Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
It's easy to imagine, given that precedent, that Netflix was unable to strike a reasonable deal for the show in this region.
The primary reason Netflix likely decided to move aside was the insanely large price tag Sony is asking. While they paid more than $500,000 per episode for Friends last year (for a total north of $118 million with 236 episodes), Sony wants an even higher price for Seinfeld. With 180 episodes of that show over nine seasons, the total cost could easily top $100 million, depending on how much time the deal covers.
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Alfie,
In any event, I'm sure monitoring technology has moved on from that system nowadays.
Well, I did mention the GCSB earlier and yes monitoring tech has moved on. That doesn't mean Neilson will be using anything of the sort, they supply the figures their paymasters want.
-
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Ah, yes, but...
The use of www is not required by any technical or policy standard and many web sites do not use it; indeed, the first ever web server was called nxoc01.cern.ch. According to Paolo Palazzi, who worked at CERN along with Tim Berners-Lee, the popular use of www as subdomain was accidental; the World Wide Web project page was intended to be published at www.cern.ch while info.cern.ch was intended to be the CERN home page, however the DNS records were never switched, and the practice of prepending www to an institution's website domain name was subsequently copied.
Berners-Lee, Tim. "Frequently asked questions by the Press". W3C. Retrieved 27 July 2009.
But we digress. ;-) -
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
An ad from the page you linked to..
That name Key just won't go away eh?.
Also retains healthy profits. -
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
IMHO, Tim-Berners Lee made a reasonable job of it in 1993,
And never claimed the IP.
Berners-Lee made his idea available freely, with no patent and no royalties due. The World Wide Web Consortium decided that its standards should be based on royalty-free technology, so that they could easily be adopted by anyone.
World Wide Web Consortium. 5 February 2004. Retrieved 25 May 2008.
Also, interestingly enough...
In a Times article in October 2009, Berners-Lee admitted that the initial pair of slashes ("//") in a web address were actually "unnecessary". He told the newspaper that he could easily have designed web addresses not to have the slashes. "There you go, it seemed like a good idea at the time," he said in his lighthearted apology.
BBC. 14 October 2009. Retrieved 14 October 2009.
Thanks Tim, for helping me share stuff.
;-) -
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to Mikaere Curtis,
Enclosure is the real - and unmitigable - tragedy of the commons.
Very true and "The Tragedy of the Commons" is the analysis of the causes and effects of that.
-
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to llew40,
Never seen that theory before Steve (oh what a sheltered life) - fascinating
This is why there is a copyright type called "creative commons"
-
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to Sacha,
it's a bug in how Supermodel *auto-converts* plain text to a URL.
Its not a bug its a function. (appologies to apple) ;-)
It is part of the HTTP protocol. If you were to allow the protocol to "guess" where the URL ends we would be in a right pickle I can tell you. It works for the front end, ie HTTP or WWW but not the back end, which can be literally anything.note. Over the past decade you have been allowed to drop the HTTP and/or WWW in the browser address bar and it is auto filled, mostly "behind the scenes".
nzherald.co.nz will take you direct to the herald for instance but (nzherald.co.nz) will search for that text. -
Perhaps we should be looking at this as another example of The Tragedy of the commons
-
But whether we like it or not, the reality of the content model today, put in place by content owners, is that premium video content is sold with geographic rights at very substantial prices. And often those geographic rights are a key part of the revenue model that allows that content to be made. It’s a similar principle that sees the NZRU dependent on selling rights to broadcast All Black tests exclusively and at a premium in order to help retain talent.
See, here is the problem.
You state that... " the reality of the content model today, put in place by content owners,"
and then go on to say... "those geographic rights are a key part of the revenue model that allows that content to be made." which is to say "the content creators".
It is a false equivalence. The creators are, more often than not, people who work for a lot less than CEOs and the lawyers that protect them and they do not own the rights to their own work but cared enough to create that work for you to sit back and enjoy the profits from, not only the consumers of that work but also the advertising revenue and any global resales, which is the whole point of the global model of artificial restrictions wished for by the worlds media comanies, which add up to little more than the behaviour of a cartel.
And what a small cartel that is, just a handfull of wealthy owners double dipping on that same content over and over again. You don't pay your "creators twice, why should you have that "right".
