The problem with requiring disclosure is simple - it's one thing to disclose a deliberate placement, but how is the viewer to distinguish between that and the everyday use of products in films and content? The star wears Nike sneakers (placement), then drives off in a Ford pickup (not a placement). From the viewer's perspective, either could have been placement, and in the end it just doesn't matter as long as we liked the story.
Forcing placement disclosure just adds overhead to productions without any real benefit.
You're right, Mike, in that the possession of porn is not necessarily grounds for the judge to have to recuse himself. That would be like a traffic-court judge being asked to recuse himself from all speeding cases because he got a speeding ticket himself.
What's relevant in this case is that an obscenity trial is based on subjective community standards as to what "obscene" is. Since the judge is obviously not of the opinion that all porn is obscene, he represents the mainstream in that regard. Unfortunately, the subjective nature of deciding whether the judge's content is obscene or not will now become a distraction, and has the potential to influence the jurors if they become aware of the news.
Since his main responsibility is to ensure a fair trial, he should recuse himself, not because it's wrong to own porn, but to remove any doubt or appeal that the jury was influenced by thinking about this mid-trial revelation instead of the case itself.
I'm squarely in the camp of responders who believe that the majority of the monthly cable charge os for the cost of content. I use Comcast in NJ, and part of my bill pays for the cost of delivering ESPN, SNY (for the Mets) and YES (for the Yankees) as part of my basic package, whether I watch them or not.
With the flexibility operators have in selectively enabling or disabling channels on a customer-level basis, I'd like to see the following: Before a cable operator's license is renewed, they have to begin offering an a la carte option in addition the their current bundles. The a la carte plan would provide public access and broadcast channels for a low base price, and the cost for channels with commercials would be lower than for those without. The cost for channels like ESPN or YES that charge a premium to the cable-providers would be have to be renegotiated for a la carte use, but if it's too high, no one will watch.
The content providers would lobby like hell against this, but in the end they have to recognize that technology is providing more and more alternatives for connecting people to the content they actually want to watch. If they're not competitive on a good content/price basis they're not going to last, period.
Besides, some of the providers may be surprised at what they can charge and still maintain a good audience. Considering the cost of taking a family to a major-league baseball game, people may pay a decent price to watch the occasional game on a pay-per-view basis instead of subsidizing year-round programming for a dedicated channel.
I've got to agree that fuel cells are really a niche item and should not be an either-or replacement for rechargeable batteries.
I'm as green as the next person, and 95% of the time the topped off charge from docking my laptop at work is fine for an evening's take-home work.
I'd only consider fuel cells for long plane trips, end even then, a spare battery would accomplish the same thing. That's how I work now, and I usually have opportunity to fully recharge at my destination before the return trip.
In a pinch, I'd rather count on finding a power outlet for an hour than a retailer stocked with my particular model of fuel cell.
One can only hope is that the manufacturers working on this are doing so with the intent that the target devices could use either full cells OR rechargeables, with both having the same form factor.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ray Yelle.
Re: The problem with product placement...
The problem with requiring disclosure is simple - it's one thing to disclose a deliberate placement, but how is the viewer to distinguish between that and the everyday use of products in films and content? The star wears Nike sneakers (placement), then drives off in a Ford pickup (not a placement). From the viewer's perspective, either could have been placement, and in the end it just doesn't matter as long as we liked the story.
Forcing placement disclosure just adds overhead to productions without any real benefit.
You're both right and wrong (waffles for breakfast, anyone?)...
You're right, Mike, in that the possession of porn is not necessarily grounds for the judge to have to recuse himself. That would be like a traffic-court judge being asked to recuse himself from all speeding cases because he got a speeding ticket himself.
What's relevant in this case is that an obscenity trial is based on subjective community standards as to what "obscene" is. Since the judge is obviously not of the opinion that all porn is obscene, he represents the mainstream in that regard. Unfortunately, the subjective nature of deciding whether the judge's content is obscene or not will now become a distraction, and has the potential to influence the jurors if they become aware of the news.
Since his main responsibility is to ensure a fair trial, he should recuse himself, not because it's wrong to own porn, but to remove any doubt or appeal that the jury was influenced by thinking about this mid-trial revelation instead of the case itself.
Market econmics would settle this
I'm squarely in the camp of responders who believe that the majority of the monthly cable charge os for the cost of content. I use Comcast in NJ, and part of my bill pays for the cost of delivering ESPN, SNY (for the Mets) and YES (for the Yankees) as part of my basic package, whether I watch them or not.
With the flexibility operators have in selectively enabling or disabling channels on a customer-level basis, I'd like to see the following: Before a cable operator's license is renewed, they have to begin offering an a la carte option in addition the their current bundles. The a la carte plan would provide public access and broadcast channels for a low base price, and the cost for channels with commercials would be lower than for those without. The cost for channels like ESPN or YES that charge a premium to the cable-providers would be have to be renegotiated for a la carte use, but if it's too high, no one will watch.
The content providers would lobby like hell against this, but in the end they have to recognize that technology is providing more and more alternatives for connecting people to the content they actually want to watch. If they're not competitive on a good content/price basis they're not going to last, period.
Besides, some of the providers may be surprised at what they can charge and still maintain a good audience. Considering the cost of taking a family to a major-league baseball game, people may pay a decent price to watch the occasional game on a pay-per-view basis instead of subsidizing year-round programming for a dedicated channel.
Fuel cells for laptops
I've got to agree that fuel cells are really a niche item and should not be an either-or replacement for rechargeable batteries.
I'm as green as the next person, and 95% of the time the topped off charge from docking my laptop at work is fine for an evening's take-home work.
I'd only consider fuel cells for long plane trips, end even then, a spare battery would accomplish the same thing. That's how I work now, and I usually have opportunity to fully recharge at my destination before the return trip.
In a pinch, I'd rather count on finding a power outlet for an hour than a retailer stocked with my particular model of fuel cell.
One can only hope is that the manufacturers working on this are doing so with the intent that the target devices could use either full cells OR rechargeables, with both having the same form factor.