Paul, one of the heavy responsibilities of being a gatekeeper is appointing oneself a custodian of regional identity. Careful thought must be invested when allowing creativity to travel between well defined marketing target groups. We must ensure that, like an invasive species, the alien content does not take root in the very culture of a civilized population, forever changing the landscape of people's hearts and minds.
Can you imagine a world where SpongeBob Square Pants was irresponsibly allowed to roam freely? Think of the pandemonium that would ensue. Actually; stop. Don't think about it. Thinking about it would be as bad as it actually happening. Maybe worse. Here, have a biscuit. And some tea. We'll make sure that never happens.
A few quick searches turned up estimates of $700,000,000 in 2011 and $1,200,000,000 in 2012 for Netflix's various licensing deals. I suppose it's up to Hollywood how much of that they'd like to vie for.
My thoughts exactly on the "All this does is drive more people to piracy" bit; there are other effects. These shenanigans just make me want less and less to do with anything Hollywood produces. I've pretty much stopped going to movies at the theater, and I've had my Netflix account on hold for about 8 months. Even if there's a movie I'm genuinely interested in seeing there's this mental hurdle I have to get over, and generally forget about the flick by the time the release windows have done their magic. I even do research on artists before buying music on Amazon to make sure they're not tangled up with labels I despise.
Consumers need to realize the entertainment industry is optional and the conglomerates don't have us over a barrel like the gas, telcom and banking industries do.
Thanks, now I've got an image of Johnny Depp and the Black Pearl sailing around my head "reverse pirating" merchant vessels in the southern Caribbean.
"Yar, I be fillin yer pockets with these here doubloons whether you like it er no! And then me and the mates are goin to sail about rescuin marooned sailor from their sea turtle rafts."
How is this copyright and not a patent? I was under the impression that patents protected the method for doing something. Can you copyright the result of a method and then prevent people from performing different methods to achieve similar results?
Never mind, don't explain, just tear the whole system down and try again.
Exactly this, kWh was the example I thought of too, but there are probably many more. I do think people should pay more attention to their power consumption, but they've been able to avoid doing so because it is competitively priced and objectively metered. Something that I don't think has happened with data.
And now that I think about it I'm surprised we haven't seen the kind of copyright warnings on this content that we do on professional sports broadcasts which try to intimidate people who would discuss or relate the events that transpire to others. I mean, they almost have more claim to the events than sports leagues do since, at least in fiction, they aren't facts.
That's right folks, I'm opening the world up to a whole new copyright troll spoiler lawsuit liability. You're welcome.
Was there a scolding notice before the scolding notice telling customers not to reproduce the scolding notice? Cause you might be on the hook for telling people about it if there is... or maybe this notice refers to itself since it is within the book it references.
Of course there's a certain amount of doublethink involved to put up a notice requesting people not acknowledge the existence of the notice, but still expect them to be beholden by it.
Somebody let me know if I'm wrong, but I thought that PSN access was included with the purchase of the console. So unlike Xbox Live or Netflix, you don't pay every month for service. You essentially paid for service by buying the console.
So in your car dealership analogy, the service was advertised as included in the price of the car. Then after you bought the product, having been influenced by this incentive, they decided to change the terms of the service making you agree to something egregious if you want to collect on the incentive that you thought you were entitled to.
Oh sorry, I probably didn't express myself well enough. While I think that free market and competition can be an excellent way to control certain enterprises for the benefit of the consumer, in many cases it doesn't pan out. Especially in cases like this where we've mixed types of service and confused the reality of competition. Here I think we've conflated the monopoly or duopoly enterprise of content delivery with the (potentially) competitive aspect of content subscription.
Much like with electricity providers, I don't think we should have dozens of companies digging up our public right of way to lay cables to each house, so we have a legitimate case for allowing the monopoly to continue. But we should acknowledge what it is and properly regulate it such that customers can't be mistreated with no recourse. And again, like electricity supply, customers should be able to choose their content providers as entities separate from the regulated content deliverers.
I guess the original point I was trying to make was that I think it's ridiculous that the judge didn't find any harm to competition, because there isn't any competition (at least from my perspective as a consumer) as a result of vertical integration that takes the legitimate use for a monopoly from one enterprise and applies it to a separate one. Seeing that customers are complaining, acknowledging that they're being hurt and not doing anything about it seems like a failing of the legal system, either in the law or the judiciary.
And yes, before anyone points it out, I am a layperson and don't really grasp the fine points of what they're arguing. But we shouldn't cultivate an opaque legal system that seems arbitrary and unjust to the general population. I want simpler terms of service, dammit, how else will I know if my actions violate them?
So the court readily admits that the customer is being harmed, but rules that competition isn't harmed.
So, why then, doesn't the customer change to a service provider who doesn't harm him? Perhaps there are no other providers; or perhaps all the other providers abuse customers similarly.
But how could a market consist only of abusive companies? Surely some upstart would enter the field and demolish the existing competition. Unless perhaps there exists some type of monopoly situation, or perhaps the players have calculated that it is more profitable if all providers abuse their customers.
I'm reminded of a scene from "A Beautiful Mind":
Hansen: Recall the lessons of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. "In competition …"
Everybody: "… individual ambition serves the common good."
John: [after thinking] Adam Smith needs revision.
Hansen: What are you talking about?
John: Adam Smith said the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself. Right? That's what he said, right?
Hansen: Right.
John: Incomplete. Incomplete, okay? Because the best result will come from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself … and the group.
Hansen: Nash, if this is some way for you to get the blonde on your own, you can go to hell.
John: Governing dynamics, gentlemen. Governing dynamics. Adam Smith … was wrong!
I don't think it technically qualifies as Bait and Switch, since there is no alternative product being offered as the switch.
That said, "there is no alternative". Customers who bought Sony's product with the intent to use the service billed as a feature of said product have no alternative than to lose what they paid for. That seems like harm to me and false advertising to sell a lifetime service but then change the terms under which the user purchased the service.
Yes, people aren't going out looking for infringing content, they're just in the market for content. In fact, it seems like they really don't care about forged moral outrage aging mega-corps use to validate the increasingly unfair made-up property laws being thrust into their living rooms.
"No flag, no country! You can't have one. That's the rules... that... I've just made up"
I'm really surprised there isn't an organization of publishers haranguing the Copyright Office to get their archives in order so they have access to a whole new wealth of free content for publication. I may even believe their claims of lost potential sales since NOBODY can access lost works like these.
(I also can't believe I just spelled 'haranguing' correctly.)
On the post: Hollywood Still Trying To Kill The Golden Netflix Goose
Re: Re: In the UK...
Can you imagine a world where SpongeBob Square Pants was irresponsibly allowed to roam freely? Think of the pandemonium that would ensue. Actually; stop. Don't think about it. Thinking about it would be as bad as it actually happening. Maybe worse. Here, have a biscuit. And some tea. We'll make sure that never happens.
On the post: Hollywood Still Trying To Kill The Golden Netflix Goose
Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Still Trying To Kill The Golden Netflix Goose
Re:
Consumers need to realize the entertainment industry is optional and the conglomerates don't have us over a barrel like the gas, telcom and banking industries do.
On the post: HBO Decides It Still Isn't Difficult Enough To Watch HBO Shows
Re: Re: Re: Re: Component can be 1080
On the post: HBO Decides It Still Isn't Difficult Enough To Watch HBO Shows
Re:
"Yar, I be fillin yer pockets with these here doubloons whether you like it er no! And then me and the mates are goin to sail about rescuin marooned sailor from their sea turtle rafts."
On the post: Disappointing: Teller Sues Other Magician For Doing The Same Trick
Uh...
Never mind, don't explain, just tear the whole system down and try again.
On the post: Revolving Door Between The MPAA And The Federal Government
Re: Re:
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: This isn't unique to MBs
On the post: Why Do Publishers Treat Customers As Crooks With Scolding Copyright Notices?
Re: foreboding recursion
That's right folks, I'm opening the world up to a whole new copyright troll spoiler lawsuit liability. You're welcome.
On the post: Why Do Publishers Treat Customers As Crooks With Scolding Copyright Notices?
Re: Helluva big jurisdiction
On the post: Why Do Publishers Treat Customers As Crooks With Scolding Copyright Notices?
foreboding recursion
Of course there's a certain amount of doublethink involved to put up a notice requesting people not acknowledge the existence of the notice, but still expect them to be beholden by it.
On the post: Court Says Sony Is Free To Change Its Terms Of Service Because Accessing PSN Is A Choice
Re: Re: Bait and switch
So in your car dealership analogy, the service was advertised as included in the price of the car. Then after you bought the product, having been influenced by this incentive, they decided to change the terms of the service making you agree to something egregious if you want to collect on the incentive that you thought you were entitled to.
On the post: Appeals Court: Bundling Cable Channels Together Isn't Anticompetitive
Re: Re: Best for everyone except the customer.
Much like with electricity providers, I don't think we should have dozens of companies digging up our public right of way to lay cables to each house, so we have a legitimate case for allowing the monopoly to continue. But we should acknowledge what it is and properly regulate it such that customers can't be mistreated with no recourse. And again, like electricity supply, customers should be able to choose their content providers as entities separate from the regulated content deliverers.
I guess the original point I was trying to make was that I think it's ridiculous that the judge didn't find any harm to competition, because there isn't any competition (at least from my perspective as a consumer) as a result of vertical integration that takes the legitimate use for a monopoly from one enterprise and applies it to a separate one. Seeing that customers are complaining, acknowledging that they're being hurt and not doing anything about it seems like a failing of the legal system, either in the law or the judiciary.
And yes, before anyone points it out, I am a layperson and don't really grasp the fine points of what they're arguing. But we shouldn't cultivate an opaque legal system that seems arbitrary and unjust to the general population. I want simpler terms of service, dammit, how else will I know if my actions violate them?
On the post: Appeals Court: Bundling Cable Channels Together Isn't Anticompetitive
Best for everyone except the customer.
So, why then, doesn't the customer change to a service provider who doesn't harm him? Perhaps there are no other providers; or perhaps all the other providers abuse customers similarly.
But how could a market consist only of abusive companies? Surely some upstart would enter the field and demolish the existing competition. Unless perhaps there exists some type of monopoly situation, or perhaps the players have calculated that it is more profitable if all providers abuse their customers.
I'm reminded of a scene from "A Beautiful Mind":
On the post: Court Says Sony Is Free To Change Its Terms Of Service Because Accessing PSN Is A Choice
Re: Bait and switch
That said, "there is no alternative". Customers who bought Sony's product with the intent to use the service billed as a feature of said product have no alternative than to lose what they paid for. That seems like harm to me and false advertising to sell a lifetime service but then change the terms under which the user purchased the service.
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
Re: Your quote is off slightly...
"No flag, no country! You can't have one. That's the rules... that... I've just made up"
On the post: EU Cybercrime Bill Targets Anonymous: Makes It A Criminal Offense To Conduct 'Cyber Attack'
On the post: Why The 'Missing 20th Century' Of Books Is Even Worse Than It Seems
Step it up
(I also can't believe I just spelled 'haranguing' correctly.)
On the post: Supreme Court Says You Can Be Strip Searched When Admitted To Jails For Any Offense
Re: Re:
Next >>