Oh, people have tried various amounts of crap over the years (see the SCO vs Linux escapades and related cases). However:
"so who has tried to put copyright on these technologies"
You miss the point of FOSS. It *is* copyrighted, but those who work on the projects have chosen to release them on a far less restrictive licence than that applied by the standard automatic version, which is usually also one that prevents people from removing the open parts of it later on. Some so still try, of course, but it's proven to work pretty well so far.
"How is it that a gov't agency is allowed to support -- by forcing you to buy the product of -- a private company? It makes no sense to me."
There was a huge debate internationally over OOXML vs ODF or other open file formats, on top of . The problem with a lot of the implementation is that MS have such an ingrained defacto monopoly that other choices are either not allowed or not properly considered - or that so much existing work is in the proprietary format that it would be difficult to move. Confusion/FUD and lockin have long been two of Microsoft's favoured tools. The above story should hopefully be the start of a change in this.
"It sounds like they're actually trying to improve their products in a way that make them more useful to customers."
They have actual competition for the first time in a long time. This is one of the things I always point to with monopolies. MS products were horrible to work with, and their attitude was to use lock-ins and other dirty tactics to keep their defacto monopoly combined with anti-consumer practices. For example, when IE6 was pretty much the only game in town they stated that no future version would be standalone - to get IE7, you'd need to buy Vista. They changed their tune when Firefox suddenly appeared and took significant marketshare. Without competition, you'd probably be forced to upgrade just to get the latest IE patches.
"recent versions of Windows Server don't require a GUI"
...but they're still making fundamental mistakes. You can run a lot of server functions from a non-GUI - but not all, if my understanding is correct. On top of that, the GUI that did ship with Server 2012 was based on the touchscreen Metro interface. That move didn't make sense on a standard laptop by default, let alone a server!
" If MS is finally getting its head out of its ass and at least trying to do things the right way, that's a win, imo."
Yes, although it might mean that they retain a near monopoly through consumer apathy or some actual quality rather than the ways they've retained it in the past.
""We aren’t scientists. We haven’t done many experiments to prove how much damage the radiation from Wi-Fi can cause."
"We will wait and see who has a more profound understanding of Wi-Fi routers, me or our competitors."
Like most marketing guys, he hasn't thought this through logically. Even if some evidence does appear and definitively prove a link between Wi-Fi and poor health, he's just admitted he hasn't got a "profound" understanding of anything. Without the research and evidence, he made a lucky guess, and even he's saying that he didn't bother to research that guess.
But, he has a product to sell and he found a way to sell it to the clueless...
Re: Re: Wrong as usual, Moonbeam! Do you and they understand that allowing just any software is huge risk?
No, no, no... we're in our resident moron's parallel universe where only Google can do any wrong, and where open source software is naturally less secure than the closed source proprietary applications that suffer massive security issues every week! Oracle and Adobe? No exploits there! Only Chrome and Linux.
Re: Wrong as usual, Moonbeam! Do you and they understand that allowing just any software is huge risk?
"Unknown software has even more risks"
Except, people aren't talking about "unknown" software, they're talking about software that's known and can have its code fully audited.
"Does "open source" just blind you to the fact that real audits are impossible among tens of millions of lines of code?"
So, by your own standard NOBODY can effectively audit software. If it's "impossible" to audit Linux, then by your own definition it's also impossible to effectively audit Windows or Office or Photoshop or any other application used that has such levels of code.
Your ranting insanity is making even less sense.
"snooping binary blob"
Your wilful ignorance is showing. By making sure you make it clear that you understand that the objectionable feature was a binary blob, you're also making it clear that you understand that it wasn't open source. In other words, you're arguing for open source, not against.
This "blob" was noticed by open source guys and the objection is that nobody can examine it. Which "blobs" are being installed by the proprietary crap you're defending?
"Do you think corporations are doing most of the developing in Linux now out of real altruism?"
Do you think Microsoft or Apple are doing so? What about other software providers? Is your insanity only applicable to Linux in the same way as your idiocy ignores companies who are doing things far worse than Google?
Yet again, you think you're making a point, but you just make yourself look like an obsessive halfwit.
"Otherwise, surely what you're saying is that you would want to buy them separately, right? "
Yes, since the entire point is that they already have bought most of the content separately. A package for a new customer is a great deal. A package for an existing content that 90% consists of stuff they already own? Not so much.
This reminds me of one of the things that helped the music industry shoot itself in the foot shortly before/during the Napster days. You could buy a CD of your favourite artist's new album... then they're release a new version of the CD with a new track unavailable elsewhere. Then maybe a new CD with all that plus another track or "free" EP. Maybe a Japanese version with some new tracks (but not all the previous ones). Nobody was going to buy a new album every time another track was added, and the people who were most screwed over were the people who bought the first release (more likely to be fans of the artist) than those who came along later. So, of course, the industry was *shocked* when Napster allowed people to obtain all the tracks without buying the same album 4 times.
DLC is already a sore point with gamers, many of whom see it as just a way to get more money out of a game by piecing out content that should have been included under the retail price. Many (including myself) will already wait for a GOTY or similar package for games (or buy at a cheaper price later on down the line) because we are being ripped off. However you try to spin this, it was clearly an attempt to rip people off in the homes of extra profit. Hopefully, not so many people will fall for this now that they've "changed" their minds, but we'll see...
"Your candid reply serves as an example of why reliance on hearsay can be very problematic"
If you have a non-restricted link that shows me the first hand evidence, feel free to supply it. Otherwise, as previously mentioned, I only have the previous decades of worthless and misleading propaganda upon which to based my opinion, outside of what others are saying.
"I reside in the US... It seems surprising you were not able to do likewise."
So... did you ignore the details I provided that would make that not surprising (hint: I don't live in the US, hence the comments about regional blocking). Or, are you say that you're surprised that I didn't go out of my way to investigate how full of shit these people are this time when they're deliberately blocking me from viewing them?
"Have to wonder if you watched any of the ads or visited the website with which the ads are associated"
No, since they're geo-restricted, in a typically wrong-headed move. I have to depend therefore on assumptions based on past behaviour. Apologies if those assumptions are incorrect.
"None of them are anti-piracy screeds by any reasonable definition."
Unless you have a different definition, they're propaganda from the descriptions I've read, and I've never seen anything from these people that didn't depend on exaggerations and outright lies to make this sort of "point". Maybe these are better. But, I'm not about to congratulate them on finally producing less obnoxious propaganda rather than actually fixing the issues that lead some people to pirate in the first place. Case in point: the regional and format blocks that prevent people from paying for content in the same way it's blocking them from watching their propaganda now.
Because none of your reasons make any logical sense?
"No more TSA"
How would automating the piloting of an aircraft remove the need to determine the safety and security risk of passengers and the items they bring on board? The TSA might arguably be removed for other reasons but nothing an automated system would do would remove the need for them under their current remit.
"No more air traffic controllers"
Well, you know, unless you actually want a manual backup system in case of problems. The cars will have a manual override, you want to ensure that a pilot can't have a person on the ground ensuring that he can make a safe approach and landing in cases of emergency?
"No more delayed flights because the pilot was hung over"
Because that's the only reason why flights get delayed? Not, say, mechanical faults on the ground, medical attention or needing to get drunk passengers off the previous flight? Automating flights will increase the risk of mechanical failure, not reduce it, and you still have to deal with the hundreds of human beings inside the thing every flight.
"As a pedestrian I don't like the idea of being an unwilling participant of this experiment."
So, you'd rather a few hundred innocent civilians on board a plane be subjected to it instead? Better hope the problems caused by your plane with no internal or external manual navigation doesn't decide to crash land where you are, as well.
Oh, and as a pedestrian you're already subject to the "experiment" of criminals, drunk drivers and many other people who cause deaths every year - people who automated driving will often remove as a risk factor.
"Also, planes are already so safe, any increase in accidents/fatalities will be much easier to see."
Except, the primary reason why they're so safe is because the consequences of failure are so much worse by an order of magnitude.
I understand you being concerned about safety around this new technology, but your alternative is worse.
"Nice to see that real people, not monolithic studios, are the ones who help in the creation of movies"
It's actually both, and those ordinary folk are routinely screwed by the studios who don't pay them what was promised a lot of the time. but, if you're so ignorant of the filmmaking process that you don't realise that hundreds of ordinary technicians and working folk are involved ina production, maybe this will help you understand what's happening on the production end. It won't tell you about the pre- and post-production phases where the studios are usually criticised for their actions.
"Frankly, I rather doubt there is anything the movie industry could do to satisfy the deep seated animus regularly exhibited here short of totally disclaiming and abandoning reliance upon the longstanding body of law we refer to as copyright law."
If you read the actual opinions of those who post here, there's plenty they can do. They can even still rely on the outdated laws if they want, as it's mostly the *abuse* of that law that people object to rather than enforcement in the spirit of its original intent.
How about this for starters - stop making legally purchased content *less* valuable than the free stuff. That's the issue highlighted above. A person who never pays for content will never see the anti-piracy ads. A person who always pays to go to the cinema will already have to sit down and wait for 30 mins through trailers and other commercials. Now you're going to try and berate them for not paying for the movie they're about to watch, and do so every time they pay for a movie? How does that make sense?
There's plenty of other things people can be doing to improve the situation, from not relying on windows that force people willing to pay for content to wait much longer than people who don't if they don't live in the right country or are able to get to a cinema, etc. It's a record year for box office, just one studio (Universal) has already made $3 billion worldwide on only 4 movies, and many of the biggest movies of the year are not out yet. Despite the whining, the industry is not dying. Why not capitalise on that and interact with audiences to see what will keep them paying, and where they are losing sales either to piracy, other media, general apathy or other avenues?
But, no, you'd rather rely on half-assed propaganda that's targeted at the wrong people and will achieve nothing other than insult those already paying for their content? Good luck with that.
That's a fair viewpoint, though I would still ask you questions about what you were looking for and why it was not available. For example:
"really wanting to watch something and finding it wasn't on Netflix"
Was that available on another streaming service, or did you only check Netflix. Was it only available for purchase, or was it available for rental elsewhere. If so, what were the cost differences? If not, do you know why - was it for example regional or format windows, licencing problems with songs used, etc.? Was it a problem with, say, WB refusing to licence content so they can try and launch their own services, or was it something Netflix had removed of their own accord?
I can understand not subscribing to Netflix if they're not meeting your personal requirements, but place the blame where it belongs. If, say, Seinfeld is what you want to watch but it's only on Hulu rather than Netflix, that's the licencing regime at work, not Netflix choosing not to offer it. The owners of that show *could* offer it to multiple services but they chose to make it exclusive to one licencee.
Anyway, I'm glad you seem to have found a way of working that's better for you.
"They as in reference to the evil people controlling the industry not netflix. Maybe I need to spell things out extra special like for ya."
Perhaps. I knew you'd flipped to a completely different subject with that last paragraph, but it was very strange that you went from "I don't like not finding what i want to watch on Netflix" to "software companies are going to take over the planet". I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you might have had some kind of a point relating to the issue at hand.
The personal insults you attempt to pile on in your response here are most likely an illustration that you don't really have one.
"Disappearing content is a legit gripe"
Yes, which is why encouraging the industry to stop making that happen would be a good thing, as well as encouraging competition and a legitimately level playing field. If you'd rather rant about irrelevant subjects that have no bearing on reality, that's your choice too, I guess.
" "Your show is very very popular - we'd like to buy the next season too... what will you charge us?" Not a great business model. "
The suppliers will have a good idea of how many people are watching any given show, since Netflix will pay them royalties under the terms of the licencing agreement they signed. They will then use that information in any future negotiation. Netflix just don't break everything down publicly.
"I realize Netflix keeps the price to $8 by limiting the content, but there is probably a huge demand for people to delve into the great repository of dreck produced around the world without having to buy DVD's or download questionable quality video."
I doubt the first part is true. Even if it is, what you have to remember is that most of the stuff you've just mentioned is owned by one of the major conglomerates that own the cable companies. Companies which have openly refused to licence content to Netflix either out of fear of their model or in an attempt to favour their own poorly made subscription services. Once they get out of that mindset, there should be a lot more availability whether through Netflix or elsewhere, and you're free to choose the service with the content you personally favour. Netflix are the current market leader, but that won't always be the case.
"I am now beginning to grow tired of the content that is disappearing from Netflix."
What about the content that's being added to replace it? I wish they were a bit more upfront with when content will expire, but it's normally not them making the decision to expire it and the total amount of content available isn't going down. Unless you start seeing the shows they produced themselves start to expire, it's not their decision to remove things, but they are making every effort to add them. Personally, while I can get annoyed when some titles disappear, I never fail to find things I want to watch just as much added every month.
Besides - you do realise that the cable companies are subject to exactly the same kind of licencing restrictions that cause this to happen? It's just not as obvious because the on demand element puts you closer to the issue, whereas someone employed by the channels will make the scheduling decisions with licence expiry in mind. When the content expires from a cable channel, it's removed in the same way, the mechanism is just slightly obfuscated from your view.
"Yes its still good enough now.. but will it be later?"
Perhaps yes, perhaps no. The tide is turning and once these other companies stop trying to cripple their customers and their rivals, and start to provide decent competition, you should start to have some real choice so that you can move to a competitor. The industry is still in its early days.
"In the end, they are going to control everything you own... and I mean everything... even your damn car and soon your home. "
Netflix are going start controlling cars? Thats... a leap in logic to say the least.
That has already been bought by others. You know, the very same people who have created the situation we're unhappy about.
"removing all copyright laws"
I prefer realistic goals myself. That is never going to happen, especially not in the current climate.
I appreciate the sentiment, but what you're talking about is more of a waste of time than any conversation here would be. Plus, you make the error of assuming that commenting here automatically means that people aren't taking action elsewhere. That is untrue.
"Sure, some people are that stupid, but is it such a significant portion of the customer base to justify all this legal wrangling?"
No, but as ever that's not really the point. This is about control. If they monopolise certain features or basic design elements, they can shut down competitors, lock out imports from other markets, etc. Customer confusion is just the excuse they use to claim they're doing it for the public rather than profit.
"So a just-released game performs poorly on systems that meet the minimum requirements?"
The complaint appears to be that it also won't run properly on machines that greatly exceed them, on top of the fact that the stated minimum is excessive to begin with.
"I seem to recall that the Windows port of Crazy Taxi was said to run poorly even on the recommended system, and also Spider-Man 3 was said to run equally bad no matter how powerful the system was."
"We've been pulling this crap for a while" is no excuse for it happening. Besides, that's missing the point of the article, which is that for the first time people buying digital copies have a clear path to a refund if they're sold a faulty product, and that this is the first example of that happening as opposed people just getting refunds because they don't like the game.
I always read that as "in danger of fulfilling their end of the bargain made when the music was created". That's all you need to know. They were given 50 years to make money, but they want more, consequences be damned.