When did this country lose its ability to lead by example? Now, every country in the world can torture people with the excuse of "Well, the United States does it". And what happens when the opposite happens: I can easily see some country like Libya banning torture just to claim they're better than the US.
Could they sue over an impersonation? Sure, people can sue for anything in this country. But how much damage would their own career take? Every time Kevin Pollack does a Shatner impression, more people know about Shatner, which is good for the both of them.
But the bigger issue is why Garcia's rights (of spending 5 seconds in the movie) are more important than the cost and effort all the other people put into making the movie. If she wins, does this mean any actor can shut down distribution of a multi-million dollar movie because of "copyright"?
Whenever there's a story about health insurance companies, a lot of people try to claim that non-profits are somehow better than for-profit companies since it's in their mandate not to make a profit. However, this is completely false: yes, the non-profit companies can't declare a profit on their taxes, but this just means they have to spend all money they take in. Has anyone thought about how non-profit insurance companies can afford to build new wings on a hospital or pay their CEO $10 million a year? That's the money that would normally have been declared as profit.
When did the cable companies care about our bills?
Whether the study is accurate or not, and whether the data is accurate or not, I agree with the question in the next-to-last paragraph: when did the cable companies start caring about our bills? Suddenly it's "bad" when Title II requirements may (or may not) cause the bill to go up, but it's okay when the cable company arbitrarily raises rates? How about knocking a few dollars off the "mandatory fees" and then we'll talk.
First, like TechDirt always says, ads should be treated as content so people will want to watch them. There's a reason why there are shows called "The World's Greatest Commercials". I bet if you thought hard enough, you could think of a favorite commercial. ;)
However, too many companies take the easy way out and think it's better to have flashing, annoying ads to "get people's attention". Well, guess what, you got it... but there's a big difference between annoying people and entertaining people.
And how many articles have there been about how ad networks are becoming a big delivery system for malware, to the point where even networks like DoubleClick get caught by it? So now, not only do ads slow down my browser by having to connect to another network and download the content, but now I run the risk of getting malware?
And don't get me started on irrelevant ads. I view TechDirt at work, and they don't let me install ad-blocking software, so I see crap ads on the side for "This 70 year old grandma looks 40" or "See this food that beats diabetes". What do either of these have to do with a tech site? Nothing, but the ad network shows them anyway. But if they're irrelevant and no one is going to click on them, then why show them?
Here's the message that ad companies can't seem to grasp: you brought it on yourself.
I use the free version of AdBlockPlus, but I think I'm going to buy the professional version just to support them.
The great thing about studies and surveys is that they can be worded to get any result you desire. For example, they could ask the question "How much do you like your broadband company? From 'a little' to 'a lot'."
There, every single person who took the survey said they liked their broadband company. Some people like it a little, some like it a lot, but they all like it.
It's funny how a survey like this would never ask something like "Would you like a 50M connection for $10, like in other countries?".
If you know the spoilers going into the show or movie, then you can watch all the hints to see why the spoiler happens. Now, instead of wondering if Beth will survive, you can watch the episode to see how she dies.
It's a little like knowing an actor will be leaving a show- you know their character will be gone, but you have to follow the story to figure out how.
Where are the media people questioning Weatherely's claims? Why aren't there more people asking the "how's" and "why's"? I think politicians would make less of these grand-standing statements if the media would hold them accountable.
Wait, you're saying it's a better idea to trust the students to behave like adults (by letting them do what they want) and trusting adults not to behave like children (by not threating to sue when Johnny comes across an adult site)? This sounds like an interesting experiment.
Of course we're saying we're cutting the cord since this site is full of tech people. ;)
But how about your parents or grandparents who still watch Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, the evening news, and NCIS? Do you think they'll want to give up the convenience of just turning on the TV and changing the channel? (And chances are good that they haven't even heard of Game of Thrones or HBOGo). So until someone can convince all these people that NetFlix or Amazon is an easier way to watch Wheel of Fortune, then there will always be corded TV.
Something similar to this was already done digitally for Jeff Bridges in "Tron Legacy": the visual effects team used clips of him from earlier movies to create a younger version of him. Of course, plenty of people complained his face looked like play-doh, but since the scenes were supposed to be set in a virtual world, we should cut them a little slack. ;)
So the question becomes whether it's cheaper to digitally alter a character or make your "body mask".
I assume you're being sarcastic. Of course Sony will blame the low performace of these movies on this hack... whether the movies make money or not.
For example, "Annie" could go on to make a billion dollars, but Sony will still complain that it could have made more if not for the North Korean hackers. Of course, this doesn't address the question of why they decided the world needed an "Annie" remake, but whatever.
When are the cretins of Roca going to realise that THEY are the ones causing the downfall of their scam business? That would be never, since it's much easier to blame someone else for your poor sales (such as critics, angry customers, file-sharers, pirates, etc) than it is to take a hard look at your business and realize your product isn't that good.
I read the story in the second link and was very disappointed. I've been watching sci-fi movies for years and I always assumed life on planets thousands of light-years away would simply be humans with different noses or foreheads. At least, that's what "Star Trek" taught me. :)
And going to Starbucks is so convenient for paying online bills after you're kicked off the Internet because you didn't know you could password-protect your router and the neighbor's kid decided to download movies while using your IP address.
On a side-note: go around your neighborhood after Christmas and see how many people got routers and haven't secured them yet.
Google should abolutely refuse any regulations from the EU due to the simple fact that this will set a precedent for other countries to follow. What happens when China tells Google to block certain sites? How about a demand from Russia to block any sites critical of their actions in Ukraine? Well, if Google can do it for the EU, they can do it for China or Russia.
I think the bigger issue is that this sets a precendent for non-neutrality. Today it's the bigger music services, but then it'll be the bigger video services.
This topic was actually mentioned in another article and went into more detail about how this becomes anti-competitive. Sure, Apple and Google can afford to pay, but what if T-Mobile decides to extort, I mean ask, other companies for money simply because Apple and Google are paying? Those companies want to compete with Apple and Google, right? Then pay up or their users will suffer.
Is there anyone else in the media calling this guy out for his blatant false statements? Or is everyone sitting back and agreeing because it's an opinion piece in the WSJ?
Or is this another case of someone deliberately publishing a controversial opinion piece just to get a reaction? Who cares if it's true or not- just look how many people are coming to the site to read it.