renato’s Techdirt Profile


About renato

renato’s Comments comment rss

  • May 8th, 2019 @ 11:39am

    Re: Re:

    Most of the problem come from the lack of clarity on the writing.
    Ideas that propose to modify (or repeal) section 230, as McArdle argues are conflated with the trolls that say that it currently require political neutrality.

    Her point is that as facebook has a more specific editorial and political line of what is allowed and what is banned, it resembles more and more the organizations (and operations) that are not protected by Section 230 like media organizations.
    And, it could mean that the law could/should be modified to remove their protection.
    The last paragraph from that article, which immediately follows the quoted part on this article is:

    At the moment, social media platforms have nothing to fear, for they’re still protected by Section 230. But the more they come to dominate the consumption of information, and the more they use their power to shape it, the more likely it is that the law will change.

    If WaPo stopped posting its own original content and just said "Hello public, post your news stories here. Liberals only though. We'll remove it if it's conservative," they'd still get CDA 230 protection, as they should.

    Those grey areas are exactly the problem.
    If an user/columnist was payed just by a fraction of the ad revenue they bring, and had not work contract with the news organization, but merely adhere to its ToS, should Section 230 still apply?
    If you keep stretching it making the users more like a hired reporter by keeping a list of "top" users that are promoted by the news organization, would it still apply?

  • Apr 18th, 2019 @ 4:24pm

    (untitled comment)

    Finally someone has thought about the kids.

  • Mar 28th, 2019 @ 12:21pm

    (untitled comment)

    And uses that as proof of "knowledge" by Salesforce:

    Salesforce knew the scourge of sex trafficking because it sought publicity for trying to stop it.

    Wasn't that exactly what was said that would be allowed/used to frame companies about their "knowledge" of sex traffic?

    Despite being a convoluted argumentation, at least they had done their homework.

  • Feb 13th, 2019 @ 12:57pm


    There is typo before the first blockquote:

    "...but the attempt at crying "hot news" seems particularly week:"

  • Nov 6th, 2018 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If I pay for 4 concurrent streams...

    In terms of usage, it doesn't matter if you have 4 friends sharing the same account or a family of 4 who use the account but are regularly elsewhere than their home location.

    I completely forgot that people use cellphones to watch movies, and I was basing it only on households.

    For the most part, Netflix are at least as convenient as those options if not more so, and the price aspect has only ever been a small part of the reasons why people pirate.

    When more services appear and become the only legal streaming source for some products (such as Disney streaming), I'm not sure if people will pirate them (some might sign up several of them, but then it is just good old cable), or just give them up and only access one of those giant silos. Services like popcorn time are at least as convenient as netflix, and also easier to tweak/customize for different audiences (I've never got used to netflix interface on a TV). It is also not restricted by licenses and it is cheaper/free.

    Netflix only got bigger because it is convenient, not because it is a legal alternative. The users would switch back to pirating if it cannot deliver what they want with convenience, for example because of some content being removed due renewing negotiations.

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 11:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone already said that.

    n the end, that judgement can't be made until they are on a severe downswing and continue the mantra. Until then, it is successful.

    I completely agree with that, and it will still take sometime to check if they will keep saying that.

    That said, you seem to have some failures in understanding. Limited numbers of streams per account mean a limited number of streams available to share. As long as they gain fans, they have the potential for growth.

    I'm aware of that, but since I'm not a subscriber I'm do not know exactly about the price difference and how much can be saved.

    Netflix is pivoting to original content as outside content becomes a bigger and bigger quagmire with higher and higher costs.

    Which is caused not only by content owners greed, but also because they want to start/started their own streaming services, such as Disney and NBC (or other American TV channel, I do not remember exactly which). When the streaming services become more like exclusive silos of content, the account sharers will not be potential clients anymore, but just people dividing their costs. Or, if they are not subscribing to several shared accounts, they will probably just pirate it.

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If I pay for 4 concurrent streams...

    As netflix gets more consolidated on this market its position will also change.
    For example, there is already a slight change on its defense of net neutrality since it is not as crucial as it was some years ago, and now it can actually be better for them if it is repelled.

    I think it will also extend to account sharing, while it might not be banned, it will become less advantageous to do that.

    Pirating, including streaming and torrent, are still not a threat strong enough for them, and they let it live.
    But it will not last forever, and they will combat it as strong (but maybe not as stupid) as the traditional media owners.

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re: Someone already said that.

    I agree with you, but as you said it must be emphasized that it is said "in support of a currently successful business model."

    They expect that young people will become full subscribers, but it will only happen if those accounts cannot be shared anymore. People would share a cable service if it was physically possible.

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re: Re: If I pay for 4 concurrent streams...

    None specifically. I should have used 'would' instead of 'will'.

    Some time ago, Netfilx was cracking down VPN users that used an account from a country to access content from other (or at least posing to do to please the copyright owners), but it seemed to have stop, or people stop reporting about it.

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 8:13am

    Re: If I pay for 4 concurrent streams...

    It is not blocked by the service provider because the backlash destroys more value than its enforcement create.

    If you start sub-locating your streams to a third party (I recommend focusing on people from different time-zones to reduce the possible overlap), your account will be blocked pretty soon and they will argue that you violated the terms of service.

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 8:07am

    Someone already said that.

    Execs at HBO (at least before the AT&T acquisition), have similarly viewed password sharing in such a fashion, arguing that young users in particular that share their parents password get hooked on a particular product via password sharing, then become full subscribers down the road once they actually have disposable income.

    This is exactly the same as the cable executives have been saying in the last years, that millennials will move to their own house an subscribe. I guess that in a few years the same will be said by streaming executives.

  • Nov 1st, 2018 @ 4:57am

    (untitled comment)

    It would be a shame if some teen vandals moved those signs to the house of someone they have, and then casually warn the police of the violation.

    By the way, how many sex offender live in that county with less than 25.000 people? Just an imaginary one?

  • Oct 23rd, 2018 @ 8:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Secondary market for digital files?

    My mistake.

    Now I see that you were referring as just the blockchain as DRM. I should have been more clear and said "a license blockchain is literally a part of Digital Rights Management system.

  • Oct 23rd, 2018 @ 2:06pm

    Re: Re: Secondary market for digital files?

    For me it would be more effective because it could not be unilaterally changed by the license provider. Not reeling on a central database would also mean more flexibility to buy/sell them independently of the central power.

    I agree with you that if the users want to pirate, it won't stop them, as probably almost no system would. But it gives them a a legal alternative that is closer to physical goods, which is the standard that people use as how fair is the digital equivalent.

    And that still, once again, is NOT BLOCKCHAIN AS DRM! Why is everyone insisting on arguing that blockchain could work as a licencing ledger proves blockchain has value as a full fledged DRM module?

    I think we are using different interpretations here, but a license blockchain is literally a Digital Rights Management system.

  • Oct 23rd, 2018 @ 12:12pm

    Secondary market for digital files?

    Sony also implies that every transaction in which someone buys a creative work will end up in the ledger. This has extremely grave privacy implications, but it also has nothing to do with preventing copyright infringement. People who lawfully acquire copyrighted works have the right to sell them, lend them, and give them away -- and they are not liable if (for example) their data (including copyrighted works) is stolen and released online.

    By tracking and creating an artificial scarcity doesn't it allow the emergence of a secondary market for digital files?

    Currently you cannot sell those digital assets. The main argument against such market is that anyone would be able to create a copy of the product and sell it, while keeping the original or just spawning multiple copies. But if you guarantee that every license was legally created and can track them, what (except greed) would limit people to sell them to a third party?

  • Oct 2nd, 2018 @ 4:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Time management

    Well, it was actually the campaign requesting the order.

    The article's quote say that, but the blame is shifted to the government to issue the order. The quoted article does not anything else (useful) besides what was quoted here.

    There is a lot of missing information. 16 users being denounced is nothing, I would guess that they could easily find 100 times more users to denounce without any effort. It is probably just being used to censor those 16 specific users because of their impact, or just to get their information, leak it and let their sympathizers bully them later.

    But I'm sure if the Court put their minds to it, they could find some orders to issue with respect to the other case, if they weren't so busy issuing stupid orders like this.

    The judge has done almost no effort here. He received a complaint, and it is using twitter to obtain the users info to cite them in the process.

    In the case of Marielle case, this was already done by the federal police (not sure if it was them or the Public Ministry) which investigated some defamation charges.

  • Oct 2nd, 2018 @ 6:22am

    Re: Time management

    Nice slogan, but unfortunately the electoral court (TSE) does not investigate such crimes.

  • Sep 27th, 2018 @ 8:39pm

    Re: Missing an ongoing opportunity

    The thing was, that they used much less bandwidth, but needed some initial buffering time.

    Who's bandwidth?

    Only the original uploader uses less bandwidth, and the users have to cover the rest.

    However, several devices/users cannot contribute to the swarm. Some might lack a physical memory to store the downloaded contents and seed them back, such as TVs. Others might not have a symmetrical connection speed and can contribute less than they consume (in the long run it might be balanced, but locally it would be a bottleneck).

    Another problem is that it would just shift those costs to the consumers. Some of them have a capped connection and would be furious that a paid service is consuming more of it than it looks fair. Even if it was advantageous for some users, I'm not sure if it would last long when the ISPs starting taxing it.

    It probably needs some tweaks to make it work, but the users don't want to have to think about that. They signed for that service only because it is easier than torrent, but as shown they will swing back when some extra costs are imposed on them.

  • Sep 6th, 2018 @ 7:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Where are the devices that fight back?

    The one on the top (Radar Magazine) is broken.
    But there are some options on the bottom of the page that are working.
    At least the html file looks ok to me.

  • Aug 23rd, 2018 @ 6:44pm

    Re: Re: Where are the devices that fight back?

    There is a short-story by Cory Doctorow that goes that way.
    It is called 'Scroogled'.

    I would really like to see something like that to shift your search/ads results to a different profile.
    But with an ad-block I have no idea what kind of ad was tailored for me.

More comments from renato >>