After reading more about the story, you find the truth buried in it.
AT&T says they will offer a comparable service, if only they have the same deal as Google.
Austin City spokesman Doug Matthews said there were no "special incentives" for Google. "The negotiated agreement we had with Google, by state law we're obligated to provide to anybody else who wants to offer the same service," Matthews said.
UMG is just playing big, and it's actually not a bad strategy.
They are throwing money into this case in hopes of setting a legal precedent. The odds are not in their favor, but they don't have to worry about the Veoh fighting back and if they were to get a win, you could bet that YouTube and every similar service would be in their sites next.
Violent video games DEFINITELY desensitize the player/viewer to scenes of violence. I played GTA one time and I found it disturbing so I never played it again (love Halo and Call of Duty). I'm guessing my reaction to GTA was due to the setting.
The point is, that being desensitized to violent scenes does not create violent behavior. It means, you don't find it disturbing or repulsive. There are many things that I don't find repulsive but will not do, because they are against the law.
Ummmm. I was thinking of something to say about the policy itself, then it hit me.... wait for it....
Who goes into a grocery store to window shop for a later purchase online??????
Ok, I have done grocery shopping online in order to AVOID going to the grocery store, but I have never gone into a grocery store to see what deals I can find online. I would have to say that 99% of the times I have entered a grocery store, it was with intent to purchase.
People need food to live. It's not the same as clothing or electronics. So I would have to say they are just using that example as a quick cash grab that will most likely lose more customers than it attracts.
As one of "We the People..." I'm throwing my suggestion in the basket.
The Defense of Rationality, Enlightenment, and Morality Act. (Yes its the DREAM Act)
Any Senator or Representative that has shown a well documented (print or video evidence reviewed by experts) lack of comprehension/ignorance of a particular topic, shall not be allowed to lobby/legislate for or against said topic until he/she shows marked improvement in the understanding of said topic as determined by expert review.
IP laws exist. Those laws are not going away any time soon. Human nature exists and predates IP law. When any laws directly conflict with human nature, the law rarely wins.
When looking at the Prohibition of alcohol in the US vs content piracy there is one very striking difference. In both instances, the public showed a complete disregard for the law on a massive scale. The difference is that Congress acted rather swiftly to remedy the issue by repealing a very bad law.
None of this is really new news. It's pretty well documented that IP laws put up an expensive toll road for innovation and hold back the development of humanity so that some people can get rich. This holds true for most industries, not just technology.
Because the rate of innovation was so slow for so long, this never really seemed to bother society. But now things advance at a much more rapid pace than ever before in human history AND our ability to communicate with one another across the globe has increased exponentially AND many of the old barriers into the market have disappeared.
So now you have A LOT more people than ever before asking the question why?
The most disturbing part about this is the HBO perspective that ISPs are just like cable networks. They seem to be under the impression that they can just barter a deal where they can bundle their service with a broadband offering.
Ummmm no. Just tack on an additional $10 - $15 per month for HBO content? Maybe just maybe they are overvaluing their content. Sooooo HBO thinks that their content alone is worth more than everything on Netflix and worth entering into a contract with a broadband provider.
It's this overvaluing of content which is driving the cord cutting.
Re: Telcos CAN'T logically let just ANY software run.
Did you actually use the word logically in your post? Shame on you.
Ok boys and girls, let's take this to basics. This is not a software or hardware or security issue. It has nothing to do with technology at all.
It's called price fixing. Plain and simple. The telco wants the phone locked so that you are forced to use their service while they give you a huge "discount" on the hardware. This also artificially inflates the cost of the phone in the market as well. Using the DMCA to enforce this scheme is just fortuitous for some crafty lawyers.
If you haven't figured it out by now, the telcos will come up with whatever excuse they can ( e.g. network congestion for data caps) to insist that there is a need for whatever makes them the most money. There is no logic involved, just profit.
This is just another example of how the interwebs are seen as different from reality.
Dick Durbin is pictured in the article. So if you live in Illinois, you can look forward to a minimum of 15% federal income tax, then 10% sales tax on most of your purchases, and now what will probably be another 5-10% federal internet sales tax. So basically 30-40% of your income.
The federal government has been trying to figure out how to make a national sales tax palatable for a long time. Seems like the web is so different from reality that it makes sense.
This is what happens when you declare that corporations are people. WTF did they think would happen? Of course people want to be able to shift all blame and wrongdoing to a concept that can't show up in court.