Viacom seems to think so. You and all the other dirty murdering no-good low-life pirate thieves who make up the entire (thinking) population of the world! :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo" - "Which is why I don't see anything wrong with paying for cyberlockers."
" You've got to continuously create new content, no dumping a show there, extracting payments for the next 15 decades and doing nothing else."
Exactly. I have no objection to kids benefiting from their parents hard work, but that does not give them the right to continue leaching even after said parent is dead. Copyrights that exceed a lifespan are so far beyond reasonable as to be a joke.
Yet policy makers continue to willfully ignore the wishes of their constituents.
Only if you forget the quotes. If you actually type it in exactly as he does it makes first place.
Not that I imagine real people would ever do that. But then he doesn't want real people, he wants idiots who will fall for his scam. I can see why he likes Carreon.
If you do a search for 'Internet Advertising,' 'internet marketing,' or 'internet marketing company' he doesn't even show up within the first three pages!
Well at least he's figured out how to use zombies and kiddy script to create some false search results. That's something. I guess. Not something to be proud of, but something.
Well that's a relief, though our acceptance of this makes an especially sad statement about the quality of the rest of their propaganda.
It has to be terribly embarrassing when the rest of the world can't tell the difference between a hacked together hoax and your own official government releases. Even the IRS produce better quality material.
Oh, I know it's real, it just blows my mind that their government holds them in such low esteem they don't even try to make the propaganda look real. And the people have so much anger and bitterness they _accept_ these incredibly pathetic broadcasts. These are people just like us, not some dirty and uncultured savage hiding in the hills. As a culture they have all the resources we have, yet they are so completely under the propagandists control that instead of laughing at it they accept it. I'm not saying there aren't people here who wouldn't buy into this too - that's the whole point of spam - but that's on an individual scale, not en-mass. *shrug* oh, well, I mostly just feel sorry for them I guess.
This... has. to be a parody. Someone started April fools day early. Please let this be a parody. Seriously, if they have access to you tube for watching these then they also have access to other videos and other parts of the internet and must know these aren't real. It's bad enough when a country has to photoshop their equipment, but at least that passed the 'quick glance' test. This is just totally... unbelievable?
This is certainly an intriguing idea. I can see a lot of potential, both good and bad - some have already been pointed out right here in the comments - but even with all the possible problems there remains a lot of positive potential too.
I do think an opt-out option would be absolutely critical.
That's different. You see we are not allowed to complain, however he is. And both courts and the law have been showing a disconcerting tendency to agree with that kind of thinking lately. A double standard especially prolific in the UK so far, but also seen in legal cases over here. Never forget the old adage: Might makes right.
Shipping costs and returns are major issues with any online purchase. Amazon or Newegg may well have better pricing, but by the time I've paid for shipping much of that gain is lost. And if I receive a faulty product it gets worse very quickly since I now have to pay return shipping in addition to not knowing when - or if - I will get my reimbursement/replacement. Personally, I have often chosen to pay a little extra simply because the store has a better return policy.
This is exactly the sort of thing I believe people would be willing to pay a membership fee for. Unfortunately, her sign indicates complete disrespect of her customers.
Perhaps a more realistic comparison would be the yearly membership fee I pay to Costco. But that fee not only allows me to do all the window shopping I want, it also entitles me to a great number of excellent discounts and and extremely good return policy.
That 'no question' return policy was directly responsible for many purchases I have made there of items which I had not researched. Simply knowing that I will face no issues returning it makes impulse spending very easy.
And even there I check my overall return against the membership fee every couple of years to make sure it is still worth while.
" I would look for any "advice" online and then perhaps buy something locally."
Indeed, getting advise from a salesman at a local store is probably the _last_ thing I would do since they are the most likely to try misleading me. Normally I do my research online before going to the store, then if the salesman completely disagrees with the info I got online I _may_ go back to the internet to study that difference before making my final decision.
Perhaps it is simply that we are so much more intelligent then her customers that we make them look like drooling idiots. Or maybe that's just her opinion of them, though I have to wonder considering she is apparently not the only one doing this. I'm glad I'm not an Australian because I'd be terribly embarrassed for any remaining customers these stores have.
"People are taking their time to drive to another store because there is enough incentive to not purchase from her."
Exactly. I am also highly skeptical of her facts: how did she come to the conclusion that so many of her customers did this? Did she actually distribute a questionnaire and take a survey, or is this just a baseless assumption?
In any event it blows my mind to imagine ordinary people actually paying that fee. I know I wouldn't.
It's purely a matter of control potential, and not necessarily initiated by Netflix either. The content producers will insist that the provider (Netflix) apply such restrictions so they have the potential for future control of the viewers choices. On Netflix's side, this is also good because it keeps the field clear for things like charging extra fees for each playback device - just like the cable companies charge extra for each TV. Planning future profit upgrades is a core component of any big corporation.
Or worse, it will be embraced as a means of openly selling ad space to the highest bidders. That would also give the corporations the opportunity to openly claim they are 'entitled' to a greater say in the nations politics.
On the post: What Can Judge Wright Do To Team Prenda Tomorrow?
Re:
On the post: Viacom Filing Attempts To Rewrite DMCA, Shift Burden Of Proof, Wipe Out Safe Harbors And Require Mandatory Filtering
Re:
On the post: Viacom Filing Attempts To Rewrite DMCA, Shift Burden Of Proof, Wipe Out Safe Harbors And Require Mandatory Filtering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo" - "Which is why I don't see anything wrong with paying for cyberlockers."
Exactly. I have no objection to kids benefiting from their parents hard work, but that does not give them the right to continue leaching even after said parent is dead. Copyrights that exceed a lifespan are so far beyond reasonable as to be a joke.
Yet policy makers continue to willfully ignore the wishes of their constituents.
On the post: Dennis Deems' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
On the post: 'Internet Lawyer' Charles Carreon Has A New Best Friend And He's An SEO Expert Who Hates Anonymous Critics
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Internet lawyer"
Not that I imagine real people would ever do that. But then he doesn't want real people, he wants idiots who will fall for his scam. I can see why he likes Carreon.
If you do a search for 'Internet Advertising,' 'internet marketing,' or 'internet marketing company' he doesn't even show up within the first three pages!
Well at least he's figured out how to use zombies and kiddy script to create some false search results. That's something. I guess. Not something to be proud of, but something.
On the post: What I Learned About My Own Daily Life From The Latest North Korean Propaganda Video
Re:
It has to be terribly embarrassing when the rest of the world can't tell the difference between a hacked together hoax and your own official government releases. Even the IRS produce better quality material.
On the post: What I Learned About My Own Daily Life From The Latest North Korean Propaganda Video
Re: Re:
On the post: What I Learned About My Own Daily Life From The Latest North Korean Propaganda Video
On the post: Wal-Mart Wants Store Customers To Deliver Packages To Online Shoppers
I do think an opt-out option would be absolutely critical.
On the post: 'Internet Lawyer' Charles Carreon Has A New Best Friend And He's An SEO Expert Who Hates Anonymous Critics
Re:
On the post: Dumb Policy: Store Charges $5 Just To Look At Goods, To Keep People From Looking And Then Buying Online
Re:
On the post: Dumb Policy: Store Charges $5 Just To Look At Goods, To Keep People From Looking And Then Buying Online
Re: Re:
On the post: Dumb Policy: Store Charges $5 Just To Look At Goods, To Keep People From Looking And Then Buying Online
Re: ACTUALLY, this may work.
That 'no question' return policy was directly responsible for many purchases I have made there of items which I had not researched. Simply knowing that I will face no issues returning it makes impulse spending very easy.
And even there I check my overall return against the membership fee every couple of years to make sure it is still worth while.
On the post: Dumb Policy: Store Charges $5 Just To Look At Goods, To Keep People From Looking And Then Buying Online
Re: Re: WTF
Indeed, getting advise from a salesman at a local store is probably the _last_ thing I would do since they are the most likely to try misleading me. Normally I do my research online before going to the store, then if the salesman completely disagrees with the info I got online I _may_ go back to the internet to study that difference before making my final decision.
Perhaps it is simply that we are so much more intelligent then her customers that we make them look like drooling idiots. Or maybe that's just her opinion of them, though I have to wonder considering she is apparently not the only one doing this. I'm glad I'm not an Australian because I'd be terribly embarrassed for any remaining customers these stores have.
On the post: Dumb Policy: Store Charges $5 Just To Look At Goods, To Keep People From Looking And Then Buying Online
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. I am also highly skeptical of her facts: how did she come to the conclusion that so many of her customers did this? Did she actually distribute a questionnaire and take a survey, or is this just a baseless assumption?
In any event it blows my mind to imagine ordinary people actually paying that fee. I know I wouldn't.
On the post: True Purpose Of DRM: To Let Copyright Holders Have A Veto Right On New Technologies
Re:
On the post: The Arab Street Responds To Fear Of Memes By Producing Tons Of Meme Videos
Re: Re: Timmy the (blind) Middle East expert.
On the post: Petition Submitted To Require Congress To Wear The Logos Of Their Corporate Donors
Re: Re:
On the post: Petition Submitted To Require Congress To Wear The Logos Of Their Corporate Donors
Re:
Except that these funds would be considered 'necessary incentives' for the politicians and would never reach the actual public coffers.
On the post: Petition Submitted To Require Congress To Wear The Logos Of Their Corporate Donors
Re:
Or worse, it will be embraced as a means of openly selling ad space to the highest bidders. That would also give the corporations the opportunity to openly claim they are 'entitled' to a greater say in the nations politics.
Next >>