being a cyber-terrorist makes us look good... how?
You're missing the point of the article. It doesn't make "us" (as in the USA as a whole) look good.
It makes Obama looks good (to potential voters in 2012).
Now, Stuxnet was a work of genius. I'll say this as a computer security geek, and someone who thinks an unstable theocratic country having access to nuclear weapons is a bad idea. Given the possible choices, Obama probably made the right call in this. Disabling/destroying their centrifuges with a computer worm, as opposed to starting the 3rd "real" war in a dozen years, or sitting back and doing nothing, is a no-brainer. I won't be voting for Obama in 2012, but I don't think we can fault him for this particular choice.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 5:47pm
Re: Re: Re:
Actually following the law?
So you're saying Google is breaking the law by providing tools that make it easier for the RIAA to submit DMCA take down requests? They are breaking the law when they then review and remove the link from their index?
If you're not saying that, please be specific in what laws they are breaking and under what circumstances. I'm dying to hear it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 5:25pm
Re: Re: No, there is not *equal* genius at Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.
I'm not sure you can count finding loopholes in the law as brilliant. Since they're the same ones who got the loopholes written into the law to begin with.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:09pm
Re:
the best argument against Aereo was that there are actual federal laws prohibiting anyone outside of a specific TV broadcast marketplace from getting ANYONE ELSE'S local TV channels.
The last I heard, Aereo only offers the service to people in the NY area that fall into the broadcast area, so that isn't a valid argument in the case.
I imagine that an over-the-air TV signal in NY city could be pretty spotty, so this seems a good test market for them for many reasons.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 5:02pm
Re: The rules in Thailand are very well understood
This woman was arrested for violating a well known Thai law.
An unjust law is no law at all.
As to everything else you said, it is irrelevant. Just because other countries are worse, or have other faults, does not excuse having a law with penalties of up to 20 years in prison, and convicting someone of it, for not censoring someone else who is making fun of the king.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 7:52am
Digital is hard!
The US government is really claiming that finding the relevant documents for disclosure is too difficult because it's in electronic format? Really?
Of course it is harder to deal with electronic documents. Think what it would take to get those documents back to New Zealand and Dotcom's lawyers:
First you have to print it out (and toner is expensive!).
Then you'd have to fax it to New Zealand (international long distance charges! and that's only if you can manage to get it through those fax machines and the horrible paper feeders that jam!)
Once in New Zealand, you need someone to put it in an envelope or something (paper cuts!).
Then you'd have to hire a courier to get it to the lawyer (and that's after exchanging real money into that fake looking stuff you foreigners use!).
Complicated! Remember how much trouble it was to get Senators' campaign contributions into an electronic form? This is even harder!
I suppose you'll tell us to use some internet service for sharing files. But those are the ones we're shutting down!
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 6:58am
Re: Re: Re:
You're not suggesting that a judge's ruling is required to remove infringing content from YouTube? As you know, that's not how DMCA works.
That's exactly how the DMCA process works. Only a judge can force a video to be pulled from Youtube. If Google wants to voluntarily remove a video, via ContentID, a DMCA notice, or some other method, that is entirely their choice in the matter. If Google wishes to accept liability that a video is not infringing, they don't have to remove anything when they recieve a DMCA notice.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 May 2012 @ 4:37am
Re:
Hitting your head against the wall and complaining about the pain doesn't make it the wall's fault. Start working on your own part of the problem, and things will work out better.
I'm pretty sure this is a succinct description of what we've been telling the copyright maximalists for over a decade about digital distribution.
On the post: Correction: Earn My Money, HBO
Re: Re:
The problem is that they won't be getting those pennies tomorrow if they don't figure it out and start adapting now. Every day they wait, there will be fewer pennies that they can get later.
If the record labels got on board with digital distribution 10-15 years ago, they would not be having so much trouble now.
If HBO wants to entirely focus on short term profits, they can. But I don't want to hear them complaining to politicians and lobbying for laws to "fix" that decision in a few years.
On the post: MPAA Ok With Allowing Users To Get Back Their Megaupload Files If 0% Infringement Can Be Guaranteed
Re:
Carpathia most likely does not own the facilities where some or all of the servers are located, which means they are paying another company for rackspace, network connections, power, cooling, etc. If Carpathia owns the physical servers, those servers could be reprovisioned for other purposes and can't be used for income generating purposes.
On the post: MPAA Ok With Allowing Users To Get Back Their Megaupload Files If 0% Infringement Can Be Guaranteed
Re:
On the post: Filmmaker Compares Copyleft Supporters To Anti-Gay-Marriage Advocates
Re: Re:
It should be in the "anti-social networking" category.
On the post: Copyright Extension: A Way To Protect Hollywood From Having To Compete With The Past
Re: Re: Re:
Are you implying that the Great Depression, which started after the market crash on October 29, 1929, but which didn't really get bad until a year or two later, somehow affected the number of books published in the proceeding ten years?
On the post: Would Bradley Manning Face The Same Charges If He Leaked Same Info To NYTimes Instead Of Wikileaks?
Re:
I don't remember 'consulting the government' being a requirement to the First Ammendment.
nor does it redact information that may lead to people being killed.
Fearmongering. There is no evidence to support that anyone was killed as a result of the leak. And again, the First Ammendment does not have a requirement to redact any information just because someone might get killed.
Assange is an egotistical shit-stirrer
Irrelevant.
not a journalist.
Who decides what constitutes a journalist?
So it's no surprise that Manning's treatment will be affected on who he put his trust in to protect him as a "whistleblower" or traitor as the case may be.
Just because its not a surprise that the government may treat someone differently based on which type of media they leak information to does not mean it is the correct, or ethical, course of action.
On the post: Germany Increases 'You Are All Pirates' Tax On Solid State Media By 2000%
Re:
I read that as: 'There have been technological developments that make it cheaper for us to distribute content. Therefore we have to charge the end user more money.'
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Old timey internet
On the post: If You're Going To Leak Classified Info About The White House, It Better Make Them Look Good
Re: This leak actually lets the White House claim credit and look good.
You're missing the point of the article. It doesn't make "us" (as in the USA as a whole) look good.
It makes Obama looks good (to potential voters in 2012).
Now, Stuxnet was a work of genius. I'll say this as a computer security geek, and someone who thinks an unstable theocratic country having access to nuclear weapons is a bad idea. Given the possible choices, Obama probably made the right call in this. Disabling/destroying their centrifuges with a computer worm, as opposed to starting the 3rd "real" war in a dozen years, or sitting back and doing nothing, is a no-brainer. I won't be voting for Obama in 2012, but I don't think we can fault him for this particular choice.
On the post: RIAA Can't Figure Out Google's Takedown Tools; Blames Google
Re: Re: Re:
So you're saying Google is breaking the law by providing tools that make it easier for the RIAA to submit DMCA take down requests? They are breaking the law when they then review and remove the link from their index?
If you're not saying that, please be specific in what laws they are breaking and under what circumstances. I'm dying to hear it.
On the post: RIAA Can't Figure Out Google's Takedown Tools; Blames Google
Re: Re:
You mean Google gets to keep 13% more of the profits than the artists who actually write their music? They'll never go for that.
On the post: Dear Ari Emanuel: We're All Meeting On The Internet, Come Join Us
Re: Re: No, there is not *equal* genius at Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.
On the post: Dear Ari Emanuel: We're All Meeting On The Internet, Come Join Us
Re: Re:
On the post: TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal
Re:
The last I heard, Aereo only offers the service to people in the NY area that fall into the broadcast area, so that isn't a valid argument in the case.
I imagine that an over-the-air TV signal in NY city could be pretty spotty, so this seems a good test market for them for many reasons.
On the post: Webmaster Convicted For Not Being Fast Enough In Deleting Comments That Insulted Thai King
Re: The rules in Thailand are very well understood
An unjust law is no law at all.
As to everything else you said, it is irrelevant. Just because other countries are worse, or have other faults, does not excuse having a law with penalties of up to 20 years in prison, and convicting someone of it, for not censoring someone else who is making fun of the king.
On the post: DMCA Notices So Stupid It Hurts
Re:
It is their choice to go the lawyer threat route instead of offering compelling and reasonably priced alternatives.
On the post: DMCA Notices So Stupid It Hurts
Re: Re:
On the post: New Zealand Judge Won't Rubberstamp Kim Dotcom Extradition; Orders US To Share Evidence
Digital is hard!
Of course it is harder to deal with electronic documents. Think what it would take to get those documents back to New Zealand and Dotcom's lawyers:
First you have to print it out (and toner is expensive!).
Then you'd have to fax it to New Zealand (international long distance charges! and that's only if you can manage to get it through those fax machines and the horrible paper feeders that jam!)
Once in New Zealand, you need someone to put it in an envelope or something (paper cuts!).
Then you'd have to hire a courier to get it to the lawyer (and that's after exchanging real money into that fake looking stuff you foreigners use!).
Complicated! Remember how much trouble it was to get Senators' campaign contributions into an electronic form? This is even harder!
I suppose you'll tell us to use some internet service for sharing files. But those are the ones we're shutting down!
Signed
-US Government
On the post: How Much Would It Cost To Pre-Screen YouTube Videos? About $37 Billion Per Year...
Re: Re: Re:
That's exactly how the DMCA process works. Only a judge can force a video to be pulled from Youtube. If Google wants to voluntarily remove a video, via ContentID, a DMCA notice, or some other method, that is entirely their choice in the matter. If Google wishes to accept liability that a video is not infringing, they don't have to remove anything when they recieve a DMCA notice.
On the post: Resetting The Balance To Save Copyright (Part III)
Re:
I'm pretty sure this is a succinct description of what we've been telling the copyright maximalists for over a decade about digital distribution.
Next >>