(Let me start with a preface that 14 years is wildly more rollback than I can even dream of seeing effected in my lifetime.)
What about "modern terms" makes 14 years shorter than ever? People experience and consume more, travel and communicate further and faster, records are more permanent and accessible, job/career turnover is more frequent and prevalent, and there are more efficient methods for devising and expressing creative output than ever before in human history. Everything happens more immediately in "Modern Times". This means that 1) things can be brought to market and monetized in less time and 2) popular entertainment holds our attention for less time before the endless swirling cycle replaces today's hot new thing; relegating it to a brief stint with syndicated tv on its way to sadly fading from existence at Foster's Home for Orphaned Works.
The only way that 14 years seems shorter is if you're an immortal being seeking to pump out franchised sequels for 100 years without coming up with anything new. Which in my view should be a separate debate. Should Groening have lost the monopoly rights to the concept of the characters he created? Eh, they're still doing things with them so let's just assume for now that he's allowed to prevent knockoff competitors (and nevermind that there essentially have been, just with different characters) and focus on the literal fixed expressions.
The Episodes. 26 years later, what real value does Groening derive in preventing school children from seeing the very first Simpsons episode? Is it greater than the benefit of permanently preserving the phenomenon? Is that episode really the same packaged entertainment drawn to drive ad impressions, or is it now historical context, part of our collective conscience and modern culture? I bet you can guess my answers, but to quote the illustrious Dr Jones "it belongs in a museum!"
I'd be interested to know what you consider "an extremely short period of time." Certainly not 100 years. 75? 50? How much time is needed to properly monetize a work and incentivize its creation? Sure seems like with modern production and distribution methods, that number should be going down. Not inexorably up.
Re: Re: Can't imagine where the confusion comes from.
Yes, that's an excellent distinction to explain. If Netflix preloaded video they could still send a downsampled version for less total throughput (MB) even though it might take only a few seconds (MB/s) to transfer 30 mins of tv. Further, "throttling" is a general concept in computing, every reference in this "controversy" has been using it when they mean "broadband throtting." We're not talking about process throttling or CPU throttling (which are fine and useful techniques) because the general public has learned that "throttling bad" because broadband throttling has been an unseen form of abuse perpetrated by ISPs and we're finally catching on that it is usually warrant-less and bad.
It's the difference between swapping 100W bulbs for 20W LEDs so your total electric bill is less every month vs the power company limiting your lamps to only 20W and dimming the lights.
"things he couldn't talk about and things he didn't know. At times, it was difficult to distinguish between the two."
I'm pretty well convinced that things are "secret" more times than not because of how stupid and embarassing they are; not because they are vital elements of some greater good. Comey, and his non-statements, seems to fall squarely in the former.
I think private companies should be able to draft up whatever secret trade deals they want. And they should be given no more weight by elected officials than the "trade deals" I cook up alone in my basement. But if they're expecting fast track favoritism it's no longer a private draft. Show us what you've got or just take it home and shred it.
But... but... don't you wish UPS would open your boxes and replace the contents with worse versions of whatever you really ordered? Consumers should be able to choose to make their lives worse from a single control panel! Now that's innovation.
I might argue that fictional languages are probably entitled to copyright protection (WAIT! hear me out!) in the sense that a fictional language would be a discrete series of fabricated quotes, fixed expressions, in whatever context they are proposed to have meaning. However when a language consists of a body of words with rules for combining them and is used by a group for communication, it is no longer fictional. It is, as stated, a useful system and outside of its creator's control.
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.