The average person doesn't need to download every citation every time it is cited to know about it. In fact, I would say that the average person wouldn't want to read any of them.
The information isn't locked up - it's readily available in the same manner that a print book is readily available - you buy a copy, or borrow a copy from your school, library, or similar.
Locked up would suggest that nobody can access it. It's not true at all.
When you consider that maybe 25% will take the service, so there is a "nut" of over $3000 per household to get run off in the bills. So you have $10 a month or so just to pay down the original installation.
Will they ever really make their money back?
My point is only that it's not free, and it would cost (at that level) almost 100 billion to wire the US.
The freedom of express, freedom of the press is very important. However, there is a point in the whole process where the press becomes or creates the story rather than the story being natural and unto itself.
Specifically, I wonder what effect the presence of a guy like this (and many others) with cameras had on the overall situation? Does the coverage encourage more bad acts, making them at minimum accessories to the crimes?
Moreover, look at his outfit. This journalist (who is suppose to report) looks like he came ready to take part in a riot and in fact to encourage it to happen.
The truth is that the guy isn't a journalist, he is a selfie videographer. He basically videos his life. His life in this case was to go participate in a riot. Trying to claim "I am just a journalist" is to ignore the very reason he is there to begin with. Journalists cover all sorts of stories. This guy documents his life and his beliefs. He went to the riot not to report the story, but to be the story.
So yes, I believe very strongly in freedom of the press. But I also believe that the freedom of the press can only exist when it is not watered down to include anyone with a camera in their hand (we all have them, called phones). He appears to be trying to use the journalistic shield to cover both his intentions and the bad acts his presence encouraged.
He isn't reporting. He is an active participant. Having a camera doesn't magically make that disappear.
Sci-hub is illegal not because of what is on it, but because of how it got there. When you try to confuse the two, using essentially the old ends justifies the means method, you can forget the crime occurred.
Citing a paper does not create a sale of that paper. Papers are often cited because their knowledge if well or commonly known, and they are only pointing the uninformed back to the original. As an example the last one "Cleavage of Structural Proteins during the Assembly of the Head of Bacteriophage T4" is from 1970, so 47 years on you can be pretty sure that it is well and commonly known. Citing the original doesn't mean "go pay to read the entire original" as much of the work is discussed elsewhere over time.
The most cited paper? It's free access, and from 1951.
So now you have an interesting question, how long is their sample period? If it's a question of "all citations ever", that would exceed the amount of time that these documents have been online.
Moreover, it doesn't address that before the internet, it's likely that getting a full copy of a paper you are citing would require you to send a fee for a printed copy, which would be mailed to you. Calling it a "paywall" because you don't like paywalls ignores the process by which these papers have been delivered for more than a century.
The knowledge isn't locked up. Citations are a perfect indication that the knowledge is out there. After all, could you cite something you don't know about?
Moreover, and this is key to all you pirate types out there, and in your own terms: "A citations isn't a sale".
318,000 people living there, average residence per address is 2.47. So, they are going to create service for at most 130,000 potential customers.
Answer is, almost $770 per potential customer - just to build it - and that is in what is essentially a small area without too many "rural" customers, and that assumes they run it for everyone everywhere.
Look, the info is right in the story. Why not look at it rather than haul out a bunch of tired ad homs?
"Everything on Netflix is available freely, yet millions subscribe. This proves the point people like me were saying all along - people will pay for a good product at a good price."
DUH! NO SHIT. The point you have missed (because you are too busy trying to attack me personally) is that way more people are paying than were pirating. The decrease in pirating isn't anywhere near the increase in paying customers. So where did the customers come from?
The decrease in piracy is actually pretty consistent with reductions around the world. It's almost certain that some became paying customers, but the number of paying customers largely exceeds any decrease in piracy. It's not a one to one trade. So why?
So put down the old pre-whacked dead horses and actually think about it. I know it's hard, life with nothing but stereotypes and piracy jingoism is easy. But actually thinking moves you away from your comfortable spot and actually helps you to grow. It's for your own good, grandpa.
"as that sounds remarkably like the scare tactic rubbish the companies whining about how 'burdensome' network neutrality rules are."
Preferential peering effectively creates a fast lane for the company you peer with. That would be a direct violation of Net Neutrality, giving a site like Google a speed boost over say, Duck Duck Go.
"stuff along the lines of 'People use company X a lot, they compete with our service, so we're going to treat traffic to/from them worse' is not."
For the most part, if the companies are using third party peers, there isn't an issue - they are all treated equally. The only real issue that came up (and the only reason why NN even exists) is because Netflix is a major bandwidth hog, and was essentially trying to order the ISPs to buy signifciantly more peering with Netflix preferred company.
"If your bank or landlord are selling your personal information then there damn well better be strict limits"
You would think, but you would either be wrong or mislead. In many cases, banks either get your approval by default when you open an account or when you obtain a new service of some sort. It isn't just opt out, it's often having to read a long document to find the clause that gives them the right and strike it!
"And will then have to justify in in court, just like the last change was required to be justified in court. "
Actually, maybe not. Removing a rule means there is nothing left to debate. It's empty space. The FCC's right to strike it's own rules is pretty solid. They will likely end up in court, but it's equally likely that the courts will tell whoever takes them to pound sand.
"it's setting rules relating to how a company deals with personal information collected from people within that state by a company operating within it."
An attempt to make a rule specifically for telecommunications companies (federal jurisdiction) would likely fail or get tied up in the courts forever and a day. Standard state rules that apply to all companies would likely apply, but that is no different from what it is today.
"So they cannot 'regulate' what a company that already operates within the state is allowed to do with regards to customer data, but they can keep competition from showing up to offer the locals service that actually works."
Good try, but no. The cannot regulate federal jurisdiction, but physical installations are a state and local issue.
It's the federal system, it's not a question of helping or not helping. It's a question of state's rights versus federal jurisdiction.
"The rules were/are only 'a bit much' if a company is doing something it shouldn't be"
Not really. The NN rules would, as an example, make it illegal for an ISP to accept a direct connection from Netflix or allow Google or Youtube to have their own gateway into their networks (not neutral, right) but which would have the effect of shifting traffic back to peered connections, which are generally slower and have more latency to the destination. Essentially, peering to an individual company would be illegal.
it pretty much makes a mockery of any attempt at network management - and removes any incentive to try to make it better, plus shifts the burdens and costs to the ISP, and thus the consumer.
Options for data collection should be more clearly defined and limited to that of usage. Why should an ISP have a bigger block against using your personal data than a credit card company, bank, or even your landlord?
"Your Wyden obsession is flaring up, might want to see someone about that."
Wyden is the internet go to guy in congress, and if that critter won't try to do anything about it, you should thing about WHY.
"Of course, because as we all know once congress passes a law they never change or revoke it down the line, which differs from the FCC."
Of course the can. But look at ObamaCare, every Republican is trying do hard to repeal it in some fashion, and even with majorities and the Presidency, they cannot.
Ajit Pai will rescind Net Neutrality with a simple show of hands. The whole deal is very different. NN in law would likely be law for a long time to come.
"The companies are operating within those states. They are doing things that those living in the state object to and abusing their positions. Why wouldn't the states be able to step in and tell them 'if you're going to do business within this state you are going to follow our rules'?"
Telecommunications is a federal prerogative, not a state one. States cannot license radio stations or regulate interstate communications - or the companies doing them, beyond regulations that apply to all companies (say like OSHA rules). It's how the federal system works (or doesn't work, if you prefer).
"Of course if you want to go down that road then I certainly hope you will be just as energetic in your objection to those companies buying state laws designed to benefit them via keeping out any potential competition."
State governments can and do regulate things like power poles, wiring, and such. That is their prerogative. Again, that is how the system works.
The ruling is good and solid, but it's not a "beatdown". I would say actually that any Trademark holder in a similar position would do the same thing - failure to do so could leave them open for other more serious Trademark squatters to come in, encouraged by a lack of attention to the mark.
This one was quite close in reality. That Fox won by the "nuances" of Trademark law makes it even more reasonable for them to have tried their case in court and gone for an appeal.
It's cases like this that help to make caselaw. Rather than talking down to them you should thank them for having the nuts to take it to the next level and make it way more solid.
I think you guys need a section called the "friday hairball" because you manage to cough up old news just in time to get views.
Oh, and a side question: How does a 91 year old with dementia manage to get and maintain internet service, when so many American are underserved? Guessing there is a "sweet little grandson" who takes care of everything for him!
The passing mention, especially used only as a jab, really doesn't accomplish anything. It also tries to create a "one or the other" situation where that is not the case.
The FCC rules were perhaps a bit too much, and (as Mike often alludes to when talking about other laws and rules) could have been over broad and had a chilling effect.
Again, and I repeat this often: If you want proper rules that can't be rescinded because the FCC chairman had a bad burrito for lunch, then you need to get your congress critters (including the Sainted Wyden) to actually step and and do their f--king jobs.
Done at a commission regulation level, they are always subject to change and cancellation. That is what happened.
That there is no Federal law at this point doesn't mean that the states should have the right to regular communications companies. That is federal jurisdiction.
The real answer is getting the critters to do what they don't want to do, which is actually work.
I think that the message is fine in and of itself. I think that the way it is presented is not so much.
Using the F word in a place where children will (obvious) see it is in poor taste. While I am all for free speech, the same speech could have been made (and understood by adults) if the F word has been spelled out as F--K.
Put another way: Try to put up a billboard with that exact message and exact wording on it, and see how quickly it comes down. Fuck is still an obscenity.
I also think to a certain extent this is more of an example of how low and how dangerous the discourse has gotten in the last decade or so. "Dem's fightin' Werds!" is a good way to explain this sort of speech, apparently legal but about as bright as a burned out bulb. These are the sort of people who get shot at or have their vehicle vandalized and go to the media saying "we have no idea why!".
Is the Sheriff being stupid? More than a bit. He's not wrong, but there are few laws on the books about painting a target on your own back.
Personally, I would love to see a case like this go to SCOTUS.
"Yes, because there's a massive difference between BUYING something and RENTING. Surely even someone with your limited intellect understands that? Just as you surely understand that getting a little less you you ideally wish to get is better than zero. Nobody is going to pay physical purchase rates for a digital one-time stream. Get over it."
DUH! Considering that people watch an hour and a half a day on average (which is about a single movie length), it would mean that even in the "rental" market they are insanely cheap (about 30 cents a movie).
It gets back to the question: Why attribute to a shift from piracy when it's clear that the totality of piracy drop isn't anywhere near Netflix increase?
"As ever, your wall of text is just self-righteous ignorance that requires rewriting reality to pretend you have a salient point. "
No, just means as ever, you can't be bothered to think past what the TD staff has provided for you. Enjoy your babyfood.
You manage to miss the main issue, which is the risk of having a hodge-podge of privacy regulations (50 different ones) which would essentially be impossible to accurately follow.
Consider someone who signs up for service in one state, and then travels and connects in another. Which state's rules would apply? What about a consumer who signs up in one state, and relocates with the same provider into another?
Heck, what about mobile roaming?
You would create a situation where the state with the most stringent laws would "rule", it would legally too risky to do any less. That would supplant the FCC as ruler in the communication world.
I was reading through the story and came to this interesting conclusion:
17 million people just took the first step towards better service.
See, if the companies are walking away from serving these people, then they have no say in who would offer replacement service. If they don't want to run fiber or copper or whatever, then "that's nice" and they are out the door. They can offer a wireless alternative if they want, but some smart company will come along and spend the money to scoop up these rural consumers.
After all, with the incumbent players no longer in the game, they shouldn't get a say.
Re: HUH? Why blame "Luddites" for LOUSY technology?
I was particularly entertained by the omission of the simple point that bluetooth has incredibly short range - 100 meters in perfect conditions for class 1, 10m for class 2, and effective ranges of "inside the room" for the most part. While it is often similar power to wifi, it's frequency range isn't very good at getting through walls and whatnot.
So while hackable, the hacker would need to be pretty darn close to your child to start with. Perhaps that is a little more worrying!
WiFi is a bigger issue, and will always be. However, considering many of us have a hard time to get wifi through out our homes to work properly, you once again get into a situation where the hacker has to be reasonably close to get connected. Seems more creepy than anything.
Clearly the FBI is off in left field somewhere, reliving their salad days. The late 50s and early 60s were interesting times as far as they are concerned.
I will say that many race groups (black, white. and otherwise) are quite vocal and strident. They have been slow (if bothering at all) to denounce those who call for more violent acts. It has prompted individual nut jobs on all sides to do violent things.
The FBI is over stating it, but under stating it isn't helping either.
"The major fact remains - for all the bullshit about how there's no way to compete with free"
Of course your can complete with free, by being just about as free. Netflix price per month is less than half that of a single (legal) DVD buy. The average user right now is looking at an hour and 35 minutes per day of Netflix, which works out to about 15 cents an hour. It is all but free.
The problem of course is that net net, Netflix doesn't pay that much for each view of the movie to the creators. It's a little cheaper than it would cost to produce physical product and sell it, but the income is also significantly lower. It's better than nothing (piracy) but not a whole lot better in reality.
"the market is way too fragmented and dependent on restricting potential audiences for a single provider to make a complete difference."
Exactly my point. The overall market is larger than the start, and piracy hasn't declined that much overall. Piracy (by that chart) is only down a third, it has not dropped like a stone, and Netflix is up almost 4 times as much as the drop in piracy. So there is little to suggest one has transferred to the other, rather that Netflix customers appear to come from someone else rather than piracy.
"in the most contrary and ridiculous way,"
Honestly, look at the data. The connection is weak, especially when we consider that in the last few years much of the "piracy" has moved to Kodi boxes and streaming sites. The entire decline in direct piracy could be attributed to that alone. The growth of Netflix is much greater than the drop in piracy, which suggests that there is no direct correlation, perhaps some connection but clearly Netflix has found customers that were not pirates in the way this survey considers.
"you have to make crap up about it only being a market that didn't exist or non-P2P not being "pure piracy" "
I didn't say the market didn't exist - only that the Netflix consumers appear to come from somewhere else than P2P piracy (I call it pure piracy, because it's not disguised behind a nice pretty app on a Kodi box or on a slick looking website that may lead consumers to pirate without really understanding what they are doing).
So the potential is that these consumers signing up to Netflix are cord cutters (Hi Karl) or previous DVD rental customers, or previous DVD buyers, or what have you.
Remember: Netflix has worked hard to get their app onto phones, smart TVs, game systems, and just about every other potential delivery method. Price is nothing without availability - including decent internet connections to stream it on. Does Brazil (as an example) have unlimited data on mobile devices? That could be telling.
So unlike you, I am not going to take a pat answer and move on. The numbers suggest something way bigger than a simple move from piracy. If that was the case, the two would be neck and neck on this graph. They are not. So all of that huge gap is something way more interesting and not at all based on the idea of getting pirates to stop pirating online. Unlikely you, I guess, I am curious to see what it is.
On the post: The Sad Legacy Of Copyright: Locking Up Scientific Knowledge And Impeding Progress
Re: Re:
The information isn't locked up - it's readily available in the same manner that a print book is readily available - you buy a copy, or borrow a copy from your school, library, or similar.
Locked up would suggest that nobody can access it. It's not true at all.
On the post: Disgusted With Charter Spectrum Merger, Lexington To Build Entirely New Fiber Network
Re: Re:
Will they ever really make their money back?
My point is only that it's not free, and it would cost (at that level) almost 100 billion to wire the US.
On the post: Trial Set To Start For Journalist Facing Decades In Prison For Covering Inauguration Day Protests
The freedom of express, freedom of the press is very important. However, there is a point in the whole process where the press becomes or creates the story rather than the story being natural and unto itself.
Specifically, I wonder what effect the presence of a guy like this (and many others) with cameras had on the overall situation? Does the coverage encourage more bad acts, making them at minimum accessories to the crimes?
Moreover, look at his outfit. This journalist (who is suppose to report) looks like he came ready to take part in a riot and in fact to encourage it to happen.
The truth is that the guy isn't a journalist, he is a selfie videographer. He basically videos his life. His life in this case was to go participate in a riot. Trying to claim "I am just a journalist" is to ignore the very reason he is there to begin with. Journalists cover all sorts of stories. This guy documents his life and his beliefs. He went to the riot not to report the story, but to be the story.
So yes, I believe very strongly in freedom of the press. But I also believe that the freedom of the press can only exist when it is not watered down to include anyone with a camera in their hand (we all have them, called phones). He appears to be trying to use the journalistic shield to cover both his intentions and the bad acts his presence encouraged.
He isn't reporting. He is an active participant. Having a camera doesn't magically make that disappear.
On the post: The Sad Legacy Of Copyright: Locking Up Scientific Knowledge And Impeding Progress
Sci-hub is illegal not because of what is on it, but because of how it got there. When you try to confuse the two, using essentially the old ends justifies the means method, you can forget the crime occurred.
Citing a paper does not create a sale of that paper. Papers are often cited because their knowledge if well or commonly known, and they are only pointing the uninformed back to the original. As an example the last one "Cleavage of Structural Proteins during the Assembly of the Head of Bacteriophage T4" is from 1970, so 47 years on you can be pretty sure that it is well and commonly known. Citing the original doesn't mean "go pay to read the entire original" as much of the work is discussed elsewhere over time.
The most cited paper? It's free access, and from 1951.
So now you have an interesting question, how long is their sample period? If it's a question of "all citations ever", that would exceed the amount of time that these documents have been online.
Moreover, it doesn't address that before the internet, it's likely that getting a full copy of a paper you are citing would require you to send a fee for a printed copy, which would be mailed to you. Calling it a "paywall" because you don't like paywalls ignores the process by which these papers have been delivered for more than a century.
The knowledge isn't locked up. Citations are a perfect indication that the knowledge is out there. After all, could you cite something you don't know about?
Moreover, and this is key to all you pirate types out there, and in your own terms: "A citations isn't a sale".
NEXT!
On the post: Disgusted With Charter Spectrum Merger, Lexington To Build Entirely New Fiber Network
100 million dollars
318,000 people living there, average residence per address is 2.47. So, they are going to create service for at most 130,000 potential customers.
Answer is, almost $770 per potential customer - just to build it - and that is in what is essentially a small area without too many "rural" customers, and that assumes they run it for everyone everywhere.
On the post: Offering Good Legal Options Works: Interest In Netflix Outpaces Pirate Options In Brazil
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, the info is right in the story. Why not look at it rather than haul out a bunch of tired ad homs?
"Everything on Netflix is available freely, yet millions subscribe. This proves the point people like me were saying all along - people will pay for a good product at a good price."
DUH! NO SHIT. The point you have missed (because you are too busy trying to attack me personally) is that way more people are paying than were pirating. The decrease in pirating isn't anywhere near the increase in paying customers. So where did the customers come from?
The decrease in piracy is actually pretty consistent with reductions around the world. It's almost certain that some became paying customers, but the number of paying customers largely exceeds any decrease in piracy. It's not a one to one trade. So why?
So put down the old pre-whacked dead horses and actually think about it. I know it's hard, life with nothing but stereotypes and piracy jingoism is easy. But actually thinking moves you away from your comfortable spot and actually helps you to grow. It's for your own good, grandpa.
On the post: Judge Halts Copyright Troll's Lawsuit Against A Now-Deceased Elderly Man With Dementia And An IP Address
Re: Re: no, you don't have to pay for long distance...
On the post: Wireless Industry Lobbies To Ban States From Protecting Your Privacy, Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Preferential peering effectively creates a fast lane for the company you peer with. That would be a direct violation of Net Neutrality, giving a site like Google a speed boost over say, Duck Duck Go.
"stuff along the lines of 'People use company X a lot, they compete with our service, so we're going to treat traffic to/from them worse' is not."
For the most part, if the companies are using third party peers, there isn't an issue - they are all treated equally. The only real issue that came up (and the only reason why NN even exists) is because Netflix is a major bandwidth hog, and was essentially trying to order the ISPs to buy signifciantly more peering with Netflix preferred company.
"If your bank or landlord are selling your personal information then there damn well better be strict limits"
You would think, but you would either be wrong or mislead. In many cases, banks either get your approval by default when you open an account or when you obtain a new service of some sort. It isn't just opt out, it's often having to read a long document to find the clause that gives them the right and strike it!
"And will then have to justify in in court, just like the last change was required to be justified in court. "
Actually, maybe not. Removing a rule means there is nothing left to debate. It's empty space. The FCC's right to strike it's own rules is pretty solid. They will likely end up in court, but it's equally likely that the courts will tell whoever takes them to pound sand.
"it's setting rules relating to how a company deals with personal information collected from people within that state by a company operating within it."
An attempt to make a rule specifically for telecommunications companies (federal jurisdiction) would likely fail or get tied up in the courts forever and a day. Standard state rules that apply to all companies would likely apply, but that is no different from what it is today.
"So they cannot 'regulate' what a company that already operates within the state is allowed to do with regards to customer data, but they can keep competition from showing up to offer the locals service that actually works."
Good try, but no. The cannot regulate federal jurisdiction, but physical installations are a state and local issue.
It's the federal system, it's not a question of helping or not helping. It's a question of state's rights versus federal jurisdiction.
On the post: Wireless Industry Lobbies To Ban States From Protecting Your Privacy, Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. The NN rules would, as an example, make it illegal for an ISP to accept a direct connection from Netflix or allow Google or Youtube to have their own gateway into their networks (not neutral, right) but which would have the effect of shifting traffic back to peered connections, which are generally slower and have more latency to the destination. Essentially, peering to an individual company would be illegal.
it pretty much makes a mockery of any attempt at network management - and removes any incentive to try to make it better, plus shifts the burdens and costs to the ISP, and thus the consumer.
Options for data collection should be more clearly defined and limited to that of usage. Why should an ISP have a bigger block against using your personal data than a credit card company, bank, or even your landlord?
"Your Wyden obsession is flaring up, might want to see someone about that."
Wyden is the internet go to guy in congress, and if that critter won't try to do anything about it, you should thing about WHY.
"Of course, because as we all know once congress passes a law they never change or revoke it down the line, which differs from the FCC."
Of course the can. But look at ObamaCare, every Republican is trying do hard to repeal it in some fashion, and even with majorities and the Presidency, they cannot.
Ajit Pai will rescind Net Neutrality with a simple show of hands. The whole deal is very different. NN in law would likely be law for a long time to come.
"The companies are operating within those states. They are doing things that those living in the state object to and abusing their positions. Why wouldn't the states be able to step in and tell them 'if you're going to do business within this state you are going to follow our rules'?"
Telecommunications is a federal prerogative, not a state one. States cannot license radio stations or regulate interstate communications - or the companies doing them, beyond regulations that apply to all companies (say like OSHA rules). It's how the federal system works (or doesn't work, if you prefer).
"Of course if you want to go down that road then I certainly hope you will be just as energetic in your objection to those companies buying state laws designed to benefit them via keeping out any potential competition."
State governments can and do regulate things like power poles, wiring, and such. That is their prerogative. Again, that is how the system works.
On the post: Good Ruling: Court Affirms Fox's Victory In Trademark Suit From Empire Distribution Over Its Hit Show 'Empire'
This one was quite close in reality. That Fox won by the "nuances" of Trademark law makes it even more reasonable for them to have tried their case in court and gone for an appeal.
It's cases like this that help to make caselaw. Rather than talking down to them you should thank them for having the nuts to take it to the next level and make it way more solid.
On the post: Judge Halts Copyright Troll's Lawsuit Against A Now-Deceased Elderly Man With Dementia And An IP Address
Re: Re:
If his phone was used to make all sorts of long distance calls, he would be liable to pay. His internet connection is used to pirate, and he's not?
His physical or mental condition would not change the phone bill. Why anything else?
On the post: Judge Halts Copyright Troll's Lawsuit Against A Now-Deceased Elderly Man With Dementia And An IP Address
Oh, and a side question: How does a 91 year old with dementia manage to get and maintain internet service, when so many American are underserved? Guessing there is a "sweet little grandson" who takes care of everything for him!
On the post: Wireless Industry Lobbies To Ban States From Protecting Your Privacy, Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
The FCC rules were perhaps a bit too much, and (as Mike often alludes to when talking about other laws and rules) could have been over broad and had a chilling effect.
Again, and I repeat this often: If you want proper rules that can't be rescinded because the FCC chairman had a bad burrito for lunch, then you need to get your congress critters (including the Sainted Wyden) to actually step and and do their f--king jobs.
Done at a commission regulation level, they are always subject to change and cancellation. That is what happened.
That there is no Federal law at this point doesn't mean that the states should have the right to regular communications companies. That is federal jurisdiction.
The real answer is getting the critters to do what they don't want to do, which is actually work.
On the post: Sheriff Thinks He Can Use Bogus Disorderly Conduct Charges To Shut Down Speech He Doesn't Like
Using the F word in a place where children will (obvious) see it is in poor taste. While I am all for free speech, the same speech could have been made (and understood by adults) if the F word has been spelled out as F--K.
Put another way: Try to put up a billboard with that exact message and exact wording on it, and see how quickly it comes down. Fuck is still an obscenity.
I also think to a certain extent this is more of an example of how low and how dangerous the discourse has gotten in the last decade or so. "Dem's fightin' Werds!" is a good way to explain this sort of speech, apparently legal but about as bright as a burned out bulb. These are the sort of people who get shot at or have their vehicle vandalized and go to the media saying "we have no idea why!".
Is the Sheriff being stupid? More than a bit. He's not wrong, but there are few laws on the books about painting a target on your own back.
Personally, I would love to see a case like this go to SCOTUS.
On the post: Offering Good Legal Options Works: Interest In Netflix Outpaces Pirate Options In Brazil
Re: Re: Re: Re:
DUH! Considering that people watch an hour and a half a day on average (which is about a single movie length), it would mean that even in the "rental" market they are insanely cheap (about 30 cents a movie).
It gets back to the question: Why attribute to a shift from piracy when it's clear that the totality of piracy drop isn't anywhere near Netflix increase?
"As ever, your wall of text is just self-righteous ignorance that requires rewriting reality to pretend you have a salient point. "
No, just means as ever, you can't be bothered to think past what the TD staff has provided for you. Enjoy your babyfood.
On the post: Wireless Industry Lobbies To Ban States From Protecting Your Privacy, Net Neutrality
Consider someone who signs up for service in one state, and then travels and connects in another. Which state's rules would apply? What about a consumer who signs up in one state, and relocates with the same provider into another?
Heck, what about mobile roaming?
You would create a situation where the state with the most stringent laws would "rule", it would legally too risky to do any less. That would supplant the FCC as ruler in the communication world.
On the post: FCC Moves To Gut Rules Protecting Broadband Users Telcos No Longer Want
17 million people just took the first step towards better service.
See, if the companies are walking away from serving these people, then they have no say in who would offer replacement service. If they don't want to run fiber or copper or whatever, then "that's nice" and they are out the door. They can offer a wireless alternative if they want, but some smart company will come along and spend the money to scoop up these rural consumers.
After all, with the incumbent players no longer in the game, they shouldn't get a say.
On the post: New Study Finds Poorly Secured Smart Toys Lets Attackers Listen In On Your Kids
Re: HUH? Why blame "Luddites" for LOUSY technology?
So while hackable, the hacker would need to be pretty darn close to your child to start with. Perhaps that is a little more worrying!
WiFi is a bigger issue, and will always be. However, considering many of us have a hard time to get wifi through out our homes to work properly, you once again get into a situation where the hacker has to be reasonably close to get connected. Seems more creepy than anything.
On the post: FBI Acts Like It's Still 1960 With Its Report On 'Black Identity Extremists'
I will say that many race groups (black, white. and otherwise) are quite vocal and strident. They have been slow (if bothering at all) to denounce those who call for more violent acts. It has prompted individual nut jobs on all sides to do violent things.
The FBI is over stating it, but under stating it isn't helping either.
On the post: Offering Good Legal Options Works: Interest In Netflix Outpaces Pirate Options In Brazil
Re: Re:
Of course your can complete with free, by being just about as free. Netflix price per month is less than half that of a single (legal) DVD buy. The average user right now is looking at an hour and 35 minutes per day of Netflix, which works out to about 15 cents an hour. It is all but free.
The problem of course is that net net, Netflix doesn't pay that much for each view of the movie to the creators. It's a little cheaper than it would cost to produce physical product and sell it, but the income is also significantly lower. It's better than nothing (piracy) but not a whole lot better in reality.
"the market is way too fragmented and dependent on restricting potential audiences for a single provider to make a complete difference."
Exactly my point. The overall market is larger than the start, and piracy hasn't declined that much overall. Piracy (by that chart) is only down a third, it has not dropped like a stone, and Netflix is up almost 4 times as much as the drop in piracy. So there is little to suggest one has transferred to the other, rather that Netflix customers appear to come from someone else rather than piracy.
"in the most contrary and ridiculous way,"
Honestly, look at the data. The connection is weak, especially when we consider that in the last few years much of the "piracy" has moved to Kodi boxes and streaming sites. The entire decline in direct piracy could be attributed to that alone. The growth of Netflix is much greater than the drop in piracy, which suggests that there is no direct correlation, perhaps some connection but clearly Netflix has found customers that were not pirates in the way this survey considers.
"you have to make crap up about it only being a market that didn't exist or non-P2P not being "pure piracy" "
I didn't say the market didn't exist - only that the Netflix consumers appear to come from somewhere else than P2P piracy (I call it pure piracy, because it's not disguised behind a nice pretty app on a Kodi box or on a slick looking website that may lead consumers to pirate without really understanding what they are doing).
So the potential is that these consumers signing up to Netflix are cord cutters (Hi Karl) or previous DVD rental customers, or previous DVD buyers, or what have you.
Remember: Netflix has worked hard to get their app onto phones, smart TVs, game systems, and just about every other potential delivery method. Price is nothing without availability - including decent internet connections to stream it on. Does Brazil (as an example) have unlimited data on mobile devices? That could be telling.
So unlike you, I am not going to take a pat answer and move on. The numbers suggest something way bigger than a simple move from piracy. If that was the case, the two would be neck and neck on this graph. They are not. So all of that huge gap is something way more interesting and not at all based on the idea of getting pirates to stop pirating online. Unlikely you, I guess, I am curious to see what it is.
Why aren't you curious?
Next >>