Why in the world would Netflix give a damn about Epix when it just inked a deal with Disney? I, too, would ditch Epix (especially after the shit they pulled by refusing to release their latest catalog without more money from Netflix).
Disney, if everyone recalls, owns both the Star Wars franchise and the Marvel movies. You know, those pesky things everyone seems to never get enough of.
Along with the deal is Netflix's original content, and I have to say, most have been damn good. Content sells itself.
I don't think Netflix is going to have a single care in the world people are upset at losing Hunger Games, given it's been on the service for a year now.
I should also point out this is why HBO ended up where it is, or has anyone not seen its catalog of movies of late? If you enjoy re-watching crap you saw as a kid, it's right up your alley.
The absurdly minimal amount of the image used also would qualify it for protection. No it does not qualify the image use under Fair Use. EVER.
Part of the problem people have over Fair Use is they don't understand it.
Even if all 4 points of guideline were met, it's no guarantee infringement claim would be waived.
That's why Fair Use is a case by case system, where the results of one case has absolutely nothing to do with another, because, you know, "civil" vs. "criminal".
So yeah, while Getty is stretching it due to other measures, let's stop pretending Fair Use has a claim here. It doesn't and never will until the law is changed to make Fair Use absolute, not a goddamn set of guidelines.
"The state medical board may have every right to view medical records without any accompanying paperwork..." Bullshit.
A medical board can only review medical records to ensure proper procedure. It does not have any legal justification to rummage through medical records looking for diagnoses or information related to specific health ailments.
That's not only illegal by federal law, but to think so many people think because most medical boards are run by doctors, this gives them carte blanche to the record.
Did you know a provider can't look at your medical record unless: A) you've given permission and B) is your primary care provider?
This is a clear-cut example of violation of the law.
The employees, who refused to question the silent people with the board representative, are also breaking the law, and will most likely be the scapegoats and lose their job while the true offenders get away with violation of the law.
In most HIPAA compliant arenas, great lengths are taken to ensure health care data isn't seen by those not authorized. Databases are tracked, EMRs have restricted access, and computers away from prying eyes.
Because to get caught violating the law is one hell of a fine forthcoming.
Except for health care facilities in Texas, it seems.
There's something seriously wrong with that state.
Here's the thing about the FCC: Tom Wheeler himself admitted the rules the FCC governed were problematic for him many years ago.
It wasn't the public outcry which started changing policy, it was a personal experience, which is often the case many come to "see the light".
The fact Wheeler did an about-face surprised everyone, especially those here at Techdirt who were concerned another player from "Big Corporation" had the front seat.
When Wheeler stated his reasons for changing the rules, everyone changed their opinions. The "Big Corporations" when from loving their shill to hating him while the public now loves him.
It can go down as one of the most unprecedented changes in FCC history, and all because of a personal experience. It's as though he was planning and calculating for many years just to pull this off.
Unfortunately, and as I've said many times before, the FCC is all bark and no bite. It may have the power to change definitions of our communication systems, but it has absolutely no power to control what happens to them.
Even if "net neutrality" passes 100% by the FCC, we're still going to see price gouging, caps, throttling, and other nefarious tactics taken because changing broadband into a utility doesn't negate pricing issues.
The FCC has no control in that arena, which befalls the FTC to investigate and punish as necessary, and we clearly see what a wonderful job they've done over the decades. "Here, AT&T, have a $100 million fine after making billions from your scam."
"Except last time, they actually did listen somewhat. So that kind of disproves that claim."
Do you see what you're doing to yourself? They only listened "somewhat".
That's the kind of dismal attitude plaguing this fight, which is why I'm slowly taking myself out of it. I can't fight two sides anymore. It's depressing and time consuming.
The public has no say in these discussions and the entire purpose is merely to "throw us a bone", to which often always placates the masses to pretend they walked away with a "small victory".
Take a look at the history and you'll see the true issue. A "victory" tossed to us really did absolutely nothing to change a thing. And I must re-iterated, these changes are temporary and can be removed at any time.
That's "somewhat" for you, defined and to the point.
Why do you suppose you keep using the term "copyright czar"? It's no different than real czars, who throw the public a bone while still remain in complete and useless control.
This office serves no purpose but to be the bone thrower. It has no intention of fighting for the public's rights for copyright and it will never, ever change.
You can pretend all you want that "somewhat" is good enough, but it's not, and never will be.
This office can change, but it's not going to do so with the current staff.
So enjoy your "somewhat". Me, I'd rather win the war, not the battle whose outcome can be negated in 3 years.
By "hear", do you mean actual conversation where two sides actually consider a mutually agreed upon outcome or how it's always been when the public's voice is never heard because the idiots making the "decision" (read: being told how to decide) still have their fingers firmly planted in their ears?
It's a waste of time.
Even if we, that is the public, get an "inch", we're so goddamn far back in miles nothing they do makes one damn bit of difference.
This "throw us a bone" is insulting on every level of "hearing" the public.
"Most Likely to be Attacked by Terrorists" by local law enforcement and its DHS branch office. Be mindful, readers, this only happened because of that idiotic Pence law signing, which you can search if you're unfamiliar.
Before that, we were dead last, as even Chicago (that's still in the midwest, believe it or not) outranked us.
speed versus data consumption is irrelevant Your entire article is based on this misinformation you're trying to pass to your readers, but I'm not going to fall for your inept understanding of data.
Since you seem to only think points are made by definitions, here's one for "Data":
1. a plural of datum.
2. (used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items of information.
3. (used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information.
Note the exclusion of anything related to speed, distance, time, warp drives, or anything else you'll read into the actual defined word of "data".
T-Mobile makes two things clear: -Unlimited data is unlimited data. -You get 4G/LTE speeds up to [allotment] but will be slowed if the allotment FOR THAT SPEED is crossed.
Your argument will ONLY be valid if: -There's an additional cost to access the data once allotment is exceeded
-The device stops working completely if the allotment is exceeded
-If the ad specified "Unlimited Access" or "Unlimited Speed" as opposed to "Unlimited Data"
T-Mobile does no such things, as far as I'm aware.
If you want to sit and try to convince your readers the majority of people reading the article are stupid to conflate speed with data, that's your call.
But don't call out a company whose 100% straight forward with its customers who do know the difference between data and speed.
That said, acting like it's the pinnacle of "clever hacking" and villainy to modify a device you own to get a service advertised as unlimited is a tad specious and theatrical. UNLIMITED DATA DOES NOT MEAN UNLIMITED SPEED!
What you claim is a defense by the carries is actually a valid response.
T-Mobile, by the way, makes it very clear you can have all the data you want, but if your 4G/LTE speed is used to grab the plentiful allocation, you will be slowed down but you will still have access to the data.
There's nothing nefarious about this. It's clear. Customers understand it. Customers accept it.
As far as I'm concerned, I see no problem with T-Mobile going after these users, because chances are, they're the bots we all hate sending out spam texts everyone gets.
If a few "customers" come along and take more than they're alloted, it ruins it for the rest of us.
Because, unlike broadband, LTE does have a limited throughput and I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want a spinning icon as my phone is trying to send and receive data because "customers", by your definition, can work around and tether all the LTE speed for themselves.
This article boasts a ridiculous attitude, and the opening definition of "unlimited" was a kick below the belt not only in its tone, but based on the perception "speed = data".
Guess who's going to get the negative feedback based on the article? Psst: it's not T-Mobile.
On the post: USPTO Confirms It Has No Sense Of Humor And A Very Limited Grasp On Today's Slang Lexicon
Guaranteed approval right there.
On the post: Big, Confusing Mess Of A Fair Use Decision Over DMCA Takedowns
Re: Good faith strikes again.
This court knew exactly what it was saying when it dolled out the case where Universal has to go to trial.
Nothing about this case had anything to do with copyright other than the court to wash its hands of it.
On the post: Netflix Keeps Losing Mainstream Movies, Informs Users They Should Be Ok With That Because Of Adam Sandler
Disney, if everyone recalls, owns both the Star Wars franchise and the Marvel movies. You know, those pesky things everyone seems to never get enough of.
Along with the deal is Netflix's original content, and I have to say, most have been damn good. Content sells itself.
I don't think Netflix is going to have a single care in the world people are upset at losing Hunger Games, given it's been on the service for a year now.
I should also point out this is why HBO ended up where it is, or has anyone not seen its catalog of movies of late? If you enjoy re-watching crap you saw as a kid, it's right up your alley.
On the post: Colorado Judge Ignores First Amendment, Allows Prior Restraint In Banning Aretha Franklin Film
Wasn't Colorado the first state to legalize marijuana?
Judge is clearly toking it up between cases.
I couldn't resist.
On the post: Getty Images Tries To Copyright Troll 2600 Magazine Over Content It Has No Copyright Over
No it does not qualify the image use under Fair Use. EVER.
Part of the problem people have over Fair Use is they don't understand it.
Even if all 4 points of guideline were met, it's no guarantee infringement claim would be waived.
That's why Fair Use is a case by case system, where the results of one case has absolutely nothing to do with another, because, you know, "civil" vs. "criminal".
So yeah, while Getty is stretching it due to other measures, let's stop pretending Fair Use has a claim here. It doesn't and never will until the law is changed to make Fair Use absolute, not a goddamn set of guidelines.
On the post: DEA Impersonating Medical Board Investigators To Gain Access To Personal Health Records
Bullshit.
A medical board can only review medical records to ensure proper procedure. It does not have any legal justification to rummage through medical records looking for diagnoses or information related to specific health ailments.
That's not only illegal by federal law, but to think so many people think because most medical boards are run by doctors, this gives them carte blanche to the record.
Did you know a provider can't look at your medical record unless: A) you've given permission and B) is your primary care provider?
This is a clear-cut example of violation of the law.
The employees, who refused to question the silent people with the board representative, are also breaking the law, and will most likely be the scapegoats and lose their job while the true offenders get away with violation of the law.
In most HIPAA compliant arenas, great lengths are taken to ensure health care data isn't seen by those not authorized. Databases are tracked, EMRs have restricted access, and computers away from prying eyes.
Because to get caught violating the law is one hell of a fine forthcoming.
Except for health care facilities in Texas, it seems.
There's something seriously wrong with that state.
On the post: IP Enforcement Czar Wants To Hear From You About Government's IP Enforcement Plan
Re: Re:
It wasn't the public outcry which started changing policy, it was a personal experience, which is often the case many come to "see the light".
The fact Wheeler did an about-face surprised everyone, especially those here at Techdirt who were concerned another player from "Big Corporation" had the front seat.
When Wheeler stated his reasons for changing the rules, everyone changed their opinions. The "Big Corporations" when from loving their shill to hating him while the public now loves him.
It can go down as one of the most unprecedented changes in FCC history, and all because of a personal experience. It's as though he was planning and calculating for many years just to pull this off.
Unfortunately, and as I've said many times before, the FCC is all bark and no bite. It may have the power to change definitions of our communication systems, but it has absolutely no power to control what happens to them.
Even if "net neutrality" passes 100% by the FCC, we're still going to see price gouging, caps, throttling, and other nefarious tactics taken because changing broadband into a utility doesn't negate pricing issues.
The FCC has no control in that arena, which befalls the FTC to investigate and punish as necessary, and we clearly see what a wonderful job they've done over the decades. "Here, AT&T, have a $100 million fine after making billions from your scam."
On the post: Utterly Incoherent Wall Street Journal Missive Blames Netflix For, Well, Everything
Dictionaries, please redefine "irony", because it doesn't get any better than this.
On the post: IP Enforcement Czar Wants To Hear From You About Government's IP Enforcement Plan
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you see what you're doing to yourself? They only listened "somewhat".
That's the kind of dismal attitude plaguing this fight, which is why I'm slowly taking myself out of it. I can't fight two sides anymore. It's depressing and time consuming.
The public has no say in these discussions and the entire purpose is merely to "throw us a bone", to which often always placates the masses to pretend they walked away with a "small victory".
Take a look at the history and you'll see the true issue. A "victory" tossed to us really did absolutely nothing to change a thing. And I must re-iterated, these changes are temporary and can be removed at any time.
That's "somewhat" for you, defined and to the point.
Why do you suppose you keep using the term "copyright czar"? It's no different than real czars, who throw the public a bone while still remain in complete and useless control.
This office serves no purpose but to be the bone thrower. It has no intention of fighting for the public's rights for copyright and it will never, ever change.
You can pretend all you want that "somewhat" is good enough, but it's not, and never will be.
This office can change, but it's not going to do so with the current staff.
So enjoy your "somewhat". Me, I'd rather win the war, not the battle whose outcome can be negated in 3 years.
On the post: IP Enforcement Czar Wants To Hear From You About Government's IP Enforcement Plan
It's a waste of time.
Even if we, that is the public, get an "inch", we're so goddamn far back in miles nothing they do makes one damn bit of difference.
This "throw us a bone" is insulting on every level of "hearing" the public.
On the post: Indiana Police Refuse To Hand Over Stingray Docs Because Someone Might Attack The Annual Mule Day Parade
Be mindful, readers, this only happened because of that idiotic Pence law signing, which you can search if you're unfamiliar.
Before that, we were dead last, as even Chicago (that's still in the midwest, believe it or not) outranked us.
On the post: Apple Refused Court Order To Decrypt iMessages For DOJ; DOJ Debates What To Do
This statement is precisely why I won't use any company's "cloud" service.
What's the fucking point in encryption when the data stored removes it, allowing companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft to freely hand it over.
Rhetorical question.
On the post: Getty Images Goes Copyright Trolling After A Meme Penguin
I've a feeling this news isn't over.
On the post: Restaurant Adds Anti-Disparagement Clause Because Its Anti-No Show Clause Wasn't Obnoxious Enough
On the post: Movie Studio & Copyright Troll Claim 'Mere Possession' Of Popcorn Time Is Illegal And Could Result In A Year In Jail
Crowell should be disbarred.
On the post: Problem: Male Operators Use Surveillance Cameras For Ogling Women; Mayor's Solution: Employ Only Female Operators
A job opportunity for you has just presented itself. It's everything you want! Surveillance! Control! No pesky US Constitution to interfere!
Don't miss this chance!
On the post: T-Mobile CEO Vows To Hunt Down 'Thieves' And 'Clever Hackers' That 'Abuse' Company's Unlimited Data Plans
Re: Re:
Your entire article is based on this misinformation you're trying to pass to your readers, but I'm not going to fall for your inept understanding of data.
Since you seem to only think points are made by definitions, here's one for "Data":
1. a plural of datum.
2. (used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items of information.
3. (used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information.
Note the exclusion of anything related to speed, distance, time, warp drives, or anything else you'll read into the actual defined word of "data".
T-Mobile makes two things clear:
-Unlimited data is unlimited data.
-You get 4G/LTE speeds up to [allotment] but will be slowed if the allotment FOR THAT SPEED is crossed.
Your argument will ONLY be valid if:
-There's an additional cost to access the data once allotment is exceeded
-The device stops working completely if the allotment is exceeded
-If the ad specified "Unlimited Access" or "Unlimited Speed" as opposed to "Unlimited Data"
T-Mobile does no such things, as far as I'm aware.
If you want to sit and try to convince your readers the majority of people reading the article are stupid to conflate speed with data, that's your call.
But don't call out a company whose 100% straight forward with its customers who do know the difference between data and speed.
On the post: T-Mobile CEO Vows To Hunt Down 'Thieves' And 'Clever Hackers' That 'Abuse' Company's Unlimited Data Plans
UNLIMITED DATA DOES NOT MEAN UNLIMITED SPEED!
What you claim is a defense by the carries is actually a valid response.
T-Mobile, by the way, makes it very clear you can have all the data you want, but if your 4G/LTE speed is used to grab the plentiful allocation, you will be slowed down but you will still have access to the data.
There's nothing nefarious about this. It's clear. Customers understand it. Customers accept it.
As far as I'm concerned, I see no problem with T-Mobile going after these users, because chances are, they're the bots we all hate sending out spam texts everyone gets.
If a few "customers" come along and take more than they're alloted, it ruins it for the rest of us.
Because, unlike broadband, LTE does have a limited throughput and I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want a spinning icon as my phone is trying to send and receive data because "customers", by your definition, can work around and tether all the LTE speed for themselves.
This article boasts a ridiculous attitude, and the opening definition of "unlimited" was a kick below the belt not only in its tone, but based on the perception "speed = data".
Guess who's going to get the negative feedback based on the article? Psst: it's not T-Mobile.
On the post: Moral Panics And How 'The Kids These Days' Adapt: From Facebook 'Permanence' To Snapchat's 'Impermanence'
Damn.
On the post: The MPAA Will Let Amazon Touch Its Stuff, But Only If It Agrees To A Ton Of Stipulations
Not sure when the balance of power changed hands, but retailers, as well as online venues, need to stand up against this crap.
Let the (representing) MPAA try selling its good without the retailers and see how far it takes them.
Next >>