I think it sets a bad precedent if every online service starts donating to charity just to make a buck. "If you don't like my stuff, just donate to charity and watch it for free!"
I don't think that model is particularly useful, since people who aren't interested won't become more interested just because of charitable causes.
I could see the "slider" being somewhat useful for him, but that doesn't add anything for us. What would be better is the "tiered model", allowing people to get more for paying more. Again, though, I'm not sure he has that much to offer besides the 1 hour skit.
mattarse, it is entirely possible he'd license it out to Netflix (in fact, he really ought to), but he'd still have complete ownership. No one would have any issue with that. He will probably only do that when online sales trickle down enough. He's probably still making some money on it, so that doesn't make sense.
He already released DVD covers on his web site, so he may sell DVDs as well, but nothing you mention is him "selling the rights", only licensing out his product.
Right, the only person paying Paypal is Louis, and that's happening whether or not you pay for this. But, some people have e-mailed his customer service about this, and apparently, they are implementing other payment options.
@bob hey, genius, why don't you take a minute and double check the things you're saying before posting hilarious troll-posts on web sites you don't like?
There are no free samples And not 99 cents or any AppStore sized price, but $5, a Mercedes-like price online.
Two 3-minute YouTube videos with clips that have never before been seen? I think that counts as a free sample. Also, since when did everything on the App Store cost 99 cents? Are you on crack?
I've never used shitty iTunes, but I just did a quick search on the Apple web site, and to purchase a 40-minute show is $3. This seems exactly in line with the iTunes pricing scheme.
And he's not being shy about imposing legal restrictions. While Apple lets me move my songs to 5 machines, he's limiting his video to "two compatible download devices.
Do you even understand what DRM is? He gives you two download tickets presumably to save server costs, but you can copy and paste them to any machine you like, infinitely. You can post that exact video on bit torrent, as is, and share it with billions of people. Explain to me in what way that is a restriction.
Mike to start scolding the man and telling him that it's his fault that people are forced to pirate. Mike could blame him for not adapting to the latest server platform or something else. But for some reason he doesn't.
Probably because A) Mike has never condoned piracy (by all means, his entire blog is available for you to prove me wrong) and B) Louis acknowledges that piracy is at a minimal. I'm sure there's more he can do to compete against it, but this is an admirable first try.
I'm glad there's someone who agrees with me. Although, I have to admit, if they release a golden 3DS with a Triforce insignia, principles be damned, I'm buying that shit.
But they won't get a single DLC purchase from me. I downloaded some games on the Virtual Console, and I completely regret it. They're locked down to my old, withering Wii - I wanted to sell the PoS and buy a black one but I would have lost the games I bought.
The only question I have to ask is: why doesn't Nintendo want my money? I give it to Steam freely.
If they're going to buy legit games from europe, nintendo still get the money, if the console breaks, the waranty is void.
> if the console breaks, the waranty is void. I'm presuming that nintendo have a similar 'kill box' attitude that microsoft use against chipped xbox's, so if you go online your console is disabled.
Not even close. Wii hacking is very sophisticated and has been for years. It's all done by soft-mods that can be reversed, you can even flash the boot-up manager and restore a bricked console if it comes to that. Once you've installed the homebrew channel, you can use it to play anything you want, while not affecting games played off a disc.
Not that it matters, because Nintendo's online is a disgrace and not worth considering. The only risk is system updates, which are also utterly useless.
> Also, why won't the game(s) in question get released stateside?
Most likely because Nintendo isn't concerned with appeasing the hardcore, and the translation/advertising costs would outweigh the predicted profits made.
"it's almost always about setting very low bars to force normal users to pay much more"
This is about the most ridiculous thing you could possibly say, and it shows you have a lack of understanding about the underlying issues. If this is the first time you're reading about it, maybe it's because Techdirt didn't go into the very strong OpenMeter campaign, or the fact that this decision was mainly protested against by other, smaller ISPs.
Here is the deal: one small, popular ISP that has to buy it's bandwidth in bulk from Bell and Rogers was charging, for its lowest plan, 200 GB caps at $27.95, cheaper than anything Bell or Rogers offer. They were doing this easily and still making money, because while Bell was allowed to over-charge it's consumers, it had to charge it's competitors fairly.
The CRTC's ruling was heavily protested in part because it impedes smaller ISPs and forces them all to set lower bandwidth caps, at almost no benefit to them, and at a high benefit to Bell (who gets to protect it's business model, and take away any advantage its competitors have). Bell and Rogers are taking a hit in competition, not on their network.
So, let me point out that you are demonstrably wrong when you say that lower-tier users are going to be forced to pay more. That is untrue, since Teksavvy will not be changing it's pricing scheme if the CRTC is overruled. It's the speed and not the bandwidth limit is the real thing of value, as Teksavvy demonstrates. Bell sets it at a cripplingly low 25 GB to curb Internet piracy and services like Netflix, not to offer cheap prices to consumers.
This move is good for consumers, good for small ISPs and bad for Bell.
This is an uncharacteristically silly article from you, Mike. I consider your criticisms generally exactly on point and enlightening, but this one is overly defensive about something I believe you misunderstood. Taking Obama's words in context, he's warning University students about the under-realized problem of information porn - warning that news can become a distraction rather than a form of empowerment, not that it necessarily always is.
This is not Obama decrying the dangers of new technologies, or discounting the benefits of innovation (as you so egregiously put it - why you would say that is beyond me!). Basically the problem is that with all our new GADGETS (tablets, smartphones - even video game consoles) the way our news comes to us is taken less seriously, with less scrutiny, but more importantly, AS A DISTRACTION. We go to Wikipedia and surf for hours about nothing, or check out our news feed and hours later realized we accomplished nothing. This is made easier with toys.
Obama thinks the solution to being overloaded with access to information but still keying in on important points is education. What else can we do to avoid distractions, even distractions that - at the surface - seem meaningful? These are honestly the kinds of questions I'd check out Lifehacker for, not Techdirt, but that's what he seems to be talking about. Dealing with information in the 21st century, not burning books because there are too many of them.
Simply put, you're asking the wrong questions, you're giving the wrong answers, and you're making the wrong criticisms. You said, and I quote:
"While he's right to be concerned about false information that can be found online, the proper response is not a blanket attack on the tools people use to access the information ... you fight ignorance with education."
Well, obviously! That's the president's point! How did you miss that one? He said the solution is EDUCATION, and he said we need to ADAPT to technologies. So, with all due respect tell me again what YOUR point is?
You know, it clearly says on their site that they are going to port it to other platforms soon. But even if they don't, there eventually will be one for Android and other devices. It seems like that's the way we're going. Web Apps will have all the functionality of native apps, and you will be able to "install" them on any device with the basic requirements to run them.
I'm in support of that, since we get to choose the hardware we want and not worry too much about what Apps we're "missing out on"
How is this in any way the same thing? It just seems like you're trying to get your own agenda pushed here. Anti-gun lobbyists think there should be stricter laws to prevent gun ownership simply because there is a huge correlation between countries with high gun ownership and homocide rates. Countries with less guns have far less homocides. Not only that, but there is very little indication that guns actually protect the majority of people who own them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating anything, but don't come out with a total strawman here and think you're clever. Stricter laws against homocides wouldn't work, because the people who commit them are generally not thinking of the consequences. When you decide to take a man's life, you're either being very careful (and then you're probably not using a gun anyway) or you're being reckless in which case very few laws will stop you.
In addition, you've misunderstood this argument. Apple isn't asking for any new laws to be passed. They're asking for a law currently in place not to have any exemptions in this case.
They play them with another big movie so that the most people possible can see the trailer. If the trailer goes up on YouTube, that means more people will see it, not less. It's not like they only want to air the trailers in one place - that would make less people aware of the movie, not more. The whole point of a trailer is to make people want to watch your movie. Putting it on YouTube means more people will see the trailer.
That can only be a bad thing if it's a bad trailer, and then you have bigger problems.
The ridiculous thing is that so many companies do stupid crap like this. It makes me think that they're afraid of the conversation people have when they watch trailers, but even that doesn't make sense, since conversation creates buzz. Something still illogical but less harmful would be for a company to upload their trailers to YouTube, but disable comments.
I'll never understand why companies don't just upload all their commercials on YouTube for people to watch as they please. People like commercials when they aren't forced to watch them.
Those studies say that driving with a cell phone is similar to driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08, which is interestingly the highest amount your BAC can be and you'll still legally be considered competent for driving. If it's legal to drive with a BAC of 0.08%, it should be legal to drive with a cell phone.
I'm all for protecting one's privacy, but I can't imagine why someone would feel uncomfortable about this. It seems like the same sort of people who would get upset about Google StreetView.
This is just not a big deal. It might feel "big brother" but it's just a common courtesy for people who have no idea how to check their own bandwidth. If it really creeps someone out, Rogers should just add an option to opt-out.
It just seems to me like lots of people are always misjudging what is a privacy concern and what isn't.