Yeah, but that's what, a city of 100,000 people? And you have the NBN to fix that. The project is slow and expensive, but the broadband at the end shouldn't be. Your problem is the international carriers colluding to keep international prices high. The cheapest Internet out of Sydney, last I bought some there, was to get a connection to NZ and out from there. The funny thing is that the NZ Internet mostly goes through Sydney (for anything not in the US). So going to Singapore or Japan, you'd go from Sydney to NZ, back to Sydney and out to international undersea cables to Asia.
And to those outside Australia, Surfer's Paradise isn't a town, Gold Coast is a region that's a suburb of Brisbane. So discounting the sprawl towns part of the "greater" metropolitan areas of a capital, So have fun in Newcastle, NSW.
In the US, the cast majority of area has services you'd expect in the middle of nowhere WA. DSL, maybe, often with speeds under 1Mbps, and dial-up. Dial-up isn't going to die any time soon. There are just too many rural areas, even if nobody lives there.
The summary is BS. It says the Republicans are trying to change the definition, when what's being argued with is the FCC arbitrarily changing their previous definition:
Nope. That's not what happened. The FCC did explicitly say that a fixed number isn't the answer, and they gave a number that represented a reasonable number based on the market and available technology.
"[The FCC Changed shit] which effectively triples the number of US households without broadband access."
"broadband" is a word without a definition. It means "fast" and "fast" has no legal definition. The problem is that if you are subsidizing "fast" and "fast" is slow, you are wasting government money on inferior connections.
Why do you (and the Republican Senators) want to waste taxpayer money subsidizing "slow"?
Broadband means more than one signal per carrier. All ADSL is "broadband" in the EE definition, even 1.5M down ADSL is "broadband" by the EE definition. And 100G fiber isn't. That confusion lead to a complete de-coupling in the common use of the term, so it no longer means multi-carrier, but means "fast" and "fast", by definition, has no definition.
Putting this year's number on fast is reasonable. And fast will change. 8MHz used to be called "turbo" and was fast. It was fast compared to the "standard" 4.77MHz. But 20 years later, "turbo" was slow. So, a reasonable definition of "fast" based on clock speed, should have doubled every 2 years.
It's not the FCC changing the definition. It's the Republicans who hate technology changing the definition. The FCC just changed the index number so idiot Republicans could understand what "fast" is this year.
Publicizing these problems would hopefully convince the owners to turn on the security features of their non-IoT items.
I hate how these are called IoT. IoT is for things talking to things. Not people talking to servers. That's just the Internet. The camera only talks to people or things pretending to be people.
The current trend is the Internet of tiny servers. The IoT refrigerator is a server. You connect to it via an app. Or it's a client device in a 3rd party network, where your LG appliances talk to an LG server that your app connects to. Your things *never* talk to your other things. When that happens, that's an IoT. Until then, it's more client-server apps, with the clients and servers getting smaller and more interchangeable.
If I were to create a device that can be hacked by someone else, then my customers and I are to blame for the act of someone hacking it?
If you make a house that opens the door and throws the owner's jewelry at the person who rang the bell, damn straight you are at fault for making the stupid thing in the first place, and the owner for not locking the door when he goes out.
Nobody is "hacking". The act of a port screen is more like door knock or doorbell ring than walking through a parking lot trying every door handle for one that's unlocked.
Ah yes, personal responsibility for the victims, but not for those who refuse to help the victims. We cut funding to programs that help victims, then complain when victims become the abusers. "Personal responsibility for everyone but me" should be the party motto of the loonitarians.
Name a place in the US where two 17 year olds have sex, and once one of them turns 18, it suddenly becomes illegal.
For one, the age of consent isn't uniformly 18, and most places have restrictions on the law that allow for close-age relationships.
The screwed up thing is that some of the places that don't have the exceptions for close ages can have consensual 14 year olds both raping each other at the same time. And places where the age of consent is 16, you can legally have sex at 16 with a 45 year old if you want, but if anyone takes a photo of it, that's child porn. Is there any other case where taking a photo of something is illegal? Defense installations? Oh my God, she's got a nuclear reactor between her thighs.
Hillary polls worse against the Republicans than Sanders. Sanders is gaining, as Clinton stagnates. A few early wins for Sanders would likely swing the polls in the others, as people take him more seriously. The fact he was completely ignored by the mainstream media is why he polls low, not that he's disliked or hated as much as many hate Clinton.
How can you have a head-on with nowhere to go? Lots of one-lane bridges where you are?
The scenario I though of that they can't stop is stopped at a light. First (and only) car in line. Very heavy traffic crossing at high speed. The vehicle behind you, suffers unintended acceleration, and is heading at you at 100 mph. You are stopped. You have time to accelerate into traffic, or wait to be hit.
It's a stupid system, but an editor/publisher of a work after the author's death is considered the original author. At least for copyright. "Author" + 70 only applies to published works. Since the work wasn't published until after the author's death, the author isn't the author. Like I said, stupid, but always done in the manner that keeps works out of public domain as much as possible.
And yes, I'd say that knowingly selling digital goods that you have not paid for qualifies as stolen goods.
All the cases in law on this are against you. Though it's only been adjudicated for physical goods, and "on a computer" often gets a different result.
Netflix did pay for the content. They just were granted a limited distribution area. Physical goods sold outside the contracted area, or passed (obviously and deliberately) outside the area by 3rd parties like VPNs has always been treated as a minor contract dispute, and the few times the issue has made it to courts, the courts came down hard on the maker, not distributor. If the maker doesn't like how the distributor distributes, it's an issue for the maker to settle contractually. If 3rd parties are breaking the contract between maker and distributor, then it's up to the maker to contractually fix that.
This is another case of the maker suing the distributor for distributing as agreed, but in a way the maker doesn't like. The maker has always lost those cases. So you calling it "theft" or wrongly claiming it wasn't paid for is factually wrong.
By its actions, Netflix reduces the value of the product in markets it has not paid for. Unlike those pressing for the biggest headlines, it's obviously not a 1 lost sale for 1 view, but it is still a commercial loss of some degree, multiplied by literally millions of times
By the actions of the maker, they reduce the value. Something released in the US, and nowhere else, will eventually be available everywhere else. That's a fact of the global economy. That the maker doesn't understand basic economics is not a legal issue to be solved. The obvious solution is a single exclusive contract, and multiple non-exclusive contracts for the content. Anything else is contrary to how basic economics works.
I'm quite confused. The viewer is being presented as being in the US, but presumably he's *not* in the US. Netflix pays for the right to serve the viewer in his actual area, not his purported area or his account location. My point remains - Netflix is being paid (through the subscription) to provide content for a viewer in an area, but it has *not* paid for the right to distribute that content in that area.
Yes, you are quite confused. Netflix is delivering the content to the US. If the person who paid for the US content in the US takes that to somewhere else, in their pocket, or through a VPN, it doesn't change the simple fact that Netflix only ever deilvered the content to the US. It's perfectly legal to buy a retail copy of a US DVD and ship it outside the country. The VPN service is a (100% legal) shipper of content. Netflix delivered it to the US, as required.
But surely you understand that even if you pay money for stolen goods it doesn't mean that you are now a legitimate owner.
And it's 100% legal to fly to the US, buy a DVD in the US, fly "home" (wherever that is) and watch it. Unless the DVD is porn and you live in Saudi Arabia. So your insane comparison to "stolen goods" is absurd. The goods aren't stolen. Everyone along the chain paid for them. The home country is complaining that the 100% legal grey market is functioning. And the rights holders see that they want to sell the same things more times. How many times does Ford sell the same car?
No, Netflix did not purchase distribution rights to those locations, so the studios aren't being paid for those viewers.
The studio sold the rights for the US and the viewer is presenting as being in the US, so the studio was paid by Netflix for that viewer.
The studio also sold the rights to someone else in Canada, which is why the Canadian user is trying to appear to be in the US, so the studio was also paid for that user.
The studio is crying because they were only paid twice for the same person.
Not all who were pirating via VPN
Paying for content and using a VPN isn't "pirating" under any definition of the word.
You quote the one sentence fragment when I say it isn't about subscriber rates, to tell me I'm wrong because it's not about subscriber rates? You suck at reading, and are a jackass.
TPP and TTIP should have shut all that down. Sell content in the US? Then it's available in all the T*P countries. That's what "free trade" is about. Not using "free trade" agreements to further restrict trade.
Yup, And the studio will not be breaking those rules. The "exclusive" deals ignore the legal grey market (so many are for things that are already on DVD one can order from the US or elsewhere), or the Internet, where one can watch anything pirated. Or OTA, where someone in Canada could watch US television, if they are close enough to the border, with the right gear (and all others living near borders). "Exclusive" isn't. And we don't need more laws or rules to protect dumb TV contracts.
Yup. Netflix gains nothing from this. They get a subscription for about $10 for a streaming account no matter where you are (at least from what I've seen, they aren't discounted greatly in poorer countries). So if they block VPNs, they'll lose subscribers (thus income). And the studios will lose because those who cancel will fall back to piracy. Only if the studios think they can win against piracy would they think this is a good idea. Do they still think they can win against piracy?
The Netflix model should run like iTunes. I'm multi-national in iTunes. My US account uses a US address and US credit card. My non-US account uses non-US card and address. I can play from both anywhere in the world. I can download to/from both anywhere in the world. The account is billing linked, not location linked. Netflix should move to a similar fashion, and the studios clamp down on international transactions from US addresses as a money laundering and stop worrying about where someone is, but where their money comes from. Works for iTunes (who has lots of content), and much easier than region coding things based on IP of the user.
Also, the bitcoin is anti-environment. They power requirements increase, and it's wasteful. More elegant would be for countries (or the IMF) to make an alternative that's "official" and treated like international currency in all countries, and it's only creatable by the central authority and verified by everyone. Not more traceable than bitcoin, but not a power-drain. With built in inflation, not deflation, as the world is built on inflation, not a zero-sum deflation, which is a main reason why nobody official will ever endorse bitcoin.
You can use a US iTunes card to charge a US account. When we moved, we made a new-country account, and kept the old. And we buy US cards from the US to charge the US account when we need. No restrictions on using the US account outside the US. Just restrictions on buying.
I can buy T shirts to the size and weight of http://www.amazon.com/Lenovo-1... and get them shipped to my location, but not the laptop "not available for international shipping". And there are other laptops I can ship internationally, so it isn't an issue with the category. Same with NewEgg. I just want a 17.3 (or larger) touchscreen gaming laptop at a reasonable price, and there are none available here, and a few to choose from in the US that won't ship.
Slashdot Mirror
They've been doing that for 30 years. Haven't found anything. How many more billions of dollars do you want to waste investigating them?
Yeah, but that's what, a city of 100,000 people? And you have the NBN to fix that. The project is slow and expensive, but the broadband at the end shouldn't be. Your problem is the international carriers colluding to keep international prices high. The cheapest Internet out of Sydney, last I bought some there, was to get a connection to NZ and out from there. The funny thing is that the NZ Internet mostly goes through Sydney (for anything not in the US). So going to Singapore or Japan, you'd go from Sydney to NZ, back to Sydney and out to international undersea cables to Asia.
And to those outside Australia, Surfer's Paradise isn't a town, Gold Coast is a region that's a suburb of Brisbane. So discounting the sprawl towns part of the "greater" metropolitan areas of a capital, So have fun in Newcastle, NSW.
In the US, the cast majority of area has services you'd expect in the middle of nowhere WA. DSL, maybe, often with speeds under 1Mbps, and dial-up. Dial-up isn't going to die any time soon. There are just too many rural areas, even if nobody lives there.
The summary is BS. It says the Republicans are trying to change the definition, when what's being argued with is the FCC arbitrarily changing their previous definition:
Nope. That's not what happened. The FCC did explicitly say that a fixed number isn't the answer, and they gave a number that represented a reasonable number based on the market and available technology.
"[The FCC Changed shit] which effectively triples the number of US households without broadband access."
"broadband" is a word without a definition. It means "fast" and "fast" has no legal definition. The problem is that if you are subsidizing "fast" and "fast" is slow, you are wasting government money on inferior connections.
Why do you (and the Republican Senators) want to waste taxpayer money subsidizing "slow"?
Broadband means more than one signal per carrier. All ADSL is "broadband" in the EE definition, even 1.5M down ADSL is "broadband" by the EE definition. And 100G fiber isn't. That confusion lead to a complete de-coupling in the common use of the term, so it no longer means multi-carrier, but means "fast" and "fast", by definition, has no definition.
Putting this year's number on fast is reasonable. And fast will change. 8MHz used to be called "turbo" and was fast. It was fast compared to the "standard" 4.77MHz. But 20 years later, "turbo" was slow. So, a reasonable definition of "fast" based on clock speed, should have doubled every 2 years.
It's not the FCC changing the definition. It's the Republicans who hate technology changing the definition. The FCC just changed the index number so idiot Republicans could understand what "fast" is this year.
And when there's no password set at all?
Publicizing these problems would hopefully convince the owners to turn on the security features of their non-IoT items.
I hate how these are called IoT. IoT is for things talking to things. Not people talking to servers. That's just the Internet. The camera only talks to people or things pretending to be people.
The current trend is the Internet of tiny servers. The IoT refrigerator is a server. You connect to it via an app. Or it's a client device in a 3rd party network, where your LG appliances talk to an LG server that your app connects to. Your things *never* talk to your other things. When that happens, that's an IoT. Until then, it's more client-server apps, with the clients and servers getting smaller and more interchangeable.
If I were to create a device that can be hacked by someone else, then my customers and I are to blame for the act of someone hacking it?
If you make a house that opens the door and throws the owner's jewelry at the person who rang the bell, damn straight you are at fault for making the stupid thing in the first place, and the owner for not locking the door when he goes out.
Nobody is "hacking". The act of a port screen is more like door knock or doorbell ring than walking through a parking lot trying every door handle for one that's unlocked.
Ah yes, personal responsibility for the victims, but not for those who refuse to help the victims. We cut funding to programs that help victims, then complain when victims become the abusers. "Personal responsibility for everyone but me" should be the party motto of the loonitarians.
Name a place in the US where two 17 year olds have sex, and once one of them turns 18, it suddenly becomes illegal.
For one, the age of consent isn't uniformly 18, and most places have restrictions on the law that allow for close-age relationships.
The screwed up thing is that some of the places that don't have the exceptions for close ages can have consensual 14 year olds both raping each other at the same time. And places where the age of consent is 16, you can legally have sex at 16 with a 45 year old if you want, but if anyone takes a photo of it, that's child porn. Is there any other case where taking a photo of something is illegal? Defense installations? Oh my God, she's got a nuclear reactor between her thighs.
Hillary polls worse against the Republicans than Sanders. Sanders is gaining, as Clinton stagnates. A few early wins for Sanders would likely swing the polls in the others, as people take him more seriously. The fact he was completely ignored by the mainstream media is why he polls low, not that he's disliked or hated as much as many hate Clinton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "[Volvo] is a wholly owned subsidiary of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group of China."
How can you have a head-on with nowhere to go? Lots of one-lane bridges where you are?
The scenario I though of that they can't stop is stopped at a light. First (and only) car in line. Very heavy traffic crossing at high speed. The vehicle behind you, suffers unintended acceleration, and is heading at you at 100 mph. You are stopped. You have time to accelerate into traffic, or wait to be hit.
It's a stupid system, but an editor/publisher of a work after the author's death is considered the original author. At least for copyright. "Author" + 70 only applies to published works. Since the work wasn't published until after the author's death, the author isn't the author. Like I said, stupid, but always done in the manner that keeps works out of public domain as much as possible.
And yes, I'd say that knowingly selling digital goods that you have not paid for qualifies as stolen goods.
All the cases in law on this are against you. Though it's only been adjudicated for physical goods, and "on a computer" often gets a different result.
Netflix did pay for the content. They just were granted a limited distribution area. Physical goods sold outside the contracted area, or passed (obviously and deliberately) outside the area by 3rd parties like VPNs has always been treated as a minor contract dispute, and the few times the issue has made it to courts, the courts came down hard on the maker, not distributor. If the maker doesn't like how the distributor distributes, it's an issue for the maker to settle contractually. If 3rd parties are breaking the contract between maker and distributor, then it's up to the maker to contractually fix that.
This is another case of the maker suing the distributor for distributing as agreed, but in a way the maker doesn't like. The maker has always lost those cases. So you calling it "theft" or wrongly claiming it wasn't paid for is factually wrong.
By its actions, Netflix reduces the value of the product in markets it has not paid for. Unlike those pressing for the biggest headlines, it's obviously not a 1 lost sale for 1 view, but it is still a commercial loss of some degree, multiplied by literally millions of times
By the actions of the maker, they reduce the value. Something released in the US, and nowhere else, will eventually be available everywhere else. That's a fact of the global economy. That the maker doesn't understand basic economics is not a legal issue to be solved. The obvious solution is a single exclusive contract, and multiple non-exclusive contracts for the content. Anything else is contrary to how basic economics works.
I'm quite confused. The viewer is being presented as being in the US, but presumably he's *not* in the US. Netflix pays for the right to serve the viewer in his actual area, not his purported area or his account location. My point remains - Netflix is being paid (through the subscription) to provide content for a viewer in an area, but it has *not* paid for the right to distribute that content in that area.
Yes, you are quite confused. Netflix is delivering the content to the US. If the person who paid for the US content in the US takes that to somewhere else, in their pocket, or through a VPN, it doesn't change the simple fact that Netflix only ever deilvered the content to the US. It's perfectly legal to buy a retail copy of a US DVD and ship it outside the country. The VPN service is a (100% legal) shipper of content. Netflix delivered it to the US, as required.
But surely you understand that even if you pay money for stolen goods it doesn't mean that you are now a legitimate owner.
And it's 100% legal to fly to the US, buy a DVD in the US, fly "home" (wherever that is) and watch it. Unless the DVD is porn and you live in Saudi Arabia. So your insane comparison to "stolen goods" is absurd. The goods aren't stolen. Everyone along the chain paid for them. The home country is complaining that the 100% legal grey market is functioning. And the rights holders see that they want to sell the same things more times. How many times does Ford sell the same car?
4-stroke doesn't help because the small engine applications (generally) don't have much, if anything, in the way of emissions control.
The air pollution from inefficient small engines isn't just a First World problem.
No, Netflix did not purchase distribution rights to those locations, so the studios aren't being paid for those viewers.
The studio sold the rights for the US and the viewer is presenting as being in the US, so the studio was paid by Netflix for that viewer.
The studio also sold the rights to someone else in Canada, which is why the Canadian user is trying to appear to be in the US, so the studio was also paid for that user.
The studio is crying because they were only paid twice for the same person.
Not all who were pirating via VPN
Paying for content and using a VPN isn't "pirating" under any definition of the word.
You quote the one sentence fragment when I say it isn't about subscriber rates, to tell me I'm wrong because it's not about subscriber rates? You suck at reading, and are a jackass.
TPP and TTIP should have shut all that down. Sell content in the US? Then it's available in all the T*P countries. That's what "free trade" is about. Not using "free trade" agreements to further restrict trade.
Yup, And the studio will not be breaking those rules. The "exclusive" deals ignore the legal grey market (so many are for things that are already on DVD one can order from the US or elsewhere), or the Internet, where one can watch anything pirated. Or OTA, where someone in Canada could watch US television, if they are close enough to the border, with the right gear (and all others living near borders). "Exclusive" isn't. And we don't need more laws or rules to protect dumb TV contracts.
Yup. Netflix gains nothing from this. They get a subscription for about $10 for a streaming account no matter where you are (at least from what I've seen, they aren't discounted greatly in poorer countries). So if they block VPNs, they'll lose subscribers (thus income). And the studios will lose because those who cancel will fall back to piracy. Only if the studios think they can win against piracy would they think this is a good idea. Do they still think they can win against piracy?
The Netflix model should run like iTunes. I'm multi-national in iTunes. My US account uses a US address and US credit card. My non-US account uses non-US card and address. I can play from both anywhere in the world. I can download to/from both anywhere in the world. The account is billing linked, not location linked. Netflix should move to a similar fashion, and the studios clamp down on international transactions from US addresses as a money laundering and stop worrying about where someone is, but where their money comes from. Works for iTunes (who has lots of content), and much easier than region coding things based on IP of the user.
Also, the bitcoin is anti-environment. They power requirements increase, and it's wasteful. More elegant would be for countries (or the IMF) to make an alternative that's "official" and treated like international currency in all countries, and it's only creatable by the central authority and verified by everyone. Not more traceable than bitcoin, but not a power-drain. With built in inflation, not deflation, as the world is built on inflation, not a zero-sum deflation, which is a main reason why nobody official will ever endorse bitcoin.
I'd take that, but all my money is tied up in Tulip Bulbs at the moment. Never had a better return.
You can use a US iTunes card to charge a US account. When we moved, we made a new-country account, and kept the old. And we buy US cards from the US to charge the US account when we need. No restrictions on using the US account outside the US. Just restrictions on buying.
I can buy T shirts to the size and weight of http://www.amazon.com/Lenovo-1... and get them shipped to my location, but not the laptop "not available for international shipping". And there are other laptops I can ship internationally, so it isn't an issue with the category. Same with NewEgg. I just want a 17.3 (or larger) touchscreen gaming laptop at a reasonable price, and there are none available here, and a few to choose from in the US that won't ship.