The photography community is not very happy with Adobe over the doubling of the subscription prices for the photographers' package. There are many applications that do a good job for most that are not as abusive as Adobe.
These trolls are relying on the general ignorance of copyright law of both the copyright owner and the general public to shake down the innocent. Having followed many of these stories and having a working knowledge of copyright law there are a couple obvious points. First 'fair use' often covers the situation and it valid defense in US law. Second, linking to copyright material is not the same as infringing. Linking will deliver the user to the original page which is what the owner wants, traffic to their page.
Finally judges are beginning to try to understand how technology works. IP addresses, if they are accurate, point to specific router which has a physical location. They do not tell anyone who is using the router at that moment in time as they cannot tell who is logged into the attached devices.
Someone has to produce the content. So movie production companies will be around. Whether they stay like they are, probably not. One of the major threats to the studios as they are now is the fact that it is relatively easy to produce quality videos with small group and relatively minimal money. This will means that some very low budget videos will be quite high quality and many become incredibly popular. Plus, the relatively low costs means the total gross does not have to be very high to turn a real profit. Also, streaming services will hurt both cable and theaters as many will not tolerate the stupidities the cable companies or the theaters owners.
The narrow streaming silos as you note are unstable. The model narrow model presumes one does not have any interest in watching something outside of the silo. If you will consider as silos the various TV and cable networks, each has narrow content and most are interested in content from many different silos. So the cable and satellite services have combined the silos into a package that you can chose which silo to watch. (Never thought anyone would say anything good about the cable companies.) So with cable you pay one fee and get many silos but with streaming services you have to pay a fee to each silo. As the number of silos subscribed to the total fees might approach the cable fee.
Now as you speculate someone could offer a front end service that allows a user to select content from multiple services for one fee they might make fortune. The problem is the content creation industry is notorious Ludditic when comes to technology and will see something like this as a threat instead of something to be embraced.
A problem for cable and TV is the existence of the Internet. There sites like Netflix or Hulu that stream conventional shows and movies. But there are sites like YouTube that provide massive amounts of videos. Some of the documentary channels on YouTube are excellent and are often very small operations with very low per episode costs (entire annual budget might be low 6 figures including salaries). The issue is if one is watching Hulu or a YouTube channel, one is not watching a cable or TV channel.
Live streaming is not the fundamental problem while most of the live streams are innocuous and at worst banal. Since most (like vast majority) are at worst boring Facebook, et. al. are going to rely on the public flagging the stream before they take action. No matter what kind of system you have there is too much streamed at given moment for the service to actively monitor every stream. This is an inherent problem and my suggestion to the idiot is to grow up and deal with the problem in an adult manner; there is no fair or easy solution that will work other than relying on users flagging the content.
Also, a good deal of the blame should be placed on the media (not TD) who breathlessly reported that video existed and implied people needed to watch it. If they kept their mouths shut far fewer would have know about it If the idiot wanted to do some good ask CNN, Fox, etc. why they had to mention it had been streamed; it really wasn't relevant to the story.
To own the copyright, one either has to hire the creator as an employee or contractor which means there is a legal contract between the parties or buys the rights from the creator. The term 'For Hire' means the either the venue, promoter, or Arianna has a formal contract paying the photographer real money. Otherwise, no contract and no money means the photographer retains all rights to the photos.
Targeted advertising ignores one key reason to advertise - brand awareness. In a mass market, customers need to know you exist and generally what you sell. If they are unaware of your product, they will not look for it or buy it. Now if you have a product that tends to appeal to a specific demographic it does make sense to advertise where that demographic will congregate. But I am talking about relatively broad demographics, such as males between 20 - 35.
The consistent problem with highly targeted advertising is context, what is the person's motivation for the product choices and purchases they made. The narrower the focus the more critical extremely precise information becomes; information that is not that easy to get. Broad demographics, such as the example above, will not require the precision and detail to be effective.
These road-shows are big budget productions staged in a large local venue. The ticket prices are considerably higher than those of a community theater. Plust the road-show is likely be much more heavily advertised than the local community theater. So John from Podunk would, if he has a couple of functioning brain cells, realize there is big difference between the two productions.
While 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is set in the US South of circa 1950, it basic theme always rings true: refusal to stand up for justice for the innocent is always wrong. This is especially true if the accused innocent is a member of a despised group. And often it takes real courage to take this stand as many are not really interested in justice for the innocent but in vengeance.
There is a bit of confusion about the role of private parties to an investigation. Private parties can give the police evidence they possess voluntarily whether they are the victim or bystander. The police can ask for any evidence a private party may have without a warrant. If the private party refuses, a very rare occurrence, the police can get a warrant for the evidence. Thus, the police can get quite a bit of evidence without a warrant but the key is that is voluntarily given to them.
A side note, the police routinely try to track down any surveillance video that might be useful; often asking the owner for a copy. The owners almost always voluntarily give a copy.
One problem here is the miscreants are idiots and are counting on the court to say T-Mobile cannot voluntarily give any information they have to the police. If you are going to commit a crime, do not bring along a device that can be used to track your movements. Also, consider that are likely video cameras watching the target and you will be on video also.
My question for him is did he flunk arithmetic in elementary school. Encryption is a rather math-heavy subject that is difficult to do well when not worrying about back doors. Many with STEM degrees, like myself, barely have enough math to vaguely follow the math.
The major issue publishers were complaining about was what is displayed in search results. The claim, mostly bullshit, was the display was keeping people from viewing the article. The reason it is mostly bullshit is the context of the search and interest of person. I might be only interested in the headlines about the story so a glance at the results is all I will do. Or I might want to read more about the story, then I will click on one of the links. Also with say 20 links available I will probably only click on 1 or 2 of them.
The real problem for news organizations is they have depended on casual readers for decades as subscribers. Most subscribers usually skimmed the headlines, read a couple stories that interested them, maybe read the sports page, etc. With the Internet and bookmarks, one can effectively subscribe to those sites that consistently carry stories that interest them. General news, not so much. So the business model has collapsed for many newspapers and subscribers have fled.
While I have not cut the cord yet for several reasons, I find there a many options competing for my time in front of the tube and many are free once online. Any time not spent in front of the boob tube is time not watching it even if it is one. About the only programming that is hard watch one's schedule are live (mostly sporting) events. Otherwise streaming is viable option to watch a program at more convenient time. So unless you are an avid sports fan, there is no particular reason to keep paying to access 900 channels of mostly crap.
The city of Henderson, NV must have some the dimmest of the dim. There is no way anyone with a couple of functioning brain cells would ever the confuse the two water districts. This is much like the several towns in the US named Princeton, Nashville, Atlanta (there is one in NY). Depending on context and location it is pretty obvious whether you are talking about 'the' Princeton, Nashville, Atlanta or one of the others.
Misuse of something by the owner is generally not the manufacturer's fault. In this case someone was misusing their phone while driving. In all US states the driver is supposed to be paying attention to driving while the vehicle is on the road; not playing guitar, reading a text, playing with the dog, etc.
Many photographers allow non-commercial use of their photos with proper credit. But if you try to use the photo commercially, they will want their cut. The tee-shirt company was in the wrong for not getting a clearance to use the photo commercially and then not pay a token fee to a charity. The band manager is an idiot for failing to understand that music and photography have different monetization methods.
Often one pays the photographer a fee for a shoot up front. So the photographer has gotten some money so any commercial sales beyond the initial shoot are to some extent found money. So while they are concerned about sharing many make a distinction between non-commercial sharing and commercial uses.
All mergers have I seen result in duplicated positions somewhere. It may not be customer facing but they are there. Also, very large mergers reduce the competition for talent significantly. The only counterbalance is a growing economy where talent is in short supply overall.
On the post: Adobe Warns Users Someone Else Might Sue Them For Using Old Versions Of Photoshop
More Kindling
The photography community is not very happy with Adobe over the doubling of the subscription prices for the photographers' package. There are many applications that do a good job for most that are not as abusive as Adobe.
On the post: Higbee Tries To Shake Down Forum For Deep Linked Photograph
trolls
These trolls are relying on the general ignorance of copyright law of both the copyright owner and the general public to shake down the innocent. Having followed many of these stories and having a working knowledge of copyright law there are a couple obvious points. First 'fair use' often covers the situation and it valid defense in US law. Second, linking to copyright material is not the same as infringing. Linking will deliver the user to the original page which is what the owner wants, traffic to their page.
On the post: Strike 3 Gets Another Judge To Remind It That IP Addresses Aren't Infringers
End of the beginning...
Finally judges are beginning to try to understand how technology works. IP addresses, if they are accurate, point to specific router which has a physical location. They do not tell anyone who is using the router at that moment in time as they cannot tell who is logged into the attached devices.
On the post: Supreme Court Asks White House To Weigh In On Copyrightability Of APIs
Never Underestimate the Venality of Shysters
I am dubious the Shyster in Chief will get it right, too much money in legal fees riding on the 'correct' interpretation.
On the post: Watch: The Latest Avengers Movie Is Already On Torrent Sites, But That Won't Stop A Torrent Of Sold Theater Tickets
Re: Online
Someone has to produce the content. So movie production companies will be around. Whether they stay like they are, probably not. One of the major threats to the studios as they are now is the fact that it is relatively easy to produce quality videos with small group and relatively minimal money. This will means that some very low budget videos will be quite high quality and many become incredibly popular. Plus, the relatively low costs means the total gross does not have to be very high to turn a real profit. Also, streaming services will hurt both cable and theaters as many will not tolerate the stupidities the cable companies or the theaters owners.
On the post: Ironically, Too Many Video Streaming Choices May Drive Users Back To Piracy
Re: Silos are like weeds
The narrow streaming silos as you note are unstable. The model narrow model presumes one does not have any interest in watching something outside of the silo. If you will consider as silos the various TV and cable networks, each has narrow content and most are interested in content from many different silos. So the cable and satellite services have combined the silos into a package that you can chose which silo to watch. (Never thought anyone would say anything good about the cable companies.) So with cable you pay one fee and get many silos but with streaming services you have to pay a fee to each silo. As the number of silos subscribed to the total fees might approach the cable fee.
Now as you speculate someone could offer a front end service that allows a user to select content from multiple services for one fee they might make fortune. The problem is the content creation industry is notorious Ludditic when comes to technology and will see something like this as a threat instead of something to be embraced.
On the post: Wall Street Thinks The Cable TV Sector Could Easily 'Unravel.' That's Probably A Good Thing.
Other Sources
A problem for cable and TV is the existence of the Internet. There sites like Netflix or Hulu that stream conventional shows and movies. But there are sites like YouTube that provide massive amounts of videos. Some of the documentary channels on YouTube are excellent and are often very small operations with very low per episode costs (entire annual budget might be low 6 figures including salaries). The issue is if one is watching Hulu or a YouTube channel, one is not watching a cable or TV channel.
On the post: Complete Overreaction: Professor Calls For Shutting Down Facebook Live, Post-Christchurch
One Word: Idiot
Live streaming is not the fundamental problem while most of the live streams are innocuous and at worst banal. Since most (like vast majority) are at worst boring Facebook, et. al. are going to rely on the public flagging the stream before they take action. No matter what kind of system you have there is too much streamed at given moment for the service to actively monitor every stream. This is an inherent problem and my suggestion to the idiot is to grow up and deal with the problem in an adult manner; there is no fair or easy solution that will work other than relying on users flagging the content.
Also, a good deal of the blame should be placed on the media (not TD) who breathlessly reported that video existed and implied people needed to watch it. If they kept their mouths shut far fewer would have know about it If the idiot wanted to do some good ask CNN, Fox, etc. why they had to mention it had been streamed; it really wasn't relevant to the story.
On the post: Ariana Grande Demands All Photographers At Her Concerts Transfer Copyright To Her, NPPA Revolts
Definition of 'For Hire'
To own the copyright, one either has to hire the creator as an employee or contractor which means there is a legal contract between the parties or buys the rights from the creator. The term 'For Hire' means the either the venue, promoter, or Arianna has a formal contract paying the photographer real money. Otherwise, no contract and no money means the photographer retains all rights to the photos.
On the post: What If Google And Facebook Admitted That All This Ad Targeting Really Doesn't Work That Well?
Forgetting something
Targeted advertising ignores one key reason to advertise - brand awareness. In a mass market, customers need to know you exist and generally what you sell. If they are unaware of your product, they will not look for it or buy it. Now if you have a product that tends to appeal to a specific demographic it does make sense to advertise where that demographic will congregate. But I am talking about relatively broad demographics, such as males between 20 - 35.
The consistent problem with highly targeted advertising is context, what is the person's motivation for the product choices and purchases they made. The narrower the focus the more critical extremely precise information becomes; information that is not that easy to get. Broad demographics, such as the example above, will not require the precision and detail to be effective.
On the post: Producer Scott Rudin Going Around Killing Off Licensed Community Theater Shows Of To Kill A Mockingbird
Re: Re:
These road-shows are big budget productions staged in a large local venue. The ticket prices are considerably higher than those of a community theater. Plust the road-show is likely be much more heavily advertised than the local community theater. So John from Podunk would, if he has a couple of functioning brain cells, realize there is big difference between the two productions.
On the post: Producer Scott Rudin Going Around Killing Off Licensed Community Theater Shows Of To Kill A Mockingbird
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is set in the US South of circa 1950, it basic theme always rings true: refusal to stand up for justice for the innocent is always wrong. This is especially true if the accused innocent is a member of a despised group. And often it takes real courage to take this stand as many are not really interested in justice for the innocent but in vengeance.
On the post: Seventh Circuit Ignores Two Supreme Court Decisions To Hand Out Bad Precedent On Cell Site Location Info
Private Information
There is a bit of confusion about the role of private parties to an investigation. Private parties can give the police evidence they possess voluntarily whether they are the victim or bystander. The police can ask for any evidence a private party may have without a warrant. If the private party refuses, a very rare occurrence, the police can get a warrant for the evidence. Thus, the police can get quite a bit of evidence without a warrant but the key is that is voluntarily given to them.
A side note, the police routinely try to track down any surveillance video that might be useful; often asking the owner for a copy. The owners almost always voluntarily give a copy.
One problem here is the miscreants are idiots and are counting on the court to say T-Mobile cannot voluntarily give any information they have to the police. If you are going to commit a crime, do not bring along a device that can be used to track your movements. Also, consider that are likely video cameras watching the target and you will be on video also.
On the post: Mozilla Says Australia's Compelled Access Law Could Turn Staff There Into 'Insider Threats'
Re: Question for Andrew Hastie,
My question for him is did he flunk arithmetic in elementary school. Encryption is a rather math-heavy subject that is difficult to do well when not worrying about back doors. Many with STEM degrees, like myself, barely have enough math to vaguely follow the math.
On the post: European Journalists Point Out That Article 11 Will Enrich Publishers At The Expense Of Journalists
Re: Re:
The major issue publishers were complaining about was what is displayed in search results. The claim, mostly bullshit, was the display was keeping people from viewing the article. The reason it is mostly bullshit is the context of the search and interest of person. I might be only interested in the headlines about the story so a glance at the results is all I will do. Or I might want to read more about the story, then I will click on one of the links. Also with say 20 links available I will probably only click on 1 or 2 of them.
The real problem for news organizations is they have depended on casual readers for decades as subscribers. Most subscribers usually skimmed the headlines, read a couple stories that interested them, maybe read the sports page, etc. With the Internet and bookmarks, one can effectively subscribe to those sites that consistently carry stories that interest them. General news, not so much. So the business model has collapsed for many newspapers and subscribers have fled.
On the post: Industry Claims That Cord Cutting Would Be A Fad Aren't Looking So Hot
Cord Cutting Trends
While I have not cut the cord yet for several reasons, I find there a many options competing for my time in front of the tube and many are free once online. Any time not spent in front of the boob tube is time not watching it even if it is one. About the only programming that is hard watch one's schedule are live (mostly sporting) events. Otherwise streaming is viable option to watch a program at more convenient time. So unless you are an avid sports fan, there is no particular reason to keep paying to access 900 channels of mostly crap.
On the post: Naperville, IL Development Project Forced To Drop Name To Avoid Public Confusing It With City 1.7K Miles Away
Geographically Challenged
On the post: Fifth Circuit Says Apple Can't Be Held Liable For A Car Crash Caused By Someone Reading Text Messages
Re:
On the post: Everybody Loses After Metal Band And Photographer Get Pissy Over Photographer's Copyright Threat
Photos and Copyright
Often one pays the photographer a fee for a shoot up front. So the photographer has gotten some money so any commercial sales beyond the initial shoot are to some extent found money. So while they are concerned about sharing many make a distinction between non-commercial sharing and commercial uses.
On the post: Study Says Wireless Retail Workers Could Make Up To 7% Less In Wake Of Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
Mergers
Next >>