Google Video wasn't exclusively PPV. It was very much like YouTube at first with user submitted content that broke all kinds of copyright laws. Google made deals with content creators and experimented with rentals, but the heart of the service was very YouTube-like. I still have a couple .gvi files of stuff that was never available on YouTube and sure wasn't approved by the original creators. :)
It's not really a "paywall". It's video rental. I'd pay for a video "paywall" with a subscription to on-line videos ... but a per movie rental service is a no-go to me.
It's the sole reason I have a Netflix account. I get one DVD at a time, which is usually hard-to-find stuff. Mostly I view videos on-line or through the PS3. Netflix's on-line video offering is closer to a "paywall" than Google's with YouTube rentals.
"When did society give up on research and sound empirical methodology?"
Society in general has never been about research and sound empirical methodology. Society works off of emotions and anecdotal evidence. What "sounds" right is what is right.
It takes a lot of time and smart people to work real information founded on research and sound empirical methodology into the public consciousness. And there will always be hold outs.
It's still licensing that is the reason why ABC blocks people from outside the US from viewing their videos. Greed would lead them to show the videos to EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD, because then that's more ads they can show.
It's licensing from the content creators that prevents them from streaming the content outside of the U.S. because ABC doesn't have the rights for that type of distribution.
The thing is, trespassing is a criminal offense. For them to receive money, they would have to prove damages. The best can hope for now is to press charges against the person who was driving the Google car, in which case that person could spend some time in jail and they would receive no money.
Just because you don't like what other people are doing doesn't mean you get money from them. Money doesn't magically solve all of life's problems. In fact, it's at the root of most of them.
Perhaps professional musicians are the ones killing the recording industry. Amateurs usually perform from the heart ... professionals perform to pay the bills. Selling apparel and empty wine bottles could be how she separates her art from her income so that making money isn't the reason she makes music, but because she has a message and a desire to create for the act of creating.
That's what I thought. I thought it was a bit of an f-you to the situation. Mike mentions other places do a 404 where the reason behind why the page is gone is concealed. The Guardian is saying "this article is gone, blame copyright restrictions."
No, because I don't care about watching it in 1080i w/ surround sound, and I still won't download it. But I'm anxiously awaiting its premiere and final season. The extra quality is nice, but I'm not a picture quality snob like that.
It is about the shared cultural experience. It's why I prefer listening to the radio in the car over listening to my iPhone. That's why most people still pay $10+/person to see movies in a theater when frequently downloads are available and people have home theaters.
By whom? Facebook is not school property. If the students weren't using school computers to post the comments on Facebook, it is none of the school's business at all. It is up the parents to deal with this situation.
There is no text when "becoming a fan" that states "By becoming a fan of this page, you are endorsing all postings made in this group 100% without question."
Becoming a "fan" of a Facebook group is the same as subscribing to a newsfeed. It is not an endorsement.
And it is not an analogy to signing "me too" to a disparaging comment. Writing on the Wall of the group "yeah, I agree that XXX sucks" is an analogy to signing "me too". Simply joining the group is the same as reading it and saying "I read this and would like to read it again and keep up with changes made to this."
Sorry, I don't follow Playground Rules. Just because you dare me doesn't mean I care enough to follow through. :P
AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE AN OPEN WIFI CONNECTION! Read the damned articles. She said she did her best to close it. Qwest sent her a modem with WiFi built-in. She did her best to secure it.
So:
1. Qwest provided the compromised hardware and didn't secure it by default.
2. She did her best to do Qwest's job by securing their hardware.
3. The hardware was compromised.
She didn't even use the WiFi, so I doubt she would have turned it on. She networked her computer to the modem/router directly. It's Qwest's fault for giving out compromised equipment. So why should she suffer for it?
"She says she did her best to lock down her network, but she acknowledges that she's not an expert."
So, she was falsely accused AND she had locked down her network. Outside of everyone who wants to get on the Internet having a Masters Degree in Network Security, what is the logical point that she has done enough to protect herself? A smart hacker will break any security, so you just need to live next to a bunch of dumbasses?
"At the end of the day, if her internet connection is that important to her, she should protect it."
And how do you know she didn't? All the article states is: "and he discovered that her network had been compromised". It never said she had an unencrypted open WiFi network. Only that it was compromised ... she could have had a password that was cracked, a machine within her network could have been hacked or hijacked. Perhaps her ISP gave her a modem with an integrated WiFi router that was enabled without her knowledge.
Though, if you lend out your car, you are responsible for parking tickets, but you aren't responsible if the person robs a bank and uses your car as a getaway car. And if your car is seized for human trafficking, you'll get it back after it's done being used as evidence. You're responsible for civil fines in cases where your property is left in public, but not criminal involvement from other persons using your property.
And regardless, there are easy-to-understand processes in place for dealing with false accusations of parking tickets. You can fight a false accusation in court, and three parking tickets will not terminate your ability to drive a car. This grandmother would not have had any means of recourse had it not been for public outcry.
Government officials recognize that denying convicted felons and sex offenders access to the Internet is too draconian ... yet being accused a couple times of downloading a song or movie using severely faulty identification techniques justifies terminating the ability for someone to function in an increasingly web connected world. That makes so much sense.
Every web site you visit knows your IP address. A little spoofing, a couple e-mails, and The Anti-Mike may not be able to post any more comments to TechDirt for a while.
On the post: Google Discovers -- Again, Though No One Remembers -- That People Don't Like Paying For Video Online
Re: Youtube does not compare
On the post: Google Discovers -- Again, Though No One Remembers -- That People Don't Like Paying For Video Online
Re:
It's the sole reason I have a Netflix account. I get one DVD at a time, which is usually hard-to-find stuff. Mostly I view videos on-line or through the PS3. Netflix's on-line video offering is closer to a "paywall" than Google's with YouTube rentals.
On the post: Technology Blamed For Bad Grammar Despite Total Lack Of Causal Evidence
Re:
Society in general has never been about research and sound empirical methodology. Society works off of emotions and anecdotal evidence. What "sounds" right is what is right.
It takes a lot of time and smart people to work real information founded on research and sound empirical methodology into the public consciousness. And there will always be hold outs.
On the post: Merriam Webster Dictionary Pulled From Elementary School For Defining Oral Sex; Guess What All The Students Just Found Out About?
Re:
Except for the metal detectors. And armed paramilitary. And drug & bomb sniffing dogs. And random searches.
But paper dictionaries, blackboards, flags with 48 stars, history books that refer to it as "The Great War" ... those are all still there.
On the post: Reporter, TV Execs (Maybe?) Confused Over Lost Fans Choosing Not To Watch Leaked Episode
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People waited long.
It's licensing from the content creators that prevents them from streaming the content outside of the U.S. because ABC doesn't have the rights for that type of distribution.
On the post: Boring Case Against Google Revived... Just A Bit
Re: The public
Just because you don't like what other people are doing doesn't mean you get money from them. Money doesn't magically solve all of life's problems. In fact, it's at the root of most of them.
On the post: Yes, If You Don't Do Anything, You Shouldn't Expect People To Just Give You Money
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, If You Don't Do Anything, You Shouldn't Expect People To Just Give You Money
Re:
On the post: Yes, If You Don't Do Anything, You Shouldn't Expect People To Just Give You Money
Sounds like people just didn't like it.
On the post: Boring Case Against Google Revived... Just A Bit
Re: Google is undoubtedly tresspasser.
On the post: Bad Web Experience: This Article Removed Because Of Copyright?
Re: Intentional Irony?
On the post: Reporter, TV Execs (Maybe?) Confused Over Lost Fans Choosing Not To Watch Leaked Episode
Re: Re: Re: Re: People waited long.
Why else?
Licensing.
On the post: Reporter, TV Execs (Maybe?) Confused Over Lost Fans Choosing Not To Watch Leaked Episode
Re: Re:
On the post: Reporter, TV Execs (Maybe?) Confused Over Lost Fans Choosing Not To Watch Leaked Episode
Re:
It is about the shared cultural experience. It's why I prefer listening to the radio in the car over listening to my iPhone. That's why most people still pay $10+/person to see movies in a theater when frequently downloads are available and people have home theaters.
That's true value.
On the post: Students Given Detention Just For Becoming 'Fans' Of A Page Making Fun Of A Teacher
Re:
By whom? Facebook is not school property. If the students weren't using school computers to post the comments on Facebook, it is none of the school's business at all. It is up the parents to deal with this situation.
On the post: Students Given Detention Just For Becoming 'Fans' Of A Page Making Fun Of A Teacher
Re:
Becoming a "fan" of a Facebook group is the same as subscribing to a newsfeed. It is not an endorsement.
And it is not an analogy to signing "me too" to a disparaging comment. Writing on the Wall of the group "yeah, I agree that XXX sucks" is an analogy to signing "me too". Simply joining the group is the same as reading it and saying "I read this and would like to read it again and keep up with changes made to this."
On the post: Students Given Detention Just For Becoming 'Fans' Of A Page Making Fun Of A Teacher
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: News.com Prevents Falsely Accused Grandmother Of Getting Kicked Off The Internet By The MPAA
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I don't follow Playground Rules. Just because you dare me doesn't mean I care enough to follow through. :P
AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE AN OPEN WIFI CONNECTION! Read the damned articles. She said she did her best to close it. Qwest sent her a modem with WiFi built-in. She did her best to secure it.
So:
1. Qwest provided the compromised hardware and didn't secure it by default.
2. She did her best to do Qwest's job by securing their hardware.
3. The hardware was compromised.
She didn't even use the WiFi, so I doubt she would have turned it on. She networked her computer to the modem/router directly. It's Qwest's fault for giving out compromised equipment. So why should she suffer for it?
On the post: News.com Prevents Falsely Accused Grandmother Of Getting Kicked Off The Internet By The MPAA
Re:
"She says she did her best to lock down her network, but she acknowledges that she's not an expert."
So, she was falsely accused AND she had locked down her network. Outside of everyone who wants to get on the Internet having a Masters Degree in Network Security, what is the logical point that she has done enough to protect herself? A smart hacker will break any security, so you just need to live next to a bunch of dumbasses?
On the post: News.com Prevents Falsely Accused Grandmother Of Getting Kicked Off The Internet By The MPAA
Re:
And how do you know she didn't? All the article states is: "and he discovered that her network had been compromised". It never said she had an unencrypted open WiFi network. Only that it was compromised ... she could have had a password that was cracked, a machine within her network could have been hacked or hijacked. Perhaps her ISP gave her a modem with an integrated WiFi router that was enabled without her knowledge.
Though, if you lend out your car, you are responsible for parking tickets, but you aren't responsible if the person robs a bank and uses your car as a getaway car. And if your car is seized for human trafficking, you'll get it back after it's done being used as evidence. You're responsible for civil fines in cases where your property is left in public, but not criminal involvement from other persons using your property.
And regardless, there are easy-to-understand processes in place for dealing with false accusations of parking tickets. You can fight a false accusation in court, and three parking tickets will not terminate your ability to drive a car. This grandmother would not have had any means of recourse had it not been for public outcry.
Government officials recognize that denying convicted felons and sex offenders access to the Internet is too draconian ... yet being accused a couple times of downloading a song or movie using severely faulty identification techniques justifies terminating the ability for someone to function in an increasingly web connected world. That makes so much sense.
Every web site you visit knows your IP address. A little spoofing, a couple e-mails, and The Anti-Mike may not be able to post any more comments to TechDirt for a while.
Next >>