Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not blaming this on the actual station owners. I shouldn't have said that. But, if the industry wants to claim "we sell based on futures pricing", and the time delay on price decreases is longer after a futures price decrease than the time delay on price increases after a futures price increase, I call BS. The consumer is getting ripped off. You can't have it both ways.
I tracked this for a full six months once, correlating the futures prices to the pump prices, because I wanted to know if they were being truthful about selling based on futures pricing. It was consistent that pump price increases were almost immediate after futures prices went up, and took a week or more to go down after futures prices decreased.
If they truly sell on futures pricing, why does the price to the consumer go up the instant the futures price does, but doesn't go down anywhere nearly as quickly when the futures price goes down?
This is getting a little off-topic, but I doubt they do that. Customers understand that things like the cost of materials and supplies goes up over time, and will accept that in increases in the base price. I can certainly understand the logic (although I may not agree with it 100%). Tariffs and increased tax rates may be just temporary things, and I'd rather see that in a separate line-item than bundled into an overall price number. It makes it easy to do, and easy to understand if, as the poster suggests, his company is willing to do away with those fees when the things that caused the costs associated with them go away. Want to make it really complex and next to impossible for their customers to actually understand? Keep fluctuating the base price up and down with every little blip.
A perfect example of this is gasoline prices in the US. The prices for consumers fluctuate almost every single day. I have a fair understanding of economics, and that makes NO sense. Mr. Station Owner, the cost of the gasoline ALREADY IN YOUR TANKS didn't change from when it was delivered.
Unfortunately, you're the exception, not the rule. I agree with your sentiments 100%, but the fact is that if it is easy for the general public to get around DRM, and thereby a LOT of people aren't paying for content, the general public will do so. There seems to be a feeling of "it costs so much, they're overcharging, so it's OK to steal from them, they're making SOOOOOO much already" mentality that so many people have, and that's just ethically and morally wrong. This is entertainment content we're talking about here, not things that are critical to life.
Because it's a giant pain in the ass to reprogram your entire system to make it work in some cases and not in others. Make a single mistake and I guarantee you that the content makers will have no problem invalidating those agreements and even suing Netflix out of business. Like it or not, it's a smart business decision given the technical issues.
Jared, that's not what the poster was talking about. He was advocating pirating Netflix for EVERYTHING, on PRINCIPLE, WITHOUT paying for a subscription.
Umm, that's not how running a business works. You're essentially saying "If the government raises your tax liability, Mr. Company, you should just suck it up and make less money (or perhaps go from a profit to a loss, depending on the situation). We don't care that it costs you more to provide the same service/product."
I have been involved in two real-world businesses, and seen this sort of thing happen to my competitors. You know what happens to businesses that suck up ever additional cost and let it eat into their profits? THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS.
I'm with you, and some people would probably get upset. But those people would probably get even MORE upset when Netflix either had to a) hike up prices because new agreements with more flexibility will cost more or b) let a whole bunch of content disappear from their service.
And those people who get upset when your prices rise because your cost of business goes up through actions beyond your control? Those are the most problematic customers anyway, in my experience. You may very well be better off without them.
You have to realize that Netflix still has to make deals to get any content they don't produce themselves, and that means getting the other side to agree to those deals. It may very well be that language prohibiting these types of things is written into those agreements.
As far as using a phone or camera to take a shot of something you're watching on a tablet, the good old "analog loophole" will always be there, since it's pretty close to impossible, if not actually impossible, to close that loophole. At least not without getting the buy-in of every single camera and phone manufacturer.
I imagine that it's a little bit of both - and that's a completely valid concern from them. I just wish they'd be honest and say it. I have a feeling that people would actually appreciate that honesty.
I agree, it wouldn't be that difficult to do from a technical perspective. I even understand Netflix' concerns, and I think they're valid concerns. How long do you think Netflix would be able to continue to get licenses for content if it was relatively easy to strip any protection from the content? I'd just love to see a company be honest about what's driving them to a decision like this. I'd support such a company 110%.
That's exactly one of the problems. In a lot of places, reasonably fast internet access is controlled by one, or at most, two, companies - one of which is usually the cable company. I guarantee these companies aren't going to just sit by and watch their revenues drop. They will (and have already started) to increase the cost of broadband to make up for that lost revenue. These are corporations - their only fiduciary duty is to their shareholders - not to the consumers.
With the proliferation and fragmenting of content from streaming providers, I can't say that this surprises me.
Given that one of the drivers of "cord-cutting is the desire to save money over the (frankly) ridiculous cost of cable TV, the fact that one now has to subscribe to more and more streaming services to get content is becoming more of a downside. As each new content owner makes their own streaming service with their own content and their own subscription price, it's becoming less and less of a cost-saving measure to go streaming-only.
I wouldn't say "aren't". They haven't been thus deemed so far. It doesn't mean they will or won't be in future cases. But I agree, so far, they have not been deemed to be operating public spaces.
That, my friend, is exceptionally interesting. If I had any mod points, I'd mod you up.
While I agree that it's at best disingenuous for these companies (FB, etc.) to claim to be open platforms while reserving the right to censor posts, the ruling in Taylor v. Twitter is pretty clear, at least at the state level.
For the record, I think it's a pretty shady thing to claim to be an open platform and also claim that you can censor whatever you like because it's your platform. I'm just not sure they're in any legal trouble because of it.
I'm not sure that "well established", when it comes to electronic communications, is quite accurate.
Check out Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck and Cyber Promotions v. America Online. At the moment, I think it would be more accurate to say "unclear".
That's splitting some really fine hairs, there. Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck concerns state law ("according to state law, “[c]hannel time shall be scheduled on the public access channel by the entity responsible for the administration thereof” on “a first-come, first-served, nondiscriminatory basis”. Furthermore, neither the city nor MNN may exercise “any editorial control” over the material to be broadcast unless it is obscene or otherwise unprotected speech under the First Amendment"), and in addition, I'd argue that the very fact that these things are called "public-access" channels means they are being made available as public spaces, whereas social media companies make no such legal representation.
I'm not an attorney, and I'm not arguing against your premise. I'm saying that the law seems unclear on this at the moment, and I would certainly welcome legal clarification of these types of issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not blaming this on the actual station owners. I shouldn't have said that. But, if the industry wants to claim "we sell based on futures pricing", and the time delay on price decreases is longer after a futures price decrease than the time delay on price increases after a futures price increase, I call BS. The consumer is getting ripped off. You can't have it both ways.
I tracked this for a full six months once, correlating the futures prices to the pump prices, because I wanted to know if they were being truthful about selling based on futures pricing. It was consistent that pump price increases were almost immediate after futures prices went up, and took a week or more to go down after futures prices decreased.
If they truly sell on futures pricing, why does the price to the consumer go up the instant the futures price does, but doesn't go down anywhere nearly as quickly when the futures price goes down?
It is his choice. Just as it is my choice to call him a thief, since that's what he is.
This is getting a little off-topic, but I doubt they do that. Customers understand that things like the cost of materials and supplies goes up over time, and will accept that in increases in the base price. I can certainly understand the logic (although I may not agree with it 100%). Tariffs and increased tax rates may be just temporary things, and I'd rather see that in a separate line-item than bundled into an overall price number. It makes it easy to do, and easy to understand if, as the poster suggests, his company is willing to do away with those fees when the things that caused the costs associated with them go away. Want to make it really complex and next to impossible for their customers to actually understand? Keep fluctuating the base price up and down with every little blip.
A perfect example of this is gasoline prices in the US. The prices for consumers fluctuate almost every single day. I have a fair understanding of economics, and that makes NO sense. Mr. Station Owner, the cost of the gasoline ALREADY IN YOUR TANKS didn't change from when it was delivered.
It's not about the timing of Apple announcing a streaming service, it's about the timing of AirPlay playback being integrated into non-Apple hardware.
Besides, why should they be willing to let their own content get pirated any more easily than 3rd-party content?
Unfortunately, you're the exception, not the rule. I agree with your sentiments 100%, but the fact is that if it is easy for the general public to get around DRM, and thereby a LOT of people aren't paying for content, the general public will do so. There seems to be a feeling of "it costs so much, they're overcharging, so it's OK to steal from them, they're making SOOOOOO much already" mentality that so many people have, and that's just ethically and morally wrong. This is entertainment content we're talking about here, not things that are critical to life.
Because it's a giant pain in the ass to reprogram your entire system to make it work in some cases and not in others. Make a single mistake and I guarantee you that the content makers will have no problem invalidating those agreements and even suing Netflix out of business. Like it or not, it's a smart business decision given the technical issues.
Jared, that's not what the poster was talking about. He was advocating pirating Netflix for EVERYTHING, on PRINCIPLE, WITHOUT paying for a subscription.
And the combination to my luggage!
Spoken like a true AC and a thief. If you enjoy the content, be willing to pay for it. Don't tell content makers that their product is worthless.
"the ethics to pirate Netflix"? Good lord, I've never heard a more perverse use of the word ethics.
Umm, that's not how running a business works. You're essentially saying "If the government raises your tax liability, Mr. Company, you should just suck it up and make less money (or perhaps go from a profit to a loss, depending on the situation). We don't care that it costs you more to provide the same service/product."
I have been involved in two real-world businesses, and seen this sort of thing happen to my competitors. You know what happens to businesses that suck up ever additional cost and let it eat into their profits? THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS.
It's easy to strip protection for sd'ers. I'd be hard-pressed to say it was easy for the average Joe.
I'm with you, and some people would probably get upset. But those people would probably get even MORE upset when Netflix either had to a) hike up prices because new agreements with more flexibility will cost more or b) let a whole bunch of content disappear from their service.
And those people who get upset when your prices rise because your cost of business goes up through actions beyond your control? Those are the most problematic customers anyway, in my experience. You may very well be better off without them.
You have to realize that Netflix still has to make deals to get any content they don't produce themselves, and that means getting the other side to agree to those deals. It may very well be that language prohibiting these types of things is written into those agreements.
As far as using a phone or camera to take a shot of something you're watching on a tablet, the good old "analog loophole" will always be there, since it's pretty close to impossible, if not actually impossible, to close that loophole. At least not without getting the buy-in of every single camera and phone manufacturer.
I imagine that it's a little bit of both - and that's a completely valid concern from them. I just wish they'd be honest and say it. I have a feeling that people would actually appreciate that honesty.
I agree, it wouldn't be that difficult to do from a technical perspective. I even understand Netflix' concerns, and I think they're valid concerns. How long do you think Netflix would be able to continue to get licenses for content if it was relatively easy to strip any protection from the content? I'd just love to see a company be honest about what's driving them to a decision like this. I'd support such a company 110%.
Exactly what good is this if you can't respond or make calls out?
That's exactly one of the problems. In a lot of places, reasonably fast internet access is controlled by one, or at most, two, companies - one of which is usually the cable company. I guarantee these companies aren't going to just sit by and watch their revenues drop. They will (and have already started) to increase the cost of broadband to make up for that lost revenue. These are corporations - their only fiduciary duty is to their shareholders - not to the consumers.
With the proliferation and fragmenting of content from streaming providers, I can't say that this surprises me.
Given that one of the drivers of "cord-cutting is the desire to save money over the (frankly) ridiculous cost of cable TV, the fact that one now has to subscribe to more and more streaming services to get content is becoming more of a downside. As each new content owner makes their own streaming service with their own content and their own subscription price, it's becoming less and less of a cost-saving measure to go streaming-only.
I wouldn't say "aren't". They haven't been thus deemed so far. It doesn't mean they will or won't be in future cases. But I agree, so far, they have not been deemed to be operating public spaces.
That, my friend, is exceptionally interesting. If I had any mod points, I'd mod you up.
While I agree that it's at best disingenuous for these companies (FB, etc.) to claim to be open platforms while reserving the right to censor posts, the ruling in Taylor v. Twitter is pretty clear, at least at the state level.
For the record, I think it's a pretty shady thing to claim to be an open platform and also claim that you can censor whatever you like because it's your platform. I'm just not sure they're in any legal trouble because of it.
I'm not sure that "well established", when it comes to electronic communications, is quite accurate.
Check out Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck and Cyber Promotions v. America Online. At the moment, I think it would be more accurate to say "unclear".
That's splitting some really fine hairs, there. Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck concerns state law ("according to state law, “[c]hannel time shall be scheduled on the public access channel by the entity responsible for the administration thereof” on “a first-come, first-served, nondiscriminatory basis”. Furthermore, neither the city nor MNN may exercise “any editorial control” over the material to be broadcast unless it is obscene or otherwise unprotected speech under the First Amendment"), and in addition, I'd argue that the very fact that these things are called "public-access" channels means they are being made available as public spaces, whereas social media companies make no such legal representation.
I'm not an attorney, and I'm not arguing against your premise. I'm saying that the law seems unclear on this at the moment, and I would certainly welcome legal clarification of these types of issues.
While I'm no constitutional scholar, I'm not sure that Marsh v. Alabama applies here. I'm not sure that it doesn't, either.
An attempt was made to use Marsh v. Alabama as a precedent in Cyber Promotions v. America Online, but that attempt wasn't successful.