Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 27 Mar 2018 @ 10:30am
Re: Re:
So now CBS should have all the fans of "The Good Wife" and all the Star Trek fans as subscribers.
Reality suggests that some of the fans are probably subscribers with probably somewhere around an equal number who have either become infringing downloaders, or decided they really don't give enough of a f**k to bother with either.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 27 Mar 2018 @ 8:40am
Yep, it's a problem
I hesitate to suggest regulation, because the inevitable result would be a hideous turd-like abortion-heap mostly bought and paid for by large incumbents to look fair while locking things down ever tighter, but that the only thing that I suspect would fix it. (In that mythical world where regulations are for consumer interest)
It just occurred to me that maybe what's needed (apart from actual net neutrality of course) is a mandated and limited "exclusives" window for this stuff:
The content creator gets to make an exclusive deal if they want (let's face it probably with themselves), but only for a limited time (maybe 6 months, maybe more, maybe less)... but after that mandated period, it becomes more like how I understand mechanical licenses to work for music. I.e. you don't have a choice, you have to grant a streaming license for a fixed (at least fixed per item) fee to anyone who wants it.
That way you still get to up-sell to the "must have it now"-types in the exclusive period and the everyday consumer gets the wide raft of reasonably priced and wholly inclusive services they really want while the content companies still get paid and discourage piracy at the same time.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Mar 2018 @ 6:37am
But...
The security agency, known as the FSB, argued in court that obtaining the encryption keys doesn’t violate users’ privacy because the keys by themselves aren’t considered information of restricted access.
Yeah, but that argument only works where the judges have been specifically chosen to agree with an authoritarian government and will ignore the rights and needs of the population at large and twist arguments to support the dictatorial desires of the government in its perceived need for total surveillance of its populace, whereas in America... Oh, wait... Never mind.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 16 Mar 2018 @ 12:37pm
Re: Hate speach
These EU laws are thinly veiled attempts to penalize American companies for their success.
News flash; not everything is about America.
Mostly these dumb laws are knee-jerk attempts to be seen "doing something" about "terrorism" (/hate speech/human trafficking/paedophilia - insert current newsworthy emotive topic here) without the bother of actually spending government resources and with the handy benefit of pointing at someone else and saying, "It's all their fault, not ours!"
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 16 Mar 2018 @ 2:22am
Re: Re: Re: How can they have jurisdiction?
Why would Google, Facebook and other have it?
Why wouldn't they? Their interest is customers and money, not speech. If their customers aren't interested enough to see the censorship, why would they care?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:17am
Um...?
Quite apart from the ridiculousness of the trademark claim, is not the factual naming of something and reporting opinion on said something not pretty much the definition of "protected speech"?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:03am
Re: Re: TANJ it!
If there are only idiots on the ballot, campaign yourself.
And you hold what public office? However, I suspect that were I to campaign I would get little support. The sad truth of politics is that people want to believe the impossible promises politicians make rather than the cold, hard fact that, for example, you aren't going to get lower taxes and higher public spending. The Liberal Democrats over here tried the truth tack a few elections back and, predictably, got horrible pasted and lost a bunch of seats. Apparently, writing about a mythical, Utopian future on the side of a bus is the way to get votes...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 13 Mar 2018 @ 1:18pm
TANJ it!
All that's really unsettled at this point is how much it's going to cost Sibley residents, who not only have to put up with fumes town leaders didn't want to address, but will soon be asked to cover the costs of the town's boneheaded First Amendment violations
If there were any justice, the court would direct that the 1st amendment violation was by the idiots in the town government rather than the government itself and order them to pay personally. I rather suspect the law does not allow for that, but it would be far more satisfying karma-wise.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 10 Mar 2018 @ 5:56am
But wait... what?
I'd heard there was this crazy thing called "The Constitution" over there in the US and that it said something about citizens "effects" being secured from "unreasonable searches and seizures".
I'm pretty sure a truck would qualify as an "effect" and equally sure that "because we wanted it" is close to the textbook definition of "unreasonable". So can some clever lawyer explain how this sort of thing isn't exactly what they were thinking about when they wrote that?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 27 Feb 2018 @ 10:15am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is The Second Amendment More Important Than The First Amendment?
again, it's no fault of the weapon itself, but rather the people getting their hands on them.
Again, indeed. So your argument is that it's absolutely fine to have hundreds or thousands of unsecured nuclear weapons just lying around because you're going to be fantastic at deciding who gets to pick them up. Y'know, like Nikolas Cruz and Stephen Paddock, for example.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 23 Feb 2018 @ 3:13pm
Re: Re: Re: Is The Second Amendment More Important Than The First Amendment?
on the other hand, a rifle or handgun just sitting there isn't going arbitrarily decide to kill someone.
Indeed. But to resort to hyperbole for a moment, neither does a nuclear weapon sitting there arbitrarily decide to kill someone, but most people seem to get fairly het-up about them lying around and anyone getting their hands on them, so I'm unconvinced that's a good standard to apply to the issue.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 23 Feb 2018 @ 8:46am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like buying bread. Using public transport. Buying movie ticket.
Yeah, last time I checked bakers don't try and insist that by buying bread you are agreeing that you are only allowed to eat said bread yourself and only in a private residence where no-one else can see you eat it.
Trains rarely insist that your first class ticket pre-purchased becomes null-and-void because you showed up at the station wearing an ugly plaid shirt.
Movie theatres do not try and insist that purchasing a ticket restricts you from using other cinema chains at a later date.
The "implied contract" on these things tend to be relatively obvious and usually limited to the actual act of purchase or direct use of the purchase while on someone else's premises and rarely, if ever, try to set limits on future behaviour.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 23 Feb 2018 @ 12:57am
Re: Is The Second Amendment More Important Than The First Amendment?
Or this one:
"And the National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, people do," but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that-" - Eddie Izzard
On the post: The Rise In Streaming Video Exclusives Could Annoy Consumers, Driving Them Back To Piracy
Re: Re:
Reality suggests that some of the fans are probably subscribers with probably somewhere around an equal number who have either become infringing downloaders, or decided they really don't give enough of a f**k to bother with either.
On the post: The Rise In Streaming Video Exclusives Could Annoy Consumers, Driving Them Back To Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Why is this a problem?
deaderer, surely?
On the post: The Rise In Streaming Video Exclusives Could Annoy Consumers, Driving Them Back To Piracy
Yep, it's a problem
I hesitate to suggest regulation, because the inevitable result would be a hideous turd-like abortion-heap mostly bought and paid for by large incumbents to look fair while locking things down ever tighter, but that the only thing that I suspect would fix it. (In that mythical world where regulations are for consumer interest)
It just occurred to me that maybe what's needed (apart from actual net neutrality of course) is a mandated and limited "exclusives" window for this stuff:
The content creator gets to make an exclusive deal if they want (let's face it probably with themselves), but only for a limited time (maybe 6 months, maybe more, maybe less)... but after that mandated period, it becomes more like how I understand mechanical licenses to work for music. I.e. you don't have a choice, you have to grant a streaming license for a fixed (at least fixed per item) fee to anyone who wants it.
That way you still get to up-sell to the "must have it now"-types in the exclusive period and the everyday consumer gets the wide raft of reasonably priced and wholly inclusive services they really want while the content companies still get paid and discourage piracy at the same time.
Never happen, though.
On the post: The Rise In Streaming Video Exclusives Could Annoy Consumers, Driving Them Back To Piracy
Re: Why is this a problem?
On the post: Russian Court Says Telegram Must Hand Over Encryption Keys To State Intelligence Service
But...
Yeah, but that argument only works where the judges have been specifically chosen to agree with an authoritarian government and will ignore the rights and needs of the population at large and twist arguments to support the dictatorial desires of the government in its perceived need for total surveillance of its populace, whereas in America... Oh, wait... Never mind.
On the post: Censorship Creep Is Setting In As Social Media Companies Try To Stay Ahead Of European Lawmakers
Re: Hate speach
News flash; not everything is about America.
Mostly these dumb laws are knee-jerk attempts to be seen "doing something" about "terrorism" (/hate speech/human trafficking/paedophilia - insert current newsworthy emotive topic here) without the bother of actually spending government resources and with the handy benefit of pointing at someone else and saying, "It's all their fault, not ours!"
On the post: Censorship Creep Is Setting In As Social Media Companies Try To Stay Ahead Of European Lawmakers
Re: Re: Re: How can they have jurisdiction?
Why wouldn't they? Their interest is customers and money, not speech. If their customers aren't interested enough to see the censorship, why would they care?
On the post: Federal Judge Says Business Names Provided By Reviewers At A Review Site Are Contributory Trademark Infringement
Um...?
On the post: Iowa Town Threatens Critical Resident With A Lawsuit, Gets Sued By The ACLU Instead
Re: Re: TANJ it!
And you hold what public office? However, I suspect that were I to campaign I would get little support. The sad truth of politics is that people want to believe the impossible promises politicians make rather than the cold, hard fact that, for example, you aren't going to get lower taxes and higher public spending. The Liberal Democrats over here tried the truth tack a few elections back and, predictably, got horrible pasted and lost a bunch of seats. Apparently, writing about a mythical, Utopian future on the side of a bus is the way to get votes...
On the post: Iowa Town Threatens Critical Resident With A Lawsuit, Gets Sued By The ACLU Instead
TANJ it!
If there were any justice, the court would direct that the 1st amendment violation was by the idiots in the town government rather than the government itself and order them to pay personally. I rather suspect the law does not allow for that, but it would be far more satisfying karma-wise.
On the post: Court Moves Business Owner One Step Closer To Getting Paid Back For Vehicle DEA Destroyed In A Failed Drug Sting
But wait... what?
I'd heard there was this crazy thing called "The Constitution" over there in the US and that it said something about citizens "effects" being secured from "unreasonable searches and seizures".
I'm pretty sure a truck would qualify as an "effect" and equally sure that "because we wanted it" is close to the textbook definition of "unreasonable". So can some clever lawyer explain how this sort of thing isn't exactly what they were thinking about when they wrote that?
On the post: If You Think SESTA Will Help Victims Of Sex Trafficking, Read This Now
Oops?
Was that "wonky" a Freudian slip, or did you mean "working"?
On the post: Trump Blames School Shootings On Violent Video Games, Movies; Suggests We Need Some Sort Of Rating System For Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is The Second Amendment More Important Than The First Amendment?
Again, indeed. So your argument is that it's absolutely fine to have hundreds or thousands of unsecured nuclear weapons just lying around because you're going to be fantastic at deciding who gets to pick them up. Y'know, like Nikolas Cruz and Stephen Paddock, for example.
On the post: Trump Blames School Shootings On Violent Video Games, Movies; Suggests We Need Some Sort Of Rating System For Them
Re: Re: Re: Is The Second Amendment More Important Than The First Amendment?
Indeed. But to resort to hyperbole for a moment, neither does a nuclear weapon sitting there arbitrarily decide to kill someone, but most people seem to get fairly het-up about them lying around and anyone getting their hands on them, so I'm unconvinced that's a good standard to apply to the issue.
On the post: Disney's Stupid Lawsuit Against Redbox Results In Judge Saying Disney Is Engaged In Copyright Misuse
Re:
On the post: Disney's Stupid Lawsuit Against Redbox Results In Judge Saying Disney Is Engaged In Copyright Misuse
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, last time I checked bakers don't try and insist that by buying bread you are agreeing that you are only allowed to eat said bread yourself and only in a private residence where no-one else can see you eat it.
Trains rarely insist that your first class ticket pre-purchased becomes null-and-void because you showed up at the station wearing an ugly plaid shirt.
Movie theatres do not try and insist that purchasing a ticket restricts you from using other cinema chains at a later date.
The "implied contract" on these things tend to be relatively obvious and usually limited to the actual act of purchase or direct use of the purchase while on someone else's premises and rarely, if ever, try to set limits on future behaviour.
On the post: Trump Blames School Shootings On Violent Video Games, Movies; Suggests We Need Some Sort Of Rating System For Them
Re: Given that TV is linked to culture
Does that mean that Americans are just naturally more homicidal than the rest of the western world?
Statistics and indeed regular news reports would seem to suggest that "at some point" was quite a number of years ago.
On the post: Trump Blames School Shootings On Violent Video Games, Movies; Suggests We Need Some Sort Of Rating System For Them
Re: Is The Second Amendment More Important Than The First Amendment?
Or this one:
On the post: Trump Blames School Shootings On Violent Video Games, Movies; Suggests We Need Some Sort Of Rating System For Them
Re: Re:
Swords are expensive to buy and difficult to maintain. What you need is a Curry Mallet
On the post: Trump Blames School Shootings On Violent Video Games, Movies; Suggests We Need Some Sort Of Rating System For Them
Re: Re: Re: pont those fingers aomeplace else
Only if you're William Shatner...
Next >>