One more time; sending a smaller file is not throttling. I guess if everyone keeps using the wrong word to describe what Netflix does the meaning will just change. But then we should come up with a new term for "the intentional slowing of Internet service by an Internet service provider."
And in order to maintain the "equitable sharing" all property confiscated in the school system would go to funding law enforcement. I'm so tired of these fat cat teachers living high on the hog with bubblegum and firecrackers.
A succinct and elegant law might be possible, but I think it takes both legal and technical experts to understand the ramifications of what is codified.
Your example law seems to address the issue of mostly good-faith termination of services, but is wide open to exploitation by the kind of bad company forcing obsolescence on customers that other commenters are so concerned about. Just change the protocol offered, and everyone needs to upgrade.
Also your example would nix entire categories of devices like amazon's fire stick which won't work without the back-end servers. Heck, would the iPhone with app store be allowed? You can't install programs without apple's servers; isn't that a pretty major intended feature?
I think a better solution than banning certain technologies is to make the requirements expressly clear to consumers. These qualities are dependent on external resources and are therefor services, not features. Or something like that. It's not so much that leveraging server-side functionality is innately evil, but that the people buying things don't understand what they're buying.
I'll freely admit I wasn't watching this as it happened in 2014, so I'm not sure what was meant. But most articles had Nest stating that the device would "no longer be available for sale" or something similar. That's distinctly different than "purchased... and proceeded to continue selling them for $300 each" so I'm legitimately interested if there's more information I haven't seen. If Nest was letting these things out the door after they had the keys to Revolv their responsibility dramatically rises in my estimation.
The folks who bought a Revolv in 2013-2014 were heavy into early home automation or "IoT" devices to need a unifying hub solution. (again, not a thermostat!) I think one of the issues is that many spent thousands of dollars and were ecstatic with the things Revolv enabled. So they felt a sting much larger than paying $300 for only a year of use. They don't want a refund they want their system back!
But they should have been acquainted with the term "Bleeding Edge" and if they weren't they are now. I think I would feel a lot more sympathy if this was a geriatric mobility device, WiFi baby monitor, or an actual thermostat.
I have danced the bleeding edge, and I have been cut. Part of the thrill of being an early adopter is not getting burned picking the wrong standard or platform. But if you're gonna gamble there's gotta be risk. We can't make everything a sure-thing; what would be left to gloat over?!?!
Sure, I agree that Revolv could have spent time and resources to better handle the shuttering. But are we proposing a law that says you have to open source your code if you drop support for something? Nest bought Revolv for that code (or the developers and concepts behind it) and turned it into the Works With Nest platform. Having to divest a bunch of resources in an acquisition would probably add many unintended effects.
What you don't seem to understand, and the point about Nest makes perfect sense, is that because we don't "own" the software running our product, it can be made useless.
I certainly understand that this can be the case and I regularly evaluate the specs, implementation, and dependent features of products before I buy them. I was trying to correct the misconception put forth in the article that a company was reaching out to sabotage firmware happily spinning away on customers' devices.
But they only lease the software embedded inside the product that makes it go.
This may be the case in some of the instances we've seen, like tractors or phones, but it didn't happen here. The firmware on Revolv hubs is the same as it always was; it's just useless because of shortsighted implementation. (which may have been technically necessary; none of us know) It might seem like a black box non-difference to a lot of consumers, but it makes a big difference in the way it would be legislated and we need people who understand why and how these systems work to write the laws.
I agree with your point about products that needlessly ping a server just for a company to maintain control, and unlike you I have lost access to a game that should otherwise be playable. But rather than banning server-side code there needs to be a concession that protects consumers (if this is agreed to be a serious harm) while not hamstringing new innovation and progress.
Back in 2014, Nest purchased a company named Revolv that also made "smart" thermostats and proceeded to continue selling them for $300 each.
Do you have a source on this? I haven't read anywhere that Nest continued selling the devices; most articles said they immediately stopped sales. Also Revolve was about integrating various home automation products into a cohesive interface; not another thermostat.
How can a product that was purchased legally by a consumer be turned off by a flip of the switch by the company that sold it? The answer is as simple as it is troubling -- it is because that consumer does not in fact "own" the product. But they only lease the software embedded inside the product that makes it go. And because this is a license, the company that made the product retains the right to shut it down. The product was not sold with any stipulation on the box that said that it carried this risk. A consumer would have to be a copyright lawyer to foresee this result.
This isn't really the best example for your argument. This was because consumers don't own the servers on which the product is entirely dependent. You may have needed a certain amount of tech savvy to see that coming, but it's not a case of exerting IP rights to shut off an otherwise self-contained product.
The YODA legislation wouldn't have prevented this situation unless it's going to outlaw cloud services or mandate a minimum support period; even if a company no longer exists.
The streaming service Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.
Part of me thinks this is almost an NSL-type situation where he's legally required to not say what he really thinks about it. God knows how many hoops they've had to jump through for the distribution rights they do have. I can be a pretty spiteful consumer but I'm willing to give Netflix a pass on the VPN "crackdown" while we see if they can renegotiate a release-window-less world. Particularly because it's fairly ineffective if you're determined to stream through a VPN.
And they allll moved away from me on the bench there; till I said "and resisting' arrest" and they all came back, shook my hand and we had a great time on the bench, talkin' about crime, smuggling and shootin, all kinds of groovy things we was talking about on the bench.
Yup! I'm much more likely to set up a redirect page on one of my domains than use a shortening service. Not in response to any specific flaw, but because I get to decide how long the url is active and I can even assign it a meaningful address. It's obviously not for everyone, but can be handy if you're able.
Ah, I see! Sure, my behavior could be considered that way. I was just using my experience to point out that the personally identifiable information (pii) they gathered wasn't necessarily submitted by that person.
I don't generally use url shorteners or route people to medical facilities, so my friends should be okay. But it's something that most people probably don't consider; these services take a snapshot of your private browsing history (whatever information is currently in url parameters) and make it publicly accessible and discover-able.
Off the top of my head I can think of exercise routes on trails or roads that hit a certain mileage, or a detour that takes a road not naturally recommended. Sometimes addresses can be geolocated incorrectly so you might use lat/long coordinates instead. I'm sure there are other reasons beyond just generally being helpful.
The main point is that it's something people do, whether there's a good reason or not, and something that google specifically encourages with a checkbox.
"the address, full name, and age of a young woman who shared directions"
Not necessarily. When I share links to directions I hardly ever put where I am in them. Most times they contain where my friend is starting and where they want to go. So this may be the address of a young woman whose friend punched her information into Google and exposed her to a privacy violation. Which is arguably a bit worse.