You are not looking out for those you look down up on in secret, the grand-parent was talking about AOL practice to keep people paying for dialup access when they already moved to broadband connections. So it is NOT for people who still use ONLY dialup, it is a scam operated by AOL to convince people that without their dialup service, broadband would not work or people would loose all their email, so people end up paying a high price for just their email account.

Nice. We shall free the slaves! But not by actually telling them they are free, that way we avoid to much hassle.

No wonder we spend all of our time in the basement. It's the only place we can get any of the really interesting shit done, and almost no one wants to join us.

Old joke:

Three NASA engineers, one from headquarters in Washington, one from the Johnson center in Houston, and one from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena were discussing whether it was better to have a wife or a mistress.

The HQ guy said it was better to have a mistress, because they are more understanding of the long absences required of a NASA employee. The Johnson guy retorted, "Oh, no, one must always follow proper rules and procedures, and marriage is the proper procedure, so it is better to have a wife."

The JPL engineer replied, "No, it is better to have both. That way, you can tell your wife that you're with your mistress, your mistress that you're with your wife, and go to the lab and work."

I've always been of the opinion that this is the purview of Internal Affairs. I advocate for allowing IA officers to do random checks of police on duty, up to an including a patdown. Finding any secondary weapon that isn't clearly identifiable by its serial markings should result in jail time for the officer so found, period. The idea that any officer would carry a throwdown weapon is so counter to what is right that I can't hold any officer at all in esteem for knowing about how widespread the practice is and not speaking up.

Virg

I wonder if YOU would be to hear that there WAS a lawsuit pretty much for that reason a Long long time ago...

Home and professional recording

One other major consequence of the Betamax technology's introduction to the U.S. was the lawsuit Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (1984, the "Betamax case"), with the U.S. Supreme Court determining home videotaping to be legal in the United States, wherein home videotape cassette recorders were a legal technology since they had substantial noninfringing uses. This precedent was later invoked in MGM v. Grokster (2005), where the high court agreed that the same "substantial noninfringing uses" standard applies to authors and vendors of peer-to-peer file sharing software (notably excepting those who "actively induce" copyright infringement through "purposeful, culpable expression and conduct").

I could have just linked BUT I think that copying for personal use is rather appropriate in a story like this. See? A small unknown and rather likable company always looking out to protect the common man against big evil media companies, Sony, stood their ground and gave us the VCR and made it so that ungrateful snots like DJRumpy don't even remember that once the media he has been spoonfed since birth wanted to deny him this.

Mind you, all this is an old story that has to deal with one of those "everyone knows the social rule but nobody follows it because we are all special but others should follow it because they are not".

Fox has a point, oh my god I will go to hell for that, TV broadcasting gets it money by giving YOU TV and advertisters eyeballs to watch the commercials. It is pretty straight forward entertainment advertising. You watch the pretty girl strut her stuff, you take in that smoking might be good for you after all. Soaps made this very clear, "Women of the world, you like endless drama that never ever gets to a point? Well, we at your favority washing powder brand (and since we give you this lovely tv, surely we are) give you what you want, both on the TV and in the washing machine!".

Of course, this social contract sorta goes two ways. The advertiser actually has to put on a show. The girl has to be pretty, the TV for women absolutely devoid of any intelligence whatsoever. It is NOT part of the contract to completely saturate the viewer and remove any actual entertainment no matter how vapid from the stream. You shouldn't put the pretty girl completely inside the giant pack of smokes. The deal is, nice bits stick out to make it worth looking at her!

TV now has a cable cost, special channels cost extra subscription fees and in exchange for this, we get even MORE commercials!

It is NOT that people hate commercials, see the superbowl ads but it is that when you PUT them freaking everywhere and turn the super bowl into 3 hours of commercials and 15 minutes of action (actually, ain't it already that? Perhaps I should not have used the most boring sport in the world as an example) with the action overlaid and surrounded by ads people just get annoyed.

If you put on a production of a classical piece of theather say eh.... Hamlet ( I do know more then one piece, I assure you! I am not an American after all, no I don't have to proof it) and put up a message "this brought to you by Coca Cola" few would mind. You might even put a banner beside the stage for the brand. BUT if you start to go "To drink Coke or to drink a lesser known brand" people will start to get upset.

Soaps were okay to be interrupted every now and then, after all it gave the women sometime to do some actually bloody housework. It always struck me as odd how women can claim house work is so fucking hard when there is all this TV aimed at them during their supposed working hours. How many TV programs are on during the day aimed at men at work? ZERO! Men don't get to lay on the sofa and watch TV all day dammit! We got to mess around with that new sexy teen girl intern non-stop! How about my wife mess around with the intern and I lay on the sofa to watch! Equality NOW!

Anyway, when you are watching some TV actually worth watching, it gets annoying to have it interrupted and overlaid with ads, especially when you have to pay for cable and the channel as well. The deal is OFF!

Fox, reduce the insane amount of advertising, cut the bulk commercials and produce quality programming so you can charge a premium for it so that your viewers become high quality viewers and you can make just as much money with fewer ads because the eyeballs are worth more.

THAT is the real problem with TV advertising. There are now so many slots for advertising that the price has collapsed, this isn't a Super Bowl style ad where only the top can afford to advertise, ANYONE can afford a TV spot now because the TV companies want more and more money so sell more and more slots with fewer and fewer people watching till everyone walks away in desperation, both viewers AND advertisers.

More is less in advertising. What is worth more. Game of Thrones with 30 sec of advertising half way through OR the weather channel with ads running continuously? That 30 sec slot might cost a million, those constant ad overlays? 10 dollars a pop. Oh, I made up those figures but I do know that for instance advertising in public transport is INSANELY cheap precisely because nobody pays them attention anymore. Put ads anywhere and everywhere and they loose all value. Scarcity creates value, abundance destroys it.

The sad part is that the obvious solution, PAY for your content directly isn't enough. The media companies are just to greedy. Buy a TV channel, they will add ads EVEN if they advertise with having no ads. Buy a DVD and they will add ads. I don't think it will be long before a DVD will stop a program mid way to show a commercial.

The sellers of advertisement space just don't get that people have a limit for the amount of advertising they can handle. To them it seems like finding new ways to push ad space is like printing free money, an endless way to increase revenue if only you can cram in some more.

It isn't. STOP the flood or people will find a way to stop the flood.

I don't watch TV anymore. NOT because I am somehow superior to the drivel that is on but because the constant endless ad breaks just don't fit with my way of being entertained anymore. I started by switching channels, but they synced ad blocks so I simply put the TV on mute, then switched it off and did something else waiting for the block to end and then I forgot to turn it on again... and now? I just don't turn it on anymore. New house came with fiber internet from KPN (dutch telecom) so I never bothered getting cable.

I bet FOX (well, RTL or something) wants to sue me too. I am skipping ALL THEIR ADS! Mwahahahhhahaaa!

This is rather fundamental to the entire copyright debate when it starts to focus on artists being unable to make a living anymore.

Well, how is that different from ANY other profession being unable to make a living anymore? In Holland it has been decades since the coal mines closed and not because of lack of coal. How would you, or indeed any artist, support any law dictating the installation of gas networks to keep the demand for goal high?

It goes further. With printing and the translation of the bible came the possibility for the faithful to get their fairy tales from outside the church and my my did the church hate that and not just try to ban this but committed murder on a massive scale to stop this.

Tech, changes, the, WORLD. It is not just about you holding a computer in your pocket now more powerful then early spaceships BUT it is about our very society changing because of tech. Anything from the pill, to the automobile and the post office box (before the post office box, women could not post without everyone knowing about it, mail became a great liberator long before the Internet).

And that change isn't always good for everyone. Modern artists have taken the bread away from many of their predecessors. Recorded music? Took the place of live music. Once every movie theater had a small band playing and of course movies took the place of real life artists on the stage.

You can't stop tech, well you can, red flag in front of cars and all that but ultimately, tech will prevail because for the majority, the good outweighs the bad. The Internet will continue to be. You can't stop the digital age just because you don't like that bits can be copied at near zero cost and be distributed for only slightly more.

And if you argue different then why do you care about artist who make millions while ordinary factory workers are unable to feed their families because that same tech has outsourced all their jobs? When those same millionaire artists flee the country to tax heavens and buy foreign goods?

Oh sure, not all artists are like that, they just dream of being like that one day.

There is still a normal average salery to be made as an artist, you just got to work hard, just like everyone else and not hope people will just buy your 1 good song with ten crap ones for what amounts to several times minimum wage EVEN if you had to perform it live. 5 minutes 1 dollar == 12 dollars an hour wage. Takes more time to write it? Take me more then 8 hours to keep an 8 hour job to and I know who is in more danger of throwing in his back.

The world has changed, either change with it or get steamrolled. If the artists cared that much about it all, let them strike. I will happily they get the same treatment as the coal workers around the world.

And if I sound angry? In Holland we have a recession, so how does the leftist (elitist) green party react? Impose taxes on public transport reimbursement payed by employers so you can make art and antiques have a lower tax rate. FUCK THAT.

And you might think I am extreme but when I voice this in real life, you see people going... well I don't agree, sure I don't buy any music anymore either and I am totally untouched by any plea from the industry or artists... oh wait... I do sorta agree.

Once people loved artists and were fans of record labels. Now that is no longer true except for the future burger flipper generation.

And if you don't believe me... do you have adblocker installed? Yes? So it is okay to steal from websites but not artists?

See? Once the people have been pushed to far, they can stand by and see a group destroyed with no remorse whatsoever. Human beings ain't nice and the world does not owe you a living.

Samsung can answer the question "You and what army of killer robots". Apple can answer the question "You and what army of hipsters who are to worried about their lattes to ever make a stand for anything". I know which one I would be more afraid to anger.

People forget that Samsung is an old fashioned giant, it may not have as much cash but it has business in nearly everything under the sun. Anything from ships to military to the chips that Apple so desperately needs. Samsung could loose all its mobile income tomorrow and it easily survive on everything else with full backing of the Korean government and its US military customers. Apple would be bankrupt and torn to shreds by its share holders and nobody has any incentive to keep it going. The world needs Samsung as a supplier, Apple? Nah.

It is what happens when you outsource all your actual production, just in time delivery sounds nice, but it means your suppliers own you once they realize this themselves. GOOD just in time delivery makes certain that you have a choice of suppliers and that none of them can survive without your business. Samsung can EASILY survive without and in fact, if they stop shipping to Apple, they kill a major competitor to their own products.

And if you think Apple can just go to someone else... they are all asian giants to. All of who would be perfectly happy to see Apple die and take over its business.

A lot of business stability exists because the status quo is just easier to keep. But Apple upset that, when you stir the calm waters, the sharks surface.

And THIS people is why you don't outsource or have 18 year olds make ANY decisions.

A product name means nothing so the only thing you got to do is make sure there are NO negative associations.

Associations with WW2, the nazi's, the holocaust and general nastyness... not the most brilliant marketing move.

Why not label your new black paint as Nigger and be done with it.

Mind you, this is an American company, only Americans would name military hardware after races wiped out by that same military.

So, the cops should not deal with crime in schools because there is crime on the streets? That is awfully specific. How about crimes on the side-walk? Is crime in the park alright?

Sounds like it was written by a church lady, someone who just wants to be outright at the indecency going on everywhere, even if she has to take a stepladder and binoculars around with her to find it.

The issue is rather simple, it is the insane privacy expectations of people where they are outraged if the police has any clearance to do their job and are equally outraged when the police has any clearance to do their job. "How dare you pull me over to test me for drink driving, why don't you shoot that guy with a laser guided missle because I think he might or might have had something to drink and I just don't like how he is driving". The British tabloids are REALLY good at this, whine about drink drivers in one article, then whine about the horrid effects of drunk drivers getting actually sentenced to anything at all. "Get them off our roads! You can't deny someone access to their car!"

And people wonder why politicians don't listen to the voter. The issue isn't that every voter has a different demand, it is that every single voter has multiple contradicting demands.

They got the no patent infringement part correct. One out of three is not bad. Ask Albert.