851–860 of 966 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> instead of just going "pay us X per view, regardless of who you are" Yeah and this is actually how the music industry is doing this and it works great. Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer etc all work fine alongside one another.
"works great", maybe for consumer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn’t be surprised if artists (filmmakers, musicians…) create a common fair streaming platform. Let us name it “United Artists“ ;) That falls under > And we have now competitors and doesn’t over anymore all relevant content The core problem is basically owners of IP all wanting to build walled gardens to distribute them (and get all of the cut), instead of just going "pay us X per view, regardless of who you a…
Verizon, who are well known for being affordable, honest, and "with the times", has announced they're going to bring back "cable" subscriptions - you give verizon a flat rate, and they get you all of the streaming services, presumably for less than you'd pay for them individually. Yes, the first part is obvious facetiousness.
They all had big ass signs in the front window saying $25/month per line (with a bunch of fine print that can't be read from outside the store).
Of course, none of them will honor that pricing. Also, none of them actually publish their prices. The best I got was some hand written scrawl from the the customer service person, who had memorized their pricing table.
Of course, after handing the piece of paper to me, he said something like, "so that'll be $85 per line, but in practice your bill will probably be $110. I've seen some people end up with $115/month".
Anyway, that's a long way of saying they can offer to pay me to subscribe to their crappy whatever service, and I'll still refuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Verizon, who are well known for being affordable, honest, and "with the times", has announced they're going to bring back "cable" subscriptions - you give verizon a flat rate, and they get you all of the streaming services, presumably for less than you'd pay for them individually. Yes, the first part is obvious facetiousness.
I wish consumer protection laws applied to cell phone providers. I shopped around a while back, and walked into an AT&T, TMobile, and Verizon store. They all had big ass signs in the front window saying $25/month per line (with a bunch of fine print that can't be read from outside the store). Of course, none of them will honor that pricing. Also, none of them actually publish their prices. The best I got was some han…
Netflix: ”You get two parallel streams with your family. Family means trust and password sharing.“ Customers: “Farewell pirating. We pay a fair flat and it is automatically shared between Netflix and artists. Great!“ Netflix: “We increase the flat permanently. And we have now competitors and doesn’t over anymore all relevant content (e.g. Star Trek Picard, Expanse, Disney). How about ruining it and blocking family me…
I've got two houses across two states where any one us (four) can be at any time. If they start blocking based on IP geo-location, I'll drop them immediately.
According to many websites I come from another country in eastern europe. Which is not true.
If you are maintaining a website and rely on IP geo location, which should really be called "IP crappy geo guess", you are doing it wrong, especially if you set the default language based on this.
I think Netflix opened Pandoras box with this decision. They made clients aware they can live without it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Netflix account is supposed to be one per family, it was never supposed to be tied to an individual person. Who in their right mind would assume that a package that allowed four simultaneous streams would be for a single person watching four shows at once? No, it’s clearly supposed to be that one account covers multiple people. GP is fine to complain whether they have enough money for two houses at once. What about…
>A Netflix account is supposed to be one per family, it was never supposed to be tied to an individual person. Who in their right mind would assume that a package that allowed four simultaneous streams would be for a single person watching four shows at once? Like cable, internet connection, or Costco membership - it's per household not per family.
Why bothering with mobile apps then? They should make a desktop decoder box like the old times…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've got two houses across two states where any one us (four) can be at any time. If they start blocking based on IP geo-location, I'll drop them immediately.
Which is totally stupid because IP geo-location do not exist and everything is based on isp headquarter's address. IP addresses do not have physical location and ISP now have global presence. According to many websites I come from another country in eastern europe. Which is not true. If you are maintaining a website and rely on IP geo location, which should really be called "IP crappy geo guess", you are doing it wro…
There are definitely edge cases (specifically for mobile data), but on average, IP geolocation is much more accurate than "the ISP‘s headquarters".
I live nowhere near my ISPs corporate or even regional office(s), yet my IP location is accurate within a few hundred meters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The grand parent didn't say anything about selling or returning the DVD for a refund, so how is shifting formats to something more durable piracy? If it's just a backup I can't see any ethical reason why you shouldn't be able to do this. We went through all this in the courts when we got the rights to timeshift recorded TV programmes. Comparing it to stealing food is ridiculous. No body has been deprived of anything,…
> No body has been deprived of anything, it's just copyright violation. The second part of your sentence doesn't follow from the first. If someone is violating a copyright, that someone else has been deprived of their rights to control their IP, and they're owed compensation. That's the system we set up, so that's the system we should follow. If a rights holder wants to grant you the privilege of copying the data, th…
Again, no one has been deprived of their rights and the copyright holder’s rights are not unlimited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is totally stupid because IP geo-location do not exist and everything is based on isp headquarter's address. IP addresses do not have physical location and ISP now have global presence. According to many websites I come from another country in eastern europe. Which is not true. If you are maintaining a website and rely on IP geo location, which should really be called "IP crappy geo guess", you are doing it wro…
> IP geo-location do not exist and everything is based on isp headquarter's address There are definitely edge cases (specifically for mobile data), but on average, IP geolocation is much more accurate than "the ISP‘s headquarters". I live nowhere near my ISPs corporate or even regional office(s), yet my IP location is accurate within a few hundred meters.