"They need to bring back the schedule, updated to modern lives."
Modern lives that include a wide range of entertainment and other lifestyle options to suit everyone's needs, so that they're no longer beholden to a TV schedule, perhaps?
"Imagine if House of Cards had played out over two weeks, like a mini-series...Can you imagine?"
Yes, I can imagine waiting for the season to finish and watching it all at once like I do most shows. Or, watch a couple of episodes here and there when I have some spare time because my life doesn't revolve around TV. Assuming some small-minded prick hasn't ruined the latest episodes for me, anyway.
What an idiotic argument. "People don't like what I like in the same way I like it!".
So? The filter is implemented by UK ISPs and ordered to some degree by the UK government. They're still available elsewhere, with GoDaddy happily servicing the pages.
GoDaddy have no involvement here, apart from them being used to register and/or host the domain. Which isn't surprising since, whether you like it or not, they're still one of the largest hosting & domain providers in the world.
I understand being suspicious of GoDaddy for many reasons. but let's keep criticisms to things they've actually done.
"could it be that sen. Graham, from his work in a technology subcommittee, know something about email that seemingly all the commentators here don't"
Even if that's true, it also means that he has never even attempted to use email, even when it was a new technology and in wide use before he hit his 40th birthday. No matter what he's being told now, he's clearly not naturally curious about the way the things he's now involved with actually work. When the internet was changing the world as we know it around him, he wasn't even interested enough to mess around with a Yahoo mail account. Not even to see how it could benefit or otherwise affect the people he represented once it became ubiquitous.
Whatever he's being told that might put him off using email *now*, he only knows it because the lobbyists and other biased interests around him are telling him. Then he gets to help control how technology is treated on a legal level... That should be very concerning, even if all he really means is "I prefer other communications media and my staff handle my emails for me".
"Meanwhile, we're still left wondering how any of this encourages people to actually spend more money to support content creators."
Hubris and overvaluing their own worth.
One thing I've noticed in a lot of the actions committed by the industry (and the insane ramblings of their supporters here) is the feeling that the content put out by the major labels/studios is the only thing people could possibly want. That people can't live without it, and if only the could be forced to pay full retail value they'd be happy.
That's why the needs and rights of customers and independent artists are never considered, and why they deliberately try to cripple competing services. Why they believe the lie that every download is a lost sale and why they don't even consider competing forms of entertainment and other factors (so what if there's a massive worldwide recession, people would still buy our expensive frivolous items if only there weren't pirates!).
They actually think that people *need* their content so much that people don't need to be encouraged to pay, only to not have another way to obtain it. This is why any attempt to protect public rights, privacy, the structure and integrity of the internet, the concept of due process, emerging business models both within and without the entertainment industry, etc. get met with namecalling, slander, lies and distortions. They literally can't conceive that anyone doesn't need their crappy products, so everyone who opposes them must be a criminal.
"Why file against someone who isn't in the jurisdiction of the court you file in?"
Well, what other recourse do they have? What they did isn't illegal under UK law, since despite the MPAA's claims to the contrary, the DMCA (and thus its penalties for false claims) don't apply there. The defendant is now also in trouble if he ever does decide to visit the US.
"The result is good, but meaningless in the real world."
It's less meaningful than a judgement that wasn't caused by a default. But, it's a good example to point to to show how badly the DMCA can be abused and how little realistic comeback innocent parties have when attacked.
No, it's completely relevant if you're going to criticise the way things are run. You need to make sure you're pointing your finger at the correct target.
Now, we can agree that there's other ways that cinemas should be able to make money other than ramping prices up on concessions and that they should be seriously looking at why. But, you have to address the reason why they're doing this in the first place - and that reason is because they have to agree to give most of their revenue from ticket prices to the studios before they're allowed to rent a print.
"They appear to have a monopoly on distribution of major studio films."
Erm, you do realise that the MPAA is simply the industry body which represents the major studios? Right? Who do you think should be distributing major studio films other than the very same studios who are members of the MPAA?
I agree that independents should get a better chance of distribution and a better foothold into mainstream cinemas, and the collusion that's clearly happening removed. But, the way you worded it is rather nonsensical.
While I agree with your sentiment (and approve of your name!):
"It's ridiculous paying $4.50 for a medium soda, $5.00 for a small box of candy, or $4 - 6.00 for popcorn."
The reason they do this is that they make next to nothing from the ticket you buy for the movie itself - almost all of that goes straight to the studios. For a long time, that's been the way they've kept the doors open.
Now, I thoroughly agree that they need to think outside of the box and need to change the way they do business. But, I would disagree that it needs to be gimmicks. What I always suggest is either make a big deal of what they're actually selling (the theatrical experience) and ensure that it's worth paying a premium, and/or take advantage of impulse and upselling tactics (for example, have DVDs, soundtracks and other merchandise in the lobby for people to buy just after seeing the movie; partner with online retailers to get a cut on deals people can get with proof of cinema purchase, etc.). Some cinemas, especially in the UK have also partnered with other kinds of content providers, leading to successful showings of sports events, opera, ballet and stage live feeds, even TV premieres/finales. There must be plenty of niches and markets that a canny local manager can organise to attract people.
But, all that takes imagination and effort, rather than whining that pirates and Netflix are disrupting the way they used to do make big business in 1993...
"Hotham posted his article, which, quite reasonably, made Straight Pride UK look ridiculous."
If the name of the group accurately reflects the attitude and logic I think it does, they're most likely doing that themselves without any help.
"Still, at the very least, it's nice to see some sort of victory against bogus DMCA takedowns, given that it is so rare."
But, an empty victory, really. It's now been demonstrated that a foreign actor can negatively affect a US business with false or misleading claims. But, even if found guilty of abuse under the laws and penalties provided, said actor can not only ignore proceedings but never receive his punishment so long as he stays out of the jurisdiction involved. The same jurisdiction, by the way, that has no problem with them using local mechanisms for filing the false claim in the first place.
A proper victory would be for a similar judgement - per instance - against the companies who carpet bomb the internet with false DMCA notices. This case just seems to show how weak and open to abuse the whole thing is even if victims opt to fight back.
"How does option B make any kind of valid business sense?"
The only way I can think of it making sense is to ensure that it doesn't become a successful distribution method and they keep windows on major releases.
Put it this way - if these films are successful, it would prove that windowing is actually ineffective. Things are already creeping that way to some degree, albeit slowly (The Interview being a great example of a film that was successful via home releases - though its situation was unique enough not to be a reliable model). If one of these films managed to top that week's box office charts, it would make the studios consider putting more of their films out on a day and date basis.
By stopping the films from showing in enough cinemas to make an impact on the box office charts, they avoid a successful experiment. If it's successful in smaller theatres, they can say "yeah, but it wouldn't work in multiplexes). If the films fail, they can say "well, it's lucky we didn't waste screen space on those flops". In the meantime, they'll be hoping that Netflix loses money and decides not to screen their next releases theatrically.
It's all delusion, of course, and they're seriously in trouble if the only reason people do visit their premises is because they literally have no other choice. But, like the last business model disrupted by Netflix (home video rental), there will be a lot of screaming, lying and whining before they're forced to adapt or die. What's sad is that this is a business that's regularly been disrupted over the last century, but fails to learn from its own history on the next occasion.
Meanwhile, some cinemas have just announced a marathon screening of all the main Marvel movies back-to-back in the run-up to the new Avengers movie. Films that every single one of their target audience will not only have seen multiple times, but will own DVDs or Blu -Rays of every title. No whining about lost profits there...
So, they're starting to get it, but only when a major studio tells them how to run their business.
In terms of arguments against self-driving cars, "people will do the same ignorant things they do now but without the danger of causing a fatal crash" is a pretty weak one. If he's trying to say that technology is at fault, I wonder which technology is the one getting people drunk or arguing with family and other distractions in the car.
Plus, if Dan honestly thinks that the majority of people are the people capable of directing NASA space missions, I want to know which planet he's on, cause it sounds a lot better than this one.
Yeah, there are ways of seeing this as outright hypocrisy. But, another way is just as another example of the hoops that Netflix need to jump through to create a viable business among legacy players and less forward-thinking environments.
When Netflix wasn't available in Australia at all, they were criticised for allowing people to access their service from Australia through VPNs. It didn't matter that few similar services existed, they were bad guys for letting people pay for content. Now that it will be available, the onus is on them to make their offering as valuable as possible. In part, this means letting people use them as much as possible, which means not capping their bandwidth. As mentioned in the article, their direct competitors appear to be exempt from the caps, so it would be a bad business move not to use the same exemptions just to make a political point in the US. This could be a good move in the long term - as more services are exempt from caps, consumers will demand the removal of the caps completely.
It's a shame this is happening the way it is while net neutrality is such a hot button issue elsewhere, but you can see where the thinking was. The blame for issue is still with the usual parties (the studios for regional licencing, the ISPs for caps and trying to treat packets differently), but Netflix probably could have handled this better.
"Where's the tutorial where it tells you step by step how to set it up, put money into it using a normal payment method and then use it to pay for something?"
Nowhere, because that's not how it works. You don't "put money" into bitcoins. You either mine them (create bitcoins by using your computer to solve algorthms) or buy them from an exchange. Either way, you put the resulting bitcoins into your wallet and use that to spend them.
There's plenty of guides (e.g. https://bitcoin.org/en/getting-started), but it sounds like you've either completely misunderstood the concept or been looking at technical mining guides rather than simple guides on how to use them.
Leave religion out of it. You're looking in the wrong direction. It's almost certainly about money - someone wanting a payoff from the library to avoid the court battle (one that probably wouldn't have happened with such an obvious false claim, but the library clearly didn't know that). They just forgot that there were options other than "pay us" and "go to court".
"In one case, a car owner denied knowing whose $327,000 was found in his vehicle. Fully justified, of course, because as Mead explains, the seized funds were spent "to enforce drug laws.""
So, taking other peoples' money without permission is OK just as long as it goes to what you consider a good cause? Cool, I'm off to rob a bank, which is perfectly moral and legal because I intend to donate everything I steal to charity /s