I hope it is not TechDirt readers who are attacking the Twitter users quoted in this article. They were merely livetweeting the conference and reporting what the speaker was saying. They are trying to emphasize now that they DON'T agree with Purdy's stance.
It is clear that revenue generation once you embrace digital distribution and the age of the Internet requires a multi-pronged approach and further experimentation.
They key thing you always seem to miss is that simply fighting against the rising tide is a losing strategy. You criticize Mike as if he actually advocates throwing out all rules and letting chaos reign. He has never said that and your continued obtuseness is so very frustrating. Most of the solutions I have seen proposed on Techdirt are nuanced with the unique parameters associated with the particular situation.
But truly, which side is greedier? The working people who get money for work done in their lifetimes and infringe copyright along the way? Or the corporations who appropriate work from the public domain or a starving artist and then sit back and gather an ever-growing pool of income for an ever-longer period of time?
To paraphrase a recent political wag: In the current IP maximalist regime, the rising tide raises only a few boats, and all of those boats are yachts.
I am not a lawyer but wouldn't all parties consent be achieved if you go past the "this call may be recorded for training and quality control purposes"... you've agreed and they've said they may be recording it. If you ALSO record it, shouldn't that be cool?
Net neutrality is a form of anti-discrimination policy. But the theory is that the transport of data should be separate from the production and consumption of data.
The average person's bandwidth use will presumably shift on T-Mobile, given the lifting of this restriction. They have just "opened the floodgate" for music streaming. Granted, if it is a tiny percentage and it doubles or triples, there may be no issue. But the overriding point is that I assume people who stream music will now do so to the point where they exceed what was once a capped amount -- otherwise what's the appeal of this offering?
"(I don't know of a major streaming service not already whitelisted)"
Irrelevant. Net neutrality comes into play when music streaming is treated preferentially over other kinds of data. That point is missing in most of the discussion I have seen. The argument against "Music Freedom" is not related to one existing music streaming service getting a leg up on another existing music streaming service, but new and innovative services that deliver data in as-yet unknown ways being discriminated against.
I'd also like to remind people how this "Music Freedom" thing kind of proves that data caps are bogus.
ISPs own infrastructure that make them essentially a monopoly in a particular area. "Duopoly" is a term often used. In any case, consumers usually don't have much choice about who delivers water, gas, sewer, electricity, and data to their homes. Many people don't believe that internet provision is a utility. Apparently JohnG is one of them. The NFL is not a utility, thus the examples are similar enough for him. I personally believe ISPs ARE equivalent to utilities but that REAL competition would still make net neutrality rules unnecessary. However, that competition does not exist and therefore we must have a level playing field for ALL data travelling over the wires.
I notice that this issue has sidetracked to music streaming specifically... and how it's not a problem because it is "positive discrimination", but now is the time to hammer home the idea of what net neutrality really means.
It is very nice that the authorities had a proper search warrant. But look at the suspected offense: "Accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes". Is that even a thing? Don't they have anything like AshleyMadison in New Zealand?
How could anyone put that on a search warrant with a straight face?
I don't understand how "Based on a true story" adds value to a television show or movie. Fargo completely destroyed that idea by having such a statement at the beginning of each episode when it is clear the show is pure fiction.
In Scorpion (the TV show) the jet's ethernet connection to the laptop in the Ferrari was crazy and illogical but it was just the most obvious example of how they're going for a "cartoon" reality level. I won't take it seriously, but I can still enjoy it.
The bogus claims about real life accomplishments though... those are not enjoyable at all, even though they are a complete joke.
Quick little point about a single word in this story:
In the latest very frightening polls in the Toronto election, Rob Ford is likely to be re-elected. Thus, he remains disgraceful (as will the entire city if they actually re-elect him) but not disgraced.
I am convinced that the original photo is in the public domain. As such, Slater should not be trying to sue anyone. He should just license his cropped version of the public domain photo to anyone willing to pay him for it. Also, I think part of the "value" of the photo is his story about how it was created. His being an insufferable twit and threatening to sue Wikimedia is going to reduce the income potential for him accompanying the photo and relating its story.