WooHoo time to open up that CPO market and run this economy into the ground
After seeing the huge success in the financial market (for those running the market, not the millions of suckers who got shafted in the recent recession), the patent market is looking ripe for a similar plundering.
Lets take lots of little 'patent objects' and we can collateralize them into large marketable objects (CPO's - Collateralized Patent Objects), we can then get one of the ratings agencies to slap a AAA rating on them (I mean they are patents, they have to be valuable right?) by threatening them with a patent infringement lawsuit (someone's got a patent that's close enough to their rating algorithms that we can threaten to tie them up in court for ages). Once we have the objects and the ratings, then we can start selling the worthless pieces of crap to unsuspecting 'investors' who think they actually have a chance of getting paid.....
It's sad, but right now some patent troll out there is thinking, "Why the hell didn't I come up with that idea?" and trying to figure out how they could do it (Intellectual Ventures anyone???)... Obligatory 'my tinfoil hat is a little tight today' for those who don't realize that this is intended as sarcasm... or is it now?
Time to patent the method of safely ingesting dihydrogen monoxide
Looks like time for a patent on a method of safely ingesting dihydrogen monoxide, along with a patent of testing for the presence of dihydrogen monoxide.
Or how about a patent on the method of obstructing standard scientific progress with unnecessary and irrelevant patent licensing standards.
At least we don't have 'database' patents yet, or one of these greedy companies would dump all the current drug info into a single database, patent it, then sue any other company who tried to even USE the name of an existing drug. And don't even think about it, I'm patenting this method so that when database patents are allowed in the US, I can sue all those greedy companies and make my fortune....
So then newspapers aren't in trouble right? And they don't need any government bailout, since their online presence is doing so well.
Who cares if they are lying to themselves, what they are saying is that they don't have any problem operating online... SO LET THEM....
Let them put up paywalls and monetize all their online traffic (which is apparently 10x larger than their print editions). Here we were thinking newspapers were failing and in need of a new business model, when really they just need to monetize their existing traffic.
Someone needs to get this info to Obama quick.... Newspapers are FINE, their online readership is on average 10 times their printed edition, so there is no need for government intervention to save 'reporting'.
The reason tickets are often on sale before the event is that many ticket scalpers are becoming ticket speculators. As an example, I heard about a comedian coming to our area and wanted to get tickets, I went direct to the venue and followed their links to find tickets, but the only tickets I found were high priced and the seat/rows didn't really match up with the venue seating chart. This was something my wife and friends really wanted to go to, so I went ahead and purchased the lowest priced tickets (4 tickets at $89 each + $16 fee) that said they were in section C row 14. The next week the venue actually released the tickets for sale (they weren't officially on sale when I purchased them from the scalper... not knowing it was a scalper), so I received 3 $41.50 face value tickets (in section 6 row 13 or something, but not the tickets I had purchased online), and the receipt showing they had purchased 4 tickets for $208 (total with fees). Yes they mistakenly sent me the receipt rather then the 4th ticket... Word of warning to all you ticket scalpers out there, if you expect to make a %100 profit, you better at least deliver what your customer orders, or you give them easy legal means to void the sale.
So not only did this 'scalper' expect to make over a %100 markup, they didn't even bother to provide the tickets that they had agreed to sell me (and there was NO communication until I told them to void the sale and refund my money, one automated 3-mail, then the 3 tickets and receipt in a fed ex envelope with no other material). I canceled the order and got my tickets directly from the venue, but this is just one example of how worthless these 'middlemen' are. They can't even put 4 tickets in an envelope when they are expecting to get paid over $200 for it..... (the original order cost me $426 for $208 worth of tickets...)
Consumer Lobby..... great idea..... I'm going to patent it ;)
"One more evidence that "We the Consumers of the United States" need bigger and stronger consumer rights lobby in the Congress!"
Since lobbying is all about the money, we should stand up and make ourselves heard by creating an actual Consumer Lobbying group and buying our own laws. If consumers united and each donated a dollar a year, we would have some significant 'seed' money to start bribing, er, lobbying our government officials.
There are a lot more of us (consumers) than there are of them (RIAA, MPAA, etc), even though they appear to have deeper pockets, that's only due to us buying their products in the first place. Imagine being able to 'donate' .05 for each iTunes purchase and have it go to 'fighting the power', something at checkout, "Would you like to help fund consumer rights organization in an attempt to 'buy back' our culture from the evil MAFIA overlords by contributing .05 per song purchased?" (but worded a little better).
I think I need to patent this idea (collecting money from consumers and buying laws that favor consumers over existing industry monopolies), then I can start suing when someone actually takes the idea and runs with it (this is the new American way, right? Idea, do nothing, Sue, Profit.
The problems is that it's not the ARTISTS who believe that they should be getting paid, it's the collection societies (who don't pay all the artists anyway) who think they should be getting paid.
Nice to meet my larger anonymous mammalian counterpart....
I think he meant, Lawyers see a check for their date. So either it's all a game, or it's all about the money (in reality it's probably both to most of them, altruism has been dead in the Judicial system for years).
How can they distribute 200% and still operate as a non profit?
I reviewed some of the 'material' linked to, and the first thing that I noticed is that they can't even do basic math..
"BMI considers payments to songwriters or composers and to publishers as a single unit equal to 200%."
200% of what? How do you distribute 200% of what you collected and still have anything left to operate on UNLESS you don't actually pay everyone who should be receiving a payment? If I collect $10 from 10 people, I have $100, now if I want to distribute 200% to those same people, I can do that for the first 5 people(who would receive $20), the next 5 would receive nothing (and there would be no money left to operate the non-profit), based on this 'simple' math it's pretty easy to see that they are not paying everyone they should (especially at their inflated 200% level) or they would be bankrupt.
So their own material basically explains how they collect from everyone and then distribute 200% to some of the people who they collected on behalf of (if they paid everyone they were supposed to at these rates, they would be bankrupt).
I'm sure some shill will come along to explain how this is all 'for the artists' (they just don't specify that it's 'for the top 200 artists').
"I would speculate these employees may know exactly what's wrong with the code in order to take it to begin with."
I would go a step farther and say that perhaps these two are the ones who were 'encouraged' to break the code in the specified manner in order to get it to do what ES&S wanted it to do (Dropped votes, misplaced votes, phantom votes.... these sound like designed 'features' to me). Nothing pisses off a programmer more than taking the excellent work they did and asking them to 'break' it in specific ways. Perhaps these two got tired of all the crap and decided to take their code so they could clean it up to do what it was intended to do, not what ES&S Twisted it into.
What better way to shut them up then to drop them and file suit against them. If they did stand up and say ES&S made us write 'buggy' code on purpose, who would believe them now?
Or perhaps my tinfoil hat is just a little tight today....
Re: Going to get my Professional Journalsim license.....
Great, which self regulating body do I go to get my 'Professional Journalism license'?
OH what's that you say? There is no self regulating body for Journalism, yet you continue to compare them to Medical/Legal professionals. Epic fail shill. Better luck next time.
Some patents are useful and do help to 'promote the progress', but many many more are totally bogus junk that does nothing except prevent progress (unless you pay the trolls to license their patents).
To give an example that might make more sense in your industry, lets imagine that someone was given a patent on 'using 3 ingredients to produce a chemical product' (this is similar in theory to the 'using 3 knowledge bases' patent that was discussed recently here). Would that make any sense in your industry? Would it be 'non-obvious' to one skilled in the arts? Or would it just be a big 'roadblock' to producing things?
Most people don't have a problem with specific unique patents in certain industries, what they have problems with are the generic obvious combination of existing idea patents that seem to get approved like they were reviewed by a blind monkey on crack with rubber stamp, rather than a human patent 'officer' (no disrespect intended to blind monkeys on crack).
Oh well, time to patent 'thinking before opening one's mouth', but I guess I wouldn't really be able to enforce that one against anyone, since nobody uses common sense these days anyway.
But I didn't 'make it available' I just downloaded 1000 copies, then gave them away....
So they are trying to claim that they put out a 'free movie' and it's okay for person A to get a copy, and for person B to come and get a copy, but it's not ok for person A to take two copies and give one to person B?
To use the store 'free sample' example, there is a table full of free samples and an IMPLIED 'Please take only one', so I come and get a sample, no problem, my friend comes and gets a sample, also no problem, then my neighbor comes over and picks up 2 samples so he can give one to his friend.... BAM he's arrested for Theft (or accused of infringement in the article). If the "please take one only" is implied and not stated anywhere, how can they expect it to be legally enforced? Oh that's right it's extortion so it doesn't need to be legal, they just have to get away with it...
How can they be sure that I didn't download 2 copies and give one to my friend which should be perfectly legal (rather than making him a copy of my copy.... which is apparently infringement according to them) when verbal semantics make this much difference in the situation, things are definitely FUBAR.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: these musicians want their cake and to eat it too
Or that the government has never come in and said, "Well you guys did such a crappy job running your company with all that contracted debt you rolled over and over.... Here's a couple billion, try not to screw up so bad next time".
Oh that's right, that only happens for the 'mega-corps' who are 'too big to fail'... So we learn that contracts need to be honored, UNLESS you are bigger than the other party OR you just really screwed up so bad that you can't honor the contract, then you get free money from the government...
Growing up to be such GREAT Politicians aren't they....
"In fact, 1/3 of all UK youth in this group reported and admitted to binge drinking in one study. High school graduation rates are poor, unemployment is high, acts of vandalism, petty theft, and drug consumption are all at or near the all time high."
Sounds like this is the group that's headed into Politics when they grow up, and they are just trying to get a head start on all the illegal and immoral activity and get some practice at 'spinning' things when they do get caught (since we know they will, and they will just get out of it).
Their parents should be so proud, they are going to be great little politicians some day.... suppressing their constituants, pissing on peoples rights, squandering the governments resources, and then bitching about how they did 'everything they could' to help out....
"Parental Controls" = Censoring..... for a limited audience
Not to get into the whole who did what side of things, but just the fact that Apple said that this app need "Parental Controls" (ie Censoring) means that they are saying it needs to be censored.
Now their claim may have been that it only needed to be censored for minors, but lets cut out the semantic games and admit that Apple told the developer that their App needed to be Censored (they may have said that it needed to wait for their 'parental controls' which is just another form of censoring, but it is censoring the app). The fact that the developer decided to censor the words on their own (since Apple indicated that they would before they would allow the app) doesn't mean that Apple wasn't the one responsible for the Censoring.
The corporations paid BAZILLIONS to our 'elected' stooges to get the laws they wanted passed, is anyone really surprised with the result? It all starts at the top, if the top doesn't want to change, things won't change (and if you haven't figured it out yet, Corporations are currently the 'top' in the US).
Our new president (at the Univ I work at, not the US Pres) had a great quote about his view of the role of university staff, "The role of the staff is to advance the university within existing rules and to lobby on behalf of the university to change the rules that make it difficult for the institution to achieve it's mission. The goal is not to constrain progress, but rather to facilitate it."
For the first time in many years I actually have a small glimmer of hope that things may actually get better around here (they are going to get worse first, but that's just life, we all deal with it). If only this attitude would catch on a little more, I mean it's not like our country was founded by individuals who rejected the heavy handed laws of the time or anything, right?
Oh wait, that's right we as a nation started out as a group of people who rejected the laws we didn't agree with and so we set out to make things better.... where oh where did we get so far off the mark?
Re:Ash - If I have a Hammer, I'll Hammer in the morning
Nice analogy Ash, based on your statements, you apparently also consider a Hammer as an incentive to create, right?
I mean if you want to do create the same thing creating, but I'm standing here with a big hammer threatening to hit you on the head if you do, then you are going to create something different, right? Great incentive...
Is that really what you would consider an incentive? If so get me your contact info, I'd like to give you a few incentives to buy a bridge I've been looking to get rid of for quite a while now.....
If their university IT staff is anything like most, then it would have done no good to report this 'issue', as there would be no reason for IT to do anything about it (security through obscurity is alive and well in most Univ IT operations). One student complaining about a potential security weakness would be seen as the enemy rather than as a messenger, and speaking from personal experience, IT loves to shoot the messenger (if nobody can hear the message, then there isn't really a problem, right.... it's that whole head in the sand mentality.... if nobody talks about the 500lb pink elephant in the middle of the room, then it's not really there and it doesn't have to be dealt with).
I agree that his methods were questionable, and his intent may have been debatable, but he didn't actually DO anything wrong, other than accessing the University IT system in a way that IT didn't intend (if they knew about the weakness and did nothing to prevent it they they are as responsible as he was and should be held accountable, if they didn't know about the weakness, then they are bunch of clueless monkeys flinging poo at the wall (bad hacker broke into our super secure system, nobody should be able to do that because we covered it in poo...) and hoping some of it sticks...)
And I'm off with a quote:
They say that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. Nowhere is this more clear than University IT. - Unknown
"To recognize the proposed exemption would surely discourage any content provider from entering the marketplace for online distribution... unless it was committed to do so... forever."
This would mean that we can't continue to sell the same product over and over in different 'formats' simply by changing the current DRM system being used. We would have to actually WORK instead of just collecting for selling the the same product over and over FOREVER.
"This would not be good for consumers, who would find a marketplace with less innovation and fewer choices and options."
Consumers would be able to actually USE the things we already sold them, even after we intentionally disabled them via closing DRM Servers, this would mean that the consumer wouldn't need to repurchase the same product in a new DRM wrapper, thus eliminating their need for our innovative new DRM models. We're still working on perfecting the DRM that charges the user every time they THINK about our products, LOOK at our products, or even TOUCH one of our products, and until then we need to continue to roll out and then close new DRM Schemes so that we can continue to charge customers for the products they already own.
On the post: Lily Allen, Don't Apologize To Me, Apologize To Everyone Else
Re: Commentors just don't understand..
On the post: Bad Ideas: Trying To Build Patent Marketplaces
WooHoo time to open up that CPO market and run this economy into the ground
Lets take lots of little 'patent objects' and we can collateralize them into large marketable objects (CPO's - Collateralized Patent Objects), we can then get one of the ratings agencies to slap a AAA rating on them (I mean they are patents, they have to be valuable right?) by threatening them with a patent infringement lawsuit (someone's got a patent that's close enough to their rating algorithms that we can threaten to tie them up in court for ages). Once we have the objects and the ratings, then we can start selling the worthless pieces of crap to unsuspecting 'investors' who think they actually have a chance of getting paid.....
It's sad, but right now some patent troll out there is thinking, "Why the hell didn't I come up with that idea?" and trying to figure out how they could do it (Intellectual Ventures anyone???)... Obligatory 'my tinfoil hat is a little tight today' for those who don't realize that this is intended as sarcasm... or is it now?
On the post: Appeals Court Says Patenting Basic Medical Diagnostic Process Is Just Fine
Time to patent the method of safely ingesting dihydrogen monoxide
Or how about a patent on the method of obstructing standard scientific progress with unnecessary and irrelevant patent licensing standards.
At least we don't have 'database' patents yet, or one of these greedy companies would dump all the current drug info into a single database, patent it, then sue any other company who tried to even USE the name of an existing drug. And don't even think about it, I'm patenting this method so that when database patents are allowed in the US, I can sue all those greedy companies and make my fortune....
On the post: The Lies Newspapers Tell Themselves About Their Traffic
So then newspapers aren't in trouble right? And they don't need any government bailout, since their online presence is doing so well.
Let them put up paywalls and monetize all their online traffic (which is apparently 10x larger than their print editions). Here we were thinking newspapers were failing and in need of a new business model, when really they just need to monetize their existing traffic.
Someone needs to get this info to Obama quick.... Newspapers are FINE, their online readership is on average 10 times their printed edition, so there is no need for government intervention to save 'reporting'.
On the post: Ticketmaster Trying To Cut Down On Scalpers... Or Increase Fee Collection For Itself?
Ticket Scalpers have become Ticket Speculators
So not only did this 'scalper' expect to make over a %100 markup, they didn't even bother to provide the tickets that they had agreed to sell me (and there was NO communication until I told them to void the sale and refund my money, one automated 3-mail, then the 3 tickets and receipt in a fed ex envelope with no other material). I canceled the order and got my tickets directly from the venue, but this is just one example of how worthless these 'middlemen' are. They can't even put 4 tickets in an envelope when they are expecting to get paid over $200 for it..... (the original order cost me $426 for $208 worth of tickets...)
On the post: ASCAP, BMI Demanding Payment For 30 Second Previews At Web Stores
Consumer Lobby..... great idea..... I'm going to patent it ;)
Since lobbying is all about the money, we should stand up and make ourselves heard by creating an actual Consumer Lobbying group and buying our own laws. If consumers united and each donated a dollar a year, we would have some significant 'seed' money to start bribing, er, lobbying our government officials.
There are a lot more of us (consumers) than there are of them (RIAA, MPAA, etc), even though they appear to have deeper pockets, that's only due to us buying their products in the first place. Imagine being able to 'donate' .05 for each iTunes purchase and have it go to 'fighting the power', something at checkout, "Would you like to help fund consumer rights organization in an attempt to 'buy back' our culture from the evil MAFIA overlords by contributing .05 per song purchased?" (but worded a little better).
I think I need to patent this idea (collecting money from consumers and buying laws that favor consumers over existing industry monopolies), then I can start suing when someone actually takes the idea and runs with it (this is the new American way, right? Idea, do nothing, Sue, Profit.
Just kidding (or am I????)
On the post: ASCAP, BMI Demanding Payment For 30 Second Previews At Web Stores
Re: I have the solution...
Nice to meet my larger anonymous mammalian counterpart....
On the post: Jurors Required To Sign Promises Not To Google Details Of Case
Re: Fixed that for you
I think he meant, Lawyers see a check for their date. So either it's all a game, or it's all about the money (in reality it's probably both to most of them, altruism has been dead in the Judicial system for years).
On the post: How Performing Rights Groups Funnel Money To Top Acts And Ignore Smaller Acts
How can they distribute 200% and still operate as a non profit?
"BMI considers payments to songwriters or composers and to publishers as a single unit equal to 200%."
200% of what? How do you distribute 200% of what you collected and still have anything left to operate on UNLESS you don't actually pay everyone who should be receiving a payment? If I collect $10 from 10 people, I have $100, now if I want to distribute 200% to those same people, I can do that for the first 5 people(who would receive $20), the next 5 would receive nothing (and there would be no money left to operate the non-profit), based on this 'simple' math it's pretty easy to see that they are not paying everyone they should (especially at their inflated 200% level) or they would be bankrupt.
So their own material basically explains how they collect from everyone and then distribute 200% to some of the people who they collected on behalf of (if they paid everyone they were supposed to at these rates, they would be bankrupt).
I'm sure some shill will come along to explain how this is all 'for the artists' (they just don't specify that it's 'for the top 200 artists').
On the post: ES&S Sues Former Workers Over Taking Buggy, Vulnerability-Filled Code
I'm with Miles
I would go a step farther and say that perhaps these two are the ones who were 'encouraged' to break the code in the specified manner in order to get it to do what ES&S wanted it to do (Dropped votes, misplaced votes, phantom votes.... these sound like designed 'features' to me). Nothing pisses off a programmer more than taking the excellent work they did and asking them to 'break' it in specific ways. Perhaps these two got tired of all the crap and decided to take their code so they could clean it up to do what it was intended to do, not what ES&S Twisted it into.
What better way to shut them up then to drop them and file suit against them. If they did stand up and say ES&S made us write 'buggy' code on purpose, who would believe them now?
Or perhaps my tinfoil hat is just a little tight today....
On the post: That Story About Warner Music Paying For A Rappers' PhD? Well... Not So Much
Re: Going to get my Professional Journalsim license.....
OH what's that you say? There is no self regulating body for Journalism, yet you continue to compare them to Medical/Legal professionals. Epic fail shill. Better luck next time.
On the post: Commerce Secretary, New USPTO Head Suggesting They Want More Patents, Approved Faster
Re: Dave's comment
To give an example that might make more sense in your industry, lets imagine that someone was given a patent on 'using 3 ingredients to produce a chemical product' (this is similar in theory to the 'using 3 knowledge bases' patent that was discussed recently here). Would that make any sense in your industry? Would it be 'non-obvious' to one skilled in the arts? Or would it just be a big 'roadblock' to producing things?
Most people don't have a problem with specific unique patents in certain industries, what they have problems with are the generic obvious combination of existing idea patents that seem to get approved like they were reviewed by a blind monkey on crack with rubber stamp, rather than a human patent 'officer' (no disrespect intended to blind monkeys on crack).
Oh well, time to patent 'thinking before opening one's mouth', but I guess I wouldn't really be able to enforce that one against anyone, since nobody uses common sense these days anyway.
On the post: Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files Just To Find People To Demand Settlement Money From
But I didn't 'make it available' I just downloaded 1000 copies, then gave them away....
To use the store 'free sample' example, there is a table full of free samples and an IMPLIED 'Please take only one', so I come and get a sample, no problem, my friend comes and gets a sample, also no problem, then my neighbor comes over and picks up 2 samples so he can give one to his friend.... BAM he's arrested for Theft (or accused of infringement in the article). If the "please take one only" is implied and not stated anywhere, how can they expect it to be legally enforced? Oh that's right it's extortion so it doesn't need to be legal, they just have to get away with it...
How can they be sure that I didn't download 2 copies and give one to my friend which should be perfectly legal (rather than making him a copy of my copy.... which is apparently infringement according to them) when verbal semantics make this much difference in the situation, things are definitely FUBAR.
On the post: Why Are RIAA Supporters So Scared Of What Actual Musicians Think?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: these musicians want their cake and to eat it too
Oh that's right, that only happens for the 'mega-corps' who are 'too big to fail'... So we learn that contracts need to be honored, UNLESS you are bigger than the other party OR you just really screwed up so bad that you can't honor the contract, then you get free money from the government...
On the post: New Study States The Obvious: Kids Download A Lot Of Music
Growing up to be such GREAT Politicians aren't they....
Sounds like this is the group that's headed into Politics when they grow up, and they are just trying to get a head start on all the illegal and immoral activity and get some practice at 'spinning' things when they do get caught (since we know they will, and they will just get out of it).
Their parents should be so proud, they are going to be great little politicians some day.... suppressing their constituants, pissing on peoples rights, squandering the governments resources, and then bitching about how they did 'everything they could' to help out....
NOT
On the post: Apple Now Censoring A Dictionary iPhone App?
"Parental Controls" = Censoring..... for a limited audience
Now their claim may have been that it only needed to be censored for minors, but lets cut out the semantic games and admit that Apple told the developer that their App needed to be Censored (they may have said that it needed to wait for their 'parental controls' which is just another form of censoring, but it is censoring the app). The fact that the developer decided to censor the words on their own (since Apple indicated that they would before they would allow the app) doesn't mean that Apple wasn't the one responsible for the Censoring.
On the post: No Freedom To Tinker: Arrested For Modding Legally Purchased Game Consoles
Wake up and grow a pair people....
Our new president (at the Univ I work at, not the US Pres) had a great quote about his view of the role of university staff, "The role of the staff is to advance the university within existing rules and to lobby on behalf of the university to change the rules that make it difficult for the institution to achieve it's mission. The goal is not to constrain progress, but rather to facilitate it."
For the first time in many years I actually have a small glimmer of hope that things may actually get better around here (they are going to get worse first, but that's just life, we all deal with it). If only this attitude would catch on a little more, I mean it's not like our country was founded by individuals who rejected the heavy handed laws of the time or anything, right?
Oh wait, that's right we as a nation started out as a group of people who rejected the laws we didn't agree with and so we set out to make things better.... where oh where did we get so far off the mark?
On the post: Famed Choreographer Dies... Intellectual Property Lawyers Take Over?
Re:Ash - If I have a Hammer, I'll Hammer in the morning
I mean if you want to do create the same thing creating, but I'm standing here with a big hammer threatening to hit you on the head if you do, then you are going to create something different, right? Great incentive...
Is that really what you would consider an incentive? If so get me your contact info, I'd like to give you a few incentives to buy a bridge I've been looking to get rid of for quite a while now.....
sheesh, some people children just never learn.
/sarcasm off
On the post: Charges Dropped Against Student Who Alerted University To Security Flaws
Univ IT = bunch of monkeys flinging poo
I agree that his methods were questionable, and his intent may have been debatable, but he didn't actually DO anything wrong, other than accessing the University IT system in a way that IT didn't intend (if they knew about the weakness and did nothing to prevent it they they are as responsible as he was and should be held accountable, if they didn't know about the weakness, then they are bunch of clueless monkeys flinging poo at the wall (bad hacker broke into our super secure system, nobody should be able to do that because we covered it in poo...) and hoping some of it sticks...)
And I'm off with a quote:
They say that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. Nowhere is this more clear than University IT. - Unknown
On the post: Hollywood Still Thinks That The Industry Needs DRM
Translation...
This would mean that we can't continue to sell the same product over and over in different 'formats' simply by changing the current DRM system being used. We would have to actually WORK instead of just collecting for selling the the same product over and over FOREVER.
"This would not be good for consumers, who would find a marketplace with less innovation and fewer choices and options."
Consumers would be able to actually USE the things we already sold them, even after we intentionally disabled them via closing DRM Servers, this would mean that the consumer wouldn't need to repurchase the same product in a new DRM wrapper, thus eliminating their need for our innovative new DRM models. We're still working on perfecting the DRM that charges the user every time they THINK about our products, LOOK at our products, or even TOUCH one of our products, and until then we need to continue to roll out and then close new DRM Schemes so that we can continue to charge customers for the products they already own.
Next >>