Well since we now know the US government happily sells children as sex slaves
We do? When making such a grave accusation, it's helpful to not assume that people know what you're talking about and provide some kind of support for your position. (And please don't tell me to just google it. You're making the accusation; it's up to you to support it. I may find a million hits on a search, but I don't know which one justfies your specific accusation without you saying which one.)
If there's one thing the US is good at, it's putting people behind bars. If they can't find anything solid to charge him with, they'll just make something up.
You think trumping up charges is something that is unique to the US government?
Re: Re: Re: Re: So we cant believe independent studies, but we have to believe torrent freak !!! LOL.. they wont be biased !!
No. Trolls make unsubstantiated claims, don't address the specific argument the other is making, and/ or make ad hominem attacks.
That's not what "troll" means. Trolls may sometimes use those techniques, but that's not what makes a troll. A troll is simply someone who is trying to provoke an emotional response. Most people that make unsubstantiated claims, don't address the specific argument, and make ad hominem attacks are doing so because of a lack of thinking, whereas the troll is actively thinking about how to provoke. That's why I don't think that Darryl's post was an attempt at trolling.
Re: Re: So we cant believe independent studies, but we have to believe torrent freak !!! LOL.. they wont be biased !!
Yes, fellow readers, this is a troll. Please don't feed it, and just start another thread.
I don't think that Darryl's post is a troll. I think he is merely mistaken in categorizing the flaws pointed out by TF as "superficial eveidence". Besides, even if his post were an merely attempt to get a reaction, it still includes a valid point -- that you need to support your argument -- which ironically isn't very well supported in his post.
Re: So we cant believe independent studies, but we have to believe torrent freak !!! LOL.. they wont be biased !!
If you read the torrent freak commentry on the report, it does not prove anything of the kind, that it is bogus
You must have read something different than I did, because the linked TorrentFreak article provides detailed analysis of the flaws in the study. The very first bullet point discusses how the study's estimate of unique torrents is seriously low.
You "obviously bogus" quote links me to your own article, something becoming a bad habbit for you.. I know it saves you work.. but it looks cheap..
There are four links in Mike's post, only one of which is to a TD article. If you haven't noticed, Mike links back to his own articles when it relates to the current topic, something that I think most people appreciate.
If, from day one of DVD rentals, they had offered DVDs with no special features to BB, and sold ones with Special Features through retail, this would be totally a RtB implemenation. It's just that they're coming at it late.
Agreed. In your scenario, people would most likely have shrugged and accepted it. But once people get used to something, taking it away is just going to piss them off.
The Special Features are the major reason why I buy movie DVDs though
Typically, if I really like a movie, I'll watch the "making of" segment, if they have one. But there are very very few movies that I like so much that I would buy the disc after I've already rented it, just to see the extras. On a related note, I've stopped watching deleted scenes after I realized that almost all of them were deleted for a very good reason.
will be purchasing fewer DVDs from BB if this trend continues
Wasn't there a story recently about how Redbox employees were walking into Target and buying every copy of popular movies? Of course the movie studios freaked out, but here's yet another reason not to buy the crippled rental versions from the studios: they'll have a harder time selling the discs after they're done renting them.
If, from day one of DVD rentals, they had offered DVDs with no special features to BB, and sold ones with Special Features through retail, this would be totally a RtB implemenation. It's just that they're coming at it late.
Agreed. In your scenario, people would most likely have shrugged and accepted it. But once people get used to something, taking it away is just going to piss them off.
The Special Features are the major reason why I buy movie DVDs though
Typically, if I really like a movie, I'll watch the "making of" segment, if they have one. But there are very very few movies that I like so much that I would buy the disc after I've already rented it, just to see the extras. On a related note, I've stopped watching deleted scenes after I realized that almost all of them were deleted for a very good reason.
will be purchasing fewer DVDs from BB if this trend continues
Wasn't there a story recently about how Redbox employees were walking into Target and buying every copy of popular movies? Of course the movie studios freaked out, but here's yet another reason not to buy the crippled rental versions from the studios: they'll have a harder time selling the discs after they're done renting them.
BD-live was never about adding value, it was about getting you to attach your BD player to the internet so they can spy on you, and change the abilities of your player.
Firmware updates and access to Netflix are much more compelling reasons to connect your Blu-ray to the Internet than BD-Live. If a movie studio cabal planned on luring in people to spy on them using connected Blu-ray players by relying on just BD-Live, they were not only nefarious, but stupid.
No, the movie companies are adding value to the "full purchase" DVD, and keeping a limited (but still complete movie) on the rental discs. This is a true "upsell".
To quote Monty Python, "An argument isn't just contradiction." You've merely contradicted my statements, but didn't give any clear justification. I repeat, people are already used to DVD extras, so when you remove them, you're removing a feature which has always comes included by default. To use your logic, car companies would just be "upselling" if they started charging you extra for a steering wheel.
I have to say that if the Movie companies did everything that TD suggests they should do, there would still be posts whining about this or that.
There's a fundamental difference between whining and pointing out ways that someone can improve their business.
this *is* what you keep talking about, albeit done poorly
I think there's a key difference between what Mike talks about and what is happening here. Mike typically suggests that you add value, whereas what the movie studios are doing here is removing value. If you pay a higher price for an album, but are entered into a drawing where you can spend a day with the artist, that is adding value. It's something new. But with DVD rentals, people have already come to expect the extras. They're taking away something that used to be included in the price, not adding something new.
On a related note, even when the movie studies do attempt to add something new, they fail terribly. Case in point: BD-Live, Sony's attempt to make movies interactive. Maybe other people use this feature, but if I want to look up some trivia about a movie, I pull my phone out or walk to my computer.
The problem with that is that it requires open minded thinking from a group of people who are practically paid by a group of few individuals who want to make as much $$$ as they can in a short amount of time.
Not to downplay the effect of corporate money on politics, but I think this particular issue has more to do with the internal workings of the government. It's the career bureaucrats, who are beholden to almost no one, that have the most to lose from an open government, not the elected officials, who are at least somewhat beholden to the public (and their corporate benefactors).
This might be a bit of a stretch, but I see a parallel between the US government's reaction to Wikileaks and big media's reaction to illegal file sharing. In both cases, they're choosing to spend their energies fighting something that can't be stopped instead of being pragmatic and finding ways to deal with the issue.
Unless the world changes to some type of 1984-like dystopia, both are going to just have to face reality and deal with it. Big media should accept the fact that they're not going to make as much money as they used to selling their wares and figure out ways to make what money they can. And governments should accept that they aren't going to be able to keep secrets the way they used to and figure out how to function in an open rather than a closed environment.
The lesson is deal with the world that is, not the world as you want it to be or as it used to be.
Considering that people have to do research from LOC... It might actually be beneficial.
Just to clarify my post, I'm not saying that the decision of the LoC to block Wikileaks and the justification thereof isn't ridiculous and asinine. It is. And it's shameful that an organization who should be about the free disemination of information is blocking Wikileaks. My point is simply that it's not ridiculous and asinine because the LoC thinks that it will have a material effect on the overall availability of the information (as the TD articles imply), but that it's ridiculous and asinine because beauracracies inevitably tend towards the ridiculous and asinine.
No, he means why isn't the Library of Congress blocking the New York Times?
I see what you (and the OP) are saying. And it's a valid point. I suppose the real world answer still gets back to CYA. One would hope that anyone in the LoC would stand up for freedom of information, but it's still a government agency. I'm guessing the directive came down from someone who just wanted to take some of the heat off. Also, they're probably making an artificial distinction between "the press" and other organizations.
If there is a law, then why aren't they blocking the New York Times too?
I admit I'm not up on all of the details, but one explanation could be that some laws don't apply universally to all people. If you are a government agency, you have to restrict access of classified documents to authorized personnel. The press and arguably anyone else have no such obligation even though the information in the document is the same. That's the reason that the people who originally leak information can be held accountable to their parent organization and/or relevant laws, but the people who publish that information "downstream" can't (or, at least, shouldn't).
I guess you'd have to count me in the "the law is the law" camp. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a beaurocrat errors on the side of caution. It may be obvious that a particular document has already become public knowledge, but this is still a subjective judgement. If you're in charge of making secret documents available to the public after they are declassified, what benefit is it to your career to release them before they've they're officially declassified? It's not your job to make that judgement.
And, frankly speaking, what the whitehouse says has fuckall to do with your promise to keep classifieds documents classified. If you work at the LoC and someone finds out that you were aware that classified documents were accessible but didn't move to block them, "but but but, the whitehouse said..." isn't going to mean anything.
For the record, I think periodic leaks like this are good for democracy. I just don't think that the policy of the LoC is that big a deal. It's beaurocrats doing what beaurocrats do. It's not an indication that they, in their heart of hearts, think that they're preventing access to the information. It's just CYA.
the cynic in me goes straight to the lobbyist explanation
Not to downplay the insidious role of the corporate lobbyist, but I'm sure that the computer games industry has been lobbying for years to lift the effective ban and they haven't succeeded. What has changed, I think, is the attitude of the public, not an increased effort of any lobbying group. All that I'm saying is that this issue is coming to the forefront because of real frustration by the people, not because of any backroom dealings.
Or, is this just the result of pressure from the video game industry lobby and won't have a bearing on the rest of their stupid agenda?
Have you considered the possibility that the underlying reason for lifting the effective ban is that the adult citizens of Australia don't want to be treated like children any longer and not because of some industry lobbying effort?
I was criticized for using a /sarcasm tag previously, but apparently it is warranted.
Unfortunatelly, no matter how outrageous you try to be in order to be sarcastic, especially with IP issues, there are people out there who actually think that way. Today's satire is tomorrow's headline.
The book to which I was referring was Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy.
Ah, I think the word "book" threw me off. In my head, the Divine Comedy is a poem. That, and it's not uncommon for games to spawn book deals.
On the post: Congressional Research Service Notes That There Are Serious Challenges To Charging Assange
Re: well we know
We do? When making such a grave accusation, it's helpful to not assume that people know what you're talking about and provide some kind of support for your position. (And please don't tell me to just google it. You're making the accusation; it's up to you to support it. I may find a million hits on a search, but I don't know which one justfies your specific accusation without you saying which one.)
On the post: Congressional Research Service Notes That There Are Serious Challenges To Charging Assange
Re: No Worries
You think trumping up charges is something that is unique to the US government?
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re: Re: So we cant believe independent studies, but we have to believe torrent freak !!! LOL.. they wont be biased !!
Why rely on The Age article when Mike makes it clear that the TorrentFreak article is the one that details the flaws of the study?
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re: Re: Re: So we cant believe independent studies, but we have to believe torrent freak !!! LOL.. they wont be biased !!
That's not what "troll" means. Trolls may sometimes use those techniques, but that's not what makes a troll. A troll is simply someone who is trying to provoke an emotional response. Most people that make unsubstantiated claims, don't address the specific argument, and make ad hominem attacks are doing so because of a lack of thinking, whereas the troll is actively thinking about how to provoke. That's why I don't think that Darryl's post was an attempt at trolling.
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: Re: So we cant believe independent studies, but we have to believe torrent freak !!! LOL.. they wont be biased !!
I don't think that Darryl's post is a troll. I think he is merely mistaken in categorizing the flaws pointed out by TF as "superficial eveidence". Besides, even if his post were an merely attempt to get a reaction, it still includes a valid point -- that you need to support your argument -- which ironically isn't very well supported in his post.
On the post: Journalists Continue To Rely On Bogus Research About File Sharing As If It Were Factual
Re: So we cant believe independent studies, but we have to believe torrent freak !!! LOL.. they wont be biased !!
You must have read something different than I did, because the linked TorrentFreak article provides detailed analysis of the flaws in the study. The very first bullet point discusses how the study's estimate of unique torrents is seriously low.
You "obviously bogus" quote links me to your own article, something becoming a bad habbit for you.. I know it saves you work.. but it looks cheap..
There are four links in Mike's post, only one of which is to a TD article. If you haven't noticed, Mike links back to his own articles when it relates to the current topic, something that I think most people appreciate.
On the post: Movie Studios Purposely Crippling Rental DVDs In Misguided Effort To Get People To Buy
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. In your scenario, people would most likely have shrugged and accepted it. But once people get used to something, taking it away is just going to piss them off.
The Special Features are the major reason why I buy movie DVDs though
Typically, if I really like a movie, I'll watch the "making of" segment, if they have one. But there are very very few movies that I like so much that I would buy the disc after I've already rented it, just to see the extras. On a related note, I've stopped watching deleted scenes after I realized that almost all of them were deleted for a very good reason.
will be purchasing fewer DVDs from BB if this trend continues
Wasn't there a story recently about how Redbox employees were walking into Target and buying every copy of popular movies? Of course the movie studios freaked out, but here's yet another reason not to buy the crippled rental versions from the studios: they'll have a harder time selling the discs after they're done renting them.
On the post: Movie Studios Purposely Crippling Rental DVDs In Misguided Effort To Get People To Buy
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. In your scenario, people would most likely have shrugged and accepted it. But once people get used to something, taking it away is just going to piss them off.
The Special Features are the major reason why I buy movie DVDs though
Typically, if I really like a movie, I'll watch the "making of" segment, if they have one. But there are very very few movies that I like so much that I would buy the disc after I've already rented it, just to see the extras. On a related note, I've stopped watching deleted scenes after I realized that almost all of them were deleted for a very good reason.
will be purchasing fewer DVDs from BB if this trend continues
Wasn't there a story recently about how Redbox employees were walking into Target and buying every copy of popular movies? Of course the movie studios freaked out, but here's yet another reason not to buy the crippled rental versions from the studios: they'll have a harder time selling the discs after they're done renting them.
On the post: Movie Studios Purposely Crippling Rental DVDs In Misguided Effort To Get People To Buy
Re: Re: Re:
Firmware updates and access to Netflix are much more compelling reasons to connect your Blu-ray to the Internet than BD-Live. If a movie studio cabal planned on luring in people to spy on them using connected Blu-ray players by relying on just BD-Live, they were not only nefarious, but stupid.
On the post: Movie Studios Purposely Crippling Rental DVDs In Misguided Effort To Get People To Buy
Re: Re: Re:
To quote Monty Python, "An argument isn't just contradiction." You've merely contradicted my statements, but didn't give any clear justification. I repeat, people are already used to DVD extras, so when you remove them, you're removing a feature which has always comes included by default. To use your logic, car companies would just be "upselling" if they started charging you extra for a steering wheel.
I have to say that if the Movie companies did everything that TD suggests they should do, there would still be posts whining about this or that.
There's a fundamental difference between whining and pointing out ways that someone can improve their business.
On the post: Movie Studios Purposely Crippling Rental DVDs In Misguided Effort To Get People To Buy
Re:
I think there's a key difference between what Mike talks about and what is happening here. Mike typically suggests that you add value, whereas what the movie studios are doing here is removing value. If you pay a higher price for an album, but are entered into a drawing where you can spend a day with the artist, that is adding value. It's something new. But with DVD rentals, people have already come to expect the extras. They're taking away something that used to be included in the price, not adding something new.
On a related note, even when the movie studies do attempt to add something new, they fail terribly. Case in point: BD-Live, Sony's attempt to make movies interactive. Maybe other people use this feature, but if I want to look up some trivia about a movie, I pull my phone out or walk to my computer.
On the post: If Assange Were In China, US Politicians Would Be Cheering Him On
Re: Re: Pragmatism
Not to downplay the effect of corporate money on politics, but I think this particular issue has more to do with the internal workings of the government. It's the career bureaucrats, who are beholden to almost no one, that have the most to lose from an open government, not the elected officials, who are at least somewhat beholden to the public (and their corporate benefactors).
On the post: If Assange Were In China, US Politicians Would Be Cheering Him On
Pragmatism
Unless the world changes to some type of 1984-like dystopia, both are going to just have to face reality and deal with it. Big media should accept the fact that they're not going to make as much money as they used to selling their wares and figure out ways to make what money they can. And governments should accept that they aren't going to be able to keep secrets the way they used to and figure out how to function in an open rather than a closed environment.
The lesson is deal with the world that is, not the world as you want it to be or as it used to be.
On the post: Did Library Of Congress Lie? White House Says No Requirement To Block Wikileaks
Re: Re: The law is the law
Just to clarify my post, I'm not saying that the decision of the LoC to block Wikileaks and the justification thereof isn't ridiculous and asinine. It is. And it's shameful that an organization who should be about the free disemination of information is blocking Wikileaks. My point is simply that it's not ridiculous and asinine because the LoC thinks that it will have a material effect on the overall availability of the information (as the TD articles imply), but that it's ridiculous and asinine because beauracracies inevitably tend towards the ridiculous and asinine.
On the post: Did Library Of Congress Lie? White House Says No Requirement To Block Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re:
I see what you (and the OP) are saying. And it's a valid point. I suppose the real world answer still gets back to CYA. One would hope that anyone in the LoC would stand up for freedom of information, but it's still a government agency. I'm guessing the directive came down from someone who just wanted to take some of the heat off. Also, they're probably making an artificial distinction between "the press" and other organizations.
On the post: Did Library Of Congress Lie? White House Says No Requirement To Block Wikileaks
Re:
I admit I'm not up on all of the details, but one explanation could be that some laws don't apply universally to all people. If you are a government agency, you have to restrict access of classified documents to authorized personnel. The press and arguably anyone else have no such obligation even though the information in the document is the same. That's the reason that the people who originally leak information can be held accountable to their parent organization and/or relevant laws, but the people who publish that information "downstream" can't (or, at least, shouldn't).
On the post: Did Library Of Congress Lie? White House Says No Requirement To Block Wikileaks
The law is the law
And, frankly speaking, what the whitehouse says has fuckall to do with your promise to keep classifieds documents classified. If you work at the LoC and someone finds out that you were aware that classified documents were accessible but didn't move to block them, "but but but, the whitehouse said..." isn't going to mean anything.
For the record, I think periodic leaks like this are good for democracy. I just don't think that the policy of the LoC is that big a deal. It's beaurocrats doing what beaurocrats do. It's not an indication that they, in their heart of hearts, think that they're preventing access to the information. It's just CYA.
On the post: Australia Might Finally Let Adults Play Video Games They Want To Play
Re: Re: Re:
Not to downplay the insidious role of the corporate lobbyist, but I'm sure that the computer games industry has been lobbying for years to lift the effective ban and they haven't succeeded. What has changed, I think, is the attitude of the public, not an increased effort of any lobbying group. All that I'm saying is that this issue is coming to the forefront because of real frustration by the people, not because of any backroom dealings.
On the post: Australia Might Finally Let Adults Play Video Games They Want To Play
Re:
Have you considered the possibility that the underlying reason for lifting the effective ban is that the adult citizens of Australia don't want to be treated like children any longer and not because of some industry lobbying effort?
On the post: Gawker Sued For Copyright Infringement For Showing Image That Inspired EA's Dante's Inferno
Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunatelly, no matter how outrageous you try to be in order to be sarcastic, especially with IP issues, there are people out there who actually think that way. Today's satire is tomorrow's headline.
The book to which I was referring was Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy.
Ah, I think the word "book" threw me off. In my head, the Divine Comedy is a poem. That, and it's not uncommon for games to spawn book deals.
Next >>