Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 7:47am
Any interest? Let us know...
Any interest? Let us know...
I'll build you a paywall, Mike. I'll only charge half as much as it cost the NY Times to put theirs in place, I'll do it in a month, and it will be of the same quality as a multi-billion dollar media company can do.
Now, off to Amazon to buy a JavaScript for Dummies book...
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 7:41am
Re: Missleading again little mikee
They are streaming the SAME DVD to multiple viewers at the same time.
Proof or STFU.
They are also likely CACHING the DVD for streaming as well.
Not illegal.
It is NOT the same as RENTING. If you RENT a DVD then it leaves someones possession, goes to yours, you watch it and return it. There is a LONG time where the owner is without the DVD and must buy additional DVDs to keep renting to multiple people at the same time.
All this conjecture depends entirely on whether Zediva is allowing multiple people access to the same DVD at the same time. Again, proof or STFU.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 7:15am
Re: Why not rebalance the game?
The simple answer is that today's entrepreneurs can easily turn into tomorrow's entrenched monopolies.
Recorded music was at one point a entrepreneurial disruptive technology. The movie industry moved out west to get away from patent law.
Imagine if Microsoft had started heavy lobbying in the 80s - would the anti-trust case in the late 90s have happened?
Instead of "rebalancing the game" by encouraging more money to be used to buy politicians, how about we start killing off the old entrenched interests that are using money in this way. Replace them with companies who use their money to compete and make their products better instead of buying politicians.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 10:30am
Re: Re: Re:
From Blizzard's perspective, certainly. From a customer's perspective? If most customers don't go reconfigure their routers and open a dozen ports, it's generally very inefficient for them.
Of course that's why Blizzard does it. It is less convenient for the consumer, but much more convenient for Blizzard.
You could not be more wrong.
For extremely popular files (such as the latest WOW patch on patch day) torrents are more efficient and cheaper than a single server hosted file or even a distributed CDN solution. It is better for all of the following:
1) The content provider
2) The end user
3) The ISP of the end user
1) Obviously not needing additional server farms and bandwidth on patch day just to host the patch is a big plus for Blizzard.
2) Connecting to multiple download sources gets you your file faster. Providing a small amount of your upload bandwidth is definitely worth it. (And you know nothing about the average home router if you think you need to worry about opening ports or mapping them to a particular system in order for this to work.)
3) It is better for the ISP. Yes, really. An individual customer is more likely to connect to another of the same ISP's customers and get a good connection than to another customer outside the ISP's network. That means less peering/paid traffic! Traffic that starts and stops within your own network is essentially free. Traffic going outside your own network costs more, whether that traffic is going to Blizzard's servers or to another ISP.
I'm quite sure that they didn't mean to specifically throttle WOW traffic. So why do ISPs block/filter/throttle torrent traffic at all? Hmm, well, we have cable companies who are afraid of their customers cutting the expensive high margin cable-TV subscription when they figure out they can watch all their shows on the net. And the telcos, who are working their way into the pay-TV market. What possible reason would either of these industries have to be anti-competitive with torrent traffic?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 1:45pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not quite the same thing, unless of course you squint your eyes a lot and consumer a fair amount of booze.
I usually ignore typos, but that one is rather telling.
The NY Times thinks it is in the business of providing news to consumers. Passive, dumb consumers who just buy what they are sold. And yes, that is part of the wider information ecosystem. But that part is shrinking, and the growth is in the interactive information system where active users (not passive consumers) get involved in spreading and rebutting information.
Isn't that what you do, AC? Even though you fail miserably at the rebuttal part, I would put money that you spend much more of your time on TechDirt interacting with the writers and other commenters than you do passively reading the news from the NYT or any other newspaper than you can name. If you don't reply, I'll assume I'm right. If you do reply, you've proven I'm right.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 10:53am
Re: Re: Their point is not to stifle protest
Or it could be an example of people trying to hate monger on China with little to back it up.
What I find most interesting about the story is that even if there is not a shred of credible evidence, no one is denying that:
1) China does not have the ability to do this.
2) China does not have the motivation to do this.
If you already expect China to be doing this, you don't need to see the evidence to think that its happening.
Oh, and I'm not hate mongering China just because its China. I don't care if its China, Libya, Iran, or the USA. I don't care if its a corporation. I'm against tyranny and the repression of an individual's rights no matter who does it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:47pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They choose to sell it to a customer in the UK, they have violated their contract
Who is "they"?
Walmart buys a DVD from the studio. I buy the DVD from Walmart. I go to the UK and sell the DVD to someone. I have broken no laws or contracts (assuming I have paid import/VAT/other taxes).
I have not signed any contract saying I would only sell my legally purchased DVD in the US, therefore I cannot violate any contract.
If I'm renting the DVD, it is no different.
But of course you knew that and were being deliberately misleading by implying otherwise.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:36pm
Well-researched...
I'd like to put forth an argument:
1) The percentage of internet content that the average internet user trusts to be well-researched and investigated is both
2) The percentage of newspaper and TV reporting that the average newspaper reader and TV watcher trusts to be well-researched and investigated is both
1 is greater than 2.
I realize I'm implying that the average internet user is better at detecting bullshit than the average "old media" consumer, but is that so hard to believe?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 2:51pm
Re: Economics
My electricity bill goes up based on exactly how much electricity I use and the actual price of electricity (set in advance by negotiations between the power company and local government). No problems there. I can verify how much I used by going to the meter and looking at the readout. I can verify the meter is working correctly by measuring it - if I really wanted to, I could unplug everything in the house, make sure it stops, and plug something in with a known energy use and make sure the meter is accurate. If my bill doesn't match whats on the meter, I can dispute it. My water bill would be an identical situation.
Both water and electricity are scarce resources. Here's the thing. Bandwidth really isn't a scarce resource. Find someplace with genuine competition and I think you'll see it isn't. However, even if it isn't a scarce resource, I have no problems with paying for *exactly* what I use.
So what's the price per megabyte? Does the price relate in anyway to the ISP's cost for each additional megabyte? Will it be the same price both for up and down traffic? Will I be charged for the various traffic that hits my IP address that I do not request (from worms and port scanners and file sharing networks).
Where's the independently verifiable meter? Sure, I could build a dual-NIC Linux box to function as one (as well as a better firewall than you'll find in a home router). But I doubt if TimeWarner will accept my readout if I dispute the bill. And I sure as heck don't trust some meter in the cloud to be accurate or auditable.
Bandwidth caps as they are currently being proposed are another way for ISPs to double charge customers, and kill off upstart companies that threaten another piece of their revenue (video services, mostly).
What I will not do is pay for an "unlimited" style price per month, and then get penalized with usurious rates that bear no relation to the actual cost for the additional bandwidth when I have no choice over who I get broadband from because the two companies that provide it are de facto monopolies who built their networks financed by local tax dollars.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 12:26pm
Re: Re: Re:
What I am saying is that it is a couple of very short hops from "here" to "there".
So we're in agreement that they're doing something completely different than what the law says is illegal. You're not exactly building your case up, AJ.
What would happen if it turned out that the DVD players were just a front, and that the vast majority of users were being served from pre-digitized movies?
Again, I'll ask. Are you now accusing Zediva of doing that? All you seem to be able to do is make up wild hypothetical situations where things this company is NOT doing might be illegal (and I'd argue against "pre-digitizing a movie is illegal").
Does the format they use for the digitization allow the movies to be captured and recorded locally, and in turn used as the basis for torrent files?
By that logic the MPAA's solution they presented to the Library of Congress on how to camcord a TV screen so that films could be used in educational settings is also illegal.
Are they just making it more easy for people to obtain digital copies to spread?
That's a resounding "No." Capturing the stream, although not particularly difficult, is harder than searching Google for a torrent and then downloading it and sharing it. So under any definition, they are not making it easier to torrent the movie.
Does the service buy a physical DVD player for each user, put their name on it, and allow only them to use it? Or it is a shared device?
I'll use your favorite word from a couple days ago: Irrelevant. I imagine they'd have enough players to reasonably handle their peak load, while also minimizing needing someone to run around and swap discs constantly. So long as they're not copying the DVDs, what does it matter how many DVD players they have? They're renting out their legally purchased DVDs and legally purchased DVD players. What does it matter how many they have if they are all legal?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 11:47am
Re: truth? Pfft!
Whenever I hear people talking about truth in the judicial system I kind of cringe. A courtroom has never been, in my opinion, about finding out the truth. It's simply a way to minimize the risk of people taking matters in their own hands.
And what happens when society no longer trusts the courts to be able to protect innocents from prosecution or punish the guilty?
This is not just a theoretical discussion. There have been two major issues just recently in North Carolina. The state crime lab has completely ignored evidence that would have proved the innocence of suspects or omitted it from reports. And a sheriff who tortured two suspects into confessing. I don't think NC is particularly abnormal, so I can only guess what happens in other states that doesn't make national news. I certainly wonder how many innocent people the state of Texas has put on death row and executed.
I completely reject the notion of accepting the fact that our justice system is imperfect and this is the best we can do. Allowing some additional information to get to juries seems like it would help.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 11:20am
Re:
And lastly, in our adversarial system, while not perfect, there is a huge incentive for both sides to push for as much evidence as legally possible. To think that there's some key research sitting there online for every juror to find, that none of the attorneys found, is simply bizarre. Certainly it's possible in very rare circumstances. But that mere and slight possibility is not sufficient basis for me to throw out all of our rules of evidence.
A big problem with our adversarial system and all the rules of evidence is that both sides are assumed to have relatively equal amounts of resources and skill.
That is far from the reality. Whether it is a poor black man with a public defender in Texas accused of murder, or a billionaire with the best defense lawyer in the country against an overworked and underfunded prosecutor's office, the system we have is too prone to manipulation by one side or the other (usually the side with the most money).
Is allowing the jury complete and unfettered access to anything a Google search comes up with the answer? I'm not saying it is - but depending only on information presented by defense and prosecution has horrible pitfalls.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:59am
It is always the same thing: The jury must make it's decision based on the law and the facts presented by the defense and prosecution. There is nothing else they are allowed to do.
That's the fundamental argument of someone who cares nothing for the truth. To you, rules and procedures are more important than the truth.
Once again, your failed fantasies of a perfect world come crashing down.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:43am
Re:
Would it be any different if they just digitized the movie once and then let people download the copy, digitized, when they wanted, say using a torrent format to avoid making it heavy on their networks?
Are you accusing Zediva of torrenting movies?
I would say the evidence doesn't back you up on that.
On the post: Putting Up A Paywall Just To Have Advertisers Pay To Take It Down?
Any interest? Let us know...
I'll build you a paywall, Mike. I'll only charge half as much as it cost the NY Times to put theirs in place, I'll do it in a month, and it will be of the same quality as a multi-billion dollar media company can do.
Now, off to Amazon to buy a JavaScript for Dummies book...
On the post: As Expected, MPAA Sues Movie Streaming Site That Uses Connected DVD Players
Re: Missleading again little mikee
Proof or STFU.
They are also likely CACHING the DVD for streaming as well.
Not illegal.
It is NOT the same as RENTING. If you RENT a DVD then it leaves someones possession, goes to yours, you watch it and return it. There is a LONG time where the owner is without the DVD and must buy additional DVDs to keep renting to multiple people at the same time.
All this conjecture depends entirely on whether Zediva is allowing multiple people access to the same DVD at the same time. Again, proof or STFU.
On the post: Does It Really Make Sense For Silicon Valley Companies To Make Friends In DC?
Re: Why not rebalance the game?
Recorded music was at one point a entrepreneurial disruptive technology. The movie industry moved out west to get away from patent law.
Imagine if Microsoft had started heavy lobbying in the 80s - would the anti-trust case in the late 90s have happened?
Instead of "rebalancing the game" by encouraging more money to be used to buy politicians, how about we start killing off the old entrenched interests that are using money in this way. Replace them with companies who use their money to compete and make their products better instead of buying politicians.
On the post: Canadian ISP's Hamfisted Attempts To Throttle File Sharing Throttles World Of Warcraft Instead
Re: Re: Re:
Of course that's why Blizzard does it. It is less convenient for the consumer, but much more convenient for Blizzard.
You could not be more wrong.
For extremely popular files (such as the latest WOW patch on patch day) torrents are more efficient and cheaper than a single server hosted file or even a distributed CDN solution. It is better for all of the following:
1) The content provider
2) The end user
3) The ISP of the end user
1) Obviously not needing additional server farms and bandwidth on patch day just to host the patch is a big plus for Blizzard.
2) Connecting to multiple download sources gets you your file faster. Providing a small amount of your upload bandwidth is definitely worth it. (And you know nothing about the average home router if you think you need to worry about opening ports or mapping them to a particular system in order for this to work.)
3) It is better for the ISP. Yes, really. An individual customer is more likely to connect to another of the same ISP's customers and get a good connection than to another customer outside the ISP's network. That means less peering/paid traffic! Traffic that starts and stops within your own network is essentially free. Traffic going outside your own network costs more, whether that traffic is going to Blizzard's servers or to another ISP.
I'm quite sure that they didn't mean to specifically throttle WOW traffic. So why do ISPs block/filter/throttle torrent traffic at all? Hmm, well, we have cable companies who are afraid of their customers cutting the expensive high margin cable-TV subscription when they figure out they can watch all their shows on the net. And the telcos, who are working their way into the pay-TV market. What possible reason would either of these industries have to be anti-competitive with torrent traffic?
On the post: Protection
Re:
Pay the "good" lawyers to protect you from the "bad" lawyers.
(Yes, I know there are some genuine good lawyers out there, but at some points you have to wonder if even they are being caught up in the system.)
On the post: Gladwell Logic: There Was War Before Nuclear Bombs Existed, Thus Nukes Have No Impact On War
Re: Re: Re:
#GladwellLogic: There was truth before Gladwell Logic, therefore GladwellLogic has no impact on the truth.
On the post: Saying That The NY Times Paywall Is Dumb Does Not Mean That We Don't Want The NY Times To Make Money
Re: But what kind of living?
It still does. Just off the top of my head we've got Nina Paley, Tim Geigner, and Glyn Moody that are frequent contributors.
On the post: Sometimes It's Better To Just Let People Copy Your Content Than Deal With Licensing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I think patent law has that one covered fairly well.
On the post: South Korea Wants To Mandate Everyone Must Install 'Security' Software To Prevent 'Zombies'
Re: Re:
Well, now they can't download virus definitions or any security updates.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Two things at work regarding piracy...
As in, before or after RIAA accounting practices emerged.
On the post: Does The NY Times Donate To Wikipedia For Being A Massive Source Of Information?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I usually ignore typos, but that one is rather telling.
The NY Times thinks it is in the business of providing news to consumers. Passive, dumb consumers who just buy what they are sold. And yes, that is part of the wider information ecosystem. But that part is shrinking, and the growth is in the interactive information system where active users (not passive consumers) get involved in spreading and rebutting information.
Isn't that what you do, AC? Even though you fail miserably at the rebuttal part, I would put money that you spend much more of your time on TechDirt interacting with the writers and other commenters than you do passively reading the news from the NYT or any other newspaper than you can name. If you don't reply, I'll assume I'm right. If you do reply, you've proven I'm right.
On the post: China Will Cut Off Your Phone Call If You Say The Word 'Protest' [Updated]
Re: Re: Their point is not to stifle protest
What I find most interesting about the story is that even if there is not a shred of credible evidence, no one is denying that:
1) China does not have the ability to do this.
2) China does not have the motivation to do this.
If you already expect China to be doing this, you don't need to see the evidence to think that its happening.
Oh, and I'm not hate mongering China just because its China. I don't care if its China, Libya, Iran, or the USA. I don't care if its a corporation. I'm against tyranny and the repression of an individual's rights no matter who does it.
On the post: If Remote DVRs Are Legal... What About Remote DVD Players?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who is "they"?
Walmart buys a DVD from the studio. I buy the DVD from Walmart. I go to the UK and sell the DVD to someone. I have broken no laws or contracts (assuming I have paid import/VAT/other taxes).
I have not signed any contract saying I would only sell my legally purchased DVD in the US, therefore I cannot violate any contract.
If I'm renting the DVD, it is no different.
But of course you knew that and were being deliberately misleading by implying otherwise.
On the post: Bob Woodward Blames Google For 'Killing' Newspapers
Well-researched...
1) The percentage of internet content that the average internet user trusts to be well-researched and investigated is both
2) The percentage of newspaper and TV reporting that the average newspaper reader and TV watcher trusts to be well-researched and investigated is both
1 is greater than 2.
I realize I'm implying that the average internet user is better at detecting bullshit than the average "old media" consumer, but is that so hard to believe?
On the post: Fantasy Island, Time Warner Style: You WANT To Pay More For Broadband
Re: Economics
Both water and electricity are scarce resources. Here's the thing. Bandwidth really isn't a scarce resource. Find someplace with genuine competition and I think you'll see it isn't. However, even if it isn't a scarce resource, I have no problems with paying for *exactly* what I use.
So what's the price per megabyte? Does the price relate in anyway to the ISP's cost for each additional megabyte? Will it be the same price both for up and down traffic? Will I be charged for the various traffic that hits my IP address that I do not request (from worms and port scanners and file sharing networks).
Where's the independently verifiable meter? Sure, I could build a dual-NIC Linux box to function as one (as well as a better firewall than you'll find in a home router). But I doubt if TimeWarner will accept my readout if I dispute the bill. And I sure as heck don't trust some meter in the cloud to be accurate or auditable.
Bandwidth caps as they are currently being proposed are another way for ISPs to double charge customers, and kill off upstart companies that threaten another piece of their revenue (video services, mostly).
What I will not do is pay for an "unlimited" style price per month, and then get penalized with usurious rates that bear no relation to the actual cost for the additional bandwidth when I have no choice over who I get broadband from because the two companies that provide it are de facto monopolies who built their networks financed by local tax dollars.
On the post: If Remote DVRs Are Legal... What About Remote DVD Players?
Re: Re: Re:
So we're in agreement that they're doing something completely different than what the law says is illegal. You're not exactly building your case up, AJ.
What would happen if it turned out that the DVD players were just a front, and that the vast majority of users were being served from pre-digitized movies?
Again, I'll ask. Are you now accusing Zediva of doing that? All you seem to be able to do is make up wild hypothetical situations where things this company is NOT doing might be illegal (and I'd argue against "pre-digitizing a movie is illegal").
Does the format they use for the digitization allow the movies to be captured and recorded locally, and in turn used as the basis for torrent files?
By that logic the MPAA's solution they presented to the Library of Congress on how to camcord a TV screen so that films could be used in educational settings is also illegal.
Are they just making it more easy for people to obtain digital copies to spread?
That's a resounding "No." Capturing the stream, although not particularly difficult, is harder than searching Google for a torrent and then downloading it and sharing it. So under any definition, they are not making it easier to torrent the movie.
Does the service buy a physical DVD player for each user, put their name on it, and allow only them to use it? Or it is a shared device?
I'll use your favorite word from a couple days ago: Irrelevant. I imagine they'd have enough players to reasonably handle their peak load, while also minimizing needing someone to run around and swap discs constantly. So long as they're not copying the DVDs, what does it matter how many DVD players they have? They're renting out their legally purchased DVDs and legally purchased DVD players. What does it matter how many they have if they are all legal?
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: truth? Pfft!
And what happens when society no longer trusts the courts to be able to protect innocents from prosecution or punish the guilty?
This is not just a theoretical discussion. There have been two major issues just recently in North Carolina. The state crime lab has completely ignored evidence that would have proved the innocence of suspects or omitted it from reports. And a sheriff who tortured two suspects into confessing. I don't think NC is particularly abnormal, so I can only guess what happens in other states that doesn't make national news. I certainly wonder how many innocent people the state of Texas has put on death row and executed.
I completely reject the notion of accepting the fact that our justice system is imperfect and this is the best we can do. Allowing some additional information to get to juries seems like it would help.
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re:
A big problem with our adversarial system and all the rules of evidence is that both sides are assumed to have relatively equal amounts of resources and skill.
That is far from the reality. Whether it is a poor black man with a public defender in Texas accused of murder, or a billionaire with the best defense lawyer in the country against an overworked and underfunded prosecutor's office, the system we have is too prone to manipulation by one side or the other (usually the side with the most money).
Is allowing the jury complete and unfettered access to anything a Google search comes up with the answer? I'm not saying it is - but depending only on information presented by defense and prosecution has horrible pitfalls.
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
That's the fundamental argument of someone who cares nothing for the truth. To you, rules and procedures are more important than the truth.
Once again, your failed fantasies of a perfect world come crashing down.
Idealism is not a bad thing.
On the post: If Remote DVRs Are Legal... What About Remote DVD Players?
Re:
Are you accusing Zediva of torrenting movies?
I would say the evidence doesn't back you up on that.
But when do you care about evidence?
Next >>