johaus’s Techdirt Profile


About johaus

johaus’s Comments comment rss

  • May 10th, 2016 @ 9:42am

    Re: Wired Blocks Those Use Use Tracking Cookie Blockers

    I have basically the same setup. Difference is I run adblock, but whitelisted Wired prior to them bitching. But, they apparently still think I'm blocking because of Ghostery. I reached out to them and haven't heard anything back. Told them they can serve ads, but they aren't going to be tracking.

    Haven't been to that site in months. Guess they would rather have no visits and no ads served versus ads served without tracking. Or maybe they don't know how to run a website well enough to distinguish.

  • Sep 29th, 2015 @ 11:24am

    Re: I read this in my RSS reader and came here just to click on an ad.

    Same here. I clicked through just to make sure my ad blocker was allowing techdirt. Hardly ever click out of the RSS feed, but when I do I want to make sure y'all be getting paid.

  • Nov 18th, 2014 @ 8:27am


    Second this. The fondness part. I wasn't boycotting, yet and thankfully doesn't look like I'll have to.

    If you haven't tried this beer - make that happen in your life.

  • Dec 11th, 2013 @ 3:06pm

    Re: Catch-22

    Signed in just to make this same point. Don't think these petitions have much effect. But, I'm certainly not going to sign up for an account with my email to sign a petition to keep them from tracking my email.

  • Mar 16th, 2012 @ 2:55pm


    The point was people could watch at their desks for free last year. The streaming was free. But, this year they have to pay. Where's the added benefit? Is the stream more consisent? Do you get inside access? etc.

  • Mar 16th, 2012 @ 2:52pm

    Re: Wow...

    But the question in the article is, how many more eyeballs would be on in the middle of the day if the streaming was free? And would that offset the revenue from the app?
    The additional follow-up, but unasked, question should be, even if they are increasing their revenue, how does the choice to charge effect the relationship with the fans?

  • Mar 16th, 2012 @ 2:49pm


    I'm confused. Are you saying CBS/NCAA should/are adding ads to the streaming app. I think the point of the article is, if you simply stream the existing live feed, then the users will be seeing the ads already purchased. If not for backwards tracking methods, those streaming viewers would only increase the numbers for the tournament.

    I also understand the problem with local ads being sold to local affiliates. But, why can't the stream interject local ads based on IP adress? Even if IP addresses aren't perfect, it would be better than nothing. Or in the alternative, sell those unaffiliated ads separately.

  • Jul 5th, 2011 @ 8:57am

    Make your voice heard

    Instead of focusing on what the responses will be here - why not do what you can to affect this? I just sent comments to my two Senators. This isn't exactly the biggest issue on most American's minds, so if the Techdirt community made its views know to their respective representatives, we could actually make a difference.

    Get on it people.

  • Feb 21st, 2011 @ 7:06pm

    Techdirt is being hypocritical

    One of the the most consistent themes of Techdirt is that government-backed monopolies for legacy business models should be done away with. MPAA, RIAA, etc. should be brought into the future, instead of using laws to maintain their obsolete business models. The market has spoken and the old ways of doing business are no more.

    Public broadcasting has more in common with the legacy media groups than is being highlighted here. The successful enterprises, like Sesame Street, will have no trouble surviving any government cuts. While those properties that fail in the marketplace will no longer be produced. This may be disheartening to those who think America is being "dumbed down," but it is entirely consistent with the Techdirtian view of economics.

    It seems to me hypocritical to support the use of the power of the federal government to confiscate money from Americans to fund television and radio programs that cannot survive the free markets. Techdirt is constantly talking about alternative business/funding models for content creation - surely these highly prized Public Broadcasting properties can find sponsorship through one of these models. If not, I don't think they will be missed, since no one will be engaging with them anyway.

  • Feb 21st, 2011 @ 6:52pm

    Re: Matt Bennett

    I think Matt is the first to really hit this on the head: it is not hypocrisy or even confusing at all. Conservatives/Republicans dislike NPR because of a perceived liberal bias and don't want tax dollars going to fund it. NASCAR is not a political organization and does not make political comments through its official capacity unless patriotism and the like is considered political.

    Furthermore, as is mentioned above, DoD is not "funding" NASCAR anymore than Pepsi is funding NBC. I must echo the disappointment in Mike that others have said; how frequently do we discuss on this site the difference between posters and site owners? DoD is using the forum of a NASCAR car sponsorship to reach potential recruits (and very effectively as has been shown above). CPB, PBS, NPR on the other hand are analogous to the forum itself, which is funded directly by tax payer dollars.

    If Mike has a problem with encouraging military recruiting, he can feel free to espouse that, but it is not hypocritical for critics of NPR to stand behind funding of (successful) military recruitment advertising, while concurrently seeking to remove funding for political rhetoric.

  • Jan 14th, 2011 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: According to the Yahoo News article I read

    You missed the whole point of the posting, i.e., Redbox is regretting its decision - whether or not the release windows benefit the studios or that demand can support a higher price is irrelevant.

    The point is Redbox should not have caved. Its goals are not benefited by yielding to studio demands; demands which remain questionable in regards to the first sale doctrine and studio collusion.

  • Jan 14th, 2011 @ 1:54pm

    Removing customer options is never a smart choice

    Whoever "wedbush" and Michael Pacther are, Redbox would not be benefited by listening to their advice:

    "On Redbox's Blu-ray woes on the quarter, Pachter offered up a solution: "Those selecting Blu-ray should be shown only Blu-ray titles, and those selecting standard definition should be shown only standard definition." Currently, Redbox lets users browse Blu-ray and DVD titles at the same time."

    This "analyst" thinks the solution to sales problem is limiting customer choice? He doesn't think customers would realize that they are seeing less/different titles when they choose Blu-ray? The current system is the best for the customers, they get to see all of the choices available, and then they can choose if they want to pay the extra 50 a day for the Blu-ray option. Rebox also benefits because they can start getting metrics on what types of titles people are willing to pay the Blu-ray premium for; something the studios might find interesting as well.

    Or another option is for the myopic studios to not charge more for Blu-Ray, which would likely result in a higher uptake for that underwhelming technology.