Pirate Party ALMOST Ejected From Festival For Giving Out Free Waffles After Vendors Selling Waffles Complained (Updated)
from the waffle-waffle dept
Update: Correcting this post as I misread how the situation ended, in which they were allowed to stay after they were almost ejected. I apologize for that wholeheartedly. The "tweets" in the middle were a little confusing and I read them to mean that they had been removed, but as many people in the comments pointed out that was incorrect. I'm sorry for the error, and, as always, strive to fix any such mistakes as quickly as possible.One of the key things that we find in story after story around here is that those who have a particular business model seem to think that any disruption of that business model must be illegal (or, worse, immoral). Sometimes instances of this come from strange places. For example, the Swedish Young Pirates officially set up shop at a local municipal festival, where they had permission to make food and give it to attendees. They started making waffles and giving them away for free. What they didn't realize was that others at the festival were trying to sell waffles, and they complained. The end result? Almost bye bye, young pirates (see update above). Yes, they
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, disruption, free, free waffles, pirate party, sweden
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
/cluelessOoMPAALooMPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine the bastards
By the way, since when did Sweden become such a police state?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine the bastards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fine the bastards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fine the bastards
The pirate party in Germany on the other hand has had lot of success latly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine the bastards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They shut down free waffles?!
Oh the humanity! Oh the disgust!
FREE WAFFLES IS GOD'S GIFT TO MANKIND!
How DARE those rat bastards try to take that way from us!
TO ARMS, MEN! TO ARMS!!
We'll show those dirty legacy players that you cannot take away a man's waffles and get away with it!!
NO WAFFLEIZATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That part of the book would be larger than a full set of the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That list you could probably cover in a couple of pages at most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*correction*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *correction*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Well, MY waffles do what his don't!"
Basically, I'd have a lot of fun with it. I'm probably an anomaly though. See, I was a Sega kid growing up in the 16-bit era of home consoles, and the spirit of the epic duel between the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo pulses through my bloodstream. I suspect that makes me woefully old-fashioned though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Well, MY waffles do what his don't!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Well, MY waffles do what his don't!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Well, MY waffles do what his don't!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Well, MY waffles do what his don't!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More specifically, what should a company do in this theoretical what if situation: Your competitor purposefully tries to kill your business by consistently undercutting your products (waffles in this case), where the attacker knows both of you will makes losses (but since the attacker is an established company with more money it can afford to throw away some to kill their competition)?
Of course none of this remotely applies to the situation described here (to which I fully agree they should not be have been kicked out), I'm just worried about people abusing such a thing on purpose.
Note: I heavily support the pirate movement but I'm genuinely curious about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ????
As for how to deal with a competitor undercutting a business, that is just basic economics and happens all the time. Abundance of a product or service naturally drives the price toward zero. Businesses deal with undercutting generally by providing a superior product or service or by differentiating their product or service.
Bitching about free waffles is just being a greedy asshat. All the vendors had to do was wait for the free supply to be exhausted. Free doesn't work well with finite supply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ????
Because of the Young Pirates, the other waffle vendors wouldn't have made as much money at the festival, but they could still make lots of money the rest of the year. Therefore, it's not very fair to compare this to unfair competition.
Think of how companies sometimes give away free products for a few days in order to promote their brand: nobody throws the unfair competition laws at them for that.
I understand the frustration of the waffle vendors, who probably paid a lot of money to be allowed to sell at the festival* and it turned out they couldn't make all the profits they had hoped, however the festival should have had rules forbidding the giveaway of free food if that was going to be an issue. The vendors did not check there was such a rule, and the festival didn't have the foresight to make one, therefore the Young Pirates shouldn't have been evicted.
I would add that the festival organizers should have been happy to have people giving away free waffles, this just increases the popularity of the festival.
*I don't know whether or not they paid money to have a stand; I'm just assuming that if it's like most festivals and similar organized events then it's quite expensive to set up a stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ????
Steve Jobs did basically this in the mobile market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ????
I don't see how it being a temporary event makes any difference.
Is handing out free Dunkin' Donuts coffee coupons on the sidewalk in front of Starbucks illegal or immoral?
To me, it's simply competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ????
"Is handing out free Dunkin' Donuts coffee coupons on the sidewalk in front of Starbucks illegal or immoral?"
Would you consider it fair and moral for the owners of a shopping mall to allow Starbucks to open an expensive new store, and on the day of opening, they rent Dunkin Donuts a stand in front for $1 a year, only for their charitible work, and instead DD uses it to give away coffee (not coupons, actual coffee)? Would you consider it worse if the federal government was sending DD money to pay for the coffee, which comes out of the taxes paid by Starbucks?
It's unfair competition.
The political party wasn't a food vendor - why should they be giving away food, which hurts other vendors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ????
They aren't competition.
Stupid example, really. You fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ????
Interesting. How did you come up with this? In a vacuum?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ????
Yes I would. That's business. There's no guarantee that you won't ever face competition from unexpected sources.
... only for their charitible work, and instead DD uses it to give away coffee (not coupons, actual coffee)? Would you consider it worse if the federal government was sending DD money to pay for the coffee, which comes out of the taxes paid by Starbucks?
Wow. You must have some additional information about this I don't have. What if they used donation money to pay for the waffles? What if they were giving away buttons and leaflets paid for with government money instead of waffles, would you bitch about the money then?
It's unfair competition.
No one ever promised me life would be fair and I certainly don't expect business to be fair either. Disruption happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ????
It's unfair competition.
No one ever promised me life would be fair and I certainly don't expect business to be fair either. Disruption happens."
Actually, the food vendors who paid a premium price for a limited number of food spaces felt that things were "fair". Adding in an unlicensed free food source to disrupt their business isn't a fair disruption, it's unfair. They signed their contracts based on X, and instead were given Y.
They would likely be fully in their rights to sue the daylights out of the event organizer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ????
Yes. There may be a contractual dispute between the organizer and the vendors. But I still fail see how it is "unfair competition". The Young Pirates weren't party to those contracts. If anything, it's "unfair" to try to shut down the Young Pirates since they weren't obligated to abide by those contracts anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact take the paper plates; plastic knives, forks and spoons; salt and vinegar etc... you're not billed separately for these items when you order food - for all intents and purposes they're free*
Now when the price of waffles means that waffles are no longer expensive to produce and distribute, neither are they considered a luxury commodity - then those who want to make money from waffles need to look at waffles like those tiny packets of ketchup - they are added value.
In effect, the baseline has risen. Sure if just you want a waffle you can get them for free over there, our waffles are free too... with a purchase of 1x topping and a cup of coffee, but those guys are not offering coffee or a range of toppings.
This is how a healthy competitive market works without the need for expensive waffle legislation that keeps the price of waffles artificially high and punishes those who give away waffles, or like to eat waffles. You can bet that those eating waffles also appreciate a choice of toppings and drinks that they are more than will to pay extra for to go with their free waffle.
And now I'm done waffling.
*It could be argued that the bill for your food includes the cost of these items but the same would apply to free waffles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's part of how competition works. If you're good, you figure out ways to win anyway. There are a few options:
1. You figure out how to make your offering even cheaper, such that they can't keep undercutting you.
2. You figure out how to make your product much better/more desirable, so that people pay for yours even though the other guy's is cheaper.
3. You figure out how to leverage your existing offering into a different business...
etc..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> from the internet to IRL
It's like open source. Microsoft hates Linux and LibreOffice because they offer free waffles.
> what should a company do in this theoretical
> what if situation: Your competitor purposefully
> tries to kill your business by consistently
> undercutting your products (waffles in this case),
> where the attacker knows both of you will makes losses
If the product really should be free (eg, a plastic fork to go with your waffle), then maybe you should stop charging separately for plastic spoons.
If on the other hand, the product is worth something, and the company undercutting your price is engaging in what is called predatory pricing, then call the attorney general.
Example from 1950's: IBM selling a crippled computer for less than it actually costs to build, in order to put competitors out of business. But soon you realize you need to add more memory -- at an exorbitant price that more than makes up for having sold you the computer below the cost of its bill of materials. That's predatory pricing.
So what exactly defines predatory pricing?
Is giving a gift predatory pricing? Is giving the same gift lots of times (eg, free waffles) predatory pricing? Is open source predatory pricing? Clearly open source is not, because the development cost is incurred only once -- the cost to duplicate is essentially free.
What if the free waffles were subsidized by something else more expensive that was sold by the same vendor such as a large breakfast platter? But waffles are free, just like packets of ketchup at McDonalds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, this smells more like touching anti-damping and unfair competition laws to me, than piracy. Remember recent episode in France concerning Google Maps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The waffle recipe is well known for centuries. It's public domain. Someone chose to make use of it, and sell the result (Disney, i'm looking at you...). Someone chose to make use of it, and give it away. Why should this not be allowed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the sin of omission
Two reasons:
1) This is yet another sensationalist item designed to attract views.
2) European countries are not the US and have different legal systems, something Mike loves when it's in line with his opinions and something he doesn't understand when not.
He can bitch and moan about the WSJ all he wants. At the end of the day he's no better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the sin of omission
Is there a law stating he has to stick to United States stories?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the sin of omission
The fact that they had to call the police to enforce their right to give away the waffles only serves as further support for the article. Also, the sources I checked yesterday didn't make it clear what was the outcome too.
Now begone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the sin of omission
You're totally cool with Mike sacrificing his integrity for page views. I don't really give a shit about his SEO and constant self-referential links. That's the game. But what does bother me is the bullshit sensationalism he resorts to and his utter unwillingness to accept that the EU has different laws, just like US states have different laws.
Feel free to be a boot-licking sycophant. It does me no harm. But know that if you dare make a claim about me I will respond. You toady.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: the sin of omission
So? Mike's posted stories submitted by ACs before (who then instantly attacked him for not reporting it in the way they wanted/omitting content that was actually not omitted).
If you don't want to be accused of being a troll, try not a) launching straight into personal attacks and conspiracy theories and b) not then launching into personal attacks and "us vs. them" bullshit when faced with someone who disagrees with your personal insults.
For example, instead of attacking Mike, whining about his lack of EU legal knowledge and then attacking anyone who questions you, perhaps try explaining which legal concpet he has misunderstood?
"You toady."
You obnoxious moron. Sorry, but I only have your comment to go on, and that's how it reads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the sin of omission
Something that never stops the trolls from attacking both them and those of us who live there. I'd check your posting history to see if you're being a hypocrite here, but look at that, no login and therefore no posting history. Hmmm...
"He can bitch and moan about the WSJ all he wants."
Would you like to either a) defend the WSJ's woefully inaccurate "journalism" or b) provide something other than whining yourself to address Mike's article? If not, you aren't exactly changing minds here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the sin of omission
Kim Dotcom and Richard O'Dwyer to name a few.
=P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the sin of omission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the sin of omission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This also raises bias concerns against Techdirt, which is unfortunate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm probably more shocked at that than anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No Einstein, I had no questions what "side" Techdirt is on. The issue is not what they support, it's how they support it. Hiding half of the story to create more controversy and gain more support is bias, and I was just letting them know that I don't think resorting to such tactics makes them look good.
So before you climb on your pedestal, take a condescending tone and say you are "shocked" as if I had said something really stupid, why don't you work on your reading comprehension skills and perhaps take some time each day to learn the definition of a few words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That this blog may have proven itself to be biased at some point afterwards does not undermine the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are news blogs.
There are law blogs.
There are opinion blogs.
There are cooking blogs.
There are Shakira fan club blogs.
Not all blogs have the same standards. That doesn't make them more or less credible. And news blogs aren't inherently less credible than the paper versions because they have "blog" in it.
Certainly Mike wasn't implying ALL blogs are credible, and definitely he wasn't saying that ALL blogs are news blogs. So no, it doesn't "go contrary" to anything (point the part in Mike's previous article where it says that a blog is automatically a credible news source).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't saying that all blogs are credible. In fact, I said the opposite. But I was noting that *everyone* makes mistakes, and then they get corrected. I tend to think that blogs are much better at correcting their mistakes. In this case, I've issued a correction. It's worth noting that the WSJ still has not done so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is ABSOLUTELY his prerogative to leave out whatever information he likes. Hell, he can do nothing but write stories about clown shoes being copyrighted. However, not giving all of the information will just drive people away. Don't shoot the messenger, just like you don't want businesses to cry foul at Mike because he brings a message to them. Well, unless you like double standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Man, you left out the part where they call the police!. That's so biased! This is just an attempt to further the anti-murder agenda by leaving important parts like that the police was called!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bias! Someone was called therefore BIAS! The wrong was righted, therefore BIAS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's even more stupid to try to fit a publication into a niche because YOU want it there or YOU think it belongs there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just answer a simple question:
Would you say that "Pirate Party Eject From Festival..." would be an accurate headline for a story about a Pirate Party that actually wasn't ejected from the festival?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except to shoot down a strawman you made about how the comment apparently was "a blog doesn't owe you anything!" which wasn't what was stated. What was stated was: it's not good journalism to not be journalism at all, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now tell me, how many times did Mike write about public officials saying something that is only partially true, inaccurate or misleading? How many times Mike has posted "facts" about ACTA/TPP/PIPA/SOPA/whatever that weren't actually true?
The article headline clearly says - Pirate Party ejected from festival. Were they? No. This is a clear exaggeration of what actually happened, and can and will be seen as bias. Such an omission is shameful. And mind you, I am not biased against Mike. I am a long time Techdirt reader. I recommend this blog to all my friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Added an update and explained in the comments. I flat out missed that part of the story. It was just a brief tweet that somehow I didn't process. Still looks bad, is bad, and there's no excuse for it. But I've since updated the story. Apologies again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As the supply of waffles goes down, the price will go up eventually - it is only a matter of time, unless someone invents the infinite waffle-maker, in which case the question of running out of waffles is moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"They can't be allowed to do that!" -- this six word quote was from a coworker of mine a decade ago. He said it after I had answered all of his questions about open source and he finally understood it. He kept going back to "but how do they make their money". I explained it wasn't about money. It was about good waffles, er, I meant software.
Of course, now open source is in everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Basically you pay us, and we send an agent who will open doors for you on your way, carry your shopping bags, pick up items you drop...
Then I'll sue anyone who holds a door for somebody, offers to carry an old lady's bags or picks up something somebody accidentally dropped. I know this will make the world a shitty place, but these good samaritans are stealing my business!
If I have to, I will even patent this service.
I will also lobby for the government to require people to have a license before they are legally allowed to help anyone. Think about it: it's dangerous to be helped by non-professionals. That guy holding the door for you, if he isn't licensed to hold doors open, he might accidentally let go of it and it could hit you in the face. Not to mention criminals who might perform these good deeds to gain their victims' trust before mugging them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
same way they always have, by providing quality goods and services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish everyone could have everything for free (energy, clean water, healthy food) but in order to do this you first have to "handle" the current system. The "young pirate" could have charged the minimum cost of his materials, in order to show that he is indeed a new parameter to the system and that others have to prove their products are better than his in order to sell any. He instead chose to give his products away for free (as if he was helping the poor), not to GIVE something BACK to his community (he could have just gone to the church soup kitchen) but to ANNOY the other nearby merchants (regardless if they deserved it or not).
This kind of immature behavior is what gives free-movements a bad name. Making everyone capable of producing their own food (back yard crops), clean water (distilled rain water) and energy (solar panels, etc.) is a very important, self-preservation, move, that should not be mistakenly compared to this type of "sticking it to the man". Be careful who you support and why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't eat food that is only free. I eat GOOD food, as long as it is worth the price. If your food is bad, then it's not worth free.
You compete with free by focusing on making A profit, not having a larger profit MARGIN.
If the competition's product is better AND free, you REALLY suck at your job.
Or, it's not what they're really selling. In this case, they were selling you waffles for the price of showing you their actual wares, their political stance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> That's just the worst form of undercutting in a capitalistic system.
McDonalds has free coffee days, which tend to correspond with Tim Hortons "roll up the rim" promotion. I benefit if these giants want to fight.
> could have charged the minimum cost of his materials
You command economy people just love to monkey with the free market, and then get confused when it collapses under the weight of your idiotic regulations. Just like France, who are going to fine businesses who fire employees. That it, problem solved, no unemployment, right?
> not to GIVE something BACK to his community
So if he put some stupid sign up saying, "Free waffles for the Cancer", suddenly its okay? That is why pink ribbons are everywhere: to fool people like you into feeling good about buying stuff.
> Making everyone capable of producing their own food, clean water, and energy
This is crazy. If everyone tried to make their own food, we'd starve to death. What about people in areas where there is not a lot of rain? Solar panels are as cheap as they have been in years. Enough so that North American manufacturers are going bankrupt left and right. If you want to live off the grid, go ahead, but it is not scalable. Do you want everyone in the woods, crapping in rivers and cutting down trees for their wood-burning stove? You are living in a dream-world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The other vendors, who did not have a government fund backing them up, would eventually give up and go home, allowing the YP to be the only vendor at these concerts.
At some point the YP decide that they can't afford to spend any more of their funds to feeding festival-goers; that they have advertised themselves enough. What happens next? No vendors at the next festival. Oh my, the astonishment of the unaware people who did not bring their own food. Until a frustrated vendor finds out about it and returns to the festivals, and starts charing three or four times his previous prices, in order to make up for the old losses (or just because he can).
Then the other vendors will return one by one, gradually undercutting each other until the prices come to a homeostasis. This new standard price will probably be higher than the old one, before the pirates came.
Now, tell me: do you still think that the pirates' disruption/anarchy movement helped the consumers, or the vendors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes my friends, socialism is the answer (at least if you ask Mike!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ladies and gentlemen, the reason why i have Very little respect copyright maximalists and american-political types in general (specific exceptions excepted).
socialism has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ISSUE.
further, if you want to get into all the IP nonsense, socialism still has nothing to do with it, but the Valid objection to socialism is an excess of state interference and control. i would like to point out that, in the case of IP, that interference and control comes in the form of the creation and protection of Monopoly Rents in the form of copyright and patents.
absent government intervention, those Would Not Be Things.
so... yeah...
i mean, you could make a case complaining about anarchy, maybe, if you really wanted to, but Socialism?
seriously, get back under your rock.
*evil muttering about stupid-right-shifted US politics and cold-war era propaganda*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But I wouldn't expect a copyright-tard (which is my new term for morons who have no idea how a free market actually works, without government granted monopolies) to know the actual meanings of said words. Ad homs and moronic comments that make no point are more your forte.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We both know it's not like that. And we also know Mike makes money out of free. But you hate Mike with passion so you'll never admit anything or present logical, evidence based arguments for a real discussion ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It also makes me want to say: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" the next time I hear someone use a word that really irks me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just saying.... and thanks for making a point for the pro-pirate movement ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Free is a very common occurance. In this case the waffles are a political advertisement for the Young Pirates. It is a question about how the festival chose to set up their rules for selling the stands you can question if that is your point.
You sometimes have to compete with free, but since it is a temporary advertisement with a very basic product or in bundled products, we are talking a completely different world of qustions.
Evolve your business or die.
I would say that the evolution-demand is and should be on the side of the waffle-stand in this situation since it wants to compete with free. He will never sell quite as much as if the sponsored stand did not exist, but it is a question of getting the best out of a more or less heads-on competition situation.
I would suggest selling the waffles with blueberry gel and acorn syrup instead of sugar and strawberry marmelade and the waffle stand still has a chance to compete.
It does not take a genious to avoid head-on competition and if it makes your complaints moot points your arguments need some work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Srsly. They paid for the waffles and wanted to give them for free and get some advertisement through in the process. What's the damn problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nonsense. You can compete with free the same way. Offer a good or service that is better (or viewed as better) than what is offered for free.
Two words:
Bottled Water
He instead chose to give his products away for free (as if he was helping the poor), not to GIVE something BACK to his community (he could have just gone to the church soup kitchen) but to ANNOY the other nearby merchants (regardless if they deserved it or not).
Nonsense. From the article:
"The Swedish Young Pirates association had a tent at a local municipal festival, and were handing out free waffles as an attraction."
They were not purposefully doing it to annoy other vendors. They were doing it as a promotion. I'll guess they were promoting their political views - trying to get people to sit down and listen to them in exchange for free waffles. Whether its politics or business, this is done all the time. Geeze, go to any tech event or business fair and you come back loaded with free stuff (otherwise known as swag) for paying attention to someone at their booth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
not that that's terribly on topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some might buy the water because it's better quality. Some will buy for portability. Some might buy because they prefer the taste. Some buy because of the brand name. Some will buy every time they need water, some will refill with tap water or another liquid and only rebuy when they have to.
Yet, their industry thrives depsite "competing with free", nobody tries suing a customer because they dared to refill with a different liquid, dared to refill from the tap at a festival instead of buying a $5 bottle or tries suing other for providing cheaper water.
It might be a detour from the current conversation, but it's still a very nice anlogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They would even charge for our air supply if they could shove us all in an air-tight city and make us think the air outside is polluted and we have only to breathe their "clean & filtered" air. (spoiler alert?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where I live most of the water comes from ground wells. Sure you pay a negligible amount for the electricity to pump it, but a hand pump would work just fine.
As for the rain water collection laws, yes that is true in some areas. But there are also plenty of other areas that promote such activity, even to the point of giving tax breaks for purchasing rain collection equipment.
http://google.com/#&q=rainwater+collection+tax+break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It falls from the sky at regular intervals, how can you get freer than that?
"There are laws that make it illegal for you even to collect rain-water."
In most places, no there's not.
"You either buy it from your water supplier (public or private, depending on where you live) or you buy it bottled."
Or a I piss into a filtration system after downing 10 beers and filter it for the following day. The choice is mine, and I may just choose to pay for the more expensive option. Is that a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For all those bashing them for undercutting the other waffle makers...
'Competition is not illegal. Disrupting someone's business model, assuming no laws are broken, is also not illegal.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...
...
hello person who has clearly never read this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, have you ever tried to run a show like that? The waffle sellers (and those selling other food) had to pay a decent sum to rent the space. They have a short period of time to make that money back and turn a profit. When someone else comes in, using what was likely a cheap or even free political party space, and starts giving away what they are trying to sell, it's just plain wrong.
It's not about piracy, it's not about the pirate party. It's about right and wrong, plain and simple.
It shows both the Pirate Party and you in a very unfavorable light. It shows that you really have very few morals left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the young pirates didn't? They used electricity supplied from Zeus, equipment provided by Allah, man power from Amon Ra... SRSLY?
..using what was likely a cheap or even free political party space,and starts giving away what they are trying to sell, it's just plain wrong.
Likely. Please present evidence. Also, they had a plan. Could we tell that those pesky waffle sellers were trying to sell what you were giving away for free?
It's about right and wrong, plain and simple.
This dichotomy is neither plain nor simple. If you are catholic, doing a threesome might be wrong and offensive for you. But it is not for an atheist with different morals. Both of you do agree (usually) that killing ppl isn't right though. So it's not plain and simple.
It shows both the Pirate Party and you in a very unfavorable light. It shows that you really have very few morals left.
Actually, your reply shows you in a very ignorant and trollish light. I won't talk about morals as I've explained it before it's not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Generally, at events like this, vendors pay a high price for their space (sometimes even a percentage of take), while political parties often get either a freebie or certainly a very light rate for similar space.
They also often get electricity as part of the package. Event organizers generally think they are going to have a TV to show video or perhaps a display with some lights - not a griddle.
Evidence? I have organized public trade show style events in the past, and have dealt with both political parties and charities.
"This dichotomy is neither plain nor simple. If you are catholic, doing a threesome might be wrong and offensive for you. But it is not for an atheist with different morals. Both of you do agree (usually) that killing ppl isn't right though. So it's not plain and simple."
It is rather plain and simple. It's not about some church inflicted moral system, it's about respect for your fellow man and their situations. Do you honestly think it's fair for the waffle sellers to have to pay for space, licensing, and the like, while the political party does it for free?
It's not about some crappy church morals. It's about consideration for others. Something sorely lacking in your post, and on Techdirt in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Still not evidence it happened in this case. Let's suppose it was a charity organization giving the waffles for free to promote their cause. Does it change a thing? Or you are too biased?
Giving waffles disrupted pretty much every stand selling sweets and probably the foodies as a whole but as others said, do a better job and ppl will buy. Companies disrupt each other businesses all the time offering discounts (often eating into the material cost itself) and free samples just to fck up the competition.
As for the distinction between right and wrong, it is not plain and simple. I used two pretty opposite sides as an example. Your morals is clearly different than mine. And the fact that there is a discussion here proves my point. Your morals are not absolute. As aren't mine. Te YP weren't doing anything illegal and I go back to the charity example: it's not wrong. Guess who has some weird morals here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I know this will probably come across as downright obscene to some of you, but consider this simple little mantra any time you get the kneejerk reaction to object to something like this:
'Competition is not illegal. Disrupting someone's business model, assuming no laws are broken, is also not illegal.'"
SO FUCKING WHAT that the YP were giving away free waffles! Consumers do not and never will give a damn how much work or how much money you have sunk into developing your business. Saying to the customer, "Buy our product for $X because it cost us $X+Y to set up" is the absolute worst form of "advertisement".
The for-profit waffle sellers do not have a divine mandate to make back all that they spent. What they have is a CHANCE to do so. If they're charging $3, and the YP charged $1, would you still be complaining about them not being allowed to earn a profit? No, in this case, it was complete legal, fair competition happening. Both the for-profits and the YP had their own materials and set their own prices: one was for money, the other was free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They charged food vendors for space to sell food and then gave other people permission to give food away ("they had permission to make food and give it to attendees"). If I were one of the food vendors, I'd be asking for my money back, asking the festival to change this policy or not going to the next one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The YP party was there to spread their message, not to make a profit.
Why is 'making a profit' more important than 'spreading a message' in your mind? Can you even grasp the difference or has greed clouded your mind so that everything is boiled down to dollars and cents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Publicity
Short day and saved some money on free waffles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrighted Hugs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJfYAJJYMqg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyrighted Hugs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disrupting someone else's business model by copying someone else's work (ie. file sharing) is not fine. You didn't put in the time or work to create that product the other person did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Agreed. It is wrong to sell copies of digital goods. But I think your example is not quite correct, as the name says it's SHARING, none of the parts are profiting from any sale. Sometimes a few enlightened ppl set up and provide a service that enables easier sharing and profit from the traffic they get via donations and advertisement. That's also ok since file sharing also involves open source/free content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Marginal cost and sunk costs are not the same; markets only care about the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No kickback no free festivals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The vendor tried and FAILED to shutdown the pirates free waffle give away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pirate Party Ejected From Festival...
Yes, they got evicted from the festival not for breaking any rules...
It may or may not be pertinant to the argument being made, but it is pertinant to know that the system in place there stopped this insane overreaction attempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHY WAS NO ONE SELLING CHICKEN TO GO WITH THE WAFFLES?!?!?!
I weep for this (and most other) countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm going to side with the Waffle Vendors.
The article and a lot of the comments treat this as a disruption to a business by a competing business.
But the Pirate Party is not in the Food Vending business. They are a political party, and they are mixing it up with people who probably had to pay a fee to be vendors at this festival. Not Big Chains either, but people who travel from Festival to Festival, buying just enough food to use up before moving along. I am certain that those vendor's knew before they signed up that they would have to compete with other vendor's selling food, and were prepared for that.
But to compete with a political group, who does not need to make a profit from the food they serve, is impossible. If it were another vendor giving away free waffles, they would be limited by their costs/funds, etc. They would be forced, eventually, to start charging for Waffles, and things would return to a Supply/Demand/Tasty Delicious Waffles system.
Furthermore, the Person/Company that organized the Festival is most likely running a business themselves. It only makes sense to keep your vendor's happy, as they provide a needed service to the patrons, and provide you with income. Is the Young Pirate Party going to be giving away Free Waffles for all of your future events? If so, by all means, piss off the Waffle guys, and probably the other nearby vendor's of non-waffle food.
This is not a Copyrigt issue, or making infinite goods like mp3s artificially scarce; this is real world product, and real world business. Politics has no business here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if their business is selling waffle makers and they rent space at this festival so they can give waffles away in order to sell waffle makers? They don't need to make a profit from selling waffles either.
Is that disruption OK in your book? There is a lot of grey area when talking about disruption in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Supposed to be response to Jamie Deitchman, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 9:18am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Waffle Makers Manufacturing Inc.
I think we have to look to our old friend common sense, to see what would happen here. First, Is this the kind of place where Companies Sell Waffle Makers? Let's just say yes, for the sake of debate. (But when is the last time you saw people walking around the Blues Festival with a Microwave?)
I would offer as conjecture that the Waffle Maker Vendor would most likely offer a small sample of Waffles, not the entire Waffle. That might even HELP the waffle Vendor. Either way, the Waffle Vendor should still have been given prior notice that someone would be competing with their exact same food product for free.
The point I was hoping to make, and will try harder to do here is, The Vendors are doing business with the Festival Organizer. They are the customers to the Festival, they have a right to complain, and they had an expectation of fair competition. They entered an agreement with the Festival Godfather to sell Waffles there. Should the Festival Don have allowed the Pirate Party to give away food? Probably not. At the very least, the Waffle Nostra should have asked "what kind of free food, and in what quantity?" tot he Pirates before agreeing.
Furthermore, as a Waffle Vendor, they are not demanding that free waffles never be given away, or that all the waffle making equipment should be destroyed or only be licensed to approved Waffle Vendors. They just wanted what they expected when they purchased their right to be at the festival in the first place.
It seems to me that a lot of people want to see a big bad company trampling the rights of young Pirates to give away free Waffles, when in reality, you have a few small businesses and a Political Party BOTH that got put in a bad situation due to a lack of communication and planning at the fault of a third party (the organizer).
You be the champion for the politicians, I will be the champion for the Tasty Delicious Waffle Vendors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Waffle Makers Manufacturing Inc.
I agree with most of your points, but I've been to many places where the product being sold was not the one being given away. Examples would include free CDs, free T shirts, free glowsticks and - yes - free food. The fact that nobody expects people to buy a waffle maker at the same time as the waffles are sold does not mean that people selling waffles should have the right to shut down those who give them away. The fact that I had a glowstick promoting a movie given to me should not allow a glowstick vendor to shut them down just because they're annoyed that I might have otherwise bought one..
As you later hint, this is essentially a matter of expectation. If the waffle sellers objected to the situation in front of them, it's either a case of the organiser not creating the correct expectations or them expecting something that wasn't in their contract. Neither of which justifies trying to shut down a 3rd party vendor who was not privy to their agreement.
Unless the pirate party had signed a contract that said they couldn't give away waffles, it's the organiser and waffle sellers' problem, not the people giving away food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Update
Disrupting someone else's business model is not a crime -- and often (as in this case) makes things better for consumers. It's just too bad so many "officials" kowtow to the legacy players and seek to shut down any and all innovation... though, sometimes, in the end, they come through and fix things.
This is the key conclusion and I fail to see how omitting the outcome could have changed this. It seems a few ppl here confuse TD role in the mix. It's more about opinions and insights than effective news reporting (and you actually rely a lot on reader suggestions for what to talk and argue about).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waffle Wars....
Someone entered the marketplace with something disruptive to the status quo.
The legacy players first and only response was to scream how unfair it was and use their influence to stop the disruptor.
When trying to get the people in charge to "fix" the problem, it came to light it wasn't illegal.
Now who can see what will come next?
Do you think the legacy players will all look for ways to make their offerings look better, or will they use their economic might to change the law blocking anyone from ever giving away free food at the event?
Because purchasing these favors will cost the waffle makers they will feel free to triple their price, because they now have total control of the waffle market at the festival.
If someone tries to bring in something else, they will just demand those get blocked like the original disruptor.
And that is the story we have seen time and time again in the market. The legacy players hate any change, and rather than try anything new... they just crush the new. They use their money to buy more control and rules to make it harder for anyone else to compete with them.
Wish you had seen my submission Mike, had the whole story with them going back to waffle making. Then we could have had a productive talk about how this was a replay of actual life, and how most likely the waffle sellers will demand (purchase) special rights at the festival in the future to keep any disruption to them away.
Oh and to the genius calling Mike out for being biased or untruthful... Where are you everytime the COC or the Cartels release a report with obvious faults in them?
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to call those out to. Otherwise its just obvious your piling on trying to discredit someone to squash the truth your bosses don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Waffle Wars
Let's try shifting the nouns and see what happens.
Mitt Romeny decides to go to a Car Dealership in Delaware, sets up a table in their parking lot, where in a bid to gain political favor, he gives away a free car of the same make and model as anyone who was going to buy a car there today, and he gives them cars from his private stock, not bought from the dealership where he is camping out at.
Mitt isn't trying to compete with the car dealership as a business. His goal is to get votes. Yes the car manufacturer still gets sales, but this particular dealership is screwed for the day, if not week, once word gets out.
Once the customer's need for a car is sated (much like hunger) they aren't likely to go and buy a car from the dealership, even though they still have the resources to do so.
Can you understand why, they might insist he get the hell off of their Property?
This is not a story of some upstart Waffle Vendor pissing off all the legacy Waffle Vendors. This is a story of a political gimmick messing with a small business, and that small business doing the only thing it could do, complain to the people in charge.
When the Pirate Party shifts their main goal to serving waffles, I will recant, until then, I am afraid you guys are just towing the company line, instead of seeing the real picture. Sometimes a Merchant is allowed to be pissed off, even if nothing illegal is goign on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]