"It doesn't really matter if it is $1 or $1 million. The point is made. The guy knows he did wrong and is going to work to make it right."
The only problem with that statement is that he knows he did "wrong". He broke the current law.
Perhaps all of the AC's that visit and decree "but it's breaking the law..." have forgotten about Prohibition in the US. When you outlaw human nature then you set yourself up for an uncontrollable backlash from the population. File sharing networks are the speakeasy clubs of the digital age, and until the laws are aligned with human nature, "piracy" will continue.
Calling people thieves and freeloaders really has no effect on people who don't perceive they are doing anything wrong ( which is why the guy kept downloading his porn for free ).
Funny thing is that if you look at the actions objectively and then overlay morality, you get a rather interesting picture. If I were to stop downloading music for free and pay for all my music and movies, I would be funding the RIAA and MPAA which lobby Congress. So by ceasing to share (morally correct), I would be funding legalized bribery (morally incorrect).
Lobbying (also Lobby) is money with the intention of influencing decisions made by legislators and officials in the government by individuals, other legislators, constituents, or advocacy groups.
Bribery, a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
How is Lobbying different from Bribery? They have almost the exact same definition, with the exception that bribery is a crime and a form of corruption.
Doesn't anyone see the irony in an industry that complains about theft, actively engaging in Bribery? If they call file sharing theft, shouldn't we call lobbying bribery?
"Of course, it's notable that Sandoval says his sources expect Comcast to put in place a three strikes plan once its merger with NBC Universal is done..."
I don't think there will be many lawsuits over disconnection and I'm really hoping that Comcast does implement a 3 strikes policy. For some reason I can just hear all of the execs at Verizon and ATT salivating at the thought.
The telcos have been trying to regain their lost customers for years and Comcast/NBC could give them a better weapon. Now that the telcos have a TV offering and fiber just waiting for all those disconnected customers this would be the best thing that could happen for the telcos.
Comcast merging with NBC is a great score when it comes to content, but disastrous when you look at how a content company will want to work with a broadband provider. I'd start looking to buy Verizon and ATT stock once the 3 strikes announcement is made.
I thought everyone already knew that Iraq and Afghanistan were not wars. Congress sidestepped that and let Bush do what he wanted so they wouldn't have to take any blame for declaring war or have to sign any peace treaty.
I don't know that illegal wars are the correct terms either, but its clear that all of the crap about putting lives at risk is just the kneejerk reaction (excuse) for having dirty laundry aired.
You have to admire the guts it takes to file for these types of patents. We are only in shock because we don't have the guts to do things this obvious and silly.
Common sense hinders most patent applications. I never would have thought to patent things like clicking on an icon to buy something. It seems that the patent office is allowing people to patent just about anything online because they dont understand how the web or browsers work. It all seems so NEW to the USPTO.
As soon as consumers realize that they have a lot more control on this issue then there will be some changes in the market. Pay TV is under a similar threat that the music industry faces and its just at the beginning, similar to the time just before Napster hit.
We do need the broadband, but the other communications services that we are forced to consume are not all that necessary anymore. Google Talk and Skype are showing us that telephony and even video telephony can be delivered without a fee to the consumer. Many broadcast TV channels are offering their programming on their websites for free so that we can "catch up", and there are plenty of new and interesting TV alternatives popping up on the web.
Cable and Telco's can ignore the way younger consumers are choosing to use the web if they wish, but they should be paying very close attention to the online gaming community as well. More and more people will be opting for broadband only from Cable and Telco providers and choosing alternative channels for their entertainment online. The should effectively shake up the market.
Im not sure I understand the challenge for TD to mirror Wikileaks. AC you've given no real reason to do so.
This walk the walk crap is childish at best. If you believe that people who believe in free speech should walk the walk, then you are starting on the wrong site. I suggest you start by posting the exact same challenge on some other sites that are higher up on the food chain.
http://www.senate.gov/http://www.house.gov/
The US Government, according to the 1st Amendment, should be walking the walk as the strongest defenders of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
So let lil Mikee do his thing in his way, while you work up the nerve to harass Big Barack, if you don't know who your Senators or House Reps are. See how far that goes.
Well said AC. Kennedy and Obama are very similar in charisma and the words are great.
I think both men believe in the idea of what they were saying, however, they both know that its just an idea and there won't be any real execution of it.
The myth is quite debunked. Take a look at reality for a moment. CD sales are down but the music industry as a whole is thriving. So the money isn't coming from CD sales like it used to or even online sales, even though CDs are still being made.
Now sober up and look at the technology. Forget about the pirates for the moment and look at the electronics makers. Computers are hitting the market without CD ROMS. Flash drives are bigger and a much better way to store media ( they don't scratch ). If the technology keeps moving in the direction its moving in then people will stop buying CDs because there is nothing to play them on (think vinyl and cassettes). So the music and movie industries need to be looking at that right now.
As for books being free, ever heard of a library? They have a lot of free books in those places. All those free books available for decades and still books are sold even though "free loaders" have access to them.
Starbucks is the best example yet and you should stay away from using them as an example. It's really expensive coffee that MOST people don't have to pay for. They can get a cup of coffee for free at work or at least for 5 - 10 times less. Still Starbucks is doing well.
Do people want things for free? YES!!!! Will they pay more for premium and exclusive goods when there are free versions available? YES!!!!
Let's try to wrap this up with movies, the biggest rip of the bunch....
I've used myself for this example before and I will do it again just for you.
I saw AVATAR online for free when it came out. I watched it at least 5 more times online for FREE. It was so good that I went to the theater and paid to see it 3 more times then 2 more times in 3D. It was WORTH it. Then I heard about The Hurt Locker so I watched it online for free. I still think the producers owe me money for sitting through more than 30 minutes of that movie and no I would not pay for it or recommend it to anyone.
The point is that if the product is good, then online for free protects the consumer. We will still pay for quality but we want to make sure we are getting quality. Movies are one of those products that you don't really get to know if you are getting value for your money until AFTER you have paid for it.
Call me a free loader all you want, I feel Im an informed consumer who is tired of being raped.
Lastly, if the media companies insist on using piracy for what we do to them, I think it's only fair that we use the term rape for what they do to us.
If the Winklevoss twins thought they have a multibillion dollar idea they would have gone about protecting it with a contract. Im not sure of all the details, but from what Ive read, it would appear that the twins were trying to create an exclusive social network for their elite friends.
Zuckerberg was just trying to do the best work he could do and ended up with something far beyond the scope of the original undertaking. Im sure that there could be a case made for the twins putting Zuckerberg on his path, and the settlement they got should more than compensate them for that.
The additional litigation just serves to highlight the point that is made in TechDirt constantly. IP rights have the effect of HINDERING innovation. That causes a lot more damage to an economy than piracy.
At this point, I would bet that Facebook has a number of patents in the social networking space that would prevent others from entering the market without having to deal with Facebook. I would hope this isn't the case.
People should be allowed to build a better mousetrap without having to pay the inventor of the mousetrap. Isn't that what innovation is all about. In our current legal environment, Thomas Edison would have been sued by the inventor of the oil lamp or candle.
With the internet we can see from the creation of mobile apps that there are tons of ideas that are out there and people are struggling to execute them without having to worry about patent trolls.
One of the funniest bits about all of this is that the media companies have a HUGE advantage with all the copyrights they control. IF they would wake up and release that content in a free service, they would be able to make millions of dollars on ad revenue AND destroy the motivation for a lot of piracy and win loyal happy customers. I guess they would rather pay lawyers than make money.
Ummmm you should read the ABC article. They DID almost completely ignore the fact that it was in his bag. It's in the last paragraph.
"A TSA spokesperson says the agency has conducted an investigation, saying remedial training was provided to the security officers involved in the incident. Advanced imaging technology and more stringent pat downs have also since been implemented."
I think I hurt myself laughing at the "remedial training". Is that something like, if you see a gun in the bag, don't let the passenger through?
Other than that they added body scanners and groping, neither of which will help with guns in bags getting through security. Personally, I think it would have been a lot funnier if the guy had gone through the full body scan and then realized he had a gun in his bag. EPIC fail.
Im not sure why blame is being placed on the Obama admin. This is all left over from the Bush admin. The wave of Anti-Terrorist sentiment that began after 9/11 made it clear to everyone in the US government that they could do just about anything they wanted to do and just slap the "national security protecting from terrorism" stamp on it.
Obama took office, but that doesn't mean that the loads of politicians that took office because they were hard on terrorism are gone. They are still there in force and don't want to have to deal with things like the Constitution when they want to get something done.
I read about studies that have been done about "piracy" in this column all the time, but has anyone here seen any studies done on the amount of terrorist activity in the world ( or in the US) pre 9/11 vs post 9/11.
Terrorism is a lovely word being overused to erode citizen's rights, but has there actually been any measurable effect other than the US government's "It's working" rhetoric?
It would appear that the Tactics 101 dept hasn't been in contact with the Politics 101 dept.
The assumption is that the US is trying to win a war against Wikileaks.
That doesn't appear to be the case at all. It appears that business as usual is taking place in D.C. Sure Wikileaks has all the advantages in this mock up war, but what if the goal is for the US government to increase "security"?
In that case, Wikileaks is providing a platform to show why we need to be "protected" from the cyber "terrorists". Sound familiar? Legislating based on fear doesn't require facts, it just requires that the sheeple be scared enough to allow their rights to be trampled so they can feel more secure.
If you revisit the premise with the goal being a War on the Constitution and its various freedoms, then you may find that the US government has a lot more advantages in the 5 constants.
Prada is overpriced and so is most music and literature.
I happily download pirated music and have no intention of paying for it. It has very little value to me in digital form, and so I see no reason to pay for it.
"But that's illegal... blah blah blah"
Well it was change of format the forced me to buy a lot of the same music over and over through the 60s 70s 80s and 90s. Vinyl to cassette to CD ( I was never big on 8-tracks), and I don't remember any of the record labels lowering the price for me or offering discounts for having to buy the same music.
I've paid for the music several times and don't see the reason to pay for it going forward, unless its a concert or something special that has value.
Re: Re: Who said the music industry needs saving,, apart from you Mike ???
I don't think the cuts at the big music labels really mean all that much. Just a bunch of overpaid people getting culled as the really greedy people above them realize how little they are needed.
I do think that what Mike is highlighting is that there is a definite change in the behavior of people.
It's going to be difficult to explain this one to Darryl, but let's give it a try.
The internet is an open communication platform. In order to use it, MOST people need to pay for a computer and some form of broadband.
Now here's the interesting bit. MOST people who have paid for something once, don't like to pay for what they perceive as the same thing, again.
The IP industry wants people to pay for things that lack a certain perceived value. The IP industry claims that "piracy" does TRILLIONS of dollars worth of damage and are basically saying that a large percentage of people using the web are criminals.
The more likely truth is that file sharing is not perceived as a criminal activity by most users, nor is the value digital music seen as the same as owning a CD.
Now this is the point where Darryl will probably whine about legality and the rights to make profit. No one is against that, but when dealing with infinite supply, you have to be creative if you want someone to buy.
Again Darryl will cry out, "but it's ILLEGAL!!!" Well that may be true, but you will have to face the fact that saying "it's illegal" paired with one or two people losing file sharing cases in court, is hardly a deterrent to a behavior shared by tens of MILLIONS.
Instead of trying to stop those tens of millions from doing what comes natural, the media companies should be trying to get them to spend $.05 per week or per month.
I thought this was going to be something different
When I read the title of this article, I thought it was going to be something along the lines of the Superman case.
The last that I heard was that DC Comics (Time Warner) retained the copyright on a portion of Superman's powers and that the creator's heirs retained the copyright on the rest of his powers. Which seems to be an incredibly difficult position for DC Comics when it comes to royalties.
So it seems that in some cases superpowers can be considered IP.
Im not sure if this means that moving forward media companies will try to copyright any new powers they come up with.
When Cable companies moved into the voice market, all of their calling plans were flat rate and included long distance, which was clearly better than what the Telcos were offering.
The telcos were in a screwed up position because even thought they had competitive VoIP products they couldn't give up their circuit switched voice customers who were paying through the nose. So they did their best to tell everyone how bad VoIP service was.
Now that consumers feel comfortable with the new services and the telcos are offering that bad VoIP service, they just changed the name from VoIP to "Digital Voice". Once the Cable companies got all that extra voice business bundled with their TV and broadband, they decided to take a lesson from the telcos and start charging for local long distance. And now the telcos are going into the TV market and Im sure the Cable companies will talk about how bad IPTV is.
And yet with all these new services and faster pipes, both the Telcos and the Cable companies AND Wireless companies want us to believe there is a serious bandwidth shortage and so they need to start metered plans.
If we sit back and accept this as consumers then its our own fault. If your communications provider in the US charges you for local and long distance calls, then SWITCH. If your broadband provider insists on metering, then SWITCH. Send them a message.
I'm tired of the same old excuse. National Security/Terrorism. It's gotten to the point now that every politician in the US thinks that the ONLY way they can keep their job is to overreact to any mention of anything that "might" be considered or is labeled as terrorism.
Not to say that it isn't a valid fear as attested by one of the sheeple who posted earlier about Wikileaks being a threat to national security. The voters have forced the politicians to act this way. If they use common sense they will be voted out of office.
No one shut down the Chicago Sun Times when Valerie Plame was outed and after Scooter Libby took the fall for that, his sentence was commuted by the same President who swore he would punish that treason to the fullest. We know its legal to publish classified docs that have been released to the press.
So to all the "national security" fanatics, Wikileaks is not about national security, its about "job security" for Congress.
Im not exactly sure why we are comparing Verizon's LTE network to Sprint's WiMAX network. WiMAX is wireless broadband that is meant to compete with DSL. Cable, and Fiber. While LTE can be used to provide broadband, just like 3G networks can, the problem is the pricing. No one wants to pay the wireless companies what they think is a fair price for their product.
The reason for the metering of wireless data is the same reason that wireless companies in the US charge a customer for making and receiving calls. Because they can.
The wireless companies are just trying to cash in on the iPads and smartphones. If all of those devices become 802.16 compatible then that could be the end of the line for LTE and HSDPA.
Just like VoIP killed the cash cow that was local service, something similar will eventually do the same to wireless service. Skype is most likely to accomplish that.
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Eliot Ness lives (AC)
The only problem with that statement is that he knows he did "wrong". He broke the current law.
Perhaps all of the AC's that visit and decree "but it's breaking the law..." have forgotten about Prohibition in the US. When you outlaw human nature then you set yourself up for an uncontrollable backlash from the population. File sharing networks are the speakeasy clubs of the digital age, and until the laws are aligned with human nature, "piracy" will continue.
Calling people thieves and freeloaders really has no effect on people who don't perceive they are doing anything wrong ( which is why the guy kept downloading his porn for free ).
Funny thing is that if you look at the actions objectively and then overlay morality, you get a rather interesting picture. If I were to stop downloading music for free and pay for all my music and movies, I would be funding the RIAA and MPAA which lobby Congress. So by ceasing to share (morally correct), I would be funding legalized bribery (morally incorrect).
On the post: RIAA Spent $90 Million In Lobbying The US In The Past Decade
Someone please help me understand this!!!!
Bribery, a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
How is Lobbying different from Bribery? They have almost the exact same definition, with the exception that bribery is a crime and a form of corruption.
Doesn't anyone see the irony in an industry that complains about theft, actively engaging in Bribery? If they call file sharing theft, shouldn't we call lobbying bribery?
On the post: Two Years After The RIAA Suggested ISPs Were Ready To Implement 3 Strikes, Most ISPs Have No Such Plans
Re: ISP's v. 3-strike
I don't think there will be many lawsuits over disconnection and I'm really hoping that Comcast does implement a 3 strikes policy. For some reason I can just hear all of the execs at Verizon and ATT salivating at the thought.
The telcos have been trying to regain their lost customers for years and Comcast/NBC could give them a better weapon. Now that the telcos have a TV offering and fiber just waiting for all those disconnected customers this would be the best thing that could happen for the telcos.
Comcast merging with NBC is a great score when it comes to content, but disastrous when you look at how a content company will want to work with a broadband provider. I'd start looking to buy Verizon and ATT stock once the 3 strikes announcement is made.
On the post: US Air Force Intelligence Veteran Of Afghan War Explains Why He Supports Wikileaks
Duh
I don't know that illegal wars are the correct terms either, but its clear that all of the crap about putting lives at risk is just the kneejerk reaction (excuse) for having dirty laundry aired.
On the post: IBM Files For Patent On Patent Trolling, But It May Be Too Late
LOL
Common sense hinders most patent applications. I never would have thought to patent things like clicking on an icon to buy something. It seems that the patent office is allowing people to patent just about anything online because they dont understand how the web or browsers work. It all seems so NEW to the USPTO.
On the post: Despite Promises That Franchise Reform Would Lower TV Rates, The Opposite Has Happened
I think Mike got this one right
We do need the broadband, but the other communications services that we are forced to consume are not all that necessary anymore. Google Talk and Skype are showing us that telephony and even video telephony can be delivered without a fee to the consumer. Many broadcast TV channels are offering their programming on their websites for free so that we can "catch up", and there are plenty of new and interesting TV alternatives popping up on the web.
Cable and Telco's can ignore the way younger consumers are choosing to use the web if they wish, but they should be paying very close attention to the online gaming community as well. More and more people will be opting for broadband only from Cable and Telco providers and choosing alternative channels for their entertainment online. The should effectively shake up the market.
On the post: Now Random Webhosts Are Demanding Wikileaks Mirrors Be Taken Down Over Possibility Of DDoS?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: JFK On Secrecy And Censorship
I have to agree with AC on this
I think both men believe in the idea of what they were saying, however, they both know that its just an idea and there won't be any real execution of it.
On the post: Debunking The 'But People Just Want Stuff For Free' Myth
Re: Re: Re: Addtional Free Sodomy
The myth is quite debunked. Take a look at reality for a moment. CD sales are down but the music industry as a whole is thriving. So the money isn't coming from CD sales like it used to or even online sales, even though CDs are still being made.
Now sober up and look at the technology. Forget about the pirates for the moment and look at the electronics makers. Computers are hitting the market without CD ROMS. Flash drives are bigger and a much better way to store media ( they don't scratch ). If the technology keeps moving in the direction its moving in then people will stop buying CDs because there is nothing to play them on (think vinyl and cassettes). So the music and movie industries need to be looking at that right now.
As for books being free, ever heard of a library? They have a lot of free books in those places. All those free books available for decades and still books are sold even though "free loaders" have access to them.
Starbucks is the best example yet and you should stay away from using them as an example. It's really expensive coffee that MOST people don't have to pay for. They can get a cup of coffee for free at work or at least for 5 - 10 times less. Still Starbucks is doing well.
Do people want things for free? YES!!!! Will they pay more for premium and exclusive goods when there are free versions available? YES!!!!
Let's try to wrap this up with movies, the biggest rip of the bunch....
I've used myself for this example before and I will do it again just for you.
I saw AVATAR online for free when it came out. I watched it at least 5 more times online for FREE. It was so good that I went to the theater and paid to see it 3 more times then 2 more times in 3D. It was WORTH it. Then I heard about The Hurt Locker so I watched it online for free. I still think the producers owe me money for sitting through more than 30 minutes of that movie and no I would not pay for it or recommend it to anyone.
The point is that if the product is good, then online for free protects the consumer. We will still pay for quality but we want to make sure we are getting quality. Movies are one of those products that you don't really get to know if you are getting value for your money until AFTER you have paid for it.
Call me a free loader all you want, I feel Im an informed consumer who is tired of being raped.
Lastly, if the media companies insist on using piracy for what we do to them, I think it's only fair that we use the term rape for what they do to us.
On the post: Winklevoss Twins Still Trying To Get More Of Facebook
buisness majors? NOT
Zuckerberg was just trying to do the best work he could do and ended up with something far beyond the scope of the original undertaking. Im sure that there could be a case made for the twins putting Zuckerberg on his path, and the settlement they got should more than compensate them for that.
The additional litigation just serves to highlight the point that is made in TechDirt constantly. IP rights have the effect of HINDERING innovation. That causes a lot more damage to an economy than piracy.
At this point, I would bet that Facebook has a number of patents in the social networking space that would prevent others from entering the market without having to deal with Facebook. I would hope this isn't the case.
People should be allowed to build a better mousetrap without having to pay the inventor of the mousetrap. Isn't that what innovation is all about. In our current legal environment, Thomas Edison would have been sued by the inventor of the oil lamp or candle.
With the internet we can see from the creation of mobile apps that there are tons of ideas that are out there and people are struggling to execute them without having to worry about patent trolls.
One of the funniest bits about all of this is that the media companies have a HUGE advantage with all the copyrights they control. IF they would wake up and release that content in a free service, they would be able to make millions of dollars on ad revenue AND destroy the motivation for a lot of piracy and win loyal happy customers. I guess they would rather pay lawyers than make money.
On the post: New TSA Report: Every Test Gun, Bomb Part Or Knife Got Past Screeners At Some Airport
Re: Re:
"A TSA spokesperson says the agency has conducted an investigation, saying remedial training was provided to the security officers involved in the incident. Advanced imaging technology and more stringent pat downs have also since been implemented."
I think I hurt myself laughing at the "remedial training". Is that something like, if you see a gun in the bag, don't let the passenger through?
Other than that they added body scanners and groping, neither of which will help with guns in bags getting through security. Personally, I think it would have been a lot funnier if the guy had gone through the full body scan and then realized he had a gun in his bag. EPIC fail.
On the post: Yet Another Court Explains To The Obama Administration That The 4th Amendment Means You Need To Get A Warrant
Obama???
Obama took office, but that doesn't mean that the loads of politicians that took office because they were hard on terrorism are gone. They are still there in force and don't want to have to deal with things like the Constitution when they want to get something done.
On the post: US Response To Massive Decline In Foreign Travelers: Keep Crazy Policies, But Set Up Ad Campaign
Has anyone actually done a study on this???
Terrorism is a lovely word being overused to erode citizen's rights, but has there actually been any measurable effect other than the US government's "It's working" rhetoric?
On the post: Battling Wikileaks And The Art Of War
Tactics 101
The assumption is that the US is trying to win a war against Wikileaks.
That doesn't appear to be the case at all. It appears that business as usual is taking place in D.C. Sure Wikileaks has all the advantages in this mock up war, but what if the goal is for the US government to increase "security"?
In that case, Wikileaks is providing a platform to show why we need to be "protected" from the cyber "terrorists". Sound familiar? Legislating based on fear doesn't require facts, it just requires that the sheeple be scared enough to allow their rights to be trampled so they can feel more secure.
If you revisit the premise with the goal being a War on the Constitution and its various freedoms, then you may find that the US government has a lot more advantages in the 5 constants.
On the post: Author Slams 'Piracy,' Then Admits To A Huge 'Pirated' Music Collection And Counterfeit Purses
I agree with her
I happily download pirated music and have no intention of paying for it. It has very little value to me in digital form, and so I see no reason to pay for it.
"But that's illegal... blah blah blah"
Well it was change of format the forced me to buy a lot of the same music over and over through the 60s 70s 80s and 90s. Vinyl to cassette to CD ( I was never big on 8-tracks), and I don't remember any of the record labels lowering the price for me or offering discounts for having to buy the same music.
I've paid for the music several times and don't see the reason to pay for it going forward, unless its a concert or something special that has value.
On the post: Oh Look, Digital Downloads Aren't Saving The Music Industry
Re: Re: Who said the music industry needs saving,, apart from you Mike ???
I do think that what Mike is highlighting is that there is a definite change in the behavior of people.
It's going to be difficult to explain this one to Darryl, but let's give it a try.
The internet is an open communication platform. In order to use it, MOST people need to pay for a computer and some form of broadband.
Now here's the interesting bit. MOST people who have paid for something once, don't like to pay for what they perceive as the same thing, again.
The IP industry wants people to pay for things that lack a certain perceived value. The IP industry claims that "piracy" does TRILLIONS of dollars worth of damage and are basically saying that a large percentage of people using the web are criminals.
The more likely truth is that file sharing is not perceived as a criminal activity by most users, nor is the value digital music seen as the same as owning a CD.
Now this is the point where Darryl will probably whine about legality and the rights to make profit. No one is against that, but when dealing with infinite supply, you have to be creative if you want someone to buy.
Again Darryl will cry out, "but it's ILLEGAL!!!" Well that may be true, but you will have to face the fact that saying "it's illegal" paired with one or two people losing file sharing cases in court, is hardly a deterrent to a behavior shared by tens of MILLIONS.
Instead of trying to stop those tens of millions from doing what comes natural, the media companies should be trying to get them to spend $.05 per week or per month.
On the post: Should Superhero Superpowers Be Considered Property?
I thought this was going to be something different
The last that I heard was that DC Comics (Time Warner) retained the copyright on a portion of Superman's powers and that the creator's heirs retained the copyright on the rest of his powers. Which seems to be an incredibly difficult position for DC Comics when it comes to royalties.
So it seems that in some cases superpowers can be considered IP.
Im not sure if this means that moving forward media companies will try to copyright any new powers they come up with.
On the post: AT&T Celebrates The Fact Almost No One Actually Signs Up For Cheaper Plans
A lot of it is the consumer's fault
The telcos were in a screwed up position because even thought they had competitive VoIP products they couldn't give up their circuit switched voice customers who were paying through the nose. So they did their best to tell everyone how bad VoIP service was.
Now that consumers feel comfortable with the new services and the telcos are offering that bad VoIP service, they just changed the name from VoIP to "Digital Voice". Once the Cable companies got all that extra voice business bundled with their TV and broadband, they decided to take a lesson from the telcos and start charging for local long distance. And now the telcos are going into the TV market and Im sure the Cable companies will talk about how bad IPTV is.
And yet with all these new services and faster pipes, both the Telcos and the Cable companies AND Wireless companies want us to believe there is a serious bandwidth shortage and so they need to start metered plans.
If we sit back and accept this as consumers then its our own fault. If your communications provider in the US charges you for local and long distance calls, then SWITCH. If your broadband provider insists on metering, then SWITCH. Send them a message.
On the post: Hillary Clinton: Then And Now On Internet Freedoms And Censorship
Im just tired of it
Not to say that it isn't a valid fear as attested by one of the sheeple who posted earlier about Wikileaks being a threat to national security. The voters have forced the politicians to act this way. If they use common sense they will be voted out of office.
No one shut down the Chicago Sun Times when Valerie Plame was outed and after Scooter Libby took the fall for that, his sentence was commuted by the same President who swore he would punish that treason to the fullest. We know its legal to publish classified docs that have been released to the press.
So to all the "national security" fanatics, Wikileaks is not about national security, its about "job security" for Congress.
On the post: You Can Use Up Your Entire Monthly Verizon Wireless LTE Data Allotment In Just 32 Minutes
Apples to Oranges
The reason for the metering of wireless data is the same reason that wireless companies in the US charge a customer for making and receiving calls. Because they can.
The wireless companies are just trying to cash in on the iPads and smartphones. If all of those devices become 802.16 compatible then that could be the end of the line for LTE and HSDPA.
Just like VoIP killed the cash cow that was local service, something similar will eventually do the same to wireless service. Skype is most likely to accomplish that.
Next >>