It's not companies regulating themselves that people want.
It's the Markets (i.e. people, who comprise the markets) that should be regulating the companies.
If you notice, it's indeed the government that's being used against the customer in this case (e.g. laws in place that punish him for no reason)
In reality, the company should be completely liable for any and all bad things that happen from this horrible 'security'. No limits. That is how a market regulates itself - not by passing laws, but punishing a company if they are shitty, instead of using laws to shield themselves.
A business guy who is way more involved with these things said it "seemed almost certain" from the turn of events that the only reason Netflix would have for splitting it's business in half was to sell it - specifically to Amazon.
Due to some bumbling, stock price fell to half and the buyer backed out.
Whether true or not, it's an interesting explanation, to be sure.
Regardless, they have a crap-load of competition on the horizon, so they better figure out something fast.
what you are failing to understand is that there is lots and lots of good content that doesn't come from "big content"
Not to mention the cost of producing content has dropped dramatically over the last decade - just look at how good some homemade youtube videos are.
This is one case where the competition is crazy, and there are insane numbers of competitors. Based on that alone, The current high price model can't last forever. All they can do is prolong it a few years, but eventually it will come crashing down.
Increased numbers of cord cutters will facilitate this process. As the current young generation becomes adults, they will know instinctively how overpriced some of the content costs them. The current models will not survive that.
I think the problem with the Disney movies is the standard 'Disney Vault' bullshit - they pull movies out for 10 years or more at a time, and don't allow sales OR rentals of any of them. Sometimes they let them go onto tv...
He's referring to the fact that under US law, a corporation is considered a 'person' (with some exceptions)
1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code) which states:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
I've always kinda wondered about this, so the article was enlightening. However, to me the important caveat is the final paragraph of the analysis:
So when it comes to Buffett's statement, there are two categories: the rich and the really rich. And the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement True.
Which means he's still paying a higher percentage than me.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that this significantly lowers the detection accuracy, both false-positives and false-negatives, of the very underwear bombs these things were meant to detect.
Good move on their part - who will complain when they are told they were pulled out of line because the machine detected an 'abnormally large protrusion' in their underwear?
When I first learned of the price increase, my immediate thought was that it was the work of content owners wanting to kill Netflix.
If in fact that was true, it would be nice if someone from the company 'leaked' it.
Time Warner Cable has been running ads all summer for their On-Demand movies, saying how they get them 30 days before Netflix and Redbox. Makes me mad every time I see one.
Of course, I wouldn't ever pay $4 to watch a movie that way over their p.o.s. cable box, just to see it a month sooner.
I figured sooner or later, either Netflix would cave and want to offer things up immediately, or the studios would just decide to not renew contracts when they were up - I'm guessing one or the other finally occurred.
Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
Most people are not willing to take a stand that will land them in jail. Most people fear the police enough to not attempt something like apprehending a cop.
What if no one else joins in? What happens when the 20 other cops in the building get called in? How about when they get your face from the video and then come arrest you at home later on, where the odds are in their favor?
Those are the sorts of things that would come to my mind in this sort of situation.
At least they appeared to not be beating him - that might have swayed emotions over the brink.
Notice how to get around the 1st amendment, the cop thinks all he needs to do is say "I can arrest you for not following a direct order"