I have been saying for years now that they should "split them up". AKA split Cable companies from ISPs. Competition in the physically space is a "natural" monopoly. You can only put so many wires, poles, ect up. Any Cable companies have been shown at time to purposefully gimp internet services in favor of their cable services. No Cable company wants to give good traffic for netflix, because they means they loose eyeballs on their more lucrative cable services. So I say, split them up. Force cable to actually compete against the internet for quality. THAT is real "competition".
Eventually people of "good" taste will stop using google for these very reasons. They will switch to a search engine without all of these special redactions built into them. In 10 years stupid politicians will still be fighting with google about their search results, while real queries are run through some other new platform. Followed by 10 years after that this cycle happening AGAIN with the new engine. Repeat ad infinitum.
That isn't what I was saying and you know it. "Reporting News" is not commercial product advertisement.
Stating a "fact" is fine. But the rules that are very justifiably set in place to stop people from using your likeness as they please just because you happened to want a coke are good things! Not to mention the whole "well they have to be careful what they do in public!" is straight up bullshit. You literally can't live in the USA without using some type of corporate product. They have to buy clothes from somewhere, they have to buy food from somewhere, ect ect. Being able to use somebody's picture in advertisement just because they happen to wear your product, eat your product, or drive your product is crazy and exploitative. A twitter pic of somebody coming out of your store is a blurry line, but open magazine advertisement for your product is NOT.
I thought it was rather established law that you could not use somebody's likeness for commercial gain without their permission. That is why all the reality shows have to have people sign consent forms or they blur their faces. If they put this information about the product into an "information brochure" type thing, then it likely would be completely fine. But to outright basically use the fact some person wore an item as an advertisement doesn't seem like a good thing to have. Because if that were to happen then the celebs would be FLOODED with paps even more so than they already are, just to get that one snap of them wearing nikes or drinking Starbucks.
Senator Dianne Feinstein's war of words in defense of the NSA's programs continues, despite both the political tide and public favor shifting in the other direction.
you just posted and article about how the Freedom act was basically gutted of any real teeth. The political tide hasn't shifted one bit, and while the public may still be against the collection a lot of people have moved on to worry about other things. The major news networks are not harping on it over and over to keep it fresh like they do with other things...
When new FBI boss James Comey took the job, he had suggested that he might move the FBI back towards a law enforcement agency, but according to the NY Times, he's been convinced to stick with focusing on terrorism plots.
More like he was convinced that giving up the "good fight" against terrorists means loosing funding and power.
War, war never changes. Just another excuse to have a never ending struggle against phantom enemies. All in the name of gaining more power over others lives. I keep wondering when the next uprising will really happen, then I remember things like netflix exist...
I was wondering why Google, Facebook, or MS seem so silent on this particular issue. Don't they have as much to loose as netflix? except they actually DON'T have as much to loose. Sure the ISPs could hit them up for fees and such for service....but they can afford it just fine. You know who can't afford it? New startups without much capital. So on the surface this would appear to hurt Google/Facebook/MS, but ultimately this "law" would be good for incumbent service providers by giving them an inherent leg up on startups.
The war on drugs and terror are both the same. Just a bunch of grandstanding looking for that big political "score" while ignoring all the bodies left behind. Cost/Benefit analysis doesn't matter to people when their "gut feeling" says something is wrong.
The real answer to why they won't release the names of the sites is because they want to avoid potential for lawsuits. If I claim site X has malware or CC scams and said operator wanted to he could easily sue and claim defamation. By not naming names the report doesn't have any type of risk for scrutiny.
Not to mention if they named the one site that doesn't have scams/malware you can bet people would flock to that site.
On the post: Forget The FCC: Should We Be Looking To The FTC To Save An Open Internet?
Re: Dear Mikey
Hand out ridiculous patents as fast as possible.
On the post: Forget The FCC: Should We Be Looking To The FTC To Save An Open Internet?
Split them up
AKA split Cable companies from ISPs.
Competition in the physically space is a "natural" monopoly. You can only put so many wires, poles, ect up. Any Cable companies have been shown at time to purposefully gimp internet services in favor of their cable services. No Cable company wants to give good traffic for netflix, because they means they loose eyeballs on their more lucrative cable services.
So I say, split them up. Force cable to actually compete against the internet for quality. THAT is real "competition".
On the post: Microsoft Challenges Idea That US Government Can Go Fishing For Emails Stored Outside The US
On the post: Michael Robertson Challenges Ruling That Says He Has To Pay Over $40 Million For Copyright Infringement
Re: Anonymous Coward, Jun 5th, 2014 @ 5:39am
On the post: Comcast Commercial Promotes Fast WiFi To Gamers... To Play Game With No Online Connection
Just like Netflix
THANKS COMCAST!
On the post: Europeans Club Google Over The Head At A Rate Of 1,000 Requests Per Hour After Its Search Engine Amnesia Tool Goes Live
This is how Google will actually die
In 10 years stupid politicians will still be fighting with google about their search results, while real queries are run through some other new platform. Followed by 10 years after that this cycle happening AGAIN with the new engine.
Repeat ad infinitum.
On the post: Should It Be Against The Law To Say That The Watch You're Selling Was Worn By Sandra Bullock?
Re: Re: Established Law
"Reporting News" is not commercial product advertisement.
Stating a "fact" is fine. But the rules that are very justifiably set in place to stop people from using your likeness as they please just because you happened to want a coke are good things! Not to mention the whole "well they have to be careful what they do in public!" is straight up bullshit. You literally can't live in the USA without using some type of corporate product. They have to buy clothes from somewhere, they have to buy food from somewhere, ect ect.
Being able to use somebody's picture in advertisement just because they happen to wear your product, eat your product, or drive your product is crazy and exploitative.
A twitter pic of somebody coming out of your store is a blurry line, but open magazine advertisement for your product is NOT.
On the post: Should It Be Against The Law To Say That The Watch You're Selling Was Worn By Sandra Bullock?
Established Law
If they put this information about the product into an "information brochure" type thing, then it likely would be completely fine. But to outright basically use the fact some person wore an item as an advertisement doesn't seem like a good thing to have. Because if that were to happen then the celebs would be FLOODED with paps even more so than they already are, just to get that one snap of them wearing nikes or drinking Starbucks.
On the post: Feinstein (Again) Says Metadata Program 'Is Not Surveillance'
you just posted and article about how the Freedom act was basically gutted of any real teeth.
The political tide hasn't shifted one bit, and while the public may still be against the collection a lot of people have moved on to worry about other things. The major news networks are not harping on it over and over to keep it fresh like they do with other things...
On the post: New Boss At The FBI Still Focused On Making Up Pretend Terrorist Threats; May Also Make Up Fake Criminal Plots Too
More like he was convinced that giving up the "good fight" against terrorists means loosing funding and power.
On the post: LG Will Take The 'Smart' Out Of Your Smart TV If You Don't Agree To Share Your Viewing And Search Data With Third Parties
Re:
On the post: LG Will Take The 'Smart' Out Of Your Smart TV If You Don't Agree To Share Your Viewing And Search Data With Third Parties
Re:
Personally I will just stick with my stupid TVs and add my own devices to them.
On the post: Irony Alert: US Filing Criminal Charges Against China For Cyberspying
Irony at its best
On the post: NSA Is Recording Every Phone Call... In The Bahamas?!?
Re: Packages
On the post: NSA Is Recording Every Phone Call... In The Bahamas?!?
Doesn't matter what you call it
Just another excuse to have a never ending struggle against phantom enemies. All in the name of gaining more power over others lives.
I keep wondering when the next uprising will really happen, then I remember things like netflix exist...
On the post: Destructive DRM Strikes Again: Creative Professionals Blocked From Using Adobe Products For Days
"Cloud Apps" are a terrible idea
Reason #2: people outside purposefully making this happen
Reason #3-100: see reason #2
On the post: Lobbyists (And, Oh Yes, Everyone Else), Start Your Engines: FCC Opens The Floor For Comments On Net Neutrality
Why the big players are silent
except they actually DON'T have as much to loose.
Sure the ISPs could hit them up for fees and such for service....but they can afford it just fine.
You know who can't afford it?
New startups without much capital.
So on the surface this would appear to hurt Google/Facebook/MS, but ultimately this "law" would be good for incumbent service providers by giving them an inherent leg up on startups.
On the post: Florida Lawmakers Aim To Restore Childrens' Rights To Openly Carry Pop Tart 'Guns' On Campus
Re: Common Sense
On the post: You Can Thank The CIA For The Return Of Polio, Even Though The Media Conveniently Ignores This
War, war never changes
Cost/Benefit analysis doesn't matter to people when their "gut feeling" says something is wrong.
On the post: Copyright Industry Publishes Data-Free Report Claiming Pirate Sites Will Damage Computers
The Answer is obvious
If I claim site X has malware or CC scams and said operator wanted to he could easily sue and claim defamation.
By not naming names the report doesn't have any type of risk for scrutiny.
Not to mention if they named the one site that doesn't have scams/malware you can bet people would flock to that site.
Next >>