I just wanted to say that seeing "Chodelord" as the first word in an article on TechDirt is hilarious. Now, to ad something somewhat constructive, let them ban people, because banning users will surely generate more clicks. Idiots!
For a company supposedly worth so much, their website is very clunky and un-user friendly. Wouldn't be a huge deal if that wasn't their main product! The user experience is terrible but since everything else on the web seems to have been built to work with Facebook, and everyone you know uses it, you're pretty much stuck having to use it if you want to use a social network at all. The fact that they are acting like MySpace when Fox took over, just deleting accounts they don't like to silence them and such, is hardly surprising. What are you going to do, use a different social network?
In all fairness, copyright complaint or not, YouTube does take down all videos of people dying. You can't find snuff or faces of death stuff on there (ok maybe you can if you look really hard). Is the video posted on another site somewhere? Contrary to popular belief, there are other video hosting sites besides YouTube.
I'm sure they thought of it, it just seems more likely that they don't care. They needed a big push to get people to start using it and if a loss of user privacy is the cost then why should they care? The service can only take off if people have friends/contacts/whatever already linked.
I think this is pretty good as it will encourage even casual internet users to get better encryption technology. I also think such tech is about to become more abundant and simpler/more user friendly. I really hope more countries start adopting similar standards, it's going to make everyone more secure in the end.
The thing is, if they, the Washington Post, did keep the photos up, Dan Snyder would just buy the Washington Post. That's what he did to every sports radio station in DC. He bought them all (except for the new 106.7, but I'm sure he'll buy them soon enough) to silence local criticism. When you have that much money you can control the media like he does.
You're totally right, but the problem is the same as things with the drug war. People believe that by making things illegal the activity stops, and when it doesn't they believe that making the punishments more and more harsh is the answer. I think we're going to have a war on internet piracy to add to our list of ridiculous wars that can't be won but sound great it political speeches.
it's not sarcasm, it really is a good way to make the children download more music. just like teaching about the evils of drugs and teaching abstinence in school teaches kids to not follow those things either. whenever schools advocate something on moral grounds in the classroom, it will expand immorally in the student population. this is great news in the case of copyright (not so much in the other 2 examples).
This is excellent news, and I honestly can't think of a better thing the RIAA could do to turn kids against itself than by have their lame teachers make them do math about downloading cool music to teach them it's wrong. This is just like when the drug war made schools start teaching kids about drugs in class, thus exposing an entire generation to the curiosity of drugs, which of course made drug use explode through the suburbs.
First that's an incorrect use of the Streisand Effect. 2nd, if you go to a Redskins game rooting for the other team, there is a good chance you will be assaulted by the time you leave the stadium. Double that chance if the visitor wins, triple it if it's a division rival, and quadruple your chance if they just lost to Dallas at home. Also, the Redskins don't care if people see how they treat their fans because the fans will still sell out every game. I don't think people in other markets understand how much control the Redskins have of sports in DC. They make more money than the Yankees FFS, and they only play 8 home games a year (plus 2 preseason and the rare playoff game).
The thing is, the Redskins make more money than any other sports team in the world except for the Manchester United. The Redskins were also caught directly selling premium seats to Stubhub and similar sites from their box office. This wouldn't be a big deal but season ticket holders have been waiting for years to move up to better seats (there is a special list for this, aside from the 150,000 plus name waiting list for season tickets). So the Redskins sell the crappy to middle range seats to season ticket holders and the best seats to Stubhub and other scalpers, when there is no reason to if they have a 150,000 person waiting list. Also, going to a Redskins game is a terrible experience for more reasons that I'm willing to list here, but basically they charge your for every little thing (and charge you a lot), for example $7.75 will get you a 20oz beer instead of a 24oz for the same price last year. They'll nickel and dime ya every chance they get. Bottom line is, the Redskins are sooooo popular that they can do whatever they want to the fans, including not ever have an above-mediocre football team, and people will continue to mindlessly buy it. If they don't like it they'll get sued and then someone else will buy it in their place.
Just FYI I live in the DC area and have since the Redskins used to win Superbowls on occasion.
I believe your strategy is the same one that backfired on Yahoo in China a year or 2 ago when they outed anonymous political bloggers at the request of the Chinese government. The bloggers were quickly imprisoned never to be herd from again. This resulted in a public backlash against Yahoo here in the US as well as from human rights groups like Amnesty International.
Paying for music and movies only encourages the major record labels and movie studios. Art shouldn't be only for those who can afford it, and if nobody could make a living making movies or music, I suppose we'd find who the true artists are. Artists don't create to make money, artists create because they can.
There's also a similar service the radio station I work for uses. It's called Audio Now. It basically streams whatever is on the air to a phone number anyone can call (for free, if not a long distance call) and listen to on any phone (smart phone, cell, landline, VoIP, payphone, whatever). Doesn't cost the caller anything. It's basically the same thing as the live stream we have on our website, but this doesn't use our bandwidth. It has a delay of less than 60 secs to what is on the actual airwaves. This is great for companies that don't allow web streaming due to bandwidth issues. Call it and listen to us on your bluetooth or whatever.
I dunno, the 2 tiers still seem lame. I'm not sure what they expect people to pay for, other than advance concert tickets (but most bands' fan clubs do that already anyways). The "exclusive video and photo content" will be on YouTube and Flickr within hours for anyone to view for free. The access to chat rooms thing is ridiculous, what kind of chat room does anyone care to use when you have to pay to join? Any band will have free fan created chat rooms that are more popular if there are enough fans to have a chat room in the first place. The "exclusive messages from Third Man Records artists" means they get to spam you first! wow! who cares? nobody! Because it sounds like they'll talk with their fans on the message boards but you can bet they don't want to deal with the losers on the internet when they could be doing drugs. Then the platinum sells gives you "exclusive" 12 & 7 inch records, which will be online within a matter of days of their release to club members. You do get a t-shirt tho, for $20 a month. That's a rip off too. I understand what they're trying to do but they're falling very short on the "give fans a reason to buy" part.