Well, that all works as long as we ignore the fact that I can inject stuff into the payload without actually altering your code, hence the reference to the bookstores. They are not a content provider, they are the delivery service. Movies also. Last time I checked LaFonte theaters was not Warner Bros. Finally, On Demand Movies, Comcast isn't Stars who isn't the producers of Clash of the Titans.
All of these examples were the distributor, not the content provider.
But if the papers subscriber gets it and then puts stickers for Jolt cola over all of the other ads that is well within their rights.
The ISP isn't arguing that they can do this as rights granted to them as an ISP or a carrier, they are going to argue that they are merely an extension of the end users fair rights.
This has never been argued before. There are little examples of this happening.
Bookstores put bookmarks advertising their store or a special they are running into every book they sell at the time of purchase.
On demand movies adding an ad for a different movie or special before the movie plays.
Theaters selling advertising space and time on the screen before the movie shows.
One of the biggest hurdles we are having right now is that there is no definition of where fair use begins and ends as far as digital delivery goes. This is one of those cases that helps solidify that.
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Obviously, the ISP thinks they can win this battle, but since it hasn't been fought you cannot unilaterally state that you're right. No court has settled on it. Get as pissed off as you want to about it, it doesn't change a thing. I have merely been stating the case the ISP is going to make.
You have an opinion, that's about it.
I can render any amount of ads I want to on your web pages if I insert them at the point of rendering on my browser. Nothing you can do about it. If you can run scripts on your browser that remove code, you can run scripts on your browser that inject it. Altering under fair use goes both ways.
The ISP is setting a contractual agreement with their subscribers that states the subscribers would like to render more ads on the web pages they view. They are also entering a contractual agreement stating that they are willing to allow the ISP to act as their agent for this purpose. Now, if the ISP developed a browser plug in that did this there would be no debate. If I choose to install a plug in on my browser that feeds me contextual ads based on the pages I choose to visit, I can do so. Its well within my fair use rights. The ISP is taking an interesting logical leap with this.
The ISP is turning around and arguing that there is no material difference between changing the rendering of your webpage on the users client and altering the packet while in transit on their network. They are attempting to state that they are allowing the users fair rights actions to be implemented on their network and that in exchange the ISP is enabled to act as an agent to further those goals. The ISP is stating that their subscribers have effectively declared they want to render ads on the web pages they visit through clauses in the services agreement.
The ISP isn't saying that they are allowed to inject anything they want to on your web pages. They are saying that their clients want to have ads fed to them and they are undertaking the responsibility of doing so through contractual outsourcing. All of this is legal if they can establish there is no material difference between content changes made at the time of rendering and content changes made slightly upstream on their network.
This isn't an argument based on copyright. If you take that stance, then all those noscript and adblock plugins violate copyright also. Its an argument on where fair use rights actually begin to apply concerning materials distributed over HTTP. Packet or rendering? And if its packet, where in the transaction does the content provider lose control? This has HUGE implications.
I say rendering, but then its just an issue of having ISP's say you need to run this browser plugin for service.
To stop this we have to establish that there is a material difference between rendering done on the client and changes made to packets so the rendering will change.
If they were acting as an agent of the end user, and the end user wanted to put ads on any HTML they rendered on their client (absurd, I know), the end user would be making derivative works on their client. The ISP is trying to argue that since they are acting as an agent of the end user, they are removing the need for the client application to insert the code. They are going to put forth that there is no material difference between rendering on the client and rendering slightly upstream as an agent of the client.
It is a stretch in logic, but it is what they are going to try and argue.
Well, the stance that the ISP is going to take is that they are acting as an agent of the user through rights granted to them in the services agreement. The ISP is exercising those rights when the packets hit their network. They are working under the auspice that since the user has rights to alter how the copyrighted material is rendered, they can transfer those rights to ISP.
The ISP is making a second assumption, and this is the crux of the argument, that there is no material difference between changing how the HTML is rendered on the actual client and having the materials to be rendered changed slightly upstream on the ISP's network. Since the service agreement gives the ISP the ability to act as the end users agent in this matter, they will argue they are offering a service to the end user by pro actively changing packets in a manner allowed them.
The service agreement says something to the effect of "since I am using your service I also state that I would like more commercials." If an end user so chose to, they could literally insert code on their client that would serve them ads in any web page they viewed. This would be within their fair use rights, roughly the same as me choosing to put coupon pamphlets in between pages of a book I bought and am going to read. The ISP is arguing that this fair use right is transfered to them through agreement and they are just exercising this fair use as an agent of the end user.
Its a lot of bullshittery, but they may be able to pull it off under the auspice of fair use.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the ISP is going to argue they are acting as an agent of the end user through powers allowed them in their services agreement.
The fact that they make the modifications without informing the end user on the page with a big "this page has been modified by Scummy ISP, Inc" makes it that much more willful and evil, and likely increases damages should anyone actually take this to court. You can't just make up how things work. If the user and the ISP enter into a contract for goods and services, the user doesn't have to be informed on every page. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal. The user was informed in the contract. Also, the ISP sent notice to all the users that they were going to do this.
Fair use allows someone to alter their copy to their liking. The copyright gets infringed upon at the point of distribution. The bookstore would be redistributing.
Those guys took copyrighted materials, changed them, and then redistributed them. Here there is no redistribution. The ISP is acting as an agent of the user, a right granted to them in their terms and conditions, while the packets are on the ISP's network.
The ISP is going to argue that there is no material difference between rendering changes made on the requesting clients system and the requesting clients ISP network. They want to push the issue that they can extend an end users reach out to the ISP's network - and the ISP will grant them that right. In exchange, the user grants the ISP to act as an agent of the end user while packets are on that network.
In reality its a one way deal. How an end user would ever actually affect packets on their ISP's network without the ISP acting as their agent is beyond me.
Well, they don't have your HTML. They have a copy of your HTML.
Your original HTML is still residing on the server where you put it. They are not interfering with your data.
What they are doing is interfering with their subscribers requested copy of that data. Their subscriber has the right to render the requested HTML in any way they see fit. They can use a different CSS file that resides on their box or some other network location. They can choose not to render graphics, flash, or allow JavaScript to run.
The provider, being in contract with the subscriber, is allowed to act as their agent while the packets are being transmitted over their part of the network. During this time, the ISP exercises that contracted ability, and injects code into the packets.
The ISP will tell the subscribers that this right is part of the contract, and if they don't agree to it - they don't get service. The ISP will also tell you to shove it up your ass - you can refuse requests made from their subscribers if you don't like what they do on their network.
According to your stance, the end user doesn't have the right to modify your HTML from what was intended. This, ironically, is the same exact stance that internet marketing companies take when confronted with browser plug-ins that effectively remove their code. Unfortunately for us, we can't have it both ways. Either we are allowed to alter how the packets are rendered, allowing us them to inject into packets due to powers granted them by their user terms and conditions, or they cannot - setting a precedent that would open the floodgates to client side packet altering and rendering changes.
Another point of argument they are going to make is that they aren't messing with your copyrighted web pages because they aren't distributing it without permission. When a user makes a request for your page, and your server fulfills that request, you have distributed the materials yourself. They are merely making a "derivative work" from that material.
I'm not saying I'm down with this at all. Frankly its a scummy tact and I hope their business dies. But this is what they are going to argue, we should get ready for it.
This really might not just be a gimmick. Let's look at some scenarios:
<ol> <li>A satellite from Russia is launched 10 years ago and has a failure of some sort knocking it out of its intended orbit. A space mission from Country X miscalculates, or is unaware of, its current trajectory. The instant they notice, Country X takes action that diverts the satellite from space to a trajectory that doesn't hit their mission but diverts the satellite again. Who is responsible if the satellite hits a third parties exploration team? What if the satellite is diverted into orbit and burns up while the Russians were still gathering data? What if the Russian satellite falls through orbit and hits a poor Indonesian families roof, who is responsible?</li> <li>An American weapons satellite discharges its payload, targeted at lets say Guam (I know, I know), while over India. Now, is this a case of the US unlawfully using Indian airspace? Does the UN or NATO get involved? What if the a non NATO entity launches from NATO ally airspace? Is this an act of aggression?</li> <li>The definition of space salvage is what? What can private space salvage operations legally go after?</li> <li>How do you define international space? How do you enforce, or recognize such boundaries?</li> </ol> We may have previous cases that you can draw from to begin argument in these areas, but they won't be fully adequate. Just give this kid credit for seeing a giant opportunity.
why shouldnt google censor keywords like microsoft, windows, xp, vista now ? Because Google has a nice monopoly on Search Marketing that they don't want to draw any attention to.
Because Google generates revenue from advertising using those keywords.
Because Google is to busy censoring other shit for China.
Actually, all of these free social networking services have figured out how to monetize it.
Twitter is the honeypot to collect a group of users. After a density of users is reached, larger communication companies will start looking at purchasing Twitter so they can "integrate" their service. Nevermind that integrating a free service with an available API doesn't require purchase.
What the larger company is actually doing is buying customers.
From the TOS:
Business Transfers Twitter may sell, transfer or otherwise share some or all of its assets, including your personally identifiable information, in connection with a merger, acquisition, reorganization or sale of assets or in the event of bankruptcy. You will have the opportunity to opt out of any such transfer if the new entity's planned processing of your information differs materially from that set forth in this Privacy Policy. Build Service - Grow Userbase - Sell Demographic data.
It's the web 2.0 business model, all coated in a lovely veneer of altruistic "doing it for the love of geekiness" bullshit.
Once your focus is on the money, you are a rock star. If you carefully craft a piece of art to have the greatest appeal to a target, you no longer get to tout the moniker artist and have anyone take you seriously.
I personally have no preconceptions that one is inherently better than the other, but there is a distinct difference that should be realized.
Someone needs to get the morons at NASA a dose of reality. America's Army FPS game works because many people like to shoot imaginary people. During the game play, enticing players to "do this for real." is not rocket science.
Now lets count the problems with applying this methodology to actual rocket science the way NASA proposes:
Shooting is much more fun for a larger demographic than watching monitors in mission control during a "virtual mission."
The demographic that would probably be most interested in participating in such activities (watching a virtual monitor during a virtual mission) generally doesn't like overt advertising.
Alienating your target demographic so you don't have to pay for development is a plan on par with selling items at loss and making up for it in volume
Any dev team that could do this probably already makes games, basically meaning that advertisements would largely be for the MMO's mindshare competition.
Government Endorsed Product Advertising through NASA would be a PR nightmare even if everything else magically went off with best case scenario results.
Ultimate failure because everybody would be pissed they couldn't all fly the space shuttle to Pluto for the best loot. Someone has to man Mission Control!
Any Game sufficiently entertaining to capture and maintain an audience despite its built in advertising distractions would be so removed from the spirit of the goals that the whole project would be an exercise in mootness.
You want to raise funds for this? You would have a better time if you allowed SciFi and Video Game companies rent advertising space on your booster and fuel tanks like NASCAR.
Information has no intrinsic bad or good properties. The application does.
You can use marketing data to analyze a target and then go make an awesome product reflecting their desires and needs or you can take that same data and use it to spin your existing product towards that target knowing full well it doesn't stand up to snuff.
So no, they are not enabling them - in the same way car manufacturers aren't enabling drunk drivers. In fact, without marketing data advertisers would be way worse.
You can scream all you want, hold your breath, pitch a fit for all I care - but the evils you describe are carried out by unethical advertisers.
Your claim that all marketeers and lawyers are scum proves your ignorance. How did Google first come about - Market analysis. How did Apple return from the dead - market analysis. See my previous list of current winners.
As for lawyers, I guess constitutional, environmental, civil rights, and consumer interest lawyers are all scum also.
Products DO compete on merit, what you fail to recognize is that not everyone holds merit to the same aspects. Your feeble understanding of how people work in general is astounding. Your world view is incomplete, and therefore inaccurate. Stating misunderstandings in a slanderous declaration doesn't change reality.
You're mad at unethical and shady advertisers, not marketing. Not understanding the vocabulary doesn't change the reality. The fact is, you flat out don't understand what your talking about.
btw, I bookmarked your sig. nice. Yeah, its hard to argue the "know your enemy" viewpoint. Especially when I AM the enemy.
You must realize, there are marketers out there who are interested in the common good. We do know the reality of the situation and want to rectify it for the good of the consumer and the business. Fuck, Google was a prime example until about 2004.
ones soda is winning because they actually follow the equation P = MC. They don't skimp on their ingredients like the major bottling houses do, and they don't gouge like they do. Thats called market analysis my friend.
Sorry, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
True marketing deals with WHO buys WHAT. After that ADVERTISING takes over.
The slashdot crowd may unilaterally hate "marketing", but thats because they don't understand what it truly does. It is ironic that most people here who hate marketing don't sign their own checks.
Confusing B2C advertising methodologies with true marketing is ignorant. Apple is winning due to marketing, not advertising. Microsoft won due to Marketing, not advertising. Sony pwned for 2 iterations of gaming devices due to marketing, not advertising. Band-Aids, Toyota, Whole Foods, Glock, Clorox, Dyson, BMW, Jones Soda - these entities are winning due to marketing, not advertising.
Marketing is an analysis of data....thats it. Those who choose to use tha data to advertise corruptly are the culprits.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't find one with HDMI output, so I went PC laptop.
Maybe I'm ignorant.
They aren't using your hardware, they are observing the public signal that your hardware is sending to the towers outside the mall.
Well, that all works as long as we ignore the fact that I can inject stuff into the payload without actually altering your code, hence the reference to the bookstores. They are not a content provider, they are the delivery service. Movies also. Last time I checked LaFonte theaters was not Warner Bros. Finally, On Demand Movies, Comcast isn't Stars who isn't the producers of Clash of the Titans.
All of these examples were the distributor, not the content provider.
But if the papers subscriber gets it and then puts stickers for Jolt cola over all of the other ads that is well within their rights.
The ISP isn't arguing that they can do this as rights granted to them as an ISP or a carrier, they are going to argue that they are merely an extension of the end users fair rights.
This has never been argued before. There are little examples of this happening.
Bookstores put bookmarks advertising their store or a special they are running into every book they sell at the time of purchase.
On demand movies adding an ad for a different movie or special before the movie plays.
Theaters selling advertising space and time on the screen before the movie shows.
One of the biggest hurdles we are having right now is that there is no definition of where fair use begins and ends as far as digital delivery goes. This is one of those cases that helps solidify that.
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Obviously, the ISP thinks they can win this battle, but since it hasn't been fought you cannot unilaterally state that you're right. No court has settled on it. Get as pissed off as you want to about it, it doesn't change a thing. I have merely been stating the case the ISP is going to make. You have an opinion, that's about it.You aren't understanding the argument.
I can render any amount of ads I want to on your web pages if I insert them at the point of rendering on my browser. Nothing you can do about it. If you can run scripts on your browser that remove code, you can run scripts on your browser that inject it. Altering under fair use goes both ways.
The ISP is setting a contractual agreement with their subscribers that states the subscribers would like to render more ads on the web pages they view. They are also entering a contractual agreement stating that they are willing to allow the ISP to act as their agent for this purpose. Now, if the ISP developed a browser plug in that did this there would be no debate. If I choose to install a plug in on my browser that feeds me contextual ads based on the pages I choose to visit, I can do so. Its well within my fair use rights. The ISP is taking an interesting logical leap with this.
The ISP is turning around and arguing that there is no material difference between changing the rendering of your webpage on the users client and altering the packet while in transit on their network. They are attempting to state that they are allowing the users fair rights actions to be implemented on their network and that in exchange the ISP is enabled to act as an agent to further those goals. The ISP is stating that their subscribers have effectively declared they want to render ads on the web pages they visit through clauses in the services agreement.
The ISP isn't saying that they are allowed to inject anything they want to on your web pages. They are saying that their clients want to have ads fed to them and they are undertaking the responsibility of doing so through contractual outsourcing. All of this is legal if they can establish there is no material difference between content changes made at the time of rendering and content changes made slightly upstream on their network.
This isn't an argument based on copyright. If you take that stance, then all those noscript and adblock plugins violate copyright also. Its an argument on where fair use rights actually begin to apply concerning materials distributed over HTTP. Packet or rendering? And if its packet, where in the transaction does the content provider lose control? This has HUGE implications.
I say rendering, but then its just an issue of having ISP's say you need to run this browser plugin for service.
Well, that's the crux of it.
To stop this we have to establish that there is a material difference between rendering done on the client and changes made to packets so the rendering will change.
If they were acting as an agent of the end user, and the end user wanted to put ads on any HTML they rendered on their client (absurd, I know), the end user would be making derivative works on their client. The ISP is trying to argue that since they are acting as an agent of the end user, they are removing the need for the client application to insert the code. They are going to put forth that there is no material difference between rendering on the client and rendering slightly upstream as an agent of the client.
It is a stretch in logic, but it is what they are going to try and argue.
Well, the stance that the ISP is going to take is that they are acting as an agent of the user through rights granted to them in the services agreement. The ISP is exercising those rights when the packets hit their network. They are working under the auspice that since the user has rights to alter how the copyrighted material is rendered, they can transfer those rights to ISP.
The ISP is making a second assumption, and this is the crux of the argument, that there is no material difference between changing how the HTML is rendered on the actual client and having the materials to be rendered changed slightly upstream on the ISP's network. Since the service agreement gives the ISP the ability to act as the end users agent in this matter, they will argue they are offering a service to the end user by pro actively changing packets in a manner allowed them.
The service agreement says something to the effect of "since I am using your service I also state that I would like more commercials." If an end user so chose to, they could literally insert code on their client that would serve them ads in any web page they viewed. This would be within their fair use rights, roughly the same as me choosing to put coupon pamphlets in between pages of a book I bought and am going to read. The ISP is arguing that this fair use right is transfered to them through agreement and they are just exercising this fair use as an agent of the end user.
Its a lot of bullshittery, but they may be able to pull it off under the auspice of fair use.
You are not understanding whats going on at all.
No.
Fair use allows someone to alter their copy to their liking. The copyright gets infringed upon at the point of distribution. The bookstore would be redistributing.
That's where the kicker is.
Those guys took copyrighted materials, changed them, and then redistributed them. Here there is no redistribution. The ISP is acting as an agent of the user, a right granted to them in their terms and conditions, while the packets are on the ISP's network.
The ISP is going to argue that there is no material difference between rendering changes made on the requesting clients system and the requesting clients ISP network. They want to push the issue that they can extend an end users reach out to the ISP's network - and the ISP will grant them that right. In exchange, the user grants the ISP to act as an agent of the end user while packets are on that network.
In reality its a one way deal. How an end user would ever actually affect packets on their ISP's network without the ISP acting as their agent is beyond me.
Well, they don't have your HTML. They have a copy of your HTML.
Your original HTML is still residing on the server where you put it. They are not interfering with your data.
What they are doing is interfering with their subscribers requested copy of that data. Their subscriber has the right to render the requested HTML in any way they see fit. They can use a different CSS file that resides on their box or some other network location. They can choose not to render graphics, flash, or allow JavaScript to run.
The provider, being in contract with the subscriber, is allowed to act as their agent while the packets are being transmitted over their part of the network. During this time, the ISP exercises that contracted ability, and injects code into the packets.
The ISP will tell the subscribers that this right is part of the contract, and if they don't agree to it - they don't get service. The ISP will also tell you to shove it up your ass - you can refuse requests made from their subscribers if you don't like what they do on their network.
According to your stance, the end user doesn't have the right to modify your HTML from what was intended. This, ironically, is the same exact stance that internet marketing companies take when confronted with browser plug-ins that effectively remove their code. Unfortunately for us, we can't have it both ways. Either we are allowed to alter how the packets are rendered, allowing us them to inject into packets due to powers granted them by their user terms and conditions, or they cannot - setting a precedent that would open the floodgates to client side packet altering and rendering changes.
Another point of argument they are going to make is that they aren't messing with your copyrighted web pages because they aren't distributing it without permission. When a user makes a request for your page, and your server fulfills that request, you have distributed the materials yourself. They are merely making a "derivative work" from that material.
I'm not saying I'm down with this at all. Frankly its a scummy tact and I hope their business dies. But this is what they are going to argue, we should get ready for it.
I hate this new comment system.
This really might not just be a gimmick. Let's look at some scenarios:
<ol>
<li>A satellite from Russia is launched 10 years ago and has a failure of some sort knocking it out of its intended orbit. A space mission from Country X miscalculates, or is unaware of, its current trajectory. The instant they notice, Country X takes action that diverts the satellite from space to a trajectory that doesn't hit their mission but diverts the satellite again. Who is responsible if the satellite hits a third parties exploration team? What if the satellite is diverted into orbit and burns up while the Russians were still gathering data? What if the Russian satellite falls through orbit and hits a poor Indonesian families roof, who is responsible?</li>
<li>An American weapons satellite discharges its payload, targeted at lets say Guam (I know, I know), while over India. Now, is this a case of the US unlawfully using Indian airspace? Does the UN or NATO get involved? What if the a non NATO entity launches from NATO ally airspace? Is this an act of aggression?</li>
<li>The definition of space salvage is what? What can private space salvage operations legally go after?</li>
<li>How do you define international space? How do you enforce, or recognize such boundaries?</li>
</ol>
We may have previous cases that you can draw from to begin argument in these areas, but they won't be fully adequate. Just give this kid credit for seeing a giant opportunity.
Because Google generates revenue from advertising using those keywords.
Because Google is to busy censoring other shit for China.
Actually, all of these free social networking services have figured out how to monetize it.
Twitter is the honeypot to collect a group of users. After a density of users is reached, larger communication companies will start looking at purchasing Twitter so they can "integrate" their service. Nevermind that integrating a free service with an available API doesn't require purchase.
What the larger company is actually doing is buying customers.
From the TOS: Business Transfers Twitter may sell, transfer or otherwise share some or all of its assets, including your personally identifiable information, in connection with a merger, acquisition, reorganization or sale of assets or in the event of bankruptcy. You will have the opportunity to opt out of any such transfer if the new entity's planned processing of your information differs materially from that set forth in this Privacy Policy. Build Service - Grow Userbase - Sell Demographic data.
It's the web 2.0 business model, all coated in a lovely veneer of altruistic "doing it for the love of geekiness" bullshit.
One is an artist, the other is a rock star.
Once your focus is on the money, you are a rock star. If you carefully craft a piece of art to have the greatest appeal to a target, you no longer get to tout the moniker artist and have anyone take you seriously.
I personally have no preconceptions that one is inherently better than the other, but there is a distinct difference that should be realized.
Someone needs to get the morons at NASA a dose of reality. America's Army FPS game works because many people like to shoot imaginary people. During the game play, enticing players to "do this for real." is not rocket science.
Now lets count the problems with applying this methodology to actual rocket science the way NASA proposes:
You want to raise funds for this? You would have a better time if you allowed SciFi and Video Game companies rent advertising space on your booster and fuel tanks like NASCAR.
Information has no intrinsic bad or good properties. The application does.
You can use marketing data to analyze a target and then go make an awesome product reflecting their desires and needs or you can take that same data and use it to spin your existing product towards that target knowing full well it doesn't stand up to snuff.
So no, they are not enabling them - in the same way car manufacturers aren't enabling drunk drivers. In fact, without marketing data advertisers would be way worse.
That's advertising, not marketing.
You can scream all you want, hold your breath, pitch a fit for all I care - but the evils you describe are carried out by unethical advertisers.
Your claim that all marketeers and lawyers are scum proves your ignorance. How did Google first come about - Market analysis. How did Apple return from the dead - market analysis. See my previous list of current winners.
As for lawyers, I guess constitutional, environmental, civil rights, and consumer interest lawyers are all scum also.
Products DO compete on merit, what you fail to recognize is that not everyone holds merit to the same aspects. Your feeble understanding of how people work in general is astounding. Your world view is incomplete, and therefore inaccurate. Stating misunderstandings in a slanderous declaration doesn't change reality.
You're mad at unethical and shady advertisers, not marketing. Not understanding the vocabulary doesn't change the reality. The fact is, you flat out don't understand what your talking about.
You must realize, there are marketers out there who are interested in the common good. We do know the reality of the situation and want to rectify it for the good of the consumer and the business. Fuck, Google was a prime example until about 2004.
Market analysis is a function of marketing. See any productive business.
Sorry, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
True marketing deals with WHO buys WHAT. After that ADVERTISING takes over.
The slashdot crowd may unilaterally hate "marketing", but thats because they don't understand what it truly does. It is ironic that most people here who hate marketing don't sign their own checks.
Confusing B2C advertising methodologies with true marketing is ignorant. Apple is winning due to marketing, not advertising. Microsoft won due to Marketing, not advertising. Sony pwned for 2 iterations of gaming devices due to marketing, not advertising. Band-Aids, Toyota, Whole Foods, Glock, Clorox, Dyson, BMW, Jones Soda - these entities are winning due to marketing, not advertising.
Marketing is an analysis of data....thats it. Those who choose to use tha data to advertise corruptly are the culprits.
Get a clue.