For some reason, every single comment I made today has been "held for review" but NONE of them have been posted. I see that other comments are getting through so that must mean mine are not (since I posted some early this morning).
No idea what the deal is, but reading uncensored comments was a draw to this blog. I'm not interested in reading only what your moderators approve. Good luck.
So I left a comment earlier about how metered Internet would affect online ad sales as more and more people block them to conserve usage. But I got a message that my comment was going to be moderated. I come back later today to see new comments but not mine?
I stream a LOT of video via my ATT Uverse connection from Netflix (through my PS3). I also watch a lot of subscriptions on Hulu via my PC. There are many businesses out there which would lose a lot of value if ISPs implemented metered billing. Not to mention that adblockers would suddenly become mainstream since I don't want to use my quota to download ads. The entire US Internet ad market would take a serious hit.
The problem with the TV ratings guesswork is it is based off the assumption that a certain number of people watch TV. Where they get their numbers, I'm not certain. I hope they are not based off TV sales, since more and more people who own TVs do not use them for watching network TV, but rather DVDs, premium movie channels, game consoles etc.
Add the fact that more and more cable/content distributors are including DVR's with the standard packages, and then what little people do watch of networks shows has the potential for having advertisements skipped over.
It's all vaguely interesting to watch them struggle, but whole concept of prime time is, for all purposes, dead.
The Olympics are run by just another greed crazed corporation who happens to use great athletes to generate their revenue. While I respect the athletes, I have no desire to support the Olympics. I do not watch any coverage, and I actively avoid purchasing as many things as possible that have that silly little "official sponsor" logo affixed to them.
Since when do websites force themselves to be viewed? People not interested in racist content, rarely go looking for it. I might not be able to avoid a cannonball, but I will never be affected by a website I don't choose to visit.
If Google and eBay don't like the way France rules, then they can certainly just block all French activity. No more Google traffic to French business, no more French stores run out of eBay...etc. If you don't like the rules of the game, don't play. I'm sure France won't mind. Or can they sue you for NOT doing business with them?
Andrew F wondered if Google had a counter-censorship team and whether they could assign resources to it. I stated that I don't think they should. I didn't just make up a position out of the blue (as you did with the rape thing) and then make a statement against it. I responded to an actual comment contemplating foreign corporate interference with my opinion on that very topic. I hope you can see the difference.
The movie is not the commodity, it's your experience. When you download a movie, you have not literally "taken" anything from them. You don't have a physical DVD that causes them to be short a DVD. You have instructed your computer to rearrange magnetic patterns on your hard drive, to match a similar pattern on someone else's hard drive.
What you have "stolen" is your experience of the content. Their assumption is that the experience is good enough for you to have been willing to pay for if there was no opportunity to experience it for free.
The problem is there isn't a clear way to prove this.
I think the majority of the reasons people download content without purchasing it is because it's not available in the format and price they want.
For example: I don't like to go to the theater. No matter how long you delay a home release, I'm not going to the theater. I would be willing to watch a new movie" on demand" for say $6. This is for a 24 hour viewing at my leisure.
Once something comes out on DVD, I would be willing to buy a digital copy to own and play whenever I want from my multimedia center. Maybe $10 for recent DVD movies, down to $1 to $5 for older movies.
I would be willing to subscribe to a monthly service for say $10 a month, where I can "buy" movies for $1 each and add them to my "streaming library" so I can watch them whenever I want. (I don't even mind having a "key" like the Netflix CD for the PS3, to ensure that my account is not being shared with multiple households at once).
The point is, I, and I think a large number of people would be willing to pay for content, if that content was priced right (I'm not going to pay retail DVD price for a digital copy of a movie), and available when I want it, and in the format I will most likely use it.
"Piracy" will always exist. But the average person is not downloading stuff because it is free, they are downloading it because either what is offered is overpriced, or what they want is not offered through a legal channel.
Instead of spending millions to stop a loss that is by all means an "imaginary" number, they could be selling and literally be creating new streams of revenue.
Eventually this will happen, and those who refuse to change will go out of business.
If you read the comment I replied to, this should make sense. Perhaps you are not using a threaded view so I will copy it:
"I wonder if Google has a team dedicated to counter-censorship? Perhaps they could throw resources at it that were previously dedicated towards Google China."
While I do not agree with censorship, I also think it's not the position of a U.S. company to try and circumvent the laws of another country. Leave that up to their citizens. We would not like Iran to try and impose their laws on our people, in like manner it is not our place to force our ways upon other parts of the world.
On the post: Olympics: Thou Shalt Not Tweet (Without Paying Up)
Alright I give up
No idea what the deal is, but reading uncensored comments was a draw to this blog. I'm not interested in reading only what your moderators approve. Good luck.
On the post: Olympics: Thou Shalt Not Tweet (Without Paying Up)
I'm Not Surprised
On the post: VC Explains How Damaging Software Patents Can Be
Held For Moderation?
On the post: Bad Publicity, BBB Complaints Causing AT&T To Reconsider Metered Broadband?
Interesting
When did you start filtering comments?
On the post: Bad Publicity, BBB Complaints Causing AT&T To Reconsider Metered Broadband?
Metered Would Affect other Businesses
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
Re: Re: Preaching to the Choir
Add the fact that more and more cable/content distributors are including DVR's with the standard packages, and then what little people do watch of networks shows has the potential for having advertisements skipped over.
It's all vaguely interesting to watch them struggle, but whole concept of prime time is, for all purposes, dead.
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
Olympics, eh?
On the post: UK Court Says It Has Jurisdiction Over Racist Material Stored On California Server... If Content Created In The UK
The Greater Plan
2. Do not think hateful things.
3. Utopia.
On the post: UK Court Says It Has Jurisdiction Over Racist Material Stored On California Server... If Content Created In The UK
Re:
On the post: Cash4Gold Lawsuit Against Whistleblowers Over; Florida State Investigation Just Beginning
Re: Re: You Can'.t Make Up This Stuff
On the post: Is There Any Way To Be A Music Blogger Without Risking Takedown?
Re:
On the post: University Of Texas Claims Trademark Over 'Texas'; Wants Useful iPhone App Blocked
On the post: Public Knowledge Pushes Five Point Plan For Copyright Reform
Re: what does non-consumptive mean?
On the post: French Courts Fine eBay For Buying Typo Keywords
Re: Explain to me ...
On the post: French Courts Fine eBay For Buying Typo Keywords
A thought
On the post: Iran Says No To Gmail; Yes To 'We Spy On You' Email
The Simple Answer
On the post: Once Again: The iiNet Decision Did Not Make Unauthorized Downloading Legit
Re:
I agree.
On the post: Once Again: The iiNet Decision Did Not Make Unauthorized Downloading Legit
My Opinion
What you have "stolen" is your experience of the content. Their assumption is that the experience is good enough for you to have been willing to pay for if there was no opportunity to experience it for free.
The problem is there isn't a clear way to prove this.
I think the majority of the reasons people download content without purchasing it is because it's not available in the format and price they want.
For example: I don't like to go to the theater. No matter how long you delay a home release, I'm not going to the theater. I would be willing to watch a new movie" on demand" for say $6. This is for a 24 hour viewing at my leisure.
Once something comes out on DVD, I would be willing to buy a digital copy to own and play whenever I want from my multimedia center. Maybe $10 for recent DVD movies, down to $1 to $5 for older movies.
I would be willing to subscribe to a monthly service for say $10 a month, where I can "buy" movies for $1 each and add them to my "streaming library" so I can watch them whenever I want. (I don't even mind having a "key" like the Netflix CD for the PS3, to ensure that my account is not being shared with multiple households at once).
The point is, I, and I think a large number of people would be willing to pay for content, if that content was priced right (I'm not going to pay retail DVD price for a digital copy of a movie), and available when I want it, and in the format I will most likely use it.
"Piracy" will always exist. But the average person is not downloading stuff because it is free, they are downloading it because either what is offered is overpriced, or what they want is not offered through a legal channel.
Instead of spending millions to stop a loss that is by all means an "imaginary" number, they could be selling and literally be creating new streams of revenue.
Eventually this will happen, and those who refuse to change will go out of business.
On the post: Iran Says No To Gmail; Yes To 'We Spy On You' Email
Re: Re: Re: Counter-Censorship Operations
"I wonder if Google has a team dedicated to counter-censorship? Perhaps they could throw resources at it that were previously dedicated towards Google China."
I hope this helps you.
On the post: Iran Says No To Gmail; Yes To 'We Spy On You' Email
Re: Counter-Censorship Operations
We must learn that we do not run the planet.
Next >>