I am saying the internet IS influencing me and I'm the one to know. THIS musician is irrelevant, I've gone to concerts in the past but NO LONGER. Same with my spouse (before we ever met, and who has a huge collection of music), same with my kids and their friends. So I am clearly saying that it's not just me, I know others with this view and who did attend concerts in the past.
Anecdotes are not data. Data shows more and more and more money from more and more and more people attending live shows:
No it isn't. I watch videos because I can do it at home or wherever, on my time,, watch only the parts I like, can skip the rubbish parts, don't have to park or pay to get there (I would already have internet so that is a sunk cost), don't have to pay for tickets. I specifically avoid going to concerts, it's a waste of time and money. I don't think I'm unique either, occasionally bands appear locally that I might go to see but I can never find anyone else interested even people who have all their published stuff. I agree the musician may have a real problem.
Yeah, that must be why all those musicians lost all their money when radio played their songs for free and it meant that no one went to their concerts ever, because why would they...
Oh wait. That's not what happened.
Anyway, based on your attitude, it sounds like you wouldn't have gone to see this musician NO MATTER WHAT, so it's not like the internet is influencing you here.
If only one of my fans show up to my performance and films me, then shares it with the thousands of my fans who would otherwise also come and pay me, then I cannot make a living and bring more entertainment to the world.
Hmm. If a recording of you playing is such that it makes others not want to comes see you live, then perhaps there's a problem with your performance? I don't know about you, but seeing videos on YouTube of bands and musicians actually inspires me to *want* to go pay to see them.
I know I've discovered many bands that way.
I can apply this to many forms of creating content. Please explain to me how this is not theft.
Theft involves you no longer having something you had before. You still have everything you had before. It is not theft.
"Not being able to make a living" is not theft. If you can't make a living, it either means (1) that you need to change what you're doing to get more fans willing to come see you or (2) you're not that good. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say (2) is false. Thus, it seems that perhaps you should change what you're doing.
That's still got nothing to do with theft. It just means you have a marketing challenge.
Say I subscribe to DISH and receive HBO via satellite. Under the rules, I can watch HBO on an application provided by Google "wherever" I want. I want to watch it when I'm not at home on my iPhone. How does the signal get to my iPhone? It doesn't come directly from DISH. My iPhone can't receive satellite television transmissions directly.
It comes over my cellular network, say AT&T. How did AT&T get the content? It goes from DISH to Google to AT&T. I'm not getting it directly from DISH. There is a middleman, and that middleman publicly performs under Aereo. This is why DISH is required to make the information flows, which include the content itself, to Google.
You are assuming, incorrectly, that the signal must come from a satellite. That's incorrect. The content will come via the internet. The 3rd party will pass on credentials from the end user to the MVPD.
So, no, the 3rd party never gets it. It goes straight from DISH to the end user. AT&T and Google are just making the connection.
I'd wager its easier to learn PGP/GPG than it is to learn to maintain an email server. And when done right, PGP/GPG has greater potential for maintaining privacy than trying to run your own server.
No need to wager on that. I think it's easily proven that learning PGP/GPG is SIGNIFICANTLY easier than setting up a home server -- especially these days as newer tools have made email encryption easier.
This smacks of cronyism. "Yeah, you can stay, but only if you're sponsored by someone on this short list of people who all happen to be donors to my campaign. I'm sure you'll be able to work out a deal favorable to one of them."
Possibly, though I doubt it. If that's how it came down, there would be a massive uproar.
So they can stick around for 3 years building their business, and then we'll deport them? Is that really the plan?
It's that "flow from the MVPD, through the 3rd party device" that's the problem. That "device" includes "applications." How do you think, for example, that the information flow from the MVPD will get to an application on someone's smartphone? It will go from the MVPD to the third party, and then that third party will transmit it to the smartphone. There's no set-top box in this scenario, and the content does not come directly from the MVPD. The third party, just like Aereo, acts as a middleman and publicly performs the content. The MVPDs are required to turn over their information flows, i.e., the content itself, to allow for exactly this type of scenario.
Again, this is incorrect. The content flows from the MVPD to the DEVICE or APPLICATION, but not to the 3rd party itself.
Then can you explain how, in my hypothetical, the content is transmitted to the smartphone? Thanks!
Yes. The MVPD has an API. The 3rd party device or app maker makes use of that API to access the content within their own framework. The end user who has an account with the MVPD and the device/app in question logs in and can then pull the "information" directly from the MVPD into the 3rd party device they bought or the app on their phone. That's what the NPRM is saying.
It's licensed to go from the MVPD directly to the end-user, not from the MVPD to a third party to the end-user. The third party is not licensed to transmit content to the end-user. That's an infringing public performance under Aereo.
It's not infringing under Aereo in the slightest. The third party boxes are not setting up alternatives to the cable companies. They're providing a box that will allow SUBSCRIBERS to the cable companies to get that content. There is no infringement here.
But "navigation device" is defined broadly to include "applications." From Paragraph 22:
I believe you're misreading what's being said. What the NPRM is noting with both the mention of applications and the "information flows" (perhaps inartfully, but not really) is that the content must be able to flow from the MVPD, through the 3rd party device, to the end user who has an account with the MVPD. That's it. It's not saying they have to hand over all the content unencumbered. They just have to make the content available such that a *properly authorized individual* can access that content via a third party device that is not the cable box.
You guys are turning up ghosts and goblins where they don't actually exist. There's no infringement here. There's just increased competition to make better systems that will actually help create more value.
Paragraph 26 of the NPRM says that the MVPD must send its "multichannel video programming (including both linear and on-demand programming)" to the third party so that it can make it available to the end-user "through an application or search interface offered by an unaffiliated vendor." That's the content going from the MVPD to the third part to the end-user.
For people following along at home, you can look here:
You're simply wrong, Mike. The license from the copyright owner to the MVPD allows the latter to publicly perform the content. The proposed rules would force the MVPD to transmit the content to a third party who has no such license.
No. It doesn't. It says that third party *DEVICES* need to be able to display the content to MPVD subscribers. That's all licensed content. It's just coming through a new box.
That third party would then publicly perform the content by transmitting it to the end-user, and since there's no license, it's copyright infringement. And end-user has no license, and the fact that an end-user paid for the privilege of receiving the content from the licensed MVPD does not mean it has any right to receive the content from an unlicensed third party.
It's not coming from an unlicensed third party. It's coming from the licensed MVPD *through* a third party device.
Well aware of defamation per se, but don't see how that changes the analysis here.
Also, why are you applying U.S. law to a U.K. publication?
Because it's a US lawyer. I assume if they were suing in the UK, the letter would have been sent from a UK lawyer. Though as I admit in the post, it's not entirely clear where such a lawsuit would be filed.
So, yeah, "meh." That "meh" was not to the secrecy that enveloped it for all those years, but it seems silly to argue that they're trying to pass a secret document now when it hasn't been secret for nearly a year. I *agree* that the negotiations in secret were a problem, but the document has been released now.
I just lost a lot of respect for you sir! This secrecy and the habits of these corrupt people which you falsely claim have hearts in the right place is a farce! When did you get put on the payroll? Congress and the collection of maggots you just talked up are the #2 problem in America just after the mindless electorate that keeps them voted into office.
Wow. Calm down. You made a mistake. You thought it hadn't been released. It has. Don't freak out and make bullshit accusations about me that are false.
These politician are experts in keeping the curtains drawn and constantly wheel and deal behind closed doors. These people sought these positions for power and glory. Very few actually care. Anyone that can stand in the halls of congress for long are not good people because no sane man could feel clean there!
The curtains are now open. Though I will disagree with you: there are some -- a VERY SMALL NUMBER -- of members of Congress (some of whom have been there for a while) who are, indeed, fighting the good fight for good things. It may not be true of the majority, but don't confuse tenure with bad intent.
Do we want a Marxist Internet ala "Net Neutrality," where the rule is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,"
This is not what net neutrality is.
or do we want a competitive internet that allows people to buy the best-fit solution for them, with a price tag that reflects usage?
That's not what the alternative is.
Aggressive "network neutrality," with an inflexible "one size fits all" mandate, which will make the Internet roughly the equivalent of Sprint's 3G network circa 2010 -- congested to hell with no profits (and thus no investment);
This is not one of the options here and certainly not what's happening with the current net neutrality rules.
Today's competitive approach, where people can choose the wireless carrier and plan their want -- and opt for someone other than T-Mobile or Sprint if they don't like those options. (Of course, AT&T and Verizon will charge a LOT of data to the bandwidth hogs who want a socialized internet, which is why the Net Neutrality comrades hate this option);
Except that the carriers all have their plans basically in lock step with each other (notice how Sprint and T-Mobile announced their new, very similar, plans within an hour of one another?). This is not real competition.
And, no, the issues that we're discussing here are not about data caps and bandwidth hogs. But about favoring certain kinds of traffic (and being able to charge for that).
Some magical approach in which scarce and expensive commodities like bandwidth, wireless spectrum and network capacity disappear, and nobody has to pay for access because it's free. (This is the world that the remainder of the "Network Neutrality" people imagine -- the 21st century equivalent of the communist utopia of old).
Yeah, no one is saying that.
You don't look very smart when you make up what you think the other side says. It just makes you look totally clueless.
1. Why does Obama want to ratify it so badly?> 2. Why do some politicians want to ratify it so badly?
Many politicians believe (correctly, fwiw) that good free trade helps boost economies and creates a better global world. So they get focused on that. I had a good conversation with a Congressional Rep who talked about visiting Vietnam and how limited some markets are for small businesses there, and how a more open markets could help raise those people out of poverty. And that's true.
What they miss is how the TPP itself isn't really about free trade. It has some tariff reductions, but it also has a ton of other regulatory things in it, such as intellectual property. And that's where the problem is.
Why is it covered under so much secrecy that many countries don't want their own people knowing it, and have it voted on before anybody reads it?
Meh. At this point the document is and has been public for a while. This was a legitimate point during the negotiations. And the reasoning then, stupidly, was that having public debate without understanding the nuances of negotiations (the give and take parts) would make concluding a deal impossible. I don't think this is true, but that's the official reasoning.
How are they even throttling that video. Aren't the biggest video streaming sites using HTTPS encryption now? If they are throttling those, it must mean those companies agreed to have their videos throttled like this, and have some kind of Man-in-the-Middle cooperation with the ISPs.
Two things: 1. many of the major video sites partnered with T-Mo on this. 2. T-mo claims that even with HTTPS they can figure out what's *likely* to be video traffic based on site (which they can see) and amount of data flow (which makes sense).
The next Republican Presidential candidate is already guaranteed to appear more likable, more sane, more Presidential by virtue of following this fiasco of a cycle. It's funny, but four years ago Ted Cruz was unelectable because of his place on the political spectrum being too extreme. What a Trump candidacy may have done is shift the American public's zero-point on the political spectrum to the right, far more than Bernie Sanders did so to the left. In 2020, Ted Cruz may still be considered extreme, but will likely realize less of a penalty for that extremeness because of this election cycle.