I thought of this after I submitted my last post and re-read the title of this article. It kind of drove the point home.
I understand that bookmakers want to get the money back from the investment they made in producing those books. And we can argue all day long about whether the price they charge is more than a return on investment. But here's the point:
Why should the cost of books be a hindrance on education? We see where many professors don't use the whole book, in fact I've had professors that used one or two chapters of this huge and expensive tome. We see where students have severe difficulty in obtaining the books. So why not change the format? Why not make the information available instead of a whole book? The publishers could make smaller bits available for the professors to choose from so that students will only have to pay for what they use.
And one more thing. In response to the Anonymous Coward in post #23 saying how "We're raising a generation of whiny babies who expect everything for free and resort to illegal ways of getting things when they're deemed (arbitrarily, mind you) to be too expensive."... it's not the "whiny youth" that's "breaking the law" here... the actions that are being challenged by the publishers are the actions of professors who don't even have to buy the books! When someone who is unaffected by the price is saying that it's not right... that should give you pause. When someone who already has their education, who doesn't have to pay for books (except maybe the teachers addition) is saying this is an undue hindrance... that says something.
You were so quick to jump on the "Shut up and pay, damned whiny youth" bandwagon, that you missed that point. It's not your imagined "gimme gimme gimme" generation that's doing this. It's the "I know the value of earning my way" generation. Its people from the generation that usually side with the record companies and the movie companies. Of course most of those people are either in the pockets of the ##IA or just feel that "if I had to pay, so should you."
So what? That's not illegal. Complain that you don't like it, that's fine, but don't go breaking the law just because you don't like it.
Uh, actually, it is. It's called "price fixing", "monopoly".... any of that ring a bell? Why the government hasn't looked into it more... well, they do have more important things to worry about. And, until now, students pretty much just bought the books because there is no alternative. Now that there is one, the bookmakers are suing. And drawing attention to the situation.
You're trying to dictate what kind of profit a company should make.
No, I'm trying to see a true free market. And no, I don't mean a market where everything is free. As I stated before, the monopoly here has created an artificial price increase. This isn't supply meeting demand and generating a value. This is one person holding all the cards saying "this is how much you will pay me". And that's an ok thing for you?
Besides, have the people doing the complaining/copyright infringement lifted a finger to determine the actual costs involved in any specific textbook in order to really evaluate whether they're being gouged?
Have you?
No, I'm saying that no one's forcing you to go to college. And I'm pretty sure that the "best solution" is also not to rip off people who are trying to earn a living.
You're right... that is not the best solution. The best solution (in my opinion) would be to break up a monopoly that is artificially increasing the price of books, introduce some real competition in that market, and rejoice when more people can get a higher education because this is one less hurdle to being able to afford it.
Yes, and those people didn't sit around whining about the price of text books, even though they were in a tough position. I hardly think that the people posting here on Tech Dirt are quite as poor as the examples you're referring to.
And the fact that we have not seen, really, any truly innovative geniuses in the last 50 or so years come from America, may illustrate how bad this problem may be. I doubt it's a general decline in human potential. The problem is after surviving 12 years of horribly under-par education, our youth is then faced with not being able to afford to go to college. And half of that financial hurdle is the textbooks.
As you said, they "didn't sit around whining about the price of text books"... maybe because The price wasn't a hurdle? My point about poor geniuses was in response to your sentiment that only those who could afford it should be educated.
I'm really tired of all of this whining about things not being free-- textbooks are too expensive!... CD's are too expensive!... movie tickets are too expensive!... DVD's are too expensive!... etc. We're raising a generation of whiny babies who expect everything for free and resort to illegal ways of getting things when they're deemed (arbitrarily, mind you) to be too expensive.
I'll be departing a bit from my original point onto this tangent, but...
Your statement is a matter of opinion and perspective. I don't see it as people wanting things for free, because you do have to spend time looking for these things. You do have to spend time looking for ways to get around digital protections. You're not paying in cash, but it's hardly "free".
What I see is a generation of people who are realizing that they can get these items from other sources and not have to pay a dictated price. That's how changes are made it the status quo.
As far as it being illegal: There was a time when it was illegal to refuse to pay taxes to the British Crown, even though you lived in a colony across the ocean. And before you say something about it not being the same, the only difference is scale. The point is that when things are wrong, you fix them. Before that fix is completed, it's considered wrong to go against the normal.
Another illustration: The American Civil War would have been called the War of Southern Independance if the south had won. In fact, many Southerners actually refer to it as such.
You say you're sick of the whining... I'm sick of people saying "stop speaking up and just accept things as the way they are."
"Therefore if you pay someone good money to create the book, you have to charge a high amount to recoup that money (plus at least some amount of profit) from the small volume of sales that you'll have. It's as simple as that."
No, it's not a simple as that. The lack of any real competition has lead to an artificial inflation of the price. This is what happens when you don't have any reason to innovate or cut costs.
"The hypocrisy I'm seeing in these responses is incredible. You're all complaining about companies who are trying to make a profit, whereas BOTH of you are really just trying to keep as much money in your pocket as possible. But THEY have invested money in their endeavor. What have you invested?"
Hypocrisy? Sorry, but I don't see it. If we were complaining about this, then turning around and doing the same thing elsewhere, thatwould be hypocrisy.
And we're not complaining about a company making a profit, we're complaining about extortion. Plain and simple. These companies know that there are no other resources for books. So they charge whatever they want instead of helping create an easily available learning environment.
And who says that both parties have to invest the same thing into this before it can be equitable. What have we invested? How about our tuition into an institution that not only facilitates a dependence on these products, but a requires it.
"If you can't afford a Porsche, don't buy one. If you don't like the high cost of college and textbooks, don't go to college. But stop acting like the textbook companies are doing anything wrong. They produce a product and they sell it. If you don't like the price, then don't buy it. But don't get it illegally instead."
MMM... my favorite one again. Don't go to college? Are you saying the best solution to this problem is to lower the number of people we have getting a higher education? How could you think that the best solution is to take action that will directly lower the education level of our country.. which is low enough as it is. What hell is wrong with you people?
You know, history is replete with geniuses who came from poor families and backgrounds. Who forged their way through college and went on to make amazing breakthroughs in human understanding. I shudder to think of what the next few centuries will show for our species if people who think that only the rich should be educated get their way.
Re: Re: Re: As both a businessman and a college st
"If a person is not citing an original Author (which I have yet to see a professor do) then it is tantamount to taking credit for the passage. Think about this - if you were to read a philosophical passage from some obscure 7th century poem and not cite the creator, who would someone that does not better think it came from - you or the obscure nobody? In a situation like this where you are casting undoubted guild on one party, doesn't the other party (in a fair and just world) deserve the same treatment regardless of the situation? To do otherwise would be casting your bias (which is quite obvious.)"
I know someone else already responded to this, but I wanted to weigh in and hopefully show you that it's not just one person who thinks you're wrong.
The article was talking about a professor who was making the appropriate snippets of information available for his students so that they would not have to buy the whole book. So a student is either viewing/downloading/printing something that they know (because the professor told them) is the appropriate course material from selected sources. Do you seriously think that these professors are telling their students "go view my published works for this class"?
"How would you like it if I took something that you invested quite dearly in, and offered it to your target audience for free?"
I've seen this one soooo many times and it never fails to impress me as little more than the motto of the lazy. I'll revisit a statement I've made here before.
I work in insurance. Which means I deal with automobile insurance. Let me tell you that auto insurance is a very competitive market. In my state, insurance rates are always rising and lowering from one company to the next. Which means one month, I can beat company ABC, but next month, they'll be lower. All of that means that if I try to sell based on price, I'll lose. If I make a sale because I'm cheapest, that person will leave as soon as they find someone cheaper.
What I have to do is sell based on value. I have to show my customers why my product is better, even if it's a bit more expensive. And this is what media companies, software companies, and yes, even textbook companies need to do. It doesn't get any cheaper than free, so you have to find and sell based on a value. I think Mike mentioned a few examples of what the textbook co's could try.
"So many of you seem to have this attitude like life should be free and nobody should have or be anything any better than everyone else. At the same time you preach survival of the fittest and evolution as if it is gospel. Are not those two notions so ideologically opposed that you would have a better chance of escaping a black hole than making those two work? Life has always exploited one mean or another to forward itself. Just because someone is exploiting you for some minor (which college is an incredibly minor one at that) inconvenience on the grand scale of existence, doesn't mean that they are such a horrible person to deserve your unyielding scathing hatred."
This is probably my favorite one from you post. I find it interesting how you have something so heart-felt to say, and yet you add absolutely nothing to the conversation.
What does evolution have to do with intellectual property? I did read your rant there and I do see (kind of) where you're coming from, but I really don't see where this has anything to do with what we've been talking about.
Life is a matter of survival. Natural selection and all of that. Sure. But when you apply that to the business world, it's an analogy. The business world, our economy, and commerce in general are all human constructs. There's no natural order to it, there's just whatever we make of it.
What this means is that, unlike in life, when someone else has an advantage over you (such as giving away your stuff for free, as you put it), you have the opportunity to create an artificial advantage to get back on top. This would be the creation of a value in your product that your competitor doesn't have. Now, I can continue your evolution analogy and say that it's like me trying to take on a larger cave-man by using a club. But that doesn't really apply because the larger cave-man's advantage is a natural one. Analogies are always tenuous. You can stretch them around to make things fit, but they really are just for illustrative purposes. Be careful when you build your soapbox on them.
"Just because someone is exploiting you for some minor (which college is an incredibly minor one at that) inconvenience on the grand scale of existence, doesn't mean that they are such a horrible person to deserve your unyielding scathing hatred."
1)College is a minor inconvenience? College is expensive as it is. Whether or not you believe the piece of paper (degree) you get is worth it, many business require them for employment. Add to that, the fact that our education level is painful as it is... and the fact that many people miss out on higher education because of money...
are you saying that our current education level is a minor inconvenience?
2)careful with the statements about "on the grand scale". I can turn that right back around and say "hey publisher... look at the big picture. We're all going to die someday anyway, so why worry about me getting your book for free?". And no, that's no bigger a stretch than you made.
3) Finally, and my favorite... the only example of "unyielding scathing hatred" I've seen was the use of the "f"word on post#1. Yeah, I agree that it wasn't the most eloquent expression of a point, but I don't think that one post is indicative of the rest of the people around here.
You paint too many people with too broad a brush, and you bring the wrong paints to begin with. Sorry that we're not the anti-christian darwinist, communist, hate-mongers that you wanted us to be.
"without protections, let the market decide."
-Jaylen Smith, Post #45
This got me thinking about the choices involved. Let me take you where my mind is going on this and see if you agree. Feel free to point out anything I missed on this...
Everyone involved in this market has choice in their participation. Artists have the choice to make the art or not. Distributors have the choice to help distribute it or go do something else. Consumers have the choice to consume the art or not.
The artists are (mostly) ok with the choice to make the art and find compensation through means other than the direct sale of that art.
Consumers show a willingness to purchase the art (or at least the media containing that art) to support the artist. Most of the "proud pirates" I've talked to or seen posting in places like this state that they want to support their favorite artists, but not the record labels...
Which brings us to the weak-link here. It's the distributors (the labels and their storm-trooper enforcement, MP/RIAA) that have chosen to participate, but are trying to force everyone else to play their game their way. It's become clear that no one else wants to play that anymore.
I remember back on the grade-school playground, when I was playing a game in a way that other kids didn't like, they all walked away. I didn't go running to a teacher to get them to make the other kids play.
Now this is where my mind was going: If the people who are unwilling to play this new game (those making money off the old system) choose to leave, won't that mean a rise in the number of people who want to do this for the sake of the art? What I mean is, no more boy-band/popstar flakes who are in it for the money. Artists who actually have something to say and want to make art because they have some kind of artistic vision they want to realize. Oh, we may not like their vision (not a big Van Gogh fan myself), but it won't be crap just churned out for money.
Anyone else remember the time when we had truly great artists that you just knew were up there playing something that they truly felt? How much money did people like Hendrix make? Not much. I know I'm being a dreamer here, but I'll keep my hope.
(Rant to Follow)
On the topic of choice: These record exec's and the ##AAs keep saying how they will be ruined if digital copying is allowed to run rampant. But it's their choice to be there. They could choose to go flip burgers at a nice, stable McJob. I know a lot of people are thinking "that's not a choice". You're wrong. It is a job. You always have the choice to lower your standard of living and live comfortably within that pay-range. What you are choosing to do is take that higher-paying job, but you have to accept the risks involved in it as well.
The risk in this case is the market moving away from your business model. Where is it written that your chosen business model has to be legally protected from ever changing? Why wasn't there this kind of outcry when we no longer needed milkmen? A new distribution model was introduced (us getting our own milk from the store) and that meant that a milkman was no longer a viable career. What about payphone manufacturers? Why didn't they sue cell phone developers for "making technology that is stealing from us"?
The public didn't just wake up one day and say "you know, I don't like those record companies. I think I'm going to go destroy them". The public said "you know, I don't like this game anymore. Let's go play a different game our way." The market has spoken. Those who are at risk can either choose to change with it or choose a different job.
"Like... photography? Do you support me using other people's photos simply because the technology has changed and I can now digitize it easily?"
Why shouldn't you? Does the person who snapped the picture own the images contained therein? If you take a picture of my house, does that mean that you have ownership over that particular angle and view of my house? No. It's a picture. Yeah, you may have found a really artistically nice view of that tree with the sunset, but there's no reason someone else shouldn't be able to copy that image. You found the value of that scene, now you need a way to market it. Try postcards. Then, you're selling postcards, not the image itself. Just like CD's, not the music therein.
"Or like... writing? Would it be ok for me to take your fine blog and replicate it (which is even easier that copying music) on some other domain?"
Again, why not? If you claim that the writing of this blog post is yours, that's not violating copyright, its plagiarism. While that's not illegal, it discredits you once it's discovered and no one listens to you afterwards. I'm sure Mike wouldn't mind free publicity and the spreading of this dissertation. As long as you post it with proper credits and don't take it out of context, he'll probably support it.
If you do take it out of context, then Mike will probably ask you to fix it. If you don't, then it's up to Mike to make sure the public knows what you're doing and why it's wrong. Mike shouldn't be able to (and shouldn't need to) sue you just because you found the Copy & Paste function. I'm sure that if he wanted to, he could find interpretations of copyright laws that would force you to take your copy of the blog off your domain, but it shouldn't come to that.
For example, in one of Mike's previous entries, someone posted some copyright-protected works of another analyst (that apparently always is at odds with Mike's theories) in the comments. Mike mentioned in response to that posting was that he disagreed with someone posting it (since it's a copyrighted work) and would remove it if asked. My point is that if the author doesn't want his work disseminated, he should ask people to take it down without resorting to legal action.
But it does beg the question... if someone doesn't want their ideas circulated, why would they publish them anywhere, much less on the internet?
Summary: you shouldn't (and can't) market the ideas or information. That means that you don't have some inalienable right to make money off of it. If there's not a market for it, you won't make anything. I could make some beautiful sculptures out of dog shit, but if no one wants to buy them, I'm not going to make money off of them. Just because I made them doesn't mean that the world just automatically has to give me money for them.
"I've been saying for years that car stereos need to have an input jack on the face. Practically every receiver/home stereo has input on it, why should my car stereo (which I spent more $$ on than any other stereo I own) be any different."
-JC
My dad had a... dunno, 96? 97?... Mitsubishi Galant that had an input jack that would take a headphone connector. I thought that was the coolest thing in the car. Then I never saw anything like it again. However, I know that the new Yaris and Honda's equvilant do have the connector for that now. Maybe before long the Modulators will be a thing of the past like the old cassette adaptors.
If you need your news release noticed, mention Howard Stern."
-Pope Ratzo
Very good point. If this were a serious concern, it wouldn't matter what is being overrun by who. This isn't a noble cause to protect the sanctity of the airways, this is a whine-fest by one or two groups to have thier broadcast protected. Hense the reason they played the entertainment industry's equivalent of the Race Card. Good ol' Howwie.
Now... I know it's been mentioned here that these Mod's usually broadcast on dead channels. I have one and if there's even the slightest strength of outside signal, my music goes to crap. So... if you're listening to your radio, which is picking up a nice and clear signal, how would anyone around you be overriding that signal with a little pocket transmitter? Why would anyone even be transmitting on those channels?
Since I'm lazy and I hate the institution of having to create an account to view a news story, I didn't read the linked article. Did this thing even address the question of why people would be degrading their own music reception by transmitting in competition to a 1.21 Gigawatt tower?
Seriously though, it seems to me that if this is an issue, instead of trying to ban the use of these things (is it "for the kids" yet?), why don't we just set aside a small range of frequencies for these things? One or two channels on the low end and one or two on the high ought to do it. Heck, the first one of these things I ever owned had only 4 channels to choose from.
Oh wait... we're not doing that because this isn't really a serious concern... just a whine-fest.
::hands NPR a tissue and a glass of Get the F**K Over Yourself::
You really are making an incorrect analogy with discussion about tickets. That's not a service provided by anyone... it's a punishment for a crime. You don't get to decide what your punishment is. You can lobby for changes, but all of that is niether here nor there. It has nothing to do with Spamhaus and thier current legal entaglements.
Your comments about having a service available to you is correct, but you make it sound like the government is embargoing this. That's not the case. This is one private company suing (for money) another company. The question in place is whether we (the U.S.) have the right to shut down a company in another country while these proceedings are underway (which is a common practice). The answer is no. And that is what will be sorted out once this judge's decision is corrected. That's the center of this whole thing: one judge stepped outside of his juridiction. And that will be sorted out. This isn't the goverment trying to deny you the civil liberty of doing business with who you choose.
And, if ICANN does shut down the IP (or however that works) and that site is no longer accessable in the US, then find another. Or start your own. It's a common misconception that convenience has to be handed to you on a silver platter. That's not the "American Freedom" that is protected. The right to start your own black list is a freedom, as long as you do so legally.
Finally, thank you for the illustration on Senator Skoe's stance. Unfortunatly, it has nothing to do with the argument. But, if you don't like his stance, don't vote for him. If you didn't vote for him, and you want to work against him, get invovled with the appropriate lobby groups.
As an aside, his view on voting is as flawed as you intended to illustrate and I agree with you on that. But, still, it has nothing to do with this case.
"This has been an ongoing argument, as people point out that a contract you have no right to negotiate over shouldn't be considered an agreement on both sides."
-Mike
What do you think your insurance is? One-sided contracts are legaly enforcable, so long as both sides have agreed to the terms of that contract. And by clicking "I Accept" on the EULA, you are agreeing to those terms.
I have a friend who refuses to upgrade from Win98. There are times I wish I hadn't either. I'm running XP Home and it doesn't run horribly, but it does nickle & dime me to death with the little errors.
"So if a heroin addict kills her father because her father made her go cold turkey, it has nothing to do with heroin?"
-Dorpus
Different situation, as we've been trying to illustrate. When going cold turkey on a drug (the ones that are actually addictive, at least), you experience altered states of mind that can lead you to extreme acts you otherwise wouldn't do.
These altered states are due to the readjustment of the body to chemicals no longer being available, or available at lesser quantities (such as endorphins in a psychological addiction).
This so-called "computer addiction" lacks such an adjustment. You may see people "freaking out" because they can't get online, but that's caused by the stress of not being able to get work done (either real job work, or personal work) and putting things on hold.
There may be people out there with a personality that would leave them vulnerable to a psychological addiction to being online. But those people are addictable to anything and everything they do. The point we're making here is that the internet is not addictive; regardless of the one or two cases we hear about that represent an extreme departure from the norm. And certainly, the internet is not some scourge that needs to be defeated. This is just sensationalist media trying to play on fears.
"I don't like getting tickets, I didn't sign up for that service, yet no one is able to sue the government."
-DieSpamDie
I assume you're talking about traffic tickets. You don't get to sign up for laws... unless you count voting. You don't want tickets? Don't break the law. That's how you "sign out" of getting tickets.
"I've read articles in recent days about e.g. a Korean girl who electrocuted her father because he disconnected her internet access. Linking to such articles is suppressed on here though, because Mike doesn't like being shown wrong."
-Dorpus
Or because Mike knows that it's not applicable to the conversation. Some girl going crazy has nothing to do with the internet or studies of its addiction. It's a girl going crazy.
Mike "suppresses" them because he doesn't need to waste time or space linking to every single thing that everyone might feel is related. That's what Google is for. It's not Mike's job to do your research for you.
"The comments here seem to not follow what happened in the case. Notice the words default judgment rather than guilty. Yeah, think about that before criticizing the judge."
-Hppymellon
No, the correct points are being argued here... the points of jurisdiction. Yes it was a default judgment and not a guilty verdict (which, as I've learned is not applicable in a civil case), but the judge should have dismissed the case from the onset since it's not in his jurisdiction.
Now, it's possible that the judge is correct and that he does have jurisdiction. That's what the appeal will show, if Spamhaus uses that defense route. My criticism of the judge stems from his decision to step in where jurisdiction is in question.
Personally, I'd like to see what kind of precedence is set here.
"It said signs include a disregard for health or appearance, sleep deprivation and decreased physical activity and social interaction with others, as well as dry eyes, carpal tunnel syndrome and repetitive motion injuries of hands and fingers."
Ok. One at a time:
1) Disregard for health or appearance. Ok, the health one, while vague, may constitute a concern. Kinda. Maybe. But appearance? Is that really a concern? A medical concern? If so, than I know some terminal mf'ers.
2) sleep dep. Yeah, it could be a medical concern, but many of the people I know who are on the computer at 3am instead of sleeping are doing so because they have insomnia, not because they want to lose sleep. Besides, it's like a child threatening to hold their breath to get their way... Eventually nature will take over and they'll pass out. And start breathing (or sleeping, in this case) again. It's nature's way of idiot-proofing you.
3) Decreased physical activity. Gee, ya think?!? Anything you do that is not physical in nature is going to decrease your physical activity. Hell, driving to work in the morning is decreasing your physical activity since you're sitting on your butt for 1/2 hour or so. I guess I shouldn't sit at my breakfast table reading my paper in the morning because I might stop moving. OH CRAP! I DON'T MOVE WHEN I SLEEP!!! Dear Sweet Jeebus NOOOO!!!
4) [decreased] social interaction with others. I have decreased social interaction with others but that's because I hate people. Not because I like the computer more. And besides, regardless of what some may say, online gaming or chatting is social interaction. Just not the traditional going-out-to-seedy-smoky-noisy-bars kind of interaction.
5) dry eyes. Are you serious? MY EYES CAN DRY OUT!??!?!??!?!ONE!!1 OMGWTFBBQ!!!11!!!ONE! Time to buy stock in Clear Eyes and move on.
6) Carpel Tunnel Syndrome / Repetitive Motion Injury. I love how they list CT & RMI as two separate things. CTS/RMI went out with the Ergonomic Craze. Yes, it's something to watch for and it's something to take steps against (like buying those gel pads and sitting up straight). But it's not some silent menace that's claming the wrists of millions of unsung victims here. Every time you buy a computer, it comes with no less than three manuals on how to property sit and align your peripherals to reduce CTS/RMI.
Bottom line... if this is the best you can do for showing the "dangers" of "internet addiction"... I'm going to give my half-assed "ohnoez" and go back to my coffee... to which, yes, I'm "addicted".
Re: Re: Re: Video Games Made Me Sue People, Also B
"Being that Jack's lawsuit has already prompted Wal-Mart to hold off sales, and if you believe news sites, Gamestop/EB have questioned waiting. I would say that between these two(yes two, Gamestop/EB are one), that this is a huge potential loss, and since the news has picked up that some retailers are holding or pulling it, there are people who have already decided about not buying it."
-Scott
You're right... if those two (or more) retailers refused the game, that would hurt sales. But you still have a few problems:
1) Can you prove that "lost potential" is an actual damage?
2) Can you prove that Jack's antics lead directly to those lost sales, to the exclusion of any other factor?
3) If you meet the above-two criteria, can you show how many potential sales you actually lost?
"Your Honor, we expected to sell 40 gazillion copies of that game through those retailers. That is what Jack Thompson cost us."
It'd be up to the courts to muddle through the details, but RS/T2 would be very hard-pressed to actually make that stick.
Re: Re: Re: Video Games Made Me Sue People, Also B
"Being that Jack's lawsuit has already prompted Wal-Mart to hold off sales, and if you believe news sites, Gamestop/EB have questioned waiting. I would say that between these two(yes two, Gamestop/EB are one), that this is a huge potential loss, and since the news has picked up that some retailers are holding or pulling it, there are people who have already decided about not buying it."
-Scott
You're right... if those two (or more) retailers refused the game, that would hurt sales. But you still have a few problems:
1) Can you prove that "lost potential" is an actual damage?
2) Can you prove that Jack's antics lead directly to those lost sales, to the exclusion of any other factor?
3) If you meet the above-two criteria, can you show how many potential sales you actually lost?
"Your Honor, we expected to sell 40 gazillion copies of that game through those retailers. That is what Jack Thompson cost us."
It'd be up to the courts to muddle through the details, but RS/T2 would be very hard-pressed to actually make that stick.
Re: Video Games Made Me Sue People, Also Ban Harry
"B.) NO LAW TRUMPS
the First Amendment!"
-Donald Duck
Wrong. Laws can trump the 1st in the action of protecting the rights of others...
For example, you are free to stand on a literal soap box and scream to the top of your lungs about your opinions... but if you do it at 2am in my residential neighborhood, you're getting arrested (or at least warned) for violation of the noise and peace ordinances.
Since those ordinances are enforced laws that would preclude you from expressing your speech in the way you want, I'd say that's trumping your 1st Amendment rights.
"YOU can say fire in a crowded theater all you want to!"
-Donald Duck
You can, as long as you are willing to face the consequences of your actions. Those consequences are probably going to include being arrested for public endangerment.
"Rockstar has every right to Sue Mr. Thompson. They could sue him for being libelous. It is defamation from Mr. Thompson to state what he states with out PROOF."
-Donald Duck
::sigh:: Not to mince semantics here, but...
Libel: n.
a) A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
b) The act of presenting such material to the public.
Slander: n.
a) Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
b) A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
Regardless of whether it's written or not, it doesn't matter if Jack has proof when he says what he's saying... because he's expressing opinion.
Finally, if Rockstar/Take2 were to try a Libel or Slander suit, they would have to prove both the falsehood of Jack's statements and the damages caused. And let's face it... these "defamatory" remarks have actually helped sales here. Kinda hard to prove you damaged me after I reap the rewards of your unintentional help.
Just because it's not nice to say bad things doesn't make it illegal.
"He has no proof that video games is cauing some one to go postal in a school. "
-Donald Duck
And again, he doesn't need proof to state what is essentially his opinion. Without proof, though, he is appearing as an ignorant, fanatical inquisitor hell-bent on proving himself right; as opposed to a community-minded servant of the people hell-bent on doing what's best for our society.
"I mean if I was Rockstar Inc. I would force Mr. Thompson in court to explain why in the 1980's 1990's why some people went postal in the post office buildings across the nation."
-Donald Duck
And both Jack and the judges would laugh at you. Seriously. There's nothing legal that can be done to compel Jack to do anything here. He's not breaking the law. He's just being an ignorant ass.
Now, if through his legal actions, he acts unethically, or in violations of the regulations set forth by the Florida Bar Assn, then he can be stripped of his credentials. But, as a lawyer, he's going to be watching himself pretty strictly to make sure he doesn't slip up on that.
I hate Jack Thompson as much as you do. I'm sick of hearing his repeated, unthinking ramblings. But until he slips up and shoots himself in the foot, there's nothing we can do but let him rant until he's blue in the face.
On the post: Can't Let People Learn If They Don't Pay Up First
Another thing...
I understand that bookmakers want to get the money back from the investment they made in producing those books. And we can argue all day long about whether the price they charge is more than a return on investment. But here's the point:
Why should the cost of books be a hindrance on education? We see where many professors don't use the whole book, in fact I've had professors that used one or two chapters of this huge and expensive tome. We see where students have severe difficulty in obtaining the books. So why not change the format? Why not make the information available instead of a whole book? The publishers could make smaller bits available for the professors to choose from so that students will only have to pay for what they use.
And one more thing. In response to the Anonymous Coward in post #23 saying how "We're raising a generation of whiny babies who expect everything for free and resort to illegal ways of getting things when they're deemed (arbitrarily, mind you) to be too expensive."... it's not the "whiny youth" that's "breaking the law" here... the actions that are being challenged by the publishers are the actions of professors who don't even have to buy the books! When someone who is unaffected by the price is saying that it's not right... that should give you pause. When someone who already has their education, who doesn't have to pay for books (except maybe the teachers addition) is saying this is an undue hindrance... that says something.
You were so quick to jump on the "Shut up and pay, damned whiny youth" bandwagon, that you missed that point. It's not your imagined "gimme gimme gimme" generation that's doing this. It's the "I know the value of earning my way" generation. Its people from the generation that usually side with the record companies and the movie companies. Of course most of those people are either in the pockets of the ##IA or just feel that "if I had to pay, so should you."
On the post: Can't Let People Learn If They Don't Pay Up First
Re:
Uh, actually, it is. It's called "price fixing", "monopoly".... any of that ring a bell? Why the government hasn't looked into it more... well, they do have more important things to worry about. And, until now, students pretty much just bought the books because there is no alternative. Now that there is one, the bookmakers are suing. And drawing attention to the situation.
No, I'm trying to see a true free market. And no, I don't mean a market where everything is free. As I stated before, the monopoly here has created an artificial price increase. This isn't supply meeting demand and generating a value. This is one person holding all the cards saying "this is how much you will pay me". And that's an ok thing for you?
Have you?
You're right... that is not the best solution. The best solution (in my opinion) would be to break up a monopoly that is artificially increasing the price of books, introduce some real competition in that market, and rejoice when more people can get a higher education because this is one less hurdle to being able to afford it.
And the fact that we have not seen, really, any truly innovative geniuses in the last 50 or so years come from America, may illustrate how bad this problem may be. I doubt it's a general decline in human potential. The problem is after surviving 12 years of horribly under-par education, our youth is then faced with not being able to afford to go to college. And half of that financial hurdle is the textbooks.
As you said, they "didn't sit around whining about the price of text books"... maybe because The price wasn't a hurdle? My point about poor geniuses was in response to your sentiment that only those who could afford it should be educated.
I'll be departing a bit from my original point onto this tangent, but...
Your statement is a matter of opinion and perspective. I don't see it as people wanting things for free, because you do have to spend time looking for these things. You do have to spend time looking for ways to get around digital protections. You're not paying in cash, but it's hardly "free".
What I see is a generation of people who are realizing that they can get these items from other sources and not have to pay a dictated price. That's how changes are made it the status quo.
As far as it being illegal: There was a time when it was illegal to refuse to pay taxes to the British Crown, even though you lived in a colony across the ocean. And before you say something about it not being the same, the only difference is scale. The point is that when things are wrong, you fix them. Before that fix is completed, it's considered wrong to go against the normal.
Another illustration: The American Civil War would have been called the War of Southern Independance if the south had won. In fact, many Southerners actually refer to it as such.
You say you're sick of the whining... I'm sick of people saying "stop speaking up and just accept things as the way they are."
On the post: Can't Let People Learn If They Don't Pay Up First
Re: Post 21
No, it's not a simple as that. The lack of any real competition has lead to an artificial inflation of the price. This is what happens when you don't have any reason to innovate or cut costs.
Hypocrisy? Sorry, but I don't see it. If we were complaining about this, then turning around and doing the same thing elsewhere, thatwould be hypocrisy.
And we're not complaining about a company making a profit, we're complaining about extortion. Plain and simple. These companies know that there are no other resources for books. So they charge whatever they want instead of helping create an easily available learning environment.
And who says that both parties have to invest the same thing into this before it can be equitable. What have we invested? How about our tuition into an institution that not only facilitates a dependence on these products, but a requires it.
MMM... my favorite one again. Don't go to college? Are you saying the best solution to this problem is to lower the number of people we have getting a higher education? How could you think that the best solution is to take action that will directly lower the education level of our country.. which is low enough as it is. What hell is wrong with you people?
You know, history is replete with geniuses who came from poor families and backgrounds. Who forged their way through college and went on to make amazing breakthroughs in human understanding. I shudder to think of what the next few centuries will show for our species if people who think that only the rich should be educated get their way.
On the post: Can't Let People Learn If They Don't Pay Up First
Re: Re: Re: As both a businessman and a college st
I know someone else already responded to this, but I wanted to weigh in and hopefully show you that it's not just one person who thinks you're wrong.
The article was talking about a professor who was making the appropriate snippets of information available for his students so that they would not have to buy the whole book. So a student is either viewing/downloading/printing something that they know (because the professor told them) is the appropriate course material from selected sources. Do you seriously think that these professors are telling their students "go view my published works for this class"?
I've seen this one soooo many times and it never fails to impress me as little more than the motto of the lazy. I'll revisit a statement I've made here before.
I work in insurance. Which means I deal with automobile insurance. Let me tell you that auto insurance is a very competitive market. In my state, insurance rates are always rising and lowering from one company to the next. Which means one month, I can beat company ABC, but next month, they'll be lower. All of that means that if I try to sell based on price, I'll lose. If I make a sale because I'm cheapest, that person will leave as soon as they find someone cheaper.
What I have to do is sell based on value. I have to show my customers why my product is better, even if it's a bit more expensive. And this is what media companies, software companies, and yes, even textbook companies need to do. It doesn't get any cheaper than free, so you have to find and sell based on a value. I think Mike mentioned a few examples of what the textbook co's could try.
This is probably my favorite one from you post. I find it interesting how you have something so heart-felt to say, and yet you add absolutely nothing to the conversation.
What does evolution have to do with intellectual property? I did read your rant there and I do see (kind of) where you're coming from, but I really don't see where this has anything to do with what we've been talking about.
Life is a matter of survival. Natural selection and all of that. Sure. But when you apply that to the business world, it's an analogy. The business world, our economy, and commerce in general are all human constructs. There's no natural order to it, there's just whatever we make of it.
What this means is that, unlike in life, when someone else has an advantage over you (such as giving away your stuff for free, as you put it), you have the opportunity to create an artificial advantage to get back on top. This would be the creation of a value in your product that your competitor doesn't have. Now, I can continue your evolution analogy and say that it's like me trying to take on a larger cave-man by using a club. But that doesn't really apply because the larger cave-man's advantage is a natural one. Analogies are always tenuous. You can stretch them around to make things fit, but they really are just for illustrative purposes. Be careful when you build your soapbox on them.
1)College is a minor inconvenience? College is expensive as it is. Whether or not you believe the piece of paper (degree) you get is worth it, many business require them for employment. Add to that, the fact that our education level is painful as it is... and the fact that many people miss out on higher education because of money...
are you saying that our current education level is a minor inconvenience?
2)careful with the statements about "on the grand scale". I can turn that right back around and say "hey publisher... look at the big picture. We're all going to die someday anyway, so why worry about me getting your book for free?". And no, that's no bigger a stretch than you made.
3) Finally, and my favorite... the only example of "unyielding scathing hatred" I've seen was the use of the "f"word on post#1. Yeah, I agree that it wasn't the most eloquent expression of a point, but I don't think that one post is indicative of the rest of the people around here.
You paint too many people with too broad a brush, and you bring the wrong paints to begin with. Sorry that we're not the anti-christian darwinist, communist, hate-mongers that you wanted us to be.
On the post: The Economics Of Abundance Is Not A Moral Issue
Just a thought:
This got me thinking about the choices involved. Let me take you where my mind is going on this and see if you agree. Feel free to point out anything I missed on this...
Everyone involved in this market has choice in their participation. Artists have the choice to make the art or not. Distributors have the choice to help distribute it or go do something else. Consumers have the choice to consume the art or not.
The artists are (mostly) ok with the choice to make the art and find compensation through means other than the direct sale of that art.
Consumers show a willingness to purchase the art (or at least the media containing that art) to support the artist. Most of the "proud pirates" I've talked to or seen posting in places like this state that they want to support their favorite artists, but not the record labels...
Which brings us to the weak-link here. It's the distributors (the labels and their storm-trooper enforcement, MP/RIAA) that have chosen to participate, but are trying to force everyone else to play their game their way. It's become clear that no one else wants to play that anymore.
I remember back on the grade-school playground, when I was playing a game in a way that other kids didn't like, they all walked away. I didn't go running to a teacher to get them to make the other kids play.
Now this is where my mind was going: If the people who are unwilling to play this new game (those making money off the old system) choose to leave, won't that mean a rise in the number of people who want to do this for the sake of the art? What I mean is, no more boy-band/popstar flakes who are in it for the money. Artists who actually have something to say and want to make art because they have some kind of artistic vision they want to realize. Oh, we may not like their vision (not a big Van Gogh fan myself), but it won't be crap just churned out for money.
Anyone else remember the time when we had truly great artists that you just knew were up there playing something that they truly felt? How much money did people like Hendrix make? Not much. I know I'm being a dreamer here, but I'll keep my hope.
(Rant to Follow)
On the topic of choice: These record exec's and the ##AAs keep saying how they will be ruined if digital copying is allowed to run rampant. But it's their choice to be there. They could choose to go flip burgers at a nice, stable McJob. I know a lot of people are thinking "that's not a choice". You're wrong. It is a job. You always have the choice to lower your standard of living and live comfortably within that pay-range. What you are choosing to do is take that higher-paying job, but you have to accept the risks involved in it as well.
The risk in this case is the market moving away from your business model. Where is it written that your chosen business model has to be legally protected from ever changing? Why wasn't there this kind of outcry when we no longer needed milkmen? A new distribution model was introduced (us getting our own milk from the store) and that meant that a milkman was no longer a viable career. What about payphone manufacturers? Why didn't they sue cell phone developers for "making technology that is stealing from us"?
The public didn't just wake up one day and say "you know, I don't like those record companies. I think I'm going to go destroy them". The public said "you know, I don't like this game anymore. Let's go play a different game our way." The market has spoken. Those who are at risk can either choose to change with it or choose a different job.
On the post: The Economics Of Abundance Is Not A Moral Issue
Re: Can this be applied to other art?
Why shouldn't you? Does the person who snapped the picture own the images contained therein? If you take a picture of my house, does that mean that you have ownership over that particular angle and view of my house? No. It's a picture. Yeah, you may have found a really artistically nice view of that tree with the sunset, but there's no reason someone else shouldn't be able to copy that image. You found the value of that scene, now you need a way to market it. Try postcards. Then, you're selling postcards, not the image itself. Just like CD's, not the music therein.
Again, why not? If you claim that the writing of this blog post is yours, that's not violating copyright, its plagiarism. While that's not illegal, it discredits you once it's discovered and no one listens to you afterwards. I'm sure Mike wouldn't mind free publicity and the spreading of this dissertation. As long as you post it with proper credits and don't take it out of context, he'll probably support it.
If you do take it out of context, then Mike will probably ask you to fix it. If you don't, then it's up to Mike to make sure the public knows what you're doing and why it's wrong. Mike shouldn't be able to (and shouldn't need to) sue you just because you found the Copy & Paste function. I'm sure that if he wanted to, he could find interpretations of copyright laws that would force you to take your copy of the blog off your domain, but it shouldn't come to that.
For example, in one of Mike's previous entries, someone posted some copyright-protected works of another analyst (that apparently always is at odds with Mike's theories) in the comments. Mike mentioned in response to that posting was that he disagreed with someone posting it (since it's a copyrighted work) and would remove it if asked. My point is that if the author doesn't want his work disseminated, he should ask people to take it down without resorting to legal action.
But it does beg the question... if someone doesn't want their ideas circulated, why would they publish them anywhere, much less on the internet?
Summary: you shouldn't (and can't) market the ideas or information. That means that you don't have some inalienable right to make money off of it. If there's not a market for it, you won't make anything. I could make some beautiful sculptures out of dog shit, but if no one wants to buy them, I'm not going to make money off of them. Just because I made them doesn't mean that the world just automatically has to give me money for them.
On the post: NPR Sick Of Howard Stern Butting In; Wants FCC To Recall FM Modulators
Re:
My dad had a... dunno, 96? 97?... Mitsubishi Galant that had an input jack that would take a headphone connector. I thought that was the coolest thing in the car. Then I never saw anything like it again. However, I know that the new Yaris and Honda's equvilant do have the connector for that now. Maybe before long the Modulators will be a thing of the past like the old cassette adaptors.
On the post: NPR Sick Of Howard Stern Butting In; Wants FCC To Recall FM Modulators
Re:
Very good point. If this were a serious concern, it wouldn't matter what is being overrun by who. This isn't a noble cause to protect the sanctity of the airways, this is a whine-fest by one or two groups to have thier broadcast protected. Hense the reason they played the entertainment industry's equivalent of the Race Card. Good ol' Howwie.
Now... I know it's been mentioned here that these Mod's usually broadcast on dead channels. I have one and if there's even the slightest strength of outside signal, my music goes to crap. So... if you're listening to your radio, which is picking up a nice and clear signal, how would anyone around you be overriding that signal with a little pocket transmitter? Why would anyone even be transmitting on those channels?
Since I'm lazy and I hate the institution of having to create an account to view a news story, I didn't read the linked article. Did this thing even address the question of why people would be degrading their own music reception by transmitting in competition to a 1.21 Gigawatt tower?
Seriously though, it seems to me that if this is an issue, instead of trying to ban the use of these things (is it "for the kids" yet?), why don't we just set aside a small range of frequencies for these things? One or two channels on the low end and one or two on the high ought to do it. Heck, the first one of these things I ever owned had only 4 channels to choose from.
Oh wait... we're not doing that because this isn't really a serious concern... just a whine-fest.
::hands NPR a tissue and a glass of Get the F**K Over Yourself::
On the post: Spamhaus Decides To Fight For Its Right To Build A Spam List
Re: Re: Re:
You really are making an incorrect analogy with discussion about tickets. That's not a service provided by anyone... it's a punishment for a crime. You don't get to decide what your punishment is. You can lobby for changes, but all of that is niether here nor there. It has nothing to do with Spamhaus and thier current legal entaglements.
Your comments about having a service available to you is correct, but you make it sound like the government is embargoing this. That's not the case. This is one private company suing (for money) another company. The question in place is whether we (the U.S.) have the right to shut down a company in another country while these proceedings are underway (which is a common practice). The answer is no. And that is what will be sorted out once this judge's decision is corrected. That's the center of this whole thing: one judge stepped outside of his juridiction. And that will be sorted out. This isn't the goverment trying to deny you the civil liberty of doing business with who you choose.
And, if ICANN does shut down the IP (or however that works) and that site is no longer accessable in the US, then find another. Or start your own. It's a common misconception that convenience has to be handed to you on a silver platter. That's not the "American Freedom" that is protected. The right to start your own black list is a freedom, as long as you do so legally.
Finally, thank you for the illustration on Senator Skoe's stance. Unfortunatly, it has nothing to do with the argument. But, if you don't like his stance, don't vote for him. If you didn't vote for him, and you want to work against him, get invovled with the appropriate lobby groups.
As an aside, his view on voting is as flawed as you intended to illustrate and I agree with you on that. But, still, it has nothing to do with this case.
On the post: A Random Walk Through The Microsoft Vista EULA
One Sided Contracts
What do you think your insurance is? One-sided contracts are legaly enforcable, so long as both sides have agreed to the terms of that contract. And by clicking "I Accept" on the EULA, you are agreeing to those terms.
Is it ethical? Probably not. Legal? Yup.
On the post: A Random Walk Through The Microsoft Vista EULA
Re: Re: not until forced to
On the post: Internet Addiction Not Quite An Addiction...
Re: Re: Re: Censorship
Different situation, as we've been trying to illustrate. When going cold turkey on a drug (the ones that are actually addictive, at least), you experience altered states of mind that can lead you to extreme acts you otherwise wouldn't do.
These altered states are due to the readjustment of the body to chemicals no longer being available, or available at lesser quantities (such as endorphins in a psychological addiction).
This so-called "computer addiction" lacks such an adjustment. You may see people "freaking out" because they can't get online, but that's caused by the stress of not being able to get work done (either real job work, or personal work) and putting things on hold.
There may be people out there with a personality that would leave them vulnerable to a psychological addiction to being online. But those people are addictable to anything and everything they do. The point we're making here is that the internet is not addictive; regardless of the one or two cases we hear about that represent an extreme departure from the norm. And certainly, the internet is not some scourge that needs to be defeated. This is just sensationalist media trying to play on fears.
On the post: Spamhaus Decides To Fight For Its Right To Build A Spam List
Re:
I assume you're talking about traffic tickets. You don't get to sign up for laws... unless you count voting. You don't want tickets? Don't break the law. That's how you "sign out" of getting tickets.
On the post: Internet Addiction Not Quite An Addiction...
Re: Censorship
Or because Mike knows that it's not applicable to the conversation. Some girl going crazy has nothing to do with the internet or studies of its addiction. It's a girl going crazy.
Mike "suppresses" them because he doesn't need to waste time or space linking to every single thing that everyone might feel is related. That's what Google is for. It's not Mike's job to do your research for you.
On the post: Spamhaus Decides To Fight For Its Right To Build A Spam List
Re: You guys are arguing the wrong point
No, the correct points are being argued here... the points of jurisdiction. Yes it was a default judgment and not a guilty verdict (which, as I've learned is not applicable in a civil case), but the judge should have dismissed the case from the onset since it's not in his jurisdiction.
Now, it's possible that the judge is correct and that he does have jurisdiction. That's what the appeal will show, if Spamhaus uses that defense route. My criticism of the judge stems from his decision to step in where jurisdiction is in question.
Personally, I'd like to see what kind of precedence is set here.
On the post: Internet Addiction Not Quite An Addiction...
Louis beat me to it
"It said signs include a disregard for health or appearance, sleep deprivation and decreased physical activity and social interaction with others, as well as dry eyes, carpal tunnel syndrome and repetitive motion injuries of hands and fingers."
Ok. One at a time:
1) Disregard for health or appearance. Ok, the health one, while vague, may constitute a concern. Kinda. Maybe. But appearance? Is that really a concern? A medical concern? If so, than I know some terminal mf'ers.
2) sleep dep. Yeah, it could be a medical concern, but many of the people I know who are on the computer at 3am instead of sleeping are doing so because they have insomnia, not because they want to lose sleep. Besides, it's like a child threatening to hold their breath to get their way... Eventually nature will take over and they'll pass out. And start breathing (or sleeping, in this case) again. It's nature's way of idiot-proofing you.
3) Decreased physical activity. Gee, ya think?!? Anything you do that is not physical in nature is going to decrease your physical activity. Hell, driving to work in the morning is decreasing your physical activity since you're sitting on your butt for 1/2 hour or so. I guess I shouldn't sit at my breakfast table reading my paper in the morning because I might stop moving. OH CRAP! I DON'T MOVE WHEN I SLEEP!!! Dear Sweet Jeebus NOOOO!!!
4) [decreased] social interaction with others. I have decreased social interaction with others but that's because I hate people. Not because I like the computer more. And besides, regardless of what some may say, online gaming or chatting is social interaction. Just not the traditional going-out-to-seedy-smoky-noisy-bars kind of interaction.
5) dry eyes. Are you serious? MY EYES CAN DRY OUT!??!?!??!?!ONE!!1 OMGWTFBBQ!!!11!!!ONE! Time to buy stock in Clear Eyes and move on.
6) Carpel Tunnel Syndrome / Repetitive Motion Injury. I love how they list CT & RMI as two separate things. CTS/RMI went out with the Ergonomic Craze. Yes, it's something to watch for and it's something to take steps against (like buying those gel pads and sitting up straight). But it's not some silent menace that's claming the wrists of millions of unsung victims here. Every time you buy a computer, it comes with no less than three manuals on how to property sit and align your peripherals to reduce CTS/RMI.
Bottom line... if this is the best you can do for showing the "dangers" of "internet addiction"... I'm going to give my half-assed "ohnoez" and go back to my coffee... to which, yes, I'm "addicted".
On the post: Judge And Jack Thompson To Play Bully -- Will It Convince Them To Shoot Up A School?
Re: Re: Re: Video Games Made Me Sue People, Also B
You're right... if those two (or more) retailers refused the game, that would hurt sales. But you still have a few problems:
1) Can you prove that "lost potential" is an actual damage?
2) Can you prove that Jack's antics lead directly to those lost sales, to the exclusion of any other factor?
3) If you meet the above-two criteria, can you show how many potential sales you actually lost?
"Your Honor, we expected to sell 40 gazillion copies of that game through those retailers. That is what Jack Thompson cost us."
It'd be up to the courts to muddle through the details, but RS/T2 would be very hard-pressed to actually make that stick.
On the post: Judge And Jack Thompson To Play Bully -- Will It Convince Them To Shoot Up A School?
Re: Re: Re: Video Games Made Me Sue People, Also B
You're right... if those two (or more) retailers refused the game, that would hurt sales. But you still have a few problems:
1) Can you prove that "lost potential" is an actual damage?
2) Can you prove that Jack's antics lead directly to those lost sales, to the exclusion of any other factor?
3) If you meet the above-two criteria, can you show how many potential sales you actually lost?
"Your Honor, we expected to sell 40 gazillion copies of that game through those retailers. That is what Jack Thompson cost us."
It'd be up to the courts to muddle through the details, but RS/T2 would be very hard-pressed to actually make that stick.
On the post: Judge And Jack Thompson To Play Bully -- Will It Convince Them To Shoot Up A School?
Re: Video Games Made Me Sue People, Also Ban Harry
Wrong. Laws can trump the 1st in the action of protecting the rights of others...
For example, you are free to stand on a literal soap box and scream to the top of your lungs about your opinions... but if you do it at 2am in my residential neighborhood, you're getting arrested (or at least warned) for violation of the noise and peace ordinances.
Since those ordinances are enforced laws that would preclude you from expressing your speech in the way you want, I'd say that's trumping your 1st Amendment rights.
You can, as long as you are willing to face the consequences of your actions. Those consequences are probably going to include being arrested for public endangerment.
::sigh:: Not to mince semantics here, but...
Regardless of whether it's written or not, it doesn't matter if Jack has proof when he says what he's saying... because he's expressing opinion.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed that only factual misrepresentation is to be considered libel or slander, not expression of opinion.
Finally, if Rockstar/Take2 were to try a Libel or Slander suit, they would have to prove both the falsehood of Jack's statements and the damages caused. And let's face it... these "defamatory" remarks have actually helped sales here. Kinda hard to prove you damaged me after I reap the rewards of your unintentional help.
Just because it's not nice to say bad things doesn't make it illegal.
And again, he doesn't need proof to state what is essentially his opinion. Without proof, though, he is appearing as an ignorant, fanatical inquisitor hell-bent on proving himself right; as opposed to a community-minded servant of the people hell-bent on doing what's best for our society.
And both Jack and the judges would laugh at you. Seriously. There's nothing legal that can be done to compel Jack to do anything here. He's not breaking the law. He's just being an ignorant ass.
Now, if through his legal actions, he acts unethically, or in violations of the regulations set forth by the Florida Bar Assn, then he can be stripped of his credentials. But, as a lawyer, he's going to be watching himself pretty strictly to make sure he doesn't slip up on that.
I hate Jack Thompson as much as you do. I'm sick of hearing his repeated, unthinking ramblings. But until he slips up and shoots himself in the foot, there's nothing we can do but let him rant until he's blue in the face.
On the post: Judge And Jack Thompson To Play Bully -- Will It Convince Them To Shoot Up A School?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't Jack a public nuisan
I didn't mean that PA gave money to themselves... I meant that they wrote a check themselves, on behalf of Jack.
Sorry for the confusion.
Next >>