Because of this, we'll never have al a carte cable.
Fine, CableCo, you don't want to sell me al a carte channels. Why not sell me the same bundles YOU pay for? It makes me insensible with rage that I cannot tell CableCo "I'll take Discovery Networks + NBC/Universal for $50/month, pls."
What also infuriates me is that I can't go to TNT's or USA's website and pay them a monthly/yearly/per-season fee to watch their programs from their site (even though they're available!) because of their contracts with the CableCos.
The only way I can watch their programs at their sites is to have my cable bill in my hand to log on . . . and I rent a condominium with group-maintenence-fee-purchased basic cable. No one can tell me how to get a copy of the bill so that I can do this, and the CableCo won't tell me what I need to know to do so even though they know enough to send a technician to do a repair.
In what freakin' universe does it make sense for TNT/USA et al to turn down my money to watch their already-made programming simply because I want to pay it to them and not to a CableCo?
It's their contracts with the CableCos that prevent this. The CableCos are so petrified of a changing market that, if TNT/USA et al want their channels carried by the CableCos, then the CableCos insist that they not make their programming available by other methods.
Add bandwith caps to this mess, and the injustice is breathtaking because every.singe.CableCo.does.this.crap -- So they all get away with it and we have zero recourse except cutting the cord and doing without or with breaking the law.
When breaking the law makes more sense to your prospective customer base than continuing to deal with you and your crap, you should wake.the.hell.up.
Of course the CableCos (and their shills) and lawmakers keep having the unmitigated gall to act confused/suprised/outraged/disappointed with the concept of cord-cutting and piracy.
This is about GOVERNMENTAL retribution because someone disapproved of non-threatening, non-defamatory speech. Remember that "Free Speech" is supposed to protect individuals from GOVERNMENTAL retribution.
Just because those of us who hang out here are much more likely to agree with _actual_science_ (pro-vax) vs. anecdotes or superstitious hokum (anti-vax and autism "cures") and are occasionally snarky about it doesn't mean that your "free speech rights . . . are worthy of ridicule" -- It means that other PEOPLE find your MESSAGE worthy of ridicule.
Seriously, return to us with your argument as soon as it's made public that there has been GOVERNMENTAL retribution for the anti-vax stance. I expect that would be a situation into which we could sink our teeth.
I am not trying to be mean here, but pls understand that the governmental retribution the vaxer health official experienced is a metric-crap-ton worse than a group of glorified BBS users poking fun at anti-vaxers.
I am pretty sure that the AC's point was that content creation and presentation cost for older works (such as "Stranger in a Strange Land") was covered long ago.
I think he's trying to say that 15 hours of scanning/OCRing/proofing doesn't equate to >$7 per negligible incremental cost for digital distribution in his mind. I tend to agree with the thought.
I think the AC was trying to ask the OP how 15 hours of additional work on an existing older piece justifies the >$7 retail on all-but-free-to-distribute copies.
I don't think he was comparing SiaSL to the OP's example of $20 e-books after paperpacks are available, I think he was asking why such older works aren't, say, $3 if the additional production cost to transform an older book to an e-bokk is 15 hours of labor.
I've been wanting to do this for a while now . . . Hell, Houston Comcast is so expensive (and U-Verse not available) that I'd even be willing to sign up for a third service to supplement the Huly/Netflix combo.
My problem is that I'm addicted to Headline News, Science Channel, History/History International, and ID (C&I would be an acceptable substitute).
Suggestions as to replacing these babies in a non-Comcast/U-Verse household?
Appreciate the response. I read through those links and have to say that either I misunderstood the intent of your previous post (possible), or you're equating two completely different concepts (also possible).
In the post previous to yours, AC referenced "secretly install[ing] infringing content on the computer" prior to sic-cing attorneys on the owner. Your response referenced the *AA "planting fake evidence of copyright infringement."
Interpreting these two comments together, *I* thought that you were describing drive-by downloads, disguised torrents, virus infestation, or other possible malware-type methods by which the *AA (or their agents) were underhandedly "pushing" copyrighted content onto the computers of the ignorant just to send them a shake-down (read: blackmail) letter.
I was astounded to hear this, and dug around a bit. I couldn't find anything similar. Maybe there was an accusation during the discovery phase of a lawsuit that I'd somehow missed? Maybe this was breaking news you heard before I did? So I asked you for your source/s, and you provided enough to show me that we're simply not talking about the same thing at all.
Both of the links you sent me were about the DHS domain seizure dragnet.
The first link tells about the presence of both non-copyrighted and copyright-holder-or-agent-submitted content being cited as reason for inclusion in the domain name seizure. The second link mostly talks about a specific website cited for the copyright-holder-or-agent-submitted content and how absurd this has been.
The first link is about the technical ignorance/incompetence of the DHS, and the second is about the situation of the myriad music industry arms not knowing what each is doing.
Per the second link, the industries "various subsidiaries and independent promoters and DJs and mixtapes, and all sorts of stuff that the labels very specifically support with one hand" sometimes conflict with their other hands, and they seem to be unclear on the larger picture. Add the artists themselves, the executives, and the fans, mix well . . . And the industry is such a mess that the *AA has found it easier to call in a flock of attorneys and the DHS to resolve the idiocy of their own cannibalistic business model.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in that I misunderstood your original intent, because you really can't be unhinged enough to be equating the orchestrated, engineered blackmail of innocents and simple, garden-variety incompetence that collaterally damages innocents, right? ;-)
But, by all means, if you *are* attempting to equate the two, do share! :-)
I'm all for punishing actual paedophiles, and there's no excusing this kind of crime - throw the book at them, no question. But, $3.68m for possessing a photograph?
Yep, for possessing a photograph. The precedent of classifying the consumers in the same category as the producers and distributors easily leads to something like this . . .
The overseas automobile company with a plant in the US that was found guilty by US courts of discrimination against and abuse of women a few years back . . . (Sorry I can't find the name right now, we'll call it X) . . . X company wouldn't have had a motivation to discriminate/abuse if not for the profits obtained, and those profits wouldn't exist without X's customers.
Soooo . . . If every pedo with a picture is as guilty as the creator/distributor of said picture, doesn't that mean that every owner of an X car is as guilty of female discrimination/abuse as X company?
That's the funny thing with precedent: It applies to all similar situations, and the X company situation is similar enough that I would expect it to apply.
I expect the possessors of the pictures should should fall into another category . . . We have perpetrators, accessories, conspirators, and . . . Nothing. Maybe we need a new legal category/label for people who knowingly benefit from illegal activities but who don't pepetrate, conspire to perpetrate, or assist (before/after) perpetration. Maybe beneficiaries?
There absolutely needs to be a criminal middle ground between "involved" and "not involved at all". I am not involved in any way with child pornography (creation, distribution, consumption), and I am therefore a hell of a lot less "not guilty" than the consumer of child pornography who is involved in some way.
Dad? Is that you? (Seriously, you had me going until I saw the part about the CRT preference.)
People who forage, salvage, and keep such stuff "just in case" are embryonic hoarders. Once every room of your home is lined with stuff you've picked up "just in case," you'll be approaching the point of no return.