Basically, Wiley's representatives are arguing that First Sale DOES NOT APPLY to Kirtsaeng because of a modifier on the phrase "Lawfully made" from 1976.
And yet, these same companies claim billions in tax rebates on a yearly basis and often declare multi-billion-dollar profits...and yet they STILL whine about people doing things that are pretty much legal.
Funny how those many billions of tax dollars are funnelled through similar loopholes as Kirtsaeng used, but nothing. Zip, Nada, Zilch and Bupkis called. They want their standards back.
Re: Doesn't matter (even though you're probably right)
To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence:
"When the elected become corrupt, when the land falls to Tyranny, it the the American's right, nay, their duty, to overthrow their Government and start from the beginning."
There is no such thing as anti-terrorism. There is only State-sanctioned terrorism and non-State-sanctioned terrorism. The US has a massive amount of the former, whereas Afghanistan has more of the latter.
"Hobbit" as a term, has been in fairly common use for a good while (for example, in the Witch Trials of 1612, there were mentions of "hobbits"). It's entirely possible that Tolkein didn't read the Denham Tracts, but I wouldn't say it was certain.
Re: Why price discrimination for music and software makes sense
Whilst I appreciate where you're coming from, I have to disagree - for example, the Humble Bundles help raise money for both developers and charities. Moreover, if the service is good and you listen to your fans, then you can drop some of the cost (especially if you make your money back, a lá Anmesia) and you can sell to considerably more people at the lower price point.
This is especiually relevant when there's a time-economic involved. For example, let's say you have only 5 hours of freew time in a week. Now, you can spend all that time just listening to music OR you can spend that time watching TV OR you can play video games. I'd find it highly unlikely that you could do all three simultaneously and enjoy the experience.
Also, you bring up a valid point with regards to ouponing and loss-leaders.
On the post: Bulgarian Banks Try To Silence Web Site That Called Them 'Bad Apples'
Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Will Decide If You Actually Own What You've Bought
Re: Transcript posted
Basically, Wiley's representatives are arguing that First Sale DOES NOT APPLY to Kirtsaeng because of a modifier on the phrase "Lawfully made" from 1976.
On the post: Supreme Court Will Decide If You Actually Own What You've Bought
Re: Re: Re:
Funny how those many billions of tax dollars are funnelled through similar loopholes as Kirtsaeng used, but nothing. Zip, Nada, Zilch and Bupkis called. They want their standards back.
On the post: Washington Post: Yes, We Need To Give Up Liberty For Security
Re: Doesn't matter (even though you're probably right)
"When the elected become corrupt, when the land falls to Tyranny, it the the American's right, nay, their duty, to overthrow their Government and start from the beginning."
On the post: Supreme Court Will Decide If You Actually Own What You've Bought
Re: Re:
On the post: Washington Post: Yes, We Need To Give Up Liberty For Security
Re: You make a good point about priorities
There is no such thing as anti-terrorism. There is only State-sanctioned terrorism and non-State-sanctioned terrorism. The US has a massive amount of the former, whereas Afghanistan has more of the latter.
On the post: Washington Post: Yes, We Need To Give Up Liberty For Security
Re: The "Naive Mike" makes an appearance.
On the post: Another NYPD Terrorist 'Investigation' Turns Up Nothing But Privacy Invasions And Rights Erosion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Death by Refridgerator!
On the post: Supreme Court Will Decide If You Actually Own What You've Bought
Re: What will be this ruling's applicability?
On the post: Supreme Court Will Decide If You Actually Own What You've Bought
Re:
On the post: Another NYPD Terrorist 'Investigation' Turns Up Nothing But Privacy Invasions And Rights Erosion
On the post: Despite No One Wanting It To, ITU Seeks To Butt In On Patent Issues Too
Re:
On the post: Copyright: The New Mercantilism
Re:
...Back yet? Good.
Imaginary Property laws are the very definition of mercantilist behaviours.
On the post: Copyright: The New Mercantilism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Apparently Forgot To Tell Six Strikes Coordinators That The 'Independent' Firm It Hired Used To Lobby For The RIAA
Re: and the key problem is...
If consumers got together, and agreed to this, provided that they got permanently free internet service as a result.
On the post: Copyright: The New Mercantilism
Re: Re:
The best-laid plans of mice and men go oft awry.
On the post: Scientist Refused Permission To Call Hominids 'Hobbits', Even Though Word First Used In Print In 1895 -- And Not By Tolkien
Re: Re:
On the post: Apple Publishes Petulant Non-Apology Apology To Samsung
Re: Re:
On the post: Australian Consumer Advocate CHOICE Encourages IP Spoofing To Get Better Prices
Re: Why price discrimination for music and software makes sense
This is especiually relevant when there's a time-economic involved. For example, let's say you have only 5 hours of freew time in a week. Now, you can spend all that time just listening to music OR you can spend that time watching TV OR you can play video games. I'd find it highly unlikely that you could do all three simultaneously and enjoy the experience.
Also, you bring up a valid point with regards to ouponing and loss-leaders.
On the post: Australian Consumer Advocate CHOICE Encourages IP Spoofing To Get Better Prices
Re: Apple Australia suck (by way of example)
US Price is $299, but you're tied to a minimum 24-month contract at $70+/mo, I think.
Next >>