Considering that political people are giving themselves exemption to spam and other things (see net neutrality bill, etc), I can see the slippery slope but I don't know If the current political climate should be dmca exempt for example.
4 people who are not business folk trying to talk it are effectively talking out their ass. I'm seriously impressed they were willing to do so as that can constitute legal advice in some sense.
They should all be embarrassed, but likely got a set of talking points before they went on air and just went with that.
The only reason the rates on hulu for ads are better is because there are *less* of them. Thus it's marginally less a pain in the ass than anything else.
Meanwhile, the paywall discussion created some interesting comments on dslreports, I think the idea here is that if they did subscription/no advertising (what an idea!) that people probably *would* be willing to plop down money if they actually kept listing shows instead of their jackaassery of not showing entire seasons or the other stuff that newscorp has been forcing (omg no boxee!) etc.
Add to that the idiocy of not thinking "hey, maybe we should have a link to *SELL* the seasons right from the episode list*. or a way to request old episodes. Honestly. Got to wonder what planet Murdoch is from, because wherever it is, his head is so far up his butt I don't know how he can see anything.
I don't like them. lots of shady/suspicious things going on, and yet lots of IT groups quote gartner like it's 100 % factual analysis, resulting in a lot of MS business and other shady companies.
Personally, as another tax paying citizen of Cook County, I want my damn money back that he wasted of the courts time and our tax dollars. What is it, a thousand dollars?
Mike, were you reading my slashdot today? hahaha. I basically said the same thing.
Essentially, companies don't like informed consumers. As people are becoming more informed, companies aren't liking the results. Slowly, slowly is this change coming, but damn has it been a long time coming (60+ years). Lots of people are now informed consumers (significantly more than there used to be for most topics), but companies do not want anything to do with said people. This has come up time and time again.
In the 50's and 60's people expected consumers to just lap up any odd stupid crap that is sold. Finally the bar is being raised in lots of areas and the lazy companies are the first to whine (mpaa/riaa/microsoft/apple).
example. MS: "our computer is secure"
apple: "we prevent your phone from jailbreaking for your security"
mpaa/riaa: "piracy is theft/dangerous"
corn farmers of america: "network neutrality can put us out of business"
best buy: "we represent value/good products/a best buy"
The list of stuff like this from abusive companies goes so far that I think the list is growing.
You have two choices in society: make everyone a criminal, or make actions reasonable. We've tried both routes, and the latter is the only one that works without violent resistance, ergo.
Stop trying to strawman when you don't even read the facts.
On the post: Latest Bogus DMCA Takedown Sent By NPR?
Re:
Considering that political people are giving themselves exemption to spam and other things (see net neutrality bill, etc), I can see the slippery slope but I don't know If the current political climate should be dmca exempt for example.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: Don't Be Idiots; Don't Delay Movie Rentals
here, lost sale example
day of release: download and purchase an mp4/1080p quality copy of where the wild things are.
count that as $20 to the movie company.
here's what has happened due to the industry being asinine:
another year of 0$ to the theatres from me.
I'm tired of remakes, I'm tired of unoriginal content.
On the post: Even The Open Source Community Gets Overly Restrictive At Times
the point is simple to me
aka, samba lawsuit?
I mean lets face it, open source programmers don't do what MS does in general.
On the post: Lawyers Discussing Business Models
it was all hubbub
They should all be embarrassed, but likely got a set of talking points before they went on air and just went with that.
On the post: Stop Overreacting: Hulu Not Ditching Free Yet
Re:
time and time again instead of fighting for their users they just gave in and put content behind a paywall.
/been through it with shinji
On the post: Stop Overreacting: Hulu Not Ditching Free Yet
ad rates?
Meanwhile, the paywall discussion created some interesting comments on dslreports, I think the idea here is that if they did subscription/no advertising (what an idea!) that people probably *would* be willing to plop down money if they actually kept listing shows instead of their jackaassery of not showing entire seasons or the other stuff that newscorp has been forcing (omg no boxee!) etc.
Add to that the idiocy of not thinking "hey, maybe we should have a link to *SELL* the seasons right from the episode list*. or a way to request old episodes. Honestly. Got to wonder what planet Murdoch is from, because wherever it is, his head is so far up his butt I don't know how he can see anything.
On the post: Mattel Now Using Song In Commercial... Which It Once Sued Over Copyright Infringement
Re:
Maybe we'll see Mattel not try to bankrupt Bratz next.
On the post: Tech Company Sues Gartner Because It Doesn't Like How Gartner Placed It In Its Magic Quadrant
gartner's pretty shady
On the post: How The Record Labels Are Killing Innovative New Music Services: No Money, No Content
Re: Re:
there. Finally came up with a good quote for that one.
On the post: Court Teaches Cook County Sheriff About Section 230, Dismisses Case Against Craigslist
Re: Sigh
On the post: PRS's Latest Trick: Demanding Money From Shop Assistant Who Was Singing At Work
Re:
On the post: Nanda's Alarm Clock Not Only Runs Away From You, It Runs Away From eBay Too
Re: re
On the post: As The FTC Goes After Bloggers, Doctors Making Millions Promoting Drugs With Little Oversight
well duh
so of course they go after the mommy.
it's sad, but unsurprising.
On the post: Sequoia Accidentally Reveals (Potentially Illegal?) E-Voting Code
hmm
On the post: EMI Back To Trying To Personally Bankrupt Michael Robertson
sounds like SLAPP
On the post: Monster Energy Drink Hires Trademark Bully To Go After Beverage Review Site
hmm
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/HallOfShame/CyberCops/ContinentalEnterprises/Continenta lEnterprises.shtml
On the post: If Your Business Model Requires An Overly Restrictive Contracts... You Have No Real Business Model
jeez
Essentially, companies don't like informed consumers. As people are becoming more informed, companies aren't liking the results. Slowly, slowly is this change coming, but damn has it been a long time coming (60+ years). Lots of people are now informed consumers (significantly more than there used to be for most topics), but companies do not want anything to do with said people. This has come up time and time again.
In the 50's and 60's people expected consumers to just lap up any odd stupid crap that is sold. Finally the bar is being raised in lots of areas and the lazy companies are the first to whine (mpaa/riaa/microsoft/apple).
example. MS: "our computer is secure"
apple: "we prevent your phone from jailbreaking for your security"
mpaa/riaa: "piracy is theft/dangerous"
corn farmers of america: "network neutrality can put us out of business"
best buy: "we represent value/good products/a best buy"
The list of stuff like this from abusive companies goes so far that I think the list is growing.
On the post: Why Ralph Lauren Photoshopped That Model So Skinny... It Thought She Was Fat... At 120 lbs
Re:
However, I wonder if Ralph Lauren's motto is:
"it's impossible to be good enough for us" or so.
5'10 and 120lbs is pretty much as close to the border of anorexic as exists for that height in a woman.
On the post: Michael Dell Recognizes Blocking What Customers Want To Protect Your Own Biz Model Is Dumb
Re:
so you have: one smart guy in a sea of idiots.
On the post: Access Copyright Says That There Should Be Less Fair Use
Re:
if the public is speeding, maybe the limit is low?
Or did you read the article about how lower speed limits = more traffic and more road rage, while our speed limits have been going up and the amount of high speed accidents has gone down. What do ya know? I have the link right here. http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4686874
which links to http://www.detnews.com/article/20091008/OPINION03/910080328/1149/Road-rage-s-causes-and-prevalence-d ebatable
You have two choices in society: make everyone a criminal, or make actions reasonable. We've tried both routes, and the latter is the only one that works without violent resistance, ergo.
Stop trying to strawman when you don't even read the facts.
Next >>