If you were super rich and played the VOD movie on a non-stop loop on 20 different sets and paid for each play on each set and 100 more idiots like you were willing to do the same then this might be a viable revenue stream. ...And the theater owners still wouldn't have to worry about it because it would only be taking a few hundred butts out of their seats.
This looks like it was written by Mark Zuckerberg.
Damage to the marketplace? Drag everyone else down with them?
That doesn't seem to be a logical or supportable claim. What does that mean in this context? What would this look like if it were true? Will a failure by Google drive people away from other Social Networking services?
The platform stuff is all very high-level and important, but the biggest problem with Google+ is that all the casual u
sers are still on Facebook.
They don't want to learn a new system, even if it is a better one (debatable). So you can be on Google+ and only interact with other early adopters or you can be on Facebook and communicate with practically everyone. In the short game, Facebook seems to be succeeding at maintaining its market share by making it hard for people to switch and because Google didn't make it easy enough to interconnect. Time after time Facebook enrages its users, but they (we) show that anger by posting a status update about it and then continuing to use the service. The alternative is cutting off a significant avenue of socialization.
This will probably fail in the long run, but the question is whether Google can get its high-level platform shit figured out in time to take advantage of the eventual diaspora or whether it will be some other players.
Ellison came up in an era when publishers, studios, and corporations in general really were out to screw artists...so really no different from now. His broad claims of ownership are (in his view) really just defensive measures against a predatory industry.
He also has an ego the size of Jupiter and assumes that not just companies, but pretty much everyone is out to get him. The internet generally validates these views by providing him with equal measures of ass-kissing and abuse. Maybe it's because the present doesn't match his visions of how the future should have turned out, but for whatever reason, he just seems kind of incompatible with modern life.
Re: Good golly, Mike. It's an old standard merely clarified.
People should always be free to raise concerns about something even if they're not absolutely sure it's bad. That's one of the best ways to promote discussion and ultimately come to a conclusion.
A better use of your time and effort would be explaining why you think it is bad. Right now you just seem to be a hater who is determined to disagree with anything posted here, thus making it very easy for people to dismiss you as irrelevant to the discussion.
I must admit, i may not be convinced that we need a new law to handle this, and i would want protections in place to make sure a petty judge didn't abuse it, but i have no qualms with the basic idea of putting a juror in jail for a short stint if they go public with the details about an ongoing case. Let them tweet/blog/facebook it after the fact, but not during.
Well...civil disobedience is pretty much, by definition, instigation, but that doesn't make him a jackass. He was not disruptive and he remained calm and courteous in the face of threats and attempts at intimidation. I don't see him antagonizing or trying to get a rise out of anyone. Bringing along a camera is a smart and reasonable defense against violence and oppression - people usually behave better when they know they're being recorded.
This is a good example of how to do these sorts of things.
That's a rather generous assumption of ignorance for them. More likely, they are just shilling for the companies that bought them off years ago. I know the saying goes, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence," but I think an exception should be made for obvious corruption.
Why would they buy one when they can get them for free online? Clue piracy is single-handedly destroying the clue market. Mike and the rest of the freetards here who are giving clues away are a big part of the problem. If they aren't stopped soon, everyone will have a clue and they won't have paid a dime for it. Tragic.
As written, perhaps, but in practice, there are so many small sections of fence out there that you can barely take a step in any direction without stepping over one.
Also, they're often practically invisible so that you don't know you've crossed someone else's fence until their lawyer is knocking on your door demanding rent.
And they're movable fences, so...ok...analogy broken.
Speaking of quality lulz..."If patents had prevented the web we might have had something even better. Stupid open standards produced a crappy internet!" That's an all-expenses paid vacation to Fantasy Island.
What's that? It sounded like you said that the whole piracy kerfuffle is just a lot of posturing and playing politics whose eventual goal is to secure wealth and power for a bunch of glorified salesmen riding on the backs of artists and techies. It sounded like you said that this was just another datum of evidence that they really don't care at all about artists and will do whatever it takes to maintain control and that we shouldn't be surprised that they would turn on an artist who don't toe the line since they turned on their customers years ago.
That's what it sounded like anyway. Maybe i misheard.