dullgeek’s Techdirt Profile

dullgeek

About dullgeek




dullgeek’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 1st, 2011 @ 8:23am

    Re: Still using TiVo

    Yes. I still use TiVo. I love it. It is (afaik) the only DVR available that works with an OTA antenna. It's a great solution for cutting the cord. Netflix streaming + OTA antenna DVR is a pretty good way to get almost all of the video entertainment that I want.

    And no, I am not under contract with TiVo. I did, however, purchase a lifetime subscription for the TiVo that I have. Which is another way of saying that for the current hardware I own, I have no current or future financial obligation to TiVo.

  • Sep 1st, 2011 @ 8:19am

    Still using TiVo

    Yes. I still use TiVo. I love it. It is (afaik) the only DVR available that works with an OTA antenna. It's a great solution for cutting the cord. Netflix streaming + OTA antenna DVR is a pretty good way to get almost all of the video entertainment that I want.

  • May 13th, 2011 @ 12:50pm

    Getting the police to act

    It amazes me that this behavior, which is questionable, but not obviously illegal can generate an arrest, while a demonstrated laptop theft generates exactly *zero* activity from the police.

  • Dec 29th, 2010 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Who buys from these services?

    I just recently rented a Elf from Amazon. It was on special for the holidays for $0.99. I viewed it through my TiVo.

    It's not obvious to me that Netflix will necessarily prevail in it's model for online streaming. Personally I just think that CinemaNow has the pricing wrong. If anything, RedBox has demonstrated that the value of a movie rental is about a $1. So $4 is too high.

    The success of RedBox should give the movie industry something to think about. Streaming is dramatically cheaper to operate. Which means that they could get much better profit margins due to the lower capital costs.

    And IMHO, they could effectively use the same model as RedBox. I would almost certainly drop Netflix (which is also available on my TiVo) if I had access to any movie for $1 per rental rather than the limited selection at NetFlix. I don't watch 10 movies per month, so $1 per rental would be cheaper. Also, even if I were to exceed that $10 expense in a given month, the value of much greater selection would be worth it.

    So I can see a market for the CinemaNow model. They just have to get the prices right.

  • Dec 8th, 2010 @ 7:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

    I don't have an issue with techdirt reporting this. I just misunderstood what techdirt was trying to say.

    That said, there is still a difference between government malfeasance and private company malfeasance. I can freely withdraw my funding of the private company but I can not of government. As a result, I think reporting on government malfeasance is more important.

  • Dec 8th, 2010 @ 7:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

    That said, if there is such a contract, I agree with you that this would probably breach it.

    But AFAIK, credit card companies don't operate under the terms of a fixed length contract but under terms that can be canceled by either party at any time.

  • Dec 8th, 2010 @ 7:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

    What contract do you think you have with MC? They have a terms of use. They don't have a contract with you. They are not obliged to provide you credit. They agree to continue doing it as long as long as they feel like you're a good risk.

    In return for this, you get the right to stop using MC if they start doing things you don't like. What contract are you talking about?

  • Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:19pm

    Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

    If MC says that they are going to terminate a vendor contract on those grounds, I'd say that makes it the standard that they have to follow.

    I don't think that's true. I'm quite certain that MC doesn't have to wait until a person is convicted of money laundering to cut off transactions on the card that's involved in the money laundering. They need merely suspect it. In fact, I suspect they can cut me off if they simply think I'm committing a crime.

    Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Wikileaks shouldn't have access to credit. I'm just saying that it should be within the rights of every business to exercise whatever judgement it has on who it does business with. Businesses that are arbitrarily discriminatory will not last long in a competitive environment.

  • Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:14pm

    Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

    Ok.

    I guess I don't see the significance of this. Because hearing that a vendor is lying just doesn't strike me as that out of the ordinary.

  • Dec 7th, 2010 @ 2:16pm

    That seems to go a bit far...

    While I agree w/you that WikiLeaks has not been convicted of anything, I'm not sure that's the standard that MC has to follow. If conviction is the only way in which MC can cut off business with someone then how do they handle the case when they suspect credit card fraud? Can they cut the fraudulent transactions off before the aleged fraudster is convicted? What about if MC suspects someone is using their card for money laundering. Can they cut off transactions then, before the money launderer is convicted?

    IMHO, as has been stated by other commenters, MC is a private company who can refuse, at any point, to cease doing business with any of its customers if it so chooses. The fact that my MC worked yesterday does not obligate MC to provide me service today nor tomorrow.

    I don't think MC made a smart move here. But I don't see that they acted in any way outside of their rights.