eh, it depends on how you look at the whole thing. what google does is not competitive with AT&T, as google is not providing a cellphone service. They simply take away the parts that are at&t's cash cow and give them away for free as they don't truly cost anything.
a: text messaging (as it's just data, and google has paid for their pipes, thus the only cost is server cost)
b: number portability - your number with google can be used for any provider
This lets you game any sort of myfaves/alist/friends and family since all your calls come in off the number. Saves a lot of money but really it's just using the available tools which the providers give. Dropped my bill from $98 to $66 for example.
Basically AT&T is summed up as "whine whine, we want to keep milking our customers - stop making us actually put in effort/stop milking them"
Google blocking is probably just because they get charged by the free conference folks. I think if they weren't charged, they'd probably not have an issue blocking it.
every workplace has a share of incredibly stupid (and vulnerable to false advertising) individuals. Usually a workplace doesn't find it a smart idea to make sure people are intelligently educated on what to look out for on the internet.
Example: I sent my workplace the phishing test from sonicwall from what, 5 years ago? Lots of people called me up afterwards since my name was on it, and had no idea/easily fell for it.
People aren't just uneducated about the issue, management doesn't want to deal with it either.
This is the incorrect part: songwriters do *NOT* have rights to royalties. Royalties are just a contract which is enforceable, not a law.
It's like we say: just because you make something, doesnt' mean everyone else should/has to pay for it. Make a song? great. If we're making money off it, do you deserve a cut? NO. This would be because: your music is not the cause of the money, only a part of the result.
example: I make a lemonade stand and play music at the same time. Do you deserve a cut for the music being yours? no. Do I have to go back and pay the lemon makers again for letting me profit by making lemonade? no.
People already pay for your music in plenty of forms, saying people have to pay, is a misnomer.
Be nice to people, and they'll gladly share though. Or you can go to congress and lobby and make yourself look like an ass in which case we will go out of our way to make you look like an ass, and not pay.
In the days pre-internet, this would have gone on without a peep unless the MSM decided to pick it up, and speech would have been stifled and done.
since the MSM does such a crappy job (hey, at least they're consistent), nowadays other people do a better job of covering relevant news and thus situations like this don't just pass by without people knowing.
and they're all pretty community friendly and they all pretty much sell tshirts.
I'd call 40 a lot, honestly. It's not like you can expect to automatically be successful or to have an audience just by nature of drawing a comic. Oh, and all the ones mentioned have their own website - shouldn't dilbert be on that list (or not?)
"Or is there something unique about Doonesbury that makes it impossible for it to take advantage of "free" distribution?"
The problem is the creator is an old, old guy, and change for him is like fear of death. He's had the easy life, and he doesn't want to have to put in more work now to have an easy rest of his life.
This is because douchebags like Esper push it on other countries via trade agreements.
Lots of those countries don't want IP. Somehow we've been able to push our diplomats into their countries and convince them that IP = more money.
Maybe what the US goal is (tinfoil hat on here) - is to get China to adopt our horrible IP concepts and then drop them on our side - leaving us a stronger country?
Sorry, that's about the best I can come up with as to why we'd push the whole world to adopt our atrocious IP ideas (thankfully Israel and Sweden among others have pushed back)
conspiracy? dude, I'm not a conspiracy guy. They are making serious cash off of people thinking it's "bad". Any artist that decries it as a bad thing gets humongous amounts of publicity and increased sales. They use big artists to begin with for this as it's less risk. You think that's an accident?
not everything are attempts to get more filesharing, they are attempts to garner more business without having to do it through alternative channels which are well known.
The 3 strikes stuff is an attempt to stuff the genie back in the bottle, we all know how stupid that is.
oh they read it, they understand it, but they don't want to have to move out of the old business model.
in hollywood circles per family I have that are entrenched deep in media (mpaa/riaa/etc), it's easier money using this method than the hard work to make the change, so they don't want to do it. Not in the way you think, but that by making filesharing "evil" everyone does it and drives more growth. You know, like when your parents tell you XYZ thing is bad and you do it for that specific reason.
I just wanted to add about this: BT isn't allowed to inspect the connections of their customers, and are more than happy not to.
Not only is it more costly to monitor people in such a way, but it's quite more dangerous. There are europe-wide and worldwide agreements not to inspect a normal consumers connection if there isn't a security/national risk at large. If I recall correctly it's in the realm of being considered either an act of war or violation of treaty to dig down into what is being transmitted, mostly because monitor of that fashion can actually give you details of the exact things being transmitted, not just "they're kazaa filesharing".
So why would BT want to a: take that liability, or b: even care? They're perfectly happy being a dumb pipe as that = subscribers/money/cashflow.
damn. seconded. I'll work under an alias and sing praise all day of BPI's wonders and how this is all a travesty if you want to give me a 20 million dollar music career too. Oh, and I play cello, so I actually come with talent even!
On the post: Post Script On Edwyn Collins: Power Of The Press Gets His Music On MySpace For Free
this is extremely newsworthy
On the post: AT&T's Ridiculous Argument Against Google Voice
Re: Re: Re:
a: text messaging (as it's just data, and google has paid for their pipes, thus the only cost is server cost)
b: number portability - your number with google can be used for any provider
This lets you game any sort of myfaves/alist/friends and family since all your calls come in off the number. Saves a lot of money but really it's just using the available tools which the providers give. Dropped my bill from $98 to $66 for example.
Basically AT&T is summed up as "whine whine, we want to keep milking our customers - stop making us actually put in effort/stop milking them"
Google blocking is probably just because they get charged by the free conference folks. I think if they weren't charged, they'd probably not have an issue blocking it.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Re: yeah yeah, but...
sending a file to other people, that can be infringement.
get it right.
Your views are unpopular because they are factually incorrect.
On the post: On The Uselessness Of Blocking Social Networks At Work
blame the bad egg
Example: I sent my workplace the phishing test from sonicwall from what, 5 years ago? Lots of people called me up afterwards since my name was on it, and had no idea/easily fell for it.
People aren't just uneducated about the issue, management doesn't want to deal with it either.
On the post: Once Again, Blocking Ads And Automating Clicks Isn't 'Stealing'
Re: @imbrucy
On the post: Once Again, Blocking Ads And Automating Clicks Isn't 'Stealing'
lets up it further
Where's my penny for viewing the douchebag's website? Or should we invoice him by the hour?
Meanwhile, the original mediafire one is just as asinine. I hope their management gets a smack for that.
On the post: Music Publishers, Songwriters To Congress: Our Royalties Should Be Guaranteed, No Matter What The Market Says
Re:
It's like we say: just because you make something, doesnt' mean everyone else should/has to pay for it. Make a song? great. If we're making money off it, do you deserve a cut? NO. This would be because: your music is not the cause of the money, only a part of the result.
example: I make a lemonade stand and play music at the same time. Do you deserve a cut for the music being yours? no. Do I have to go back and pay the lemon makers again for letting me profit by making lemonade? no.
People already pay for your music in plenty of forms, saying people have to pay, is a misnomer.
Be nice to people, and they'll gladly share though. Or you can go to congress and lobby and make yourself look like an ass in which case we will go out of our way to make you look like an ass, and not pay.
On the post: Nicolas Sarkozy Caught Mass 'Pirating' DVDs; Time To Kick Him Off The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Sarkozy
coming up with 30 thou euro and clearly not even batting an eye is a ton of money.
On the post: Rupert Murdoch's Latest Foray Into Online News Business Models... Not So Ridiculous
depends on the offer here
On the post: Ralph Lauren And Its Lawyers Discover The Streisand Effect On Bogus DMCA Takedown
old vs new
since the MSM does such a crappy job (hey, at least they're consistent), nowadays other people do a better job of covering relevant news and thus situations like this don't just pass by without people knowing.
On the post: Could Doonesbury Learn Anything From XKCD?
Re: Re: Other Examples
I'd call 40 a lot, honestly. It's not like you can expect to automatically be successful or to have an audience just by nature of drawing a comic. Oh, and all the ones mentioned have their own website - shouldn't dilbert be on that list (or not?)
On the post: Could Doonesbury Learn Anything From XKCD?
damn, beaten
The problem is the creator is an old, old guy, and change for him is like fear of death. He's had the easy life, and he doesn't want to have to put in more work now to have an easy rest of his life.
On the post: UK Politician's Cross Border Attempt To Terminate Prostitute Review Site Only Bumps Up Traffic
simple answer
On the post: Edwyn Collins Can't Give Away His Music Thanks To MySpace, Warner Music
Re: Time to sue?
I hope the EFF takes this up or something.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Makes Up Things About Intellectual Property
stronger IP in other countries
Lots of those countries don't want IP. Somehow we've been able to push our diplomats into their countries and convince them that IP = more money.
Maybe what the US goal is (tinfoil hat on here) - is to get China to adopt our horrible IP concepts and then drop them on our side - leaving us a stronger country?
Sorry, that's about the best I can come up with as to why we'd push the whole world to adopt our atrocious IP ideas (thankfully Israel and Sweden among others have pushed back)
On the post: BPI Unhappy With Techdirt, Seeks To Correct The Record... But Still Gets It Wrong
Re: Re: Re: When will these people figure it out?
not everything are attempts to get more filesharing, they are attempts to garner more business without having to do it through alternative channels which are well known.
The 3 strikes stuff is an attempt to stuff the genie back in the bottle, we all know how stupid that is.
On the post: BPI Unhappy With Techdirt, Seeks To Correct The Record... But Still Gets It Wrong
Re: When will these people figure it out?
in hollywood circles per family I have that are entrenched deep in media (mpaa/riaa/etc), it's easier money using this method than the hard work to make the change, so they don't want to do it. Not in the way you think, but that by making filesharing "evil" everyone does it and drives more growth. You know, like when your parents tell you XYZ thing is bad and you do it for that specific reason.
On the post: BPI Unhappy With Techdirt, Seeks To Correct The Record... But Still Gets It Wrong
"BT knows"
Not only is it more costly to monitor people in such a way, but it's quite more dangerous. There are europe-wide and worldwide agreements not to inspect a normal consumers connection if there isn't a security/national risk at large. If I recall correctly it's in the realm of being considered either an act of war or violation of treaty to dig down into what is being transmitted, mostly because monitor of that fashion can actually give you details of the exact things being transmitted, not just "they're kazaa filesharing".
So why would BT want to a: take that liability, or b: even care? They're perfectly happy being a dumb pipe as that = subscribers/money/cashflow.
Jeez BPI, leave BT the hell alone.
On the post: BPI Unhappy With Techdirt, Seeks To Correct The Record... But Still Gets It Wrong
Re: Re:
On the post: Speakeasy The Latest VoIP Provider To Block Certain Calls
Re: yes
Next >>