Is Netflix making up for the fact that other content providers are loath to licence content to them?. I am not sure about series but its definitely obvious that Netflix dont have the rights to stream certain movies. Well the ones I watch anyway (I was hoping for alien).
I also get the perception that the french people wanted some government action. The French read quite a lot of books and believe in the small stores that dots France. Its a symbol of freedom of choice and ease of access (probably a consequence of the revolution where access to information was limited only so select few). They seem distrustful of monopolies, since once a monopoly is established you pretty much have to dance to their tune. Apparently book pricing in France is also reasonable and in some cases less compared to other countries in the European nation, even with all the regulations around books. It would be nice if I could find a researched article that corroborated those statements though.
Only users from certain countries were allowed to fund Veronica Mars. They were Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK.
Getty images prices sometimes went into the thousands of dollars, I can understand users making use of other sources. Getty's pricing was so bad at one stage, that a company I worked for hired designers to create suitable vector art to use and they still saved a ton of money.
And why don't photographers make it easy to procure their images? The ones I have seen don't have any such functionality and sometimes contacting them amounts to nothing.
Sometimes people focus too much on trying to get funding instead of innovating. If your technology is not impressive enough to get funding maybe the approach is wrong? Either not enough information to get the funding is provided or for some or other reason the funders feel its not what they want to fund. I am trying to understand the dynamics as I am in a similar situation with regards to funding a product.
By you saying that, it means cars should never have any new technology or new innovations in them because we have cars already? So because all the things you mentioned above have been around a while and even if there is a new innovation, its not innovative? Wow
I'm disagreeing with that, but hey. I am not going to put a case forward with that type of thought pattern, its just going to waste my time.
Google's also making advances/innovating in areas of data storage, indexing etc. And I am sure, there are hardware and network advances too. Ever thought about how they cope with all the info that's on their servers? Their innovations are not purely advertising. All this just happens in the background thats all.
So using the 6 degrees of separation principle, somewhere you know a criminal and possible a very bad one at that, or even worse... a copyright thieving pirate down loader. I suggest you immediately turn yourself in and claim responsibility. Oh and pay a couple of million rand in compensation. That should make it right.
I thought math formulas and algorithms is not patent-able. And reading the patents it seems like, along with the algorithm, this patent is making use of decision making process. This process would then be a business process which is also not patent-able. Could someone please explain and correct me if I am wrong.
"Next year Apple will come out with the same product. Just like Microsoft they got big by stealing from the little guy who couldn't defend themselves legally. Apple SUCKS! Microsoft SUCKS just a little less. Go Android! Screw these controlling freaks. Put them out of business, don't buy their crap. Android powers better quality equipment anyway."
yea, until Google changes the Android terms. Never say never. I have been in this industry long enough to see free things go paid or become restrictive. So I choose to be happy with whats available now but knows it will not last forever. Then I just move on to the next flavor of the month.