When they introduced touch-tone they used to add a $2/mo fee for touch-tone service. It made a modicum of sense when they were first rolling it out. But the charge continued long after it was actually more of a burden to support dial phones and well after everything was done electronically. It took a couple decades at least before that charge finally went away.
Big businesses will charge whatever they can get away with for whatever they can, and if the charges don't make sense it's up to the regulatory bodies to force them to cancel. They won't do it themselves no matter how ridiculous. And the regulatory bodies are bureaucracies, so very slow and a bit thick.
Assuming they still exist. Didn't Reagan de-regulate everything?
Ignoring US copyright law. Last time I checked the US didn't rule the world, though many of its citizens seem to think it does. And just because something is a law doesn't mean it's correct. That's why the courts are allowed to overturn laws.
"You're such a worthless slimeball, Masnick."
Oh, name-calling. Well, that convinced me that you're right! Your logic is impeccable.
And now it is time to roll back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.
As long as we mildly inconvenience a few sites that we assert are guilty, it doesn't matter how many innocents we mow down in the process of assuring the safety and well-being of all.
Due process be hanged. We are the righteous! And don't cloud the issue with inconvenient facts.
So... which laws apply, then? Is it illegal to link to non-infringing content? That must make publishing web sites pretty... exciting. Or maybe no Dutch web sites include any links at all?
Of course, maybe what you mean is that Real Alternative has been judged illegal in the Netherlands. Is there a court case you can link to? That would be interesting too. That and the fact that you're held liable for infringing content on somebody else's website.
I've been a FPS gamer for almost two decades (and I've been playing multiplayer games since 1974) and at this point due to this crap EA isn't even on my f'ing RADAR.
I'm going to use your remark as a springboard here:
"If he's saying Gamestop sells new games below cost then asks the publisher to make up the difference (then, once that is done, makes money off the resale of the used game it claims it didn't profit on initially), then he's kind of got an argument."
Depends. Is the publisher asking Gamestop for $1000 per game? $100? $10? $1? If the publisher is pricing the game too high for the market (or at least too high for Gamestop to make a profit while selling it at a marketable price) and Gamestop is adjusting for that, the lines of responsibility start to blur.
But even then, assuming you're correct, what he's saying is that Gamestop is behaving unethically regarding the initial sale -- which has nothing to do with their making profit on the used game market. It may be maddening and hypocritical, but the answer is not to try to cripple the used game market, which they have no legal or ethical control over -- it's to fix the pricing issues on the initial sale, over which they have both.
Otherwise you could take that one step further and claim that by buying the game at an artificially low price (what Gamestop is charging me) and then selling the game later, I'm a party to the same (illegal and/or unethical) act, even if I don't happen to sell the game back to Gamestop.
Sorry about Yet Another Car Analogy, but Fo... Chr... uh, hmm, GM didn't get to profit when I resold my old Nova. Krups doesn't get a cut if my coffee maker goes for $15 at a yard sale. I got a really nice used microwave for $30 once; Samsung didn't get a dime, nor did they expect to. And Sears isn't knocking at my door with a cease-and-desist (or my neighbor's) because I bought my neighbor's old router. (Wood, not network. :) A large percentage of the books in my collection were purchased from perfectly legitimate used book stores. I've been known to sell books to them. Neither Daw nor Tor nor Baen nor et.al. have been trying to shake them down that I've heard of.
If the gaming distributors have a problem with the way Gamestop is selling new games, then they should address that problem, not try to use it as an excuse to get a cut of the used game market. If they want a cut of the used game market they should set up a used game exchange. You know, like Gamestop has done.
"Of course, the publishers could just not agree to adjust Gamestop's price based on such claims of loss."
Or some other change in the arrangements, but yes. That would qualify as addressing the correct problem.
"...argued that Professor Lee was probably a hypocrite, because while he contributed to open source software, he probably wanted to get paid for his book..."
I've contributed (an admittedly minuscule amount) to open source myself, and plan to contribute more, but for some reason I expect to be paid in my day job (which is writing proprietary software and firmware).
It's astonishingly hypocritical of me and I'm deeply ashamed at taking advantage of my talents to pay the rent and feed my family instead of starving to death in a noisome gutter somewhere.
Hmm. But since this is an opinion piece, and not a court of law, the expression of his opinion -- even if it is stated as an assertion -- does not deprive anybody of due process.
Please explain that to the voices in your head. They're getting loud enough for the rest of us to hear.
The Ford Motor Company totally sues me every time I mention online that I own a Ford Focus and my last car was a Ford Taurus.
Worse yet, there are pictures in my gallery and they totally sued me for putting up pictures AND for having "Focus" in the URL.
They also totally sue Carmax every time they put a Ford up for sale on their website because it dilutes the trademark; people might think they're buying their used cars from Ford! So when I bought my redacted from redacted they couldn't actually tell me what I was buying. Because, you know, they'd totally get sued. I can't even tell you who I bought it from because they'll sue for trademark infringement if I mention I bought it at Carmax. Oops.
You don't even want to hear about GM and Chrysler.
I'm thinking of a story of an ancient, immortal race of beings (aliens far out in space from us) who created a corps of varied abilities and shapes, but with a common strong will of mind. They gave each member of the corps a device to wear that distilled and concentrated this power of will. Not magic, merely technology far advanced beyond our own.
Any comic fan or recent movie-goer will doubtless recognize this description of the Green Lantern, yes?
No. I was talking about the Lensmen series written by E. E. "Doc" Smith back in the '30s and '40s, some of the earliest space opera (and origin of a lot of science fiction ideas that have been copied so often they're now terribly cliché).
Seems to me that Warner has just done a movie that's a story that's been recycled twice.
This is the kind of "originality" we've been legislating protection for, that copyright apologists insist must be protected from other people "stealing" them.
For the record, this similarity has been noted in Wikipedia, and apparently the originators of the Green Lantern deny having read the Lensman books. It's possible they were influenced indirectly, or that they really thought it up independently. Any science fiction aficionado (or anybody who reads, or pays attention to what happens in real life!) is going to pick up a lot of ideas either way. While this does mean part of my argument could be technically incorrect, it doesn't really invalidate it. In fact, the fact that they may have been influenced indirectly makes it stronger -- such ideas become part of the culture that storytellers build on. Come to that, it's quite possible that Edward Smith found his inspiration in the same or similar places as Schwartz and Broome.
If this had happened this decade, under the current laws and litigious culture, would Edward Elmer Smith have sued DC Comics... and won? In spite of the fact that they apparently didn't actually copy the basic elements of his story, but came up with them independently?
On the post: Feds Raid Gibson; Musicians Now Worried The Gov't Will Take Their Guitars Away
Re:
I mean, it's not like you could hear the difference, and it's not as though wood were a renewable resource like plastic.
On the post: AT&T Takes A Lesson From Banks: Will Now Charge You For Not Using Enough Long Distance
Long history
Big businesses will charge whatever they can get away with for whatever they can, and if the charges don't make sense it's up to the regulatory bodies to force them to cancel. They won't do it themselves no matter how ridiculous. And the regulatory bodies are bureaucracies, so very slow and a bit thick.
Assuming they still exist. Didn't Reagan de-regulate everything?
On the post: Brazil Looks To Criminalize Ripping A CD?
Re:
Ignoring US copyright law. Last time I checked the US didn't rule the world, though many of its citizens seem to think it does. And just because something is a law doesn't mean it's correct. That's why the courts are allowed to overturn laws.
"You're such a worthless slimeball, Masnick."
Oh, name-calling. Well, that convinced me that you're right! Your logic is impeccable.
And now it is time to roll back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.
On the post: DailyDirt: Ancient Food
;)
On the post: Paul Vixie Explains How PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet
Acceptable collateral damage
Due process be hanged. We are the righteous! And don't cloud the issue with inconvenient facts.
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re:
Of course, maybe what you mean is that Real Alternative has been judged illegal in the Netherlands. Is there a court case you can link to? That would be interesting too. That and the fact that you're held liable for infringing content on somebody else's website.
On the post: EA's Origin Service Wants To Exchange Games For Your Personal Data [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: punkbuster
On the post: Jay-Z & Kanye Accused Of Infringement... On Album They Worked So Hard To Stop From Leaking
Re: Re: Aha!
On the post: US Copyright Group Lawsuits Based On Highly Questionable Evidence
Re: Re: Re:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gray
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gre y
...it looks like grey is considered an alternate spelling for gray.
On the post: Court Slams Righthaven (Again); Refuses To Let It Back Into Democratic Underground Case
At what point does persistence become dogged stupidity?
Two days after the heat death of the universe, about 4:30 in the afternoon.
On the post: More Misplaced Hatred For The Used Games Market
Re:
"If he's saying Gamestop sells new games below cost then asks the publisher to make up the difference (then, once that is done, makes money off the resale of the used game it claims it didn't profit on initially), then he's kind of got an argument."
Depends. Is the publisher asking Gamestop for $1000 per game? $100? $10? $1? If the publisher is pricing the game too high for the market (or at least too high for Gamestop to make a profit while selling it at a marketable price) and Gamestop is adjusting for that, the lines of responsibility start to blur.
But even then, assuming you're correct, what he's saying is that Gamestop is behaving unethically regarding the initial sale -- which has nothing to do with their making profit on the used game market. It may be maddening and hypocritical, but the answer is not to try to cripple the used game market, which they have no legal or ethical control over -- it's to fix the pricing issues on the initial sale, over which they have both.
Otherwise you could take that one step further and claim that by buying the game at an artificially low price (what Gamestop is charging me) and then selling the game later, I'm a party to the same (illegal and/or unethical) act, even if I don't happen to sell the game back to Gamestop.
Sorry about Yet Another Car Analogy, but Fo... Chr... uh, hmm, GM didn't get to profit when I resold my old Nova. Krups doesn't get a cut if my coffee maker goes for $15 at a yard sale. I got a really nice used microwave for $30 once; Samsung didn't get a dime, nor did they expect to. And Sears isn't knocking at my door with a cease-and-desist (or my neighbor's) because I bought my neighbor's old router. (Wood, not network. :) A large percentage of the books in my collection were purchased from perfectly legitimate used book stores. I've been known to sell books to them. Neither Daw nor Tor nor Baen nor et.al. have been trying to shake them down that I've heard of.
If the gaming distributors have a problem with the way Gamestop is selling new games, then they should address that problem, not try to use it as an excuse to get a cut of the used game market. If they want a cut of the used game market they should set up a used game exchange. You know, like Gamestop has done.
"Of course, the publishers could just not agree to adjust Gamestop's price based on such claims of loss."
Or some other change in the arrangements, but yes. That would qualify as addressing the correct problem.
On the post: Debate On Software Patents Fails To Convince Silicon Valley That Patents Increase Innovation
Drat, I'm a hypocrite too
I've contributed (an admittedly minuscule amount) to open source myself, and plan to contribute more, but for some reason I expect to be paid in my day job (which is writing proprietary software and firmware).
It's astonishingly hypocritical of me and I'm deeply ashamed at taking advantage of my talents to pay the rent and feed my family instead of starving to death in a noisome gutter somewhere.
On the post: Case That Righthaven Had 'Won' By Default Now Dismissed For Lack Of Standing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Errors
On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please explain that to the voices in your head. They're getting loud enough for the rest of us to hear.
On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal
Re: Re: Re: No credit for submission?
On the post: Newspaper Claims Satirical Blogger Mentioning Its Name Is Trademark Infringement
Did I mention I own a Ford?
Worse yet, there are pictures in my gallery and they totally sued me for putting up pictures AND for having "Focus" in the URL.
They also totally sue Carmax every time they put a Ford up for sale on their website because it dilutes the trademark; people might think they're buying their used cars from Ford! So when I bought my redacted from redacted they couldn't actually tell me what I was buying. Because, you know, they'd totally get sued. I can't even tell you who I bought it from because they'll sue for trademark infringement if I mention I bought it at Carmax. Oops.
You don't even want to hear about GM and Chrysler.
P.S. This was totally a parody.
On the post: Why Are We Letting An Obsolete Gatekeeper Drive The Debate On Anything?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any comic fan or recent movie-goer will doubtless recognize this description of the Green Lantern, yes?
No. I was talking about the Lensmen series written by E. E. "Doc" Smith back in the '30s and '40s, some of the earliest space opera (and origin of a lot of science fiction ideas that have been copied so often they're now terribly cliché).
Seems to me that Warner has just done a movie that's a story that's been recycled twice.
This is the kind of "originality" we've been legislating protection for, that copyright apologists insist must be protected from other people "stealing" them.
For the record, this similarity has been noted in Wikipedia, and apparently the originators of the Green Lantern deny having read the Lensman books. It's possible they were influenced indirectly, or that they really thought it up independently. Any science fiction aficionado (or anybody who reads, or pays attention to what happens in real life!) is going to pick up a lot of ideas either way. While this does mean part of my argument could be technically incorrect, it doesn't really invalidate it. In fact, the fact that they may have been influenced indirectly makes it stronger -- such ideas become part of the culture that storytellers build on. Come to that, it's quite possible that Edward Smith found his inspiration in the same or similar places as Schwartz and Broome.
If this had happened this decade, under the current laws and litigious culture, would Edward Elmer Smith have sued DC Comics... and won? In spite of the fact that they apparently didn't actually copy the basic elements of his story, but came up with them independently?
On the post: Why Are We Letting An Obsolete Gatekeeper Drive The Debate On Anything?
Re: Re:
;)
On the post: Author Says eBooks Will Hurt Authors Because Of Royalty Rates
Re: Never buying an EBOOK KRAP
Your view appears to be somewhat egocentric -- e-books may be useless to you, but that doesn't mean they're useless to everybody.
Next >>