I'd like to know the names of the 6,000 applications that won't work with Windows 7. Okay, I can understand if they're using some obscure accounting software or custom-made programs, but 6,000 of them? Or is this the IRS' way of saying they don't want to pay to upgrade Office XP, QuickBooks 2003, Photoshop 5, and so on?
Call me a cynic, but I think this is someone's way of setting YouTube up for a fall. First, Paramount (a subsidiary of Viacom) uploade the movies. Next, Viacom has one of its "find infringing content" subsidiary company file take-down notices with YouTube. Then Viacom resumes suing YouTube for hosting infringing content.
And as for the question of whether these movies would be available online if YouTube wasn't around? Of course! The movies would be available on Paramount's site, playable only with their proprietary video player designed to be as hard to use as possible, preferably on systems running Windows ME with IE 7 or Netscape 5. The low traffic and viewership numbers would then prove to executives that people don't want to watch movies online.
While the response from AT&T may have been heavy-handed, their policy is in line with Disney, ILM, Pixar and other companies.
The problem is two-fold: 1) People think they own every little thing they create and they want credit for it, even if it's an obvious idea that other people could have thought up. 2) We live in such a litigious society that people sue over the littlest thing that companies have to protect themselves. And like other posters said, one or two lawsuits could start to take up a chunk of change, even if the suing-person is wrong.
How many times have we heard stories that go something like this: "I made a suggestion that cast members on this ride should wear hats. Now they're wearing hats and they didn't give me credit for coming up with the idea, so now I'm mad and I'm suing."
Who's the DA for that area of the state? How much would it cost to file the necessary paperwork to file a complaint with him against Davis? Or is there a risk that he would side with her and agree to the pages and pages of redacted print-outs? Or is he looking for some publicity by going against her? :)
I'm sure this is a rhetorical question, but: 1) She's an elected official so she can't be fired. I'm guessing the people in her district would have to file official impeachment charges. If she's not upholding the laws set by the Supreme Court, then I don't see why this isn't happening, other than the fact that the people in her district enjoy what she's doing.
2) As reported by a lot of media outlets, she's making around $80,000 a year. She's never going to voluntarily walk away from an income like that.
3) Vote her out of office when her term ends. However, see item #1 above: the people of her district may very well re-elect her.
No offense, but if you're satisfied with a clip reel or highlights, then you're probably not their target market. And if you're not their target market, why in the world are they doing what they're doing? Does the NFL think taking highlights down from Twitter will convince people like you to purchase an NFL/ DirectTV package?
This is kind of like the MPAA going after file-sharing sites to convince people to buy DVD's.
And which soundbite is quicker and easier for the 24-hour news cycle to digest? 1) I think we should look into the causes of mental illness and the reasons why people think they should express their anger by killing other human beings. Or: 2) It's because of violent video games... and movies... and TV shows... and comic books.
Is this spam or not? The rough Google Translation is: "Core work - Core applications are used in many areas and offers solutions. Carotene work is done with machines called karotc machines shaped drill. The function is responsive to the needs of applications in many fields due. These machines will be removed with the cylindrical part of the concrete structure. This is called coring."
I'd like to know what the return on investment is for these kinds of ads? If a vodka company spends $300,000 to get the lead actor to mention their product, how many sales does this create? Are there viewers who think "If that guy drinks the vodka, I should also?" Does that really happen in 2015?
On the other hand, how much ill-will does it create when so many people say a product placement like this will take them out of the story? How long will it be until people are talking about show for its product placement instead of the characters and plot?
If they were to drop the price of the DLC to, say, a tenth of what it is right now, then maybe instead of getting a dozen buyers, they might get hundreds. 20 or 30 times as many sales at a tenth the profit each is still 2 or 3 times the profit.
There's a flaw with this calculation. Although you're correct that a vendor would get more customers if he lowered the price, he now has to deal with questions and issues from more customers.
I don't mean to sound elitist, many markets have price levels which are geared to newbies and experts. For example, Alienware prices their computers to experts and they don't expect to get customer support calls from people who think the DVD tray is a cup holder.
By comparison, by selling digital trains for $20, the vendors are appealing to collectors who know what they're getting into. If the vendor priced the same train for $1.99, he might be spending more of his time trying to help people who may not even know how to get the models into the train simulation game and who may have bought only because the price was cheap.
First, is this really "downloadable content" or are they downloadable add-ons? Do people need these digital trains to run the game or get past a certain level? If they're add-ons, then buying them is not mandatory to win the game. Then who are we to complain about how people spend their money on their hobby?
Second, like other people are saying, how the pricing of digital models any different than physical models? If you buy an HO train engine for $200, isn't it functionally the same as a $15 motor, only with a prettier cover? Okay, it can be argued that digital models don't have a cost of goods like physical models, but what's the digital modeller's time worth?
Third, let's compare apples to apples. How is this kind of DLC any different than 3d model sites like TurboSquid? You could say that it "costs" tens of thousands of dollars to buy every model, but no one person needs every model.
And what's the value of the model? If the market says $20 is a fair price for a digital model and people will pay it, then who are we to complain?
So I read this quote: ... our belief that killing comments and focusing on other avenues of communication will foster smarter, more valuable discussion and criticism of our work
If they kill the comments section, how exactly will that foster smarter or more valuable discussion? I think it'll kill some of the conversation since some people don't want to create a Facebook or Twitter account just to post a comment and other people can't log into Facebook or Twitter (such as on a work computer). Plus, there are numerous other reasons why people may not want to post a comment through Facebook.
Maybe the bigger issue is that sites don't want anonymous people criticizing them or pointing out flaws in the articles. This way, if someone criticizes, they have to log in with their real name on Facebook for the world to see. Many people are probably okay with this, but some may not be.
Although copyrights or contracts can be negotiated after the fact, let's put this idea aside and focus on the point of the article. Namely, how is posting anything on your wall considered "notice" to Facebook's legal department? Doesn't the concept of giving notice require giving notice to the appropriate person or department so they can take appropriate action on their end? Posting a notice on your wall is as effective and legally binding as yelling it in front of Facebook's office.
And continuing with that analogy, when was the last time a contract was negotiated by yelling something to random people in front of an office?
As with the European news organizations who want a cut from Google's traffic, how did we get to a point where so many people are so greedy? This is yet another case of someone in charge saying "They're making more money than us, so how can we get some of that money". Yet they don't realize they're making plenty of money connecting their own customers to sites like Google.
I wonder if this is more about cutting back on customer service for a device they don't own. I have Amazon Prime and AppleTV and the way to watch Prime shows is to start in on the iPhone, then click the button to send it to AppleTV. Easy, right?
But there have been a few times when it hasn't worked, so I called Amazon. Their stock response was that they support AppleTV... yet they support the iPhone which can play video *over* AppleTV. Basically, their customer service rep was helpless to figure out a solution.
I then did the usual: I unplugged the AppleTV unit, plugged it back in, and then it worked fine.
So if Amazon doesn't sell AppleTV, they can punt the question and tell people to talk to Apple... who will tell them to to talk to Amazon about Prime Video... and back and forth.
These people would trap themselves in their own laws
I half-wish laws like this would be passed just so people like this would be caught by their own rules. What would Chu do if someone complained and sued him about his comments? Would he be quick to say that the system is working as he designed it? Or would he complain about the complainer and claim he has a right to say whatever he wants?