Umm, there's a huge difference between "anyone can hear the best singers throughout the world" and "anyone can see, in person, a live performance by the best singers in the world".
As someone who is also pretty good at singing, I can attest that globalization has had zero net-effect on my ability to make a solid part-time job out of local gigs. I've never heard any of my musician friends bemoaning the sharp decline in performance opportunities due to the wider online availability of music, and I personally think it's a boon to the local artist, as sub-genres and musical niches have become more recognized as people branch out through freely available music.
People at shows around here know and appreciate rockabilly and newgrass much more than they did ten years ago, mainly because they can listen to and learn about them via free, widely available content.
Movie studios are just flat-pissed that they no longer have the only key to the content distribution door, or that those dirty, dirty pirates have gone and installed a side door or two without their blessing.
Honestly, guys, that's why we don't want anyone to see it. The suppressed photo and video evidence absolutely don't show either A)physical mistreatment of Dotcom or B)peeps who could easily be identified as agents of the US Government.
We just want to save you all the time and effort of going through the evidence only to find out that everything was 100% on the up and up.
Serious stones on the creator here. It's one thing to bury a pseudonym signature in the code, quite another to enable real-time taunting of the infected.
This level of communication/access could potentially allow the creator to modify his trojan in real-time. Imagine a face-off between black and white hats, furiously coding to outwit the other. It's like all the shitty "OMG, hackers!" scenes in tv shows, only for real.
The push for less bloody, 'cyber wars' will do untold damage to Hollywood content creators. Stalwart entries such as "The Longest Day", "Tora Tora Tora!", "Platoon", "Blackhawk Down", and "The Hurt Locker" would not have been possible in a world where the weapons of choice are constituted of bits instead of bullets. Imagine a summer movie lineup composed of "Hackers 3", "The Net 4", and "War Games: Rerevengerance". Paltry fare, this.
Now imagine the damage done to the content companies when the ignorant public learns how to conduct sophisticated cyber-war from watching these instructional videos. Want to hack twice as fast? Have two people use the same keyboard at the same time (sorry NCIS). High-level tech gibberish will enable even more efficient stealing of Hollywood's ideas, pushing neural net technology to the point that ultra-1337 haxxorz will download unfinished films directly from the brain of Michael Bay.
For the sake of the children, we must ensure that peace is kept in the bloodiest and lowest-tech way possible. Patent holders on tanks and planes should refuse to license their products, and escalate this lockdown until, once again, the man who weilds a board with rusty nails sticking out of it is king.
With WB still aggressively defending a 70+ year old movie, and Disney (Mickey Mouse, the eternal copyright) thinking about doing their own version, it shouldn't be long before no one's allowed to even type the words Witch, Wizard, Scarecrow, Tin Man, etc, without a DMCA notice slapping them in the nethers.
Screw public domain so long as a major studio can repackage and re-copyright. That's what I call progress!
This, most assuredly. Next step toward a long-term solution would be to find a sympathetic developer(s) to work a port from iOS to Android and load onto a tablet that they own and fully control. Don't distribute the port, else you'll have your own morass to wade through, just be comforted knowing that it can't be remote-wiped.
Second thought. If the asses win and the original app is nuked, go ahead and distribute the port via anonymous means. This isn't freetardery, it would be vigilante justice at that point.
As you said, you lose the ability to update/improve, but it's a small price.
Gondola is on record in the article stating that this cop was roughing up a suspect who was already in hand and ankle cuffs, so I think it's pretty damned obvious why he wanted the camera. Somebody got his badge-muscles on, then realized that he wasn't in a "my word against his" scenario.
Also, there's this gem in the article:
"Police Union President Arpad Tolnay Monday defended Rubino in the Temple Plaza camera incident."
Gosh, a union wonk defending someone who was overreaching? Never would have expected that.
The chief of police in this town sounds like a good apple, though, he's taken these cases to the mat already with his officers, causing the resignation of one.
The terminology needs to be updated for the world of digital goods.
Dumping implies that there's actually a physical stock that will be depleted or need to be replenished over time. Being pedantic here, but is it possible to 'dump' an infinite good?
Grocery store analogies, or any analogy that ties this market to a world of physical, finite goods, are useless. These products don't physically exist, they are a quantity of magnetic states on a storage medium.
Supply and demand doesn't apply either, because there is either zero, roughly, in terms of inventory cost, or infinite supply. The only factor that remains is demand.
Digital goods are a bag of plenty, there's no bottom, period. Trying to apply classical economic terms and theory to this market is useless, and the disconnect that exists between the old guard and the present day ensures that no one's ever going to agree on the solution because they aren't even trying to play on the same field.
There's a sliding value scale that you need to understand, or refuse to understand.
On the top end, where for me you find movies like The Avengers (paid to see twice, 3D and 2D, and will buy the DVD/Blu-Ray), the Christopher Nolan Batman movies (paid to see in regular and IMAX, bought 2 DVDs), The Road (paid once, bought DVD), Inception (paid once, given DVD), and The Prestige (paid once, bought DVD), the value of the movie is sufficient to warrant a theater viewing and/or DVD purchase. I will watch a good movie in theaters, and I'll buy it on DVD when it comes out. Once I buy it, I'll rip and format-shift the DVD to my heart's content, but I like having that physical media.
Good movies = I spend more money
Mid-range movies may earn a theater viewing or a rental, even both, but aren't good enough to justify the DVD purchase, at least not at full price.
Okay movies = I spend some money
Then we come to the bottom of the scale. Low-value movies don't warrant any up-front money. If I never downloaded movies, then I'd never see these. However, since downloading is free and, for those who know how to protect themselves, consequence-free, I figure it's worthwhile to take up a gig of HDD space to see if there's anything redeeming about the movie.
Bad movies = my curiosity, or the absence of apathy, but no money
I download them because I can, not because I can't live without them. If things change to the point that I can't download, then I won't. I just won't watch them at all. Before torrents, I just didn't watch as many movies.
Net loss to Hollywood - Zero, with the possibility of a small gain if I actually like something enough to grab a bargain DVD.
BTW, I won't even download Battleship, just as I didn't download the last Transformers movie. Some things aren't even worth the easily cleared HDD space.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scientific Proof of the success of paywalls!
You're missing the part where the products need to be of equal quality and appeal. I'm waiting for one content producer to have the stones to pilot a program where you can watch online for a nominal price, and download for a slightly higher price.
Louis CK had what appeared to be a pretty rousing success doing this, but again the matter of equal quality and appeal is subject to debate.
I'll be reasonable, even if HBO suddenly offered their original offerings in this manner, people would still pirate them. However, I don't doubt that they would see a revenue bump as those lost customers would suddenly have an avenue to make the purchase. Bottom line, I don't see how it could hurt them to attract more paying customers from a group that is already showing that they like and follow the show. As it stands, their attitude shows an unwillingness to change that galls me.
Once upon a time, HBO was an innovator. They need to find their way back to that.