If the "free market" is working the way it's advertised, someone will come along set up an ISP that does NOT filter content or inject their own ads or throttle p2p or whatever, and customers will fly away from the restrictive ISPs and sign up with the "open" provider. It remains to be seen if this actually happens. It's my theory that the "free market" is just some bogus concept taught in econ schools to support the corporate plutocracy, so if I'm correct, there won't be a sudden insurgence of competitors in the ISP space. The market only fails here because the ISPs (exluding dial-up and satellite providers which will probably never provide a decent alternative) have a local monopoly over their respective area. The FCC's decision to end exclusive cable contracts with apartments helps a little, but ultimately it does nothing for everyone who does not live in an apartment or for cities where there is no competitor at all. I also wouldn't be surprised if the ISPs have their own secret cartel, since for the above reasons there is no need for them to compete with each other.
And as pointed out in TFA, this has some pretty evil possibilities. Barring the obvious censorship issues, who's to prevent Rogers from replacing, say, Google Adsense scripts with their own ads? They already do it with Bell ads on their digital cable. Don't believe me? If you have Rogers digital cable, you'll notice that there are some ads that play on every channel that has commercials. If you look closely at the start of these ads, you'll usually see about a half second of another ad, quickly replaced by the Rogers network-wide one. These preempted ads are usually for Bell ExpressVu, Rogers' main (satellite) competitor. That's not unusual. My parents' cable company (JetBroadband, small enough not to seem so much like an evil telco but just as annoying) recently started doing this on prime time channels to air their anti-piracy and anti-satellite ads. I believe that most of the time the ad covered up was an Enzyte commercial, which I'm all for not watching but their in-house ads are often times just as bad. However they also sometimes insert advertising for local businesses into the national channels, and they do let national ads for DirecTV and Dish Network through.
That would work in the short term, but eventually the law would respond, most likely by banning SSDs for such uses.
Of course, this assumes that the politicians aren't already in bed with these same corporations, which we all know to inevitably be true, so I could be wrong.
Because the study says that you both have to be watching at the same time. I would imagine that you probably don't watch your porn with your girlfriend.
... and one more thing -- it works so well that it's been shown that laugh tracks in sitcoms make it seem more funny. That's how easily the brain can be fooled. I would imagine that the same principle applies to how the fake applause on the Daily Show makes comments seem more "agreeable."
Perhaps, but that just makes the filter that much more complex, and the MAFIAA is impatient enough for this thing as it is, so it's unlikely that this will be implemented, at least initially.
A community effort to raise the cost of DMCA takedowns by issuing counter-notices for all "bad" requests would also help lowering the cost of such a layer. That, and we could actually enforce the penalties for sending frivolous takedown notices that exist in the same law that instated them. I've heard of many stories about companies getting caught sending these frivolous notices, but none that indicate that the company was ever punished for it.
If you open your eyes to whats going on, you will see ALOT of people have stopped buying music, watching TV and are meeting in different environments experiencing life other than what is prepackaged and prepared for us by huge corporations. Well if that is indeed the case, than it is definitely relative. I can tell you for a fact that if you go to an average college campus today you will find that the bulk of the populace is still composed of mindless sheep. They still blast the latest hip hip singles out of their car windows and still buy brand-name clothing because it's what everybody else is doing.
Except that this would undermine the concept of a free market, which dictates that a company that doesn't make smart decisions deserves to fail in the long run.
I agree that companies should not base their motives solely on profit (especially short-term profit) but at the same time I do not believe that we should force them to take initiative by enacting a law requiring them to do so.
Fair use isn't just about the length of the work. It's also about the context in which it is used. If your suggestion was implemented, anyone could add a clip and then add nonsense or a blank screen to the bulk of the video to fool the filter.
Now that I think about it, DivXNetworks' OpenDivX project followed the same path. DivXNetworks shafted the developers by changing the license and removing the code from their Web site, so someone forked the project and later it was re-written as Xvid.
So we know now that we can tell Facebook not to ever display our off-Facebook browsing habits on our profile. But how do we tell Facebook not to collect this data at all? Or did I miss something in the article?
If you're referring to the bulk of Comedy Central's content, I agree, but it really isn't fair to lump South Park in with the network's failures, most of which thankfully never make it past the first season.
I do worry that Parker and Stone have now entered this pot of failed shows with Kenny vs. Spenny though. At least South Park and Team America have a greater meaning to them beyond what otherwise looks like shallow dumb comedy, but Kenny vs. Spenny, judging from the commercials alone, looks like it might knock 20 points off of my IQ.
Did you read tekel's comments on the press release in your link? It sounds like the studios still have a lot of progress to make if they really do intend to adjust not only to the digital age but also the globalized economy.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope so. We should have had that from the very beginning.
Except that saying "it just works" when whatever "it" is could very well not work would be false advertising.
That would work in the short term, but eventually the law would respond, most likely by banning SSDs for such uses. Of course, this assumes that the politicians aren't already in bed with these same corporations, which we all know to inevitably be true, so I could be wrong.
Except that SourceForge is not a non-profit corporation.
Because the study says that you both have to be watching at the same time. I would imagine that you probably don't watch your porn with your girlfriend.
Yet ironically all of those who attempt such a task ultimately fail because their common goal in being different makes them all the same.
... and one more thing -- it works so well that it's been shown that laugh tracks in sitcoms make it seem more funny. That's how easily the brain can be fooled. I would imagine that the same principle applies to how the fake applause on the Daily Show makes comments seem more "agreeable."I'm sure you could just search for a study. I'd be surprised if there wasn't already at least one out there.
I wasn't aware that the Chinese version of Firefox had special branding.
A community effort to raise the cost of DMCA takedowns by issuing counter-notices for all "bad" requests would also help lowering the cost of such a layer. That, and we could actually enforce the penalties for sending frivolous takedown notices that exist in the same law that instated them. I've heard of many stories about companies getting caught sending these frivolous notices, but none that indicate that the company was ever punished for it.
Except that this would undermine the concept of a free market, which dictates that a company that doesn't make smart decisions deserves to fail in the long run.
I agree that companies should not base their motives solely on profit (especially short-term profit) but at the same time I do not believe that we should force them to take initiative by enacting a law requiring them to do so.
Fair use isn't just about the length of the work. It's also about the context in which it is used. If your suggestion was implemented, anyone could add a clip and then add nonsense or a blank screen to the bulk of the video to fool the filter.
Which is impossible with an automated system.
Now that I think about it, DivXNetworks' OpenDivX project followed the same path. DivXNetworks shafted the developers by changing the license and removing the code from their Web site, so someone forked the project and later it was re-written as Xvid.
So we know now that we can tell Facebook not to ever display our off-Facebook browsing habits on our profile. But how do we tell Facebook not to collect this data at all? Or did I miss something in the article?
Just as a heads up, don't click on that link. It causes your computer to scream "Hey, I'm looking at gay porn," among other things.
If you're referring to the bulk of Comedy Central's content, I agree, but it really isn't fair to lump South Park in with the network's failures, most of which thankfully never make it past the first season.
I do worry that Parker and Stone have now entered this pot of failed shows with Kenny vs. Spenny though. At least South Park and Team America have a greater meaning to them beyond what otherwise looks like shallow dumb comedy, but Kenny vs. Spenny, judging from the commercials alone, looks like it might knock 20 points off of my IQ.
Did you read tekel's comments on the press release in your link? It sounds like the studios still have a lot of progress to make if they really do intend to adjust not only to the digital age but also the globalized economy.
Then just use a proxy located in the US. It's an annoyance, but it isn't as bad as delaying DVD releases or TV show debuts.