I agree. It always seems that even though large mergers like this can (and have) failed, they always seem to set a whole host of issues from regulatory changes to large power voids that seem to be filled up by other monopolies, also it always seems some laws get changed for whatever reason due to either the company itself or as a result of something the company has done.
I'm all for Comcast and NBC going bye-bye. Comcast is in my opinion so big they mis-manage for a while before failure. A quick read around the internet (dsl reports, consumerist) shows many issues with even basic treatment of their customers. In their time before they fail they could easily set various nasty industry-wide practices that become the norm.
I don't think it is a problem of technology, it's a problem of their culture. If it wasn't CCTV, they would just walk down the streets randomly dropping parking tickets on cars or stopping people for jaywalking on green lights.
I'm not entirely sure about that. While obviously its a problem beyond technology that needs to be addressed, the enhanced technology allows for greater abuse that would otherwise not be accepted. Sure, there are certain people in law enforcement that would act like that but the majority of them, at least from the ones I know, wouldn't step that far had the technology not been around. For some reason, it seems technology enables this behavior to an extent. Maybe from the ease of use or as a way to enhance an odd justification. Also, with the tech and greater acceptance that technology 'has bugs' many just pay the fine/ticket and don't question it, in related to automated ticketing systems.
The opinion you *originally* expressed was one that would typically be expressed by such. Then your defense of TAM didn't help any either.
Bad choice of words and as you stated agreeing with TAM didn't help and probably caused immediate dismissal of anything I had to say, though I find that a little disheartening. I comment because I enjoy debate and discussion as well as a chance to learn more. I feel that by being debated I also have a chance to learn other schools of thought which better form my own opinion. Copyright, Patent and IP issues interest me though I have no experience outside of personal research I've done and sites like this, boingboing and a few other good places. I didn't agree with him because I believe all of his ideals on the subject, and reading more of his comments, 'dictate' does certainly fit his ideals on this subject, this is what I get for skimming before commenting. I'd like to think I'm usually pretty good at expressing my opinions in s non-douchebaggish way. Though as a first post, it certainly classifies as a fail to a degree.
As for complainers:
Lantern manufacturers complained about Edison's light bulb
Wagon manufacturers complained about the horseless carriage
Cylinder manufacturers complained about vinyl records
Vinyl Record manufacturers complained about 8-track and then cassette.
Cassette manufacturers complained about compact disks
Compact disk manufacturers are complaining about memory cards
The recording industry has been complaining about the peoples ability to record on all forms of medium all along.
Guess who wins every time.
BINGO! This is what so many seem to miss. It is the consumers, the users of these products and ideals that drive the market to change. When something becomes easier, more convenient and better consumers will push no matter what the industry wants the users to do and it becomes a matter of either keeping up with the wants of the people or die out.
I don't think anyone at all is saying "you can't do it that way", but I think many of them are objecting because they are getting dragged into it without any desire to be there. If I was a professional songwriter who makes my living off of points on an album, I would be very upset if my work was put all over the internet for free, effectively cutting away my livelihood. That shouldn't be anyone else choice except those people who hold the rights.
While I don't have any citations to backup my claim, its pretty well known how the RIAA and MPAA feels about 'doing it that way.' They can object however they want to be being dragged into new ways of doing business but fact of the matter is, times are changing and business models go stale. Telephone companies were forced to change their models and survived because of it. Back in the day it was illegal to hook up a second phone line. Wasn't actually stealing but it was considered to be.
Having the government prop-up your business model is, in my opinion, pretty smiley. The market has itself pushed music into other distribution methods, but in my opinion those that make the music don't want to be pushed that way because they are comfortable with the way things are and instead of innovating they would rather keep things 'the way they were.' Time and time again these industries have attempted (or have) stiffed innovation in the name of "giving money to the artists." Issues with VCRs, DVRs and Digital Music Distribution are all good examples of this. They may not want to move into a new method but its the market that dictates their move (see, now I used that word correctly) and not the businesses themselves. Unless they get protection from the government because they can't be bothered to move forward.
I'm not saying people who worked on it shouldn't get paid, and there will always be people out there who will pirate regardless of what you do just like there will always be people buying counterfeit goods or buying cam'd movies on DVD on street corners. But instead of looking for ways to milk customers using old methods, they would do well to move into new distribution methods and ways to make money.
Its beyond just getting stuff for free, many studies have shown that many would like to pay the artist for content they can't get due to outdated business models and stuff locked into insane copyright schemes.
I can only go by what you actually wrote. I can't read your mind.
Fair enough.
Sure: "Either way, they do have the right, with their own business, to dictate what it may be viewed on." I think that's what most people would take that to mean.
I do apologize, I was using the word incorrectly. I was using it more as something said, not something forced. I was incorrect in the definition. (2 a : to issue as an order b : to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively c : to require or determine necessarily (injuries dictated the choice of players)). Though however, it still could be a violation of their terms of service. How enforceable that is, I have no clue. Probably just being banned from the site. My point was, one you didn't respond to, is that they can say you can't use X browser just like some software vendors say you can't use X with their software. Crack would sort of a good example, though that's more piracy. Which is NOT what (IMO) Boxee is doing. All I'm saying is instead of bitching about it, why don't people do more than just bitch in some forum. I've written my congressmen in Florida about various issues including copyright all the way to medical MJ (fyi - support medical MJ in your area, not for the stoners but for those with critical illnesses.). I just don't understand why people don't do more. Hell, look at Mike (not TAM), over the years he's done quite a bit more than probably yourself on political issues, including this site.
Yeah, like that proves you're no puppet. OK, I'll fess up: I'm the Queen of England. Here's a link to my official website just to prove it: http://www.royal.gov.uk . So now I'm no more anonymous than you are.
Hello Queenie! How was that Lady GaGa concert? Seriously though, you got me there. I just don't understand why I'm some corporate puppet for expressing my own opinion about a matter like this. It's like saying I'm a republican puppet because I don't like Obama (He's a douche) and then saying I'm a dailyKOS puppet because I hated Bush (also a douche). But meh, whatever. Can't please all and all that jazz.
Arg! Sorry for the mashed together text, I used HTML and forgot to put line breaks. Here's a better view and from now on I'll use the preview button like I should.
No, they don't (unless you can provide authoritative legal citations to support that claim). They can block, if they want to, but they don't have any "right" to dictate.
Sorry, I used dictate for lack of a better word. Yes they can say you can't use X to view our website. Doesn't mean you can't do an end-run around and use another piece of software. But even still, they have the right to say you can't view their website using X.
And is not legally enforceable.
Where did I say it was? Can you point that out for me? By saying dictate, I meant 'say.' As in, they can say you can't use X. I use Boxee, I use Boxee to view Hulu, I update every time Hulu blocks Boxee. I've also used various hacks to enable it the last few times it was blocked.
Oh boy, another puppet.
Yup, that's right. I get paid by the Democrats, Independents AND Republicans to make your own ideals bad with my own thoughts. Seriously, if I was paid don't you think I'd have a more formulated response? Though, if your interested you can view my blog at blog.drgn.net and see what kind of corporate sponsorship I have. I mean, obviously I spent millions in corporate sponsorship. Hell, pay me and I'll help bring your ideals to light using bad grammar and punctuation. :)
Not everybody giving their opinion is a corporate shill. Though, at least I have the decency to post with my name and give my website address. I don't see the same courtesy from you and yet your basting me as another corporate shill? Ooooooook...
No, they don't (unless you can provide authoritative legal citations to support that claim). They can block, if they want to, but they don't have any "right" to dictate.
Sorry, I used dictate for lack of a better word. Yes they can say you can't use X to view our website. Doesn't mean you can't do an end-run around and use another piece of software. But even still, they have the right to say you can't view their website using X.
And is not legally enforceable.
Where did I say it was? Can you point that out for me? By saying dictate, I meant 'say.' As in, they can say you can't use X. I use Boxee, I use Boxee to view Hulu, I update every time Hulu blocks Boxee. I've also used various hacks to enable it the last few times it was blocked.
Oh boy, another puppet.
Yup, that's right. I get paid by the Democrats, Independents AND Republicans to make your own ideals bad with my own thoughts. Seriously, if I was paid don't you think I'd have a more formulated response? Though, if your interested you can view my blog at blog.drgn.net and see what kind of corporate sponsorship I have. I mean, obviously I spent millions in corporate sponsorship. Hell, pay me and I'll help bring your ideals to light using bad grammar and punctuation. :)
Not everybody giving their opinion is a corporate shill. Though, at least I have the decency to post with my name and give my website address. I don't see the same courtesy from you and yet your basting me as another corporate shill? Ooooooook...
Generally I don't agree with TAM, nor do I comment but this comment stream is why I created my account.
I believe whether or not Boxee is a 'browser' in any sense of the word is moot. Many on here have presented pretty solid cases on both sides of the debate.
My thing is, Hulu is partnered or 'owned' in some form by the content providers. Socially right or wrong, those providers can and do dictate how they want their content to show. They want TV to be separate from the computer, maybe its for licensing reasons, business reasons or just because the staff hates 'those evil computer things.'
Either way, they do have the right, with their own business, to dictate what it may be viewed on. It sucks, yes, I agree. Blocking Boxee is no different than blocking PS3 or blocking computers that use a 'tv' resolution.
You can change it by voting with your wallet. Don't like the way Hulu dictates things? Move to another provider. One isn't available? Well, are you being forced to watch their shows? Does a TV exec sit in your living room with a gun to your head?
What Mike's point is (to me) is that Jeff Zucker is saying something is illegal when it is not. Kinda like felony interference of a business model. Is there anything illegal with using Boxee or any other browser to view shows on your TV? I don't think so, I'm not lawyer though. At most, I could see it being against the Terms of Service.
How about writing those in power? Might not help much but at least its doing more than endlessly debating something that the content providers don't really care about.
Not that I'm not way off, but this is how it seems to me.
As for TAM, I don't think he's paid by anybody since most of his comments are industry neutral. I don't agree with him 90% of the time but at the same time just because he might be (IMO) wrong doesn't mean he's always wrong. Just because he might be a dick about it doesn't mean his opinion isn't any more invalid than the rest of ours.
On the post: Comcast CEO Argues Rules Will Protect Customers In Merger, While Comcast Lawyers Argue Rules Are Unconstitutional
Re:
On the post: Comcast CEO Argues Rules Will Protect Customers In Merger, While Comcast Lawyers Argue Rules Are Unconstitutional
Re: Simple it is not.
I'm all for Comcast and NBC going bye-bye. Comcast is in my opinion so big they mis-manage for a while before failure. A quick read around the internet (dsl reports, consumerist) shows many issues with even basic treatment of their customers. In their time before they fail they could easily set various nasty industry-wide practices that become the norm.
I just can't see it being a good thing.
On the post: UK Whistleblowers Highlight The Dangers Of Widespread Police Surveillance/Database
Re:
I'm not entirely sure about that. While obviously its a problem beyond technology that needs to be addressed, the enhanced technology allows for greater abuse that would otherwise not be accepted. Sure, there are certain people in law enforcement that would act like that but the majority of them, at least from the ones I know, wouldn't step that far had the technology not been around. For some reason, it seems technology enables this behavior to an extent. Maybe from the ease of use or as a way to enhance an odd justification. Also, with the tech and greater acceptance that technology 'has bugs' many just pay the fine/ticket and don't question it, in related to automated ticketing systems.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bad choice of words and as you stated agreeing with TAM didn't help and probably caused immediate dismissal of anything I had to say, though I find that a little disheartening. I comment because I enjoy debate and discussion as well as a chance to learn more. I feel that by being debated I also have a chance to learn other schools of thought which better form my own opinion. Copyright, Patent and IP issues interest me though I have no experience outside of personal research I've done and sites like this, boingboing and a few other good places. I didn't agree with him because I believe all of his ideals on the subject, and reading more of his comments, 'dictate' does certainly fit his ideals on this subject, this is what I get for skimming before commenting. I'd like to think I'm usually pretty good at expressing my opinions in s non-douchebaggish way. Though as a first post, it certainly classifies as a fail to a degree.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re:
Lantern manufacturers complained about Edison's light bulb
Wagon manufacturers complained about the horseless carriage
Cylinder manufacturers complained about vinyl records
Vinyl Record manufacturers complained about 8-track and then cassette.
Cassette manufacturers complained about compact disks
Compact disk manufacturers are complaining about memory cards
The recording industry has been complaining about the peoples ability to record on all forms of medium all along.
Guess who wins every time.
BINGO! This is what so many seem to miss. It is the consumers, the users of these products and ideals that drive the market to change. When something becomes easier, more convenient and better consumers will push no matter what the industry wants the users to do and it becomes a matter of either keeping up with the wants of the people or die out.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re:
While I don't have any citations to backup my claim, its pretty well known how the RIAA and MPAA feels about 'doing it that way.' They can object however they want to be being dragged into new ways of doing business but fact of the matter is, times are changing and business models go stale. Telephone companies were forced to change their models and survived because of it. Back in the day it was illegal to hook up a second phone line. Wasn't actually stealing but it was considered to be.
Having the government prop-up your business model is, in my opinion, pretty smiley. The market has itself pushed music into other distribution methods, but in my opinion those that make the music don't want to be pushed that way because they are comfortable with the way things are and instead of innovating they would rather keep things 'the way they were.' Time and time again these industries have attempted (or have) stiffed innovation in the name of "giving money to the artists." Issues with VCRs, DVRs and Digital Music Distribution are all good examples of this. They may not want to move into a new method but its the market that dictates their move (see, now I used that word correctly) and not the businesses themselves. Unless they get protection from the government because they can't be bothered to move forward.
I'm not saying people who worked on it shouldn't get paid, and there will always be people out there who will pirate regardless of what you do just like there will always be people buying counterfeit goods or buying cam'd movies on DVD on street corners. But instead of looking for ways to milk customers using old methods, they would do well to move into new distribution methods and ways to make money.
Its beyond just getting stuff for free, many studies have shown that many would like to pay the artist for content they can't get due to outdated business models and stuff locked into insane copyright schemes.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough.
Sure: "Either way, they do have the right, with their own business, to dictate what it may be viewed on." I think that's what most people would take that to mean.
I do apologize, I was using the word incorrectly. I was using it more as something said, not something forced. I was incorrect in the definition. (2 a : to issue as an order b : to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively c : to require or determine necessarily (injuries dictated the choice of players)). Though however, it still could be a violation of their terms of service. How enforceable that is, I have no clue. Probably just being banned from the site. My point was, one you didn't respond to, is that they can say you can't use X browser just like some software vendors say you can't use X with their software. Crack would sort of a good example, though that's more piracy. Which is NOT what (IMO) Boxee is doing. All I'm saying is instead of bitching about it, why don't people do more than just bitch in some forum. I've written my congressmen in Florida about various issues including copyright all the way to medical MJ (fyi - support medical MJ in your area, not for the stoners but for those with critical illnesses.). I just don't understand why people don't do more. Hell, look at Mike (not TAM), over the years he's done quite a bit more than probably yourself on political issues, including this site.
Yeah, like that proves you're no puppet. OK, I'll fess up: I'm the Queen of England. Here's a link to my official website just to prove it: http://www.royal.gov.uk . So now I'm no more anonymous than you are.
Hello Queenie! How was that Lady GaGa concert? Seriously though, you got me there. I just don't understand why I'm some corporate puppet for expressing my own opinion about a matter like this. It's like saying I'm a republican puppet because I don't like Obama (He's a douche) and then saying I'm a dailyKOS puppet because I hated Bush (also a douche). But meh, whatever. Can't please all and all that jazz.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re:
No, they don't (unless you can provide authoritative legal citations to support that claim). They can block, if they want to, but they don't have any "right" to dictate.
Sorry, I used dictate for lack of a better word. Yes they can say you can't use X to view our website. Doesn't mean you can't do an end-run around and use another piece of software. But even still, they have the right to say you can't view their website using X.
And is not legally enforceable.
Where did I say it was? Can you point that out for me? By saying dictate, I meant 'say.' As in, they can say you can't use X. I use Boxee, I use Boxee to view Hulu, I update every time Hulu blocks Boxee. I've also used various hacks to enable it the last few times it was blocked. Oh boy, another puppet.
Yup, that's right. I get paid by the Democrats, Independents AND Republicans to make your own ideals bad with my own thoughts. Seriously, if I was paid don't you think I'd have a more formulated response? Though, if your interested you can view my blog at blog.drgn.net and see what kind of corporate sponsorship I have. I mean, obviously I spent millions in corporate sponsorship. Hell, pay me and I'll help bring your ideals to light using bad grammar and punctuation. :)
Not everybody giving their opinion is a corporate shill. Though, at least I have the decency to post with my name and give my website address. I don't see the same courtesy from you and yet your basting me as another corporate shill? Ooooooook...
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re:
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
I believe whether or not Boxee is a 'browser' in any sense of the word is moot. Many on here have presented pretty solid cases on both sides of the debate.
My thing is, Hulu is partnered or 'owned' in some form by the content providers. Socially right or wrong, those providers can and do dictate how they want their content to show. They want TV to be separate from the computer, maybe its for licensing reasons, business reasons or just because the staff hates 'those evil computer things.'
Either way, they do have the right, with their own business, to dictate what it may be viewed on. It sucks, yes, I agree. Blocking Boxee is no different than blocking PS3 or blocking computers that use a 'tv' resolution.
You can change it by voting with your wallet. Don't like the way Hulu dictates things? Move to another provider. One isn't available? Well, are you being forced to watch their shows? Does a TV exec sit in your living room with a gun to your head?
What Mike's point is (to me) is that Jeff Zucker is saying something is illegal when it is not. Kinda like felony interference of a business model. Is there anything illegal with using Boxee or any other browser to view shows on your TV? I don't think so, I'm not lawyer though. At most, I could see it being against the Terms of Service.
How about writing those in power? Might not help much but at least its doing more than endlessly debating something that the content providers don't really care about.
Not that I'm not way off, but this is how it seems to me.
As for TAM, I don't think he's paid by anybody since most of his comments are industry neutral. I don't agree with him 90% of the time but at the same time just because he might be (IMO) wrong doesn't mean he's always wrong. Just because he might be a dick about it doesn't mean his opinion isn't any more invalid than the rest of ours.
Next >>