AC 27, you must learn to stop seeing the situation in terms of violations of rights. No such rights have been violated. No one has the right to an income. They have only the right to attempt to make an income. The kind of control you seek over content is no longer possible, in any way. The infinite nature of digital prevents it. When content can be spread as easily as copy & paste, any attempts at control are futile. Accept reality and the advance of technology and learn to adapt, and you may find success. Do not do so, and you will undoubtedly fail.
In response to other comments about attempting to get Congress to enact change, I will say this: the system is broken. Completely broken. Such a system cannot be truly changed from within. Only from outside the system. That is why collectives such as Anonymous are the only ones who can affect the legacy groups directly and decisively. And, I believe, that is part of what must happen for true change to occur. The legacy companies and organizations must be brought down, crippled beyond repair or recovery and their power broken. That cannot be done from inside the system.
First off, "the product is only "infinite and never ending" if you choose to pirate and share it. Otherwise, it is in fact limited by the number of DVDs made and number of digital files sold. Infinite only exists when someone other than the owner decides to give it away for free. So we are already talking from the stand point of illegal acts, never a good starting point.
Second, the number of actual movies is not infinite and never ending, so we are never talking an infinite product base.
Incorrect. You do not understand the nature of digital files. Once something has been converted into digital format and uploaded, it is everywhere. Copies of copies of copies of copies, ad infitum. The quantity of discs sold is irrelevant. All that is needed is one digital copy, and from that endless digital copies are inevitably made. It cannot be stopped. It cannot be avoided. It is the very nature of digital. It is as simple as highlighting a file in Windows Explorer and hitting Control+C and then Control+V - copy and paste. That is what you cannot comprehend.
Nope, I believe it with all of my heart. However, I don't believe for a second that the legal supply is anywhere near infinite, and as long as you base your economic decisions on illegal activity, you will always fall into the logical track of "infinite supply means zero price". Quite simply, it is illogical to base your business decisions against illegal activity.
Your logic, AC 67, is again flawed. Economics makes no distinction between legal and things that have been made illegal only at the behest of companies too gripped by the emotions of fear and greed to change. You must learn to understand what a bad law is, and that opposing or ignoring an unjust law is not wrong. And that copyright, in its current state, is indeed an unjust law. What is logical is to base one's business decisions against reality, not what you would wish it to be.
I am not gripped by any fear of change. I am fearful of the widespread acceptance of crime as some sort of valid substitute for actual business activity. It seems we have traded a business of dollars for a business of internet pennies. I am not sure this is very logical at all.
You do fear change, because you do not allow yourself to see how technology is changing how your business must be run if it is to survive. And I will point out again, that the sharing of copies - something that is a natural human behavior - has only been made illegal at the behest of companies who do not wish to change and adapt and admit that they no longer have the sole control over content that they once did. You must understand that some things that have been made illegal are not necessarily unethical, and that some things that are legal are unethical. One does not necessarily follow the other. Until you accept that, and accept that infringement falls into the category of wrongful illegality, you will continue to fail.
Your logic, AC 58, is flawed. You are ascribing to infinite goods properties that are only true of physical goods. The very definition of infinite declares that no loss can occur, because the quantity of product is infinite and never-ending. You also fail to understand that most who infringe do not do so for profit, but merely for their own use and enjoyment. And many, if they enjoy what they obtained, often go on to purchase related content or the infringed content itself. Others use infringement to obtain backups of media they already have, since discs can be become scratched and unusable. The lines are not so distinct as you would believe.
Basic economics clearly states that when the supply for a good is infinite and the cost of reproduction is at or near zero, price naturally gravitates to zero. This is a truth you refuse to believe, because it threatens everything you've based your worldview on. You, like other maximalists, are gripped by an irrational fear of change. Therefore, you find any excuse not to do so. You will not prevent technology from advancing or people from doing what is natural to do. You will succeed only in making yourself obsolete and irrelevant.
Mike, I believe you place too much faith in our elected officials. They will not listen. The system is broken. Completely broken. Such a system cannot be truly changed from within. Only from outside the system. That is why, despite your misgivings about their methods, collectives such as Anonymous are the only ones who can affect the legacy groups directly and decisively. And, I believe, that is part of what must happen for true change to occur. The legacy companies and organizations must be brought down, crippled beyond repair or recovery. That cannot be done from inside the system.
Inaccurate, AC 16. You merely stated a supposition. You have given no evidence to back it up, however, therefore it is invalid. Logic is not one of your strengths.
Given the topic at hand, I believe it pertinent to share a few anonymous quotations about Microsoft that I have come across online:
Windows [n.] - A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.
The number of holes in Microsoft products would put a Swiss cheese to shame.
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck, they'll be making vacuum-cleaners.
Failure to address what was said, AC 3, constitutes an admission of the flawed nature of the maximalism you support. You know what those you support do will not stand, thus you avoid any direct address of those issues. That and your condescending demeanor and preference for insults and misrepresentation over honesty and logic clearly demonstrate your desperation and how precarious your position truly is. You cannot hold back what technology allows. To attempt to do so would be futile.
Fascinating how, as they grow more desperate, copyright maximalist commentors bring less cohesion to their arguments and more insults. And nothing to back up what they say, although that has always been a failing of theirs. I believe they know their time is almost up, and that we who seek more sensible government and policies will not tolerate their irrational behavior for much longer. In thinking about our situation, I am reminded of the poet Langston Hughes:
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore—
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over—
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
How long until that happens with us, I wonder? How long until the pressure upon us becomes so great that it can no longer be contained? I do not believe it is as far off as some might think.
Re: Re: Re: Re: @"The Logician": "To clarify, my previous comment was directed at AC 1."
I believe, Blue, that you hold a near monopoly on arguments that no one believes. What I said above applies to you as well. It is not logical for anyone such yourself to so consistently post such one-sided arguments for as long as you have here at TD without an external influence being involved. What threatens entrenched interests the most is the truth, and it is that which they and those who support them, such as yourself, seek to suppress. Yet what you seek is an impossibility.
It is fascinating how defensive trolls become when confronted with simple logic. Their own behavior condemns them. Hence why I seek to provide such logic. It exposes them for what they are, much as their own behavior does.
You begin, AC 162, with an insult. Not an intelligent way to counter an argument.
Do you actually read and understand English? I said, " It was seized due to allegations of infringing." And you counter with this shit? Do you not own a dictionary or a thesaurus?
Allegations are accusations. Not convictions. Therefore, my statement stands.
Deemed? By who? So far, I haven't heard any competent governing body declare internet access to be a human right. At lest not one with any particular gravitas.
Your opinion does not dictate policy. You choose to ignore how deeply ingrained technology is becoming into our lives, and how it will become even more so in the future. The term for your behavior is, I believe, referred to as willful blindness.
The GPS in my car needs the internet?
In a manner of speaking. GPS functions by connecting to a satellite. To do so, the device seeking the connection must be online, otherwise the data cannot be transmitted.
Underserved customers who don't want to pay.
It has been proven numerous times over that people are very willing to pay reasonable prices if they are treated fairly and honestly and provided a quality product. The industries you represent and support, however, do not have a good history of doing this, or of adapting to change. This, therefore, is why you see infringement occur. It is easier to blame others for your own mistakes and irrational decisions, yet doing so changes nothing.
We'll see.
It has already occurred in the marketplace many times over, and will continue to do so.
Again with the "look at me I'm pretending to be a Star Trek character". I know Halloween is right around the corner, and hope that you're warming up for the occasion and you're not really such a pathetic loser in real life.
Again, insults only reduce your credibility. They do nothing to add to it. So do not use them. And if I choose to post in the fashion that I do, that is my decision and my business. I use this persona because I believe that logic is an effective counter to irrational, fear-laden arguments such as yours. Do not attempt to argue logic with a Vulcan, sir. It is most unwise.
As you provide no evidence for your claims, only statements laced with opinions and colorful metaphors, your argument is invalid and will convince no one. Your attitude of snide arrogance, coupled with your willful blindness, merely serves to undermine your position, because no matter what you say, as long as those things remain, you will not be believed. Those who possess both intelligence and civility know better than to take you and those like you seriously.
I am aware of that. I merely attempt to point out their errors for the benefit of others who may be reading. Expose them enough, and the trolls will trip over their own words, often without anyone's help. Logic helps to facilitate that process.
It wasn't "seized due to prior restraint". It was seized due to allegations of infringing.
And therein lies the flaw in your logic, AC 155. They were seized upon accusation, not upon conviction. Yet our legal system is supposed to be based upon the principle of "innocent before proven guilty." It appears, however, that you do not care for that approach.
Given how integrated the internet has become into our lives in this time, and how much more so it is likely to become in the future, it is not unreasonable that access to it should be deemed a human right. Many people, myself included, require it for our work, and many systems that once worked solely offline now function largely online. GPS systems require online access, and most smartphones come preconfigured with such access.
Those are just a few examples. Technology has changed, quite radically, how we live our lives, and companies must change with it in order to survive. If they do not, like the entertainment industries, they will fall into obscurity and irrelevance and be bypassed by those who do adapt. Those who are inaccurately termed "pirates" are merely underserved customers. Address their concerns, connect with them, and you may succeed. Do not do this, and in all likelihood you will fail.
Keith, I do not disagree with you, but there is always the possibility that some glimmer of understanding may get through to them, even if they will not admit it here. It is admittedly unlikely, but not impossible. Trolls are also somewhat fascinating in their single-mindedness. Their irrational and illogical behavior is remarkably consistent in its application.
Logic clearly dictates that when such complete and long-lasting obscurity is sought, it follows that what it is intended to hide is not something those who seek it wish for the rest of the world to know of. Which means that it is not something beneficial to the world at large, otherwise it would not be hidden. Therefore, we must deduce that those behind TPP do not serve the public interest, but only their own. TPP, therefore, is not deserving of public support, and must be opposed and exposed.
Your logic, AC 62, is flawed. The type of good does, in fact, determine the nature of the action. You continue to use the rules of physical goods to define those of infinite goods, yet provide no explanation for why that should be so. Basic economic fact clearly dictates that as supply goes up and the cost of distribution becomes zero or virtually so, price naturally gravitates to zero. It is an economic and mathematical fact.
When you create a copy of a digital file, it is effortless and expends virtually no resources. And it can be done again, again, and again, ad infitum. Copying, despite your assertions, is not subtraction. It is addition. And it is multiplication, exponentially so. When the nature of a good dictates an infinite supply, then for the most part it can no longer be directly monetized in any effective way. You must rely on the related scarcities instead, both tangible and intangible.
Creative culture belongs to all of mankind, not merely to the rich middlemen and lawyers. Copyright no longer serves the function it was originally designed for, and so ignoring it is not wrong, just as ignoring an unjust law is not wrong. Because that is precisely what must be done for change to begin. The kind of control you desire is impossible. Today's technology will not allow it. You can either adapt or accept your own obsolescence. The choice is yours.
While I agree with what you have said, Mike, I must ask you something. Had the Pirate Party had any other name, would you even have been aware of them in the first place?
Fascinating. Copyright maximalists live in a state of constant fear and paranoia that colors everything they say an do. They fear change. They fear loss of control. And they are so desperate to avoid facing the reality of their situation that they will continually do very illogical things, such as attempting to steal from the public domain and place inaccurate labels upon sites that have nothing to do with the behavior the maximalists describe.
One way to tell who is being more honest in a debate is not just in what is said, but in how it is said. In this case, maximalists have always been arrogant and condescending, even insulting, whereas more commonly those who speak from a position of logic and common sense - those who believe copyright and its enforcement have gone too far for far too long - most often do not exhibit the behaviors of the maximalists. Not in seriousness, at least. I have never observed Mike to be insulting to anyone, even his detractors, nor attempt to twist arguments around as the maximalists so often do.
Maximalists believe any change from how things were once done is a threat to their control. Except that, because of modern technology, that control is now an illusion. They are trying to hold smoke in their hands, not realizing that it is impossible to do so. Technology will always undermine what legislation attempts to determine.
Perhaps copies should be made of the second poster (the one about fascism), modified to include the actions of the current and recent administrations, and then placed all around Washington, DC. It would be interesting to see the reaction.
Curious. As I was reading the article, my mind made a most fascinating error. I read the following sentence incorrectly, albeit unintentionally:
"Time Warner Cable's CEO, Jeff Bewkes, was quoted recently as saying that cord cutting "hasn't arrived yet," despite massive customer defections."
What I read instead was this:
Time Warner Cable's CEO, Jeff Bewkes, was quoted recently as saying that cord cutting "hasn't arrived yet," despite massive customer defecations."
While the second version is certainly not accurate in a literal sense, I would surmise that most of those, myself included, who have cut the cord do think of cable as little more than excrement.
Such limited and controlled services are no longer necessary or desirable in an age where technology has enabled the end users to determine what, where, when, and how they will interact with content. Those companies that do not recognize this will not live long. Nor will they prosper.
The fallacy in your thinking, AC 51, lies in believing that the only method of measuring payment is hourly. It is not. And that the amount of work available is constant on a consistent basis. That is not always the case.
For instance, I am a graphic designer who does layout and ad work for a set of free community newspapers. From home. Due to the nature of the work, I am not paid hourly, but per page for the layout, as well as an additional flat rate for ad work and maintaining the company website.
I check in, get my work for the day, do it, and check out. Either I'm given more or that's all there is. Since these papers are monthly, there is more work to be done toward the end of the month than at the beginning. Rarely will I ever have to put in a full eight hour day, aside from the last few days of the month, my average tends to be more toward five or six hours.
Even less in the first week of the month. Simply due to the amount of work that is available at that time. It would not then make sense to measure productivity by an eight hour, forty hour week timescale. Yet you insist that that is the only way to do so. That logic, however, is flawed.
The nature of working and how it is done is changing, and the cubicle-filled office complex is becoming far less relevant in an age where computers and technology make it possible to do most such jobs from home or, with a laptop, from anywhere else. If managers do not change and adapt, as corporations must also do, then like those who employ them, they will become obsolete and forgotten. Progress cannot be stopped. It can only be accepted.
On the post: New Video On How PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
In response to other comments about attempting to get Congress to enact change, I will say this: the system is broken. Completely broken. Such a system cannot be truly changed from within. Only from outside the system. That is why collectives such as Anonymous are the only ones who can affect the legacy groups directly and decisively. And, I believe, that is part of what must happen for true change to occur. The legacy companies and organizations must be brought down, crippled beyond repair or recovery and their power broken. That cannot be done from inside the system.
On the post: House Trying To Rush Through Its Version Of PROTECT IP; Tech Industry Asks Why?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second, the number of actual movies is not infinite and never ending, so we are never talking an infinite product base.
Incorrect. You do not understand the nature of digital files. Once something has been converted into digital format and uploaded, it is everywhere. Copies of copies of copies of copies, ad infitum. The quantity of discs sold is irrelevant. All that is needed is one digital copy, and from that endless digital copies are inevitably made. It cannot be stopped. It cannot be avoided. It is the very nature of digital. It is as simple as highlighting a file in Windows Explorer and hitting Control+C and then Control+V - copy and paste. That is what you cannot comprehend.
Nope, I believe it with all of my heart. However, I don't believe for a second that the legal supply is anywhere near infinite, and as long as you base your economic decisions on illegal activity, you will always fall into the logical track of "infinite supply means zero price". Quite simply, it is illogical to base your business decisions against illegal activity.
Your logic, AC 67, is again flawed. Economics makes no distinction between legal and things that have been made illegal only at the behest of companies too gripped by the emotions of fear and greed to change. You must learn to understand what a bad law is, and that opposing or ignoring an unjust law is not wrong. And that copyright, in its current state, is indeed an unjust law. What is logical is to base one's business decisions against reality, not what you would wish it to be.
I am not gripped by any fear of change. I am fearful of the widespread acceptance of crime as some sort of valid substitute for actual business activity. It seems we have traded a business of dollars for a business of internet pennies. I am not sure this is very logical at all.
You do fear change, because you do not allow yourself to see how technology is changing how your business must be run if it is to survive. And I will point out again, that the sharing of copies - something that is a natural human behavior - has only been made illegal at the behest of companies who do not wish to change and adapt and admit that they no longer have the sole control over content that they once did. You must understand that some things that have been made illegal are not necessarily unethical, and that some things that are legal are unethical. One does not necessarily follow the other. Until you accept that, and accept that infringement falls into the category of wrongful illegality, you will continue to fail.
On the post: House Trying To Rush Through Its Version Of PROTECT IP; Tech Industry Asks Why?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Basic economics clearly states that when the supply for a good is infinite and the cost of reproduction is at or near zero, price naturally gravitates to zero. This is a truth you refuse to believe, because it threatens everything you've based your worldview on. You, like other maximalists, are gripped by an irrational fear of change. Therefore, you find any excuse not to do so. You will not prevent technology from advancing or people from doing what is natural to do. You will succeed only in making yourself obsolete and irrelevant.
Mike, I believe you place too much faith in our elected officials. They will not listen. The system is broken. Completely broken. Such a system cannot be truly changed from within. Only from outside the system. That is why, despite your misgivings about their methods, collectives such as Anonymous are the only ones who can affect the legacy groups directly and decisively. And, I believe, that is part of what must happen for true change to occur. The legacy companies and organizations must be brought down, crippled beyond repair or recovery. That cannot be done from inside the system.
On the post: China: Great Firewall Isn't Censorship, It's Safeguarding The Public
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funny How Microsoft's Views On Responsibility To Competitors Differ Based On Who's In The Antitrust Hot Seat
Windows [n.] - A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.
The number of holes in Microsoft products would put a Swiss cheese to shame.
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck, they'll be making vacuum-cleaners.
On the post: China: Great Firewall Isn't Censorship, It's Safeguarding The Public
Re:
On the post: Mainstream Press Account In Australia Makes The Case For Why 'Piracy' Is Not The Problem
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore—
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over—
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
How long until that happens with us, I wonder? How long until the pressure upon us becomes so great that it can no longer be contained? I do not believe it is as far off as some might think.
On the post: Wyden: PROTECT IP Act Is About Letting The Content Sector Attack The Innovation Sector
Re: Re: Re: Re: @"The Logician": "To clarify, my previous comment was directed at AC 1."
It is fascinating how defensive trolls become when confronted with simple logic. Their own behavior condemns them. Hence why I seek to provide such logic. It exposes them for what they are, much as their own behavior does.
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you actually read and understand English? I said, " It was seized due to allegations of infringing." And you counter with this shit? Do you not own a dictionary or a thesaurus?
Allegations are accusations. Not convictions. Therefore, my statement stands.
Deemed? By who? So far, I haven't heard any competent governing body declare internet access to be a human right. At lest not one with any particular gravitas.
Your opinion does not dictate policy. You choose to ignore how deeply ingrained technology is becoming into our lives, and how it will become even more so in the future. The term for your behavior is, I believe, referred to as willful blindness.
The GPS in my car needs the internet?
In a manner of speaking. GPS functions by connecting to a satellite. To do so, the device seeking the connection must be online, otherwise the data cannot be transmitted.
Underserved customers who don't want to pay.
It has been proven numerous times over that people are very willing to pay reasonable prices if they are treated fairly and honestly and provided a quality product. The industries you represent and support, however, do not have a good history of doing this, or of adapting to change. This, therefore, is why you see infringement occur. It is easier to blame others for your own mistakes and irrational decisions, yet doing so changes nothing.
We'll see.
It has already occurred in the marketplace many times over, and will continue to do so.
Again with the "look at me I'm pretending to be a Star Trek character". I know Halloween is right around the corner, and hope that you're warming up for the occasion and you're not really such a pathetic loser in real life.
Again, insults only reduce your credibility. They do nothing to add to it. So do not use them. And if I choose to post in the fashion that I do, that is my decision and my business. I use this persona because I believe that logic is an effective counter to irrational, fear-laden arguments such as yours. Do not attempt to argue logic with a Vulcan, sir. It is most unwise.
On the post: Wyden: PROTECT IP Act Is About Letting The Content Sector Attack The Innovation Sector
Re: Re:
On the post: Wyden: PROTECT IP Act Is About Letting The Content Sector Attack The Innovation Sector
Re:
On the post: Out ACTA-ing ACTA: All TPP Negotiating Documents To Be Kept Secret Until Four Years After Ratification
Re: Re:
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And therein lies the flaw in your logic, AC 155. They were seized upon accusation, not upon conviction. Yet our legal system is supposed to be based upon the principle of "innocent before proven guilty." It appears, however, that you do not care for that approach.
Given how integrated the internet has become into our lives in this time, and how much more so it is likely to become in the future, it is not unreasonable that access to it should be deemed a human right. Many people, myself included, require it for our work, and many systems that once worked solely offline now function largely online. GPS systems require online access, and most smartphones come preconfigured with such access.
Those are just a few examples. Technology has changed, quite radically, how we live our lives, and companies must change with it in order to survive. If they do not, like the entertainment industries, they will fall into obscurity and irrelevance and be bypassed by those who do adapt. Those who are inaccurately termed "pirates" are merely underserved customers. Address their concerns, connect with them, and you may succeed. Do not do this, and in all likelihood you will fail.
Keith, I do not disagree with you, but there is always the possibility that some glimmer of understanding may get through to them, even if they will not admit it here. It is admittedly unlikely, but not impossible. Trolls are also somewhat fascinating in their single-mindedness. Their irrational and illogical behavior is remarkably consistent in its application.
On the post: Out ACTA-ing ACTA: All TPP Negotiating Documents To Be Kept Secret Until Four Years After Ratification
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: ...
When you create a copy of a digital file, it is effortless and expends virtually no resources. And it can be done again, again, and again, ad infitum. Copying, despite your assertions, is not subtraction. It is addition. And it is multiplication, exponentially so. When the nature of a good dictates an infinite supply, then for the most part it can no longer be directly monetized in any effective way. You must rely on the related scarcities instead, both tangible and intangible.
Creative culture belongs to all of mankind, not merely to the rich middlemen and lawyers. Copyright no longer serves the function it was originally designed for, and so ignoring it is not wrong, just as ignoring an unjust law is not wrong. Because that is precisely what must be done for change to begin. The kind of control you desire is impossible. Today's technology will not allow it. You can either adapt or accept your own obsolescence. The choice is yours.
On the post: Here's A Surprise: EU Green Party Adopts The Pirate Party's Position On Copyright
On the post: Monster Cable Claims EBay, Craigslist, Costco & Sears Are 'Rogue Sites'
One way to tell who is being more honest in a debate is not just in what is said, but in how it is said. In this case, maximalists have always been arrogant and condescending, even insulting, whereas more commonly those who speak from a position of logic and common sense - those who believe copyright and its enforcement have gone too far for far too long - most often do not exhibit the behaviors of the maximalists. Not in seriousness, at least. I have never observed Mike to be insulting to anyone, even his detractors, nor attempt to twist arguments around as the maximalists so often do.
Maximalists believe any change from how things were once done is a threat to their control. Except that, because of modern technology, that control is now an illusion. They are trying to hold smoke in their hands, not realizing that it is impossible to do so. Technology will always undermine what legislation attempts to determine.
On the post: University Police & Administration Freak Out Over Nathan Fillion Firefly Poster; Censor, Threaten Professor
On the post: Time Warner Cable CEO Remains In Denial About Cord Cutting
Misread
"Time Warner Cable's CEO, Jeff Bewkes, was quoted recently as saying that cord cutting "hasn't arrived yet," despite massive customer defections."
What I read instead was this:
Time Warner Cable's CEO, Jeff Bewkes, was quoted recently as saying that cord cutting "hasn't arrived yet," despite massive customer defecations."
While the second version is certainly not accurate in a literal sense, I would surmise that most of those, myself included, who have cut the cord do think of cable as little more than excrement.
Such limited and controlled services are no longer necessary or desirable in an age where technology has enabled the end users to determine what, where, when, and how they will interact with content. Those companies that do not recognize this will not live long. Nor will they prosper.
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
For instance, I am a graphic designer who does layout and ad work for a set of free community newspapers. From home. Due to the nature of the work, I am not paid hourly, but per page for the layout, as well as an additional flat rate for ad work and maintaining the company website.
I check in, get my work for the day, do it, and check out. Either I'm given more or that's all there is. Since these papers are monthly, there is more work to be done toward the end of the month than at the beginning. Rarely will I ever have to put in a full eight hour day, aside from the last few days of the month, my average tends to be more toward five or six hours.
Even less in the first week of the month. Simply due to the amount of work that is available at that time. It would not then make sense to measure productivity by an eight hour, forty hour week timescale. Yet you insist that that is the only way to do so. That logic, however, is flawed.
The nature of working and how it is done is changing, and the cubicle-filled office complex is becoming far less relevant in an age where computers and technology make it possible to do most such jobs from home or, with a laptop, from anywhere else. If managers do not change and adapt, as corporations must also do, then like those who employ them, they will become obsolete and forgotten. Progress cannot be stopped. It can only be accepted.
Next >>