I will grant you that there are other companies trying to get into the market, and it is taking a giant like Google to make some headway (they bought up a couple of small companies in order to create the WebM format). However, in reality, there is just one main company, MPEG-LA. Companies that make software that encode and decode video usually pay the MPEG-LA rent, even if they have a proprietary video format (which is probably a derivative of H.26L at some point). True, this license is pretty easy to get and the rates are standardized, but it is an economic cost that need to be paid in a lot of cases. It is still protection money.
If you have an industry, and you've built a business culture that isn't responsive to your customers and you try to dictate the customer's consumption, and then they start to hate/screw you, you have failed and should rethink your entire approach to doing business.
Lol. I Can't believe you mentioned the H.264 and WebM as good examples of competition. You do realize that H.264 is a patent pool full of overly broad patents that is used to scare anyone in the industry to pay rent to MPEG-LA or me destroyed? Most of those patents are not that inventive. In the same vein, MPEG-LA was (is?) going after the WebM format; they wanted to create a patent pool around it so they could further charge people rent because they didn't want a free alternative to H.264. The biggest problem is that that whole field is marred by a patent thicket and it is impossible to create a video format that is not bogged down by those patents.
The previous AC did mention a Roku box and Netflix, so he/she/it is paying for at least some of they content. I think the bigger picture is that the AC is willing to consume content and is willing pay money to consume content, but the content providers are not placing themselves in a position to get that money. The times have changed. People want to point to piracy and yell, "Bad!" But from another perspective, it is a content consumer revolt. The era of the monolithic giant controlling the media consumption of the plebeians is coming to an end. They can sit there an yell while the people slip through their fingers like grains of sand, or they can place themselves to be part of the revolution.
Re: "Restricting people doesn't help you get paid."
Price is only one factor. I would argue that convenience and value are more important. Paying $100 for content you want (even through piracy) is better than paying $200 for 200 channels of crap. What if I only watch Lifetime, Oxygen and OWN? If I could pay a la carte, even if the per channel price was higher, it would be a better value.
In any event, he is a Federal District Court Judge. They have lifetime appointments unless they are impeached and convicted by the House and Senate. I highly doubt that this could be "bad behavior" to warrant such proceedings. In other words, his career is nice and safe.
I realize that the judge an his clerks will no have to read all that. However, it is probably a good indicator of how the litigation is going to so. Those briefs and motions will probably be a pain to read.
The enforcement of the law is the now the goal. It has replaced the goal of maintaining a just society. The law is supreme and sacred. All that violate on it must be taught the errors of their ways.
Don't feel sorry for the judge, feel sorry for his law clerks. The amount of those papers that the judge is actually going to read is very very small. His clerks and their interns are the ones in for the pain.
Once again, technology and corruption collide. They are trying to continue doing business in the shadows like they have always done and are quite upset that technology has made it easier to expose them. This is their last ditch effort to salvage the situation.
Of course, it's not just Telstra rethinking its position on censoring the internet. Apparently some of the other ISPs who had agreed to take part in this "voluntary" censorship are suddenly saying that it's not definite yet as to whether they'll take part. It sounds like many of these ISPs hoped they could just start censoring the internet without anyone noticing.
The only way voluntary filtering like this would work in the market is if all the major players got together and agreed to it. If one decides not to filter, then there is a lot less incentive for the rest to go along with the plan because consumers will gravitate towards the uncensored provider.
The interesting point is, in the statute, fair use is labeled as a privilege, not an affirmative defense. Basically the courts have it wrong. The burden should be on the copyright holder to show that something is not a fair use.
On the post: Do We Really Want The First To Come Up With An Invention To Own The Market?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again; Told To Pay $34,045.50 In Legal Fees
Re: Wow...
FTFY
On the post: Do We Really Want The First To Come Up With An Invention To Own The Market?
Re:
On the post: Do We Really Want The First To Come Up With An Invention To Own The Market?
Re:
On the post: Will TV Providers Finally Realize That People Really Are Cutting The Cord -- And Not Just Because Of The Economy
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Will TV Providers Finally Realize That People Really Are Cutting The Cord -- And Not Just Because Of The Economy
Re: Re:
On the post: Will TV Providers Finally Realize That People Really Are Cutting The Cord -- And Not Just Because Of The Economy
Re: "Restricting people doesn't help you get paid."
On the post: Artists In The US Want To Get Paid Multiple Times For A Single Work
Re: Re:
On the post: Let Them Tweet Cake
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Let Them Tweet Cake
Re:
On the post: Righthaven Fails To Pay Sanctions; Complains A Day Late
Re: The judge is unprofessional
On the post: Righthaven Fails To Pay Sanctions; Complains A Day Late
Re: The judge is unprofessional
On the post: Judge Waxes Comedic On Whether You Can Trademark Quilted Diamonds On Toilet Paper
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Says Logging Into Someone Else's Facebook Page And Posting A Message Can Be Identity Fraud
On the post: Summit Entertainment Commences Criminal Legal Action Against Twilight Fan Who Shared Images From Movie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Waxes Comedic On Whether You Can Trademark Quilted Diamonds On Toilet Paper
Re:
On the post: Two Reporters Arrested For Daring To Photograph/Videotape Public DC Taxi Commission Meeting
On the post: Prince: Digital Music Has A Different Impact On Your Brain
On the post: Telstra Having Second Thoughts Over Censorship Plan; Fears Reprisals From Hactivists
Collusion only works if everyone agrees...
The only way voluntary filtering like this would work in the market is if all the major players got together and agreed to it. If one decides not to filter, then there is a lot less incentive for the rest to go along with the plan because consumers will gravitate towards the uncensored provider.
On the post: Fair Use Doesn't Weaken Copyright Law, It Strengthens It
Re: Fair use sucks.
Next >>