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.