Idealized abstractions of children are much easier to love than a real child.
Maybe, but I think it is more selfish than that. I believe it is more an appeal for their child when they say "won't someone think of the children" than someone else's child. You'll never hear me say it, because I don't have children. And usually the only people who I do hear it from is the self-obsessed soccer moms and the politicians that pander to them.
Things should be done to protect *all* children. In this case, Maya is a child that deserves just as much protection as everyone elses' children.
This is a good reason to have a dropbox account and have the app installed on your smart phone. It can be set to automatically upload your video and photos to your DropBox account. That way if your phone is stolen by a LEO you still have the video.
As much as some people hate Google+, it sure does an awesome job of uploading pictures and video to your account automatically without your consent (yes, there is a checkbox you can click to turn off this behavior.) I leave it on, because I am always losing the data on my phone (wipe and upgrade CM7,) so I don't have to worry about it. Of course, I am sure like Megaupload, Google+ will probably be on the list of sites the AC trolls want shut down, and they may have the support of the crooked cops once they discover this feature, so I probably will have to back them up to facebook and twitter too.
Would you, example, store your furniture at a storage locker place, when the lockers on either side of yours are being used to sell drugs, and the main office is working as a fence for stolen goods? You likely would not. Why would you do the same online then?
Dude, think, then post. It works better that way.
Most of us don't possess x-ray vision or surveillance equipment, and thus cannot confirm that the storage lockers across from us are being used to sell drugs or the the office is a fence for stolen goods. We are not supermen, unlike you claim to be, and we actually have to take someone's word. Sure, if people said, hey, there are drugs in that locker, we might move. However, the police (and I know this from personal experience,) would never shut down the locker company because drugs were present in one of the lockers. They would seize the drugs, process the locker for evidence, but shutting down the company unless the company was complicit would not be done. And if it was done, they wouldn't hold everyone's stuff hostage unless they knew that everyone was complicit and could prove so in a court of law.
Sorry Mike, but the feds are right on this one. The only reason the feds seized the assets is because of the behavior of the company, which was flagrant and fairly well public. Any normal citizen doing due dilligence before selecting Mega as a storage medium would have been able to determine their notoriety and their "profile" online as a great place to put your infringing material. A quick search of google would turn up any number of questionable links.
Please show, with specificity the following: 1) What information contained on Megaupload was in violation of the law, and 2) Where someone could go to find information on Megaupload and other sites online that will allow them to determine that the sites are questionable. The government can't seem to provide the answers to 1 in a court of law, and it is doubtful you'll even try to provide answers to either.
Many of us used Megaupload for uninfringing uses and some of us were even caught off-guard by the raid and the shutdown. Sure, the RIAA/MPAA kept saying they were evil, but the MPAA called VCRs evil and it is doubtful anyone was really listening to them (except the supersekret arm of the government who is a pawn to the international/multinational cabal.
The whole idea that they could run out the "competition" is idiotic too. If they ran everyone out of business (lol, really) and then started jacking prices, it seems like piracy would increase and you'd see more players enter the market to provide what consumers want.
This is why the argument that Amazon will win and just raise prices is so totally bogus. If Amazon was able to put B&N out of business, and not B&N putting itself out of business by offering poor customer support and not providing the customer with a reason to buy from them, and Amazon manages to put everyone else out of business and raise the prices, someone else will come along and provide a better service (remember, it isn't always price that causes customers to buy from you, otherwise 7-Eleven and Starbucks would be out of business.) Capitalism is hard...colluding to raise the price of ebooks just to keep Amazon from running the incumbents out of business doesn't help anyone. This is the very definition of anti-trust...using the monopoly to keep out competition, where in this case the monopoly is copyright held by the publisher (they get to collude and set the price, and decide who distributes their product) and the competition is Amazon.
OK, that does clear things up a bit. I was wondering about that for some time now.
Where it becomes a problem is when monopolies are artificial, such as where government creates them due to regulation such as "intellectual property" and "franchises". Natural monopolies, where a single corporation provides a product or service and has no competition is fine, because anyone can join the party and compete, and ultimately the monopolist either stays on top or someone else comes along with a better product and they are replaced. Artificial monopolies should be illegal, but they aren't since they operate using the model of anti-trust that others are prohibited from using. Anyone should be able to compete, but in these cases competition is outlawed by the government and the result is arrogant, entitled corporations that feel that they can screw over the customer and buy regulation to keep competitors out. They have no pressure to get any better, and the market stagnates.
they are trying... they are pricing them out and adding more limitations to ebook lending.
I am not a big fan of regulation, but in this one case, this is where regulation should be used. Dicking around with the libraries should carry the death-penalty for corporations, all assets get transferred to the public domain, no last requests or a final meal, up to the gallows and be done with them. Of course, they have to stand trial and be convicted, and there is always the Microsoft escape parachute.
It is so sad that we have to keep saving them from themselves.
... Remind me again why we have anti-trust laws to begin with? I thought monopolies were illegal...
Monopolies aren't illegal. What you do with a monopoly may be, but a monopoly itself isn't. While capitalists hate monopolies, they are essentially a market of one competitor. There is nothing stopping another competitor from entering the market and thus destroying the monopoly. Now if the monopoly uses their position to unfairly destroy competition, then this is when it becomes illegal. Especially when you use your monopoly position in one market to attempt to gain a monopoly in another market (i.e. Microsoft using their monopoly position in the OS market to unfairly gain monopoly status in the browser market by killing off other browsers by making their OS prevent other browsers from operating on their OS.)
I as a rule don't pay for ebooks, because I don't see any moral or ethical argument in favour of paying for them (trolls, don't bother with "but you're enjoying the book for free!!!" I counter that with the argument that public domain books can be enjoyed for free and no-one argues then for me to pay the author.
I enjoy books in the library for free often. The trolls have no valid argument unless they wish to go against the forefathers and outlaw libraries.
even a TomTom repair is the price of a new unit, so when mine broke, i got a navman. just as good and half the price!!
I don't know how they can continue to survive. My cell phone has GPS and access to Google Maps, and does a pretty good job of telling me where to turn and what traffic is like along the route. With the exception of my trusty Vista (old school GPS) running open source firmware, which I use for hiking and biking, I have no use for a separate GPS receiver. I have a mounting bracket for my phone which I can use to display it as a GPS while I am in the car, when I need it, and with the bluetooth headset, it even talks to me as I am driving so I don't need to see it.
Not the first time people have wondered if English is not my primary language.
I don't understand why people care. It is not like you are talking to us with your voice anyway. It puzzles me as well when people say that as text doesn't usually contain dialect, at least not specific dialect (except if someone asks for a pop or a soda or a Coke.)
You could speak Martian as your primary language, That Anonymous Coward. It doesn't matter to me.
Re: The Music Industry has Different Economic Underpinnings than the Publishing Industry (to Rob Reid, #43)
When you take a grocery store, and cut it down to the things which Amazon really would have fundamental difficulty in handling, such as salad greens, it is small enough to be a family business, the same as a restaurant.
I must admit, I like shopping at Amazon, just as much as I like shopping at Wal-Mart so the anti-Amazon/anti-Wal-Mart folks can throw my argument out the window like they do with everyone else. I think you hit it right on the head with that statement...when you are fighting against a natural monopoly, you do so at the fringes. I go to Amazon/Wal-Mart because of the price, and I go to the market because of the convenience (because drop-shipped greens and fruit aren't very helpful or healthy.)
Vons has been delivering groceries for a while now...and at my local Vons, it seems like the only people who shop there are the ones going for last minute quick items (as am I.) Albertsons seems to be the same way. Some companies are popping up taking the fringe away from Vons/Albertsons too, Fresh and Easy is taking away their single-shopper market.
In all those cases though, there is a pressure for each company to expand their market by offering better service. It only makes things work better in the long run. You don't get that in artificial monopolies.
Hey ltlw0lf - I'm actually afraid that the ultimate impact of the lawsuit could be HIGHER book prices, longterm.
I agree sir, but it will be because of a natural monopoly, not an artificial one that exists now. Any company can compete against Amazon, just like any company can compete against any other one. And if Amazon uses their natural monopoly illegally (to hinder their competitors, then they will have the same problem.) The prices may raise a little, but that will be because the true market has spoken, not because a company can force their will on everone else.
If the DoJ prevails, it will make it very difficult for anyone not named "Amazon" to stay in the reader market, because Amazon has the resources & the proven determination to sell books at far below cost in order to drive all other competitors out of the market.
Non DRM'd books can be read by any reader. If they use DRM to lock you into a particular reader, then they are using an unfair business practice that locks out competitors. I read ebooks on a Nook (I prefer it to Kindle, which I've played with in the past,) but I also read on my Android phone, my Android tablet, and my Linux and Windows laptops, all running different applications. DRM is the problem, without it then Amazon wouldn't be able to have its monopoly. Instead of forcing "Agency Pricing" to break up Amazon's monopoly, remove the DRM and they will be forced to compete against everyone else for their reader. Agency pricing did nothing but give the publishers an excuse to be ridiculous in their price models and remain out of touch with their customers.
So - there's a real risk that the DoJ will create an actual monopoly in the name of ... competition. And once monopolies exist, they tend not to maintain the below-cost prices that enabled them to attain that position.
Again, I agree. I hate monopolies. But the difference is that with a natural monopoly, any competitor can enter the market and give the incumbent a run for their money, even if it isn't successful. At the moment, the only person setting the price is the publisher, and there is no pressure to provide the customer what they want or to make sure the artists/author gets what they want (I am sure many authors would prefer to get a ton of purchases of their ebooks at a lower cost than a very few purchases at a much higher cost because their publisher doesn't understand economics. As it is, I prefer to buy dead tree versions and scan them in myself as it is ultimately cheaper to do this than buy the ebook that is more costly than the hardcover version of the book (and I own a lot of ebooks thanks to Baen and other booksellers, as well as cheaper Amazon books.)
True they are not actually dying but they are taking normal job loss due to technological advancement and blaming it on piracy. For instance sony closed a CD manufacturing plant that made the sony brand blank dvds. Obviously those jobs are lost to piracy.
I'd never buy a Sony branded blank DVD. Too much Spyware. I prefer unbranded or memorex, since neither has shipped out spyware/malware and called it a feature.
I know, Sony didn't release their "DRM" malware on blank CDs, but considering their anti-consumer stance on just about every product they have sold, I prefer to use a company that doesn't knife me in the back at every opportunity. Being nice to the person who hands you your food pellets is far better in the long run than biting them every time.
If RIAA had embraced technology and allowed those at the time to produce mp3s of their music instead of suing them into oblivion, the outcome may have been far different (I certainly wouldn't have been boycotting them for so long.)
On the post: Apple Steps Into Patent Fight To Unnecessarily Silence A Little Girl
Re: Re:
Maybe, but I think it is more selfish than that. I believe it is more an appeal for their child when they say "won't someone think of the children" than someone else's child. You'll never hear me say it, because I don't have children. And usually the only people who I do hear it from is the self-obsessed soccer moms and the politicians that pander to them.
Things should be done to protect *all* children. In this case, Maya is a child that deserves just as much protection as everyone elses' children.
On the post: Kodak's Legacy? Arms Dealer For The Patent Wars?
Re: Re: Re: It's a Kodak Moment.
http://www.indiegogo.com/bearlovegood?a=675468
Make sure to take a picture of it first and send it to Kodak. Preferably with some of their patented technology for good measure.
On the post: Police Arrest Woman For Filming Them, Take Phone Out Of Her Bra, Claim That It Must Be Kept As 'Evidence'
Re: Good reason for something like dropbox
As much as some people hate Google+, it sure does an awesome job of uploading pictures and video to your account automatically without your consent (yes, there is a checkbox you can click to turn off this behavior.) I leave it on, because I am always losing the data on my phone (wipe and upgrade CM7,) so I don't have to worry about it. Of course, I am sure like Megaupload, Google+ will probably be on the list of sites the AC trolls want shut down, and they may have the support of the crooked cops once they discover this feature, so I probably will have to back them up to facebook and twitter too.
On the post: The DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, think, then post. It works better that way.
Most of us don't possess x-ray vision or surveillance equipment, and thus cannot confirm that the storage lockers across from us are being used to sell drugs or the the office is a fence for stolen goods. We are not supermen, unlike you claim to be, and we actually have to take someone's word. Sure, if people said, hey, there are drugs in that locker, we might move. However, the police (and I know this from personal experience,) would never shut down the locker company because drugs were present in one of the lockers. They would seize the drugs, process the locker for evidence, but shutting down the company unless the company was complicit would not be done. And if it was done, they wouldn't hold everyone's stuff hostage unless they knew that everyone was complicit and could prove so in a court of law.
On the post: The DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content
Re: Re: Re:
1) See the complaint by the Feds.
2) Google.com
That is a new definition of the word specificity I was unaware of. Thanks.
As for the other crap you said, the Supreme Court disagreed with you in the case of MPAA vs the VCR, so I will ignore you as the idiot you are.
On the post: The DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content
Re:
Please show, with specificity the following: 1) What information contained on Megaupload was in violation of the law, and 2) Where someone could go to find information on Megaupload and other sites online that will allow them to determine that the sites are questionable. The government can't seem to provide the answers to 1 in a court of law, and it is doubtful you'll even try to provide answers to either.
Many of us used Megaupload for uninfringing uses and some of us were even caught off-guard by the raid and the shutdown. Sure, the RIAA/MPAA kept saying they were evil, but the MPAA called VCRs evil and it is doubtful anyone was really listening to them (except the supersekret arm of the government who is a pawn to the international/multinational cabal.
On the post: Barnes & Noble: Ebooks Should Be Expensive So Amazon Won't Kill Us And Make Ebooks Expensive
Re: Re:
This is why the argument that Amazon will win and just raise prices is so totally bogus. If Amazon was able to put B&N out of business, and not B&N putting itself out of business by offering poor customer support and not providing the customer with a reason to buy from them, and Amazon manages to put everyone else out of business and raise the prices, someone else will come along and provide a better service (remember, it isn't always price that causes customers to buy from you, otherwise 7-Eleven and Starbucks would be out of business.) Capitalism is hard...colluding to raise the price of ebooks just to keep Amazon from running the incumbents out of business doesn't help anyone. This is the very definition of anti-trust...using the monopoly to keep out competition, where in this case the monopoly is copyright held by the publisher (they get to collude and set the price, and decide who distributes their product) and the competition is Amazon.
On the post: Barnes & Noble: Ebooks Should Be Expensive So Amazon Won't Kill Us And Make Ebooks Expensive
Re: Re: Re:
Where it becomes a problem is when monopolies are artificial, such as where government creates them due to regulation such as "intellectual property" and "franchises". Natural monopolies, where a single corporation provides a product or service and has no competition is fine, because anyone can join the party and compete, and ultimately the monopolist either stays on top or someone else comes along with a better product and they are replaced. Artificial monopolies should be illegal, but they aren't since they operate using the model of anti-trust that others are prohibited from using. Anyone should be able to compete, but in these cases competition is outlawed by the government and the result is arrogant, entitled corporations that feel that they can screw over the customer and buy regulation to keep competitors out. They have no pressure to get any better, and the market stagnates.
On the post: Barnes & Noble: Ebooks Should Be Expensive So Amazon Won't Kill Us And Make Ebooks Expensive
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not a big fan of regulation, but in this one case, this is where regulation should be used. Dicking around with the libraries should carry the death-penalty for corporations, all assets get transferred to the public domain, no last requests or a final meal, up to the gallows and be done with them. Of course, they have to stand trial and be convicted, and there is always the Microsoft escape parachute.
It is so sad that we have to keep saving them from themselves.
On the post: Barnes & Noble: Ebooks Should Be Expensive So Amazon Won't Kill Us And Make Ebooks Expensive
Re:
Monopolies aren't illegal. What you do with a monopoly may be, but a monopoly itself isn't. While capitalists hate monopolies, they are essentially a market of one competitor. There is nothing stopping another competitor from entering the market and thus destroying the monopoly. Now if the monopoly uses their position to unfairly destroy competition, then this is when it becomes illegal. Especially when you use your monopoly position in one market to attempt to gain a monopoly in another market (i.e. Microsoft using their monopoly position in the OS market to unfairly gain monopoly status in the browser market by killing off other browsers by making their OS prevent other browsers from operating on their OS.)
On the post: Barnes & Noble: Ebooks Should Be Expensive So Amazon Won't Kill Us And Make Ebooks Expensive
Re: Re:
I enjoy books in the library for free often. The trolls have no valid argument unless they wish to go against the forefathers and outlaw libraries.
On the post: Barnes & Noble: Ebooks Should Be Expensive So Amazon Won't Kill Us And Make Ebooks Expensive
Re: Stupid B&N
My jail-broken Nook is both Android and an Open Platform. I even use Kindle on it. The nook software is available and runs fine on the Nook.
On the post: TomTom Kicks Off FUD Campaign Against 'Dangerous' Open Source Mapping
Re:
I don't know how they can continue to survive. My cell phone has GPS and access to Google Maps, and does a pretty good job of telling me where to turn and what traffic is like along the route. With the exception of my trusty Vista (old school GPS) running open source firmware, which I use for hiking and biking, I have no use for a separate GPS receiver. I have a mounting bracket for my phone which I can use to display it as a GPS while I am in the car, when I need it, and with the bluetooth headset, it even talks to me as I am driving so I don't need to see it.
On the post: Filmmaker Compares Copyleft Supporters To Anti-Gay-Marriage Advocates
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't understand why people care. It is not like you are talking to us with your voice anyway. It puzzles me as well when people say that as text doesn't usually contain dialect, at least not specific dialect (except if someone asks for a pop or a soda or a Coke.)
You could speak Martian as your primary language, That Anonymous Coward. It doesn't matter to me.
On the post: Fan-Made Movie Edits: Another Cultural Loss At The Hands Of Copyright
Re:
Ask and you shall receive. But it is better to ask Google than ask us.
On the post: Not Only Can You 'Compete With Free' You Have To If You Don't Want Your Business Overrun By Piracy
Re: The Music Industry has Different Economic Underpinnings than the Publishing Industry (to Rob Reid, #43)
I must admit, I like shopping at Amazon, just as much as I like shopping at Wal-Mart so the anti-Amazon/anti-Wal-Mart folks can throw my argument out the window like they do with everyone else. I think you hit it right on the head with that statement...when you are fighting against a natural monopoly, you do so at the fringes. I go to Amazon/Wal-Mart because of the price, and I go to the market because of the convenience (because drop-shipped greens and fruit aren't very helpful or healthy.)
Vons has been delivering groceries for a while now...and at my local Vons, it seems like the only people who shop there are the ones going for last minute quick items (as am I.) Albertsons seems to be the same way. Some companies are popping up taking the fringe away from Vons/Albertsons too, Fresh and Easy is taking away their single-shopper market.
In all those cases though, there is a pressure for each company to expand their market by offering better service. It only makes things work better in the long run. You don't get that in artificial monopolies.
On the post: Not Only Can You 'Compete With Free' You Have To If You Don't Want Your Business Overrun By Piracy
Re: Re: Re:
I agree sir, but it will be because of a natural monopoly, not an artificial one that exists now. Any company can compete against Amazon, just like any company can compete against any other one. And if Amazon uses their natural monopoly illegally (to hinder their competitors, then they will have the same problem.) The prices may raise a little, but that will be because the true market has spoken, not because a company can force their will on everone else.
If the DoJ prevails, it will make it very difficult for anyone not named "Amazon" to stay in the reader market, because Amazon has the resources & the proven determination to sell books at far below cost in order to drive all other competitors out of the market.
Non DRM'd books can be read by any reader. If they use DRM to lock you into a particular reader, then they are using an unfair business practice that locks out competitors. I read ebooks on a Nook (I prefer it to Kindle, which I've played with in the past,) but I also read on my Android phone, my Android tablet, and my Linux and Windows laptops, all running different applications. DRM is the problem, without it then Amazon wouldn't be able to have its monopoly. Instead of forcing "Agency Pricing" to break up Amazon's monopoly, remove the DRM and they will be forced to compete against everyone else for their reader. Agency pricing did nothing but give the publishers an excuse to be ridiculous in their price models and remain out of touch with their customers.
So - there's a real risk that the DoJ will create an actual monopoly in the name of ... competition. And once monopolies exist, they tend not to maintain the below-cost prices that enabled them to attain that position.
Again, I agree. I hate monopolies. But the difference is that with a natural monopoly, any competitor can enter the market and give the incumbent a run for their money, even if it isn't successful. At the moment, the only person setting the price is the publisher, and there is no pressure to provide the customer what they want or to make sure the artists/author gets what they want (I am sure many authors would prefer to get a ton of purchases of their ebooks at a lower cost than a very few purchases at a much higher cost because their publisher doesn't understand economics. As it is, I prefer to buy dead tree versions and scan them in myself as it is ultimately cheaper to do this than buy the ebook that is more costly than the hardcover version of the book (and I own a lot of ebooks thanks to Baen and other booksellers, as well as cheaper Amazon books.)
On the post: When Entertainment Industry Numbers Are More Suited To Comedy Than Analysis
Re: Re:
I'd never buy a Sony branded blank DVD. Too much Spyware. I prefer unbranded or memorex, since neither has shipped out spyware/malware and called it a feature.
I know, Sony didn't release their "DRM" malware on blank CDs, but considering their anti-consumer stance on just about every product they have sold, I prefer to use a company that doesn't knife me in the back at every opportunity. Being nice to the person who hands you your food pellets is far better in the long run than biting them every time.
On the post: When Entertainment Industry Numbers Are More Suited To Comedy Than Analysis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The ethanol in my car says otherwise...but sure.
On the post: Not Only Can You 'Compete With Free' You Have To If You Don't Want Your Business Overrun By Piracy
Re: Or maybe...
I find pleasure in listening to music *while* reading an e-book, I'll have you know.
The problem is, as is mentioned above, there are legal methods of getting e-books that have been around since the first e-book reader was available. The RIAA fought, and even as late as 2008, was claiming in court that ripping a CD that you legally purchased in order to fill your mp3 player with music was against the law.
If RIAA had embraced technology and allowed those at the time to produce mp3s of their music instead of suing them into oblivion, the outcome may have been far different (I certainly wouldn't have been boycotting them for so long.)
Next >>