Why? Because most of what we watch on there isn't on DVD or the streaming services. But that's OK, because our DVR takes care of what time we watch it and commercials are simply fast-forward-ed anyway.
To be honest, we don't have "the full package" and soon we will have less channels than we currently do (unless we pay $20 per month extra because the price went up) but again it's OK because they're just channels we seldom watched anyway.
Mind you, if the price goes up again next year, we will wrap up watching what we are currently watching and dump them like a hot potato!
Oh hooray, we have Stan (which is a dumb name for a streaming service), Quickflix, Presto and tomorrow we'll have Netflix. The thing is, I can't afford to subscribe to every darn service. And they don't have much I actually want to watch either.
Quickflix charges extra for "premium" shows like "Call The Midwife" and "Game Of Thrones". In fact, for the price of subscribing to Quickflix for one month then the additional fee for "Game Of Thrones" per season, I could buy the BluRay for a couple of dollars more, or the DVD for a couple of dollars less. And buying the discs means I don't use any of my monthly data quota.
I think you completely missed the point of why that story was and is relevant.
The point Viacom made was that YouTube is full of infringing videos and Google should know which ones are infringing and remove them. Google basically replied stating that it can't know which ones are infringing unless it's been told which ones. Viacom promptly produced a list of infringing videos, including quite a few that Viacom staff had uploaded themselves.
Therefore either those videos uploaded by Viacom staff were official after all or Viacom was engaging in entrapment by uploading infringing videos in order to get Google into trouble. But if they're not involved in entrapment and the videos uploaded by Viacom staff are official, how is Google meant to know that they are official when even Vicaom, who own the videos, can't tell if they were official?
And so the lawsuit went. Nobody is condoning the stealing of intellectual property, let alone monetizing the stealing of intellectual property.
I had an idea to crowdfund the DVD's and LP's I wanted to see released. I wanted to license out the content, primarily TV shows and some (mainly Australian) albums, and release them to DVD (the TV shows) and LP (the albums) but I ran into two huge problems which have stopped me.
Problem 1: How do I let people pay me for the crowd to actually fund me? I'd use the Kickstarter "model" of if I can't do a project, such as if I'm refused a license, I will refund the backer's money.
Problem 2: Finding the rights holders for many of the shows I wanted to license is actually next to impossible because they keep forming multi-studio groups named after the show, so the show is copyrighted to the name of the show or some variation thereof.
I'd really like to try this. And if you can think of a way to get it done where I can't, go for it. This idea is free for any and all to use, no strings attached. Not even attribution required.
Also ironic is the fact that they would have sent all this through a website to translate into morse code. Imagine how long that could have taken if there was fast and slow lanes of the internet? I assume the morse code translator site would end up in the slow lane as it wouldn't have the funds to pay for fast lane access and besides it's not very important as nobody wants to use morse code anymore.
I'd like to see more of this stuff happen. For example, now that this has happened, Samsung can redesign their washer doors to be LG proof! And LG can build a TV that learns keywords for voice control within the TV. I'd like to see Apple and Samsung battle it out, literally! Then Sony and Microsoft! Then Nintendo could grab their Pikachus and zap the other two too! I like where this is going.....
October 21st, 1861 was a landmark day in the history of telecommunication: the First Transcontinental Telegraph was completed, connecting the small existing networks on the east and west coasts, causing people to cry out in alarm about all the suddenly unemployed riders for The Pony Express and resulted in many newspaper articles claiming that that this would cause people to stop talking to each other, stop writing letters and to start ending every sentence with the word stop!
With all the techno-panic about everything ever, I would not be surprised if this was the case.
What if there was a law all those years ago hat prevented large chain stores? For example, there could only be one McDonald's in the world. Then nobody would have to pay McDonald's to make the same hamburgers. Anyone could make a Big Mac using the same recipe. But they could not call their burger place McDonald's. In theory the good Big Mac makers will survive and the crap ones will slowly go out of business. Now apply that to not just McDonald's but to every Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc, and imagine what that would be like.
I don't know what that would be like, whether it'd be good or bad. I just think it'd be a good springboard for discussion.
Basically I think the constitution should be re-written from scratch. By the public. Crowdsourced. The current one isn't bad, not in the least, but I think it needs a massive update. The old one would be the basis for the new one. Why do I suggest this? Because times have changed since it was written over 200 years ago.
As a counter-suggestion, maybe not re-write the whole thing but get every point clarified. Again, crowdsourcing it.
After that certain date 13 years ago, there was an anti-terrorism ad campaign on television here in Australia that basically did the whole "see something, say something" along with a list of things that would be suspicious.
Now, one thing on the list was photographing things but the picture accompanying it showed somebody shoving their camera through a fence and taking pictures of some kind of compound. So obviously if you stick a camera through a fence to take a picture of, say, a food distribution plant, because, say, you might be making a blog on food trucks, you might be a terrorist.
EU laws? They sounded like watered down Hollywood laws. Though I guess Europe is fussy about copyright. After all, even our TV networks play French cartoons and many Australia TV shows are co-financed by German companies.