Rich Fiscus 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (218) comment rss

  • On the post: Microsoft Fires Off Rebuttal To Latest Leak; Angry Letter To Eric Holder

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2013 @ 03:33pm

    How to read a press release

    Mad Magazine used to occasionally run a feature called, "When They Say... They Mean." With apologies to the late Bill Gaines I present my interpretation of Microsoft's non-denial denial.

    When they say... Today we have asked the Attorney General of the United States to personally take action to permit Microsoft and other companies to share publicly more complete information about how we handle national security requests for customer information. We believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees our freedom to share more information with the public, yet the Government is stopping us. For example, Government lawyers have yet to respond to the petition we filed in court on June 19, seeking permission to publish the volume of national security requests we have received. We hope the Attorney General can step in to change this situation.

    They mean... As long as this is so embarassing to high ranking government officials we will have plausible deniability. Once they figure out how to spin this we'll coordinate together to make sure we keep our stories straight. We remain confident in the ability of career bureacrats to cover their own asses which they can't do without covering ours as well.

    When they say... Until that happens, we want to share as much information as we currently can. There are significant inaccuracies in the interpretations of leaked government documents reported in the media last week.

    They mean... We're really embarrased that people found out what we were up to. We can't actually refute a single fact from the leaked documents because they're all true. Also, we don't know what else that rat bastard Snowden leaked. Since the government is giving us lots of cover right now we can at least try to control the debate.

    When they say... We have asked the Government again for permission to discuss the issues raised by these new documents, and our request was denied by government lawyers.

    They mean... We're victims here just like you. It's us against them.

    When they say... In the meantime, we have summarized below the information that we are in a position to share, in response to the allegations in the reporting:

    They mean... Our crack team of professional liars in Public Relations has come up with a 100% substance-free defense. It strongly implies a complete denial of our complicity in NSA surveillance without actually commiting to a single relevant fact. The meaning is subject to change over time to match any additional revelations. We're confident major media outlets will simply regurgitate it without any critical analysis and the public will follow along like the sheep they are. That's why we're running Microsoft and you're asking us if we want fries with that.

    When they say... Outlook.com (formerly Hotmail): We do not provide any government with direct access to emails or instant messages. Full stop.

    They mean... Technically no human has direct access to anything stored on a computer but it sure sounds like we're keeping the government away from your data doesn't it?

    When they say... Like all providers of communications services, we are sometimes obligated to comply with lawful demands from governments to turn over content for specific accounts, pursuant to a search warrant or court order.

    They mean... Let's change the subject.

    When they say... This is true in the United States and other countries where we store data. When we receive such a demand, we review it and, if obligated to we comply.

    They mean... We were just following orders.

    When they say... We do not provide any government with the technical capability to access user content directly or by itself.

    They mean... Government agents get your information remotely and access is controlled by Microsoft servers. That's how cloud services work.

    When they say... Instead, governments must continue to rely on legal process to seek from us specified information about identified accounts.

    They mean... The NSA just happened to specify "All Information from Every Account."

    When they say... Not surprisingly, we remain subject to these types of legal obligations when we update our products and even when we strengthen encryption and security measures to better protect content as it travels across the Web.

    They mean... This is not about your data. It's about our business. Government contracts account for a significant percentage of our profits and we intend to keep it that way. You don't shit where you eat.

    When they say... Recent leaked government documents have focused on the addition of HTTPS encryption to Outlook.com instant messaging, which is designed to make this content more secure as it travels across the Internet.

    They mean... See, we're doing everything we can to protect you. We really do care.

    When they say... To be clear, we do not provide any government with the ability to break the encryption,

    They mean... Seriously, let's change the subject. We are not doing what nobody accused us of doing.

    When they say... nor do we provide the government with the encryption keys.

    They mean... While we're at it, though, let's address that story about how the NSA has their own backdoor built into Windows. We didn't provide them with that. They provided it themselves. We just put it on your computer.

    When they say... When we are legally obligated to comply with demands,

    They mean... As long as they have a court order signed by a judge we have enough plausible deniability to give them whatever they ask for. Fighting for your basic Constitutional rights is a high risk, low reward proposition and it's not our job.

    When they say... we pull the specified content from our servers where it sits in an unencrypted state, and then we provide it to the government agency.

    They mean... We don't let the NSA tell our servers to give them all your data. We tell our servers to give the NSA all your data.

    When they say... Cutting through the technical details, all of the information in the recent leaked government documents adds up to two things.

    They mean... Seriously, though, that's all over your head anyway. Here's a dumbed down version even you can understand.

    When they say... First, while we did discuss legal compliance requirements with the government as reported last week, in none of these discussions did Microsoft provide or agree to provide any government with direct access to user content or the ability to break our encryption. Second, these discussions were instead about how Microsoft would meet its continuing obligation to comply with the law by providing specific information in response to lawful government orders.

    They mean... If we repeat these talking points enough most of you will convince yourselves we did nothing wrong because we're pushing the right psychological buttons. We don't need no stinking facts. We just need to give the part of your brain that wants to believe us an excuse to shout down all your reason and logic. One way to do that is repeat the same thing over and over.

    When they say... SkyDrive: We respond to legal government demands for data stored in SkyDrive in the same way. All providers of these types of storage services have always been under legal obligations to provide stored content when they receive proper legal demands. In 2013 we made changes to our processes to be able to continue to comply with an increasing number of legal demands of governments worldwide. None of these changes provided any government with direct access to SkyDrive. Nor did any of them change the fact that we still require governments to follow legal processes when requesting customer data.

    They mean... Rinse, lather, repeat.

    When they say... The process used for producing SkyDrive files is the same whether it is for a criminal search warrant or in response to a national security order, in the United States or elsewhere.

    They mean... Every government has the power to compel us to hand over information. What the US government is doing is nothing out of the ordinary if you look at it on a completely abstract and theoretical level. Of course on that level vanilla and chocolate are exactly the same because they're both flavors.

    When they say... Skype Calls: As with other services, we only respond to legal government demands, and we only comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. The reporting last week made allegations about a specific change in 2012. We continue to enhance and evolve the Skype offerings and have made a number of improvements to the technical back-end for Skype, such as the 2012 move to in-house hosting of ?supernodes? and the migration of much Skype IM traffic to servers in our data centers. These changes were not made to facilitate greater government access to audio, video, messaging or other customer data.

    They mean... How could a company that cares so much about you be colluding to violate your rights? We're not saying we didn't do exactly that, but we're hurt that you would believe it.

    When they say... Looking forward, as Internet-based voice and video communications increase, it is clear that governments will have an interest in using (or establishing) legal powers to secure access to this kind of content to investigate crimes or tackle terrorism. We therefore assume that all calls, whether over the Internet or by fixed line or mobile phone, will offer similar levels of privacy and security.

    They mean... Don't be naive. All your communications have been subject to secret surveillance since 9/11. All we're doing is complying with government policy. If you don't like it blame them.

    When they say... Even in these circumstances Microsoft remains committed to responding only to valid legal demands for specific user account information. We will not provide governments with direct or unfettered access to customer data or encryption keys.

    They mean... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

    When they say... Enterprise Email and Document Storage: If we receive a government demand for data held by a business customer, we take steps to redirect the government to the customer directly, and we notify the customer unless we are legally prohibited from doing so. We have never provided any government with customer data from any of our business or government customers for national security purposes.

    They mean... If you're an enterprise customer rest assured you are still a special little snowflake. Your willingness to pay premium prices for our software and services year in and year out is the lifeblood of our company. Fighting for your rights is the fiscally responsible thing to do, and by fighting we mean sending the government to you. After that you're on your own.

    When they say... In terms of criminal law enforcement requests, we made clear in our Law Enforcement Requests Report that throughout 2012 we only complied with four requests related to business or government customers. In three instances, we notified the customer of the demand and they asked us to produce the data. In the fourth case, the customer received the demand directly and asked Microsoft to produce the data.

    They mean... After all you're going to be just as receptive to government demands as we are anyway. You know better than to argue principle or due process with agencies that can crush you on a whim.

    When they say... We do not provide any government with the ability to break the encryption used between our business customers and their data in the cloud, nor do we provide the government with the encryption keys.

    They mean... We didn't do that thing nobody accused us of to you either.

    When they say... In short, when governments seek information from Microsoft relating to customers, we strive to be principled, limited in what we disclose, and committed to transparency. Put together, all of this adds up to the following across all of our software and services:

    They mean... Now let's make sure the last thing you read is our talking points. This will probably be all you remember anyway.

    When they say... Microsoft does not provide any government with direct and unfettered access to our customer?s data. Microsoft only pulls and then provides the specific data mandated by the relevant legal demand.

    If a government wants customer data ? including for national security purposes ? it needs to follow applicable legal process, meaning it must serve us with a court order for content or subpoena for account information.

    We only respond to requests for specific accounts and identifiers. There is no blanket or indiscriminate access to Microsoft?s customer data. The aggregate data we have been able to publish shows clearly that only a tiny fraction ? fractions of a percent ? of our customers have ever been subject to a government demand related to criminal law or national security.

    All of these requests are explicitly reviewed by Microsoft?s compliance team, who ensure the requests are valid, reject those that are not, and make sure we only provide the data specified in the order. While we are obligated to comply, we continue to manage the compliance process by keeping track of the orders received, ensuring they are valid, and disclosing only the data covered by the order.

    Microsoft is obligated to comply with the applicable laws that governments around the world ? not just the United States ? pass, and this includes responding to legal demands for customer data. All of us now live in a world in which companies and government agencies are using big data, and it would be a mistake to assume this somehow is confined to the United States. Agencies likely obtain this information from a variety of sources and in a variety of ways, but if they seek customer data from Microsoft they must follow legal processes.

    The world needs a more open and public discussion of these practices. While the debate should focus on the practices of all governments, it should start with practices in the United States. In part, this is an obvious reflection of the most recent stories in the news. It?s also a reflection of something more timeless. The United States has been a role model by guaranteeing a Constitutional right to free speech. We want to exercise that right. With U.S. Government lawyers stopping us from sharing more information with the public, we need the Attorney General to uphold the Constitution.

    If we do receive approval to share more information, we?ll publish it immediately.

    They mean... All hail the hypnotoad. All hail the hypnotoad. All hail...

  • On the post: Myriad Mocks Supreme Court's Ruling On Gene Patents; Sues New Competitors Doing Breast Cancer Tests

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2013 @ 10:59am

    For anyone who isn't familiar with the major problem the Myriad testing monopoly causes, I can explain based on first hand experience. Mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 have been identified as the single most reliable indicator that a woman is at risk for breast cancer. Although recommendations for when and how early the general population should be tested, there is almost unanimous agreement that women who have those mutations begin regular testing at an earlier age and supplement mammograms with MRIs.

    A few years ago my sister in-law was diagnosed with breast cancer at an unusually young age. She had excellent insurance so it was pretty much automatic that she would be tested for the BRCA mutations. When that came back positive she was then told she should recommend that her parents and siblings - both female and male - be tested as well. My wife could not get the test because Myriad charges $4000 and after her (relatively good) insurance the out of pocket cost to us would still have been significantly more than we could afford.

    Right now we know for sure that her other sister and father both have the mutations. Unless she either has access to a less expensive test or gets one of Myriad's charity awards to defray the expense we won't know if she does or not. For the moment we have to assume she does.

  • On the post: In What World Is Having Three Judges Set The Price Of Streaming Music 'Free Market Capitalism'?

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2013 @ 09:41am

    Re: Michael Pachter has always been considered a complete joke of an analyst.

    Oh he's been talking out his backside well beyond the gaming business for a long time. I think he slipped out of his pen when the Homebrew Xbox media center crowd forgot to close the gate behind them one day. By the time the next generation of consoles came out he had positioned himself right in the middle of the Blu-ray vs HD DVD vs Netflix and Redbox prediction racket.

    I never got into tracking the individual blowhard self promoters in his racket but right off the top my head I seem to recall he saved his firm's clients hundreds of millions in profits by practically bathing in the Blu-ray Kool-Aid and missing the streaming bus until it ran over him the 3rd or 4th time.

  • On the post: In What World Is Having Three Judges Set The Price Of Streaming Music 'Free Market Capitalism'?

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2013 @ 12:38am

    The problem with Pachter's argument is it ignores how the CRB judges essentially rewrote the law for determining royalties. The law says they are required to determine what would have been negotiated in a theoretical open market because obviously no such thing actually exists. The CRB judges rationalized their insane royalty rates by claiming they were required to pretend the actual market was open. That's simply a lie.

    Both sides came into the process with standard negotiating posisions. That means they were each asking for more than they were expecting to get. Instead of finding a reasonable middle ground, like both sides certainly expected the judges simply rubber stamped (literally) the RIAA's opening negotiating position.

    Of course, despite the actual legislative mandate, this was exactly what the lobbyists who wrote the law were hoping for. The original language from the DMCA established an arbitration panel (CARP) which only had the authority to recommend webcaster royalty rates. The ultimate authority rested with the Librarian Of Congress. CARP's recommendation in the previous royalty proceeding was just as ridiculous as what the CRB came up with but it was reduced significantly by the Librarian of Congress. The RIAA's Congressional sock puppets responded by removing the Librarian from the process entirely. Creating an administrative (kangaroo) court - the CRB - gave them the necessary cover to take away the Librarian's authority.

  • On the post: George W. Bush: NSA Surveillance Is No Problem Because Civil Liberties Are Guaranteed

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2013 @ 02:05pm

    Imagine that. The President who was slapped down by the Supreme Court for the biggest illegal wiretapping operation in history says mass surveillance is good. In other news Ronald MacDonald recommends you eat a Big Mac and a handful of french fries at least 3 times a day.

  • On the post: The Result Of Stupid Protectionism: Microsoft Kinect Can't Be Used On Microsoft Windows PCs

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 28 Jun, 2013 @ 03:44pm

    Second verse, same as the first...

    It's hard to see this as news considering it's basically the exact same thing that happened with the development of the Xbox 360.

    It's easy to forget that the original Xbox started out as a a hobby/vanity project of some Microsoft engineers who posited they could make a game console out of a relatively low end Windows PC - aka the DirectX Box. Since it was generally overlooked by the key players at Microsoft who were focused entirely on Windows and Office it ended up being a wonderfully open platform for hobbyist developers. Those hobbyists (not Microsoft or Sony) were the ones who transformed the game console into an all-in-one media platform. In fact XBMC (ie the Xbox Media Center) has thrived as a HTPC platform completely independent from the Xbox.

    The Xbox 360 was not a hobby or vanity project. It was envisioned from the start as a way to generated subscription revenue via Xbox Live. It worked well enough in the short term but thanks to locking out the innovators who made the original more than just a PC or a PS2 copycat they ended up hitching their wagons to old media with the Xbox One.

  • On the post: Ecuador Tells US To Take Its Trade Agreement And Shove It, After Threats Relayed Over Snowden

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 27 Jun, 2013 @ 01:35pm

    This is a perfect example of something I've been telling people for years now. It applies to everything from IP and trade to faux national security issues like this.

    The power elite in the US are used to getting whatever they want by just twisting arms because they come from the post-WWII era when other countries really did need the US. That hasn't been true for quite some time now but because their counterparts in other countries didn't understand that for many years it has continued to work. The citizens, on the other hand, have been much quicker to grasp the changing reality and they're doing their own arm twisting.

    Actual policy change has been slow but political disruption is fundamentally no different than economic disruption. It starts small and appears to be inconsequential to the players at the top but once it gathers steam a handful of pebbles quickly turns into an unavoidable landslide. This is simply a glimpse of the landslide that's been growing for at least 25 years.

  • On the post: US Officials Realizing That Snowden May Have Copied Info On Almost Everything The NSA Does

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2013 @ 02:33pm

    Just remember, these are the people CISPA supporters want to put in charge of "securing" the entire Internet infrastructure in the US.

  • On the post: Epic Response To A Bogus Cease And Desist Letter: Bravo For Your Legal Satire!

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2013 @ 11:51am

    This reminds me of the famous letter a lawyer for the Cleveland Browns wrote to a season ticket holder who complained about other fans throwing paper airplanes and threatened to sue the team in the event one hit him in the eye:

    I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.

  • On the post: FBI Admits That Obeying The Constitution Just Takes Too Much Time

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2013 @ 09:50am

    I keep looking through the US Constitution for the execptions the government keeps using to justify all these 4th Amendment violations but I just can't seem to find them. Maybe somebody here can help me out.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Maybe I'm missing it but I can't find where it says "unless it makes government employees work harder" or "unless something bad might be prevented." There is, however, a specific reference to security. Specifically it covers personal security which is the entire point of this amendment (and really the entire Bill Of Rights) to begin with.

    The entire point of national security (or law enforcement) is to provide for the people's security so by definition any other security concerns are secondary to that goal. By extension anything that reduces personal security, as defined by the Constitution, also reduces national security.

  • On the post: LeaseWeb Deletes Megaupload's Servers Without Warning, Destroying Key Evidence

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2013 @ 09:37am

    Or maybe it's not a bizarre move at all. Think of it like a poker game. The DOJ thought they had a good hand because the MPAA sock puppets in IP enforcement told them so. Besides the deck is almost always stacked in their favor. Under Federal law there's almost always something to fall back on for leverage (ie plea bargain extortion) like making false statements or computer hacking.

    In this case, though, it turns out the deck isn't stacked the way they thought it was so now they have to actually play the hand they were dealt or fold. Keep playing and there's a good chance they lose. Plus everybody gets to see their cards. Fold and they can keep their cards secret but at the cost of admitting how bad they were. Or they can go with a third option to create a distraction and then throw all the cards on the floor.

    While that may kill their case it also prevents MegaUpload from proving their innocence. The government can continue to make whatever claims they want against MegaUpload because they got off "on a technicality." Instead of proof of government overreach and corporate influence it becomes more proof we need tougher IP laws.

    That's assuming the government can't win based solely on the quasi-religious deference most judges give to statements from law enforcement officials.

  • On the post: Microsoft's Attack On Used Game Sales Asks Customers To Sacrifice Their Rights To Save An Industry

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 04 Jun, 2013 @ 12:27pm

    What did private property ownership ever do for us besides providing the fundamental underpinnings of modern democracy?

  • On the post: Why ESPN's Offer To Pay To Have Its Content Bypass Data Cap Meters Plays Right Into The Hands Of Wireless Providers

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 15 May, 2013 @ 07:18am

    Re: Well, actually...

    First off, very nice job with that analysis. I think you're absolutely correct that sports programming is probably the biggest key to pay TV's future simply because of the huge amounts of money and complex web of contractual relationships involved. That's without even considering the technical hurdles in delivering delivering real time programming on a national scale given the current state of US broadband.

    Now here's why I think it's going to happen anyway, perhaps starting as soon as the next 3-5 years. Depending on the contracts involved perhaps more like 8-10. As you note in that piece, a lot of people are switching from cable to satellite and I'm sure sports are one of the major factors in that.

    In terms of the NFL and NBA I don't think there will be any big changes any time soon. However baseball is a different story for a number of reasons. First off they are not nearly as well situated financially so there's motivation for the owners. In addition there is, by and large, less national interest in most baseball teams and therefore a much more fragmented broadcasting market.

    More importantly, the reason it remains that way when the NFL and NBA have consolidated nationally is the fragmentation of the owners which is why there is no salary cap and a huge revenue disparity between teams. Likewise there is a disparity between sports networks. While it's true that Fox Sports is a growing threat to ESPN, Comcast SportsNet remains second tier and primarily regional. Local and regional markets, including cable providers, are much more important to them than they are to a national satellite service.

    Finally there's the question of what cable operators can offer that satellite can't. If they're going to compete that's going to be key because without widespread consolidation they can't compete financially. The answer is Internet service. Also keep in mind that there's a big push among traditional telcos to get into TV programming to compete with cable. I might also add in the wildcard of Google Fiber since they happen to operate in a market where one of the most financially disadvantaged teams is located and their infrastructure is so advanced for the US.

    Now let's say CSN sets up an IP-based service offering packages from various MLB teams and sells it through any broadband provider who's interested. There would be some technical questions to deal with like what kind of box would be required, whether it could be delivered via the regular CATV lineup and IP, one or the other, and possibly whether/how to offer some type of VOD component. It would certainly need to be accessible off-network from other devices. It could even, theoretically, be available through streaming appliances like Roku sells as an option for people who have them.

    Just looking at the local market here in Des Moines I can see a lot of potential for that. The cable company gets more angry calls every year from baseball fans than anyone else. When Chicago Cubs baseball moved from WGN to CSN they had to choose between carrying Cubs and Cardinals games. They went with the Cardinals. They said it was about audience numbers (maybe true) but I believe there was a strong financial component.

    In any case it doesn't matter which one they go with. There will be a good sized unserved audience for the other. Not to mention the significantly smaller, but still good sized in the aggregate, number of people who would pay to see less popular teams like the Twins, Brewers, and Royals. Offer them an IP-based option and I suspect there would be a lot of takers. The cable company (Mediacom) might prefer not to offer such a thing except that it gives them something to compete with the more expansive sports offerings from DirecTV. If the local telco (Centurylink) jumped on it Mediacom would pretty much have to.

    I'm not saying this is what's going to happen and I certainly can't know when but I'm sure something will eventually. In fact in the long run I expect it will come directly from the leagues and teams as the money for insane broadcast contracts (especially for the NFL) dries up.

    The most important thing to remember is that you can't look at the current market leaders to find the trend of the future because all you're going to see there is more of the same. That's a nearly universal truth. Market leaders keep doing whatever has brought the most success in the past until they've been knocked down a couple pegs When they're as big, arrogant, and generally clueless as ESPN/Disney and Fox usually until they drive themselves into the ground.

  • On the post: TV Networks Finally Discover Live Streaming; Still Get It Really, Really Wrong

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 15 May, 2013 @ 10:41am

    Remember, this is free, over the air, network television we're talking about. But they're so frightened of pissing off the cable/satellite guys from whom they make boatloads of money, they won't offer the content to cord cutters -- only to people who are already paying ridiculous sums for cable/satellite TV.

    Actually it's not the pay TV guys they're worried about. It's the cord cutters. As I explained in a comment to yesterday's post about ESPN, they are Disney's cash cow. You should also make sure to look at the link in Dave's response to mine where he provides much better detail about ESPN pricing.

  • On the post: Why ESPN's Offer To Pay To Have Its Content Bypass Data Cap Meters Plays Right Into The Hands Of Wireless Providers

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 14 May, 2013 @ 10:59am

    Well-heeled content providers like ESPN would not be hurt financially by subsidies


    Actually they will be hurt by it because, while ESPN is the most profitable cable property by a wide margin today, they will also lose the most to cord cutting over the next several years.

    ESPN charges pay TV providers a little more than $5 per subscriber on average. Their contracts with providers also require the purchase of a bundle which includes significantly less popular ESPN channels - nothing shocking there - but more significantly it also requires that these channels be included in each TV provider's 2 most popular tiers if I remember right. As a result their profits will take a hit from almost every lost cable and satellite customer.

    ESPN is far and away Disney's most profitable unit. And since we're talking about Disney it doesn't take a crystal ball to predict their reaction. They are a textbook example of the clueless old media company whose knee jerk reaction to the changing market is to double down on failure and yell at that damn Internet to get off their lawn. They will jack up the price to the point where they lose leverage with pay TV services who can no longer afford their channels. ESPN's profit margins will decline, starting gradually and probably snowballing after a while.

    To be honest I'm not sure there's any way to sustain their current margins anyway since they're already charging almost as much per customer as HBO. Let's say half of those people would subscribe to an ESPN online offering; a ludicrously generous estimate. Not counting the cost of providing their own infrastructure or lost revenue for bundled channels that means doubling the price to maintain the current margin.

    That's simply not going to work. It might happen. I mean they might try it, but it would fail spectacularly.

    The irony for me is that, at least during football season, ESPN is one of the few channels I would pay for simply to get Monday Night Football. It killed me to miss the first Bears/Packers game last year but I refuse to pay for content on the industry's terms. And I certainly wouldn't pay much more than what the providers do now for ESPN.

  • On the post: Hangin' With Mr. Cooper: Prenda's Fight Against Alan Cooper Flailing Badly

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 13 May, 2013 @ 06:29am

    Re:

    I would be shocked if Steele, or even Prenda's paper principal Paul Duffy, made any claims WRT the factual claims. They effectively painted themselves into a corner when the took the 5th in California. Prenda will most likely file their usual nonsensical procedural arguments attempting to drag the whole thing out as long as possible. At this point they have nothing to lose considering any potential monetary sanctions will most likely be a drop in the bucket compared to the damages likely to be awarded for the identity theft claims.

  • On the post: CBS Says It Could Move To Cable In A 'Few Days' If Aereo Wins; Receives Several Offers To Help Pack Its Bags

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 02 May, 2013 @ 09:11pm

    Actually...

    It's all OK. He is just upset and wants to take his ball and leave. As he is fully entitled to do.


    More like He wants sympathy from us for his plans to hit himself in the head repeatedly with his ball.

  • On the post: CBS Says It Could Move To Cable In A 'Few Days' If Aereo Wins; Receives Several Offers To Help Pack Its Bags

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 02 May, 2013 @ 09:09pm

    Actually...

  • On the post: CBS Says It Could Move To Cable In A 'Few Days' If Aereo Wins; Receives Several Offers To Help Pack Its Bags

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 02 May, 2013 @ 05:30pm

    I'd really like to see him tell all the CBS affiliates they can no longer broadcast his company's content over the air. That is essentially what he's saying.

    Besides the obvious avalanche of lawsuits from all those station owners I'm guessing the public outrage would have every grandstanding politician in the country lining up to take a swing at the CBS pi?ata.

  • On the post: Former Police Chief Defends NYPD's 'Stop And Frisk' Program, Because It Has A Checklist

    Rich Fiscus ( profile ), 29 Apr, 2013 @ 01:29pm

    Fixed that for you

    It looks like there's a typo on that form - the real one I mean. The UF clearly should be FU.

    On a more serious note, at least as serious as one can be about such a retarded argument, using the chief's logic I should be able to rob as many banks as I want by simply filling out a checklist afterward and checking items like, "no gun used" and "any property taken was actually mine." I don't think there are any laws saying my word isn't just as good as theirs after all.

Next >>