After reading your comment, I decided to look further into the matter. To my complete surprise, I discovered I probably am talking bollocks, at least in part. Ook! Looking at what I've written, I could probably have bluffed it out, but I'd rather be honest.
My mistake - and a very noobsome mistake it was too - was in confusing cable modems with routers. Yes, I actually am that stupid sometimes. Dear lord, I wish I could say I was surprised.
In my defence, I'm in the UK, where cable modems aren't all that common - I'm only aware of them being used in Virgin Cable installations and the still-relatively-uncommon fibre setups, where in both cases they're provided by the ISP. I've never seen one available for purchase from UK retailers.
In rebuttal to my defence, I've read a fair amount on the topic, on Techdirt and other places, so I really should have known better before opening my big, fat gob. Also, I actually do have a cable modem, since I am on a fibre connection. D'oh!
In rebuttal to the rebuttal to my defence, my cable modem has sat hidden behind a permanently-open door since it was installed and the number of times I've looked at it is probably still in the single figures.
I've no reply to the allegation of general ignorance and stupidity, though. It's a fair cop, guv.
So, now that I've both annihilated my credibility and actually have researched the issue somewhat and have a slight idea of what I'm talking about, what do I think?
I think it's still suspicious.
Actual retail models won't come with TWC firmware on board, that makes no sense at all, so they're presumably updating automatically as they're connected to the network.
It seems highly questionable at best that certain models can't be updated, when TWC clearly already has firmware for those models, which they're already leasing and selling to customers.
I concede that I can envisage a situation where there are issues with certain hardware that isn't properly compliant with the relevant standards and must be updated in more direct fashion than is normally the case.
I also concede that I can envisage a situation where one party or another has slapped stupid licensing restrictions on how their hardware is updated, forcing a cumbersome workaround.
Both of these scenarios seem like a stretch, however, since hardware providers don't seem likely to gain from not fixing such issues. Lack of compatibility seems unlikely to be a useful selling point.
It still seems far more plausible that TWC just wants to make more money by chewing on its customers for extra fees.
You seem to have some knowledge of the matter, AC. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the issues actually are?
From the article: "[...] a list of which modems TWC will "approve" if owned by a consumer and which modems TWC will "lease" to consumers".
If some retail models - which would not conceivably possess any "custom firmware" unique to TWC - are compatible, then it follows logically that most models that meet basic specifications should also be compatible.
The only plausible way it could be otherwise would be if TWC has deliberately nobbled its network to reject unapproved hardware, purely in order to levy a fee.
Either way, it's clear that TWC has engaged in an unethical and immoral trade practise, for the sole purpose of gouging its customers.
While this might be common behaviour among ISPs in the US, in the UK, this kind of behaviour isn't normal or legal and would almost certainly result in a legal slapping by regulators.
Whenever Pavlov's name is mentioned, all I ever think of is Raspberry Pavlova. I can't decide if this is irony at my expense, or karma at the expense of Pavlov, for being a dog-tormenting little bastard. Either way, I'm salivating and have to go and find cake. :)
Normally, I have no regard at all for politicians, but as Ms Kroes goes, I find myself wishing her well, wherever she's going.
There seems little chance of her replacement being anything more than just another corporate stooge, eager to spout whatever nonsense the IFPI and MPAA have written for him.
Good luck, Ms Kroes. I rather think we shall actually miss you. :(
I wouldn't normally comment on an article like this, but I clicked on the link and sweet living Jesus, that's the most agonisingly-antiquated website I have ever fucking seen! A-ha ha ha! It's like the Plan 9 From Outer-Space of online government services. Even my country's Employment Service has better web design than this. :D
In the intervening months since writing this post, Double Fine has -- apparently for reasons of financial desparation -- decided to engage in marketing tactics that I find deeply unethical and misleading at best.
Accordingly, I no longer support this company in any way. :(
There are probably more reliable and up-to-date sites for this information, somewhere, but this is the best I could find without a more substantial research effort.
VOD sites -- Monthly Movies Subscription Costs
Now TV (the online version of Rupert-Murdoch-owned Sky Movies) - £9 Netflix - £6 Amazon Prime Instant Video - £6 Wuaki - £6 sub, PPV @ £4.50/new film rental Knowhow Movies - no sub, PPV @ £5/new film rental Blinkbox (from Tesco) - no sub, PPV @ £4.50/new film rental Apple iTunes - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental Google Play - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental Xbox Video - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental
Readers may wish to note that the UK version of Netflix is generally regarded as an aborted washing-machine foetus of a service, when compared with its US counterpart.
All PPV prices are for the highest definition versions, which is usually 720p, with a couple of services offering 1080p. Older titles and SD rentals are normally cheaper. TV episodes are usually available - prices vary widely, but are usually cheaper than films.
As far as I know, all providers -- both subscription and pay-per-view -- require the installation of crapware from either Adobe or Microsoft and all require their users to allow the monitoring and commercial exploitation of their viewing habits.
"The list below shows the top 100 UK box office films in the last 18 months from 29th August 2014.
Of the titles on the list available to watch on the relevant services at 5th September 2014; Sky Movies has 44, Amazon Prime Instant Video has 4 and Netflix has 4.
Wuaki Selection is not listed, as this service does not currently feature any titles in the top 100 list.
When a movie is first available on Sky Movies it will not be available on Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant Video for at least 12 months.
Source: Rentrak"
The blog post then goes on to list the top 100.
While the numbers change and have recently shifted in Sky Movies' favour, the figures have strangely consistent ratios from month to month, with retail getting everything, Sky getting a big chunk -- now at 44% -- and Netflix and Amazon both getting the same amount -- now 4%.
The other 48% or so does not appear to be available, except for retail, the online version of which also shows remarkable consistency of pricing.
It's fairly apparent that both prices and content are being centrally set by Hollywood, with the intention of driving as much business as possible to their preferred vendors and neutering new services as far as they can get away with.
This may or may not be legal under UK law, but since there is no prospect of their friends in Parliament ever prosecuting them for anything, it doesn't really matter.
In any event, it's clear that consumer choice is not on the agenda for the movie industry.
Sounds like a fine idea. It would certainly be nice to have some reason to recommend FireFox again, after the last few years of increasingly questionable design choices. :)
Indeed! And to paraphrase the much-missed Mr Adams, this is clearly some strange usage of the phrase "widely available" that we weren't previously aware of. :)
Miss Moretz is presumably quoting what she's been told by the producers, the director, her manager, etc, but they're hardly going to admit that the movie they all worked hard to make was a complete waste of celluloid.
I liked the Millar & Romita comic before it became a movie. I liked the original Kick Ass film. I DLed a pirate copy and - when it finally turned up legally half a year later - I went out and bought the DVD, to support the creators and encourage a sequel, which seemed like a good idea at the time.
I also pirated and watched Kick Ass 2, but it's not getting my money, not one penny. While it was nice to see the good cast do their thing with the returning characters, I've got nothing else good to say about the film, which I felt was badly misjudged, abusive nonsense.
KA2 is largely based on the comics Hit Girl and Kick Ass Book 3. It follows the general plotlines, but fails to convey the distinctive look & feel of either the comics or the first movie.
The comics and the first movie depicted Hit Girl (the real star of the show) in a surreal yet still-just-plausible way. In KA2, they've thrown out much of the harsher scenes and treatments (which serve to ground the comics in a more realistic world) in favour of self-censorship and poorly-judged comedy.
The worst example is a newly-added cafeteria scene, which seems there purely to depict three teenagers spraying unconvincing CGI vomit and diarrhoea everywhere. That's not what any other version of Kick Ass is about and it's not fun to watch.
The producers presumably think they have a handle on what KA fans want to see. Based on the utterly dismal KA2, they have no idea at all. Normally, I would lament and decry the idea of a franchise killed by piracy, but if it's true in this case, it's a feature, not a bug.
I think this is less about infringement and more about the fact that Premier League's Chief Executive - Richard Scudamore - is also the Company Director (and presumably the majority shareholder) of Football DataCo, the company paid to take down these images (and presumably being paid by the takedown).
What's a little bad publicity compared to the chance to double-dip from the Premier League?
I wonder if the TfL lawyers responsible have any idea that they've done something wrong? What, if anything, was going through their tiny minds when they did this?
"Oh, look. Here's a nice little resource celebrating London Transport and not interfering in the company's business in any way at all. Let's shut it down so people will hate us."
I can see why TfL are such good friends with Boris Johnson - they have a shared interest in going out of their way to look like complete, incompetent buffoons.
You're right, it's not really much of a story. What there is of it is, however, funny as a bowl of fucks, so I'm all for it.
It's also a surprisingly effective ad for the police - if they turn out to have been harassing disliked members of staff, or something, I'll have a different view, but on the face of things now, I quite like these guys. I'm not really sure why they got in trouble over this. It seems undeserved.
I'm no expert, by any means, but those don't look like kilts to me.
From Wikipedia: "The kilt is a knee-length garment with pleats at the rear". They are also traditionally made from heavy wool, because Scotland is cold. A real kilt will typically be in the tartan of the appropriate clan.
What those look like are thin, cheap, miniskirts in a generic tartan pattern.
I'm not impressed. Whichever side wins, good taste and respect for the racial and cultural heritage of others loses out to trashy marketing.
... and now they've changed their minds, but only after being publically excoriated for their initial decision.
On the one hand, I applaud the fact that they have listened to criticism and changed their policy, if only in this one instance. They are, presumably, not a completely lost cause.
On the other hand, there's no other hint that those who made that first decision are any less heartless, soulless and callous than they were yesterday - or inclined to give the slightest second thought to their decision if bad PR hadn't forced the issue.
Time will tell if they have learned anything, if they intend to be better people than they have been, or if the reconsideration is as forced and begrudged as I suspect. For now, my contempt is lessened a little.
The dead child will get his memorial, his community will have a permanent reminder not to turn their eyes away from abuse and neglect - and perhaps, with luck and vigilance, fewer children will suffer and die, thanks to that reminder.
This is so sad. A child is murdered through wilful neglect and DC Comics can find not one ounce of basic human decency, not the tiniest shred of compassion for the community that wants to remember that child appropriately.
I hate to get on my usual hobby-horse here, I feel very, very uncomfortable about it, but I also feel this is the only right time and place.
Next time anyone working for Big Business - whether it's a comics company, or a film studio, or TV or music or games or books - next time they start telling you how business is hurting, or how much artists are suffering and starving because of piracy, or second hand sales, or whatever else they're complaining about today, make sure you remember this moment.
You remember how a community wanted to honour a dead child and Big Business responded with absolute, cold contempt.
His name was Jeffrey Baldwin.
He deserved better than the scum who work for DC Comics.
On the post: Guy Sues Time Warner Cable For Deceptive Acts & False Advertising Over Bogus Promotional Rates, Hidden Fees
Re: Re: Re: Not the same.
My mistake - and a very noobsome mistake it was too - was in confusing cable modems with routers. Yes, I actually am that stupid sometimes. Dear lord, I wish I could say I was surprised.
In my defence, I'm in the UK, where cable modems aren't all that common - I'm only aware of them being used in Virgin Cable installations and the still-relatively-uncommon fibre setups, where in both cases they're provided by the ISP. I've never seen one available for purchase from UK retailers.
In rebuttal to my defence, I've read a fair amount on the topic, on Techdirt and other places, so I really should have known better before opening my big, fat gob. Also, I actually do have a cable modem, since I am on a fibre connection. D'oh!
In rebuttal to the rebuttal to my defence, my cable modem has sat hidden behind a permanently-open door since it was installed and the number of times I've looked at it is probably still in the single figures.
I've no reply to the allegation of general ignorance and stupidity, though. It's a fair cop, guv.
So, now that I've both annihilated my credibility and actually have researched the issue somewhat and have a slight idea of what I'm talking about, what do I think?
I think it's still suspicious.
Actual retail models won't come with TWC firmware on board, that makes no sense at all, so they're presumably updating automatically as they're connected to the network.
It seems highly questionable at best that certain models can't be updated, when TWC clearly already has firmware for those models, which they're already leasing and selling to customers.
I concede that I can envisage a situation where there are issues with certain hardware that isn't properly compliant with the relevant standards and must be updated in more direct fashion than is normally the case.
I also concede that I can envisage a situation where one party or another has slapped stupid licensing restrictions on how their hardware is updated, forcing a cumbersome workaround.
Both of these scenarios seem like a stretch, however, since hardware providers don't seem likely to gain from not fixing such issues. Lack of compatibility seems unlikely to be a useful selling point.
It still seems far more plausible that TWC just wants to make more money by chewing on its customers for extra fees.
You seem to have some knowledge of the matter, AC. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the issues actually are?
On the post: UK's Home Secretary Says Terrorists Will Be The Real Winners If Country's Cell Coverage Dead Zones Are Fixed
tl;dr
On the post: Guy Sues Time Warner Cable For Deceptive Acts & False Advertising Over Bogus Promotional Rates, Hidden Fees
Re: Not the same.
"[...] a list of which modems TWC will "approve" if owned by a consumer and which modems TWC will "lease" to consumers".
If some retail models - which would not conceivably possess any "custom firmware" unique to TWC - are compatible, then it follows logically that most models that meet basic specifications should also be compatible.
The only plausible way it could be otherwise would be if TWC has deliberately nobbled its network to reject unapproved hardware, purely in order to levy a fee.
Either way, it's clear that TWC has engaged in an unethical and immoral trade practise, for the sole purpose of gouging its customers.
While this might be common behaviour among ISPs in the US, in the UK, this kind of behaviour isn't normal or legal and would almost certainly result in a legal slapping by regulators.
On the post: Will The CIA Treat Amazon's Cloud The Same Way It Treated Drives It Shared With The Senate?
Silence
No-one with any sense should trust Amazon with anything confidential.
On the post: Infringing Panties So Important To DHS, That It Intimidated Print Shop Owner Into Warrantless Search
Knickers
this is why the rest of the world points and laughs at you behind your back.
Yours sincerely,
Everyone.
On the post: During Cold War, CIA And FBI Hired Over 1,000 Nazis As Spies, Limited Investigations Of Those Nazis
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Departing EU Digital Commissioner Warns Against 'Analogue Europe' Blocking Digital Innovation
Politicians
There seems little chance of her replacement being anything more than just another corporate stooge, eager to spout whatever nonsense the IFPI and MPAA have written for him.
Good luck, Ms Kroes. I rather think we shall actually miss you. :(
On the post: Sheriff Slams EFF As 'Not Credible,' Insists ComputerCOP Isn't Malware & Would Have Stopped Columbine
0_o
On the post: Double Fine Unchains Game IP, Fans Work To Make The Game For Them
Dogs bark and the parade moves on
Accordingly, I no longer support this company in any way. :(
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
UK VOD services
While I assume this info is largely accurate (no-one would bother to make it up), it is largely from sites I've not previously heard of -- mostly http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/126129-which-is-the-best-movie-streaming-service-in-the-uk-netflix-v s-amazon-prime-vs-now-tv-and-more -- and the original post is from February, so some details have probably changed since then.
There are probably more reliable and up-to-date sites for this information, somewhere, but this is the best I could find without a more substantial research effort.
VOD sites -- Monthly Movies Subscription Costs
Now TV (the online version of Rupert-Murdoch-owned Sky Movies) - £9
Netflix - £6
Amazon Prime Instant Video - £6
Wuaki - £6 sub, PPV @ £4.50/new film rental
Knowhow Movies - no sub, PPV @ £5/new film rental
Blinkbox (from Tesco) - no sub, PPV @ £4.50/new film rental
Apple iTunes - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental
Google Play - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental
Xbox Video - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental
Readers may wish to note that the UK version of Netflix is generally regarded as an aborted washing-machine foetus of a service, when compared with its US counterpart.
All PPV prices are for the highest definition versions, which is usually 720p, with a couple of services offering 1080p. Older titles and SD rentals are normally cheaper. TV episodes are usually available - prices vary widely, but are usually cheaper than films.
As far as I know, all providers -- both subscription and pay-per-view -- require the installation of crapware from either Adobe or Microsoft and all require their users to allow the monitoring and commercial exploitation of their viewing habits.
Most content available is nearly identical across services. New content - i.e. movies released in the last few years - is heavily restricted. NowTV has a blog post on the subject - http://community.nowtv.com/t5/Movies/Movies-Latest-amp-Biggest/td-p/7604 - which they update monthly:
"The list below shows the top 100 UK box office films in the last 18 months from 29th August 2014.
Of the titles on the list available to watch on the relevant services at 5th September 2014; Sky Movies has 44, Amazon Prime Instant Video has 4 and Netflix has 4.
Wuaki Selection is not listed, as this service does not currently feature any titles in the top 100 list.
When a movie is first available on Sky Movies it will not be available on Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant Video for at least 12 months.
Source: Rentrak"
The blog post then goes on to list the top 100.
While the numbers change and have recently shifted in Sky Movies' favour, the figures have strangely consistent ratios from month to month, with retail getting everything, Sky getting a big chunk -- now at 44% -- and Netflix and Amazon both getting the same amount -- now 4%.
The other 48% or so does not appear to be available, except for retail, the online version of which also shows remarkable consistency of pricing.
It's fairly apparent that both prices and content are being centrally set by Hollywood, with the intention of driving as much business as possible to their preferred vendors and neutering new services as far as they can get away with.
This may or may not be legal under UK law, but since there is no prospect of their friends in Parliament ever prosecuting them for anything, it doesn't really matter.
In any event, it's clear that consumer choice is not on the agenda for the movie industry.
Not even slightly.
On the post: Imagine How The FBI And NSA Would Flip Out If Tor Browsing Was Built Into Firefox Or Chrome?
Tor
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You're A Copyright Maximalist 'Piracy' Must Be The Answer To All Problems
Kick Ass 2
I liked the Millar & Romita comic before it became a movie. I liked the original Kick Ass film. I DLed a pirate copy and - when it finally turned up legally half a year later - I went out and bought the DVD, to support the creators and encourage a sequel, which seemed like a good idea at the time.
I also pirated and watched Kick Ass 2, but it's not getting my money, not one penny. While it was nice to see the good cast do their thing with the returning characters, I've got nothing else good to say about the film, which I felt was badly misjudged, abusive nonsense.
KA2 is largely based on the comics Hit Girl and Kick Ass Book 3. It follows the general plotlines, but fails to convey the distinctive look & feel of either the comics or the first movie.
The comics and the first movie depicted Hit Girl (the real star of the show) in a surreal yet still-just-plausible way. In KA2, they've thrown out much of the harsher scenes and treatments (which serve to ground the comics in a more realistic world) in favour of self-censorship and poorly-judged comedy.
The worst example is a newly-added cafeteria scene, which seems there purely to depict three teenagers spraying unconvincing CGI vomit and diarrhoea everywhere. That's not what any other version of Kick Ass is about and it's not fun to watch.
The producers presumably think they have a handle on what KA fans want to see. Based on the utterly dismal KA2, they have no idea at all. Normally, I would lament and decry the idea of a franchise killed by piracy, but if it's true in this case, it's a feature, not a bug.
Goodbye Kick Ass 3. I won't miss you one jot. :)
On the post: English Premier League Apparently Wants Fans To Hate It Even More: Threatens To Pull Down Vines And Animated GIFs
Sponging
What's a little bad publicity compared to the chance to double-dip from the Premier League?
On the post: Transport For London Kills Off Fan-Made Device Wallpapers Based On Its Seat Patterns
Ignorance is bliss?
"Oh, look. Here's a nice little resource celebrating London Transport and not interfering in the company's business in any way at all. Let's shut it down so people will hate us."
I can see why TfL are such good friends with Boris Johnson - they have a shared interest in going out of their way to look like complete, incompetent buffoons.
On the post: Cop's Wrong Firing Lawsuit Leads To Public Release Of Vulgarly-Titled 'Enemies' List
Re:
It's also a surprisingly effective ad for the police - if they turn out to have been harassing disliked members of staff, or something, I'll have a different view, but on the face of things now, I quite like these guys. I'm not really sure why they got in trouble over this. It seems undeserved.
On the post: Tilted Kilt Files Trademark Suit Against Golf Course With Kilted Employees
"Kilts"? Ye gods.
From Wikipedia: "The kilt is a knee-length garment with pleats at the rear". They are also traditionally made from heavy wool, because Scotland is cold. A real kilt will typically be in the tartan of the appropriate clan.
What those look like are thin, cheap, miniskirts in a generic tartan pattern.
I'm not impressed. Whichever side wins, good taste and respect for the racial and cultural heritage of others loses out to trashy marketing.
On the post: DC Comics Refuses To Let Superman Logo Adorn The Headstone Of A Young Child Who Was Starved To Death [Updated]
Re: The truth of it.
On the one hand, I applaud the fact that they have listened to criticism and changed their policy, if only in this one instance. They are, presumably, not a completely lost cause.
On the other hand, there's no other hint that those who made that first decision are any less heartless, soulless and callous than they were yesterday - or inclined to give the slightest second thought to their decision if bad PR hadn't forced the issue.
Time will tell if they have learned anything, if they intend to be better people than they have been, or if the reconsideration is as forced and begrudged as I suspect. For now, my contempt is lessened a little.
The dead child will get his memorial, his community will have a permanent reminder not to turn their eyes away from abuse and neglect - and perhaps, with luck and vigilance, fewer children will suffer and die, thanks to that reminder.
Thanks to DC for finally allowing it.
RIP, Jeffrey Baldwin.
On the post: DC Comics Refuses To Let Superman Logo Adorn The Headstone Of A Young Child Who Was Starved To Death [Updated]
The truth of it.
I hate to get on my usual hobby-horse here, I feel very, very uncomfortable about it, but I also feel this is the only right time and place.
Next time anyone working for Big Business - whether it's a comics company, or a film studio, or TV or music or games or books - next time they start telling you how business is hurting, or how much artists are suffering and starving because of piracy, or second hand sales, or whatever else they're complaining about today, make sure you remember this moment.
You remember how a community wanted to honour a dead child and Big Business responded with absolute, cold contempt.
His name was Jeffrey Baldwin.
He deserved better than the scum who work for DC Comics.
On the post: Local Blog Outs Local Politician's Crazy But Anonymous Comments. So...Is That Okay?
Re: Quality
Next >>