It needs to be addressed cable "packages" are sold as they are because distributors control the pricing, not the cable industry.
This is important to understand, because ESPN will cost a fucking boatload compared to a station like Telemundo. Since the latter is "bundled" in current pricing schemes, this subsidizes the cost of having ESPN in the packages.
Everyone complains cable companies are raising our prices, but that's further from the truth (in part). The showdown between distributors and cable operators (who must then "blackout" the signal(s)) is more proof than anyone needs this isn't a cable issue.
Recently, Verizon started offering smaller bundles in its FioS offering, and it didn't take long for distributors to rush to court, including ESPN, which charges an outrage price for its content of many different stations.
It's pretty damn impossible to offer customer choices when distributors are calling the shots.
Well, here's an idea to the "intellectual property" dispute: just use the word idea, because that's what everyone else is using despite the law clearly stating otherwise.
I absolutely promise you two things: use the word "idea" where "IP" is used, and you'll get more people aware of the problem.
The second will be the current stupid pool of maximalists loving the term because now, everyone will understand why they need to lock them up, treat consumers like thieves, and demand more and more revenue.
Sort of like the "Streisand Effect", by using "idea", then the true problem starts to reveal itself.
Let's see how this works: "Today, the Disney company forced a daycare to take down a wall painting of its ideas, including Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck."
By changing a simple word, the context of the issue changes instantly. "Intellectual Property" is a term purposely used to mislead.
I concur the term should stop being used, but instead, use what the controlling jerks believe how it's defined.
Then, maybe the public can understand why their dancing baby video was taken down.
Here's the thing. Let's assume for a second Minecraft were a text-based game, this author would still find something to rag about (perhaps the lack of graphics as children aren't imaginative enough to know what a Creeper looks like).
People like this just sit around typing whatever the hell they want, hoping for 15 minutes of fame.
The most atrocious message these "copyright maximalists" make isn't actually spoken, but it's heard nonetheless:
"Our IP is important. Without it, others will steal our ideas and profit from our designs. Despite the fact our products sell well enough for our business to earn a profit, it's not enough and we will do everything in our power to ensure these profits only go to us.
If there's anything which remains true of "capitalism", greed knows no bounds.
...she appears to finally have realized... I'm glad this sentence was structured accordingly, because it's quite clear she hasn't learned a damn thing. The only reason she pulled her legal threats was because of the potential PR nightmare brewing.
If anything, she learned the lessons of others who didn't back down fast enough when things like this start to build up.
She'll be back. She'll threaten someone else over copyright works because she, like millions more out there, falsely believe copyright protects ideas, not expressions of those ideas.
Like those millions, I doubt she'll ever understand what this means, especially since we see far, far too many companies abusing this concept (as well into trademark disputes) to force those without the legal power to defend themselves to change their expression.
Fill the knowledge gap about our industry Knowledge gap? I'm confident the public knows this is an organization which compared copying a movie to that of a murder victim and professed its love of child pornography.
Change consumer perceptions The FBI warning message isn't enough?
Claim our rightful position as innovators How much worse can the MPAA go from dead last? (I get the sneaking suspicion we're about to find out)
Reframe our consumer message in a positive tone This point pretty much sums up the MPAA. The fact that it needs to reframe its current message shows it was never positive to begin with.
I downloaded it. Moments later, I started noticing my internet traffic was increasing as a rootkit was sending information to Sony regarding files I had on my own computer.
When I tried to open it, I was greeted by an FBI warning message, which I quickly ignored.
Once the warning was over, I had to spend 15 minutes watching previews of other leaked emails I had no interest in.
Finally, once the file loaded, a message came up stating the device I was using wasn't authorized to view the document. To bypass this restriction, I could pay Sony a fee of $14.99, which allows me a 24 hour access to the file.
Being frustrated, I decided to torrent the DRM-free file, opened it in a PDF view, then hysterically laughed my ass off at the irony of a company, once again, having no understanding of how to treat people like people.