Related
An interesting article that I came across today; bolded some points that struck me as dangerous grounds ...
Sound Check by Alan Cross
February 12, 2010 12:30 a.m.
Back in November, I wrote about ACTA, the secret anti-counterfeiting trademark agreement involving Canada, the U.S., Mexico, the EU and nine other countries. Representatives have been meeting behind closed doors for two years to hammer out a treaty that will inevitably affect every single person on the Internet.
Yet there has been almost zero transparency. None of the draft texts have been made public and those outside the inner circle are bound by tough non-disclosure agreements.
This doesn’t mean there haven’t been some leaks.
Aside from measures to fight counterfeiting, there have been discussions about a worldwide “three strikes” rule. Accused (not caught, proven or convicted) of file-sharing music three times by an aggrieved rights holder, and you’re banned from the Internet. For life.
Internet service providers and telecoms would be liable for copyright infringements by their users. To avoid prosecution, that means they’ll have to find some way of sniffing through all the data — YOUR data — that passes through their pipes. And even though you may have a legitimate right to, say, ship a music file from point A to point B, there’s the potential for red flags at the ISP. Accused three times (not caught, proven or convicted) and you’re done. Not just with your current ISP, either. They’ll be required by international law to publish your name to an Internet no-fly list that will prevent you from ever having an Internet account in your name ever again.
And it gets better. Within the document is a second called Border Measures. There’s the real possibility that some border guard will have the power to make you prove all those music files on that iPhone in your pocket are, in fact, not pirated. Can’t do it? Bye-bye, iPhone. Oh, and you could be charged and fined.
This is more than just file-sharing for stopping fake Louis Vuitton bags. It’s about privacy, civil liberties, and legitimate use of the Internet for commerce and innovation.
The seventh round of negotiations is underway in Mexico — secretly, of course, partly because U.S. President Barack Obama has declared this an issue of national security. Same thing for the next round in April in New Zealand.
And because this is an international treaty, it’ll just be rubber-stamped into law. No public debate.
Be informed. Read what the Electronic Frontier Foundations says at eff.org/issues/acta.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sources:
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/com...ifetime-ban-from-the-internet-it-could-happen
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/comment/article/509570--the-orwellian-plan-to-track-your-music
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/06/02/copyright-bill-clement-montreal.html?ref=rss
http://www.eff.org/issues/acta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
Updates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqE8SuLOQxo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns&annotation_id=annotation_910879&feature=iv
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=210429284986#!/group.php?gid=210429284986&ref=nf
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10467337-38.html
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/your-life-will-some-day-end-acta-will-live-on.ars
http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=d7q9CZNjAmTXtvMz0xI_8sjNmJ6cM
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=6275575&postcount=40
* EDIT *
FYI; the EFF is a good starting point for those who decide they want to do something - they may also be able to recommend an equivalent organization in your country.
thats pretty messed up. if it happens in the us, im sure itll end up in the supreme court and declared unconstitutional. this is way above what the powers the constitution granted to the government. after all, the government needs consent of the people or else its not a democracy anymore.
Unfortunately, since ACTA is considered to be an International treaty, it can be passed into law without public debate.
... and that's just the "tip of the iceberg". All one has to do is imagine the scenarios and since most of the treaty is being kept confidential, we don't know how far the reach and impact of the treaty will be. Here's a few other ongoings that most folks aren't aware of:
Rein In ACTA: Tell Congress to Open the Secret IP Pact
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=420
In The News: Cellular User Privacy at Risk
http://www.eff.org/press/mentions
Control is arriving to internet...
Wow,
It is amazing about this article.
I really hope this won't succeed, as this trespasses the limits of control and privacy.
As next meeting will be here in México, I´ll try to fond out more locally...
Wow, definately hope this is a No Go
If this has any truth to it, yet another reason why i hate obammer
I get the feeling though that for every ISP that followed the no-fly list, another ISP like Google's new high speed internet would let someone on that list connect.
It reminds me of "Home Taping Is Killing Music. And It's Illegal" campaign.
And a opposing campaigns called,
"copyright is killing music - and it's legal"
"Home Taping is Skill in Music"
"Home Taping Is Killing the Music Industry: Killing Ain't Wrong"
Hope this doesn't become a law. If so, we may have to migrate to Iran (where there is no copyright law).
zizou417 said:
I get the feeling though that for every ISP that followed the no-fly list, another ISP like Google's new high speed internet would let someone on that list connect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's say for the sake of argument that this treaty is passed ...
As the majority of services are paid via credit card or pre-authorized bank debit, it would seem to me that the person would never be able to get another Internet service under their true identity. Speculating further, the "no-fly" list would likely contain name, address, location, financial, and possibly other government information that establishes a person's unique identity - passport, birth certificate, etc. Some questions that come to mind:
Would this mean that the person would be banned from using cellular or other dial-up means to connect to the Internet?
Should the person use someone else's identify, would they be exposed to criminal prosecution and would the person who's identity was used be banned as well?
Taking it one step further; let's say some disgruntled person or company decides they want to shutdown a competitor, website, or other person, all they need to do is report the key stakeholder anonymously to the authorities (or governing body) a sufficient number of times so as to exceed the threshold ... and voila, banned! In a matter of a few calls, a person such as the owner of a website could be banned from accessing the Internet therefore taking down their website in the process.
Furthermore, countries could be "strong-armed" into adopting the treaty if they wish to conduct commerce over the Internet with countries that are part of the treaty.
I think, it is less likely that some thing like this treaty coming into existence.
I do not know about other developed countries. But, in developing and underdeveloped countries, virtually everyone uses the internet to share the music,movie,software.... So, if you ban all the people form the internet what business these ISPs and e-commerce people are going to do?
And you know, the major market are these countries due to their population. So, developed countries doesn't want to jeopardize their market.
May be, a stricter law to curb such copyright infringement can be applied. But, I hardly see effectiveness of these laws in developing and underdeveloped countries.
(May be China is more happier to apply such law and ban everyone form the internet. Which it is already doing with different means ).
What a "Brave New World" we live in..
hmmmmm, interesting read. Don't agree with this to be honest, but not much I can really do....... I wonder if this could be applied to spammers
raghu13uk said:
I think, it is less likely that some thing like this treaty coming into existence.
I do not know about other developed countries. But, in developing and underdeveloped countries, virtually everyone uses the internet to share the music,movie,software.... So, if you ban all the people form the internet what business these ISPs and e-commerce people are going to do?
And you know, the major market are these countries due to their population. So, developed countries doesn't want to jeopardize their market.
May be, a stricter law to curb such copyright infringement can be applied. But, I hardly see effectiveness of these laws in developing and underdeveloped countries.
(May be China is more happier to apply such law and ban everyone form the internet. Which it is already doing with different means ).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed; but how does one determine a true copyright violator? And obviously, it won't stop at audio and/or video. And what is the purpose of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) then? Was that act not supposed to be for this purpose? And how many companies/people are aware that the ACTA treaty is in the process of being finalised behind "closed doors"?
Of additional interest is the provision to empower border security such that they can search any/all electronic equipment. As the article points out, this means that no information is confidential. So if one happens to encounter a border security person having a "bad day", one could be faced with confiscation of their cellular phone or laptop as a result of not being able to prove that the information found on the device was legitimately paid for (ex: audio, video, application). Attempting to retrieve a wrongly confiscated item is costly both legally and personally.
Additionally, there are numerous articles on the Internet that already highlight the fact that most authorities have the means to bypass most encryption algorithms so as to extract the contents of hard drives and cellular devices. In some countries, it is even a federal offense to use certain depths of encryption - for the longest time, France only permitted 40-bit encryption.
Imagine this scenario;
You're browsing the Internet while waiting for your flight. You happen to connect to a compromised website which redirects you to several pornographic websites. An announcement over the PA system announces that your flight has been moved to a different gate and you realize that the gate is at the opposite end of the airport.
You close your laptop, stuff it in the bag and rush to the new gate just in time to see that people are boarding the plane. You board the plane, stow you laptop and later during the flight, you turn it on to do some work and then stow it away again forgetting to clear your history and browser cache.
When you arrive at your destination, border security instructs you to provide your electronic devices for scanning. During the scan, they discover the browser cache full of pornographic images.
Now what?
Imagine this other scenario;
What happens if this treaty provides large corporations with the power they require to close down websites that are considered hostile to their revenue or websites that provide information on how circumvent mechanisms that are in their products? And what happens if the treaty empowers the authorities to obtain all of the trace-back information of all of the people who frequented such a website so as to ban/prosecute them?
If they do this, i'm gonna sue someone important!!!
I would NOT want to see this thing passed. It's our internet, and they don't have the right to kick us off of it. Watch this video on the topic here, this one is more likely to happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqE8SuLOQxo
What happened to that law that stated we could use any type of music/media as long as we don't make a profit on it?! this is so wrong imo. Sorry saw this thread and had to join.
I would much rather see tax dollars going to matters of national security, and helping the job market right now, then pay for big expensive servers that dedicate their time to crawling through everyone's internet, filtering out everything that's deemed "bad." What if you have say, a niece or nephew, that comes over to your house frequently and gets on the computer. They in turn download music, or go a a forbidden website, or something stupid like that, more than a few times. Bam! Your banned for life because of your brother or sister's child's mistake? I would be furious.
I can not see this going into effect without a HUGE public uproar. From us, as consumers, but also from the ISP companies. They will start taking HUGE revenue losses because of this.
Oh, and the border filtering... you've GOT to be freakin kidding me, right? Before I say any of this, let me make it perfectly clear that I am no racist. I either love, or hate people based on their personalities and actions. Okay, not a racist? Understood. Okay. Why not, instead of filtering electronic devices through the borders, they protect the borders a little better? I'm all of immigration, let them all come over, if they want, but make them do it the legal way. That's all. If that technology filter is applied at our borders, then I can see a huge uproar from a lot of racists, and non-racists, in the Texas, California areas.
There are way too many holes in this. It'd be like trying to hold water in a mesh container. In it's current state, there's no way this will be effective.
2012: The Year The Internet Ends
This will happen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns&annotation_id=annotation_910879&feature=iv
Badwolve1 said:
If they do this, i'm gonna sue someone important!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You won't be alone, let's make it a Class Action lawsuit!
I'm sure there will be plenty of constitutional lawyers ready to pounce on this one...
Seen this on Reddit, works pretty good for MP4 and WebM videos for sites like Vimeo.
https://dabble.me/cast
*I should mention this only works with Chrome at the moment.
I wish there was some way to use this for Amazon Prime video....casting the full tab isn't a great option for me. Of course a mobile app would be the real answer but Amazon just won't do it!
primetime34 said:
I wish there was some way to use this for Amazon Prime video....casting the full tab isn't a great option for me. Of course a mobile app would be the real answer but Amazon just won't do it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree. Amazon Instant Video is pretty much the only thing my TiVos and TV have over Chromecast for my intended use.
r00t4rd3d said:
Seen this on Reddit, works pretty good for MP4 and WebM videos for sites like Vimeo.
https://dabble.me/cast
*I should mention this only works with Chrome at the moment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
List of working sites:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Chromecast/comments/1x5ik0/send_vimeo_ted_facebook_etc_from_the_desktop_to/
Creators Twitter:
https://twitter.com/@parterburn
Amazing, youporn works. Thanks!
I wish it would work for watchespn
uncrx2003 said:
I wish it would work for watchespn
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AMEN!! WatchESPN, along with WatchDisney Junior, are the two channels that I have been wanting more than ANY other channel out there! I'm a huge college football fan and although I've got a pretty nice channel lineup and sports package via Charter, there are still games out there that just simply aren't offered around here on Charter. In addition to WatchESPN, I have a 4 yr old son and like how I used to be when I was younger and how most other kids his age are, he LOVES to watch cartoons, especially the likes of Disney Junior, Cartoon Network, Sprout, etc. The WatchDisney Junior channel coming to the Chromecast would just make my (and my son's) day. I think the only thing holding it back is probably having to do something with licensing issues because if you've ever tried to view WatchESPN or WatchDisney on your computer, you must log-in to their service by typing in your cable tv service provider login info before being able to view those channels.
:good:
jsdecker10 said:
I think the only thing holding it back is probably having to do something with licensing issues because if you've ever tried to view WatchESPN or WatchDisney on your computer, you must log-in to their service by typing in your cable tv service provider login info before being able to view those channels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Likely there would be an app like HBO GO, which requires you to do the provider login on your phone/tablet during setup.
As always, be sure to contact the content provider to request support. Unlikely you'll get a response, but hopefully your vote will be counted.
It works very well for me at this www.mistreci.al with movreel and uptobox thats what i needed
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
bhiga said:
Likely there would be an app like HBO GO, which requires you to do the provider login on your phone/tablet during setup.
As always, be sure to contact the content provider to request support. Unlikely you'll get a response, but hopefully your vote will be counted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can tell you from my own personal knowledge that many of the content providers who rely on Cable Company Sub payments are very hesitant to release content for use on Big Screens (which CCast support basically is) which could hurt their Subscription fees later on due to the Chord Cutters taking the cheaper route to their content.
One of the Major hold ups with Time Warner and CBS in that last contract battle was over rights to Internet streaming.
Time Warner wanted the rights to them but CBS wanted to hold on to it for further sales to companies like NetFlix and Hulu or even for their own sites (which the three major nets do now) To a OTA broadcaster it's easier to keep their content free because the content has already been paid for via the Advertising and the goal is to hook more viewers to the shows on their Network.
But someone like ESPN, HBO and SHOWTIME, they are highly dependent on Cable Subs and therefore can't just put the content out there so will likely require a Cable Subscription/Login to view because if they did it on their own without such a subscription or tried to do subscriptions on their own it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face plus add the cost of a Subscription support department they have to pay to maintain their own sub service. So those companies are likely to remain a Cable Sub only service.
This is the one thing Chord Cutters will have to deal with, Sure you can get the OTA stuff and some stuff from low rated networks trying to lure people to their content but the stuff you REALLY want will almost always require a Cable Sub to get.
I have been in quite a few meetings where this is discussed and while the greed makes them think about offering their own ala carte subscription model they quickly realize that no one is going to pay as much for HBO on HBO's website as they currently get from the Cable companies themselves.
And if the Cable companies decide they are not worth having on their system anymore these companies like HBO stand to lose their shirts!
So they back down quickly.
Just a quick comment on the Amazon Prime thing....
I think this may be a sign that things between Google and Amazon are not as rosy as they probably should be.
You would think Amazon Prime was all over this from day one but apparently not.
Now that the SDK is public I expect to see something from them in the future.
Good points. It's not easy to understand the policies and actions of all the parties involved unless you know something about the business model from their point of view.
BTW, it's "cord cutters", not "chord cutters", as in cable = cord. Chord usually refers to music or geometry, but in any case nothing to do with this topic.
Re: Amazon - I wonder if they are coming up with a media box solution too. Could explain their reluctance.
WhisperCast?
Of course Canadians ignore them because they offer no media content here. Which is strange as they're selling these walled-garden Amazon tablets with beautiful screens in Canadian stores, and nothing but Netflix & YouTube to watch on them.
You knew it was only a matter of time before someone figured out a way to fill their wallets off users by annoying them to death..
http://bgr.com/2014/02/12/chromecast-ads-coming-soon/
I will copy and paste a reply I left about this on Reddit
I can see it now for apps like Plex when Casting goes free (whenever that happens)
"We will Cast your content right after this short advertisement"
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.
styckx said:
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I agree, the trouble is that video content doesn't really work like software. Every new episode would be a "major" release. It's not like you can release a movie in 2-minute segments. Well, maybe if you're J.J. Abrams...
I don't mind ads as long as I have the option to pay to get rid of them. Even Netflix could opt for a cheaper ad-supported tier if they wanted to.
To be honest, I like apps that are free with ads and paid without as it gives me a way to try the app for a period longer than the Play Store's 15 minutes.
[HOWTO] Chromecast/Netflix outside USA without VPN
Ad Blocking - DD-WRT Wiki
bhiga said:
To be honest, I like apps that are free with ads and paid without as it gives me a way to try the app for a period longer than the Play Store's 15 minutes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or that too.
Brightcove is pretty big VOD provider, but yeah, that would work as long as the stuff you want to watch isn't hosted there.
YouTube could be uber sneaky and host the ads on YouTube itself so then it would be all-or-nothing.
On the plus side, YouTube could become the resurrection of AdCritic. I miss that site...
Talk about a blast from the past. Have you seen -
http://creativity-online.com/
I think everybody is struggling to find ways to make money from this technology. Google doesn't make any money on the hardware, and consumers just don't want to pay much for software (which is why the old PC software business model is gradually failing, and you see even companies like Microsoft going to Office 365-type subscriptions). So the result is they have to find a way to make money from subscriptions, fees, and/or advertising.
Google aren't the only ones considering advertising. Mozilla just announced that they're going to start putting ads in Firefox, inserted in the page of recent sites that appears when you open a new tab.
DJames1 said:
you see even companies like Microsoft going to Office 365-type subscriptions). So the result is they have to find a way to make money from subscriptions, fees, and/or advertising.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The worst thing I've encountered so far with the subscription model is how it virally forces others to buy in.
Case-in-point, I got an Adobe InDesign file that I needed to look at. Fine, I have InDesign CS6. I load it up, and it tells me I can't open it because it was made in InDesign CS7.5
At least Microsoft has Office viewers. I was stuck with the InDesign thing - either go back and ask for a flattened version or subscribe, luckily I had the opportunity to just ignore it.
Like freedom, free software truly isn't free - at least not as long as people need to eat and pay bills. Renewable energy and homesteading may be the zero-cash way, but then we won't have enough time to code!
Maybe we need to come up with some "business productive" games. People-powered OCR Hangman?
Well I'll repeat something else I said
I'm guilty of being an old timer. I came into Android with 1.5 (CupCake).. The Market and Android community used to be a thriving community of freeware, innovation and great discussion.. I just hate what it turned into. It's like a gold rush and the end user is the gold and everyone is trying to sell you their bridge. I just hate how it got like this. I don't mind paying for stuff but it seem anymore it's a constant and quality has taken a back seat. It's like people stopped doing this for fun and a hobby and started trying to make a business.. Anything that is anything that is in demand someone will find a way to charge you for now a days.
P.S. I don't mind subscription services like Netflix etc. Dumb stuff like Plex Pass is a joke though. You're subbing monthly to unlock in-app features. Doesn't make any sense..
DJames1 said:
I think everybody is struggling to find ways to make money from this technology. Google doesn't make any money on the hardware...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do we really know that?
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...tions-despite-strong-nexus-5-chromecast-sales
Biggest seller or a best seller in Q4 2013, depending how you take that article.
The packaging probably costs nearly as much as the product.
True, when it's easy for lots of people to make apps, the market gets crowded and confused.
Doesn't help that the rating system doesn't take into account that people use ratings maliciously to complain or penalize the developer for things often that are user error or out of the dev's control.
PlexPass gives other things like their cloud thing, but yeah, it is kind of "pay to be in the beta club" but hey, if it works for them, funds their continued development, and people are willing to pay, I don't have to like it, but I can't really criticize them either.
And with the $75 PlexPass lifetime, it's the same cost as a mid-range piece of software.
On Google profits, I'm sure Chromecast sold well, we can see from the lack of rootable units on shelves...
Of course they won't tell us how much they're making (or losing) on each sale. I bet most of the profit was Google Play.
I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop - until the accountants got involved, because their job is to cover that up. Not whining or ranting, just stating a known part of the corporate income game.
EarlyMon said:
I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop - until the accountants got involved, because their job is to cover that up. Not whining or ranting, just stating a known part of the corporate income game.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True. Especially given the volume they produced at, I'm sure they negotiated some killer discounts with the manufacturers. :good:
bhiga said:
True. Especially given the volume they produced at, I'm sure they negotiated some killer discounts with the manufacturers. :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/7070288
Job's open.
My issue is not with the ads being there, this is a Google device so ads were to be expected be it from Google or someone else. My issue is with it being video ads, my DSL line is shaped during the day and I don't need this hogging the bandwidth preloading videos while I am trying to browse the web. I wish my country would get "first" world in terms of broadband just so this [email protected] stops bugging me...
/fingers crossed Eureka guys ad-block this .
EarlyMon said:
I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think Google is losing money on the Chromecast hardware, at least not deliberately. But I do think they priced it not to make any money on the hardware.
Think about it:
- Google is not a hardware company. They deliberately try to stay out of the hardware business because they realize that the margins are really low. They make their money on fees and services. They only introduce hardware products as an enabler to get new things started.
- They are undercutting everybody else on price to have the cheapest brand-name media streamer. It's in the same price range as the cheapest Chinese no-name Android TV sticks.
- They introduced the Chromecast with an offer for 3 months free Netflix, which is 2 months more than Netflix normally offers. That's a $16 value for which Google undoubtedly compensated Netflix, although probably at a discounted rate. When Chromecast sales took off the first day, Google canceled that offer immediately, indicating both that they had allocated a limited budget for it, and that the price of the Chromecast would not bear it without losing money.
I'm very confused. So someone created a SDK for developers to include ads on Chromecast apps and people here are upset by this? Please tell me why.
We should keep in mind here, it's not Google inserting ads here, it's Brightcove who is enabling developers to insert video ads compatible with Chromecast. As the title of the linked article says, "Third Party Provides Way For Developers To Add Ads To Chromecast"
I doubt Google will see any of this revenue as Brightcove built this technology using the Cast SDK for their engine.
The key part here, and I could be totally off-base, is that it sounds like a library that a developer would add to their app - essentially using Brightcove's "Cast" function and player. That makes sense since Brightcove has an HTML5 player already in use by sites on the web.
For example, instead of developing my own HTML5 page that Chromecast would go to in order to play a video, I would just trigger the Brightcove "Cast" function, passing it the location and my key/ID. Chromecast would then run the Brightcove player app which plays the video content I chose with inserted ads. The fact that it's being advertised as "seamless" tells me the ads are being stitched into the video content and delivered as a single stream, rather than a playlist drawing from separate sources.
Aside from ad revenue, the huge plus for developers here is that Chromecast-enabled apps wouldn't even need to use the Cast SDK directly, because they're using the Brightcove casting engine. That means the specific Chromecast-enabled app wouldn't need to be on the whitelist or register with Google because it's really the Brightcove app that Chromecast is running. Brightcove is responsible for making sure the engine keeps up with Chromecast updates and changes so that's another burden off the developer.
A "no ads" version of an app that uses the Brightcove player may use the same request to Brightcove, just with a flag saying not to insert the ads. The "gotcha" here is that because Brightcove is the player for the video content the app uses, blocking Brightcove or the Brightcove app would block all casted video from the app.
Of course Brightcove probably shares in the ad revenue, so maybe they won't allow developers to use their engine without ads, in which case the theorized advantages to the developer go away for a "no ads" version as they'd still need to register and use the Cast SDK directly.
But likely Brightcove may take the gamble that enough people are cheap and use ad-supported versions that it covers the paid apps that aren't showing ads. Or maybe part of their developer agreement makes the developer pay for non-ad versions somehow. Just theorizing from the business perspective...
styckx said:
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you Sir, these are true words. I agree you to 100%
styckx said:
Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The PC software model had very few ongoing costs. You boxed up a CD and after that, the costs you incurred were mostly just support costs. Streaming video is not cheap. If you plan on charging once in a lifetime, then you will be out of business very quickly.
@DJames1 - those are good points, I'd like to counter with what the market will bear.
After the Google TV and Nexus Q flops, I don't think that Chromecast could have done better at a higher price point, even if it started out with more apps and features. I think that they had to plan for this price point and knew that going in.
As for the initial Netflix deal, I don't know if anyone besides the accountants know how that worked. Not a personal criticism, just saying - Netflix has a vested interest in DIAL succeeding. It makes secure delivery easy for them. Their revenue models for this sort of thing aren't trivial, see Roku's license deal for example.
Netflix will give newcomers a free month for watching Philip DeFranco on YouTube.
So between their giveaway budget for promotions, surely compensated in part by the content providers and anything paid back by Google in the form of free advertising, I think that entire initial allocation for Netflix with Google was all virtual money, if such a thing exists. Iow, lots of return on investment on both sides but actual investment costs in real dollars - closer to zero.
@bhiga - agree. This reminds me of the AirPush SDK, and quite a few others who seek out devs with revenue schemes.
I know a lot of people are upset about the fact that the Samsung Galaxy Note 5 doesn't have a SD card slot and this right here is exactly why I have a 2TB backup drive in my house and it's also the reason I tell people not to use any type of online cloud storage..
Microsoft sues US over secret demands for customer data
Apr 14, 2016 07:29 PM
By BRANDON BAILEY
AP Technology Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Microsoft sued the U.S. government for demanding access to user emails or online files in secret, saying a provision of a 1986 law that authorities use for such undisclosed searches is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit is the latest clash over privacy rights in the digital age. Law enforcement officials want freedom to view a treasure trove of information - including emails, photos and financial records - that customers are storing on electronic gadgets and in so-called "cloud" computing centers.
Microsoft says the U.S. Justice Department is abusing the decades-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which allows authorities to obtain court orders requiring it to turn over customer files stored on its servers, while in some cases prohibiting the company from notifying the customer. Microsoft says those "non-disclosure" orders violate its constitutional right to free speech, as well as its customers' protection against unreasonable searches.
A Justice Department spokeswoman said the government is reviewing the lawsuit, which was filed Thursday in Seattle federal court.
One former federal official was critical of Microsoft's position, saying it could lead to warning "child molesters, domestic abusers, violent criminals and terrorists that they're being investigated."
The non-disclosure orders must be granted by a judge who has concluded that "notifying these individuals will have an adverse result, which could include messing up an investigation or even endangering the life or safety of individuals," said Daniel "D.J." Rosenthal, a former National Security Council and Justice Department attorney.
But Microsoft argues the law sets a vague standard for granting secrecy around digital searches. Authorities are required to disclose most search warrants for information stored in filing cabinets, safes or other physical locations, the company noted in its court filing.
"At the end of the day, when you are being investigated by the government, you should know about the investigation so you can prepare a defense," said Mark Jaycox of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group.
Microsoft said government demands under the ECPA law are increasing in number for a variety of investigations, including white-collar cases.
"We appreciate that there are times when secrecy around a government warrant is needed," Microsoft Corp. President Brad Smith said in a statement. "But based on the many secrecy orders we have received, we question whether these orders are grounded in specific facts that truly demand secrecy. To the contrary, it appears that the issuance of secrecy orders has become too routine."
The Redmond, Washington-based company says authorities used the law to demand customer information more than 5,600 times in the last 18 months. In nearly half those cases, a court ordered the company to keep the demand secret.
Although some orders expired after a period of time, Microsoft said the gag orders were indefinite in about 1,750 cases, "meaning that Microsoft could forever be barred from telling the affected customer about the government's intrusion."
As more people store data online, Microsoft argued in its lawsuit that the government is exploiting that trend "as a means of expanding its power to conduct secret investigations."
In an interview, Smith said the company decided to sue the Justice Department after a case where authorities threatened to hold Microsoft in contempt when it sought to contest a particular secrecy order.
"That caused us to step back and take a look at what was going on more broadly," he said. "We were very disconcerted when we added up the large number of secrecy orders we've been receiving."
While the lawsuit specifically challenges ECPA's secrecy provision, Congress has been debating a number of reforms in response to criticism that it's outdated in various ways.
The House Judiciary Committee this week approved a bill to amend the law so authorities would need a warrant to see email and other digital files that have been stored online for more than 180 days. Currently the law allows access with a subpoena, which can be obtained more easily by satisfying a weaker legal standard.
But a recent amendment to the bill would still allow non-disclosure orders lasting up to six months, which could potentially be extended. Microsoft's Smith said he's not optimistic that Congress will pass any reforms this year.
Microsoft rival Apple has been waging a high-profile legal battle over the FBI's attempt to compel that company's help in obtaining data stored on iPhones.
"It's part of the same trend," said Alex Abdo, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. He said tech companies "have gotten the message loud and clear from the American public, that privacy matters."
The source link to this is here.
http://m.wtvm.com/wtvm/db/376055/content/8llRzBFa
is a good point - but you should also never use a VPN hosted by any of the "five eyes" countries, or all of the "fourteen eyes" either, also you wouldn't run a Samsung account, use Google services such a Gmail, Facebook, or any other myriad of (especially) US based privacy invasive "free" services online.
Privacy is very important. But people forget that their free Gmail account does come at a cost, so does Facebook (loathe that platform).
You cannot just stop using a cloud based storage service (personally I use Tresorit - end to end encryption and a zero knowledge service) and we all use Android devices here (MM privacy settings are a step in the right direction, but also reading and learning about what you can do to make sure your phone isn't the information leak Google would prefer it to be is a wise thing to do)
Change your email to something offering zero knowledge and end to end encryption such as Protonmail or Tutanota. Create a "throwaway" email and account for Google Play and their services. Always use the Google Play gift cards rather than a credit card for purchases.
Don't use Google Maps period. Use Open Street Maps instead.
Use DuckDuckGo as your search engine, never Google.
Find out what a warrant canary is and check them for all the services you use regularly!
Use a firewall on your device. Use Tor on your device. Don't ever use Chrome, use Firefox and make sure you adjust the privacy settings hidden inside it.
As you can see, there is a lot to consider and do if you value your privacy, not just cloud storage.
All of this is easily searchable on the internet so it pays to read.
To paraphrase Glen Greenwald, many people will say they have nothing to hide, well if that is the case send me your login details to your email accounts and online social media accounts. No one has ever taken up that offer......
geekygrl said:
is a good point - but you should also never use a VPN hosted by any of the "five eyes" countries, or all of the "fourteen eyes" either, also you wouldn't run a Samsung account, use Google services such a Gmail, Facebook, or any other myriad of (especially) US based privacy invasive "free" services online.
Privacy is very important. But people forget that their free Gmail account does come at a cost, so does Facebook (loathe that platform).
You cannot just stop using a cloud based storage service (personally I use Tresorit - end to end encryption and a zero knowledge service) and we all use Android devices here (MM privacy settings are a step in the right direction, but also reading and learning about what you can do to make sure your phone isn't the information leak Google would prefer it to be is a wise thing to do)
Change your email to something offering zero knowledge and end to end encryption such as Protonmail or Tutanota. Create a "throwaway" email and account for Google Play and their services. Always use the Google Play gift cards rather than a credit card for purchases.
Don't use Google Maps period. Use Open Street Maps instead.
Use DuckDuckGo as your search engine, never Google.
Find out what a warrant canary is and check them for all the services you use regularly!
Use a firewall on your device. Use Tor on your device. Don't ever use Chrome, use Firefox and make sure you adjust the privacy settings hidden inside it.
As you can see, there is a lot to consider and do if you value your privacy, not just cloud storage.
All of this is easily searchable on the internet so it pays to read.
To paraphrase Glen Greenwald, many people will say they have nothing to hide, well if that is the case send me your login details to your email accounts and online social media accounts. No one has ever taken up that offer......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most of those thing's I don't use and the rare times that I do use them I have account names that mean nothing and have no important information in them. Any important emails that I get are sent to my own personal encrypted mail server and I don't bother with VPN connections because Tor Browser is good enough for me. This is also the reason I don't use Microsoft Windows at all and use Linux instead because when something gets installed on my system it's because I did it but with Microsoft Windows it's to easy to get viruses and whatnot and I've yet to ever have that happen to my nix. I also loathe Facebook and I rarely ever get on there because it seems like people detail their entire day every day from the time they wake up until they go to bed and that's a treasure trove to anyone who is looking for information on you! But let's face it though, there really is no way to 100% truly secure your information online because if someone is determined and smart enough they'll get what they want but we don't have to make it easy for them to get it!!
Same here - but I am always surprised at the other people out there that complain about privacy but never do anything about it, or don't know anything about how to fix it...
Unfortunately I am locked into Windows 10 as I have a SP4.....until the touchscreen and the pen works with Linux it is pointless to move OS's - I do have it locked down and no longer sending any telemetry as much as humanly possible!
I spend a lot of time being mobile so setting up my own email servers or use something like OwnCloud (isn't there a vulnerability with that at the moment?) to sync my phone isn't practical as it would require more than a SP4!
Agree that if they really want to know what you are up to they will, but why make it easy eh?!
geekygrl said:
is a good point - but you should also never use a VPN hosted by any of the "five eyes" countries, or all of the "fourteen eyes" either... <snip> Protonmail or Tutanota
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, basically, I agree with what you said, and I've looked at both those providers. Protonmail is based in Switzerland, and Tutanota in Germany. Um... given the Snowden revelations (and other things) can we actually depend on any German company? Is Switzerland even secure anymore?
Maybe I'm being silly, ignorant, or whatever about this. Got any thoughts on this?
Hi guys. I'm starting this thread in hopes of sparking a conversation and a concerted effort to rid ourselves as users from the clutches of Google and other big tech companies. I am sick and tired of Google tracking me and attempting to force feed me ads on a daily send constant basis. Then selling my info to other companies such as Facebook. So, I have started down the path of decluttering (De-Google-ing) my device(s). I am primarily interested in securing my device as much as possible and protecting my privacy.
So far, I have reformatted my entire device to factory default settings installed and using F-Droid (FOSS) for all my apps. I use Yandex as my search engine (I am often to suggestions and recommendations) in the "private browser" app. I use Aurora instead of Google Play store, New Pipe for YouTube-ing, Frost for Facebookingand SlimSocial for Twitter. I have stopped using Google keyboard and any other Google apps. I have abandoned gmail and replaced it with proton mail instead. So far, no ads and as far as I can tell, no tracking. I have also installed a VPN and am using it religiously—Cyber Ghost, a $99 for 3 years subscription with support up to 8 devices.
However, I am still very much connected to Samsung for I am not privy as to whether or not Samsung is as sinister as Google and Facebook.
Again, I am open to all suggestions, corrections and recommendations. Thank you and I hope to engage with you all.
leave it up to them yandex russians to protect your privacy.
but seriously. the most dangerous thing you can do is acctualy think that the steps you take are really making your life private.
vpns just channel the traffic to an other end point and does the queries for you then sends the data encrypted to you.
the queries are still made on the www. account info and all things you store or access online is still accessible by the www. vpn companies just fool you into thinking that the data being relayed to you is the only weak link. plus the free ones mine your data.
best thing you can do is not use social media. its made to invade your privacy. its designed to fool you into giving as much of your personal life info as possible and sell your habits to add companies so they can in turn send you quatered adds.
the minute you use the internet you void your privacy regardless of how you think the measures you take are working or effective. and what are you going to do about the 100 and 1000's of companies being hacked and their data mined and sold every month? you cant do anything about that. plus its much better for hackers to get their info from a big company because you get much more than just 1 dude that does his banking online and chat every now and then.there is no money to be made from 1 individual.
if you think people are specifically after you, you are gravely being fooled by the vpn ad campaigns that have been poping up everywhere about "privacy".( they must hide the fact that they also get hacked very well.its just that the media hasint picked up on it yet)
anyways who want to waste time on an end user/device?
when again you just need to hack equifax like a few years back and you get the motherload instead.
all in all I've abandoned the thought of real privacy. its futile.( even abstinents dosen't work because companies and governments don't secure customer data correctly. and unfortunately if you are born, you must be branded and labeled and filed away.)
live your life. just know that what ever you do you can't escape big brother and your data from being leaked by the big companies that say that it is secured with them.
the whole infrastructure relies on them companies and the habits we have been embraining ourselves and our children with is the problem.. we live our lives intertwined with the services and devices that we take for granted and have clicked next next next through polices and consent forms for over 25 years now whithout even giving it a second though. we're in over our heads now and it is a little late to back out. this was al dine by design and all voluntarily. its crazy how marketing is evil.
a cabin in the woods is the easiest and most secure thing one can do. anything shy of that is a waste of time and a false feeling of privacy.
anyways I'm going around in circles now.
one thing for sure is that the criminals we think that we need cover from are not who we think they are.
they are the FCC dealing with big telcos, they are the big media giants spewing false information and fabricates facts. they are in our governments in the highest ranks pushing hidden agendas and most of all they are the big social media platforms remodeling our society each day under our noses at our expense.
but hey this is not new. the internet police is just tring to make you think it is and spend 9.99$ a month for a vpn lol
good luck.
I just stopped using as many Google apps as I can and switched over to MS Office apps and use Samsung services where I can too...
bober10113 said:
leave it up to them yandex russians to protect your privacy.
but seriously. the most dangerous thing you can do is acctualy think that the steps you take are really making your life private.
vpns just channel the traffic to an other end point and does the queries for you then sends the data encrypted to you.
the queries are still made on the www. account info and all things you store or access online is still accessible by the www. vpn companies just fool you into thinking that the data being relayed to you is the only weak link. plus the free ones mine your data.
best thing you can do is not use social media. its made to invade your privacy. its designed to fool you into giving as much of your personal life info as possible and sell your habits to add companies so they can in turn send you quatered adds.
the minute you use the internet you void your privacy regardless of how you think the measures you take are working or effective. and what are you going to do about the 100 and 1000's of companies being hacked and their data mined and sold every month? you cant do anything about that. plus its much better for hackers to get their info from a big company because you get much more than just 1 dude that does his banking online and chat every now and then.there is no money to be made from 1 individual.
if you think people are specifically after you, you are gravely being fooled by the vpn ad campaigns that have been poping up everywhere about "privacy".( they must hide the fact that they also get hacked very well.its just that the media hasint picked up on it yet)
anyways who want to waste time on an end user/device?
when again you just need to hack equifax like a few years back and you get the motherload instead.
all in all I've abandoned the thought of real privacy. its futile.( even abstinents dosen't work because companies and governments don't secure customer data correctly. and unfortunately if you are born, you must be branded and labeled and filed away.)
live your life. just know that what ever you do you can't escape big brother and your data from being leaked by the big companies that say that it is secured with them.
the whole infrascturuce relies on them companies and the habits we have been embraining ourselves and our children with is the problem.. we live our lives intertwined with the services and devices that we take for granted and have clicked next next next through polices and consent forms for over 25 years now whithout even giving it a second though. we're in over our heads now and it is a little late to back out. this was al dine by design and all voluntarily. its crazy how marketing is evil.
a cabin in the woods is the easiest and most secure thing one can do. anything shy of that is a waste of time and a false feeling of privacy.
anyways I'm going around in circles now.
one thing for sure is that the criminals we think that we need cover from are not who we think they are.
they are the FCC dealing with big telcos, they are the big media giants spewing false information and fabricates facts. they are in our governments in the highest ranks pushing hidden agendas and most of all they are the big social media platforms remodeling our society each day under our noses at our expense.
but hey this is not new. the internet police is just tring to make you think it is and spend 9.99$ a month for a vpn lol
good luck.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oy vey! Thank you very much for yor contribution. It is very much appreciated and I see what you are saying.
AndroidUser00110001 said:
I just stopped using as many Google apps as I can and switched over to MS Office apps and use Samsung services where I can too...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How has this been working out for you? What are your thoughts on Samsung's and Microsoft privacy policies etc?
Nonetheless, what are some good and viable alternatives to Google and optimally "securing" one's device (taking everything bober10113 has said).
michel5891 said:
How has this been working out for you? What are your thoughts on Samsung's and Microsoft privacy policies etc?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Like the other poster said, I gave up on worrying about privacy. I made the switch for other reasons and privacy was down on the list...
I just do not like what Goolge has been doing lately, especially blocking ad blockers soon in Chrome so I switched to MS Edge on Android and the Chromium version of Edge for desktop and the rest of the apps just followed through. I am seeing how the switch works for myself and if all goes well I will switch back to MS for the small company I work for.
I gave up on Gmail, Google Drive and all their office apps so far and I stopped using Nexus/Pixel phones for the first time in 10 years. I started with the S9+ which I enjoyed for a couple of months and then got a Note9 during a holiday special and now I cannot wait for the Note10.
Privacy is what it is nowadays... We should all own our data and if we choose to let be used as companies are doing now then we should get a slice of all the money being made but I doubt it will ever get to be something like that.
michel5891 said:
How has this been working out for you? What are your thoughts on Samsung's and Microsoft privacy policies etc?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't think that they are any better than Google's. Majority of the companies out there that are international had to adhere to the EU rules of privacy, so a lot of them have adopted those standards. NOT ALL OF THEM. That's why all of a sudden you are getting new agreements from all the major companies that touch each section of land on the world.
I still don't trust any of them even to that point.
This is morbid. I have been thinking a lot more about death, debt, privacy and such, and I have come to the conclusion that I honestly don't care about my own anymore because it has been stolen, including my wife's. Future children though, I worry about them because you don't even have to mention their name on the internet and somehow every major company knows about them.
Ever had a conversation with someone without actually looking something up on the web, and then a day or two later Google and other ads start showing things concerning what you were talking about to someone in person? Yeah, it has happened to me numerous times now I can't even count anymore.
Jammol said:
Ever had a conversation with someone without actually looking something up on the web, and then a day or two later Google and other ads start showing things concerning what you were talking about to someone in person? Yeah, it has happened to me numerous times now I can't even count anymore.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
YES!!! I noticed this a few months ago. My wife and I were talking about some random subject and BAM there it was in my Google discovery feed.
I mentioned that to her and she thought I was crazy until it happened again.
My friend was over last week, he mentioned something about a car he is fixing up and once again in my Google feed...
*EDIT*
I am not going to go as far as saying they are listening because my wife did say she looked up what we were talking about later on that day on her phone so I am guessing it is more GPS based then Google listening to give them the benefit of doubt for now. I need to ask my friend if he searched anything while here...
You want to De-Google your phone? Sell it and don't get an Android phone. Don't get an iPhone, either. In fact, get one of those huge car phones from the 80s. I can't add really anything that hasn't been said, other than some slight humor, but again, if you want privacy, stay off the internet.
AndroidUser00110001 said:
YES!!! I noticed this a few months ago. My wife and I were talking about some random subject and BAM there it was in my Google discovery feed.
I mentioned that to her and she thought I was crazy until it happened again.
My friend was over last week, he mentioned something about a car he is fixing up and once again in my Google feed...
*EDIT*
I am not going to go as far as saying they are listening because my wife did say she looked up what we were talking about later on that day on her phone so I am guessing it is more GPS based then Google listening to give them the benefit of doubt for now. I need to ask my friend if he searched anything while here...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is what I'm trying to prevent. Exactly the same thing had happened to me. We were simply discussing an AC unit; never looked it up or mentioned the name of it and the exact make and model in the room we were in showed up.
michel5891 said:
This is what I'm trying to prevent. Exactly the same thing had happened to me. We were simply discussing an AC unit; never looked it up or mentioned the name of it and the exact make and model in the room we were in showed up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah it's super duper creepy. Funny thing is since I refreshed my Note 9 up to PIE, I haven't given assistant or google search any permission to use my microphone and I don't even have them setup!
this might help:
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/6030020?co=GENIE.Platform=Android&hl=en
turn voice activity off. also check your history to see if it has any recording...