|
|
As a huge fan of MST3K, I think their diligence is what's kept us fans from getting a complete MST3K DVD collection. There's a lot of separate licenses to work out and some of the original film makers weren't happy having their movies laughed at. I think Rifftrax is also doing some licensing as well. I distinctly remember getting the riff track for Twilight immediately after the DVD was released, which sort of implies that maybe they at least got to view a screener.
No. It's analogous to you sitting at a table and playing Monopoly, then uploading a video of that gameplay, only to have Parker Brothers hijack your ad revenue. Gameplay video differs from TV and movie uploads in that, for consumers, the latter is the goal itself –– to watch the TV program or movie. For a game consumer, gameplay video isn't the goal. Gamers want to play the game, not watch a video of another person playing the game. Yes, the gameplay video involves copyright protected content, without which one couldn't make this new content, and so there is the temptation to argue that gameplay video is a derivative work; still, gameplay video is very clearly within the spirit of Fair Use. This should be especially apparent in the case of YouTube game reviewers or game commentators. If it were not, then I suppose I would be infringing just by playing a video game in front of a bunch of people. The fact that gameplay videos are free promotions for game publishers probably shouldn't have much weight since it's anyone's right to decide how they want to promote their product, but in any case, the threshold at which Nintendo suddenly takes over is curious. How many frames of video must feature a Nintendo product before Nintendo can take the ad revenue? What happens if I'm a video game reviewer and I show clips of gameplay from both Sony and Nintendo content? Will that result in a threeway battle over ad money between Nintendo, Sony, and me?
Google is no better at greed for money.
See how Google started removing borders around ads and made the shading super light in order to get ad clicks from older people and people with bad monitor calibration:
http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-it
Those carefully and scientifically calibrated colors must be worth atleast few hundred million of extra revenue from their cash cow by making gullible people click on ads mistaking them for real search results.
"Study:Contrast sensitivity gradually decreases with age"
http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=818&strict=0&morphologic=0&query=
Chrome is a trojan horse to weaken Mozilla which is becoming less powerful because Google uses its ad dollars to bundle Chrome with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates by default thereby reducing Firefox's share and has the nice side effect of reducing Google's payments to Mozilla for searches.
And Web DRM? Of course it's going to be a HTML standard very soon because IE, Safari and... ding! Chrome are going to be supporting it fully with 80% marketshare and people will blame Firefox if Netflix doesn't work in it and recommend you switch to Chrome to see movies! iOS, Android and Windows Phone, BBOS will add support for 100% tablet and phone support for the DRM.
Chrome on Chromebook already has the EME DRM module. Firefox and Opera are powerless to stop it. We have already seen this play out with the h.264 HTML5 video support in Chrome fiasco when Google promised it would drop H.264 from Chrome to push WebM but did not and Mozilla was left holding the bag with WebM and had to recently had to eat crow and add support for patent encumbered H264. The web is owned by the corporates, not individuals anymore, there was some hope when Firefox was at 40%, not anymore. And we all willingly gave them the power by believing in "open" and "do no evil" and switching in droves.
"In the battle of Google vs. Bing “powered by” results, 69.2 percent of all searches conducted were powered by Google (down from 69.7 percent in February), while 26.1 percent were powered by Bing (up from 25.9 percent) in February."
The information is out there. You can easily bing for it in less time that you needed to type those comments referencing your own websites' stats "still showing blah blah" which I was referring to when I send "frog in the well bubble".
Because Windows 8 desktop is better than Windows 7 desktop. The file dialogs are better, file copying is handled better. customizations are better. It's just better and in a lot of nice and subtle ways. If MS had just not done the tile thing, and added the store as an icon on the desk, windows 8 would have been a nice upgrade.
Because anyone good enough to convince you to buy a car is someone who is by definition entreprenuial and doesn't want to be a schmoe in a chain.
How many websites are there in the world?
How many do you manage?
How many web visitors are there in the world?
How many of them would've visited your websites?
Good luck living in a "frog in the well" bubble.
Chrome is a trojan horse to weaken Mozilla which is becoming less powerful because Google uses its ad dollars to bundle Chrome with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates by default thereby reducing Firefox's share and has the nice side effect of reducing Google's payments to Mozilla for searches.
And Web DRM? Of course it's going to be a HTML standard very soon because IE, Safari and... ding! Chrome are going to be supporting it fully with 80% marketshare and people will blame Firefox if Netflix doesn't work in it and recommend you switch to Chrome to see movies! iOS, Android and Windows Phone, BBOS will add support for 100% tablet and phone support for the DRM.
Chrome on Chromebook already has the EME DRM module. Firefox and Opera are powerless to stop it. We have already seen this play out with the h.264 HTML5 video support in Chrome fiasco when Google promised it would drop H.264 from Chrome to push WebM but did not and Mozilla was left holding the bag with WebM and had to recently had to eat crow and add support for patent encumbered H264. The web is owned by the corporates, not individuals anymore, there was some hope when Firefox was at 40%, not anymore. And we all willingly gave them the power by believing in "open" and "do no evil" and switching in droves.
Perhaps, but there's a line which you have to draw where you have to criticize Google for overreaching here too. Today it's Windows Phone, tomorrow it might be UbuntuOS or Firefox OS or Jolla/Sailfish.
It's a publicly accessible website that anyone with a decent browser can access. So yes, it's part of the open web. Closing it off by not providing an API is a dick move by Google, but it's not like they're detecting particular browsers and then blocking access.
Not for lack of trying.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/google-maps-windows-phone-and-an-avoidable-mess/
http://wmpoweruser.com/now-google-is-blocking-windows-phones-from-accessing-maps-google-com/
Whoops. "Open Web", indeed.
Thet post troll has unintentionally stumbled on something interesting.
See how Google started removing borders around ads and made the shading super light in order to get ad clicks from older people and people with bad monitor calibration:
http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-it [ppcblog.com]or-maybe-not/
http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/ [blumenthals.com]
Those carefully and scientifically calibrated colors must be worth atleast few hundred million of extra revenue from their cash cow by making gullible people click on ads mistaking them for real search results.
"Study:Contrast sensitivity gradually decreases with age"
http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=818&strict=0&morphologic=0&query=
but they go directly after the science of human behavior. All done in a warm, fuzzy feel that Google is somehow your very best friend. It's entirely psychological.
Hello first post troll, but you unintentionally stumbled on something interesting.
See how Google started removing borders around ads and made the shading super light in order to get ad clicks from older people and people with bad monitor calibration:
http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-itor-maybe-not/
Those carefully and scientifically calibrated colors must be worth atleast few hundred million of extra revenue from their cash cow by making gullible people click on ads.
Who's being evil now???
The company that's providing a way to view ad supported content, ad free, is being evil.
Why bring Mozilla into this?
https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/
But because it's Microsoft, fuck them, right?
If Google modified the Chrome browser to strip out ads on/from Microsoft owned properties, Microsoft would have a fit. Anti-trust complaints in multiple jurisdiction, legal threats, political lobbying, chair throwing, the works.
So yes, fuck them.
No they won't do that.
A critical update will go out on Windows Update globally that will simply update change the
If you are going to walk on thin ice, you may as well dance.