To me spending +/- $1.00 for a song that I am able to listen to for every single moment I am breathing from now until I die doesn't seem like too much to pay. How about you?
I love it! That is, provided I only want *one* song for the rest of my life.
Now calculate this for someone who wants to listen to 10,000 songs from various artists during their lifetime.
That's $10,000 dollars, genius. Wait, I forgot the addition $3000 since songs are really $1.30 now.
Still think it's not too much to pay?
And note, genius, if the $1.30 model doesn't work, expect to see even *more* increases to pay those who don't sing, write, perform, or do anything else but "represent" artists who actually do but get ___SCANT___ from each "$1" made.
Insert Einstein quote regarding an infinite universe here.
it's not "free" IE that killed Netscape Navigator
Well, there's also the fact internal company decisions also helped kill Netscape, but there's absolute *NO* disputing that Microsoft's bundling of IE (and everyone needs an OS, moron) into Windows helped its demise.
But given *you* were pissing under your parents dining table when all this occurred, it explains your position.
As well as your grammar.
Hell, I bet you don't even know what IE stands for.
Where is Netscape now, mikey-boy ?
And you call Mike the moron? Incredible. Anyone with a history knowledge of browsers knows exactly what happened to Netscape, and quite a portion of this comes from Microsoft undermining Netscape's business model to charge for its browser by offering its free version with every Windows purchase.
If every website in the world banned Googlebot tomorrow, google would cease to be relevant within days, and cease altogether within weeks.
Well, there's a reason why everyone trashed your remark. It belongs in the Recycle Bin.
Ever hear of image search, stores, free software, or... hold your breath... gmail?
You're under the impression Google "takes" and you're incredibly ignorant to believe this. Google doesn't take anything people don't want listed. As stated in other comments, *anyone* can block Google's search indexer.
Now ask yourself this: Why isn't Murdoch (et al) adding this *extremely simple* option to *their* website?
Why? Bad press = free press = good press. Murdoch *loves* being the center of attention, and sites like Techdirt are fulfilling his desire.
Google isn't going anywhere, but the newspaper industry is. I'm sure that for every NewsCorp site blocked by Google, "local home paper" gets added.
And I truly believe those sites won't whine and complain about increased traffic or "stolen" news. If anything, they'll have reason to charge a bit more for the web ads.
You really should remove yourself from the 80s and understand what *digital distribution* truly means.
At least if you do, you won't get your fingers dirty from the ink left by products where *other* factions are whining about (save the trees!).
The producers of that product ARE being denied their rightful property - income from their sweat and labor to make the product.
And this, Biff, ends your plausible defense.
Income is not property, nor is it a right to have.
Now I know where your confusion is, but make no mistake: digital distribution allows more people to access the same content, because the download can't be stolen, only copied.
But trying to force consumers to pay 15x for the *same thing* is why so many businesses are failing to stop piracy.
When you can defend a reason why a legally purchased DVD can't offer access to a digital download without an additional payment, add your two cents.
So, it's OK to receive stolen property that you know is stolen, as long as YOU don't see any ill effects to the industry from which it's stolen?
And what makes you think *every* consumer will do this?
That's the attitude the entertainment industry is taking. They believe *YOU* will "steal" their works and give it away.
Using the Buick analogy, you would need to call a 1800 number to verify yourself *every single time* you want to drive your legally purchased vehicle.
But will this stop theft? Hell no.
So why is the burden on *YOU* to prevent car theft?
And for the record, I don't download. When I say I'm against it and do without, that's exactly what it means.
There are plenty of truly free offerings which I can take advantage of that doesn't require me to pay extortion "pay per view" prices.
YouTube's one of them. People do crazy things which is always entertaining. Like the guy rolling the shopping cart down a hill and slamming into a pole. Classic.
My cost: 2 ads to view.
Biff, I truly am the definition of "the lost sale".
Everything else I own is legal (receipts to prove it).
Side rant:
So imagine my surprise when Adobe shut down my access to Fireworks CS4 simply because Norton's firewall software refused the connection to the server to verify its "authenticity".
It took me two weeks to discover why the lockout was initiated. TWO FREAKIN' WEEKS of the lack of use of my *LEGALLY* purchased software.
Yeah, makes me feel so warm inside to know I'm a *bleeping* thief to them.
That's a pretty weak argument.
Reading comprehension lesson time:
"I learned English *** THROUGH *** video games."
Not from. Big difference. Many of my friends not native to America share similar stories at having learned through movies and antiquated TV shows.
Hell, even I'm taking this approach learning Japanese *through* anime and *from* course books. Best way to learn dialogue, speech, and inflection which *no* book can do.
Agreed the ban is beyond moronic and it's nice to see the statement on how it provided a benefit, rather than another negative.
Of course, he could always take up arms and overthrow the government. When the media requests where he got his knowledge, he can quip "Why, from 'The A-Team', of course!"
Even if they see value, people won't pay unless they have to, and only after they have explored every possible way to avoid payment.
That's crap, and you know it. Techdirt's proven time and time again people *are* buying.
If piracy was so devastating, then why are theaters booming? Think about this, as they'd be the first line of casualties. Could it be those record-breaking years were just lies?
I still haven't seen Britney Spears standing on a street corner with a sign reading "Will sing for food."
Nor have I seen any proof that piracy is causing ill effects to the *entertainment industry*. Can you? Show me.
Comcast's introduction to the piracy world is nothing more than an attempt to extol revenues from *innocent people* simply because a few don't want to pay.
I appreciate you calling me a pirate despite any evidence to the contrary. You obviously represent the entertainment industry.
So, I have to ask: What the hell did I ever do to you to:
-have my $300 DVD player turned into a paperweight because it couldn't recognize the new DRM layer?
-force me to pay extra-ordinary markup on infinite goods so to offer DRM free music?
-lock my software because a computer glitch refuses to validate with your server?
-force me to pay for television stations supported by ads?
-take away my rights as a consumer for using content via fair use?
-force YouTube to take down my video of a dancing baby because there's a licensed song playing in the background?
-call me a thief because I refuse to buy $16 CDs and $20 DVDs and simply do without, given I'm the *true* definition of a lost sale?
Whatever. The entertainment industry in this country is forcing the hands of innocents, and this includes Comcast.
I get why Burke made the statement, but *that's not his damn job*, especially when innocent consumers are footing the bill.
Rant? Maybe, but my letters to these industries have had no affect. How about yours?
Which means I have purchased the right to view ALL of those channels.
Actually, you're confusing distribution with service. You have the right to use the services to view distributed content.
You're *not* paying for the television show.
In fact, several cable companies had to deal with Viacom's ridiculous request for an increase of licensing fees.
Thus proving the two separate entities.
And $200 to pay for "ALL" channels? What the heck do you watch worth $200 a month or were you shanghaied into paying extra for that tier so you can watch a channel otherwise not available?
While I am sure his comments will get the standard Techdirt drubbing, the reality is that he is correct. It doesn't sound nice to say it, but at this point, the consumers are wrong, and here is why [snipped]
AC, you're completely wrong on the "why". Please read the COO's statement again regarding changing consumer habit.
That's a problem, because without this habit, Comcast wouldn't exist.
Consumers are easy to deal with: show them value, and they'll buy it. It's Economics 101 in terms of supply & demand.
Comcast wastes *no time* in offering special "bundles" to new consumers based on this very consumer habit. 3 offerings for $99/mo. That's value. But allow me to go back further in time.
When cable was introduced, it revolutionized television because it gave consumers many more choices. "Free" TV was limited, so consumers sought the value of paying for those additional channels.
As technology was introduced, cable companies took advantage and sold services to consumers.
Seriously think about this. Why is a *cable company* offering telephone and internet services? By your logic, these companies should be regulated to television broadcasts only.
Instead, we see *adaptation*, which is a great thing. However, there's a problem with this adaption in terms of the industry: Monopolies.
Comcast is in power to "change" consumer behavior simply because it *knows* options do not exist. For consumers, there aren't many ways to access the internet or watch TV through the speeds/offerings available in their area.
Thus, consumers will be *forced* back to "free" television if they choose to walk away from Comcast.
Why? Because if Comcast is successful, every other business will take the same approach. Time Warner, Adelphia, AT&T, and even Verizon, to name a few, will jump on this bandwagon.
That's not innovation anymore. That's monopolistic control and it harms consumer choice. By stating "consumers' must change" is stating "we're in control and they've no choice but to comply."
Steve Burke is *completely* missing the mark by failing to realize his consumers are opting for new choice *using their service*. Just because they no longer want to watch a show dedicated to a specific time slot doesn't mean the value to obtain it is lost. It's just changed to fit the *consumer's* need.
Additional proof is Comcast's "relationship" with Time Warner to provide on-demand movies (which will be SOC locked soon, it looks like) behind a cable wall, meaning one has to shell out $50+ *per month* to watch a movie which can be rented as low as $1.
See a problem with that? It's revenue protection. It's equivalent to the RIAA's arguments about lost revenues because simple math dictates a $1 song isn't going to return the same profits as a $16 CD.
So why punish the consumers for failing to offer choices? They did so with their services, so it boggles my mind they've just *stopped* innovating.
Personally, I think it's crap to charge consumers $40+ for a phone service utilizing the same system as the internet connection, but obviously it's still *cheaper* than a phone line with long distance "subscription". Consumers make this choice because Comcast (et al) offer the *cheaper* service against their competitor.
Steve Burke is *wrong*. He'll find this out when consumers do decide "free" TV is better than Comcast's monopolistic approach to removing the value they enticed them with initially.
But hey, sometimes a company needs to make mistakes before they realize their error in judgment. Let Mr. Burke try, and fail.
Because he'll quickly realize once a consumer is screwed by a company, they'll never come back. Comcast's revenue stream will be greatly affected by this decision than the "losses" they're seeing now.
I thought that was what counterfeiting laws were for -- so why even bother with copyright?
Simple. When the judicial system fails to convict those who counterfeit, the civil system will tag them with statutory damages.
A VPN is the same as P2P?
What a maroon.
You need reading comprehension lessons.
Of course they're not the same. The point, since you missed it, is that *you don't put P2P software opened to the world on a secured computer and expect it to remain such* just as one shouldn't use VPNs to establish a PRIVATE connection to a PUBLIC server.
R. Miles, your claims are false.
I'm not making any claims, Mike.
Techdirt featured a recent article about government employees being banned from using P2P software on government computers. You attributed the cause of leaked files to the lack of education of P2P software (settings), correct?
Think about this a moment. Really.
How is your VPN usage *any* different, Mike?
Are you going to write a Techdirt article against Witopia should one day you hit a site and your VPN is compromised because of *your* actions?
It boggles my mind people do this. I fully understand the purpose of Witopia. It's the users who think "security" is 100% guaranteed that get compromised.
I certainly hope your laptop doesn't contain information you don't want others to have.
You're just begging for someone to take it.
That would then limit what else I could do while I was on Hulu.
Bingo!!! Just what a VPN should do in the first place, Mike.
Keep throwing up those IT articles about security failure.
When you do, I'll simply link back to this one and point out the failure caused when people want to do unsecured actions using a secured system.
So, what are you, some kind of Hulu shill or just an idiot? Or maybe a troll playing the part?
Mr. Hypocrite, it's best if I dumb down my post, as I appear to have written it confusingly. I'll take the blame for this, so allow me to expand even further.
You own a lock box which holds all your secret information. The goal of this lock box is to transfer contents from your home to the bank. There is only one key, so its security is confined to you.
Now, would you take this lock box down a dark alley where thieves hold tools and will waste no time trying to break open your lock box? Or worse, steal your key?
Of course you wouldn't. But this is what Mike (and many others) do. They're taking their lock box down the dark alley because they continually believe the key will keep them safe, and worse, should open other things besides the lock box.
The purpose of security is to ensure the contents of the lock box gets to the bank. Not Hulu, YouTube, or any other non-secured website. By *purposely* going down the dark alley is inviting the failure of security.
Of course, it's Mike's choice to do so, but it completely boggles my mind he's upset when his key isn't working where he expects it to, but not intended for.
If anything, Mike has set a precedent on why security fails so often. Too many times, people want the lock box to do everything while trying to remain secured.
Kind of similar to installing P2P software on government computers, open to the world, in which the content is to be secured *from* the outside world.
I would have drawn pictures, but I wouldn't have been able to post them.
You are honestly saying that if one part of the connection isn't secure you should not use any security at all? That makes no sense.
Hulu doesn't require a secured connection, so why use a secured channel to access it.
You do realize he pays them for this right? It is the service they offer in exchange for your money?
Yes, I gathered this from the article. But the VPN connection isn't the issue as much as *why* the connection is refused.
I agree with Mike's assessment the reason for blocking the VPN is stupid, but I can't understand his position when a simple change of connection, which also protects his VPN, would be the *better* choice.
It seems to me from your post that you are more advocating turning off all security just because one site on the internet might not be secure. I think you need to clarify.
I'll try. VPN connections are used on the premise that a remote computer can connect to another using secure protocols which do their best to prevent unauthorized access to either system.
The *sole* purpose is for a secured connection, but it shouldn't be used outside of this purpose. In other words, a VPN shouldn't be used to access systems which the VPN wasn't intended.
Yes, some will argue that it's to protect the connecting machine, but this is why I related it to the administrator account.
To me, it makes *absolutely no sense* to use a VPN to establish connections for which the VPN wasn't intended to do.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I would assume the VPN is used to establish the connection between Mike's laptop and the Floor64 servers, such that he can securely work from anywhere in the world. Maybe connections to other businesses as well.
The entire *purpose* of security is to prevent unauthorized access, so (again, my perception) it makes no sense why a machine designated for security would be used in a non-secured role.
What's ironic are the articles Techdirt posts about government employees losing their laptops containing sensitive data and then posing the question why these laptops were allowed out of the building to begin with.
Same concept. Mike *shouldn't* be using a secured laptop to access an unsecured site. Ever.
But, admittedly, this is just my viewpoint as I consistently see people making this same mistake daily (hence the "log out of the admin account").
I guess I'm just a bit more cautious in this type of situation. I'd never use a VPN connection to hit a site it wasn't designated to secure itself over.
There's *no reason* to use VPN to hit the Hulu site.
Get a netbook to surf the web. Leave the secured laptop to its primary secured role.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as R. Miles)
Wait, you're under the impression you'll be able to view these PRE-DVD releases at a reasonable price?
Brighthouse offers a couple and they *start* at $10!
Netflix already wins and the MPAA dream of controlling customer content and systems hasn't even been implemented.
Re: "Too Expensive" (as R. Miles)
To me spending +/- $1.00 for a song that I am able to listen to for every single moment I am breathing from now until I die doesn't seem like too much to pay. How about you?
I love it! That is, provided I only want *one* song for the rest of my life.
Now calculate this for someone who wants to listen to 10,000 songs from various artists during their lifetime.
That's $10,000 dollars, genius. Wait, I forgot the addition $3000 since songs are really $1.30 now.
Still think it's not too much to pay?
And note, genius, if the $1.30 model doesn't work, expect to see even *more* increases to pay those who don't sing, write, perform, or do anything else but "represent" artists who actually do but get ___SCANT___ from each "$1" made.
Insert Einstein quote regarding an infinite universe here.
Re: Re: Re: Mikey is a moron (as R. Miles)
it's not "free" IE that killed Netscape Navigator
Well, there's also the fact internal company decisions also helped kill Netscape, but there's absolute *NO* disputing that Microsoft's bundling of IE (and everyone needs an OS, moron) into Windows helped its demise.
But given *you* were pissing under your parents dining table when all this occurred, it explains your position.
As well as your grammar.
Hell, I bet you don't even know what IE stands for.
Re: Mikey is a moron (as R. Miles)
Where is Netscape now, mikey-boy ?
And you call Mike the moron? Incredible. Anyone with a history knowledge of browsers knows exactly what happened to Netscape, and quite a portion of this comes from Microsoft undermining Netscape's business model to charge for its browser by offering its free version with every Windows purchase.
Moron.
Re: (as R. Miles)
Doctor Strange, while your post was insightful (I already knew the context), you're missing the bigger picture.
The guy could definitely talk (and persuade), but all his talking did *nothing* but to instill "fear" to protect against innovation.
I suggest you re-read his statement(s) again and clearly see what he's truly doing.
The "Boston Strangler" comment was over the top to do nothing more than keep people going into theaters.
Now that you've read his statements, notice anything missing? Here, let me help you: *never* does he talk about how his industry will innovate.
*NEVER*
That's a problem, and I don't believe Techdirt (or other sites) using the quote is unjustified.
It's no different than the RIAA spewing fear rhetoric by wasted *NO* time in adapting the MP3 model for *their* use.
When was the last time RIAA innovated? More importantly, what technology *hasn't* the RIAA used for their greed pooling?
They didn't invent the CD, LP, tape cassette, or hell, even the piano. But they sure do love reaping the revenues of each of these technologies.
Re: (as R. Miles)
If every website in the world banned Googlebot tomorrow, google would cease to be relevant within days, and cease altogether within weeks.
Well, there's a reason why everyone trashed your remark. It belongs in the Recycle Bin.
Ever hear of image search, stores, free software, or... hold your breath... gmail?
You're under the impression Google "takes" and you're incredibly ignorant to believe this. Google doesn't take anything people don't want listed. As stated in other comments, *anyone* can block Google's search indexer.
Now ask yourself this: Why isn't Murdoch (et al) adding this *extremely simple* option to *their* website?
Why? Bad press = free press = good press. Murdoch *loves* being the center of attention, and sites like Techdirt are fulfilling his desire.
Google isn't going anywhere, but the newspaper industry is. I'm sure that for every NewsCorp site blocked by Google, "local home paper" gets added.
And I truly believe those sites won't whine and complain about increased traffic or "stolen" news. If anything, they'll have reason to charge a bit more for the web ads.
You really should remove yourself from the 80s and understand what *digital distribution* truly means.
At least if you do, you won't get your fingers dirty from the ink left by products where *other* factions are whining about (save the trees!).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as R. Miles)
The producers of that product ARE being denied their rightful property - income from their sweat and labor to make the product.
And this, Biff, ends your plausible defense.
Income is not property, nor is it a right to have.
Now I know where your confusion is, but make no mistake: digital distribution allows more people to access the same content, because the download can't be stolen, only copied.
But trying to force consumers to pay 15x for the *same thing* is why so many businesses are failing to stop piracy.
When you can defend a reason why a legally purchased DVD can't offer access to a digital download without an additional payment, add your two cents.
Until then, I think we're done here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as R. Miles)
So, it's OK to receive stolen property that you know is stolen, as long as YOU don't see any ill effects to the industry from which it's stolen?
And what makes you think *every* consumer will do this?
That's the attitude the entertainment industry is taking. They believe *YOU* will "steal" their works and give it away.
Using the Buick analogy, you would need to call a 1800 number to verify yourself *every single time* you want to drive your legally purchased vehicle.
But will this stop theft? Hell no.
So why is the burden on *YOU* to prevent car theft?
And for the record, I don't download. When I say I'm against it and do without, that's exactly what it means.
There are plenty of truly free offerings which I can take advantage of that doesn't require me to pay extortion "pay per view" prices.
YouTube's one of them. People do crazy things which is always entertaining. Like the guy rolling the shopping cart down a hill and slamming into a pole. Classic.
My cost: 2 ads to view.
Biff, I truly am the definition of "the lost sale".
Everything else I own is legal (receipts to prove it).
Side rant:
So imagine my surprise when Adobe shut down my access to Fireworks CS4 simply because Norton's firewall software refused the connection to the server to verify its "authenticity".
It took me two weeks to discover why the lockout was initiated. TWO FREAKIN' WEEKS of the lack of use of my *LEGALLY* purchased software.
Yeah, makes me feel so warm inside to know I'm a *bleeping* thief to them.
Interesting. (as R. Miles)
I'm betting legalized gambling over the internet never gets passed.
The odds are 10:1 on black, 5:1 on red, and 2:1 on yellow.
This is the one time the House isn't in favor to win.
Re: English as a video game language (as R. Miles)
That's a pretty weak argument.
Reading comprehension lesson time:
"I learned English *** THROUGH *** video games."
Not from. Big difference. Many of my friends not native to America share similar stories at having learned through movies and antiquated TV shows.
Hell, even I'm taking this approach learning Japanese *through* anime and *from* course books. Best way to learn dialogue, speech, and inflection which *no* book can do.
Agreed the ban is beyond moronic and it's nice to see the statement on how it provided a benefit, rather than another negative.
Of course, he could always take up arms and overthrow the government. When the media requests where he got his knowledge, he can quip "Why, from 'The A-Team', of course!"
Re: Re: Re: (as R. Miles)
Even if they see value, people won't pay unless they have to, and only after they have explored every possible way to avoid payment.
That's crap, and you know it. Techdirt's proven time and time again people *are* buying.
If piracy was so devastating, then why are theaters booming? Think about this, as they'd be the first line of casualties. Could it be those record-breaking years were just lies?
I still haven't seen Britney Spears standing on a street corner with a sign reading "Will sing for food."
Nor have I seen any proof that piracy is causing ill effects to the *entertainment industry*. Can you? Show me.
Comcast's introduction to the piracy world is nothing more than an attempt to extol revenues from *innocent people* simply because a few don't want to pay.
I appreciate you calling me a pirate despite any evidence to the contrary. You obviously represent the entertainment industry.
So, I have to ask: What the hell did I ever do to you to:
-have my $300 DVD player turned into a paperweight because it couldn't recognize the new DRM layer?
-force me to pay extra-ordinary markup on infinite goods so to offer DRM free music?
-lock my software because a computer glitch refuses to validate with your server?
-force me to pay for television stations supported by ads?
-take away my rights as a consumer for using content via fair use?
-force YouTube to take down my video of a dancing baby because there's a licensed song playing in the background?
-call me a thief because I refuse to buy $16 CDs and $20 DVDs and simply do without, given I'm the *true* definition of a lost sale?
Whatever. The entertainment industry in this country is forcing the hands of innocents, and this includes Comcast.
I get why Burke made the statement, but *that's not his damn job*, especially when innocent consumers are footing the bill.
Rant? Maybe, but my letters to these industries have had no affect. How about yours?
(as R. Miles)
Which means I have purchased the right to view ALL of those channels.
Actually, you're confusing distribution with service. You have the right to use the services to view distributed content.
You're *not* paying for the television show.
In fact, several cable companies had to deal with Viacom's ridiculous request for an increase of licensing fees.
Thus proving the two separate entities.
And $200 to pay for "ALL" channels? What the heck do you watch worth $200 a month or were you shanghaied into paying extra for that tier so you can watch a channel otherwise not available?
Re: (as R. Miles)
While I am sure his comments will get the standard Techdirt drubbing, the reality is that he is correct. It doesn't sound nice to say it, but at this point, the consumers are wrong, and here is why [snipped]
AC, you're completely wrong on the "why". Please read the COO's statement again regarding changing consumer habit.
That's a problem, because without this habit, Comcast wouldn't exist.
Consumers are easy to deal with: show them value, and they'll buy it. It's Economics 101 in terms of supply & demand.
Comcast wastes *no time* in offering special "bundles" to new consumers based on this very consumer habit. 3 offerings for $99/mo. That's value. But allow me to go back further in time.
When cable was introduced, it revolutionized television because it gave consumers many more choices. "Free" TV was limited, so consumers sought the value of paying for those additional channels.
As technology was introduced, cable companies took advantage and sold services to consumers.
Seriously think about this. Why is a *cable company* offering telephone and internet services? By your logic, these companies should be regulated to television broadcasts only.
Instead, we see *adaptation*, which is a great thing. However, there's a problem with this adaption in terms of the industry: Monopolies.
Comcast is in power to "change" consumer behavior simply because it *knows* options do not exist. For consumers, there aren't many ways to access the internet or watch TV through the speeds/offerings available in their area.
Thus, consumers will be *forced* back to "free" television if they choose to walk away from Comcast.
Why? Because if Comcast is successful, every other business will take the same approach. Time Warner, Adelphia, AT&T, and even Verizon, to name a few, will jump on this bandwagon.
That's not innovation anymore. That's monopolistic control and it harms consumer choice. By stating "consumers' must change" is stating "we're in control and they've no choice but to comply."
Steve Burke is *completely* missing the mark by failing to realize his consumers are opting for new choice *using their service*. Just because they no longer want to watch a show dedicated to a specific time slot doesn't mean the value to obtain it is lost. It's just changed to fit the *consumer's* need.
Additional proof is Comcast's "relationship" with Time Warner to provide on-demand movies (which will be SOC locked soon, it looks like) behind a cable wall, meaning one has to shell out $50+ *per month* to watch a movie which can be rented as low as $1.
See a problem with that? It's revenue protection. It's equivalent to the RIAA's arguments about lost revenues because simple math dictates a $1 song isn't going to return the same profits as a $16 CD.
So why punish the consumers for failing to offer choices? They did so with their services, so it boggles my mind they've just *stopped* innovating.
Personally, I think it's crap to charge consumers $40+ for a phone service utilizing the same system as the internet connection, but obviously it's still *cheaper* than a phone line with long distance "subscription". Consumers make this choice because Comcast (et al) offer the *cheaper* service against their competitor.
Steve Burke is *wrong*. He'll find this out when consumers do decide "free" TV is better than Comcast's monopolistic approach to removing the value they enticed them with initially.
But hey, sometimes a company needs to make mistakes before they realize their error in judgment. Let Mr. Burke try, and fail.
Because he'll quickly realize once a consumer is screwed by a company, they'll never come back. Comcast's revenue stream will be greatly affected by this decision than the "losses" they're seeing now.
Re: I haven't ranted in a while... (as R. Miles)
Lesson: don't listen to authority...ever, because they suck at life.
That'll be $199 for the use of my soapbox.
And I know it's mine, because I disabled the SOC, painted works created by someone else, and it's pink.
Send payment, via money order, to...
I did chuckle. The "rest my hat" line did it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing? (as R. Miles)
Well, you're the one who asked how they were any different.
Uh, no. I was relating the *security* with the question, not the applications.
I have an answer. (as R. Miles)
I thought that was what counterfeiting laws were for -- so why even bother with copyright?
Simple. When the judicial system fails to convict those who counterfeit, the civil system will tag them with statutory damages.
It's a fail safe system.
/sarcasm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing? (as R. Miles)
A VPN is the same as P2P?
What a maroon.
You need reading comprehension lessons.
Of course they're not the same. The point, since you missed it, is that *you don't put P2P software opened to the world on a secured computer and expect it to remain such* just as one shouldn't use VPNs to establish a PRIVATE connection to a PUBLIC server.
Get it now, or are pictures required?
Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing? (as R. Miles)
R. Miles, your claims are false.
I'm not making any claims, Mike.
Techdirt featured a recent article about government employees being banned from using P2P software on government computers. You attributed the cause of leaked files to the lack of education of P2P software (settings), correct?
Think about this a moment. Really.
How is your VPN usage *any* different, Mike?
Are you going to write a Techdirt article against Witopia should one day you hit a site and your VPN is compromised because of *your* actions?
It boggles my mind people do this. I fully understand the purpose of Witopia. It's the users who think "security" is 100% guaranteed that get compromised.
I certainly hope your laptop doesn't contain information you don't want others to have.
You're just begging for someone to take it.
That would then limit what else I could do while I was on Hulu.
Bingo!!! Just what a VPN should do in the first place, Mike.
Keep throwing up those IT articles about security failure.
When you do, I'll simply link back to this one and point out the failure caused when people want to do unsecured actions using a secured system.
Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing? (as R. Miles)
So, what are you, some kind of Hulu shill or just an idiot? Or maybe a troll playing the part?
Mr. Hypocrite, it's best if I dumb down my post, as I appear to have written it confusingly. I'll take the blame for this, so allow me to expand even further.
You own a lock box which holds all your secret information. The goal of this lock box is to transfer contents from your home to the bank. There is only one key, so its security is confined to you.
Now, would you take this lock box down a dark alley where thieves hold tools and will waste no time trying to break open your lock box? Or worse, steal your key?
Of course you wouldn't. But this is what Mike (and many others) do. They're taking their lock box down the dark alley because they continually believe the key will keep them safe, and worse, should open other things besides the lock box.
The purpose of security is to ensure the contents of the lock box gets to the bank. Not Hulu, YouTube, or any other non-secured website. By *purposely* going down the dark alley is inviting the failure of security.
Of course, it's Mike's choice to do so, but it completely boggles my mind he's upset when his key isn't working where he expects it to, but not intended for.
If anything, Mike has set a precedent on why security fails so often. Too many times, people want the lock box to do everything while trying to remain secured.
Kind of similar to installing P2P software on government computers, open to the world, in which the content is to be secured *from* the outside world.
I would have drawn pictures, but I wouldn't have been able to post them.
Hope this helps.
Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing? (as R. Miles)
You are honestly saying that if one part of the connection isn't secure you should not use any security at all? That makes no sense.
Hulu doesn't require a secured connection, so why use a secured channel to access it.
You do realize he pays them for this right? It is the service they offer in exchange for your money?
Yes, I gathered this from the article. But the VPN connection isn't the issue as much as *why* the connection is refused.
I agree with Mike's assessment the reason for blocking the VPN is stupid, but I can't understand his position when a simple change of connection, which also protects his VPN, would be the *better* choice.
It seems to me from your post that you are more advocating turning off all security just because one site on the internet might not be secure. I think you need to clarify.
I'll try. VPN connections are used on the premise that a remote computer can connect to another using secure protocols which do their best to prevent unauthorized access to either system.
The *sole* purpose is for a secured connection, but it shouldn't be used outside of this purpose. In other words, a VPN shouldn't be used to access systems which the VPN wasn't intended.
Yes, some will argue that it's to protect the connecting machine, but this is why I related it to the administrator account.
To me, it makes *absolutely no sense* to use a VPN to establish connections for which the VPN wasn't intended to do.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I would assume the VPN is used to establish the connection between Mike's laptop and the Floor64 servers, such that he can securely work from anywhere in the world. Maybe connections to other businesses as well.
The entire *purpose* of security is to prevent unauthorized access, so (again, my perception) it makes no sense why a machine designated for security would be used in a non-secured role.
What's ironic are the articles Techdirt posts about government employees losing their laptops containing sensitive data and then posing the question why these laptops were allowed out of the building to begin with.
Same concept. Mike *shouldn't* be using a secured laptop to access an unsecured site. Ever.
But, admittedly, this is just my viewpoint as I consistently see people making this same mistake daily (hence the "log out of the admin account").
I guess I'm just a bit more cautious in this type of situation. I'd never use a VPN connection to hit a site it wasn't designated to secure itself over.
There's *no reason* to use VPN to hit the Hulu site.
Get a netbook to surf the web. Leave the secured laptop to its primary secured role.