FIRE vs TABLET

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Plus some internet providers frowns on excessive bandwidth consumption. I know mine sure does they have their own Netflix type service so they tend to throttle other stuff like that.

That's why we need net neutrality laws.

Movies on a mSD cards sidesteps your provider and puts you in control. Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't want you having that kind of control. That's why I said no to Amazon.

[gweminence]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's why we need net neutrality laws.

Movies on a mSD cards sidesteps your provider and puts you in control. Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't want you having that kind of control. That's why I said no to Amazon.

That's ok. 5 million (and counting) people have said yes, and will continue to for years to come.

Man, how WILL Amazon survive...?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by gweminence

Man, how WILL Amazon survive...?

They survive because I'm a Prime monkey

[Jessica Lares]

Easy, ISPs just have to enforce revenue sharing and redo their plans.

It makes complete sense for them to be asking Netflix for money when people are gobbling up 20GB a month using it. Heck, if they got a dollar from every one of their subscribers just for using it, it'd make a HUGE difference. It'll be the same thing once Amazon Prime hits the big time next year with new Kindle Fire subscribers.

In return for that extra buck a month, AT&T, Verizon, etc wouldn't count those types of services against your limit. This would also include Spotify, Rhapsody, and Pandora, as well as wireless syncing. This could easily be $5-20mil/monthly from each service for Internet providers who obviously NEED that money to expand and profit.

This would also allow the ISPs to lower the data caps considerably, and to make a comfortable plan for most people's needs. Maybe something like 20GB for $30 with 24 Mbps (which works GREAT for steaming). It would also help to stop things like pirating in the long run.

It'll be cheaper for the average consumer, who'll get all the nice stuff with unlimited access and blazing speeds, it'll allow for these companies not to lose their customers, and the ISPs win because they get nice BIG commissions for their advertised bundles and be able to pocket more.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

It makes complete sense for them to be asking Netflix for money when people are gobbling up 20GB a month using it. Heck, if they got a dollar from every one of their subscribers just for using it, it'd make a HUGE difference. It'll be the same thing once Amazon Prime hits the big time next year with new Kindle Fire subscribers.

It does not make sense. They sell bandwidth and I buy it. After that, it's none of their business how I use it. I paid for it and I expect them to deliver it without interference.

They see this cash cow out there utilizing their pipes; and for some unfathomable reason, they feel they have this God given right to demand a piece of that action. WTF!

On top of that, there's also a major conflict of interest going on and it's time Congress did something about it. No one should be allowed to provide both delivery and content. With people cancelling their cable TV and relying on the internet, these ISP/cable companies are looking for creative ways to stick it to their internet only customers.

[SCION]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

You're welcome

I ruled out the Fire as soon as I found out it only had a paltry 6GB of storage and no card slot. That is so video unfriendly.

It's 8. I had to double check because you keep saying it's 6.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by SCION

It's 8. I had to double check because you keep saying it's 6.

It's 6GB of user available storage. Amazon's software gobbles up 2GB.

[SCION]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It's 6GB of user available storage. Amazon's software gobbles up 2GB.

Then say that. I'm probably not the only one double-checking.

[emilikins]

tubemonkey, you asked about selling the digital copy that's bundled with a Blu-Ray disc ... Yes, I think from the standpoint of the producer, it is considered illegal to sell or give away the digital copy, because you actually just received a license for it along with your bought Blu-Ray. Most digital content, including paid for e-books on Amazon, B&N, etc., are not "owned" but licensed. Content producers do not treat digital content the same as physical, which often falls under the first sale doctrine (that allows libraries to do what they do) that says once you own it, you can lend or sell it. Libraries can make archival copies of media items, but they can't make additional copies to lend out to people (just like you can't legally burn a CD you bought to sell to someone, but you can sell that original CD just fine).

OverDrive tells libraries that they "purchase" and "own" the books they select for their OverDrive library (and each copy = one person lending at a time), but they only have access or can lay claim to that e-book as long as they are subscribing to OverDrive. If the company fails, or the library decides it can't continue the ridiculous increases of maintenance fees, then they lose all that the invested money and that collection of ebooks.

Without seeing the Terms of Use on your digital copy, I can't say for sure you don't own it, but I've yet to see full, true ownership rights given through digital movie copies. Of course, if you gave the digital copy to someone, the original, not a copy of the copy, I don't know if there's any way for that to be tracked and proven as a violation? Personally, I don't think it's wrong to give that license key away as a whole entity and not a copy of it, but the law hasn't been interpreted firmly on the end user's side for a while now.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by SCION

Then say that. I'm probably not the only one double-checking.

Then I'd get the tl;dr bit on my posts

[WT Sharpe]

That which eats up most of the storage on my iPad is the apps. If the apps can be stored permanently in Amazon Heaven and downloaded quickly on an as-needed basis, the low storage may not be a huge concern. That's how Amazon is selling it, and if it works, great. We shall see very shortly if the Fire lives up to its hype.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I have 3 good reasons:

• Because Netflix costs $7.99 a month and my movies are already paid for.
• Because Netflix requires me to be tethered to a wifi hotspot and my movies don't.
• Because Netflix has a horrible selection of movies and I have an excellent selection.

A couple more reasons:

• Because the quality of Netflix streams aren't as good as Blu-ray (for HD) or DVD (for SD).
• Because only a few devices support 5.1 channel audio in Netflix.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by emilikins

tubemonkey, you asked about selling the digital copy that's bundled with a Blu-Ray disc ... Yes, I think from the standpoint of the producer, it is considered illegal to sell or give away the digital copy, because you actually just received a license for it along with your bought Blu-Ray. Most digital content, including paid for e-books on Amazon, B&N, etc., are not "owned" but licensed. Content producers do not treat digital content the same as physical, which often falls under the first sale doctrine (that allows libraries to do what they do) that says once you own it, you can lend or sell it. Libraries can make archival copies of media items, but they can't make additional copies to lend out to people (just like you can't legally burn a CD you bought to sell to someone, but you can sell that original CD just fine).

OverDrive tells libraries that they "purchase" and "own" the books they select for their OverDrive library (and each copy = one person lending at a time), but they only have access or can lay claim to that e-book as long as they are subscribing to OverDrive. If the company fails, or the library decides it can't continue the ridiculous increases of maintenance fees, then they lose all that the invested money and that collection of ebooks.

Without seeing the Terms of Use on your digital copy, I can't say for sure you don't own it, but I've yet to see full, true ownership rights given through digital movie copies. Of course, if you gave the digital copy to someone, the original, not a copy of the copy, I don't know if there's any way for that to be tracked and proven as a violation? Personally, I don't think it's wrong to give that license key away as a whole entity and not a copy of it, but the law hasn't been interpreted firmly on the end user's side for a while now.

Thanks, I appreciate your comments. I no longer buy videos, because I already own VHS/DVDs of my favorites, so I have no way to read the rights associated with the newer stuff. Just trying to figure out the legalities.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with giving away any of the original copies included. Selling them though, seems rather dicey to me.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

This could easily be $5-20mil/monthly from each service for Internet providers who obviously NEED that money to expand and profit.

The government has already paid for the bandwidth upgrades and what did internet service providers do? The executives pocketed the money.

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

It makes complete sense for them to be asking Netflix for money when people are gobbling up 20GB a month using it. Heck, if they got a dollar from every one of their subscribers just for using it, it'd make a HUGE difference. It'll be the same thing once Amazon Prime hits the big time next year with new Kindle Fire subscribers.

At the expense of what? Subscribers paying Netflix, et al higher subscription fees? Even higher when you consider content providers want more in licensing fees.

[emilikins]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with giving away any of the original copies included. Selling them though, seems rather dicey to me.

Ah, let me clarify You can sell a physical DVD or CD just fine, first sale allows that. But the digital copies included with the Blu-ray, I doubt. Again, I personally don't see what's wrong with giving away that digital copy, as long as you don't duplicate it (so you can have one and your friend can have one), because that's a direct violation (big FBI warning at the start of any movie). But I think the Terms of Use/licensing shackles would say you can't do that. I don't agree with them there :-p

Sideloading on the Fire: Laptop Mag has a post on how to sideload apps onto the Fire, complete with screenshots!

I'm boning up on Fire workarounds, because my library ordered one (along with upgrades, since we have first gen Kindles here). I don't want one, but I need to be able to know how to work with it to help students.