Using "Consumers don't want unlimited plans" as shorthand for: "We can't charge what we'd like (and meet our Return on Investment goals) for unlimited plans" seems to be a perfectly valid and normal answer for me. It's a business decision VzW has chosen to make.
Because I love car analogies: I may want a fast car, but I am rather unlikely to buy a car from a company that gratuitously puts a 600HP V12 in every vehicle; I'll shop elsewhere, because I expect their prices will be too high.
(But yeah: "'Limitless' means we'll let you spend your data on whatever you like" is pretty stupid.)
Netflix doesn't publish ratings because they don't need to
Netflix of course knows exactly who is watching what, when, and for how long. To a degree that a traditional TV outlet could only dream of.
But of all the things Netflix can measure, the things measured by traditional ratings are probably the least valuable.
It DOES. NOT. MATTER. : - How many total people watch such-and-such show - How soon after release they watch it - What age they are - How much money they make - Where they live
What does matter? : - Does the person paying for the subscription (or somebody with sway over said person) have a reason to keep renewing?
That's it. Nothing else matters when you have zero advertisers and a monthly fee.
If only 50,000 people watch a show, that can totally be worth it if those viewers are SO loyal, they'll eat ramen noodles before giving up the monthly fee for that show.
A show watched by 10M indifferent subscribers is nearly worthless, even if such an audience would be a smash mega-hit for an ad-supported network.
Re: Re: Keeping stuff that should have been confidential secret WAS Snowden's Job
"The press decides what is and is not published, regardless of what Snowden, Government, or The People want. Snowden can no more control what the press does than he can control what the government does."
As the one providing the classified information, Snowden was in TOTAL control as to what was published. If the information was not suitable for publication, he had to simply not provide it to the press to begin with. Since he chose to do a data dump of everything, he gets to bear the consequences.
Keeping stuff that should have been confidential secret WAS Snowden's Job
Yes, it is ridiculous the Post is calling a story that it broke a criminal violation.
But on a larger note, it is ALSO ridiculous that Snowden decided to outsource what should and should not be published to the journalists he turned over information to. As a whistleblower of classified information, that's HIS job, not one he can pawn off to somebody else and pretend it was all somebody else's fault.
If he had restricted the information he handed over solely to programs of dubious domestic legality, he'd be a lot more likely to earn a pardon. But since he simply turned over every intelligence program he could get his hands on, he cannot wash his hands of the consequences of this actions.
In the Steam client, the customers they are targeting are those who might want to buy more games from Steam. To that end, the most useful reviews are those that buy games from Steam.
While the opinions of Kickstarter backers may be genuine and honest, they simply aren't Steam's target audience for their reviewing system.
What Snowden disclosed, and what has been disclosed to the public, is FAR in excess of the questionable domestic intelligence programs. There are an awful lot of perfectly normal foreign intelligence programs that have been shut down as a result of Snowden's actions.
If Snowden had restricted his disclosures to programs of questionable illegality, I'd be first in line to push for him to be exonerated.
But instead, it appears that he simply did a data dump of every intelligence program he could get his hands on, include what are perfectly legit intelligence operations of the sort we (and everybody) have intelligence agencies for to begin with. (Manning did essentially the same with diplomatic cables.)
I don't think we should encourage the "stopped clock is right twice a day" form of "whistleblowing".
Things (like electrical or building codes) that are written from scratch precisely to become law should certainly be freely available.
However, there are grey areas: a law could state that "all govt-owned laptops must have 802.x WiFi adapters", or "all Widgets must meet ASTM XYZ". It takes time and money to develop those standards, and if said standards were not intended to be part of the law, and it seems unfair to strip their copyright protection because a legislature chose to reference them.
(To make for a more obvious example, let's say that there was a novel where a law said it had to be incorporated into the 5th-grade curriculum. If I'm the author of said novel, I'm going to be pi$$ed if the Podunk Tri-County Consolidated School District can yank my novel into the public domain without getting my permission.)
Maybe the solution is a rule where a lawmaking body must obtain permission to incorporate a copyrighted work by reference, and once that permission is obtained, the government body must make it available in the same manner it makes it's other laws available (and cannot restrict re-publishing.)
Reminds me of the "Travel Agency" in the Truman Show
This reminds me of the Travel Agency in the Truman Show, with helpful posters on the while reminding you of things like the danger of the plane being struck by lightning.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is being blown out of proportion:
"Well that's the implied threat, isn't it? If you don't pay us, we're not promising that we won't sue you for using it. If you don't give me your lunch money, I can't promise I won't beat you up after school."
What would you have had the NYT say? (And proposing that they evaluate all requests for permission for fair-use-ness is a non-starter, it'd be a huge sink of time and effort with zero return.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is being blown out of proportion:
"I don't think the fee is for the legal service of deciding whether it's fair use. It's for a license to use the material, which is not relying on fair use at all. That is, the Times by granting permission is not saying that yes, this is fair use - because permission is by definition not required for fair use. They're saying that whether this use is fair or not, you have permission to do it."
Yes, I realize that the fee is not a legal determination; it's a blanket waiver instead. But what a bunch of people seem to be advocating is that the NYT should be dedicating time and effort to deciding what is and isn't fair use. (Even though they'll receive no compensation for said use.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is being blown out of proportion:
"No one is asking for a free ride, but if the NYT can't figure out what 'Fair Use' of "their own material" without a legal team or even one lawyer involved, it's time to stop the presses and hand in their press credentials."
Errr... Fair use is a notoriously vague and tricky part of copyright law, since congress has never gotten around to writing clear guidelines on it. To say that they it's a trivial exercise to make that determination is clearly incorrect.
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is being blown out of proportion:
What do you mean they would have been foisting zero work on the NYT? Fair use has certain limitations, and SOMEBODY has to decide (on a formal request) if the proposed usage is within those limits or not.
(Well, I suppose the NYT could just toss all their work in the public domain, but since they'd like to stay in business, that's not exactly realistic.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is being blown out of proportion:
Fer 'crissakes. The Times has explicitly said that they WILL NOT force somebody to pay for fair use ('cause, you know, they can't, and they know it.) They just will not make the determination ahead of time, free of charge, on whether the usage is fair or not.
There is no "implied threat" here, other than stating the completely bloody obvious that if you don't get a license, they aren't giving you a blanket waiver.
What would you have them do instead? It's ALSO not reasonable to expect the NYT tie up their legal staff out of the goodness of their hearts.
What WOULD be reasonable is the publisher's IP staff evaluating this (and indemnifying the authors), since they are going to be the one's making most of the money from the textbook.
There are certainly ways to "unfairly use" 300 words. You print up t-shirts or posters with nothing but those 300 words on them? You publish your own article with nothing but those words? The possibilities are endless.
Evaluating requests takes time and work, and the NYT is perfectly within their rights to refuse to do this for free. The "Fair Use is free (and doesn't require our permission), but don't expect us to make that call for you" seems like a really reasonable policy to me. Offering up a "We don't care WHAT you do with it for this flat fee" seems like a usable alternative.
If the author (working with their publisher) wants to foist legal work on sources for free, they shouldn't get worked up when those sources refuse to play along.
I don't see the NYT as being in the wrong here. They are correct that it's not their job to evaluate if the proposed use is Fair Use or not. (Fair use requiring no permission at all.) Does the NYT even ask what the proposed use is when you write in for permission?
A flat fee per word seems to be a pretty equitable and efficient process. (Vs. having to sit down and negotiate each request individually; who knows how long that would take?)
They were asked for permission, the NYT chose to put a price on formally granting it. That doesn't mean that the NYT was going to sue if they didn't get paid, it doesn't mean that the NYT believes the proposed use isn't Fair Use. All it means is that if you pay the proposed fee, YOU, proposed user, now don't have to have that question answered any more.
I am an IEEE member, and at the bottom of every title page for every article is copyright info along with a reprint price. (Typically in the low-$20's.) Does that mean the IEEE plans to sue anybody who dares to make a Xerox of the page? No. Does it mean that you cannot quote the article in another place? No. All it means is that if you pay the fee, you can make a copy, and the IEEE now formally doesn't care why any more.
Certainly it can be argued that SLAPP suits are too easy to file, the service process too loose, and default judgments resulting in removal orders too easy.
But it is unremarkable that if a court finds something defamatory, the courts can request that a publisher (in this case, Yelp) cease publishing it.
We aren't talking a preliminary injunction here (that would be pretty bad), we are talking about a final ruling in a court case finding content to be defamatory. I don't see 1st-amendment implications here at all. Defamatory content is not protected speech.
I agree that Yelp could argue that it needs to receive the request from the user instead of the court, but that is a distinction with very little difference.
Let's apply this to a physical case: A billboard publisher accepts a billboard saying: "SirWired Stole $1M from starving orphans and spent it on hookers and blow" Now, I'm certainly going to sue whoever wrote such a thing. When I win, I'm absolutely going to get an order to have the billboard taken down! The information isn't merely painful (like a news story reporting on the existence of the billboard), it's just a flat-out lie. There's no 1st-amendment implications here. It would be unremarkable for a judge to order the billboard company to take it down, even if there were months left on the display contract.
SOMEBODY claimed the doctor-patient connection and volunteered some treatment details. That's STILL not any sort of authentication that somebody authorized to do so is doing the posting.
Without a signed specific release from the patient (as in, not some generic document generated during the initial check-in paperwork), HIPAA specifically prohibits acknowledging anything. Period.
You cannot confirm that a patient was/was not treated by a specific practice (much less discuss what treatments were provided) because you have no way of knowing that the person that posted the review was the patient (or parent.)
For instance: I want to know if so-and-so has been treated by a particular psychiatrist because I'm a creepy stalker or paparazzi, but there are several docs in the same building. I post a review posing as the patient and say something strongly negative, yet not libelous. Doc responds by saying "Yes, we saw you, but that is not how I remember our interaction." Boom! Now you know the patient is under the care of a shrink. Or maybe it's an OB/GYN. Or a cancer specialist. Or an AIDS doc. Or a fertility clinic.
AirBnB does a lot more than "facilitate transactions" like OpenTable. For starters, AirBnB acts as an escrow agent. They also provide insurance, performance guarantees, etc. None of which you get through Random Hotel Booking Service or OpenTable.
It is not controversial to hold Real Estate agents responsible at least somewhat for their listings, and that obligation would not magically disappear if a Real Estate broker decided to operate solely online.
CDA 230 was not written as a Get out of Jail Free card. If it's illegal to do something on the phone (like set up rentals for unlicensed properties), it's still illegal to do it on the Internet.
On the post: Verizon Claims Nobody Wants Unlimited Data, Wouldn't Be Profitable Anyway
Seems like a reasonable answer to me
Because I love car analogies: I may want a fast car, but I am rather unlikely to buy a car from a company that gratuitously puts a 600HP V12 in every vehicle; I'll shop elsewhere, because I expect their prices will be too high.
(But yeah: "'Limitless' means we'll let you spend your data on whatever you like" is pretty stupid.)
On the post: Traffic Is Fake, Audience Numbers Are Garbage, And Nobody Knows How Many People See Anything
Netflix doesn't publish ratings because they don't need to
But of all the things Netflix can measure, the things measured by traditional ratings are probably the least valuable.
It DOES. NOT. MATTER. :
- How many total people watch such-and-such show
- How soon after release they watch it
- What age they are
- How much money they make
- Where they live
What does matter? :
- Does the person paying for the subscription (or somebody with sway over said person) have a reason to keep renewing?
That's it. Nothing else matters when you have zero advertisers and a monthly fee.
If only 50,000 people watch a show, that can totally be worth it if those viewers are SO loyal, they'll eat ramen noodles before giving up the monthly fee for that show.
A show watched by 10M indifferent subscribers is nearly worthless, even if such an audience would be a smash mega-hit for an ad-supported network.
On the post: Will The Washington Post Give Back Its Pulitzer And Stand Trial With Snowden?
Re: Re: Keeping stuff that should have been confidential secret WAS Snowden's Job
As the one providing the classified information, Snowden was in TOTAL control as to what was published. If the information was not suitable for publication, he had to simply not provide it to the press to begin with. Since he chose to do a data dump of everything, he gets to bear the consequences.
On the post: Will The Washington Post Give Back Its Pulitzer And Stand Trial With Snowden?
Keeping stuff that should have been confidential secret WAS Snowden's Job
But on a larger note, it is ALSO ridiculous that Snowden decided to outsource what should and should not be published to the journalists he turned over information to. As a whistleblower of classified information, that's HIS job, not one he can pawn off to somebody else and pretend it was all somebody else's fault.
If he had restricted the information he handed over solely to programs of dubious domestic legality, he'd be a lot more likely to earn a pardon. But since he simply turned over every intelligence program he could get his hands on, he cannot wash his hands of the consequences of this actions.
On the post: Steam Looks To Suppress Game Reviews From Anyone Who Didn't Buy The Game From Them
Makes sense to me...
While the opinions of Kickstarter backers may be genuine and honest, they simply aren't Steam's target audience for their reviewing system.
On the post: ACLU Launching Campaign To Have President Obama Pardon Snowden
Re: Re: I would never issue a pardon to him
On the post: ACLU Launching Campaign To Have President Obama Pardon Snowden
I would never issue a pardon to him
But instead, it appears that he simply did a data dump of every intelligence program he could get his hands on, include what are perfectly legit intelligence operations of the sort we (and everybody) have intelligence agencies for to begin with. (Manning did essentially the same with diplomatic cables.)
I don't think we should encourage the "stopped clock is right twice a day" form of "whistleblowing".
On the post: Standards Body Whines That People Who Want Free Access To The Law Probably Also Want 'Free Sex'
A balancing act is needed...
However, there are grey areas: a law could state that "all govt-owned laptops must have 802.x WiFi adapters", or "all Widgets must meet ASTM XYZ". It takes time and money to develop those standards, and if said standards were not intended to be part of the law, and it seems unfair to strip their copyright protection because a legislature chose to reference them.
(To make for a more obvious example, let's say that there was a novel where a law said it had to be incorporated into the 5th-grade curriculum. If I'm the author of said novel, I'm going to be pi$$ed if the Podunk Tri-County Consolidated School District can yank my novel into the public domain without getting my permission.)
Maybe the solution is a rule where a lawmaking body must obtain permission to incorporate a copyrighted work by reference, and once that permission is obtained, the government body must make it available in the same manner it makes it's other laws available (and cannot restrict re-publishing.)
On the post: US Intelligence Agencies To Americans Travelling Abroad: Trust No One, Use Burner Phones, They're All Out To Get You
Reminds me of the "Travel Agency" in the Truman Show
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is being blown out of proportion:
What would you have had the NYT say? (And proposing that they evaluate all requests for permission for fair-use-ness is a non-starter, it'd be a huge sink of time and effort with zero return.)
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is being blown out of proportion:
Yes, I realize that the fee is not a legal determination; it's a blanket waiver instead. But what a bunch of people seem to be advocating is that the NYT should be dedicating time and effort to deciding what is and isn't fair use. (Even though they'll receive no compensation for said use.)
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is being blown out of proportion:
Errr... Fair use is a notoriously vague and tricky part of copyright law, since congress has never gotten around to writing clear guidelines on it. To say that they it's a trivial exercise to make that determination is clearly incorrect.
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is being blown out of proportion:
(Well, I suppose the NYT could just toss all their work in the public domain, but since they'd like to stay in business, that's not exactly realistic.)
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is being blown out of proportion:
There is no "implied threat" here, other than stating the completely bloody obvious that if you don't get a license, they aren't giving you a blanket waiver.
What would you have them do instead? It's ALSO not reasonable to expect the NYT tie up their legal staff out of the goodness of their hearts.
What WOULD be reasonable is the publisher's IP staff evaluating this (and indemnifying the authors), since they are going to be the one's making most of the money from the textbook.
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
Re: Re: This is being blown out of proportion:
Evaluating requests takes time and work, and the NYT is perfectly within their rights to refuse to do this for free. The "Fair Use is free (and doesn't require our permission), but don't expect us to make that call for you" seems like a really reasonable policy to me. Offering up a "We don't care WHAT you do with it for this flat fee" seems like a usable alternative.
If the author (working with their publisher) wants to foist legal work on sources for free, they shouldn't get worked up when those sources refuse to play along.
On the post: New York Times Says Fair Use Of 300 Words Will Run You About $1800
This is being blown out of proportion:
A flat fee per word seems to be a pretty equitable and efficient process. (Vs. having to sit down and negotiate each request individually; who knows how long that would take?)
They were asked for permission, the NYT chose to put a price on formally granting it. That doesn't mean that the NYT was going to sue if they didn't get paid, it doesn't mean that the NYT believes the proposed use isn't Fair Use. All it means is that if you pay the proposed fee, YOU, proposed user, now don't have to have that question answered any more.
I am an IEEE member, and at the bottom of every title page for every article is copyright info along with a reprint price. (Typically in the low-$20's.) Does that mean the IEEE plans to sue anybody who dares to make a Xerox of the page? No. Does it mean that you cannot quote the article in another place? No. All it means is that if you pay the fee, you can make a copy, and the IEEE now formally doesn't care why any more.
On the post: Another Day, Another Horrible Ruling That Undermines The First Amendment And Section 230
Absolutely, TKnarr
But it is unremarkable that if a court finds something defamatory, the courts can request that a publisher (in this case, Yelp) cease publishing it.
We aren't talking a preliminary injunction here (that would be pretty bad), we are talking about a final ruling in a court case finding content to be defamatory. I don't see 1st-amendment implications here at all. Defamatory content is not protected speech.
I agree that Yelp could argue that it needs to receive the request from the user instead of the court, but that is a distinction with very little difference.
Let's apply this to a physical case: A billboard publisher accepts a billboard saying: "SirWired Stole $1M from starving orphans and spent it on hookers and blow" Now, I'm certainly going to sue whoever wrote such a thing. When I win, I'm absolutely going to get an order to have the billboard taken down! The information isn't merely painful (like a news story reporting on the existence of the billboard), it's just a flat-out lie. There's no 1st-amendment implications here. It would be unremarkable for a judge to order the billboard company to take it down, even if there were months left on the display contract.
On the post: Stung By Yelp Reviews, Health Providers Spill Patient Secrets
Re: Re: Re:
Without a signed specific release from the patient (as in, not some generic document generated during the initial check-in paperwork), HIPAA specifically prohibits acknowledging anything. Period.
On the post: Stung By Yelp Reviews, Health Providers Spill Patient Secrets
There's a reason you can't confirm treatment
For instance: I want to know if so-and-so has been treated by a particular psychiatrist because I'm a creepy stalker or paparazzi, but there are several docs in the same building. I post a review posing as the patient and say something strongly negative, yet not libelous. Doc responds by saying "Yes, we saw you, but that is not how I remember our interaction." Boom! Now you know the patient is under the care of a shrink. Or maybe it's an OB/GYN. Or a cancer specialist. Or an AIDS doc. Or a fertility clinic.
On the post: Cities Rushing To Restrict Airbnb Are About To Discover That They're Violating Key Internet Law
Re: Re: Re: There are some differences
It is not controversial to hold Real Estate agents responsible at least somewhat for their listings, and that obligation would not magically disappear if a Real Estate broker decided to operate solely online.
CDA 230 was not written as a Get out of Jail Free card. If it's illegal to do something on the phone (like set up rentals for unlicensed properties), it's still illegal to do it on the Internet.
Next >>