It's your honesty in posts like this that led to me disabling AdbBlock for your site. Seriously: on your site and others', if I value your site, I'll let your ads through.
Wouldn't "hot news" protection kill newspapers? Isn't it almost guaranteed that some online source would break any significant news before it gets printed in a newspaper?
"At one point he implies that they'll have agreements in place with record labels in time for this vote, and if they don't, then people will vote against the deal -- but then says that it will take much longer to get those deals in place, and there's no way they'd be ready in time for the vote."
If you pay close attention, he is actually talking about two different agreements here. The first one he brings up is the one you are seeing (that will take months). However, BECAUSE those agreements will take too long, they are looking to get some kind of PRELIMINARY agreements that will buy them time (and set up how the final agreements will take shape). Those are the ones they need to get in place before the vote.
He doesn't explain it that clearly, and honestly I might have not figured it out if I hadn't watched it just after reading your criticism of it.
RSS
Twitter
Block your ads? (as Travis Miller)
It's your honesty in posts like this that led to me disabling AdbBlock for your site. Seriously: on your site and others', if I value your site, I'll let your ads through.
entitlement-culture-gone-wrong dept (as Travis Miller)
I laughed at the "dept" on this one. Can anyone give an example of entitlement-culture-gone-right?
(as Travis Miller)
Wouldn't "hot news" protection kill newspapers? Isn't it almost guaranteed that some online source would break any significant news before it gets printed in a newspaper?
How could they think this is a good idea?
"Agreements" (as Travis Miller)
Mike, you write:
"At one point he implies that they'll have agreements in place with record labels in time for this vote, and if they don't, then people will vote against the deal -- but then says that it will take much longer to get those deals in place, and there's no way they'd be ready in time for the vote."
If you pay close attention, he is actually talking about two different agreements here. The first one he brings up is the one you are seeing (that will take months). However, BECAUSE those agreements will take too long, they are looking to get some kind of PRELIMINARY agreements that will buy them time (and set up how the final agreements will take shape). Those are the ones they need to get in place before the vote.
He doesn't explain it that clearly, and honestly I might have not figured it out if I hadn't watched it just after reading your criticism of it.