Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Content manipulation is an issue (Score 5, Insightful) 221

It's not like all shows are available at a price and you just refused to pay it.

Content is often...
Old so not available
Not available in /your country/
Not available when you want to watch it
Has commercials
Better quality elsewhere, ability to pause play rewinid at your leisure.

Basically as usual, pirated content has the better product, even if you had to "pay" for it.

Stop restricting content by country
Stop restricting content to try and force people to accept certain content.

Oh yeah, they do it, fyi, deliberately pull other popular content from access just to get people watching their "new" show. It's like products, installing updates or things that cause it to run worse but it's a "security update" until they tell you to buy a newer, faster shinier product.

They keep trying to section off markets to milk the most of it etc. If instead, part of harmonization the entire world, allowed content to be accessible on a global level with specific standards for quality control, performance and user interfaces (As every company wants a piece of the pie) you would have a lot less people pirating.

I don't even watch netflix anymore because I've already seen anything good and their library is started to suck ass. I only keep it since a family member watches it still.

Pirates have global access to high quality on demand content of their choosing, free for the most part no less.
Your expensive services are terrible and don't even come close.

There's a lot of content I'd like to watch and would pay for access to watch it, but I can't, then you whine and complain because I'm not buying the products you want me to.

Comment Re:Govt wants free money (Score 1) 159

Yeah I've worked retail in the past and actually have put higher prices on products that were "on sale" with new higher prices that were never charged.

It's dirty. Thankfully I saw that when I was a lot younger so I made sure to value products through research on what they do and their value to me than what a store tells me.

Comment Grand delusions by their finance execs (Score 1) 189

Consumers:
Not that interested to see it, even in theater. Too pricey, maybe might watch it on dvd, at friends house. Rather go out for dinner and a beer for 20$.
Free? I guess I'm not doing anything tonight, suppose I'll watch it.

Hollywood version:
OH MAN I WOULD TOTALLY GIVE THEM ALL MY MONEY ALL THE TIME BUT I CAN GET IT FOR FREE SO I WONT BUT IF I CANT GET IT FOR FREE I WILL TOTALLY GIVE THEM ALL MY MONEY ALL THE TIME THEY ARE SUPER AWESOME AND DESERVE ALL MY MONEY.

They bank on people not knowing if the movie is worth paying for in the first place. Like some game developers, they get mad at pirates or first buyers because if the game is shitty, they let people know, instead of suckering you into paying for it first and then it being too bad.

As for video games, pirates are also the biggest spenders on games. Studies have shown that, and it's because they're also their biggest fans, if they enjoy the game, they want to support the developers and have an official copy.

You go to the movie theater for the experience. Now the ticket prices themselves aren't too bad, but they charge 7 fucking dollars for POPCORN.

Your movie profits are being wrecked by greedy cinema's charging too much for "the experience" which typically is popcorn, a drink and the movie. suddenly to watch a movie it's 25-30$ instead of 12-15 which is the ticket itself. A couple / two people? Now it's 50-60$

I'd have way more friend with a friend each buying dinner for 12-15$ and then another 15$ in drinks that night than most movies.

Comment Re:My Heart and my head (Score 1) 492

Like so many other people you attempt to go out of the boundaries of what was said to somehow make it incorrect or that you are right.

I already said in no way excuse what was done or think that persecution should be avoided (By stating in response I don't contest the persecution attempts on these individuals). Do you want me to repeat that line for you ten times so that it's clear? I never said it affected this particular case. What I /did/ say was that I hope this case doesn't affect other cases. The part where I said I wasn't contesting these specific individuals in response to the attempts of the law to persecute them?

You sure you don't want me to repeat it ten times? I feel like I probably need too.

You're almost a politician with what you said. I clearly stated it's possible to tell when an act is very far from any reasonable line. My concern was a slow inching of the reasonable line until that act that previously would had been clearly unreasonable, doesn't have such a gap so it is no longer "far from any reasonable line"

Comment Re:My Heart and my head (Score 2) 492

I'm in no way contesting these specific individuals, but if you pay attention to how law works, every time something occurs, it will be referred to in future rulings to convince the judge to rule in favor of a party.

Hypothetically it could be then "Well, this site has content that can cause seizures and it showed up on my news feed or on an advertisement, and in case X where someone submitted content to another user that can cause seizures their information was revealed etc etc."

The problem doesn't become the spirit of the ruling, it becomes the letters of the law. More simplified. Original issue..

"Party A maliciously sent multiple damaging images to party B" Case successful.
"Party A maliciously sent one damaging image to party B" Well, see the ruling in case one, the judge decided in favor. Judge influenced, case successful.
"Party A sent multiple damaging images to party B, and should have been aware it could cause harm" Well, see the ruling for case one and two where this content was sent to people and caused seizures. Judge agrees, case successful.
"Party A sent ....

Until you get down to "Party A publicly submitted content that they knew would be viewed by many viewers, some who may have conditions to cause seizures and should have been aware of it and is responsible since it's a public medium" If the next case was the final case, and the only had case 1 to reference, it'd like be called bullshit. But as each case morphs slightly, it makes the legal gap smaller and smaller until you can nail someone for a flashing ad.

Mind you I hate flashing ads, and it's not even medically threatening to me, but you get the point. It can eventually be converted out of the original pretext and used and abused.

That's what I meant.

Comment Re:My Heart and my head (Score 1) 492

That makes sense but effort and time consuming for everyone to uo verify and update content appropriately.

You'll just end up with another screen like any EULA that states how they are not responsible for etc etc which may or may not be on this site.
Every site will have it just to cover themselves, and only a few sites won't have warnings about seizures etc so ideally you'd know those are safe..but yeah overall I don't think it would play out the way people would want it to if they asked for seizure warning click-throughs.

There are videos that have seizure potentially causing images and what not and a lot of the time they do warn you.

Comment Re:My Heart and my head (Score 4, Interesting) 492

Yeah what the person responsible did was intentional harm, and I fully believe charges should be placed for it.

However, the bigger question comes, will this lead to the path of having any animation that can induce seizures anywhere online become legally liable?

It's always a problem, the first part makes sense, what it lets people do after is concerning. It's like schools, a child may have a peanut allergy, henceforth peanuts are completely banned from a school distract. I understand if a child within that school itself has an allergy to ban it from that school, but they'll blanket an entire distract with it flat out. More and more this world seems to be pushing towards the needs of the one out weighing the needs of the many.

I hope the person responsible is persecuted, but that nothing beyond that stems from the ruling.

Comment Nothing special here, just a "For the children" (Score 1) 351

One of the more common ways they try to motivate the general populace for something they want.

This time it's a "For the children" give us 20$. That's their real goal. Also part of the "install applications that record what you do and reports home" information bit. You know, to uh..improve the blocking..for the children.

It's more just tiny steps to not have people outraged and add more surveillance slowly and have it become the norm.

Comment Re:So they uploaded content they have the license (Score 1) 128

Troll or just a dummy? E.G If I released an e-book and advertised you can download it from X-site for free, I can't turn around and sue you for copyright infringement.

If it's content they have the legal rights to, then it's not illegal to download the content they released. "Torrenting" on it's own isn't illegal and is used by many programs legit, like game updaters etc.

If the lawyers did not have the rights to it, then they were encouraging other people to commit illegal actions, in which case themselves did so, and like they charge a pirate in general saying 'The song you downloaded, you uploaded to 1300 people, you have to pay $ x 13000 now" then I say since they uploaded it, they can pay for each person that it was uploaded to themselves. Should be a nice fine for them.

Comment So they uploaded content they have the license to? (Score 2) 128

That means they made a choice to distrubute it. No one illegal obtained it, they flat out shared it. They were the source of the content.

That means each person they did this too they owe the money back to the person who torrented the file, and if the lawyers violated the copyright holders copyright, they have to pay for each time the file was uploaded to another user through their torrent.

Same penalties.

Comment Re:Like what? Mandatory time out on monitors? (Score 1) 171

Cheap PSU's is one thing but it'll just be a money grab overall.

Instead of trying to sell us on better power efficiency in hardware besides PSU's, like CPU's with power saving features, it'll be mandatory.
What they'll do it then say "Due to the cost to implement these features, we have to increase price" and it'll be safe for them to do it since everyone has to add these functions and can't undercut them, so its not going to end well for the consumer, it never does.

Slashdot Top Deals

Truth has always been found to promote the best interests of mankind... - Percy Bysshe Shelley

Working...