Clearly that sentence was about Netflix's vision on the matter. How clear? It actually includes the words "Netflix's long-term vision may be..." Meanwhile, the entire Techdirt article is about how that is a wrong-headed position.
If you want Karl's clearly stated viewpoint, it is also in the article:
"Netflix's crackdown on VPNs still managed to erode user privacy and security, since obviously there are countless people using VPNs for reasons other than engaging in global Netflix tourism."
Um...did Judge Pepper just USE Edward Snowden as a justification for allowing additional government snooping?
That woman's got balls. It takes a special kind of moxy to cite the hero of personal privacy and the 4th as the reason "we're all informed that we're being watched, so now we know, so we're all good, right?"
Netflix cannot "throttle" using a precise definition of that word. Throttling occurs at the throat -- in the middle. If Netflix is reducing the encoding rate of their content, that is a "bitrate product decision", not any kind of throttling.
Don't use the language of the O'Rielly. It's like arguing copyright violations using the term "theft". Their language is deliberately a tautology.
Tim, you let Cary Sherman off the hook for the most blatant feint in his article. He compares, IN HIS OWN WORDS,
vinyl album REVENUES against on-demand FREE music streams.
In a comparison of a retail priced service against a free service, the one with the price > 0 can usually be shown to have generated more direct revenue.
"Last year, 17 million vinyl albums, a legacy format enjoying a bit of a resurgence, generated more revenues than billions and billions of on-demand free streams: $416 million compared to $385 million for on-demand free streams."
What's truly amazing in that quote is that so-called "Free" services were able to generate such substantial revenue, which as Tim points out also substitute for pirated music, and lead to upsells.
Would it be OK for a journalism professor to teach his students that 2 + 2 = 4? Or that witness is spelled w-i-t-n-e-s-s? Because some things are like that, just facts.
And when there are facts -mathematical realities- that only go one way, it is good journalism to report that they can only go one way, and to dispel the false position that there is a middle ground, or a legit debate around the issue.
You, AC, are basically demanding Gillmor adopt a "false equivalency" approach, because he's a journalism prof.
"That reminds me of a philosopher who said that power should only be granted to those who don't want it."
I've often said the same of the 2nd Amendment battle. I'm for moderate rights to bear arms, but why is it that most of the people who want to own firearms are precisely the people I would rather not own them?
It turns out, you don't need to run false flag missions. You just need to wait a few months for a quasi-real one you can exaggerate.
Easier to wait for some real baddies to do some bad than to stage it - and bear the additional burden of a false flag operation, and a complicated cover-up.
Look at it this way: It's CYA. "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". And nobody ever got fired for exaggerating up some minor threat. But people often get burned/jailed/impeached for foul play (ex: Nixon, Ken Lay, McCarthy, Madoff). Why would the spooks take the chance of repercussions when they can just play the safe bets, and still win.
I basically stopped reading print media years ago. I read a lot of news and articles, all online. For me this last decade, print is reserved for airplane trips, during takeoff and landing. Really. And as of a couple of years ago, we're allowed to use our electronics during that time, too.
OTOH, I still get a number of print publications sent to my mail. Some of them good, some bad. I get them because I am a member of a variety of organizations, alumni, etc. And some of them are pretty good.
My question is, how is is that these publications are able to offer me good content, with expensive ink and paper, and with expensive distribution costs. So, IAB, answer me this:
How can these print media firms monetize the business with un-obtrusive, non-tracking ads??
If they can do it, why can't online content companies? Online, you have lower costs. No ink, no marginal cost of production, and small distribution fees per digital copy, for which I pay half the freight.
You guys at the IAB are doing more for print media than any other group, pulp or digital. I've already shifted some of my consumption back to paper.
How come all the sites that I go to that made me want to use an adblocker are exactly the sites that want to DEAL with me now?
You guys are the very reason I sought out and chose a blocker in the first place. No, I don't want to whitelist you! You want to track me, expose me, and over-sell me.
How bout, Imma start with an assumption that you are on the blacklist, and you convince me that that was a mistake. Here's some deal-breakers: - tracking, especially by third party ad networks - pop-ups, pop-unders...any fn popping - things that make the page's actual content bounce up and down for 30 seconds while it loads ads from god-knows-where - offer me a fair DEAL, not "accept ads or pay us $5/mo". We should be talking penny increments, not $.
Here's a idea. Serve your own ads. Make them decent, put them on the side.
That the Congress has the cojones to accuse an impious relationship between the White House and the FCC, and the guts of the accusation are that the Administration stated their policy preference publicly to influence the FCC.
Yet, when the FCC doesn't do what the Senate Majority's paid henchman want it to do, they call it on the carpet, they berate it, delay it, attack it with lies, and make Wheeler pay political consequences for his actions?
I mean, which branch of our gov't is OBVIOUSLY meddling with an independent FCC?