I know at least one person who swore never to use Hulu again who resubscribed because they introduced this feature (though to be fair his problem was technical issues with the ad streaming, no opposition to their existence). I wonder how many more people have been considering a switch now that the majority of shows won't have ads if you pay $5/month more.
I had technical issues with them that caused me to drop supporting them too...even though I appreciated the fact that I was paying to watch advertisements on my set top box when folks who were going to Hulu via a web-browser on a computer were seeing the same advertisements for free.
My issue was that they wouldn't support any device older than a year old. My two year old LG Blu-Ray player stopped working with Hulu, and their technical support spent six months using me as a guinea pig (while I paid for the privilege) to figure out why their system wasn't working.
When my year old set-top box started to see the same issues, I could no longer use their service, and told them to stop charging me. Haven't been back (except maybe once or twice via a computer.) Won't come back until they can show that they fixed their technical support issues. In their defense, they did offer me a couple refunds for months in which I could not use their service because of technical issues, but the number of refunds was less than the amount of money I spent with no service.
I'm surprised they hadn't obtained the different variations of their name before. Domains are so cheap, you can afford 100$/year to buy the .com's .org's et all.
Maybe they would actually like to spend that money helping others, not having to be stupid and waste the money on building up huge portfolios of misspelled and potentially-fraudulent-sounding domain names? The EFF does good work. Why do you want to saddle them with huge debts just to make the domain name industry a little more money?
Looking forward to seeing Rep. Bob Goodlatte's cameo in an upcoming superhero movie as we did with Sen. Patrick Leahy.
I know its the whole high court/low court, but any employee of the government who did this stuff would be looking at an official reprimand, unemployment (with a permanent ban on any future government work,) or a stay at a state or Federal penitentiary. I don't understand how what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Certainly the opposite...if government employees get reprimanded for going to a dinner paid for by a third party (whether or not they in turn pay for their own meal, as is required by the law,) then I don't understand how Senators, Representatives, senior politicians, etc., are allowed to get away with it, since they may be elected, but they are still employees of the government (and should be held to a much higher standard that their plebs and peons.)
Re: Yet Blizzard still doesn't ban most of the botters
I mean literally, you CAN'T get anymore obvious then 24/7 uptime playing the game that you're botting, you'd die if you tried to play a game that much. Even the biggest fan can't be dedicated enough to play a game 24/7 for several months straight.
It would be impossible for a single person to do, but not for three people, working as a team over that time. I suspect the streamers are using several people to generate those streams, since bots would be far less up to the task. Bots are great at doing the same thing over and over again, such as mining for gold or running the same mission over and over. To keep their audience, the streamers really have to be dynamic and go after new and different things.
What is interesting is when these companies go after people selling gold/items/etc. Those tend to be the people using the bots, running the same mission over and over again to collect new items, amass gold, etc. Their only goal is to sell the items, not play the game, and they can really do this without a bot even though it becomes so monotonous for the player. When Eve Online started ejecting bots, there were still a lot of ISK sellers online, they'd just pay humans to be glorified bots, playing the same missions over and over again to collect money and items to sell. The only people who ended up being hurt were the folks paying for their own accounts using bots (not that this was a good thing)...the ISK sellers kept selling their wares unhindered.
If it is college kids with the password for their home account then that seems exactly what that is designed for. While in college they are still in most cases for legal purposed residing at their parent's house. The HBO login is designed to allow you to watch content while away from home. The fact that they are away from home for four years is only a detail.
This, and the fact that most Dorms won't allow you to wire cable or run satellite dishes. They may have cable, but in many dorms I've been to, the cable is run to a central location or a "break" area and not into the rooms themselves. Unless you are in a new or newly remodeled dorm, you don't have cable, wired internet, etc.
You have wireless, offered by the school, or you have a central area where you can sit and watch cable.
Cutting off access to HBO isn't going to make students go out and buy a connection because they can't. Just like anyone who has lived in a old apartment complex or a high-rent Home-Owners Association development...you can't just go out and buy cable unless city hall lets you, and you can't fight city hall.
By keeping the students hooked while they are in school, HBO only assures that they stay hooked when they move out. Cable CEO is the one who has lost all sense of marketing reality and just is in it for the short term greed and not looking at the long game.
I have had many discussion with people on Techdirt and do not see extremism. I do see a few copyright extremist such as yourself that get on their soapboxes and declare the "holier than thou" approach to arguing.
This is not the troll you are looking for. Check your sarcasm detector...it may need new batteries.
One easy example for lost culture is Dr. Who's missing episodes.
The story behind the destruction is as bad as the destruction themselves. They needed room and didn't think that the video would ever be wanted again after it played the first time, so they just destroyed them. Nobody ever thought that someone who came along after the video showed would ever be interested in watching it. It wasn't copyright that destroyed it...it was lack of storage space and a lack of imagination and understanding of culture. (And, as is mentioned on the wiki, legal requirements from the union for television producers to re-hire actors to perform the program again live in order for it to be re-shown.)
Sad too, since I really liked Hartnell as the Doctor, even though I wasn't born until 8 years after he stopped being the Doctor, and 1 year before he died.
we WERE going to invest $20B - but since these rules are killing us, we're only able to invest $8B... see how horrible it is? Why, we'll barely make a profit (after campaign contributions, that is...)
I know this is sarcasm, but I am not sure that companies like AT&T and Comcast *don't* actually believe this (at least their legal/political arms.)
Considering the government has already invested at least $3.5 billion (just the rural broadband subsidies, that have yet to produce many connected people as has been discussed here in the past,) but probably far more in the "information superhighway" and "connecting America" deals, I suspect that most of what the government already invested went into their coffers and what little was actually paid in campaign contributions came from that,) I am not sure why they even can make this argument with a straight face.
There have been numerous studies indicating that government subsidies of internet broadband is a waste of money, but I believe that most of these studies were flawed because elsewhere in the world, subsidies have paid off, just not here where government regulators have no backbone (or have been bribed not to,) and companies are greedy and manipulative in order to get the most handouts for the least amount of work done.
Aside from the fact that they will only be criminals for doing something they have always done, but that the government decided (with obvious manipulation from their cronies) was somehow worthy of being illegal. Police officers aren't suddenly going to start arresting people for working in the garage on their own car, and except for shutting down high-school and junior college auto-repair departments due to political/legal concerns, most people will pretty much ignore these laws.
It may be used by states to enforce their smog requirements, but unless the companies start putting intrusion prevention systems and call-home devices on their vehicles (I doubt, because it is going to be very expensive and difficult to manage,) unless you publish your findings, nothing will happen.
Where this is going to hurt, is in vulnerability disclosure. Media publishing reports in how VW is bypassing environmental tests will become hot-potatoes, since in order to discover this, someone must have discovered it, and to do that, they had to break the law by reverse engineering.
One might buy credits only to discover that someone else has claimed the first word/last word.
I've always been a fan of treating the first word/last word as a counter, where the current winner gets first or last words, and that way if I think something is a first word, but everyone else who has paid disagrees, their first word wins. I've always viewed the current model as a recipe for disaster (and even worse now) in that any spammer or troll can promote their comment to the first/last word and we are stuck with it. Don't know how easily it can be implemented, but figure this would be a good fix for the "insurance" aspect, since you aren't guaranteed to have the first or last word.
But I think a system like that would be a little too close to Reddit's...so YMMV.
"new ways to buy techdirt credits"? Techdirt isn't shy about pushing the purchase of techdrit credits.
Why not, you show up here to comment all the time...stop being a freeloader and actually pay for content.
I've got so many credits they tend to go to waste each month...but I've always liked that Mike eats his own dogfood in the CWF+RtB (Connect With Fans+Reason to Buy) model that he has always been selling. Just wish the entertainment industry would learn to follow this model instead of the EMM+FCTB+CTPA (Enforce/Extend My Monopoly+Force Customers To Buy at unreasonable prices/with unreasonable caveats+Call Them Pirates Anyway) model they currently employ.
FW and LW need better blurb as to what they are/do.
Haven't tried it, but do the FW/LW show up for people not logged in or who have no credits? Figure if they are hidden, then the folks who have credit know what the FW/LW buttons do (but it doesn't really matter, tooltips is turned on, so if you move you mouse over the button, it tells you what it means.)
I actually like the new buttons, but agree that the green buttons are too green, maybe a lighter green will make those show up better.
The people making Revision approached Square BEFORE even putting it on Steam to ensure there would be no backlash. (this, more than anything, is probably what did it)
There are quite a few examples of modders coming up to developers and asking for permission before putting on Steam, only to have the developers threaten with lawyers. In many ways, it was because of this stupidity that people stopped asking the developers for permission and just released the mods to the public, hoping that the backlash wouldn't be too bad (before the DMCA, there wasn't much a company could do to stop a mod, only try to find the modder and sue them.)
And to make matters worse, the developers tend to change policies quicker than the revolutions of most pulsars, where a developer (e.g. Majong) is really happy with a mod (craftbukkit), so much so that they eventually bring it into their fold, offering developers to it, only to DMCA it out of existence shortly after being acquired by Microsoft.
You have to own a copy of the original Deus Ex. (honestly not to big a deal; if you're getting Revision, you probably love Deus Ex anyways)
I am not aware of any mod that has not required the original game. There may be some, but I am not aware of any. The whole point of a mod is to add functionality, fix bugs, etc., in the game.
Revision is generating zero profit. (this helps too I suppose)
Probably. Though I don't understand what the heartache is with people generating money on these things. You got your money selling the original game...someone comes along and adds functionality to the game, and people buy it, and if a lot of people are interested, they buy more of your game.
But this "zero profit" even hurts, since quite a few of the modders would love to generate mods where they can pay off the costs associated with the development of the mod, and then give the profit to charity. Mods aren't that expensive to create, so the costs are quite low, and they probably won't be asking the same DLC prices the "official mods" get.
In the most cosmopolitan place I've ever lived, there aren't more than maybe FIVE local broadcast stations.
I live in southern California, and get about 20 with my antenna. More than 30 if you count the ones in Spanish.
Most major stations have one or more "sub-stations" now with digital HDTV, so channels like 7 have 7.1 and 7.2. Some come in better than others, and I occasionally have to turn my antenna to get better signal, but I get far more than 5. Maybe in Kansas you'll only get 5, but I've seen the same traveling to other parts of the country.
Try reading the post, he knew which map he wanted to use, he knew who held the copyright, but trying to get permission to use the map was competitive with Vogon style bureaucracy.
The "post" has nothing to do with maps or vogon style bureaucracy...the link to Tom Bell's blog doesn't contain anything to do with maps or vogon style bureaucracy.
I suspect the problem is that the link you provided to the "post" was stripped somehow and I cannot access it. Which means I got caught thinking you were "whatever" doing his normal tirade against the evils of the internet and missed this link. Oops.
Is this what we want researchers to be spending their time on?
It may not be what your bosses in the copyright maximalism industry want, but I'd prefer someone spending some honest time looking into the facts instead of coming up with out-of-the-netherregions opinions based on pixie-dust and fairy-tail as to how their control of the universe should be strengthened because of the artists they like to pretend they help and protect (at the very time screwing said artists with unconscionable "deals" that make the industry far richer and the artist poorer (because they can't afford the lawyer to look out for their best interests.)
I'd love to see far more research in this field. I may be wrong in my beliefs about copyright, but we are never going to figure out the better way without people doing real science.
When that day comes, remember what you said here and be thankful you were wrong.
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement.
As much as I hate the system, which tends to require lawyers and lots of money for what justice you can afford, most of those I've actually dealt with have been decent, hardworking, and for the most part, interested in doing whatever necessary to help/protect the interests of their client.
There are lawyers like Carrion, Duffy, Steele, Hansmeier, Lipscome, Jack Thompson, etc., but those tend to be the vocal exception to the rule, and it seems like there are places within the law where the pricks and DB lawyers gravitate to, they tend to be highly visible and yet the minority when it comes to lawyers.
But if you watch an hour or two of television, then it starts seeming a lot more reasonable.
I don't mind spending $5/day on entertainment. I just don't thin that any amount of television is reasonable waste of $5/day. If I want mindless entertainment, I spend $20 on a video game, and I can play that game for weeks, whenever I want. Terraria was probably the single most reasonable use of $20 for entertainment in recent years, and the added advantage is that I can bring up my server and host a game for all my friends.
The problem for the cable industry, which has been said many times here already, is that there are so many options now-a-days for entertainment, that the heady days where they were the only game in town are long gone. Sticking their head in the ground, forcing their customers to change their habits instead of changing their own habits, will do nothing to stem the tide.
You and I are outliers though. The average American watches 5 hours / day, so that works out to about $1 / hour on the cable package you have. Considering how good television is these days, that's not a terrible price.
I am not an outlier (and from the looks of this article, I am not alone either in doing what I am doing)...I haven't removed all television from my life...I still have an antenna, and still (occasionally) watch TV (usually the news, or Big Bang, if I just happen to hit it on the night its playing.) Though I have mostly switched to streaming what I want to watch either directly from the provider's website (cbs.com for Big Bang, southpark.com for South Park) or via Netflix/Amazon/Hulu. But most of the time, its playing in the background, occasionally capturing my attention. And I am not paying $5 a day for it.
Same here, which is why I am not technically a cord-cutter. But I am a cord-cutter in the sense that I haven't even connected the cable TV box.
Cox said that they were cheaper when bundling the TV and the Internet bill together, and it seemed, looking at their glossy ads that it was cheaper (nevermind the fact that they really went out of their way to make it impossible for you to cut cable TV off the bill and keep internet,) when the bill actually arrived and I discovered that fees, taxes, tariffs, energy recovery, rentals, etc., increased the bill by ~$50, that it wasn't at all worth the $10 off for bundling cable and internet. My parents, who still have basic cable, spend ~$200 a month on their bill, a good percentage of it being fees and other costs. I spend $99 a month for my cable bill, and thanks to the Internet Tax Freedom Act, there are no taxes, tariffs, rentals, etc., on that bill (though that may be changing shortly.)
Either way though, $2 / hour sounds about right for me.
How many people watch cable 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? When I had cable, it was background noise, running three or four hours a week. $150/30 = $5 a day for background noise, which doesn't seem like a lot. However, when I left, cable had almost tripled in price between when I started and when I left, and they were talking about another increase in price. Lots of money being thrown away each month for background noise.
I spend ~$30 a month for background noise (Netflix/Amazon, and once-upon-a-time, I paid for Hulu, but then realized that I could just attach a computer to a TV and I could watch far more content on Hulu without paying for ads.) Far cheaper, and I don't feel bad when I don't use it.