Mary was extremely frightened. Blood stained the walls. She took one step closer to the door, slowly pushing it open, when suddenly 60% OFF ALL GOLF CLUBS AT GOLF WORLD USA! PRESENT THIS COUPON TO RECEIVE A FREE BOX OF GOLF BALLS WITH ANY PURCHASE OF $100 OR MORE!
I know a woman who never paid a single dime for any Garth Brooks music. She was introduced to Garth's music through her brother. Her brother played the music for her, copied his own albums for her, and got her hooked on Garth Brooks. Dirty rotten pirate, right? Well, when she heard that Garth Brooks was passing through her state, she convinced her husband, her brother, and her brother's wife all to buy $80 tickets.
Still think piracy is harming the industry? Fine. Garth, you owe them $320.
And LOL @ the radio threats. I haven't listened to the radio in years. Pure garbage.
Helaman 13:22 (Book of Mormon)
Ye do not remember the Lord your God in the things with which he hath blessed you, but ye do always remember your riches, not to thank the Lord your God for them; yea, your hearts are not drawn out unto the Lord, but they do swell with great pride, unto boasting, and unto great swelling, envyings, strifes, malice, persecutions, and murders, and all manner of iniquities.
But they do not have "rights" to be paid. They do not have "rights" to write up contracts that circumvent the way technology works. They do not have "rights" to convince customers to sign away their rights (especially buried under ten tons of legal jargon).
Last I checked, it was any business' job to convince consumers that there was something of value worth paying for. These organizations are attempting to charge people to do things that the people can do themselves.
The cost of paper and ink is negligible, eh? What about distribution? What about paying people to box those books up and ship them off? What about convincing retailers to carry the books (and having them take their cut)?
Yeah, eBooks are sooooooo expensive to produce... /roll-eyes
I do believe the article already addressed your points: no one is suggesting legal action or integrating without permission. The point is that Apple assumes a position of entitlement while technologies all around operate using openness and connectivity. I think Windows SHOULD cut access to iTunes if Apple is going to refuse access to its platform.
It is hilarious seeing ads for DRM talking about "interoperability" and how much the media works on a variety of devices. Um... couldn't the media do that just fine (much better, in fact) BEFORE you put the DRM on it?
When are people going to learn? Free is never evil unless someone suffers an unwilling loss by it.
Aside from free, benefiting off others is not evil either.
If someone opens up a successful candy bar store, and I open up a business involving cleaning up wrappers of said candy bars (people litter really bad in this imaginary tale), I am benefiting off of this other business. The candy bar store has only the right to offer a competing service, but no lawsuit can force my cleanup service out of business.
Personally, I cannot stand Microsoft. I think it is a rather unethical company, but I really do feel bad for it in this case. This tiny company is exhibiting greed through IP abuse.
Out of curiosity, does anyone have any links to stories where someone failed to get a patent and crashed financially due to excess/unfair competition? Everyone talks about how patents "protect innovation", but I've never ever heard a story about patents saving the day.
The professors ignore a couple other key aspects to any competitive market.
First off, generally speaking, people try to AVOID entering areas competition unless they truly feel they have a vastly superior alternative that will turn a few heads. Even when a potential product competes with another, the creators will often tweak it just so that it "serves another market" or at least another portion of that market. Competition is good, but most sensible businessmen compete only on certain fronts while trying to isolate their own market as best they can (sometimes simply by targeting some other geographic region to begin sales).
So much emphasis is placed on the idea, but virtually no emphasis is placed on the execution. Has anyone seen those patent pending hangers for sale on TV? THOSE ARE PATENT PENDING. Those are a joke. I could build those using the K'NEX I have in my apartment. Why are they deserving of a patent? Even if they are somewhat unique, the fact remains that these creators were first to market. They will reap the rewards (if there are any). I highly doubt people would rush out, create an identical hanger, and try to sell it.
On the other end of the spectrum, if you have a truly distinct idea that is "worthy" of a patent, the idea is probably complex enough to where keeping it a secret would protect the idea until it is time to bring it to market. Once it comes to market, competitors would require a great deal of time to begin offering a superior alternative (and would likely only compete if they felt they could add onto it).
People patent the silliest things, though. Actually, let me rephrase that: the USPTO awards patents on the silliest things. I read a few patents recently, and many of them were signed by these Arab/Indian names. No disrespect to those cultures, but it's kinda tragic that we outsource the patenting process because of how much junk goes through. We need a common sense committee that takes one look at 90% of these "inventions" and says, "Really?"
Oh, and software/business-model patents should be banned.
Reading through comments on MC's article, I find it hilarious that he repeatedly shoots down various complaints by saying, "Well, these other businesses do it too. Get over it." It's that sinister form of salesman coercion where he tries to TELL you that you will buy it and like it rather than let you form your own opinion.
Whatever happened to the days when businesses actually CARED about what customers want?
First off, no one is ENTITLED to have a job. Various fields of expertise come and go as technology progresses.
I would love to create content without any concern for money. If food replication were taken care of entirely, I would devote my life to game development, and I would not have to worry about getting paid (assuming my other costs went away too, such as rent).
Society would be much better off if scarcities were eliminated. The current economy and system of currency is only in place for the purpose of allocating scarce resources. If everything is infinitely available to everyone, we no longer NEED to have such an economy.
Also, it cracks me up seeing people claim that without payment, art would die. You honestly think the world would stop being creative if money went away? Heck, that is all people would do in such a world: create epic content!
On the post: World Of Goo Tries A Donation Model, Publishes Results
Re:
PayPal does not permit me to pay 1/100 of a penny. Do you have a special account or something?
On the post: Trying To Explain The Economics Of Abundance In Two Minutes Or Less With A Whiteboard
Hahaha
No worries, though.
I'm a big fan.
On the post: World Of Goo Tries A Donation Model, Publishes Results
Re: Paid .50 cents
I believe you mean "50 cents".
On the post: Cory Doctorow Joins The CwF+RtB Experimental Crew
LOL @ ads in the book...
On the post: Beginning Ruby Author: Publisher Wouldn't Let Me Give eBook For Free... So Pirate My Book (Sorta)
Ha
On the post: Garth Brooks Complains That The Gov't Ignores Musicians
Ungrateful
Still think piracy is harming the industry? Fine. Garth, you owe them $320.
And LOL @ the radio threats. I haven't listened to the radio in years. Pure garbage.
On the post: The AP and News Corp DEMAND To Be Paid For Their Content
Re: Reading
Helaman 13:22 (Book of Mormon)
Ye do not remember the Lord your God in the things with which he hath blessed you, but ye do always remember your riches, not to thank the Lord your God for them; yea, your hearts are not drawn out unto the Lord, but they do swell with great pride, unto boasting, and unto great swelling, envyings, strifes, malice, persecutions, and murders, and all manner of iniquities.
;)
On the post: Music Publishers, Songwriters To Congress: Our Royalties Should Be Guaranteed, No Matter What The Market Says
Re:
Last I checked, it was any business' job to convince consumers that there was something of value worth paying for. These organizations are attempting to charge people to do things that the people can do themselves.
On the post: Still Debating The Cost Of Ebooks
Distribution?
Yeah, eBooks are sooooooo expensive to produce... /roll-eyes
On the post: French Politician Proposes Warning Labels On Any Photoshopped Ad Or Marketing Label
HA!
On the post: Four Rules For Music Business Success
You forgot #5
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Off-base
On the post: DRM Doesn't Enable Business Models; Blind Fear Disables Business Models
DRM is stupid.
On the post: Dear WSJ: Will You Pay Google's Bandwidth Bill?
Free = evil?
Aside from free, benefiting off others is not evil either.
If someone opens up a successful candy bar store, and I open up a business involving cleaning up wrappers of said candy bars (people litter really bad in this imaginary tale), I am benefiting off of this other business. The candy bar store has only the right to offer a competing service, but no lawsuit can force my cleanup service out of business.
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
Re:
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
Reality
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
Dumb Professors
First off, generally speaking, people try to AVOID entering areas competition unless they truly feel they have a vastly superior alternative that will turn a few heads. Even when a potential product competes with another, the creators will often tweak it just so that it "serves another market" or at least another portion of that market. Competition is good, but most sensible businessmen compete only on certain fronts while trying to isolate their own market as best they can (sometimes simply by targeting some other geographic region to begin sales).
So much emphasis is placed on the idea, but virtually no emphasis is placed on the execution. Has anyone seen those patent pending hangers for sale on TV? THOSE ARE PATENT PENDING. Those are a joke. I could build those using the K'NEX I have in my apartment. Why are they deserving of a patent? Even if they are somewhat unique, the fact remains that these creators were first to market. They will reap the rewards (if there are any). I highly doubt people would rush out, create an identical hanger, and try to sell it.
On the other end of the spectrum, if you have a truly distinct idea that is "worthy" of a patent, the idea is probably complex enough to where keeping it a secret would protect the idea until it is time to bring it to market. Once it comes to market, competitors would require a great deal of time to begin offering a superior alternative (and would likely only compete if they felt they could add onto it).
People patent the silliest things, though. Actually, let me rephrase that: the USPTO awards patents on the silliest things. I read a few patents recently, and many of them were signed by these Arab/Indian names. No disrespect to those cultures, but it's kinda tragic that we outsource the patenting process because of how much junk goes through. We need a common sense committee that takes one look at 90% of these "inventions" and says, "Really?"
Oh, and software/business-model patents should be banned.
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
Uh oh!
"The reason is because..."
GRAMMAR PHAILURE!
Great article otherwise. ^_^
On the post: Limited Selection, Walled Gardens, Unskippable Ads... What's The Benefit Of TV Everywhere Again?
no care for customers
Whatever happened to the days when businesses actually CARED about what customers want?
On the post: Revisiting The Replicator Analogy: How Infinite Goods Create More Jobs
lolwut
I would love to create content without any concern for money. If food replication were taken care of entirely, I would devote my life to game development, and I would not have to worry about getting paid (assuming my other costs went away too, such as rent).
Society would be much better off if scarcities were eliminated. The current economy and system of currency is only in place for the purpose of allocating scarce resources. If everything is infinitely available to everyone, we no longer NEED to have such an economy.
Also, it cracks me up seeing people claim that without payment, art would die. You honestly think the world would stop being creative if money went away? Heck, that is all people would do in such a world: create epic content!
Next >>