It's not a generational thing, it's a combination of people who don't understand tech being in charge of tech judgements, alone with political/spying reasons to put the onus on others. They may not know that they're demanding the impossible, but even people using WhatsApp don't necessarily understand the arguments here. It's not age so much as ignorance, wilful or otherwise, and that's not going to be fixed by older judges dying off.
The fix is for the courts to become tech savvy and for politicians to be dissuaded from demanding the impossible because it sounds good. Good luck with either of those, especially as tech routinely outpaces law by years, if not decades.
No, the per capita bit's important. If you just state a number, someone will retort with "of course it's high, we have such a large population". That's true, at least among the developed world. But, when you start with a statistic that takes population difference into account, it's harder for someone to wave it away.
"Geo blocking is as much caused by local governments than anything else"
Yes and no. Different countries have different censorship and other laws covering them, this much is true. A company wishing to distribute in that country will have to abide by them. There may be other rules and regulation - although these usually don't apply to imports and so it's a weak excuse when dealing with geoblocking on physical media.
HOWEVER - and this is the point you wilfully miss - half the problem with distribution is that the industry parcels the distribution rights off. The fact that a UK release needs to be certified by the BBFC has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the US studio sold off the UK rights to another distributor for its UK release. That also has nothing to do with why the licencing demands different terms for streaming and DVD.
I know your schtick is to come up with reasons to deflect blame from certain corporate interests, but at least stick to facts.
"The movie companies would love nothing more than to be able to do it all themselves from one central location, rather than having to make literally hundreds of separate distribution deals around the world just to release a movie."
No, they wouldn't. They make more money by selling off distribution rights, especially to countries with smaller/riskier/less familiar markets. That's why they insisted on DVD / Blu Ray region codes as being part of the format, and why they have not made any moves to consolidate them now that digital geolocation means that Europe (for example) now has as many regions as countries rather than the single region code that covered the continent in the past - even though legally it's meant to be a single common market.
No, it didn't change, the legal services offered something better.
"If piracy had remained as good as it was say 5 years ago"
An expert on the piracy experience, are we? Enough to say accurately how the experience has altered for the average user (assuming you're not just making shit up again)? Hmmm.... I don't suppose you have actual evidence for what you claim, because it goes against the experience of the people I've talked to.
Anyway, while your thin-skinned little shell whines about "personal attacks" for me correctly noting the lack of logical consistency in your statements, you do seem to agree with most of what's being said. Your ego just can't allow you to agree with the site you obsess over attacking. But, balance is still key - and the experience of the last decade states that making legal services better will always get better results than trying to block illegal ones.
You can do both, but to pretend that ridiculous P2P lawsuits and fruitless games of whack a mole are as effective as Spotify's library or Netflix's streaming quality is simply untrue.
They do have a real point, IMHO. I spoke to several people who were complaining about the "price hike". Some I managed to explain the truth to, but some remained convinced that the price had been unacceptably raised even after I pointed out that they'd been paying less than new subscribers for 2 years. The reporting around this was very confusing for people who aren't paying much attention to what's happening around them (which, sadly, is a lot of people).
However, in reality it's probably the lesser of the issues. I know people who have jumped ship to either another service or back to piracy as a direct result of the VPN blocking. I believe this is the larger issue, but Netflix's investors won't be placated by "we lost customers because of prehistoric licencing regimes" and "people won't pay 2x the price for 1/5 of the library just because they happen to be in the wrong country", so they have to save face.
"Of course to be fair, one small U.S. price hike isn't really much of a big deal for a company that just expanded into 130 more countries"
My account is from the UK site, and I was grandfathered in as well. I'm not sure how many were ultimately affected, but it's more than the US.
But, can't you see? *HE* doesn't care about seeing it live, so it's OK for NBC to remove the option from everyone because they think it makes them more money that way. The opinions of anyone negatively impacted are null and void because they don't match his own, and the only choice in the matter should be whichever corporation's in charge, not the viewer.
"No, it won't be live, but honestly, DOES IT MATTER?"
To a lot of people, yes it does. Yet again, you mistake your own deluded opinion as fact, then refuse to accept anyone else's honestly held opinion truly exists.
"Live and most people miss it or delayed by an hour and somewhat time compressed seems like a good choice here."
In other words, the great unwashed are incapable of making their own decisions and making their own preferred choice and/or operating a DVR and must therefore bow down to the superior choices of a major corporation who knows what's best for them. Typical spin for you.
"Moreover, the "most live" is in no small part because the events are happening in a time zone that is very convenient for the US."
Which is stated in the article. You not only refuse to admit valid alternative opinions exist, you steal those stated in the article you're commenting on and pretend they're your original points! All while attacking the author for having faulty opinions. Amazing...
Re: Delay for Opening Ceremony (possible legit reasons?)
Your comment makes no sense. If streamed live worldwide, nobody has the chance to jump in "first" and spoil anything for people wanting to watch it live. Everyone is watching at the same time However, NBC are here introducing an artificial one hour delay, meaning that everyone else in the world will have seen the ceremony and have their discussion before those poor defenceless females you mention can see it.
Your argument is an argument against NBC's delays, not an argument for it.
"I call them stupid because gamers have demonstrated over and over and over and OVER again that they will tolerate any amount of abuse from gaming companies. "
Yeah, I mean that's why sites like GoG are so successful, why indie gaming has thrived over the last decade, why people have boycotted some major publishers, etc. Gamers are idiot who just buy whatever, no matter the huge numbers of demographics, technical ability, etc. involved with that mass market product, right? Are movie goers also idiots because of the restrictions they put up with that are constantly reported, or is it again just this one hobby?
"Yet gamers continue to patronize these same companies -- the ones that shit on them -- because they're too stupid to learn, even after repeated incidents."
Just like anonymous commenters prove themselves to be drooling idiots without a real point to make other than attack others or make crap up to get a rise out of people?
Wait, that's a rather silly blanket statement that ignores the real actions of ACs who don't do that at all, and the many positive and insightful comments that come from those who don't create a login.
Hopefully you'll understand how that relates to the huge numbers of gamers who patronise companies that don't do those things, and perhaps you'll side with them instead of telling they deserve poor treatment.
Especially since, in this case, it's not the gamers being treated poorly but rather vendors of a product that actively serves to reduce the quality of the experience for a majority of players. Also bearing in mind that the managers and lawyers promoting this tactic are almost certainly not gamers themselves.
"The fewer people create and/or distribute illicit copies, the longer you can jail them at a given prison capacity."
To a degree. After that, it becomes very apparent how disproportionate the punishment is to the crime and you can expect a lot of public backlash. You *might* be able to get it to a point where people are actually scared to pirate, but that doesn't necessarily translate into more legally purchased copies of specific types of merchandise. You're probably just as likely to have people downloading as an act of civil disobedience as you are to reduce it, especially if you're going to start punishing people who copy files more harshly than people committing violent and sex crimes as you suggest here.
"With technical hurdles such as DRM on the rise"
DRM doesn't work in terms of reducing the number of pirates. The only effect it has, and even this is very debatable, is provide a small speed bump between the time a product is available and the time a hacked version is available. In theory, this should get some early adopters who would otherwise pirate to buy the legal copy.
But, once DRM is cracked, its effect is to make the legal copy worth less. The pirated copy, stripped of DRM and its inherent functionality and compatibility problems, can be copied infinitely so long as one such copy exists. The only people restricted by the DRM after the first stripped copy will be those who have already paid money for an inferior product.
TLDR: if you're depending on extended sentences and DRM to reduce piracy, you're both wrong and strangling your own marketplace.
"even Castle Wolfenstein 3D had a "god mode" cheat so you could play all day."
Yes, but there's a rather major reason why that's acceptable and the ones being discussed here are not (hint: Wolfenstein was an offline single player game). Using those cheats deprived you of nothing except the challenge of playing the game properly. You cheated nobody except yourself, but that was your choice.
All of the games mentioned here are online multiplayer games where people who cheat actively reduce the game for everyone else. They spend a lot of time balancing the game for fair play, they don't want cheaters.
I don't agree with the action taken but to pretend that this is even in the same conversation as cheats on a single player early 90s DOS game is rather disingenuous.
"That's why it's called "Black lives matter," not "Black lives better.""
I agree with one take on the name, which is that it's sad that it wasn't called something like Black Lives ALSO Matter. While most people get what the organisation is about, and that it's trying to counter the feeling that black lives often mean less that others, some people can't get past the name. They assume that instead of "also", it actually means "only". So, they see it as a racist group trying to get black people preference, rather than trying to battle against the worse treatment that they get every day.
But, the same people who think that tend to be kind of ignorant souls who think that equal rights for homosexuals means they want some kind of special treatment or that freedom from religion means war on Christianity or other such idiocy. So, we shouldn't be surprised that they hear "give us more" when they say "give us the same".
He also seems to believe that the only way to do this is to attack piracy venues to make them more difficult rather than, you know, just making the legal venues better value.
Most people I know who started using the likes of Spotify and Netflix did so because instantly available streaming was a better experience than P2P downloads, not because P2P suddenly decreased in quality. It's the constant piss-taking with windowing and exclusive licences that convinces most to dip back into piracy, not because the P2P methods suddenly got better.
Merely attacking piracy without improving legal services to make them attractive will not work, and that's the reason why piracy got the foothold over legal downloads in the first place - legal services were a mess of low speed, low quality downloads infected with DRM that fragmented the available market and wouldn't be guaranteed to work in 6 months, while the pirates gave you a DRM free file that would always work. It's not until they improved that situation that legal downloads picked up steam, and there's plenty more the industry can do to make their products better than the pirated offerings.
"They promised 'all streaming in 2-years' (that was in 1999)"
Citation? That sounds rather unlikely given the level of broadband penetration in that time period, and Google shows me nothing. Wikipedia shows that 1999 was when they switched to a subscription model, but I can't see any promises that they would include streaming. If anything, if they had made that promise, it just shows how far ahead of the curve they were compared to Blockbuster and that kind of innovation should be applauded, not attacked because they were too ambitious with a rollout date.
"They promised 'streaming all titles by 2005 for less than $10 a month' (again, hahaha)"
Again, citation. $9.99/month is the current subscription plan if I'm not mistaken (I can't easily check as I'm not in the US), so I'm not sure if your objection is the fact it took them 2 years longer than that to get streaming up and running or that you got yourself the unrealistic expectation of "all titles". Which, lets face it, is more realistically the fault of the studios and their licencing models than anything done by Netflix.
Perhaps you'd get more response to your "letters" if you were clear about what you were asking.
"They promised to 'be honest about viewer reviews' (wow, ahahahaha)"
How are they dishonest?
"To date, they've only accomplished one thing - to make profit, obscenely."
Yep, that's what businesses do. If you're unhappy with them, why do you use them? If you don't use them, why have you obsessed for a decade over what you think they're promised, rather than reward their competitors with your business instead?
"They don't get sued, they aren't lawsuit losers, and they don't give away ANYTHING."
What, specifically, do you want them to give away?
I've not watched the show yet, so are you saying that your problem is that it doesn't graphically depict the atrocities you describe, or are you saying that the show treats him too sympathetically? Your actual objection is rather unclear.
"It's a strange kind of reverse case in which being a notable public official suddenly affords less privilege, rather than more"
Yet, that's exactly how it should be. They are employed by the public to serve the public. What they say in the public sphere should be public record.
"After all, I find the drunken midnight thoughts of senators far more compelling than those of a UFC fighter. But my interest isn't the same as the public interest."
Depends on the content and context. If said senator admits to wrongdoing or corruption while drunk or is trying to demonise alcohol to further a political agenda during his day job, it's far more important that his words are recorded. If he uses Twitter to communicate with his constituency, it's relevant that what he says to them is retained.
Most of it won't be of interest, of course, but the ability to permanently delete evidence of corruption or hypocrisy is absolutely in the public interest to prevent.
I don't think so. In the context of it being mentioned between "free beer" and "free smartphones", the implication is clearly free of cost. If he did mean to imply freely available on demand, but with a charge still applying, then the complaint makes no sense since beer and phones are indeed available to anyone wishing to pay for them.