"Killing enemy combatants is fine militarily, but keeping them from replenishing their numbers, that is far more effective in the long run."
But you have to ask yourself, 'more effective' at what? Winning the War on Terror? Yes. But if the actual goal is perpetual war, and all the power and money that comes with it, then winning is counter-productive, politically.
* 11 years for tweeting. * Threats of 35 years for violating a website's T&Cs. * A lifetime of harassment for whistle blowing. * Seven years of legal threats for committing journalism. * Drone-killed for "hacking the e-mail of a former aide to British Prime Minister Tony Blair."
WTF happened to the Land of the Free? To paraphrase a movie, 'You best start believing in a dystopian future ... you're in one!'
In effect, this is barely sticking their toes in the water.
If getting a true no-strings-attached blackout-free streaming option (even at a higher cost) is the goal here, this probably hurts more then it helps. Sure, now there's a framework to get more teams on board, but with all the hoops a subscriber has to jump through to watch one of these games, this is not really a step in the right direction.
There might be a good reason for a person to link their YouTube account with Maps data with a sharing platform for friends and family, all tied up with whatever else Google decided to throw into the pot.
The problem is that since they were never linked in the first place, that person might have an entirely different online presence on all those platforms.
With Facebook, we all know going into it that whatever you do or say on that platform is relatively public, so you can self-censor before deciding what to say. With Google+, there was an expectation of more anonymity across products that all got wiped out the first time you signed into any of them.
If they had built a more organic stand-alone product, then allowed people to link those accounts...it might have still failed, but at least people wouldn't have downright animosity toward the presumption of total openness that we do not necessarily want.
As much as I'd like streaming of local-market games, I just don't see it happening. Not in any serious way. Maybe they let you log in with your cable credentials, or maybe you get to select a handful of games per year for when your favorite team happens to be in town, but wholesale dropping of local broadcast partners isn't going to happen, and there's one good reason why: Increasingly, those Regional Sports Networks (RSNs) are owned by the teams themselves.
Do the Yankees have any motivation to let MLB cannibalize the YES network? Their biggest revenue stream would dry up overnight. There might be a middle ground where there are two streaming tiers, one with local content and one without, where the local option has a higher fee that goes to the local team, but it's incredibly unlikely that the team would give up a single dollar, so the fee would be at least as much as carrying the channel.
If this happens, it will be reactionary, not as part of a forward-thinking plan put forth by the savior of sports streaming.
Well all they would have to do is put up a sign that says 'We do not sell: Acura, Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin, Audi, BMW, Bugatti, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Citroen, Datsun, DeLorean, Dodge, Ferrari, Fiat, Fisker, GMC, Holden, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti, Isuzu, Jaguar, Jeep, Kia, Lamborghini, Land Rover, Lexus, Lotus, Maserati, Mazda, McLaren, Mercedes-Benz, Mini, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot, Porsche, Ram, Renault, Rolls Royce, Saab, Scion, Subaru, Suzuki, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen, or Volvo.' Although that would leave them open to lawsuits from a few hundred other smaller manufacturers around the world, they could probably argue that nobody would come in looking for one of those anyway.
1. Government must defer to the private industry to solve the problem. 2. Private industry says there's no solution to the problem. 3. Private industry must defer to the government when it says there is.
Circular reasoning doesn't work because circular reasoning doesn't work.
Since Ireland has one of the lowest corporate tax rates, lots of multi-nationals run all their profits through their Irish entity (Apple, Google, etc).
Are Australian citizens being "ripped off" by getting charged more? It's possible. Likely, even. As also discussed often on Techdirt, Australians pay more for just about everything, with little justification beyond 'that's what they'll pay.'
I think, though, that this particular line of questioning was more focused on the tax situation. It's possible that what's going on here is more like this:
Pfizer Australia determines what the market price should be for a certain drug (probably this is inflated, but it's largely irrelevant to the tax question), then Pfizer Ireland charges very close to that price to Pfizer Australia. Pfizer Australia's COGS are relatively high compared to the sale price, so profits are low, leading to a lower tax burden in Australia.
Pfizer Ireland gets all the profits at the lower tax rate, but the CEO of the Australian subsidiary doesn't know the relationships between Ireland and all the other subsidiaries.
All that meshes well with what was presented here, and doesn't necessarily mean consumer prices are too high. They might well be, but the evidence here is weak. The same tax strategy could be used with a company that charges less than the market could bear, and the conversation above would be identical.
As for the corporate tax angle, it is the Board of Directors' fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns for shareholders. They can be removed and, in extreme cases, be held liable by shareholders for not using every legal trick to maximize returns. This debate has raged for decades, but nobody has come up with a politically feasible solution yet.
Costas is known to have his detractors. Probably 99% of the people who heard it either laughed it off or didn't care. But the small minority who make a fuss can sound like the majority when they're the only ones talking.
That's the cost to produce ONE additional unit. For books or songs, that's a few megabytes at most. Even if it's not absolutely zero, it's so small as to be essentially zero.
Plus, from the publishers end, it IS absolutely zero. They only have to send the original copy to Apple or Amazon or B&N or whoever. The cost of "producing" a new copy is borne entirely by the retailer.
Love him or hate him, he's not wrong here. It was a little over the top, but hardly 'going nuclear' on the pitcher.
It seemed more a commentary on how athletes point to the heavens after a big play, and doing so after such poor play seemed out of place. What exactly is the unforgivable wording here? Calling the outing atrocious? Accurate. Certainly not worse than hundreds of other commentators say all the time.
And what's techdirt's reaction? More faux outrage, just as he says. Without the instant feedback loop of dozens of websites based entirely on over the top reactions (seriously, deadspin is a source of level headed journalism now?), this goes nowhere. Hence, internet-based mob mentality.
Quite simply, the analogy between digital goods and physical goods (it doesn't have to be cars, but that's a popular trope; "you wouldn't download a car") is fundamentally flawed. The economics are flipped, but some people are so entrenched in the models of the past that they simply can't imagine how the future could work.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
These stories always get me more fired up than any other. It's black and white. Totally illegal; a violation of multiple Constitutional rights, and the laws are still being abused. Have asset "forfeiture" (theft) laws ever been tested at SCOTUS? I can't even imagine the justification for saying this is OK.
Although they would never say it out loud, this is a tacit admission of what smart people have been saying for years: Movie pirates are movie fans.
I don't know about the film side, but there were lots of studies on music piracy that found people who downloaded music also spent way more buying music. I would suspect the same is true for movies.
In other words, the people in the theater (or at least some percentage of them) are the exact same people who download movies. The stereotype of the loner in his parents' basement who never pays for a movie because they're all online just doesn't really exist, and the MPAA knows it.
It's an awareness campaign for the NEXT film the viewer wants to see. Watch it in the theater instead of getting it in other ways.
Based on the MPAA's public comments, the move may not make much sense, but based on what they actually know to be true, it's perfectly sensible.