...
Perry then asked the state legislature to make sure that it crafts some new rules that keep Amazon from leaving. Looks like Amazon just successfully called Texas' bluff.
Oh, BTW.. If I purchase something from you (or ANYONE) and later decide to tear into it, mod, or hack it, who the F#&K are you to say what I can do or can't do with MY equipment that I OWN?
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_bwlimited/1.4 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 Server at www.northcountrygazette.org Port 80
WOW, such a nice and well maintained site.
.. would I, as a internet content provider (multiple websites, videos, podcasts, etc.), want to pay TWICE or more for delivery of my content? I ALREADY pay a provider for bandwidth and their peering/transit connections in order to have my content available to any web surfer. I would NEVER consider paying any end-user ISP for content delivery, ever.
As a consumer, what doers my monthly internet bill pay for? I pay for an unbridled, unblocked connection to the internet. How I use it or what I do on it is ONLY my business.
To me this is just the left behind telco's attempt to wring money out of an old, bad business plan.
I'm afraid my comments would be censored right off the site. so I'll just say, "Oh wow!" and "insane" top it off with a little "greedy co execs are falling out of the woodworks all over the place"
No, I'm sorry, you CAN'T force us to change to your 'feed the corporate bottom line" mentality. We want what we want, openly without strings attached, and will willingly pay for it if (IF) the value is good.
This really a no-brainer.. the AUTHORIZED copyright holder or his agent has offered a file or files on a known peer to peer site with full knowledge of how a p2p tracker/site works, is indeed offering it freely. you have just as much right to get and seed said file as the copyright holder does, IMO.
They offered freely, you take it freely and even, quite nicely, help them out with their distribution bandwidth too.
they just shot yet another foot if they think this will stand up in any court anywhere. (BTW, aren't they out of feet yet?)
So as I see this, to me, it seems that the AP is going the way of the *AA's - charging per word (song) some outrageous fee for what's openly and publicly published (especially on RSS feeds offered to the general public) and most like asserting that the facts contained in these stories are also copyrighted and licensable.
So sad. AP used to have morals, guess the all-mighty dollar overwrites them now.
From the NYT article: "All stations will be required to pay an annual minimum fee of $25,000, which they can apply to their royalty payments."
This is a deal breaker for smaller or non-profit stations who may webcast for a hobby/to friends or as a reg'd 501(c) .org
Something needs to be done about this GREED that has prevailed over this industry for a while now. Make the entry into this easier and competitive. Oh wait.. that's right, they DON'T want you broadcast their artists/music at all. well good luck to them ALL when the bottom falls out from all the gunshots in their feets.
Streaming is all good and fine for when you are at work or home and have access to a pc for the streams.
Pretty much useless for loading your mp3 player, for remixing(fair use or not), or making a mix cd for your next road trip.. you can ONLY do these things with a physical file download (or cd rip, IF you wasted your money on the cd) in a high bitrate or lossless format.
Streaming is for all intents and purposes, just like basic fm radio.. useful for s few things and that's it.
This applies equally to BOTH video and audio sources.
Us very little guys are not even considered in all this madness... It seems all they seem to care about is profit and business models.. what about those of us that this webcasting we do isn't for profit? its for fun, friends and so forth..
we have 0 chances of being legit as we're not addressed in these new rates or hell even in soundexchange's policies; we're considered that same as big inet radio (live365, pandora) when we're not 'big' or don't earn anything nor charge a fee.
the whole thing is stupid and lame beyond madness.
Well I run my business from California too.. its really not that bad, really! We get paid in IOU's with a whopping 3% interest.. our base rate for (good) credit clients is 12%
*sigh*
BTW, would you take this IOU instead of cash for my payment?
The Governator has to deal with these bought and paid for idiots in the legislature
OT: I'm all for this no tax as we also affiliate sell thru amazon (and others) on some of our sites.
even universal/nbc has to have an ISP.. so if, IF you get your wish, don't came crying back to anyone complaining that your copyrighted content was blocked by your isp as you try to transfer it between various divisions, etc.
this overall is a very bad idea, and i hope that the Gov stands up to this corp buyout attempt.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by PPNSteve.
so..
Does this mean we won't have to suffer through yet another lame, overpriced, under produced NoDaddy Super Bowl commercial?
I sure hope so.
SO.. THAT is how you play Texas Hold 'em Poker.
I have been edumacated now.
Sony
BOYCOTT SONY!
Oh, BTW.. If I purchase something from you (or ANYONE) and later decide to tear into it, mod, or hack it, who the F#&K are you to say what I can do or can't do with MY equipment that I OWN?
So bottom line: Sony, GO POUND SAND!
Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server. Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_bwlimited/1.4 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 Server at www.northcountrygazette.org Port 80 WOW, such a nice and well maintained site.
why in hell..
.. would I, as a internet content provider (multiple websites, videos, podcasts, etc.), want to pay TWICE or more for delivery of my content? I ALREADY pay a provider for bandwidth and their peering/transit connections in order to have my content available to any web surfer. I would NEVER consider paying any end-user ISP for content delivery, ever.
As a consumer, what doers my monthly internet bill pay for? I pay for an unbridled, unblocked connection to the internet. How I use it or what I do on it is ONLY my business.
To me this is just the left behind telco's attempt to wring money out of an old, bad business plan.
I'm afraid my comments would be censored right off the site. so I'll just say, "Oh wow!" and "insane" top it off with a little "greedy co execs are falling out of the woodworks all over the place"
No, I'm sorry, you CAN'T force us to change to your 'feed the corporate bottom line" mentality. We want what we want, openly without strings attached, and will willingly pay for it if (IF) the value is good.
Re: Re: Hrm.
EXACTLY
BREIN's money does the rule setting.. They BUY the status they want, not the law or (bought and paid for) courts, who just agree with them.
When will these 'agencies' go away? they are no longer needed nor wanted.
This really a no-brainer.. the AUTHORIZED copyright holder or his agent has offered a file or files on a known peer to peer site with full knowledge of how a p2p tracker/site works, is indeed offering it freely. you have just as much right to get and seed said file as the copyright holder does, IMO.
They offered freely, you take it freely and even, quite nicely, help them out with their distribution bandwidth too.
they just shot yet another foot if they think this will stand up in any court anywhere. (BTW, aren't they out of feet yet?)
Greed?
So as I see this, to me, it seems that the AP is going the way of the *AA's - charging per word (song) some outrageous fee for what's openly and publicly published (especially on RSS feeds offered to the general public) and most like asserting that the facts contained in these stories are also copyrighted and licensable.
So sad. AP used to have morals, guess the all-mighty dollar overwrites them now.
Deal Breaker
From the NYT article: "All stations will be required to pay an annual minimum fee of $25,000, which they can apply to their royalty payments."
This is a deal breaker for smaller or non-profit stations who may webcast for a hobby/to friends or as a reg'd 501(c) .org
Something needs to be done about this GREED that has prevailed over this industry for a while now. Make the entry into this easier and competitive. Oh wait.. that's right, they DON'T want you broadcast their artists/music at all. well good luck to them ALL when the bottom falls out from all the gunshots in their feets.
streaming != downloading
Streaming is all good and fine for when you are at work or home and have access to a pc for the streams.
Pretty much useless for loading your mp3 player, for remixing(fair use or not), or making a mix cd for your next road trip.. you can ONLY do these things with a physical file download (or cd rip, IF you wasted your money on the cd) in a high bitrate or lossless format.
Streaming is for all intents and purposes, just like basic fm radio.. useful for s few things and that's it.
This applies equally to BOTH video and audio sources.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Death For Webcasters
Us very little guys are not even considered in all this madness... It seems all they seem to care about is profit and business models.. what about those of us that this webcasting we do isn't for profit? its for fun, friends and so forth..
we have 0 chances of being legit as we're not addressed in these new rates or hell even in soundexchange's policies; we're considered that same as big inet radio (live365, pandora) when we're not 'big' or don't earn anything nor charge a fee.
the whole thing is stupid and lame beyond madness.
Re: Another reason CA has a huge deficit . . .
Well I run my business from California too.. its really not that bad, really! We get paid in IOU's with a whopping 3% interest.. our base rate for (good) credit clients is 12%
*sigh*
BTW, would you take this IOU instead of cash for my payment?
The Governator has to deal with these bought and paid for idiots in the legislature
OT: I'm all for this no tax as we also affiliate sell thru amazon (and others) on some of our sites.
DRM Good for..
"Has anyone found any thing that DRM is actually good for yet?"
Pissing off the users who have it forced upon them and generating lots of stories like this one.
remember...
A $0 update is STILL worth $0 in any accounting books anywhere.
Should be entered as such IF they are so worried that (offering) patches to their products will violate Sarbanes-Oxley.
Sarbanes-Oxley is for their mgmt to keep accurate records and so forth.. it should rarely effect any end-user process.
remember...
even universal/nbc has to have an ISP.. so if, IF you get your wish, don't came crying back to anyone complaining that your copyrighted content was blocked by your isp as you try to transfer it between various divisions, etc.
this overall is a very bad idea, and i hope that the Gov stands up to this corp buyout attempt.