Why not? They're a company that wants to make money from consumers, like myself. How the heck are they supposed to know what I want unless I tell them? Further, how can I complain about DRM if I do nothing about it?
This isn't just between Nina Paley and Netflix, like it's a totally private deal that doesn't affect anyone but them, you know. This affects Nina Paley, Netflix, and all of the consumers out there.
Why won't there be? There are several, in fact, such as Netflix and Amazon Video On Demand. Hulu is offering the same old content that you can get several places online, with less bullshit.
I'm reasonably sure that you're supposed to show how they're infringing. Essentially they're saying 'We're suing you for something that you're doing and bad things are going to happen unless you desist, but we're not going to tell you what that something is.'.
...our US readers don't complain that they "couldn't really care less" since they're not in those countries.
On the contrary, I like to see what other countries are doing. It's not just a global marketplace of ideas; it's a global marketplace of law, of commerce, and every other system.
Oh, man, and has anyone else noticed the commercial overload? Tried to watch Ep. 16 of House last night and it had eight commercials. Seriously. Eight. I closed it and watched the episode on an almost-certainly-illegal streaming site with no commercials instead, and I'm not going back again.
I'm surprised that they changed the logo. I mean, it's clearly a parody, and they seemed like the kind of people who would stick by their guns and not change their logo.
More like an unzipped suitcase in a public bus station.
Because the files on the drive are accessible, but you have to navigate to them to actually see what's in there. The unzipped suitcase is accessible, but you have to open it to actually see what's there.
To be like an open suitcase, he would have had to open some files, and then walk away from the computer. Then you can see what's there without having to open the files, or the suitcase.
In four hours, Blizzard sold approximately $2 million in virtual goods. This is a win for Blizzard and is a real-life example of giving customers a reason to buy without attempting to create an artificial scarcity. Yay!
You can purchase a code for the Celestial Steed and sell it to anyone else in the world that you want. But once you've redeemed the code for a Celestial Steed, you cannot sell that Celestial Steed to any other player for in-game gold.
You can purchase a playing card with a code for the Spectral Tiger and sell it to anyone else in the world that you want. Butonce you've redeemed the code for a Spectral Tiger, you cannot sell that Celestial Steed to any other player for in-game gold.
In other words, you can't use real money to purchase an item, and then sell that item in-game for in-game currency. If you could do that, then you could use real world currency to eventually purchase in-game currency, which would allow you to purchase better gear. That would upset the game balance, and it would suck.
There really isn't any difference between this or the accoutrements of any other hobby, be it the Batman watch, the witty T-shirts, or the Star Trek models favored by various fan communities. What's your hobby? In what ways do members of your hobby community show their hobby love? Same thing, buddy. :)
The Celestial Steed is bound to your account, meaning that any toon you have now, or create in the future, will get this steed without additional cost, but it can't be passed to another account.
Hehe, wasn't trying to correct you, just commenting on the game-balance arguments that you commented on. :P
I do think that if they release too many pets, it will upset the minipet collecting community, but they've been doing it for a few years now, slowly, with no real backlash so they're doing okay so far.
Purchasers of the Celestial Steed are NOT "able to "buy their way" through the game. The Celestial Steed does not give any in-game advantages. It can only move as fast as your current riding level.
Blizzard not selling any advantages for real money, unless you count being able to get one mount closer to the Stable Keeper achievement. Even if you do count that, achievements don't give any in-game advantage.
This isn't any different than the sales of the Pandaren Monk, Lil X.T., or Lil' K.T. mini-pets, which have also been quite successful.
If condensation humidity is a known problem, then Apple shouldn't be offering a warranty to people who live in areas where this is normal without at least some sort of warning.
Yes! Now that they have Instant Streaming on the top three gaming devices and people are quickly learning how to hook up their laptops to their big screens (what we did before we got our Wii disc), they're gold. You can't kill them. Advertising mocking a month-delay may postpone a few potential customers, but it's not going to hurt them in any substantial way.
Once again, you're making a huge, blanket statement with no source. You even admit that you have nothing except maybe personal experience with a company. That's like putting a thimble in the ocean and deciding that the ocean doesn't have any fish in it, because there aren't any in your thimble.
Further, I have worked for and known people who worked for many large companies who didn't give a shit what their employees did, as long as they met their various quotas. One memorable story even involves a guy watching porn in his cubicle without his boss blinking an eye.
So if we're making huge blanket statements based off of meager personal experiences, then I'd say that for the most part, companies don't make harsh plans against Internet usages, or even lax plans against them. They don't just care at all, according to my personal experiences.
Of course, then we come back to the real world, where many companies do care, some don't, and they all have varying degrees of passion about those feelings and enforcement of them.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: Re: Here we go...
This isn't just between Nina Paley and Netflix, like it's a totally private deal that doesn't affect anyone but them, you know. This affects Nina Paley, Netflix, and all of the consumers out there.
With your attitude, we'd still have DRM on mp3s.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Here we go...
On the post: Confused Users Keep Racking Up Ridiculous 3G Bills, Wireless Carriers Keep Helping Them
Hehe, you rock, Karl. Some of Techdirt's articles have been getting dry... :P
On the post: Is Hulu About To Find Out That There's Always Somewhere Else To Get Content Online?
Re:
On the post: Reed Elsevier Sues Punk Band Over Parody Logo That Was Discontinued Years Ago
Re: In commercial use?
On the post: Is Hulu About To Find Out That There's Always Somewhere Else To Get Content Online?
Re: Re:
On the contrary, I like to see what other countries are doing. It's not just a global marketplace of ideas; it's a global marketplace of law, of commerce, and every other system.
On the post: Is Hulu About To Find Out That There's Always Somewhere Else To Get Content Online?
On the post: Reed Elsevier Sues Punk Band Over Parody Logo That Was Discontinued Years Ago
Or their pants.
On the post: Blizzard Sells $2 Million In Virtual Livestock In Four Hours
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Duh, Don't Leave A Thumb Drive With Child Porn Plugged Into A Shared Computer
Because the files on the drive are accessible, but you have to navigate to them to actually see what's in there. The unzipped suitcase is accessible, but you have to open it to actually see what's there.
To be like an open suitcase, he would have had to open some files, and then walk away from the computer. Then you can see what's there without having to open the files, or the suitcase.
On the post: Blizzard Sells $2 Million In Virtual Livestock In Four Hours
Re:
On the post: Blizzard Sells $2 Million In Virtual Livestock In Four Hours
Re: Ok lemme break it down
Let me break it down:
In four hours, Blizzard sold approximately $2 million in virtual goods. This is a win for Blizzard and is a real-life example of giving customers a reason to buy without attempting to create an artificial scarcity. Yay!
That's the point of the article.
Hope that shined some light on it.
On the post: Blizzard Sells $2 Million In Virtual Livestock In Four Hours
Re: Spectral Tiger
You can purchase a playing card with a code for the Spectral Tiger and sell it to anyone else in the world that you want. Butonce you've redeemed the code for a Spectral Tiger, you cannot sell that Celestial Steed to any other player for in-game gold.
In other words, you can't use real money to purchase an item, and then sell that item in-game for in-game currency. If you could do that, then you could use real world currency to eventually purchase in-game currency, which would allow you to purchase better gear. That would upset the game balance, and it would suck.
On the post: Blizzard Sells $2 Million In Virtual Livestock In Four Hours
Re: Re:
On the post: Blizzard Sells $2 Million In Virtual Livestock In Four Hours
Re: only a scientist
On the post: Blizzard Sells $2 Million In Virtual Livestock In Four Hours
Re: Re: No Way Will This Destroy The Game...
I do think that if they release too many pets, it will upset the minipet collecting community, but they've been doing it for a few years now, slowly, with no real backlash so they're doing okay so far.
On the post: Blizzard Sells $2 Million In Virtual Livestock In Four Hours
No Way Will This Destroy The Game...
Blizzard not selling any advantages for real money, unless you count being able to get one mount closer to the Stable Keeper achievement. Even if you do count that, achievements don't give any in-game advantage.
This isn't any different than the sales of the Pandaren Monk, Lil X.T., or Lil' K.T. mini-pets, which have also been quite successful.
On the post: iPhone Hits Just Keep On Coming For Apple: Sued Over Liquid Damage Sensors
Re: Re:
On the post: DirecTV Pays Studios To Help Confuse Customers Further
Re: They're signing their own death warrant
On the post: Should Managers Care That Employees Are On Facebook And YouTube While At Work?
Re: Re: Re:
Further, I have worked for and known people who worked for many large companies who didn't give a shit what their employees did, as long as they met their various quotas. One memorable story even involves a guy watching porn in his cubicle without his boss blinking an eye.
So if we're making huge blanket statements based off of meager personal experiences, then I'd say that for the most part, companies don't make harsh plans against Internet usages, or even lax plans against them. They don't just care at all, according to my personal experiences.
Of course, then we come back to the real world, where many companies do care, some don't, and they all have varying degrees of passion about those feelings and enforcement of them.
Next >>