It may feel like a favorite coffee shop, but feelings don't pay the bills, so again, the point about this being a business was lost. At least a coffee shop sells coffee, but it doesn't rely on ads to run itself.
That's the elephant in the room that everyone ignores in these discussions. Remember a while ago when Techdirt was transparent about running this site based wholly on ad revenue? They couldn't do it and needed additional support.
That's not a business. That's a charity, or if you'd like, a tip jar. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's impossible to sustain on ad revenue alone, especially when only a few of the patrons support it outside the ads (and it sure doesn't help to allow people to block ads).
It's all well and good for Techdirt, but that's why they can't figure it out. And if Techdirt can't figure it out, whose primary business is to get clients to pay for improving their business, what chance does any digital distributor have?
The advertising necessity for an internet "business" is completely foolish because the internet wasn't designed to be a business.
Before anyone screams "Google", best take a look at how they run the company: it has nothing to do with running a business on the internet, but a physical business to puts ads on the internet.
...what stops Comcast from charging you more if you want 4K Netflix streams to work? Or AT&T deciding it can charge you more if you want your Steam games to download at full bitrate... These already happen now.
Every cable company in the US charges a higher price for HD channels despite broadcasts being mandated to be HD.
It's laughably insulting to see how an HD movie somehow costs $2 more to stream than an SD movie.
As far as gaming downloads, they *are* throttled, regardless if you're going through Steam or a console's store.
The day I see my download speeds match my ISP speeds is the day I wake up and say, "How in the hell did I get to Japan?"
Here's the thing, though: if you want to get upset about this, don't get upset at Twitter. Get furious at parts of the DMCA... Not only No, but FUCK NO.
I am going to get mad at Twitter, and every other company which refuses to stand up against these idiotic copyright laws as they have the means to do so.
Remember how SOPA was defeated? Facebook and Google took their sites down, just to name a couple.
If they had not, the DMCA would have been the least of our worries.
The reality is copyright law isn't going to change. The MPAA has done well to infect the brains of the young with bullshit (go read up on mod authors and how they feel about "stealing").
The industry won.
The ONLY way copyright law now gets fixed is if companies like Twitter, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others stand up against the law.
Since their revenue is solely reliant on the insatiable appetite of its users to know how big a Kardashian's ass has gotten today, it's pretty obvious copyright law isn't going anywhere.
PS: thanks to the fucking idiots who paid money to see the latest Star Wars and Marvel movies, in less than 5 years, we're going to see how those billions are spent when copyright law comes up for renewed extensions.
Basically, yes. The article says it plainly: If you read it again, that's not what it says.
An acknowledgement of information released by a patient is not a HIPAA violation.
Had the provider made this acknowledgement without prior patient statement, then yes, a violation did occur.
I'd need to see the Yelp review in question before I can make the actual determination.
It's unfortunate that HIPAA was another law rushed without regarding the consequences. The changes of the past few years has made it more and more difficult to speak about anything regarding patient data outside of a hermetically sealed, padded, sound-proof room and it's getting atrocious.
I'm all for protecting one's privacy, but an email address is not a privacy violation, yet it's one of the key words tagged for "privacy info" in a growing list of absurdity.
Providers should take extreme care to mention any information that may be patient related and stick to using generic replies.
I also feel patients should be forced to waive their rights if they make these same privacy-ending remarks on any site to which the provider shares.
Oh, boy. Karl writes another article, I get angry at his lack of understanding, and yet another pointless post will be made given I know damn well he's not going to change his opinion.
Karl, how is this any different than current entertainment licenses today?
Exclusive is what supports the consumer's purchase. Fair? Probably not, but it's been this way for centuries.
Let's put this in perspective so you can understand it better. Disney recently purchased both the Marvel and Star Wars franchises.
Prior to the announcement from Netflix, where could anyone stream any movies of these franchises? I'll tell you: No where.
Now, for the first time ever, in the history of both Marvel and Star Wars, people can actually stream these shows.
First. Time. EVER!
Yes, the industry is moving like a glacial landmass to work towards providing people what they want to see and are willing to pay for.
But the reality of the situation is people do not have to hunt and peck because there are only three services: Amazon Netflix Hulu
Maybe 4, if YouTube can figure out what the hell it wants to do, but those are the big three.
Just like the big three in "radio" are: Apple Spotify Pandora
Yes, there are others out there, but if you're looking to license exclusive content, you're going to go with the bigger players who have established the customer base.
What we should be taking away from this isn't criticism, but appreciation that maybe, just maybe, the rest of the movie industry will get off its lazy ass and do what Disney is doing, even if this means we have all three subscriptions which is still cheaper than cable.
PS: there's still no such thing as unlimited data. >:]
He* was convicted by a military court, not a criminal court.
While many will argue his chances were slim because of a stacked deck (along with me), it's irrelevant.
The rules are much different. He should have waited until he was discharged before blowing the whistle, to which 1) he could have found more secure ways of whistle blowing and 2) he would be facing charges in criminal court, not military.
I wish her luck, but it's pointless. No way is any judge going to grant an appeal.
*Manning was male during the whistle blowing arena, hence the use of "his" in the context during that time.
I'm sorry, but how did "I don't see any bad guys here" derive from the moron-in-a-hurry test as to not differentiate "Pilot House" from "House Spirits"?
I'd definitely call House Spirits the bad guys here, especially that it's reasonable to see Cary is now paying for the license to use the name (which is probably more expensive in the long run than it is to pay $10k immediately).
I can definitely see a potential for confusion for the first, not the second.
Though, I'm going to be frank here: Cary shouldn't be in business. If he couldn't even take a day to cursory check the open, free to use trademark website to ensure he wasn't even close to a lawsuit, then he certainly deserved to pay for that lesson he clearly didn't learn from.
As we've long noted, cable operators could pretty easily defeat cord cutting by competing on price and value.
It's very rare I defend the cable industry, but in this context, I believe it's important to do so.
I've said for many years our cable industry isn't the problem. Hollywood is the problem and until this monopoly is shattered, every other business pays for it.
Myth: Cable companies force people to bundle Not true. Hollywood forces cable companies to bundle, and most do so via blackmail. It's well known many of the top viewed channels come straddled with east/west coast channels (which simply redistribute the same shows but for different time zones) or "sister" channels no one wants or uses (Viacom forces cable stations to pick up VH1 and/or MTV if they want the popular Nickelodeon)
Myth: Prices increase because cable companies say "Why not" There is more proof to show prices go up after contract negotiations than we can store in a 100 PB database yet this common knowledge is ignored because "It's Comcast". While I certainly won't disagree there are shady price increases on things like hardware, the reality remains that it's Hollywood demanding more money, not the cable companies.
Myth: Cable companies can do whatever they want to the shows they offer THE FUCK THEY DO. Yeah, I capitalized it and screamed the f-word, but as you've just read, Cable companies cannot innovate because they don't own the content.
Don't believe this? Stop and ask yourself this: What does your cable company actually offer you if it's not for the shows you want to see?
Bzzz. Time's up!
The mere fact cable companies are trying pushing their own "hulu/netflix/prime" isn't because they can do so, it's that Hollywood has finally given them the rights to do it.
Oh, and Hollywood will be taking a cut of of the profits as generated by... the cable bill. You know, the very same cable bill we're already paying for the exact same content but delivered on a station, not a website.
There's a very good reason why many cable companies bought distributors over the past decade: it's the only way to keep the licensing costs down.
Myth: Stations own the shows they air Rarely does this happen. Most people forget how TV shows and movies are made, but the gist is this: Producers invest in a script and try to sell the script to the studio. For TV, this usually means a pilot episode.
If the show is greenlit, production is started. Contracts are signed where the show is distributed to the network. However, the station does not own the show.
When the initial airing is over, the production company which owns the show can then license it for further distribution, such as online sites or syndication.
This market is why prices for cable is atrocious because many people are paying for the exact same content despite being on several networks.
Cable companies cannot control this. To re-iterate: Cable companies have never been able to control this.
This will be the only time you see me defend cable companies. As Tom Wheeler mentioned many times, the cable industry used to be the disruptive force in entertainment.
Now, their world is being disrupted by the very cancer that makes it impossible for them to compete or innovate: monopoly licensing of content distribution.
Hope is on the horizon, but it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Many new partners are entering the scene were content isn't owned by a network or Hollywood, but rather Hulu, Netflix, or Amazon.
Great, until you realize how we get to those sites: through the cable company.
Take away cable's primary source of revenue, content, and what's left: a wire that costs consumers $100+/mo.
Who is going to manage that $100+/mo wire when the cable companies fold because of Hollywood bullshit.
It's going to get far, far worse before it ever gets better.
That may well be true. But the question is, are we ready to do so? So long as the public is ready to clink three same-colored jewels together to reap a score, the answer to this question is "The rest of us are now screwed" (aka: yes).