This, most assuredly. Next step toward a long-term solution would be to find a sympathetic developer(s) to work a port from iOS to Android and load onto a tablet that they own and fully control. Don't distribute the port, else you'll have your own morass to wade through, just be comforted knowing that it can't be remote-wiped.
Second thought. If the asses win and the original app is nuked, go ahead and distribute the port via anonymous means. This isn't freetardery, it would be vigilante justice at that point.
As you said, you lose the ability to update/improve, but it's a small price.
Gondola is on record in the article stating that this cop was roughing up a suspect who was already in hand and ankle cuffs, so I think it's pretty damned obvious why he wanted the camera. Somebody got his badge-muscles on, then realized that he wasn't in a "my word against his" scenario.
Also, there's this gem in the article:
"Police Union President Arpad Tolnay Monday defended Rubino in the Temple Plaza camera incident."
Gosh, a union wonk defending someone who was overreaching? Never would have expected that.
The chief of police in this town sounds like a good apple, though, he's taken these cases to the mat already with his officers, causing the resignation of one.
The terminology needs to be updated for the world of digital goods.
Dumping implies that there's actually a physical stock that will be depleted or need to be replenished over time. Being pedantic here, but is it possible to 'dump' an infinite good?
Grocery store analogies, or any analogy that ties this market to a world of physical, finite goods, are useless. These products don't physically exist, they are a quantity of magnetic states on a storage medium.
Supply and demand doesn't apply either, because there is either zero, roughly, in terms of inventory cost, or infinite supply. The only factor that remains is demand.
Digital goods are a bag of plenty, there's no bottom, period. Trying to apply classical economic terms and theory to this market is useless, and the disconnect that exists between the old guard and the present day ensures that no one's ever going to agree on the solution because they aren't even trying to play on the same field.
There's a sliding value scale that you need to understand, or refuse to understand.
On the top end, where for me you find movies like The Avengers (paid to see twice, 3D and 2D, and will buy the DVD/Blu-Ray), the Christopher Nolan Batman movies (paid to see in regular and IMAX, bought 2 DVDs), The Road (paid once, bought DVD), Inception (paid once, given DVD), and The Prestige (paid once, bought DVD), the value of the movie is sufficient to warrant a theater viewing and/or DVD purchase. I will watch a good movie in theaters, and I'll buy it on DVD when it comes out. Once I buy it, I'll rip and format-shift the DVD to my heart's content, but I like having that physical media.
Good movies = I spend more money
Mid-range movies may earn a theater viewing or a rental, even both, but aren't good enough to justify the DVD purchase, at least not at full price.
Okay movies = I spend some money
Then we come to the bottom of the scale. Low-value movies don't warrant any up-front money. If I never downloaded movies, then I'd never see these. However, since downloading is free and, for those who know how to protect themselves, consequence-free, I figure it's worthwhile to take up a gig of HDD space to see if there's anything redeeming about the movie.
Bad movies = my curiosity, or the absence of apathy, but no money
I download them because I can, not because I can't live without them. If things change to the point that I can't download, then I won't. I just won't watch them at all. Before torrents, I just didn't watch as many movies.
Net loss to Hollywood - Zero, with the possibility of a small gain if I actually like something enough to grab a bargain DVD.
BTW, I won't even download Battleship, just as I didn't download the last Transformers movie. Some things aren't even worth the easily cleared HDD space.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scientific Proof of the success of paywalls!
You're missing the part where the products need to be of equal quality and appeal. I'm waiting for one content producer to have the stones to pilot a program where you can watch online for a nominal price, and download for a slightly higher price.
Louis CK had what appeared to be a pretty rousing success doing this, but again the matter of equal quality and appeal is subject to debate.
I'll be reasonable, even if HBO suddenly offered their original offerings in this manner, people would still pirate them. However, I don't doubt that they would see a revenue bump as those lost customers would suddenly have an avenue to make the purchase. Bottom line, I don't see how it could hurt them to attract more paying customers from a group that is already showing that they like and follow the show. As it stands, their attitude shows an unwillingness to change that galls me.
Once upon a time, HBO was an innovator. They need to find their way back to that.
I, for one, am not trying to justify. I am trying to explain. Call it Free-Market Disobedience, if you will.
Here are a couple facts for you:
Shows like GoT are freely and readily available in HD quality within hours of airing.
Torrenting and streaming are easy, convenient, and, if you take some care, nigh on impossible to stop or police.
There are certain among the torrent/streaming crowd who would pay for these shows if there were a convenient and reasonably priced service through which to do so.
There is no convenient and reasonably priced service through which to download/stream these shows.
When you consider the above facts, this sleazy pirate (read: lost customer) will choose to circumvent the established distribution channels until such time as HBO's business model becomes more agreeable.
Disclaimer: Not all sleazy pirates are lost customers, but I feel safe in saying that I'm not the only one.
Re: Re: Re: Scientific Proof of the success of paywalls!
Talking science, eh? Well, let's proceed down that path a bit.
You have here an anecdote, a single instance, proving nothing apart from "this is how it happened this time". If you want something approaching proof, you're going to need a bit more rigor in your method. Here's what I propose:
Create 3 unique products of equal quality and general appeal (this is the tricky bit). For the first, put it behind a paywall with no possible way to obtain it apart from going through said paywall. The second, behind a paywall with options to circumvent the paywall. The third, open and free to all.
Release these products into the wild and see what happens, then report your findings back to us. I'll make no predictions, and I'll encourage you to refrain from speaking in absolutes until you've tested your hypothesis.
Anecdotally, I pirate the hell out of the current season of GoT because, with cable and HBO package upgrades, it would cost me about $50/month to watch it "legally". I pay for my basic cable and watch a fair amount of programs there, so the aggregate value is solid, but there is no reasonable pricing plan for current GoT content. I bought the first season on DVD (then ripped/converted it for portability and ease of use), and, again, WOULD PAY for the current season, but there's no way to buy only that, so HBO can pound sand until Season 2 comes out on DVD.
Following on the heels of "Secret Service Prostitution Scandal", we now have "FBI asks internet for backdoor action".
Next up, a request for a joint operation between the NSA, CIA, and FCC utilizing high-temperature superconductors to create piracy-stopping supercomputers - "Government agencies get together for hot three-way".
We didn't do anything to the hardware. Pinky-promise. We just, umm, thought that the server looked a little dirty and wanted to give it a good dusting.
Separate issue, how exactly do they get into the server room on two separate occasions without anyone being notified? Someone had to see a Gorram warrant the first time, at least? Or did Agent Coulson there work his magic on the janitor to get the keys?
In the past week, I've seen an explosion of these social reader/viewer apps. Viddy, Dailymotion, Yahoo, etc, etc. The real fun comes when someone approves use of the dailymotion social app and then fails to log off before viewing some sketchy vids.
"Bill Swenson watched '7 sexual positions for less-endowed men', as well as 8 other videos on Dailymotion."
Because Apple, through their agency model, was dictating the end-market price of their suppliers' goods sold through any outlet. They were fixing the retail price of any ebook they offered, not only in their store, but in any other store as well.
Imagine if Walmart, through agreements with Pepsi and Coke, forced the price of soda to rise at Target/Costco/wherever.
Low-overhead stores suddenly aren't allowed to 'pass the savings on to you' because their competition says they can't. How does that make sense?
The real victims here are the bit-binders, the intrepid folk who take the time to sew together the individual bits that make up an ebook. Automated, mechanized bit-binding already threatens this artisanal trade, and without the price-fixing support of the publishers, we may soon see many bit-binderies going the way of the dodo.
Jens Krustensen, fourth generation bit-binder, weighed in on this touchy subject, saying:
"People don't realize how difficult bit-binding is, or how essential it is that we get paid fairly for our work. Sure, anyone can sew a zero to another zero, but it takes 4 years of training, plus another seven of apprenticeship, before you can sew those ones to each other. That kind of training takes a lot of money. These newfangled mechanized bit-binders are shiny, but what happens when you're halfway through Moby Dick and all the ones start to fall out? Our culture is too important to entrust it to these foolish 'advances', if you can even call them that."
Please continue to pay inflated prices for DRM-hobbled ebooks. If we don't, the bit-binder could become as rare a sight as a tallow-chandler, and the world will weep.