When people have to pay for bandwidth, they are going to do everything within their power to use only what they want. That means ad blockers will become the norm, with people not wanting precious kb being wasted on advertisements. When everyone starts blocking ads, companies stop buying ads. Lots of new business models are stifled if not completely made obsolete.
And they will be more upset about the junk the ISP does too...is there any reason why an ISP isn't filtering out SMB on their networks, or any reason why they require a user to run connection software on their machines that regularly communicate back to the mothership (for support reasons, they say,) and who require said software to be installed on the customers' machine in order to handle support calls?
The ISP I use at home has reasonable limits, but if the ISP includes all of the traffic sent to your machine regardless to whether you asked for it or not, you're going to find a lot more pissed-off people upset that they are getting charged for bandwidth even when they take a month off.
If you sell a pipe that is 100mBps, and you get upset because your customer is using 100mBps, you're doing it wrong. However, if you sell a user a pipe that is metered, and charge high bandwidth for the users who use large bandwidth, and say so on the contract, than so be it.
However, if you sell someone a flat 100mBps connection, and then decide six months later that you spent all the money you earned from a user on crack and hookers and not on updating your network, and now you are selling 30 people a flat 100mBps connection and they are using up the 100mBps supply and getting upset with you, switching to a metered plan without telling them is likely to get you sued.
I pay a certain amount of money for a flat rate internet connection which says I get a certain amount of bandwidth. If I am not using that bandwidth, then I am paying a lot for not using it. However, I am certainly *not* subsidizing someone who is using a lot of what they are paying for. The contract says I get what I get. If you don't like that model, then switch to a metered model. But don't go crying to the government if your competitors out-sell you because you were greedy and switched to a metered (and less consumer friendly model,) while they kept their consumer-friendly flat rate model.
It's rather sickening that someone who pretends to be speaking out for an artists best interests compares an authentic connection with a fan to prostitution.
Its never been about speaking out for the artist. RIAA's main purpose in life is to speak out for the recording industry, who view this as an afront to their capability to make billions by holding artists to restrictive contracts where due to RIAA accounting, keeps all but the most known artists in careers at McDonalds flipping burgers.
There is going to keep being serious push back against restrictions on guns as long as the US allows police and the military to be so powerful and aggressive.
Yes, but to add further fire to this argument, Chicago is very much anti-gun (as is California, Washington DC, and Massachusetts.) Not that there is a correlation between corrupt politicians and gun control, but it seems a little suspicious.
But hey, maybe you don't like for the Government to go by the law. I guess you are in the right place for that then.
Wow, the straw is flying.
So now everyone here that reads Techdirt agrees that the Government doesn't need to follow the law? Or does that mean that since DH is from Illinois, he is in the right place to believe that the Government doesn't need to follow the law?
If it is the former...I'd like to see your evidence, since there are a lot of us here and I doubt you'll be able to prove that all of us believe the same thing.
No, I know what an EP is. What I am saying is that in the world where single songs are the "current currency", why are these people making albums at all?
I totally agree with what you said...but I find that with the artists I like, I tend to buy everything they have...CDs are a terrific way to package (even electronically,) all of what they want to package. I tend to buy most of my independent music in CD form (even electronically,) to support the artists I like. However, for artists I don't know, I do sample single songs (which is great about Paste or Remix, because they send sample CDs.) Once I like a song I hear on these samples, I tend to buy up everything they put out. Sure, some of what I get sucks, but I find that many songs from artists I like may seem sucky at first, but they often grow on me.
If they would have had the vision and foresight to invest in servers, place their catalogs on those servers, and charge a reasonable price for the music, music videos, concert videos, printable posters, calenders or whatever, then they could have been making the money instead of Apple.
Doubtful. The problem is the customer wants a one-stop shop for getting the music they want. Each label creating its own site would fail just as much as the labels not creating any site. iTunes works because, regardless of label, the customer can get the music they want.
I don't buy the music the labels sell anyway, but if I was looking for music online, I wouldn't have a clue, nor care, which label won the opportunity to sell a particular artist's music.
Sites like iTunes won the war because they didn't make things difficult on the user. Had the labels gotten together and built a massive site that sold all of their music, instead of colluding on the price of CDs, then they might have won.
Plus plenty of sports bars and watering holes use this sort of thing as a way to draw in patrons. Again, it gives a shared experience for the viewers, and makes them realize that more people enjoy the event.
Maybe not for UFC, but last time I checked, most of the PPV sports events had specific warnings about video not being licensed for public consumption, thus specifically outlawing exactly what you are saying here. Sure, sports bars may ignore these warnings, but I suspect that the copyright maximalists would much rather see 40 people watching 40 different TVs at $40 a pop than 40 people watching 4 TVs at $40 a pop.
UFC charges for PPV sports events venues about $500-2000 per event. I am not sure how much it actually is, because I can find nowhere online where they actually have a price. However, I know most of the bars in my area specifically do not carry UFC fights because the cost is too expensive. I also know of one bar who was sued and lost specifically for showing UFC fights live on PPV without paying for a public license.
It's not the product, it's how the companies deliver the product that matters. Netflix succeeded, not because they offered different product than e.g. Blockbuster, but because they offered it better.
I'll say. I was a former Blockbuster subscriber. Blockbuster was cheaper than Netflix, but I left Blockbuster because their delivery was far worse. I was tired of receiving DVDs that were obviously pirate specials (a subscriber would buy a bad copy, rent the original, then return the bad copy and keep the original,) and they had absolutely *no* quality assurance. With Netflix, I've never received a bad DVD. I'm sure they send them occasionally (or they get broken in transit,) but with Blockbuster, I was returning the same movie four or five times before I got one that I could watch on standard DVD players.
Plus, streaming video to five machines was a bonus. Couldn't do that with Blockbuster.
Yeah, If I were the studios and labels I wouldn't like the price being set ... Free ... But thats just me.
I keep hearing this argument, but I don't agree with it. It is true that some small group of people are leaches (I was one when I was a kid, never met a cracked Apple IIe game I didn't like,) but I think a majority of people will pay for content if it is reasonably priced (affordable,) portable (I can take it and put it anywhere I want to consume it,) and reliable (I have access to it whenever I want.)
Netflix gives me, personally, that capability. When I am on travel, I use my laptop and the available internet connection to stream videos to my laptop (where I used to take DVDs or hard drives with me,) and when I am at home, I can play it on the PS3 attached to a LCD screen, the WII attached to a CRT screen, or the PC attached to the projector, and watch whatever movie I want to my heart's content. I am happy with the current cost of Netflix (affordable even if it was twice the cost.) I cannot download it and put it on my ipod (not that I would anyway, the screen is too small,) or use it where I don't have internet connectivity, but internet is becoming so pervasive in society, it is getting really difficult to find normal, civilized, places without some sort of internet capability, either through WI-FI or 3g/4g cellular.
I think a lot of people will pay for the content if it is reasonable just because they realize that if they take and do not give, there won't be anything to take any more. Sure, there are selfish people out there, but I don't think that is a majority. The studios are killing the golden goose via greed, plain and simple.
So by "dead" you mean "will probably be overtaken by something else someday". Interesting definition!
When he says they are dead, but they just don't know it yet, yes, I think that is pretty much the definition I think of too.
Come to think of it, I am already dead, and just don't know it yet, as I will someday (hopefully in the distant future) expire. Something else will probably overtake me some day.
If he is the rights holder this has nothing to do with piracy.
It could be. I'm not familiar with the copyright laws in Brazil, but he may run afoul if he sold exclusive distribution rights to a third party. I know quite a few artists who have had problems with their publishers when they tried to give away their works for free, and I suspect that he might have a similar problem, especially if the US Government has helped Brazil write their copyright laws recently.
Part of your job is to keep up with that which they prevent you from keeping up with.
Certainly didn't say that, as it isn't true for me (I can access all of Techdirt with no problem what-so-ever.) However, I can only hang my head at what others within DoD/Government are doing. I believe that Sun Tsu said it best that in order to fight an enemy, you have to know the enemy. Anyone within DoD's computer security groups have to have full access to everything their enemies have, otherwise they cannot do their job effectively.
The only reason to make such a claim is to put a little extra fear in the worker bee?
Actually, I believe this is the standard message a particular product the DoD likes using. I've seen it many times myself, and laugh each time (for the record, part of my job description is keeping up-to-date with "Computers and Internet", and that category is kinda stupid to block anyway since you are on a computer and accessing the internet to begin with.) I wouldn't expect much from it. If someone out there is watching my watching TechDirt, then they have more free-time at work than I do...
As far as I am concerned, when I see RIAA, I think arseholes, brainlessmorons, chickenlittle, and hypocriticalbitches all at the same time...so no need being redundant.
Plus, if by assigning them .riaa means I can, once and for all, filter .riaa at my firewalls, I'll be happy. I am not a pirate (well, I had an emusic account, and they probably consider that and itunes to be pirate sites) but their propaganda is getting seriously tired.
Re: Re: One of my favorite resources on the internet ...
I like that site too, but I'd hesitate to rely too much on information provided by professional liars....
Dark Helmet, in order to tell a really good lie, you have to know the background. Without background, the truth is rather quickly suss'd out. Thus, you have to have as much facts as you can. So, the CIA will include 99% true and valid information, and 1% BS, and you have to try to figure out the BS. Of course, you can also rely on the frog from Alice, and assume that one of the frogs always tells the truth, and another always tells a lie, and use that to determine where the error is...
I treat Wikipedia in the same fashion...99% of what is on Wikipedia is true and valid, and 1% is BS, and you have to figure out the BS. Works pretty well, so long as you know that going in.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Reddit and 4chan the a model for a new form of "Investigative News"?
Wait, I know, you're going to respond and say I'm doing the same thing too.
Anything that does not jive with his point of view is classic TD standard operating procedure.
The sad thing is that there is enough industry trolls here that even if a story is one sided from Mike (which I doubt very seriously is the case,) there are usually four or five Anonymous Cowards that will pop in and offer a different opinion (and about twenty that pop in and bad-mouth Mike/TD for not spouting their particular point of view.) There is a lot of friendly discourse here, even if this particular Troll doesn't see it.
On the post: Metered Bandwidth Isn't About Stopping The Bandwidth Hogs; It's About Preserving Old Media Business Models
Re: Metered Billing = Death of Online Ads
And they will be more upset about the junk the ISP does too...is there any reason why an ISP isn't filtering out SMB on their networks, or any reason why they require a user to run connection software on their machines that regularly communicate back to the mothership (for support reasons, they say,) and who require said software to be installed on the customers' machine in order to handle support calls?
The ISP I use at home has reasonable limits, but if the ISP includes all of the traffic sent to your machine regardless to whether you asked for it or not, you're going to find a lot more pissed-off people upset that they are getting charged for bandwidth even when they take a month off.
On the post: Metered Bandwidth Isn't About Stopping The Bandwidth Hogs; It's About Preserving Old Media Business Models
Re: Re: Nonsense
If you sell a pipe that is 100mBps, and you get upset because your customer is using 100mBps, you're doing it wrong. However, if you sell a user a pipe that is metered, and charge high bandwidth for the users who use large bandwidth, and say so on the contract, than so be it.
However, if you sell someone a flat 100mBps connection, and then decide six months later that you spent all the money you earned from a user on crack and hookers and not on updating your network, and now you are selling 30 people a flat 100mBps connection and they are using up the 100mBps supply and getting upset with you, switching to a metered plan without telling them is likely to get you sued.
I pay a certain amount of money for a flat rate internet connection which says I get a certain amount of bandwidth. If I am not using that bandwidth, then I am paying a lot for not using it. However, I am certainly *not* subsidizing someone who is using a lot of what they are paying for. The contract says I get what I get. If you don't like that model, then switch to a metered model. But don't go crying to the government if your competitors out-sell you because you were greedy and switched to a metered (and less consumer friendly model,) while they kept their consumer-friendly flat rate model.
On the post: The Awkwardness Of Cutting Out The Middleman
Re: Re:
Its never been about speaking out for the artist. RIAA's main purpose in life is to speak out for the recording industry, who view this as an afront to their capability to make billions by holding artists to restrictive contracts where due to RIAA accounting, keeps all but the most known artists in careers at McDonalds flipping burgers.
On the post: Artist Facing 15 Years In Jail For The Crime Of Videotaping His Own Arrest
Re: Re: Not surprising..
Yes, but to add further fire to this argument, Chicago is very much anti-gun (as is California, Washington DC, and Massachusetts.) Not that there is a correlation between corrupt politicians and gun control, but it seems a little suspicious.
On the post: Artist Facing 15 Years In Jail For The Crime Of Videotaping His Own Arrest
Re:
Wow, infinite recursion. Awesome.
print "We're arresting you for evesdropping!";
while (1) {
print "We're arresting you for evesdropping during our arresting you for evesdropping!";
}
On the post: Artist Facing 15 Years In Jail For The Crime Of Videotaping His Own Arrest
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eavesdropping
Wow, the straw is flying.
So now everyone here that reads Techdirt agrees that the Government doesn't need to follow the law? Or does that mean that since DH is from Illinois, he is in the right place to believe that the Government doesn't need to follow the law?
If it is the former...I'd like to see your evidence, since there are a lot of us here and I doubt you'll be able to prove that all of us believe the same thing.
On the post: Digital Music Has Only 'Failed' If You're Not Paying Attention
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $.99 will never = $17.00
I totally agree with what you said...but I find that with the artists I like, I tend to buy everything they have...CDs are a terrific way to package (even electronically,) all of what they want to package. I tend to buy most of my independent music in CD form (even electronically,) to support the artists I like. However, for artists I don't know, I do sample single songs (which is great about Paste or Remix, because they send sample CDs.) Once I like a song I hear on these samples, I tend to buy up everything they put out. Sure, some of what I get sucks, but I find that many songs from artists I like may seem sucky at first, but they often grow on me.
On the post: Digital Music Has Only 'Failed' If You're Not Paying Attention
Re: The labels are the failure
Doubtful. The problem is the customer wants a one-stop shop for getting the music they want. Each label creating its own site would fail just as much as the labels not creating any site. iTunes works because, regardless of label, the customer can get the music they want.
I don't buy the music the labels sell anyway, but if I was looking for music online, I wouldn't have a clue, nor care, which label won the opportunity to sell a particular artist's music.
Sites like iTunes won the war because they didn't make things difficult on the user. Had the labels gotten together and built a massive site that sold all of their music, instead of colluding on the price of CDs, then they might have won.
On the post: UFC Sues Justin.tv, Claiming It Induced Infringement
Re: Re:
Maybe not for UFC, but last time I checked, most of the PPV sports events had specific warnings about video not being licensed for public consumption, thus specifically outlawing exactly what you are saying here. Sure, sports bars may ignore these warnings, but I suspect that the copyright maximalists would much rather see 40 people watching 40 different TVs at $40 a pop than 40 people watching 4 TVs at $40 a pop.
UFC charges for PPV sports events venues about $500-2000 per event. I am not sure how much it actually is, because I can find nowhere online where they actually have a price. However, I know most of the bars in my area specifically do not carry UFC fights because the cost is too expensive. I also know of one bar who was sued and lost specifically for showing UFC fights live on PPV without paying for a public license.
On the post: Will Hollywood Kill The Golden Goose By Squeezing Netflix Dry?
Re: Re:
I'll say. I was a former Blockbuster subscriber. Blockbuster was cheaper than Netflix, but I left Blockbuster because their delivery was far worse. I was tired of receiving DVDs that were obviously pirate specials (a subscriber would buy a bad copy, rent the original, then return the bad copy and keep the original,) and they had absolutely *no* quality assurance. With Netflix, I've never received a bad DVD. I'm sure they send them occasionally (or they get broken in transit,) but with Blockbuster, I was returning the same movie four or five times before I got one that I could watch on standard DVD players.
Plus, streaming video to five machines was a bonus. Couldn't do that with Blockbuster.
On the post: Will Hollywood Kill The Golden Goose By Squeezing Netflix Dry?
Re: Re: Re:
I keep hearing this argument, but I don't agree with it. It is true that some small group of people are leaches (I was one when I was a kid, never met a cracked Apple IIe game I didn't like,) but I think a majority of people will pay for content if it is reasonably priced (affordable,) portable (I can take it and put it anywhere I want to consume it,) and reliable (I have access to it whenever I want.)
Netflix gives me, personally, that capability. When I am on travel, I use my laptop and the available internet connection to stream videos to my laptop (where I used to take DVDs or hard drives with me,) and when I am at home, I can play it on the PS3 attached to a LCD screen, the WII attached to a CRT screen, or the PC attached to the projector, and watch whatever movie I want to my heart's content. I am happy with the current cost of Netflix (affordable even if it was twice the cost.) I cannot download it and put it on my ipod (not that I would anyway, the screen is too small,) or use it where I don't have internet connectivity, but internet is becoming so pervasive in society, it is getting really difficult to find normal, civilized, places without some sort of internet capability, either through WI-FI or 3g/4g cellular.
I think a lot of people will pay for the content if it is reasonable just because they realize that if they take and do not give, there won't be anything to take any more. Sure, there are selfish people out there, but I don't think that is a majority. The studios are killing the golden goose via greed, plain and simple.
On the post: Will Hollywood Kill The Golden Goose By Squeezing Netflix Dry?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Frustrated
When he says they are dead, but they just don't know it yet, yes, I think that is pretty much the definition I think of too.
Come to think of it, I am already dead, and just don't know it yet, as I will someday (hopefully in the distant future) expire. Something else will probably overtake me some day.
On the post: Paulo Coelho Books Banned In Iran... So He Offers Them As A Free Download
Re:
It could be. I'm not familiar with the copyright laws in Brazil, but he may run afoul if he sold exclusive distribution rights to a third party. I know quite a few artists who have had problems with their publishers when they tried to give away their works for free, and I suspect that he might have a similar problem, especially if the US Government has helped Brazil write their copyright laws recently.
On the post: DoD Blocking Access To Techdirt Because It's About 'Computers And Internet'?
Re: Re: Re:
Certainly didn't say that, as it isn't true for me (I can access all of Techdirt with no problem what-so-ever.) However, I can only hang my head at what others within DoD/Government are doing. I believe that Sun Tsu said it best that in order to fight an enemy, you have to know the enemy. Anyone within DoD's computer security groups have to have full access to everything their enemies have, otherwise they cannot do their job effectively.
On the post: DoD Blocking Access To Techdirt Because It's About 'Computers And Internet'?
Re:
Actually, I believe this is the standard message a particular product the DoD likes using. I've seen it many times myself, and laugh each time (for the record, part of my job description is keeping up-to-date with "Computers and Internet", and that category is kinda stupid to block anyway since you are on a computer and accessing the internet to begin with.) I wouldn't expect much from it. If someone out there is watching my watching TechDirt, then they have more free-time at work than I do...
On the post: J&J Sued For Trying To Avoid Recall By Sending People To Buy Up Defective Motrin
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is there a difference?
On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wonder Ball
Maybe she is from San Francisco (I know, she isn't, but.) It is illegal to sell Happy Meals in San Francisco with toys in them now.
On the post: RIAA Threatening ICANN About .music; Claiming It Will Be Used To Infringe
Re: Re:
Heh, how about just .riaa.
As far as I am concerned, when I see RIAA, I think arseholes, brainlessmorons, chickenlittle, and hypocriticalbitches all at the same time...so no need being redundant.
Plus, if by assigning them .riaa means I can, once and for all, filter .riaa at my firewalls, I'll be happy. I am not a pirate (well, I had an emusic account, and they probably consider that and itunes to be pirate sites) but their propaganda is getting seriously tired.
On the post: Arrested Pirate Party Member In Tunisia Freed, And Appointed State Secretary
Re: Re: One of my favorite resources on the internet ...
Dark Helmet, in order to tell a really good lie, you have to know the background. Without background, the truth is rather quickly suss'd out. Thus, you have to have as much facts as you can. So, the CIA will include 99% true and valid information, and 1% BS, and you have to try to figure out the BS. Of course, you can also rely on the frog from Alice, and assume that one of the frogs always tells the truth, and another always tells a lie, and use that to determine where the error is...
I treat Wikipedia in the same fashion...99% of what is on Wikipedia is true and valid, and 1% is BS, and you have to figure out the BS. Works pretty well, so long as you know that going in.
On the post: Still Trying To Track Down Who Controls Patent Used Against Reddit, Digg, Fark, Slashdot & TechCrunch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Reddit and 4chan the a model for a new form of "Investigative News"?
Anything that does not jive with his point of view is classic TD standard operating procedure.
The sad thing is that there is enough industry trolls here that even if a story is one sided from Mike (which I doubt very seriously is the case,) there are usually four or five Anonymous Cowards that will pop in and offer a different opinion (and about twenty that pop in and bad-mouth Mike/TD for not spouting their particular point of view.) There is a lot of friendly discourse here, even if this particular Troll doesn't see it.
Next >>