Google haven't paid anyone to move their YouTube traffic (or other traffic) from peering points to the consumer for a long time. But they do spend a lot of money expanding and maintaining their extensive global network that moves traffic between their data centres and from data centres to peering points.
Major Telcos speak only of the former when they talk about Google getting a "free ride"; Google speak only of the latter when responding that the Telcos must maintain net neutrality; Analysts and journalists happily emphasise whichever fits their agenda.
So YouTube wasnt a bad investment because the bandwidth costs didnt turn out to be crippling as some predicted? OK. A little one dimensional but I guess I can live with that.
If they had recognized and taken the opportunity early enough DRM would have been a way to artificially preserve scarcity at least for at least a while longer.
Is DRM good? Bad? The question was relevant over a decade ago. It's not even worth debating now. The opportunity was missed a long time ago.
You're like a scientist trying to explain that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory to some fundamentalist creationist. Logic and reason are never going to convince the true believers. Frustration and exasperation are easily confused with anger.
I don't think that it needs to be 'additional scarce value' it just needs to be additional value. The real problem with the paywall crowd is that they over value their product.
Try selling premium pork sausages in Tel Aviv. No matter how scrumptious the sausage, you've misread the market and this is exactly what the paywall crowd have done. No doubt there is a niche market for pork sausage in Tel Aviv, but expecting your local rabii to chow down on your product - even if it is a really #ucking good sausage is unrealistic and misguided.
Err, No. China's legal system is somewhat different from that of the US. Google does have the ability to oppose court requests in the US - Yahoo's China operation had much more limited options. Same for Google's China JV for that matter.
Not that I agree totally with the A.C. Google should not immediately handover user information without giving the user a chance to respond. Which sounds pretty much like what they are doing anyway.
Paul,
Appreciate the vision of utopia, but when I went to school a DNS client communicating with a DNS server was called "client/server mode". The server is not your clients peer, it is the client's server.
I read this as an IT department concerned about costs and security. Bandwidth costs to/from Antarctica cant be cheep. And IT departments paranoid over security are regrettably common.
I agree. It depends on the work - for your reasonably well paid knowledge worker Mike might have a point, but for low paid jobs, and in particular casual work hourly wages are here to stay.
"The organization that's supposed to make the news clear can't make its own news clear"
I didn't think that the AP did much more than redistribute material provided to them by their customers? I'm not surprised that they fail at communicating their own ideas, they normally just repeat other peoples ideas verbatim.
I expect that the BBC subscribe to the AP service and from the AP's perspective, as long as they get their cut, everything is OK. I dont see anything hypocritical here.
The AP are wrong in thinking that they can own the news, but their real problem is that they don't understand their product. The content itself was never the value proposition: the value was always the convenient collection, organisation and distribution (of content). Their failure is in routed in not realising this and missing the opportunity to enhance their product to maintain a value proposition.
I'm more disappointed in the IEEE. I expect more from them than some popular PC rag.
Anyone that knows anything about modern routers knows that all manufacturers rely on flows to optimise routing. This is not a new idea. Not even close. But the article contained no comparison with or even acknowledgement of competing technology. Is the Doctor's implementation fundamentally different from Cisco's, Juniper's, or any of the others'? How is it better? Who knows? Not the IEEE.
This may not have been published in one of their academic journals but some sort of critical review would have identified the fundamental flaw.
What is even more concerning is the question of whether or not the IEEE paid Dr Robertsin for his shameless plug.
PC Authority may have failed in parroting the IEEE, but the IEEE failed first
If a US company has an local operating entity in some foreign jurisdiction the local operating entity is going to be subject the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it operates.
So this is only going to help to the extent that a US company isn't operating in the foreign jurisdiction in which prosecution is already problematical.
Seems like political grand standing to me. Play to the masses who seem to think US law actually makes a difference in foreign jurisdictions.
There must be some people who saw a pirated copy and decided the product was not worth the price. And of these people there must be some that might otherwise have sent money on a theatre ticket.
But the only reason anyone can think of this is a loss is because (generally) you cant get a refund if the film sucks.
It's interesting that the position that it is OK to sell defective product and refuse refunds is a key assumption in behind any estimate of the losses piracy causes.
If politicians didn't make a lot of noise about all of the many things they are going to do, the voters might notice how few things that have actually done.
I agree although I expect that the vector for mobile phone malware of any large volume will be the browser rather than MMS/SMS. And even then I would expect it more to be a case of collateral damage as the malware attempts to exploit a vulnerability in the shared source.
I'd like to add that as long as usage based billing continues, the first monthly bill after being infected is going to be a pretty strong incentive to address it. I wonder how successful botnets would be if home broadband were charged by the MByte.
Finally, like MACs, malware for mobiles is going to be a niche market. Why bother when there are so many internet connected WINTEL computers out there connected to all you can eat broadband?
You can debate whether or not it should be decriminalised but the fact remains that it is illegal to make unauthorised copies of copyright material.
The positive thing that comes out of this is that there is judicial review. Before an ISP is forced to potentially identify someone (which with dynamic IPs isn't as clear cut as you might think), a court will have to be satisfied that there is evidence. Seems like they have just formalised actions that a copyright holder could have taken anyway. At worst it is now cheaper (but not free) to go down that path.
This is much much better than has been proposed elsewhere, where the industry wants ISPs to actively spy on their customers without judicial oversight or without evidence terminate customer service after three (possibly unfounded) accusations.
Personally I think it sounds like a good compromise.
RSS
Twitter
(as Allen)
Google haven't paid anyone to move their YouTube traffic (or other traffic) from peering points to the consumer for a long time. But they do spend a lot of money expanding and maintaining their extensive global network that moves traffic between their data centres and from data centres to peering points.
Major Telcos speak only of the former when they talk about Google getting a "free ride"; Google speak only of the latter when responding that the Telcos must maintain net neutrality; Analysts and journalists happily emphasise whichever fits their agenda.
So YouTube wasnt a bad investment because the bandwidth costs didnt turn out to be crippling as some predicted? OK. A little one dimensional but I guess I can live with that.
(as Allen)
If they had recognized and taken the opportunity early enough DRM would have been a way to artificially preserve scarcity at least for at least a while longer.
Is DRM good? Bad? The question was relevant over a decade ago. It's not even worth debating now. The opportunity was missed a long time ago.
The Difference Between Reporting And Discussion (as Allen)
You dont come over angry at all.
You're like a scientist trying to explain that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory to some fundamentalist creationist. Logic and reason are never going to convince the true believers. Frustration and exasperation are easily confused with anger.
Oh wait, am I commenting on the right post ;-)
(as Allen)
I don't think that it needs to be 'additional scarce value' it just needs to be additional value. The real problem with the paywall crowd is that they over value their product.
Try selling premium pork sausages in Tel Aviv. No matter how scrumptious the sausage, you've misread the market and this is exactly what the paywall crowd have done. No doubt there is a niche market for pork sausage in Tel Aviv, but expecting your local rabii to chow down on your product - even if it is a really #ucking good sausage is unrealistic and misguided.
Re: Re: (as Allen)
Err, No. China's legal system is somewhat different from that of the US. Google does have the ability to oppose court requests in the US - Yahoo's China operation had much more limited options. Same for Google's China JV for that matter.
Not that I agree totally with the A.C. Google should not immediately handover user information without giving the user a chance to respond. Which sounds pretty much like what they are doing anyway.
Re: (as Allen)
Paul,
Appreciate the vision of utopia, but when I went to school a DNS client communicating with a DNS server was called "client/server mode". The server is not your clients peer, it is the client's server.
I read this as an IT department concerned about costs and security. Bandwidth costs to/from Antarctica cant be cheep. And IT departments paranoid over security are regrettably common.
Re: (as Allen)
I agree. It depends on the work - for your reasonably well paid knowledge worker Mike might have a point, but for low paid jobs, and in particular casual work hourly wages are here to stay.
Re: Free books at Baen (as Allen)
A search of Techdirt turned up a few mentions. And they get a few more in the comments.
Jim Baen was a legend. Other publishing houses would do well to emulate his model.
(as Allen)
"The organization that's supposed to make the news clear can't make its own news clear"
I didn't think that the AP did much more than redistribute material provided to them by their customers? I'm not surprised that they fail at communicating their own ideas, they normally just repeat other peoples ideas verbatim.
Yeah, but... (as Allen)
I expect that the BBC subscribe to the AP service and from the AP's perspective, as long as they get their cut, everything is OK. I dont see anything hypocritical here.
The AP are wrong in thinking that they can own the news, but their real problem is that they don't understand their product. The content itself was never the value proposition: the value was always the convenient collection, organisation and distribution (of content). Their failure is in routed in not realising this and missing the opportunity to enhance their product to maintain a value proposition.
Re: If they wanted the information (as Allen)
Why complicate things? All they needed to do was make a request through Interpol as Yahoo had suggested.
(as Allen)
I'm more disappointed in the IEEE. I expect more from them than some popular PC rag.
Anyone that knows anything about modern routers knows that all manufacturers rely on flows to optimise routing. This is not a new idea. Not even close. But the article contained no comparison with or even acknowledgement of competing technology. Is the Doctor's implementation fundamentally different from Cisco's, Juniper's, or any of the others'? How is it better? Who knows? Not the IEEE.
This may not have been published in one of their academic journals but some sort of critical review would have identified the fundamental flaw.
What is even more concerning is the question of whether or not the IEEE paid Dr Robertsin for his shameless plug.
PC Authority may have failed in parroting the IEEE, but the IEEE failed first
(as Allen)
If a US company has an local operating entity in some foreign jurisdiction the local operating entity is going to be subject the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it operates.
So this is only going to help to the extent that a US company isn't operating in the foreign jurisdiction in which prosecution is already problematical.
Seems like political grand standing to me. Play to the masses who seem to think US law actually makes a difference in foreign jurisdictions.
They did lose money (as Allen)
There must be some people who saw a pirated copy and decided the product was not worth the price. And of these people there must be some that might otherwise have sent money on a theatre ticket.
But the only reason anyone can think of this is a loss is because (generally) you cant get a refund if the film sucks.
It's interesting that the position that it is OK to sell defective product and refuse refunds is a key assumption in behind any estimate of the losses piracy causes.
It's a distraction. (as Allen)
If politicians didn't make a lot of noise about all of the many things they are going to do, the voters might notice how few things that have actually done.
Re: I wonder if (as Allen)
Opps that was supposed to be "crate".
I wonder if (as Allen)
1. Find a create of old phones in an empty warehouse
2. Spread a bogus rumour that they can be used to steal banking passwords
3. Profit.
(as Allen)
I agree although I expect that the vector for mobile phone malware of any large volume will be the browser rather than MMS/SMS. And even then I would expect it more to be a case of collateral damage as the malware attempts to exploit a vulnerability in the shared source.
I'd like to add that as long as usage based billing continues, the first monthly bill after being infected is going to be a pretty strong incentive to address it. I wonder how successful botnets would be if home broadband were charged by the MByte.
Finally, like MACs, malware for mobiles is going to be a niche market. Why bother when there are so many internet connected WINTEL computers out there connected to all you can eat broadband?
Re: Re: Sigh (as Allen)
What a horrible idea. Why bother with a Jury at all?
(as Allen)
You can debate whether or not it should be decriminalised but the fact remains that it is illegal to make unauthorised copies of copyright material.
The positive thing that comes out of this is that there is judicial review. Before an ISP is forced to potentially identify someone (which with dynamic IPs isn't as clear cut as you might think), a court will have to be satisfied that there is evidence. Seems like they have just formalised actions that a copyright holder could have taken anyway. At worst it is now cheaper (but not free) to go down that path.
This is much much better than has been proposed elsewhere, where the industry wants ISPs to actively spy on their customers without judicial oversight or without evidence terminate customer service after three (possibly unfounded) accusations.
Personally I think it sounds like a good compromise.