This is the elephant in the room that everyone seems to ignore when they cheer cord cutting on. Instead of paying $250 / month for internet/cable/phone you'll pay $250 / month for internet and maybe get free cable/phone. And as streaming proliferates every broadcaster/studio will end up being a separate stream that will cost you $10-$15/month on top of that.
Stopping comments wouldn't be good enough. Even with view only access it's entirely possible that someone outside the EU posts copyrighted content which could then be viewed in the EU. Lacking a magic copyright filter which cannot exist, the choices for someone like twitter appear to be:
1) Leave everything as is and roll the dice that you won't get fined. Funnel some cash to appropriate parties to help ensure this outcome.
2) Block any IP from the EU from viewing any and all content that has not been approved by a content filter. For this to have any real shot you have to have a pretty high confidence level in the filter.
3) Block EU IP's from accessing your site entirely.
4) If you're really paranoid, block all EU IP's from accessing your site. Block any link where the IP is in the EU. Completely shut down all EU operations. Executives avoid ever entering an EU country.
The problem is that #3 doesn't even fully solve the problem, non-EU users could post EU content and even though you aren't showing it you could be found to be infringing and be penalized (assuming you still have any EU operations and thus the EU has a way to get at you). For example, google has a data center in Ireland, even if they just block all EU IP's from google news, what happens if an EU link gets through the cracks and gets posted? The EU could still hit them with fines even though no EU user can see it, and since they have a business in the EU (even though it's unrelated) that gives the EU a way to get at them. The only way to really avoid fines is to go full nuclear and use #4 and totally and completely abandon the EU.
As for what would happen, I expect major services that already have pretty good content filters (like youtube) would go with option #2. Just block the content until it passes the filter. The problem is that they may just decide to do that for everybody instead of just for EU IP's since that would be easier. I think small sites like enthusiast/hobby forums would go with #1 counting on the fact that they aren't the target of the law and nobody would bother with them. For a major site that lacks good content filtering like twitter I'm not sure what they would do.
"This one strikes me as a possible misuse of royalty free stock photography"
The level of cognitive dissonance that goes into putting the above two sentences in the same paragraph is frankly astonishing.
If you are interested in commenting on whether this was a possible misuse, perhaps you should read the terms before commenting. Here, I'll help you out:
The lesson here is that next time Officer Gasparino should empty his service weapon into the sign holder and claim they were resisting arrest. Dead people don't get to tell their side of the story.
Where is the problem. This is working exactly as intended. The corporation gets giant bags of money. The politicians get small bags of money and the ability to point to this so they can win at buzzword bingo come election time. A few of them will probably get cushy private sector jobs from this when they finally get voted out of office.
The taxpayers of Wisconsin get screwed but do you really think anybody involved cares about that? That is part of the plan. Let them eat cake.
We've created a political system which encourages the morally strong to avoid politics and the morally bankrupt to run for office. We are getting exactly the government we asked for. (Note that humans are very, very good at screwing other humans so you'd probably get a similar government no matter what you asked for.)
Clearly New Zealand should just execute everyone that attempts to enter the country. After all, anyone entering could be a nefarious criminal, so if you just kill everyone then zero criminals will enter the country.
Re: 'Do better, or you'll join the last company who had the job'
It's an empty threat. Who else besides Charter/Comcast is there to choose? There are so few players in the space there is nowhere to go. Except perhaps for the state to take a crack at providing the service itself. Given the competency of government run programs I can only imagine how well that would go.
And Charter knows this which is why they can be so belligerent.
That is the clear end game for them. As it stands right now from my provider (FIOS) it's cheaper to get cable/broadband/phone than it is to get cable/broadband, so I have a home phone line whether I want it or not.
They will just shift the prices around so that you get "free" phone and "free" cable tv with your broadband. Your bill isn't actually going to go down. That would require actual competition in the space which is something I won't see in my lifetime.
To me this is how the "justice" system works these days. Instead of applying law and then forming an opinion on a case, far too often judges start from an opinion that feels right to them and then work backwards to try to twist the law so that it fits that opinion. The system generally incentives them to do so, judicial accountability is low to non-existent and there are no repercussions for doing this other than a few people pointing at them and saying "naughty, naughty". So the behavior shouldn't be surprising.
In this particular case the judge in question really couldn't bend the law enough to justify what felt right, so once it was clear he was going to be called on it he walked it back.
It's actually a million different monopolies. Each streaming service is essentially a network, if you want to watch Disney shows, then you have to subscribe to the Disney streaming service. Want to watch a CBS show? That's only available on the CBS streaming service. Want to watch a Netflix show? Only on Netflix.
Unless you just want the TV on for background noise there isn't actually competition, each service is a mini-monopoly. It's actually the worst of both worlds.
Consumers wanted companies to adapt and they are adapting. Except they are adapting to maximize the amount of revenue they get from you per purchase, instead of adapting to maximize consumer convenience.
Ah Boscon, there's a name I haven't heard in a while. I still have great memories of the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea party and the paper mache octopus tentacles, anyway...
My first comic convention was in 1972 and back then they were all called comic con whether they included that in their name or not, it was just the generic term used.
In terms of the usage in an actual show name there was a show in England called comicon (slightly different I know but potentially confusing) that predates SDCC by two years:
Why do you find this amazing? People will always believe someone that tells them what they want to hear. If you live in a coal town you have the following choices:
mine coal
sell stuff to people that mine coal
figure out something else you might want to do, get the money (which you don't have) to get the required education, and move somewhere else to do it.
Number 3 is pretty scary for a lot of people, so when someone tells them its all going to be fine and they can keep doing numbers 1 and 2 of course they believe them.
Actually more likely the next eight years. Four of the past five presidents served 2 terms, so odds are that you would be stuck with the winner for eight years, regardless of who it was.
On the post: Industry Claims That Cord Cutting Would Be A Fad Aren't Looking So Hot
Re: yeah but...
This is the elephant in the room that everyone seems to ignore when they cheer cord cutting on. Instead of paying $250 / month for internet/cable/phone you'll pay $250 / month for internet and maybe get free cable/phone. And as streaming proliferates every broadcaster/studio will end up being a separate stream that will cost you $10-$15/month on top of that.
On the post: United States Gifted With 33rd National Emergency By President Who Says It's Not Really An Emergency
Re: anyone's guess
You forgot to mention that "They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
On the post: EU Moves Forward With Agreement To Fundamentally Change The Internet From Open To Closed
Re: Fair use
Stopping comments wouldn't be good enough. Even with view only access it's entirely possible that someone outside the EU posts copyrighted content which could then be viewed in the EU. Lacking a magic copyright filter which cannot exist, the choices for someone like twitter appear to be:
1) Leave everything as is and roll the dice that you won't get fined. Funnel some cash to appropriate parties to help ensure this outcome. 2) Block any IP from the EU from viewing any and all content that has not been approved by a content filter. For this to have any real shot you have to have a pretty high confidence level in the filter. 3) Block EU IP's from accessing your site entirely. 4) If you're really paranoid, block all EU IP's from accessing your site. Block any link where the IP is in the EU. Completely shut down all EU operations. Executives avoid ever entering an EU country.
The problem is that #3 doesn't even fully solve the problem, non-EU users could post EU content and even though you aren't showing it you could be found to be infringing and be penalized (assuming you still have any EU operations and thus the EU has a way to get at you). For example, google has a data center in Ireland, even if they just block all EU IP's from google news, what happens if an EU link gets through the cracks and gets posted? The EU could still hit them with fines even though no EU user can see it, and since they have a business in the EU (even though it's unrelated) that gives the EU a way to get at them. The only way to really avoid fines is to go full nuclear and use #4 and totally and completely abandon the EU.
As for what would happen, I expect major services that already have pretty good content filters (like youtube) would go with option #2. Just block the content until it passes the filter. The problem is that they may just decide to do that for everybody instead of just for EU IP's since that would be easier. I think small sites like enthusiast/hobby forums would go with #1 counting on the fact that they aren't the target of the law and nobody would bother with them. For a major site that lacks good content filtering like twitter I'm not sure what they would do.
On the post: Photographer Licenses Photo To Shutterstock, Is Shocked When It Plays Out Exactly How Everyone Would Imagine
Re: Depends...
"This one strikes me as a possible misuse of royalty free stock photography"
The level of cognitive dissonance that goes into putting the above two sentences in the same paragraph is frankly astonishing.
If you are interested in commenting on whether this was a possible misuse, perhaps you should read the terms before commenting. Here, I'll help you out:
https://www.shutterstock.com/license
On the post: Cop Sued For Bogus Arrest Of Man Who Broke Up The PD's Distracted Driving Sting
On the post: The Foxconn Wisconsin Deal Has Devolved Into A Pile Of Shifting Promises, Buzzwords, And Hype
Working as intended
The taxpayers of Wisconsin get screwed but do you really think anybody involved cares about that? That is part of the plan. Let them eat cake.
We've created a political system which encourages the morally strong to avoid politics and the morally bankrupt to run for office. We are getting exactly the government we asked for. (Note that humans are very, very good at screwing other humans so you'd probably get a similar government no matter what you asked for.)
On the post: Travelers To New Zealand Now Face $3,000 Fines If They Don't Give Their Device Passwords To Customs Agents
The Perfect Balance
On the post: New York State Votes To Kick Charter Out Of The State For Poor Service, Failing To Meet Merger Conditions
Re: 'Do better, or you'll join the last company who had the job'
And Charter knows this which is why they can be so belligerent.
On the post: Survey: 5.4 Million Americans Will Cut The Cable TV Cord In 2018
Re: Cord Cut
They will just shift the prices around so that you get "free" phone and "free" cable tv with your broadband. Your bill isn't actually going to go down. That would require actual competition in the space which is something I won't see in my lifetime.
On the post: Judge Shrugs At 1st Amendment, Orders News Site To Take Down Info It Got From A Publicly-Available Court Filing [UPDATED]
In this particular case the judge in question really couldn't bend the law enough to justify what felt right, so once it was clear he was going to be called on it he walked it back.
On the post: Disney Pulls Content From Netflix As Users Face An Annoying, Confusing Rise In Streaming Exclusivity Silos
Re: Re:
Unless you just want the TV on for background noise there isn't actually competition, each service is a mini-monopoly. It's actually the worst of both worlds.
Consumers wanted companies to adapt and they are adapting. Except they are adapting to maximize the amount of revenue they get from you per purchase, instead of adapting to maximize consumer convenience.
On the post: San Diego Comic Con Gets Gag Order On Salt Lake Comic Con
Re: Re: The Great Flood
My first comic convention was in 1972 and back then they were all called comic con whether they included that in their name or not, it was just the generic term used.
In terms of the usage in an actual show name there was a show in England called comicon (slightly different I know but potentially confusing) that predates SDCC by two years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Comic_Art_Convention
On the post: Coal CEO Threatens John Oliver With A SLAPP Suit
Re:
Why do you find this amazing? People will always believe someone that tells them what they want to hear. If you live in a coal town you have the following choices:
Number 3 is pretty scary for a lot of people, so when someone tells them its all going to be fine and they can keep doing numbers 1 and 2 of course they believe them.
On the post: Despite Claiming It's Now On Par With Apple, Comcast's Already Bad Satisfaction Ratings Are Actually Getting Worse
On the post: FBI Dismisses Child Porn Prosecution After Refusing To Hand Over Details On Its Hacking Tool
Re:
On the post: What The Election Means For Stuff Techdirt Cares About?
Re: No lube it is
On the post: California Cops Passed Around Explicit Photos Harvested From Arrestees' Phones
Re:
On the post: FBI Increasingly Using Malware To Remotely Turn On Phone/Laptop Microphones
Re:
On the post: Congressman Already Claims That He Needs To Overturn Supreme Court Ruling In Kirtsaeng
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Prenda Law Issues Subpoena For IP Addresses Of Every Visitor To Critic Blogs For The Past Two Years
Dear Sir(s):
The below list includes all IP's that have visited us within the past 2 years:
1.1.1.1
1.1.1.2
1.1.1.3
...
255.255.255.255
Next >>