The studios & TV companies have been giving away DVDs for years with the purchase of new televisions and DVD players. I think it's more a case of saving the $1 it costs to print each disk rather than a real attempt to push the New Crappy DRM.
This shouldn't need to be said. But the price itself is obviously part of an art project. It's an exploration, the price is supposed to elicit deep thoughts from the reader, not compel them to buy. If Mr. Cushing got the point of the pricing, he certainly failed to convey his understanding in the article.
Totally disagree with the summary statement, "good to see France apparently realizing that punishing the public is even worse."
While 3 strikes is anticonsumer and a mess as implemented, at least (in theory, if not in practice) its effect was limited to users that were infringing. The new approach would be 10x worse, with the government attempting to insert themselves into the decisions of every company on the internet. One step closer to governments legislating the results of search queries. One step closer to destroying revolutionary communications platforms like Flickr & YouTube. One step closer to chilling business innovation.
This is one tiny step forward, and two huge steps backwards.
Thanks for picking up the story. The good news part of this story is that since Flickr reformed their take down process, fraudulent notices now only result in temporary removal of the images. Still a lot of misconceptions in the Flickr community that Flickr "must" immediately comply with a takedown notice, as if there are automatic penalties for inquiring with the subject first or evaluating the validity of the notice themselves.
How is this insightful? Listen what B&N did is crappy. But nothing was deleted off the device. The customer was simply not allowed to download copies of books he already bought. That's a shitty policy. But it's not at all the same thing as remotely deleting content from a device.
Well, it would be stupid to drag the whole group. But two people with about 4 liters of water each, sun protection, flashlight the compass and start hiking 2 hours before sunset. Yeah, if you got a couple marathoners or hikers, we'll get to Point B in 15 hours.
Because I agree with Obama on about 80% of the key issues, such as tax policy, health care reform. He doesn't seem inclined to start new wars and has actually wound down one war (even if he wound one up at the same time). Because amongst all the candidates on the ballot, I believe he will be the best president. Because I'm not a one issue voter.
I won't begrudge anyone for voting Garry Johnson, but nor will I humor their smugness & pride as they congratulate themselves for bucking the 2 party system while putting down citizens that support major party candidates.
The system needs to be blown up, but it's more effectively done on the state & perhaps congressional level. Were there a middle-of-the-road candidate that put forth a great campaign and advocated for sensible reforms that matched my own instincts, I may well vote for that person. As would millions of others. Alas, that White Knight has been around the corner for a few hundred years, and will be for a few hundred more.
President Obama will get my vote. But he won't get a nickel from me this year, unlike 2008 when I poured in a fair bit. And it's because of this-- lack of transparency, continued obsession with secrecy, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP. Etc. I think there were about 3 times when I said to myself, "now THAT'S the guy I voted for!"
Wouldn't surprise me to see 4 years pass without it happening again.
To be fair, this is the opinion pages, not the reporting pages, but the WSJ is supposed to have a pretty high bar for getting facts right, isn't it? And I would assume that applies to the opinion pages as well.
It's just not true. The WSJ opinion pages are in line with the Washington Times and the very worst of the reactionary wing of the Republican Party. It's as bad as the WSJ news pages are good.
Ars Technica & other sites still don't get the DMCA
Left this on the Ars article. Mostly it's a good article, but nearly every tech apart from Techdirt continues to make this same error. It's a fine distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
"The notice-and-takedown procedure requires YouTube to leave an allegedly infringing work offline for at least 10 days."
That, quite simply, is false. On a few levels. First of all, YouTube has special deals with the RIAA & MPAA that don't even require them to go through the DMCA process. Second, the DMCA requires YouTube to take down the video OR expose themselves to liability. An idiot in a hurry could've taken one look at the video and made the determination that there was no infringement, therefore no copyright claim, therefore no liability, therefore no reason to take it down.
But in this instance, YouTube is acting as a spineless. Yes, the DMCA allows & even encourages the censoring of speech (political or otherwise) for vindictive purposes under the guise of copyright law and the DMCA needs to be updated to reflect all that we've learned in the past 1.5 decades. But no, the DMCA does NOT require YouTube to take down every video that has had a copyright notice filed against it. That's a misconception most people have, and great tech sites like Ars that repeat it so glibly have only reinforced this incorrect assessment of the law. I hope you can correct the article & avoid making this mistake in the future.