Nina Paley is an independent artist, free of the gatekeepers. As such she and other indie artists represent the threat of change, and that scares the gatekeepers. Whereas Mr. Jonathan Taplin is heavily invested in gatekeeper members of the MPAA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Taplin
He is also listed on IMDB.
Nina is a great artist, I have one of her books. It is a shame to see Mr. Taplin spending his time name calling, There must be something more productive he could be doing.
Three major differences between "Search Neutrality" and "Net Neutrality"
1. Cost - You pay your ISP a monthly fee whereas Google offers it services for free.
2. Exclusivity - With Net neutrality you have only one ISP as it is not practical to use more than one. Yet you can have and use as many different search engines as you like providing results.
3. Breaking services - That was what Net Neutrality was all about, ISPs were breaking services such as VoIP offered by competitors so you could not use them and then offering their own unbroken service. Short of Google using the communication products they offer such as configuring GMail to start blocking emails from say Facebook, Google has no capability to break any services provided by competitors.
Note: All search results need to be sorted by some criteria and if a government believes they know of a way to organize them in what they see as unbiased, then the web is open and they can always provide a search engine for the public. Although my personal observation has been that when it comes to information on the Internet being made available to the public, governments around the world have been the least likely not to try and tweak the displayed results for an agenda. Look at the great firewalls/filters, all of the legislation both passed and proposed as well as trade agreements.
With Dean Del Mastro's analogy he is missing a very key point with music, nobody is going back to the store to steal any MP3s. There is only one visit to the store and it is for the initial legitimate purchase. They are taking the CDs they already own and have in-hand and fashioning the MP3s out of them. In his analogy that would be more like taking the socks you bought and fashioning shoes out of them and being expected to pay again because now they are a different product.
"People don't want free, because that means it's "worthless", and we only have so much time to be alive, so why waste our limited time?"
No, you have it backwards. The word "Free" is constantly used in advertising and promotion and not because people don't want free. People *want* free, but they don't want worthless and sometimes free is an indicator of worthless.
Your not the guy who goes out and buys the $6000.00 pen because it has to be a better pen than all the cheap $20 ones are you?
In the end intelligent people buy based on *value* not price. Both the cheapest and most expensive items are often terrible values. However sometimes the most expensive item is the only acceptable one. Also there are times when the free products have been the best products available beating out expensive ones, especially true in the software world.
If it has no viewership, there is no harm done. If it has viewership it promotional. The only may its a loss for the gatekeepers is to make sure its closeted and piss off fans that go to such lengths as making documentaries and those looking forward to seeing such films.
I agree with the previous statement that this is so the lawsuits can die away without Microsoft losing face. Microsoft has a history of what appear on the surface as simple mutually beneficial relationships that end up having had multiple hidden purposes and that makes me think there is more to it than that.
Barnes and Noble senior management should ask former Microsoft partners on joint ventures such as IBM, Apple and many more the question of how that worked out for them.
The thing is every answer would be nearly identical. If Microsoft is giving you a big hug its more than likely because they are positioning a knife blade to your back. They are a company with a history and a long line of repetitious pattern. If I had B&N stock I would dump it now while the price is up and before the strike.
Hollywood, and all of the big old time gatekeepers of entertainment are gradually becoming irrelevant. Whether they like it or not people are more and more turning to the content online by independent producers. For example my two favorite programs are on Jupiter Broadcasting and they are my favorite because the similar shows broadcast by satellite slant the entire programs to favor many big parters and advertisers. While there still seems to be a little of that with the small online network, there clearly is much less and everything in the programs come across as more genuine.
Re: BFD- the creator haters hire demonstrators too
"Just look at those very generous donations from Big Search to the EFF and Wikipedia. A few weeks later, both were demonstrating against SOPA. What a coincidence."
Bob, The very implication that the EFF would need to be paid in order to be audibly against SOPA makes it obvious to me that you have never visited the EFF website and are completely unfamiliar with Richard Stallman of the EFF, his writings, speeches, work, and personal policies. The only thing donating money to the EFF would have changed is how much they could spend on fighting SOPA. Their beliefs were their own long before and definitely not purchased.
Stallman is more passionate about freedoms, even to the point he won't use a cell phone that has proprietary technology in it.