The problem with filtering is that we've already seen time and time again that it is used improperly and/or overzealously, and it's a gateway to more filtering, well beyond easy targets like child porn. And the idea that by filtering websites you can stop an activity is ridiculous. The activity just goes further underground, into darknets and the like, where it is FAR more difficult for law enforcement to track down the people who are actually participating in these activities.
The idea that filtering websites somehow protects children is ludicrous. Pedophiles will find what they are looking for on the internet no matter how hard they have to dig, and the general population - who are not looking for such content - will never see it either way. But the harder pedophiles have to dig for what they're looking for, the harder it is for law enforcement to track them down. In a lot of ways, not filtering this material - leaving it out in the open *for those who specifically look for it* - makes it far easier to put a stop to those who are producing and consuming child porn. So yes, the real time and money should be spent on tracking down those involved, not pointlessly filtering the internet.
I looked up the guy's website and found this statement from him: http://jonwolfphotography.blogspot.com/2011/02/regarding-christina-greens-portrait.html - even if a charity donation was his intent from the beginning, it seems like a pretty odd way to go about it.
I went through this recently with the movie Tron. I wanted to watch it, preferably in HD, before the new movie came out. You'd think Disney would have capitalized on all the hype surrounding the new one and released a new Blu-ray edition of the original. But supposedly what happened was they did some test screenings of the original, and younger audiences were turned off by how cheesy it was. Fearful that this could actually hurt the new movie, Disney scrapped plans for a DVD/Blu-ray release. So, when I went to try and legally purchase this film, it wasn't available ANYWHERE. The closest I could find was a used DVD on Amazon, for something like $40 because it's out of print. So, I pirated it - I found a nice 720p copy that someone had ripped from an HDTV broadcast. I watched it, got the hit of nostalgia I was looking for, and now that I've seen it I would probably be unlikely to buy the film if and when it gets an official release. Good job throwing money away, Disney!
Except on the DS download store, where games range from around $2-10. But hardly anyone uses it, because it's DSi-only, a pain to use, under-promoted, and not open to all developers. Apple became a gaming powerhouse - and is driving this market push towards cheaper games - because they have a great, tightly-integrated app store that's open to basically anyone who wants to make a game. That kind of access to developers has led to a booming market of innovation, variety, and quality that makes Nintendo's download store look like a joke. Some people rag on Apple's app store for not being truly "open," but really, it's pretty damn open, especially compared to how closed off game consoles have always been.
Nintendo has always been at least a generation behind when it comes to the internet, so it's going to be a long time before they figure this out and adapt. Even Xbox has indie games, which are free to try and give Xbox Live's marketplace a hint of that mass novelty that smartphone app stores have.
Reggie's being really silly and short-sighted here. I think most consumers understand the difference between a big-budget, big-screen game that will deliver a long, engrossing experience, and a $1 phone game that will entertain them in brief spurts on the subway. Nintendo's challenge here is to make SURE customers understand that distinction, if they want to keep producing big-budget games and selling them at (understandably) higher prices.
The real test will be if Nintendo can recognize that consumers clearly enjoy these small, cheap games, and diversify its own product line to accommodate that - not only creating their own "mini games," but opening up their gates a little so 3rd parties can, as well. I don't think handhelds like the 3DS can compete in the long run against smartphones if they don't create a gaming marketplace open to all developers, like Apple's app store. Through branding they could clearly distinguish the difference between this marketplace and their own big-budget games. And I guarantee they'd make a lot more money than they currently are on their incredibly lackluster digital download store.
Hardcore gamers will always be there for the big console companies. I think what Nintendo's really miffed about is that they made huge gains in opening up gaming to a casual audience with the Wii and DS, but now that the same casual audience can play Angry Birds on their phone for a buck, their Wiis and DSs are collecting dust. You'd better adapt, Nintendo, or that "blue ocean" of yours will dry up.
Even Israeli security, the best in the world, thinks full-body scanners are a waste of money: http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html - THAT's the guy who should be talking to Congress.
The biggest flaw here is the idea that you SHOULD be able to make a living as a musician. There's simply no such thing. If the market has changed, the market has changed, and you don't "deserve" anything more than that. I don't know of any other industry (except movies) where "this should be making money" is used as a justification to prop up old business models. No one buys typewriters because they feel bad that someone "should" be making money off of typewriters. It might seem a bit harsh, but the market has changed, and the new reality might just be that it's now much, much harder to make a living as a musician. Ask painters or other artists how easy it's been for them all this time. It hasn't. But they kept doing it because they love it, they found ways to support themselves, and some of them became very successful. That 30,000 people are making a living as musicians is actually quite remarkable, all things considered.
Technology is changing every creative industry right now. Ask photographers how well they're faring in the age of digital cameras. The people who will truly fail are the ones who put all their effort into trying to protect the way things "should" be (ie the way they used to be), rather than looking realistically at the changes in the market and adapting to them.
I still have DirecTV, and I still like having it, because it's nice to have a DVR and live TV on certain occasions. But more and more, I find myself turning to the internet for TV. But not to Hulu or Netflix or network sites - to torrent sites. Why? Because DirecTV doesn't carry AMC in HD, so if I want Mad Men or Breaking Bad or The Walking Dead to look decent on my HDTV, I need to get it from torrents. And when I go to Hulu, it's hit-and-miss as to whether it will have the content I want. And trying to figure out which show is on which proprietary network website streaming (ie ABC, The Daily Show, etc) is a pain in the ass. On torrent sites, every show I want is right there, downloadable in HD, instantly. THAT'S ALL I WANT, and I WOULD PAY FOR THAT. But since content providers can't agree on any method of delivery that gives me EVERYTHING in HIGH QUALITY, I will continue to steal it. I'm an ounce away from giving up my DirecTV, and the internet offers no legal alternatives to it. If content providers could get their shit together and offer me a legal HD solution that had EVERYTHING I wanted to watch, I'd pay for it in a heartbeat. But for now, it's way too fragmented.
I saw something similar to this earlier today, when I followed a link to watch Cee-lo's new video for his "Fuck You" song. It wasn't on his YouTube channel (where he scored a massive viral hit with the previous minimal video), but instead on his Facebook, where you had to "Like" him before you could watch the video. I'm not much of a Facebook user, and hell, I hadn't even seen the video yet, so I didn't want to do it. Naturally, someone had already uploaded the video elsewhere (TwitVid), so I watched it there instead. I'd much rather feel compelled to like or tweet someone because I'm impressed with their content, rather than being forced to promote them just so I can see their content. In the case of the Cee-lo Facebook thing, it was probably very effective in gaining him a lot of Likes, as most people don't think much about liking something. But as someone who curates my social feeds somewhat carefully, I found it to be at turnoff.
Even $200 million movies don't need to cost anywhere near $200 million. They cost that much because the whole system of traditional Hollywood moviemaking is bloated and archaic, weighed down by ridiculous union rules, stars who demand huge paychecks, and an industry that's been doing things the exact same way for decades, despite incredible advancements in technology. It's sad to see them constantly blaming the specter of piracy for whatever losses they may or may not have, when they should be looking at the way they make movies and realizing it's an absurd waste of money.
Anon: If that's the case, then why isn't Marvel putting the trailer out there themselves? Why not combat the leak by driving traffic back to their own site with a higher-quality version?
Someone on Twitter pointed out that the Thor trailer is going to be on the Iron Man 2 DVD/Blu-ray, out in September. Could they be trying to treat advertising as content by foolishly attempting to keep the trailer offline until then?
I've never understood the logic behind trying to keep Comic-Con footage "exclusive." Somehow, some way, the footage is going to get out, and WAY more people than were at Comic-Con are going to see the debut footage of your new movie in crappy bootleg low-resolution (as the Thor trailer looked when I watched it yesterday); and in the internet world of short attention spans, first impressions really count. Many of the studios have figured this out, and post their Comic-Con footage in HD shortly after the show. That way the geeks who attend still get to be FIRST!!!!111 but everyone else gets to see the advertising the way it was meant to be seen. No idea what Marvel's thinking on this one.
I think we're moving towards a world where there will be very few expectations of personal privacy on the internet. Of course there will always be bank statements and social security number and medical records that everyone will always want to protect. But on the social side of things, we're going to live in a world where your life is out there for all to see, and no one's really going to care anymore. Teenagers right now are growing up in a world where social networking has always existed to them - where broadcasting your life to the world has become a social norm. Anyone older than their mid-twenties still has certain values and expectations of privacy left over from growing up without the modern internet, and those are the people scolding kids to be careful what they do online, because it's going to be there forever, and how are you going to get a respectable job when your employer is a Google search away from those pantless drunken college photos of you? But I think this is only a transitional problem. It's the problem of one, or maybe two generations, and then, eventually, EVERYONE is going to have their whole life, the bad and the good, on the internet for everyone to see. And when that's the case, I think there's a bit of truth to what David Brin is saying, because if EVERYONE has little embarrassments out there on the internet, there's going to be a lot less judgment about them.
A friend of mine was talking about Lindsay Lohan and other public trainwrecks, and he said, "To be fair, can you imagine if everything WE did in our early 20's was televised? I'm not sure we'd come off looking much better." The point being, EVERYONE does stupid shit when they're young. If all of it is being broadcast, then culturally it'll become a moot point. That's not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, I just think it's the inevitability of a generation growing up with very little concern for privacy online.
My issue with Facebook was less about the erosion of privacy, and more about how it was handled. Facebook was more or less the only social network I had attempted to use with any degree of privacy, just in the sense that I was only interacting with my real-world friends on it, and keeping it closed off to everyone else. When a company like Facebook sets up the expectation that that's the service it's offering to me, then starts to radically change that service without proper warning or user control over the changes, it creates a huge breach of trust. And when I get the distinct feeling that the way they're going about these changes is specifically engineered to nudge my behavior on Facebook in a certain direction (towards more openness, which is not what I signed up for), it erodes that trust even further.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Rob.
The problem with filtering is that we've already seen time and time again that it is used improperly and/or overzealously, and it's a gateway to more filtering, well beyond easy targets like child porn. And the idea that by filtering websites you can stop an activity is ridiculous. The activity just goes further underground, into darknets and the like, where it is FAR more difficult for law enforcement to track down the people who are actually participating in these activities.
The idea that filtering websites somehow protects children is ludicrous. Pedophiles will find what they are looking for on the internet no matter how hard they have to dig, and the general population - who are not looking for such content - will never see it either way. But the harder pedophiles have to dig for what they're looking for, the harder it is for law enforcement to track them down. In a lot of ways, not filtering this material - leaving it out in the open *for those who specifically look for it* - makes it far easier to put a stop to those who are producing and consuming child porn. So yes, the real time and money should be spent on tracking down those involved, not pointlessly filtering the internet.
I looked up the guy's website and found this statement from him: http://jonwolfphotography.blogspot.com/2011/02/regarding-christina-greens-portrait.html - even if a charity donation was his intent from the beginning, it seems like a pretty odd way to go about it.
I went through this recently with the movie Tron. I wanted to watch it, preferably in HD, before the new movie came out. You'd think Disney would have capitalized on all the hype surrounding the new one and released a new Blu-ray edition of the original. But supposedly what happened was they did some test screenings of the original, and younger audiences were turned off by how cheesy it was. Fearful that this could actually hurt the new movie, Disney scrapped plans for a DVD/Blu-ray release. So, when I went to try and legally purchase this film, it wasn't available ANYWHERE. The closest I could find was a used DVD on Amazon, for something like $40 because it's out of print. So, I pirated it - I found a nice 720p copy that someone had ripped from an HDTV broadcast. I watched it, got the hit of nostalgia I was looking for, and now that I've seen it I would probably be unlikely to buy the film if and when it gets an official release. Good job throwing money away, Disney!
"Even the cheapest DS games go for around $20."
Except on the DS download store, where games range from around $2-10. But hardly anyone uses it, because it's DSi-only, a pain to use, under-promoted, and not open to all developers. Apple became a gaming powerhouse - and is driving this market push towards cheaper games - because they have a great, tightly-integrated app store that's open to basically anyone who wants to make a game. That kind of access to developers has led to a booming market of innovation, variety, and quality that makes Nintendo's download store look like a joke. Some people rag on Apple's app store for not being truly "open," but really, it's pretty damn open, especially compared to how closed off game consoles have always been.
Nintendo has always been at least a generation behind when it comes to the internet, so it's going to be a long time before they figure this out and adapt. Even Xbox has indie games, which are free to try and give Xbox Live's marketplace a hint of that mass novelty that smartphone app stores have.
Reggie's being really silly and short-sighted here. I think most consumers understand the difference between a big-budget, big-screen game that will deliver a long, engrossing experience, and a $1 phone game that will entertain them in brief spurts on the subway. Nintendo's challenge here is to make SURE customers understand that distinction, if they want to keep producing big-budget games and selling them at (understandably) higher prices.
The real test will be if Nintendo can recognize that consumers clearly enjoy these small, cheap games, and diversify its own product line to accommodate that - not only creating their own "mini games," but opening up their gates a little so 3rd parties can, as well. I don't think handhelds like the 3DS can compete in the long run against smartphones if they don't create a gaming marketplace open to all developers, like Apple's app store. Through branding they could clearly distinguish the difference between this marketplace and their own big-budget games. And I guarantee they'd make a lot more money than they currently are on their incredibly lackluster digital download store.
Hardcore gamers will always be there for the big console companies. I think what Nintendo's really miffed about is that they made huge gains in opening up gaming to a casual audience with the Wii and DS, but now that the same casual audience can play Angry Birds on their phone for a buck, their Wiis and DSs are collecting dust. You'd better adapt, Nintendo, or that "blue ocean" of yours will dry up.
Even Israeli security, the best in the world, thinks full-body scanners are a waste of money: http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html - THAT's the guy who should be talking to Congress.
The biggest flaw here is the idea that you SHOULD be able to make a living as a musician. There's simply no such thing. If the market has changed, the market has changed, and you don't "deserve" anything more than that. I don't know of any other industry (except movies) where "this should be making money" is used as a justification to prop up old business models. No one buys typewriters because they feel bad that someone "should" be making money off of typewriters. It might seem a bit harsh, but the market has changed, and the new reality might just be that it's now much, much harder to make a living as a musician. Ask painters or other artists how easy it's been for them all this time. It hasn't. But they kept doing it because they love it, they found ways to support themselves, and some of them became very successful. That 30,000 people are making a living as musicians is actually quite remarkable, all things considered.
Technology is changing every creative industry right now. Ask photographers how well they're faring in the age of digital cameras. The people who will truly fail are the ones who put all their effort into trying to protect the way things "should" be (ie the way they used to be), rather than looking realistically at the changes in the market and adapting to them.
I still have DirecTV, and I still like having it, because it's nice to have a DVR and live TV on certain occasions. But more and more, I find myself turning to the internet for TV. But not to Hulu or Netflix or network sites - to torrent sites. Why? Because DirecTV doesn't carry AMC in HD, so if I want Mad Men or Breaking Bad or The Walking Dead to look decent on my HDTV, I need to get it from torrents. And when I go to Hulu, it's hit-and-miss as to whether it will have the content I want. And trying to figure out which show is on which proprietary network website streaming (ie ABC, The Daily Show, etc) is a pain in the ass. On torrent sites, every show I want is right there, downloadable in HD, instantly. THAT'S ALL I WANT, and I WOULD PAY FOR THAT. But since content providers can't agree on any method of delivery that gives me EVERYTHING in HIGH QUALITY, I will continue to steal it. I'm an ounce away from giving up my DirecTV, and the internet offers no legal alternatives to it. If content providers could get their shit together and offer me a legal HD solution that had EVERYTHING I wanted to watch, I'd pay for it in a heartbeat. But for now, it's way too fragmented.
I saw something similar to this earlier today, when I followed a link to watch Cee-lo's new video for his "Fuck You" song. It wasn't on his YouTube channel (where he scored a massive viral hit with the previous minimal video), but instead on his Facebook, where you had to "Like" him before you could watch the video. I'm not much of a Facebook user, and hell, I hadn't even seen the video yet, so I didn't want to do it. Naturally, someone had already uploaded the video elsewhere (TwitVid), so I watched it there instead. I'd much rather feel compelled to like or tweet someone because I'm impressed with their content, rather than being forced to promote them just so I can see their content. In the case of the Cee-lo Facebook thing, it was probably very effective in gaining him a lot of Likes, as most people don't think much about liking something. But as someone who curates my social feeds somewhat carefully, I found it to be at turnoff.
Even $200 million movies don't need to cost anywhere near $200 million. They cost that much because the whole system of traditional Hollywood moviemaking is bloated and archaic, weighed down by ridiculous union rules, stars who demand huge paychecks, and an industry that's been doing things the exact same way for decades, despite incredible advancements in technology. It's sad to see them constantly blaming the specter of piracy for whatever losses they may or may not have, when they should be looking at the way they make movies and realizing it's an absurd waste of money.
Anon: If that's the case, then why isn't Marvel putting the trailer out there themselves? Why not combat the leak by driving traffic back to their own site with a higher-quality version?
Someone on Twitter pointed out that the Thor trailer is going to be on the Iron Man 2 DVD/Blu-ray, out in September. Could they be trying to treat advertising as content by foolishly attempting to keep the trailer offline until then?
I've never understood the logic behind trying to keep Comic-Con footage "exclusive." Somehow, some way, the footage is going to get out, and WAY more people than were at Comic-Con are going to see the debut footage of your new movie in crappy bootleg low-resolution (as the Thor trailer looked when I watched it yesterday); and in the internet world of short attention spans, first impressions really count. Many of the studios have figured this out, and post their Comic-Con footage in HD shortly after the show. That way the geeks who attend still get to be FIRST!!!!111 but everyone else gets to see the advertising the way it was meant to be seen. No idea what Marvel's thinking on this one.
I think we're moving towards a world where there will be very few expectations of personal privacy on the internet. Of course there will always be bank statements and social security number and medical records that everyone will always want to protect. But on the social side of things, we're going to live in a world where your life is out there for all to see, and no one's really going to care anymore. Teenagers right now are growing up in a world where social networking has always existed to them - where broadcasting your life to the world has become a social norm. Anyone older than their mid-twenties still has certain values and expectations of privacy left over from growing up without the modern internet, and those are the people scolding kids to be careful what they do online, because it's going to be there forever, and how are you going to get a respectable job when your employer is a Google search away from those pantless drunken college photos of you? But I think this is only a transitional problem. It's the problem of one, or maybe two generations, and then, eventually, EVERYONE is going to have their whole life, the bad and the good, on the internet for everyone to see. And when that's the case, I think there's a bit of truth to what David Brin is saying, because if EVERYONE has little embarrassments out there on the internet, there's going to be a lot less judgment about them.
A friend of mine was talking about Lindsay Lohan and other public trainwrecks, and he said, "To be fair, can you imagine if everything WE did in our early 20's was televised? I'm not sure we'd come off looking much better." The point being, EVERYONE does stupid shit when they're young. If all of it is being broadcast, then culturally it'll become a moot point. That's not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, I just think it's the inevitability of a generation growing up with very little concern for privacy online.
My issue with Facebook was less about the erosion of privacy, and more about how it was handled. Facebook was more or less the only social network I had attempted to use with any degree of privacy, just in the sense that I was only interacting with my real-world friends on it, and keeping it closed off to everyone else. When a company like Facebook sets up the expectation that that's the service it's offering to me, then starts to radically change that service without proper warning or user control over the changes, it creates a huge breach of trust. And when I get the distinct feeling that the way they're going about these changes is specifically engineered to nudge my behavior on Facebook in a certain direction (towards more openness, which is not what I signed up for), it erodes that trust even further.