Re: The basic FACT is that grifter Aereo is stealing content.
It's only a middleman between producers and consumers, has no products of its own. That's grifting.
That's exactly what Comcast was for years. They didn't produce anything, just rebroadcast.
Please explain to me why, if I get something on my TV, why I shouldn't be able to watch it on my computer?
If we want to start a list of everything that "should be illegal" we're going to have a very long list, including charging >$100/month for television content. Including having a duopoly in almost all markets. Including having awful customer service when there really aren't any options.
Cable television is the ultimate grift. And it's been going on for decades. Maybe you're not old enough to remember the promises the cable industry was making when they were originally chartered by the government to use public land: "No commercials!" "Public Access!" "Interactive TV!" "Local programming!" "Accountability!" "Reasonable rates!"
Cable television was supposed to be the network that was going to tie us all together, in the way the Internet (government) actually did. In most of those cases, cable television ended up doing exactly the opposite of what they promised. They actually killed a lot of local programming, public access, etc. What could possibly be less interactive than cable television 2013? Who would describe cable rates as "reasonable"?
Any conversation involving "grifting" that involves cable television, needs to put cable television right at the top.
One has to wonder why things like this don't make a bigger splash.
Because people who work in the media like their jobs. And their lives. And when you live in a police state, the government has control over both. And they do it in the name of "national security" which is the same excuse they use for the misdeeds of the NSA, DEA, FBI, CIA, and even the CFPB.
All we can hope for now is that more whistleblowers step forward. It's a hard way to go, but every whistleblower who steps forward is a great patriot.
One can only hope that someday the people who have used their power to bully people are held accountable. Hopefully, that can happen before it gets really really ugly.
Re: Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
Who are you so mad at?
All I know is this Techdirt article clued me in to a story from right here in my neck of the woods that I didn't know the first thing about. Whatever was left out of the Techdirt summary (and after all, an aggregator can't include everything, was certainly included in the linked material.
So from where I sit, Techdirt did a fine job of journalism, just like the guy from Patch that the story is about.
Take it easy, friend. Life's too short for so much anger at someone who's doing a pretty fine job from where I sit.
No one reading this blog, or their children or grandchildren, will live to see anything like what you mean by "the coming technological singularity".
Even though you have kids in Africa using iPads, the really transformative technologies are for the financially elite only. With the increasing concentration of wealth worldwide in the hands of fewer and fewer, the "singularity" recedes farther and farther into the horizon.
Better to worry about how you're going to eat and pay your rent than what's going to happen in "The Singularity".
Re: Re: Re: Re: EVER the corporatist, Mike has to slip in a poison pill:
At least you have a say in government. You have no say over what a corporation does. Especially since more and more corporations have now separated themselves from their customers.
For example, there are private corporations that ARE private armies. That's what they do. And some of those companies are involved in spying on us. If you don't like what Haliburton or Pfizer or Exxon, or Academi (previously "Xe", previously "Blackwater") is doing, how are you going to affect their behavior? You're not their customer.
But you always have, potentially, a way to influence the government's behavior. It's hard, but possible. For some of the worst corporate actors, you can only stand by and watch (or not, since they tend to work in secret).
I'm really grateful that Techdirt has taken it upon itself to be a major conduit about news regarding the overreach and misdeeds of our national security/corporate apparatus.
I'm sure there are a lot of tech stories that the editors of Techdirt would rather be talking about, but this is by far the most important issue facing us.
I'm surprised, and pleased at some of the places I'm finding links to Techdirt stories about this issue. People ARE taking notice, and this is not just a story of the day that's going to go away tomorrow.
Thank you for spending time on this instead of just passing along another meaningless Apple product roll-out press release, as some tech sources seem to be doing today.
If you look at the growth in payrolls at private universities, the growth has been entirely in administration. If you're in the upper-administration of a university like JHU, you're getting paid like a CEO. And that's the problem. Do you think when Larry Summers was the president of Harvard that he identified more with the professors or with the rich and powerful.
So I don't think it's because of undue pressure on JHU admin that Green got his takedown notice. It was because university administrators, corporate CEOs and powerful people in government are all asshole buddies and look out for one another. I'm sure somebody whispered in somebody's ear, but I doubt it took any persuading.
The think about police states is, if you can get close to the power, you can do very very well. And make no mistake, the administrators at JHU want to be very close to power.