Re: i ain't no musician, but i heard music onced...
You do realize that the song in the commercial IS her song which is why it sounds EXACTLY the same right? And that the supposed copy is in a different link because it couldn't be embedded right? This is all some sarcastic post and I'm not in on it right?
Any who. I for one think the songs sound similar. Not copied. Not the same. Similar. Similar to songs I hear just about every year on the radio from some folksy pop-y artist. Recently, as Dave so thoroughly pointed out, names like Colbie Callait and Sara Bareilles come to mind.
There's similar and then there's "the same". I learned the difference in grade school.
So.....its a freely available public radio broadcast. They are 'listener supported' so they don't have commercials that are being skipped. They don't sell their 'podcasts' online so they aren't losing that revenue...in fact, they have them available FREE on their own website.
So, what exactly is being pirated? And more importantly, why do they care?
I mean, of all the cases of "piracy" that have ever been discussed here, this one I get the least. I mean, I just don't get it.
It seems like the only reason is "because we don't want you to".
As I see it, limiting connectivity of the iPad is not the best choice.
I'd like to see the app creators do two things.
1. Release the app on the side and not through iTunes. Then Apple can't block it or remove it. I think the girl's mother would have to jailbreak her iPad to install the app (as would anyone else - but my understanding is this is pretty easy) but this way she doesn't lose all the other usefulness of the tablet.
2. Port the app to Android. Any Android device can sideload apps without even being jailbroken, plus this gives more people access to the app with more affordable options than the iPad.
By doing these two things and making the app available elsewhere from the Apple app store, it pretty much makes it impossible to stop. The app can be mirrored, hosted outside the US, copied and redestributed endlessly, guaranteeing that it will always be available somewhere and even the greatest game of internet whack-a-mole won't stop it.
As Tim pointed out in the article, this makes no sense for anyone. They are showing the same ads that people would be seeing with free OTA broadcasts or with their cable/dish feed. All it does is make it less likely that people will view those ads....and ad views is what pays the bills isn't it?
I for one refused to pay it. Not even a consideration. And I am a guy who played college ball, played in the tournament, and love this time of year. In fact, I take off from work every year to watch games on the first two days. It would've been great to be able to watch riding in the car or outside or on the toilet! But instead I didn't watch when I wasn't near a TV. I didn't watch the games. I didn't watch the ads.
I've never read nor been to the Huffington Post site....until today. My God is it awful. I'm not talking about the content, but the layout and design. What a mess. It reminds me of MySpace. There is crap all over the place. I can't tell what's a story, what's a picture, what's an ad.
OK, maybe its not as bad as MySpace, but it still looks cobbled together and confusing.
I live "on" planet Earth. I know why Zediva operated in the ass-backwards low tech way that they did. I mentioned that it was a clever 'workaround' to a problem caused by the stupidity of the movie studios.
I could come to your house with a DVD player, a DVD and some cables and show you a movie "on demand" for money. It would be legal (in theory) and it would be a workaround to the studio's ridiculous licensing and windowing schemes. But it certainly isn't innovative... not when you are taking technology backwards to accomplish a goal.... and it certainly isn't sustainable or scaleable.
So much like Zediva, my stupid door-to-door movie service avoids the problems of licensing and delay windows... but I don't think that anyone would consider physically transporting digital media as "innovative".
Mike, "an innovative startup"? Really? Clever certainly, but not innovative. Arguably, it was actually ass-backwards....instead of the forward-thinking concepts of storing a digital file on a server and streaming it (ala Netflix streaming) which would theoretically allow unlimited access, they actually housed limited physical copies of the media and limited physical players and had to physically play and transmit each movie individually. I get that it was clever that they found a loophole, and while a reasonable court should have seen that, it still wasn't "innovative".
As someone who was "caught" by one of the Philly traffic cams, I felt I should chime in here so you all understand just what a scam it is.
(Background: it was raining, light turned yellow - I thought it a bad idea to jam on the breaks)
So I get the violation in the mail. It shows a picture of my vehicle (my wife's minivan which is big, heavy and doesn't stop on a dime) nose at the white line at the moment of RED.
Here's where it gets crooked(er). The notice of violation tells you that if you pay the fine now, its only $100 and no points. OR. You can request a hearing.
Hearing requested! Take time off of work - yay!
Fair hearing it isn't. You sit in a room with a Philadelphia Parking Authority employee - yeah, the same people who manage the program and collect a portion of the revenue. Hmm. Seems impartial.
Ruling: The light is red, your car is behind the line. Violation upheld. You can appeal.
Appeal! (out of principal)
Oh, only catch, you have to pay $35 to appeal. Yeah, $35 to appeal a $100 fine. I wonder how many people bother to take ANOTHER day off work and risk paying $135 vs "winning" and saving $65.
And of course, at the appeal, the real "judge" has no interest in hearing any logical arguments, takes 18 seconds to declare the violation upheld. In his defense, at least he has plenty of other traffic cases to deal with besides some guy bitching about a red light camera.
I could appeal again, but at what cost. Time to give up and pay.
Scam. Scam. Scam. I used to love Philly. Born and raised there. Now I hate it and hope the corrupt local government brings the whole town to its knees. They deserve it for re-electing the same crooks year after year.
Can someone tell me why the studios have this kind of clout in DC? I mean, seriously, do they really have the pockets to 'donate' the big bucks like that? I don't have access to the numbers, but I would have to think that at this point google alone has more $ than all the recording studios combined. I have to believe that the combined $'s of all the companies threatened by this legislation have to far exceed those of the movie and music studios who bought this bill. I mean, we are talking about google, ebay, isp's, hosting companies and more.
Unfortunately, I know we are at a time when the government is no longer by the people or for the people, rather by corporations for corporations. So, aside from voting all these career politicians out of office, and banning political contributions, we are left hoping that we get helped out by some other corporations who choose to fight this bill for their own benefit. Writing or calling 'our' representatives is a waste of time. They've already been bought.
Perhaps the advantage of the computer is that it can 'read' thousands of articles whereas a person can read significantly less. Obviously, the more articles read the more valid the conclusions of the reader are. If I read 5 articles about the goings on in Saudi Arabia I may draw different conclusions than a computer that read 65,000 articles about Saudi Arabia.
I'm not saying that the computer is going to be a huge asset, but I think its wrong to discount it simply because a person can read articles and draw conclusions too. I can do math too, but a computer is faster and better at it.
Seems stupid of Spotify to require a user to be a member of a separate service. Even if it makes things easier on their integration it seems like it could be a big problem for them. I for one, de-facebooked this week. I barely ever used Facebook, have no interest in it, and it seems to get worse with every story I read about the company and its practices. For Spotify to team up with Facebook just seems like a foolish decision. I understand the "hugeness" of Facebook and wanting to tap into that network, but other companies tie into Facebook without requiring it.
I don't think for one second that these manufacturers are actually "considering a move to Windows phone". Android is exploding and has been for almost 2 years now. Windows Phone? pbbblt. Nothing. All of these companies have the option of building and selling Windows Phones right now, and some of them are doing so....along with Android phones. HTC, Samsung, LG....they are all making money on Android phones. HTC is making record profits on Android phones. Android is the #1 selling mobile OS. Companies are in the business of responding to market demands (or at least that's how they should operate... RIAA and MPAA members I'm talking to you). It would be ridiculous to think that any of them are going to stop making Android phones or "switch" to Windows phones simply because of the Motorola purchase. As long as people demand and buy Android phones, every single one of them is going to continue making them, and the "costs" of building Android phones (the risk of lawsuit and/or cost of licensing with MS) has just gone down thanks to the patents Google obtained through the sale.
Yes, I am sure they are all concerned about what Google will do with MM and whether MM will get special treatment. And yes, I am sure they are all cautiously looking at their other options should Google give MM unfair market advantages. But, unless and until Google actually does anything to change the Android marketplace for the worse, its ridiculous to think that any of these companies would turn their business away from a proven seller and proven moneymaker, to jump on board the Windows Phone train as it putt-putts along.
It is good business for mfg's to be concerned about what Google does with MM.
It is good business for mfg's to continue on the successful course they've been on, all the while keeping a watchful eye on MM.
It is a good idea for Google to make sure they keep a level playing field so that their partners continue selling phones with the Android OS so they can continue raking in ad revenue.