Owen DeLong wrote on 11/20/2019 11:51 AM:
On Nov 20, 2019, at 07:38 , Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc
<mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote:
Never did figure out if it was stupidity
or malice driving that.
Personally I think it's neither; it's just $$$$$.
They could invest in a robust system to accurately identify what they
chose not to allow to access the service. Or, they can choose to run
with a 'close enough' system with some legitimate users caught in the
middle.
They've most likely done the math and decided that the revenue lost
from people getting caught up in inaccurate blocking is small enough
that the investment in a more accurate method isn't worth it. This is
unfortunately the more common decision in this age of worship at the
Altar of Maximum Shareholder Value.
I think you are exactly right here. It’s yet another example of how
the incentives around DRM are all messed up and are creating economic
bias in favor of screwing consumers as much as possible without
loosing too much revenue.
What is needed is either a more conscientious consumer base that will
see this and react by voting with their wallets, or, regulation which
provides more costly penalties for screwing over legitimate consumers.
Owen
I suppose a Hulu subscriber could dispute the charge or file a suit
(class action?) for damages: "Hulu took my money, but didn't provide the
services they advertised." As an ISP, some of us might even be in a
position where we encounter losses due to Hulu's (mis)classification
resulting in customers moving to the competition; I would think that
would be sufficient grounds for a suit.
