"Since 2006, we have built theater audiences significantly and created widespread interest in the films themselves and their place in the movie theater."
Am I the only one who read that statement and thought this was the more important part: keeping audiences in the physical theaters? This is about windowing. Denigrating online is only a means to an end -- throwing a conciliatory bone to the theaters to preserve windowing.
Please try not to confuse Hollywood movies (where criminals are always dragged to prison screaming "I'm innocent! I'm innocent!") with reality.
You mean the reality where Hollywood tries to drag innocent people off to prison?
While I generally agree with the get-over-yourself-AP sentiment, in this case you're comparing the reaction to what's essentially a nonmonetized side business for Google with the core of the AP's operation (selling content). Google's in the ad biz, not the content biz, so it views the world (pardon the pun) differently and is far less likely to perceive use of its content, regardless of its transformative nature, as "theft".
I've used AdBlock for years, and for all I know the ad content is spectacular (I doubt it, though). I'll never see it to find out. So the "data" the advertisers get back simply from being blocked doesn't really help them.
As for what advertisers "deserve," if the CPM data on which their ad rates are based factor in a certain percentage of blockers, then that make sense. But if a large percentage of a site's visitors are blocking the ads and that's not accounted for in the rates, then the audience size is being misrepresented to the advertisers and the rates are probably inflated. But that's an issue to be settled between the site(s) and the advertisers. Not the visitors.
As for Google Ads, I find them completely ignorable. Except for when they piss me off: I work with an animal rescue, and Gmail insists upon serving me ads for puppy and kitten mills. As many would point out, however, that makes them easier to find, and...{insert evil thoughts here}
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Iris.
I think this is about codding the theaters
"Since 2006, we have built theater audiences significantly and created widespread interest in the films themselves and their place in the movie theater."
Am I the only one who read that statement and thought this was the more important part: keeping audiences in the physical theaters? This is about windowing. Denigrating online is only a means to an end -- throwing a conciliatory bone to the theaters to preserve windowing.
Piracy can't be dead
The RIAA hasn't sent out a self-congratulatory press release yet claiming to have killed it.
Re: Re:
Please try not to confuse Hollywood movies (where criminals are always dragged to prison screaming "I'm innocent! I'm innocent!") with reality.
You mean the reality where Hollywood tries to drag innocent people off to prison?
Not quite a valid comparison
While I generally agree with the get-over-yourself-AP sentiment, in this case you're comparing the reaction to what's essentially a nonmonetized side business for Google with the core of the AP's operation (selling content). Google's in the ad biz, not the content biz, so it views the world (pardon the pun) differently and is far less likely to perceive use of its content, regardless of its transformative nature, as "theft".
We don't know if the ad content is good or bad
I've used AdBlock for years, and for all I know the ad content is spectacular (I doubt it, though). I'll never see it to find out. So the "data" the advertisers get back simply from being blocked doesn't really help them.
As for what advertisers "deserve," if the CPM data on which their ad rates are based factor in a certain percentage of blockers, then that make sense. But if a large percentage of a site's visitors are blocking the ads and that's not accounted for in the rates, then the audience size is being misrepresented to the advertisers and the rates are probably inflated. But that's an issue to be settled between the site(s) and the advertisers. Not the visitors.
As for Google Ads, I find them completely ignorable. Except for when they piss me off: I work with an animal rescue, and Gmail insists upon serving me ads for puppy and kitten mills. As many would point out, however, that makes them easier to find, and...{insert evil thoughts here}