Yes, I've written about this before, but it is something that is on my mind all the time. I see so many articles on it that when I see one that really grabs my attention I have to share it. I love this response. Apparently it works sometimes.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140521/06322827302/patent-troll-apparently-didnt-appreciate-being-called-piece-shit-sues-over-basic-location-functionality.shtml
It did this time thought. But, the article makes a great point. If you understand patents and copyright the point is to encourage innovation. Some libertarians might say that it is not the government's place to encourage or discourage any behavior short of preventing any individual or group from infringing on the liberty of another. I do believe that patents and copyrights are defensible. I believe that people have the right to benefit financially from their own hard work and innovation. Patents and copyrights make this possible. However, when the "innovator" isn't really doing any innovating they should not be allowed to patent the "innovation." The problem is that our patent office and legal system are so far behind the technological curve that those granting patents and handing down legal opinions do not really understand that they are following neither the spirit or letter of these laws.
I haven't spent any time in the courtrooms where these decisions are being made, but I have to believe that they lawyers aren't doing a very good job of explaining these things to judges and juries either.
Monday, May 26, 2014
Sunday, May 25, 2014
What is important?
A couple of things reminded me in the past few days about what is important. I'm going to work backward though because that is where I am at this moment. I'm watching Hating Breitbart instead of getting done the things around my house that need to be done. For those of you who don't know Breitbart is sort of like the antithesis of Arianna Huffington. He is an unabashedly biased reporter. Whereas the Huffington Post looks to the left for inspiration, Breitbart.com looks to the right. Is this a problem? Not really. They tell us who they are and what they believe. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and other major media outlets on the other hand, claim to be unbiased while focusing their reporting and selection based on a political agenda.
So here I sit in my living room reflecting on my own political beliefs and morals. The fact that I am a bit of a news junkie. I love learning, reading, and following the news.I don't really care about the latest antics of some Hollywood personality, or who is going to get picked first in the next draft. I do, however, want to know what is going on the political sphere, especially where it concerns my family's constitutional rights and the future of the United States as a free society. I do that by reading news feeds, and watching documentaries from as many sources as I can. I want to make decisions based on the best information available. For whom should I vote? What companies/services should I use/avoid? These and other decisions need to be made with good information. Information that I do not believe is reliably available by simply watching Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. I do not believe that I can get this information by simply reading one newspaper, website, or blog. So I have assembled a small collection of sources which I believe report reliably on issues about which I care.
The other thing that is important to me is prioritizing my time. And recently I have found myself losing sight of some of that. A few years ago I read The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. My main takeaway was the importance/urgency matrix. It looks a bit like this:
So here I sit in my living room reflecting on my own political beliefs and morals. The fact that I am a bit of a news junkie. I love learning, reading, and following the news.I don't really care about the latest antics of some Hollywood personality, or who is going to get picked first in the next draft. I do, however, want to know what is going on the political sphere, especially where it concerns my family's constitutional rights and the future of the United States as a free society. I do that by reading news feeds, and watching documentaries from as many sources as I can. I want to make decisions based on the best information available. For whom should I vote? What companies/services should I use/avoid? These and other decisions need to be made with good information. Information that I do not believe is reliably available by simply watching Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. I do not believe that I can get this information by simply reading one newspaper, website, or blog. So I have assembled a small collection of sources which I believe report reliably on issues about which I care.
The other thing that is important to me is prioritizing my time. And recently I have found myself losing sight of some of that. A few years ago I read The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. My main takeaway was the importance/urgency matrix. It looks a bit like this:
Lately it seems that everything is urgent, and not all of it is important. Sure, some of these things can overlap. Building/maintaining relationships for example can involve social media. Procrastination can allow things to shift from the not urgent to the urgent category. I have more and more allowed myself to be drawn into the "urgent, but not important" category. Some of these tasks are subjectively placed into a quadrant. It can be difficult to decide and sometimes agree upon what goes where. I remember my parents had a sign which read, "A lack of planning on your part, does not constitute an emergency on mine." While something may be important to you, it may not be important to someone else. Therefore, it is often necessary to complete this sort of task before it becomes urgent. Likewise, we should not let others impose their ideals on us. We cannot be held accountable if they did not plan and now have an urgent matter which, while important to them, is of little or no importance to us.
This book helped me change the way I organized my life. I realized that much of what I was doing was not really all that important. I had to do a better job at prioritizing. For me, that means putting my own family and goals first. I often allow myself to get drawn in by things which are urgent, but important to others, and not to me. It is part of what inspired me to go back to school. That was something which had been important to me for some time, but I had put it off because it did not seem urgent. It is also one of the reasons I stopped spending much time on social media. I still pop into Facebook or Google+ occasionally either to post pictures or see what is going on. I do this though because I want to maintain those personal connections, not because I am looking for an excuse to avoid something else. I was once a great procrastinator. No longer, but I do still take some time on the weekend to rest, relax, and be unproductive on purpose. In the end, each one of us has to decide what is important and prioritize based on that.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Antenna v. Aereo
This has been on my mind for a while, and while I've talked to a few people about it, I haven't really said anything here. If you aren't familiar with the case here is a quick summary. Aereo is an upstart tech company that provides a service which allows viewers to view local broadcast television in their homes. It does this by using a small antenna at a central location to receive over the air (OTA) TV signals and then streams them via a broadband connection to the users home. How can they stream someone else's content without paying re-transmission fees you ask. Aereo houses an antenna for every user. Meaning they aren't simply rebroadcasting, but rather they are leasing equipment. The lessee decides when and how to use that equipment.
In 1984 Universal Studios sued Sony over their Betamax video recording device. Sony won. Otherwise you wouldn't have been able to record television programming for the last 30 year. Likewise, you wouldn't be able to use DVR services like Tivo and Hopper. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I probably wouldn't watch much TV at all if I had to watch it at the time it was broadcast. Maybe that would make it a better world. People wouldn't watch so much damn TV... That, however, isn't the point here. The point is that while the producers own the content, they don't own my time, my home, my TV, my antenna, or my internet service (well in some cases the producers like Time Warner, may produce content, and own cable broadband services, but I pay for those things separately and unless they want to start including free cable with my internet at the same price, then they can't claim that one depends on the other).
Functionally, Aereo's system is similar to an antenna, a tuner, and a VCR. The fact that it is in a remote location is no more relevant than the difference between a Walkman cassette player and an iPod that is streaming music from iTunes. These are all private performances where copyright law is concerned. Aereo even takes it's limitations on technology a step further. While they could allow users to access any antenna from anywhere in the country, they do not. The restrict users to a single zip code and allow users to access only channels which area available in that area. The broadcast companies, of course, completely ignore this fact. Even if you don't plan to use Aereo, this case could affect you. Should Aereo lose, you may not longer be able to use your DVR, VCR, or other "time-shifting"/recording equipment.
For a more in-depth understanding of this case read the links below. This is important to anyone who cares about copyright. Not just for television, but for copyright in general. Private performance rights are protected under fair use, but if they are to remain that way, Aereo needs to win this case. Technology can confuse this issue since it is almost always impossible for lawmakers to predict how laws they create today will affect technology that is invented tomorrow, but copyright is about encouraging innovation by protecting innovators from the theft of intellectual property. It is not about preventing consumers and potential innovators from accessing that intellectual property unless the pay absolute top dollar.
Here is an analogy that I came across the other day which I believe applies here. Programmers who by the nature of their work create intellectual property. Programmers are paid when they create their programs. Other programmers build on those older programs to make them better or useful in new ways. Programmers do not receive royalties, and do not expect to receive royalties, in perpetuity.
Similarly, teachers share intellectual property, sometimes of their own creation, with their students. They do not charge their students every time the student applies some bit of knowledge s/he learned in a teacher's classroom. Why then does Hollywood believe that every time someone sees a small bit of something they created (I use that term loosely by the way considering that they often borrow plot lines and themes from other stories) is viewed or even referenced? I'll leave you to form your own opinion from here...
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/04/30/broadcasters-advertisers-watch-aereo-case-closely/
https://aereo.com/
http://www.solidsignal.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/13-461_resp_amcu_36ipclp.authcheckdam.pdf
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-broadcasting-companies-inc-v-aereo-inc/
In 1984 Universal Studios sued Sony over their Betamax video recording device. Sony won. Otherwise you wouldn't have been able to record television programming for the last 30 year. Likewise, you wouldn't be able to use DVR services like Tivo and Hopper. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I probably wouldn't watch much TV at all if I had to watch it at the time it was broadcast. Maybe that would make it a better world. People wouldn't watch so much damn TV... That, however, isn't the point here. The point is that while the producers own the content, they don't own my time, my home, my TV, my antenna, or my internet service (well in some cases the producers like Time Warner, may produce content, and own cable broadband services, but I pay for those things separately and unless they want to start including free cable with my internet at the same price, then they can't claim that one depends on the other).
Functionally, Aereo's system is similar to an antenna, a tuner, and a VCR. The fact that it is in a remote location is no more relevant than the difference between a Walkman cassette player and an iPod that is streaming music from iTunes. These are all private performances where copyright law is concerned. Aereo even takes it's limitations on technology a step further. While they could allow users to access any antenna from anywhere in the country, they do not. The restrict users to a single zip code and allow users to access only channels which area available in that area. The broadcast companies, of course, completely ignore this fact. Even if you don't plan to use Aereo, this case could affect you. Should Aereo lose, you may not longer be able to use your DVR, VCR, or other "time-shifting"/recording equipment.
For a more in-depth understanding of this case read the links below. This is important to anyone who cares about copyright. Not just for television, but for copyright in general. Private performance rights are protected under fair use, but if they are to remain that way, Aereo needs to win this case. Technology can confuse this issue since it is almost always impossible for lawmakers to predict how laws they create today will affect technology that is invented tomorrow, but copyright is about encouraging innovation by protecting innovators from the theft of intellectual property. It is not about preventing consumers and potential innovators from accessing that intellectual property unless the pay absolute top dollar.
Here is an analogy that I came across the other day which I believe applies here. Programmers who by the nature of their work create intellectual property. Programmers are paid when they create their programs. Other programmers build on those older programs to make them better or useful in new ways. Programmers do not receive royalties, and do not expect to receive royalties, in perpetuity.
Similarly, teachers share intellectual property, sometimes of their own creation, with their students. They do not charge their students every time the student applies some bit of knowledge s/he learned in a teacher's classroom. Why then does Hollywood believe that every time someone sees a small bit of something they created (I use that term loosely by the way considering that they often borrow plot lines and themes from other stories) is viewed or even referenced? I'll leave you to form your own opinion from here...
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/04/30/broadcasters-advertisers-watch-aereo-case-closely/
https://aereo.com/
http://www.solidsignal.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/13-461_resp_amcu_36ipclp.authcheckdam.pdf
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-broadcasting-companies-inc-v-aereo-inc/
Saturday, March 29, 2014
A Disney Movie without a Prince Charming?
We watched Frozen with our kids last night. It's a pretty good movie outright. Nice CGI, well-developed characters (at least by Disney standards), some catchy songs, and a funny little snowman. What made it impressive, however, was the notable lack of a male savior. Sure, the main characters get some help from a guy along the way. And the snowman is male, though not particularly masculine, but, spoiler alert, it isn't the kiss of a prince that saves the day. When a male character does finally kiss a female character, he asks permission. Even then, he isn't the one who initiates the kiss. From a feminist perspective, this is a big shift for Disney. Even the stronger female characters in Disney movies are still completely reliant on men.
It does have a few problems, but it is a clear pass on the Bechdel Test. Anna spends a good deal of energy chasing men, and Kristoff criticizes her feelings and calls her "feisty pants." Not super respectful. Anna also needs more than a little help from Kristoff. She does take control of the situation most of the time; She isn't totally infatuated by Kristoff, and she almost always assumes the lead in making decisions on what she (and Kristoff after she meets him) about how she will deal with various situations. While the song "Fixer Upper" might seem problematic on the surface it is really a commentary on how so often women (and men) are pushed together by the people around them, but that doesn't mean that they have to listen. There may or may not be some emotional (love inspired) tension between Kristoff and Anna, but it certainly isn't overt, and is more likely brought to the movie by the preconceptions of the viewer rather than any specific interaction between those two characters.
People are complex beings. Men and women both. To portray any character as perfect would be to slight humanity. The lead characters in this movie are strong women and Disney should be commended for that. More importantly, I think this shows an important change in our culture. Feminism isn't on the fringe anymore. This is a feminist movie. Make no mistake. It is not perfect, but it is also not extreme. It is mainstream movie inspired by a classic tale. It is Disney kitsch, but it shows progress and gives hope.
I've always thought of myself as a feminist, but like most boys and men in our society I subconsciously believed that men should not just respect women, but they should be their protectors. Without us, women aren't capable of anything worth doing, and that idea makes men think that they deserve to exercise a certain amount of control over women. We all need help. We all rely on each other. This movie shows that not only should men respect women, but should treat them as equals, as leaders, as people who can make decisions and take responsibility for their own actions. They don't need men to save them, just to occasionally help them pursue their own goals.
Yep, its a Disney movie. So don't take all of this too seriously. It's entertainment, but entertainment is a reflection of culture. And I think this is a pretty positive reflection.
It does have a few problems, but it is a clear pass on the Bechdel Test. Anna spends a good deal of energy chasing men, and Kristoff criticizes her feelings and calls her "feisty pants." Not super respectful. Anna also needs more than a little help from Kristoff. She does take control of the situation most of the time; She isn't totally infatuated by Kristoff, and she almost always assumes the lead in making decisions on what she (and Kristoff after she meets him) about how she will deal with various situations. While the song "Fixer Upper" might seem problematic on the surface it is really a commentary on how so often women (and men) are pushed together by the people around them, but that doesn't mean that they have to listen. There may or may not be some emotional (love inspired) tension between Kristoff and Anna, but it certainly isn't overt, and is more likely brought to the movie by the preconceptions of the viewer rather than any specific interaction between those two characters.
People are complex beings. Men and women both. To portray any character as perfect would be to slight humanity. The lead characters in this movie are strong women and Disney should be commended for that. More importantly, I think this shows an important change in our culture. Feminism isn't on the fringe anymore. This is a feminist movie. Make no mistake. It is not perfect, but it is also not extreme. It is mainstream movie inspired by a classic tale. It is Disney kitsch, but it shows progress and gives hope.
I've always thought of myself as a feminist, but like most boys and men in our society I subconsciously believed that men should not just respect women, but they should be their protectors. Without us, women aren't capable of anything worth doing, and that idea makes men think that they deserve to exercise a certain amount of control over women. We all need help. We all rely on each other. This movie shows that not only should men respect women, but should treat them as equals, as leaders, as people who can make decisions and take responsibility for their own actions. They don't need men to save them, just to occasionally help them pursue their own goals.
Yep, its a Disney movie. So don't take all of this too seriously. It's entertainment, but entertainment is a reflection of culture. And I think this is a pretty positive reflection.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Copyright is a Threat to Innovation and Free Speach
A few months ago this opinion was published in Wired: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/internet-companies-care-fair-use/ Regardless of which side of the copyright debate you're on, you must recognize that fair use is both necessary for word-of-mouth publicity, and needs to be protected as free speech for the purpose of criticism. There is a reason that social media has become such a popular form of advertising. People are influenced by what their friends and role-models are doing. Traditionally this is referred to as word-of-mouth advertising, but it is much bigger than that now. Before social media this type of publicity was relatively localized. Now people have easy access to friends and acquaintances the world over. By extension advertisers have access to those connections. Now for the cliches.
Copyright holders, you can't have your cake and eat it too... You must take the good with the bad... In sickness and in health... If you want to take advantage of word-of-mouth advertising, you must accept the criticism as well. Lately, copyright holders have been using the takedown notice process to stops anyone who is critical of their work. Better start filing takedown notices for the good stuff as well.
More importantly, fair use is hardly considered once a takedown notice is issued. It is exceedingly difficult to get content re-posted once it has been taken down due to a copyright claim. For small content creators, part time critics, or hobbyists, YouTube and similar content hosts are a great outlet, but these people do not have armies of lawyers to fight to get their content re-posted once it has been taken down due to a copyright claim.
Many of these small-time or startup creators and innovators may take inspiration from the works of others, but that isn't anything new. We are a connected culture. We live in social groups. Our ancestors were no different. Our social groups now span larger geographical areas, but we are still social creatures. We rely on each other not only for inspiration, but for guidance. While copyright is a necessary protective measure so that creators and innovators may reap the benefits of their labors, it can have the opposite effect when abused and inconsistently enforced. On the latest episode of Grey's Anatomy (sure laugh if you like, but I'm a fan) Derek Shepard, a fiction character with a pretty fantastic life, stand up for what he believes is right even when he knows it may cost him the opportunity of a lifetime. http://youtu.be/6UBZlVp275s
Every day we all face decisions where we must either stand by our principals or live in fear of looking foolish, losing something that is important to us, or facing some other consequence that is the result of doing what we know is right. Copyright is one of those things. Laws are not the same thing as morality. We need to know right from wrong. Stealing from someone else is wrong. Borrowing an idea to make something greater is not the same thing as stealing. Maybe if you make millions, you should share it with those who inspired you or with those who supported you especially at their own expense. That is your prerogative. It is time, however, to recognize that none of us do anything on our own, nor does the world owe us anything because we once had a fantastic idea. Copyright abuse needs to stop. It is costing us more than we realize.
Copyright holders, you can't have your cake and eat it too... You must take the good with the bad... In sickness and in health... If you want to take advantage of word-of-mouth advertising, you must accept the criticism as well. Lately, copyright holders have been using the takedown notice process to stops anyone who is critical of their work. Better start filing takedown notices for the good stuff as well.
More importantly, fair use is hardly considered once a takedown notice is issued. It is exceedingly difficult to get content re-posted once it has been taken down due to a copyright claim. For small content creators, part time critics, or hobbyists, YouTube and similar content hosts are a great outlet, but these people do not have armies of lawyers to fight to get their content re-posted once it has been taken down due to a copyright claim.
Many of these small-time or startup creators and innovators may take inspiration from the works of others, but that isn't anything new. We are a connected culture. We live in social groups. Our ancestors were no different. Our social groups now span larger geographical areas, but we are still social creatures. We rely on each other not only for inspiration, but for guidance. While copyright is a necessary protective measure so that creators and innovators may reap the benefits of their labors, it can have the opposite effect when abused and inconsistently enforced. On the latest episode of Grey's Anatomy (sure laugh if you like, but I'm a fan) Derek Shepard, a fiction character with a pretty fantastic life, stand up for what he believes is right even when he knows it may cost him the opportunity of a lifetime. http://youtu.be/6UBZlVp275s
Every day we all face decisions where we must either stand by our principals or live in fear of looking foolish, losing something that is important to us, or facing some other consequence that is the result of doing what we know is right. Copyright is one of those things. Laws are not the same thing as morality. We need to know right from wrong. Stealing from someone else is wrong. Borrowing an idea to make something greater is not the same thing as stealing. Maybe if you make millions, you should share it with those who inspired you or with those who supported you especially at their own expense. That is your prerogative. It is time, however, to recognize that none of us do anything on our own, nor does the world owe us anything because we once had a fantastic idea. Copyright abuse needs to stop. It is costing us more than we realize.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Aio (pronounced A-O)
This isn't intended to be an endorsement, but I do really like the service I have with Aio. They are the no contract arm of AT&T, more likely than not created to compete with T-Mobile. I get unlimited talk and text and 2.5 GB of high speed data for $45 per 30 days. My reception isn't quite as good as it was with Verizon, but for 2 smart phones, we pay slightly more than half of what we paid for Verizon. I bought my phone outright, but with high quality smartphones for less than $400 that works out to around $30 per month over two years. If I keep my phone longer than 2 years, it gets even more appealing.
Back to the beginning. About 5 years ago we were on a Verizon contract. The service was good, but we were paying around $180 a month for two phones (unlimited talk, text, and data). We couldn't afford it anymore because our circumstances changed, but we still had over a year left on our contract. So we changed to a basic phone plan which was still around $90 a month, and we were using our old flip phones. Once our contract was up we bought unlocked GSM phones (Verizon and Sprint are CDMA while T-Mobile and AT&T are GSM. For some reason GSM phones are almost always cheaper than their CDMA counterparts) jumped over to T-Mobile and were paying $35 a month per phone. T-Mobile service was OK at our house, but not so good in other areas where we often traveled. Since we weren't on a contract we could switch, so we did. We went with StraightTalk, but that wasn't any better and it was a little more expensive. I was considering going back to T-Mobile when AT&T launched Aio. I did a bit of research and found that they were a branch of AT&T which I knew had better coverage than T-Mobile in the areas I was concerned about, so we gave it a try. It has only been 3 months, but already it has been pretty great. Last month they re-structured their pricing and we are actually paying less now than when we started.
If you are thinking about changing providers look around. There are several reliable resources where you can purchase used, unlocked, smartphones for a reasonable price. I use http://www.sensorly.com/ for checking signal strength wherever I am going, and I turn it on whenever I am away from home, especially if I am in a place where I know there isn't much data already.
Back to the beginning. About 5 years ago we were on a Verizon contract. The service was good, but we were paying around $180 a month for two phones (unlimited talk, text, and data). We couldn't afford it anymore because our circumstances changed, but we still had over a year left on our contract. So we changed to a basic phone plan which was still around $90 a month, and we were using our old flip phones. Once our contract was up we bought unlocked GSM phones (Verizon and Sprint are CDMA while T-Mobile and AT&T are GSM. For some reason GSM phones are almost always cheaper than their CDMA counterparts) jumped over to T-Mobile and were paying $35 a month per phone. T-Mobile service was OK at our house, but not so good in other areas where we often traveled. Since we weren't on a contract we could switch, so we did. We went with StraightTalk, but that wasn't any better and it was a little more expensive. I was considering going back to T-Mobile when AT&T launched Aio. I did a bit of research and found that they were a branch of AT&T which I knew had better coverage than T-Mobile in the areas I was concerned about, so we gave it a try. It has only been 3 months, but already it has been pretty great. Last month they re-structured their pricing and we are actually paying less now than when we started.
If you are thinking about changing providers look around. There are several reliable resources where you can purchase used, unlocked, smartphones for a reasonable price. I use http://www.sensorly.com/ for checking signal strength wherever I am going, and I turn it on whenever I am away from home, especially if I am in a place where I know there isn't much data already.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Disconnected Satellite
No, I didn't do it because I am giving up TV for Lent, although that isn't a bad idea. I'm going to try some limited cord cutting. A few years ago I did the same thing, though at the time it was more for financial reasons. I couldn't afford the $90+ a month that I was paying for satellite. This time it was because I just don't think satellite is worth what I pay for it. These are the reasons I have TV in the first place, along with the reasons I don't think that cable and satellite are an acceptable value for my family.
First, I want to know what is going on in the world around me, so I watch the news. I get most of my news from Feedly, which is a service that retrieves news articles from several sources and aggregates them into a list that I can browse. I do still get a weekend newspaper, but I don't read it much and am finding that I may not be getting enough value from that either. For the price of watching an advertisement or two I can go to news websites and get most of the content without the annoying banter of the "entertainment" show hosts. For the most part, I'd rather read the news anyway. I have a pretty good mix from multiple sources that pretty well balances bias in my Feedly. I also subscribe to several YouTube channels with some really great news content which is updated regularly. Mainstream media outlets have become less fact based and more sensations, ironically in an effort to "sell" their news. Maybe this works for some people, but it turns my stomach.
Second, our family watches TV for entertainment. If we want to watch a movie, we can get it from Netflix, Redbox, or the local library. We can also get TV shows from streaming sources or DVD rental or purchases. We were spending over $1000 a year on satellite TV. Redbox rentals are $1 a night, Amazon Prime is $95 a year, Hulu is $8 a month, and Netflix is $15 a month (streaming and DVD rental). If I subscribe to all of these services and rent one movie a week from Redbox I am still spending less than $500, less than half of what I was spending for satellite. Also, we already had Amazon Prime and Netflix before we had cut satellite. We also borrow movies from our local library. No, I don't get shows the night they come out, but most of the time I prefer to binge watch several episodes at once. I don't need to watch TV shows the day the premier, plus if I watch from DVD or Netflix streaming, I don't have to watch commercials or even fast forward past them. Sometimes I have to wait up to a year to watch a season of episodes, but there is plenty of content out there. The big networks don't have a monopoly on good, original content anymore, so I don't really mind.
Third, we want what we want, and satellite and cable don't give it to us. We are forced into paying for channels we don't watch and don't want to watch while being forced to pay more and more to uptier so we can watch a channel we want. True, there are shows and movies offered by the alternate services I've mentioned that I will never watch and don't want to watch. The difference is that I'm not paying as much for the services, and I'm not being baited into paying more for one or two movies and getting access to even more content that I don't want. I like the way that Netflix has tiers based on how much of their service I can use at a given time, but I still have access to everything. I just get fewer DVDs or watch on fewer screens. I can get what I want while paying what I feel is a reasonable fee.
Finally a few thoughts on mainstream media, Hollywood, a communication companies. I believe in individual freedom, a free economy, and a limited government. However, our major communication companies, and media outlets are being propped up using tax dollars. They then claim to be increasing their prices because the government keeps charging them fees and increasing regulations. All the while posting record profits and increasing salaries and benefits of top executives. Do I have a problem with people making money? Nope. Am I going to pay a price that I think is unfair so someone else can make more money? Nope. That is how a free economy works. One party creates a product and charges what they consider a fair price, and the other party decides whether or not the product is worth the price being charged. Oddly enough, necessity items are often more price sensitive than extravagances. This is evidenced by the price sensitivity of grocery and home goods/hardware items and the ever inflating costs of movie and sporting admission.Most average families can hardly afford to take their family to a professional sporting event or even out to a nice dinner and first run movie because these prices have increased out of proportion to the average salary.
At the end of the day we cast our vote, whether it be at the polls or the cash register. We decide who we want in power through small, everyday actions. I'll post later on my similar journey with mobile phone providers.
First, I want to know what is going on in the world around me, so I watch the news. I get most of my news from Feedly, which is a service that retrieves news articles from several sources and aggregates them into a list that I can browse. I do still get a weekend newspaper, but I don't read it much and am finding that I may not be getting enough value from that either. For the price of watching an advertisement or two I can go to news websites and get most of the content without the annoying banter of the "entertainment" show hosts. For the most part, I'd rather read the news anyway. I have a pretty good mix from multiple sources that pretty well balances bias in my Feedly. I also subscribe to several YouTube channels with some really great news content which is updated regularly. Mainstream media outlets have become less fact based and more sensations, ironically in an effort to "sell" their news. Maybe this works for some people, but it turns my stomach.
Second, our family watches TV for entertainment. If we want to watch a movie, we can get it from Netflix, Redbox, or the local library. We can also get TV shows from streaming sources or DVD rental or purchases. We were spending over $1000 a year on satellite TV. Redbox rentals are $1 a night, Amazon Prime is $95 a year, Hulu is $8 a month, and Netflix is $15 a month (streaming and DVD rental). If I subscribe to all of these services and rent one movie a week from Redbox I am still spending less than $500, less than half of what I was spending for satellite. Also, we already had Amazon Prime and Netflix before we had cut satellite. We also borrow movies from our local library. No, I don't get shows the night they come out, but most of the time I prefer to binge watch several episodes at once. I don't need to watch TV shows the day the premier, plus if I watch from DVD or Netflix streaming, I don't have to watch commercials or even fast forward past them. Sometimes I have to wait up to a year to watch a season of episodes, but there is plenty of content out there. The big networks don't have a monopoly on good, original content anymore, so I don't really mind.
Third, we want what we want, and satellite and cable don't give it to us. We are forced into paying for channels we don't watch and don't want to watch while being forced to pay more and more to uptier so we can watch a channel we want. True, there are shows and movies offered by the alternate services I've mentioned that I will never watch and don't want to watch. The difference is that I'm not paying as much for the services, and I'm not being baited into paying more for one or two movies and getting access to even more content that I don't want. I like the way that Netflix has tiers based on how much of their service I can use at a given time, but I still have access to everything. I just get fewer DVDs or watch on fewer screens. I can get what I want while paying what I feel is a reasonable fee.
Finally a few thoughts on mainstream media, Hollywood, a communication companies. I believe in individual freedom, a free economy, and a limited government. However, our major communication companies, and media outlets are being propped up using tax dollars. They then claim to be increasing their prices because the government keeps charging them fees and increasing regulations. All the while posting record profits and increasing salaries and benefits of top executives. Do I have a problem with people making money? Nope. Am I going to pay a price that I think is unfair so someone else can make more money? Nope. That is how a free economy works. One party creates a product and charges what they consider a fair price, and the other party decides whether or not the product is worth the price being charged. Oddly enough, necessity items are often more price sensitive than extravagances. This is evidenced by the price sensitivity of grocery and home goods/hardware items and the ever inflating costs of movie and sporting admission.Most average families can hardly afford to take their family to a professional sporting event or even out to a nice dinner and first run movie because these prices have increased out of proportion to the average salary.
At the end of the day we cast our vote, whether it be at the polls or the cash register. We decide who we want in power through small, everyday actions. I'll post later on my similar journey with mobile phone providers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)