And yet Mike never made the claim that the same thing will benefit everyone. In fact, if my memory serves, he actually has said REPEATEDLY that he understands that these business models will not work for everyone.
But on the other side of the coin, the 'stop all piracy & license/restrict/DRM/pay wall' method... or the 'those who take copyright more seriously' mentality won't work for everyone either.
So, what's your point? Exactly what does he need to prove? The thing he's already agreed with you on?
ps... nice lead-in with 'freetard'... let's us know what to expect in retort.
"I know this isn't going to be popular opinion here, but I'm still in favor of red light cameras, and think they should be put on every light controlled intersection in the country."
But at least you acknowledge that it's an opinion.
"I just don't buy the argument that the presence of red light cameras cause more accidents than they prevent. The common excuse given for this is that because of the camera, and in an attempt to avoid a ticket, when the light turns yellow, people slam on their brakes, causing them to get rear-ended."
Reference the multiple studies Mike links to... there seems to be a mountain of numbers that suggest otherwise. Another point in these reports is this: even if the lights don't directly increase the number of accidents, they also don't decrease the number either. It looks like (in many of the studies) the T-bone collisions are traded out for rear-end collisions.
"If this is truly the case, then it presents more to the fact that people can't drive for shit, rather than the cameras cause the accidents."
No argument here... I lose count of the stupid I see on the 10min drive to work every morning. But does that mean that it's OK to introduce a factor that may exacerbate the situation? Why set idiots up for further failure? Unless the revenue the city receives is worth that...
"Second, if the person behind you isn't capable of paying attention to the fact that the traffic light their approaching is turning yellow and they need to consider stopping, and instead is driving so close to you that when YOU stop for the yellow light, they use the back of your car to stop theirs, then they shouldn't be driving in the first place."
Again, no argument here... but this doesn't really address the safety of the cameras or the risks and rewards they bring. In my opinion, if there are assholes riding my rear bumper, and the city is forcing me to make the choice between a possible ticket or getting rear-ended because the (in some cases, shortened) yellow-light gets me in that horrible window of 'not sure if I can make it'... I'm more pissed at the city for putting me in that situation.
"Maybe if we taught people how to be better drivers, and made them pass a more rigorous test before just handing out licenses all willy-nilly, then maybe accidents at intersections would be reduced whether there was a camera or not. But blaming accidents on the presence of a camera is just a cop-out and an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for one’s own actions and crappy driving skills."
Still, no argument here. It seems you're making a good statement... but unfortunately, it doesn't actually say anything to the point of the cameras. Saying they increase the number of accidents is not a 'cop-out' nor is it an avoidance of responsibility. It is all about setting up the stupid for failure.
And how is it a cop-out for someone else's bad driving if it affects me? I'm not the one that was tailgating if I get rear-ended due to the camera. What if the guy in front of me stops suddenly for the yellow, which causes me to hit my brakes, and the guy behind me was tailgating and hits me? I had plenty of room, but still had to stop suddenly. How would that be me avoiding responsibility?
I’ve worked as an auto claims adjuster. Trust me… the situation above happens all too often.
Top story today… a black hole has appeared in a local courtroom. Scientists are still working to determine the exact cause of the phenomenon. They believe that this all started over an ‘intellectual property’ lawsuit. For those of you who don’t know, ‘intellectual property’ is the artificial term applied to an idea for the sole purpose of keeping anyone else from benefiting for that idea. Let’s go to Tom in the field for more details. Tom?
Thanks Sue… I’m standing (well!) outside a local courtroom where a miniature black hole has appeared. No one is sure exactly how this happened, but checking the videos stored electronically off-site has helped scientists form a hypothesis on how this happened.
John Steele, a lawyer known for suing over ‘copyright theft’ and other IP-related ‘piracy’ had copied a Q&A section from a website for the Copyright Enforcement Group, or CEG, regarding copyright infringement. CEG had taken John Steele to court over the matter. It appears that CEG’s legal filing was actually mostly copied from some of Mr. Steele’s own filings. When Mr. Steele noticed this in the courtroom, he hurled insults at CEG’s lawyer… and these insults were apparently "stolen" from CEG's lawyer from another lawsuit involving CEG. The resultant vortex of copy stupidity collapsed into a singularity.
One of the local scientists comments: "the space-time continuum was not meant to handle this level of concentrated stupid and just broke under the strain". Back to you, Sue.
Thanks Tom. And in related news, advocacy groups known for speaking out against IP-extremism are petitioning to have all current patent lawsuits moved from east Texas to this courtroom. More on that story at 11.
" Clearly, Grooveshark is committing a great crime by allowing me to make others aware of music I like without paying the labels a gozillion dollarz for the privilege."
"Josh, even if the rights only cost them a couple of hundred dollars for this particular show, it isn't worth it. The demand is null."
I'm glad we get the informed statement from Amazon's marketing department... or are you on the financial strategy team? Kinda hard to tell from here.
Oh, and just because... I think the word you want to use is nil, as in "non-existent".
" It's because it's a big business to get into, which is not warranted. It's the same as streaming (or even DVD by mail), which took Netflix a long time to get into in Canada."
Again, we all appreciate the insider info from someone with firsthand knowledge of Amazon's business plans.
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
The "nothing to contribute" troll post.
In other news, troll has nothing to contribute: I do wonder if the troll will post?
How about Ken brings something to Mike’s attention and Mike posts it on his DISCUSSION BLOG to spark DISCUSSION among people who read it? And since when was Mike a 'news source'? He takes news stories from the web that fit within certain categories and comments on them and opens discussion of it.
True, I get a lot of news here as a first-source, but I don’t see Mike out there with a fedora, NEWS badge and a flip notepad at press conferences.
""Just pay us and STFU" - I suppose is the message we are to infer from this?"
No, you have it all wrong. It's "STFU or we'll sue you!"
Granted, from a legal perspective, it does appear to be false info being posted, so defamation may be grounded. However, ethically, I think they're doing the wrong thing.
In April of 2011, we stayed at the Carleton - not our first time, as my step-daughter lives in Oak Park and my husband stays there every 5-6 weeks with her on weekends, and our extended family comes along a few times a year. We used to like this hotel very much as it is good value and location for the money, but we will never stay there again!
On the third and final night of our stay in April, we found a bed bug crawling on my husband during the night. We reportered it to the night manager (who offered to move us to a different room -- at midnight, after we had stayed there for three nights already, with two small children already sleeping - we were also checking out on the morning - so we declined.) We mentioned it again in the morning when we checked out and were told that the hotel is very aggressive about this problem, and that the room would be checked/treated immediately. We figured they took it seriously and did not hold it against them.
Upon arrival at home, we took all recommended precautions, including washing all clothes in hot water and drying on high (ruined quite a few clothes this way), throwing out luggage, etc.. FOUR WEEKS LATER -- we found a bedbug in our bed. And have since had Terminix come out. Our infestation is low, indicating that it has probably been about FOUR WEEKS of growth/expansion since the bedbugs were intorduced to our home. I am currently in the middle of the onerous preparation and cleaning that ocmes with bedbug removal- the costs for the extermination and related expenses are coming close to 3 - 4 thousand dollars!
We called the Carleton's General Manager to discuss this problem -- imagine our surprise to learn that (1) there was NO RECORD/INCIDENT REPORT FILED AFTER OUR INITIAL COMPLAINT WHEN WE CHECKED OUT and (2) that the room had not been treated our touched since we had been there since they sent in an insepction team when my husband called - again four weeks later.
This indicates to us that they DO NOT TAKE THIS ISSUE SERIOUSLY - how could they have not immediately taken action on the room when we first complained? Also, not surprisingly, they claim that there are no bed bugs in the room.
We will NEVER stay here again. So disappointing as our experiences until this point had been so positive.
I can't read the rest of the actual suit document as my system here sucks. -shrug-. Does anyone know if it details the hotel's response to this complaint?
"If it's got bedbugs, it *will* be a problem. The fact that they sued one customer in their history of existence (to my knowledge) when that customer actually defamed them doesn't make it at all likely that I will have any problem."
That's if it has bedbugs. According to one review, that's a possibility. And when the facts and evidence is posted in counter, then it's not very likely that the one review is reliable. Therefore, not at all likely that I will have a problem with bedbugs.
The fact that they might have bedbugs... ok, that's a risk beyond their control after doing everything reasonably possible to prevent them... they could use all the pest control they want and still may have them. Suing customers, however, is a conscious decision made by the hotel... something beyond my control as a customer.
And when looking at the possible ramifications of those two possibilities... either maybe (but not likely) having bedbugs, or costing me $30k... I'll stay somewhere else, thanks. And it will be the risk of being sued (and good old principle) that makes that decision for me... not the remote possibilities of bedbugs.
So, in that case, suing customers cost them further business.
Not me... it'd cost me, what, $100 or so to exterminate some bedbugs... versus $30k in a lawsuit? What if they sue you for something you didn't say or that someone else said?
You know... I travel a lot for work. I stay in hotels in the $100/night range (not very high-end). I've never had an issue with bedbugs. I've always wondered what the big deal with this whole thing was.
Now, if I knew one of the hotel chains sued their customers, I probably would be prohibited by my employer from staying there... just in case they get targeted for a lawsuit too.
" But in the end, if they let it stand, they have to keep spending time and effort to fight it every time someone repeats it.
The situation isn't very tolerable, and they need to use all the tools at their disposal (including the lawyers) to deal with it directly."
You're treating this like a bug infestation itself. You're not going to be able to block all negative reviews and opinions of your establishment. Ever. Suing them is not going to dissuade others from making the same comments. It might actually make some people repeat them out of spite.
If you respond to customer complaints with hostility and lawsuits, you won't have any customers. This hotel is not in business to be Right... it's in business to be a place to spend the night.
As I posted below, do what you can to address the problem. You can't please all people all of the time... if this turns out to be one of those people, the only thing you can do is move on.
How much money will be wasted on generating nothing but bad opinion of you simply to stop one customer from saying "ooh! bedbugs!"? You may no longer be thought of as "The Hotel with Bedbugs" but you'll be "The Hotel That Sues Its Customers". So, I'd have to congratulate them for being Right, and feel sorry for them being all alone on that high-ground.
Wrong. The much better response (at least that would impress the hell out of me) would be for them to post their side in the same forum (Trip Advisor), apologize that they can't do more to convince a customer that all is well, and offer a gift-certificate at a competitor's hotel.
This would accomplish three things:
1) Show that they are reasonable, fair and rational in replying to customer concerns. Those who yell 'THEY LIE!!!' usually are seen as someone with something to hide.
2) Demonstrate that they will bend over backwards to make things better for customers with a complaint (even if it's unfounded!!)
3) Send a problem customer to a competitor... a customer who will either a) see it really is worse on the other side of the fence, or b) become someone else’s problem.
And all it would cost (other than the pest control fee) is $100+/- for a gift certificate. Problem solved.
Look at it like the forums here in Techdirt... those who respond with rational statements with facts to back them up are usually regarded as more likely to be right... whereas posters (usually trolls) who comment with things like "STFU you don't know what you're talking about you [insert expletive]" are usually seen as... well... trolls, and are laughed at.
Again, this is assuming the threat of that penalty is a deterrent. If the current threat of arrest and imprisonment is not a deterrent, adding a few years onto the sentence is not going to suddenly have criminals switch to knives and slingshots.
Look at my sunny home-state of Florida. We have a zero-tolerance law (don't get me started on ZTs...) of 10-20-Life. If you pull a gun during a crime, you get 10-years... period. No options, no appeals, nothing. 10-years added to whatever else you get. Shoot the gun and it's 20. Actually shoot someone (fatal or not) and you go to prison for life. No one and nothing can change that sentence... not even the judge. Pretty harsh. And pretty useless as a deterrent. I have read no fewer than three stories this year in my own city alone about shoot-outs between criminals which struck bystanders. One was a disagreement that turned to guns, the other was a drug deal gone bad. Both situations, the guns were being carried ILLEGALLY by people who would never have been given the license to carry. There are at least 3 people right there going to prison for the rest of their life. Do they regret it? I bet the do. Did the threat of 10-20-Life deter them from commit the crime? Nope.
When these people got up in the morning, and put on their socks and shoes, I don't think they stopped and asked themselves "should I leave my gun at home? It is illegal for me to bring this, after all".
Now, you're going to make the argument that those bystanders would not have been hit if not for those guns. But those shooters would have had the guns regardless. I don't know if they 'legally' acquired them or not. But I know that if they really wanted them, they'd have them.
For evidence, look at the drug trade. By your "no legal guns = fewer illegal guns" logic, there should be FAR fewer drugs because there is no legal source for them. But people want them, so people get them.
On the post: Copy Protection Does Not Mean More Sales
Re: Just Because Freetards Make More Money ...
But on the other side of the coin, the 'stop all piracy & license/restrict/DRM/pay wall' method... or the 'those who take copyright more seriously' mentality won't work for everyone either.
So, what's your point? Exactly what does he need to prove? The thing he's already agreed with you on?
ps... nice lead-in with 'freetard'... let's us know what to expect in retort.
On the post: Misleading Scientific American Report On Traffic Cameras
Re: Re: Re: The Only
On the post: Misleading Scientific American Report On Traffic Cameras
Re: Still in favor
Reference the multiple studies Mike links to... there seems to be a mountain of numbers that suggest otherwise. Another point in these reports is this: even if the lights don't directly increase the number of accidents, they also don't decrease the number either. It looks like (in many of the studies) the T-bone collisions are traded out for rear-end collisions.
No argument here... I lose count of the stupid I see on the 10min drive to work every morning. But does that mean that it's OK to introduce a factor that may exacerbate the situation? Why set idiots up for further failure? Unless the revenue the city receives is worth that...
Again, no argument here... but this doesn't really address the safety of the cameras or the risks and rewards they bring. In my opinion, if there are assholes riding my rear bumper, and the city is forcing me to make the choice between a possible ticket or getting rear-ended because the (in some cases, shortened) yellow-light gets me in that horrible window of 'not sure if I can make it'... I'm more pissed at the city for putting me in that situation.
Still, no argument here. It seems you're making a good statement... but unfortunately, it doesn't actually say anything to the point of the cameras. Saying they increase the number of accidents is not a 'cop-out' nor is it an avoidance of responsibility. It is all about setting up the stupid for failure.
And how is it a cop-out for someone else's bad driving if it affects me? I'm not the one that was tailgating if I get rear-ended due to the camera. What if the guy in front of me stops suddenly for the yellow, which causes me to hit my brakes, and the guy behind me was tailgating and hits me? I had plenty of room, but still had to stop suddenly. How would that be me avoiding responsibility?
I’ve worked as an auto claims adjuster. Trust me… the situation above happens all too often.
On the post: Anti-Piracy Lawyer John Steele Caught Copying Content From Other Anti-Piracy Lawyer
News Story
Thanks Sue… I’m standing (well!) outside a local courtroom where a miniature black hole has appeared. No one is sure exactly how this happened, but checking the videos stored electronically off-site has helped scientists form a hypothesis on how this happened.
John Steele, a lawyer known for suing over ‘copyright theft’ and other IP-related ‘piracy’ had copied a Q&A section from a website for the Copyright Enforcement Group, or CEG, regarding copyright infringement. CEG had taken John Steele to court over the matter. It appears that CEG’s legal filing was actually mostly copied from some of Mr. Steele’s own filings. When Mr. Steele noticed this in the courtroom, he hurled insults at CEG’s lawyer… and these insults were apparently "stolen" from CEG's lawyer from another lawsuit involving CEG. The resultant vortex of copy stupidity collapsed into a singularity.
One of the local scientists comments: "the space-time continuum was not meant to handle this level of concentrated stupid and just broke under the strain". Back to you, Sue.
Thanks Tom. And in related news, advocacy groups known for speaking out against IP-extremism are petitioning to have all current patent lawsuits moved from east Texas to this courtroom. More on that story at 11.
On the post: Adam Wins... A Free Lesson In How Section 230 Protects Service Providers
wait a tick...
O. M. G. Did we just learn the identity of one of our more annoying and outspoken AC's?
Quick... Mr. Levy... did he say "freetard" or "LOL Ur Wrong!" during your short conversation with him?
On the post: UK Appeals Court Agrees That Clicking A Link And Opening A Website... Is Infringing
Clicking a link?
On the post: Lawsuits Against Grooveshark Continue; Music Publishers Seek To Redefine The DMCA
Re:
ftfy
On the post: Writer Explains How Copyright Has Prevented Her From Ever Seeing TV Shows She Wrote
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and just because... I think the word you want to use is nil, as in "non-existent".
Again, we all appreciate the insider info from someone with firsthand knowledge of Amazon's business plans.
Just in case it's needed.... /sarc.
On the post: Writer Explains How Copyright Has Prevented Her From Ever Seeing TV Shows She Wrote
Re: Not even a torrent
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/11180115223/writer-explains-how-copyright-has-p revented-her-ever-seeing-tv-shows-she-wrote.shtml#c36
On the post: Writer Explains How Copyright Has Prevented Her From Ever Seeing TV Shows She Wrote
Re: Re:
On the post: Did The AP Claim Copyright On Public Domain NASA Pictures?
Re: The "I do wonder if" blog, no news, just speculation.
In other news, troll has nothing to contribute: I do wonder if the troll will post?
How about Ken brings something to Mike’s attention and Mike posts it on his DISCUSSION BLOG to spark DISCUSSION among people who read it? And since when was Mike a 'news source'? He takes news stories from the web that fit within certain categories and comments on them and opens discussion of it.
True, I get a lot of news here as a first-source, but I don’t see Mike out there with a fedora, NEWS badge and a flip notepad at press conferences.
On the post: Is Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Really The Best Way To Respond To A Potentially False Hotel Review?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point I was making was a possible consequence of that choice from the perspective of customers.
On the post: Is Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Really The Best Way To Respond To A Potentially False Hotel Review?
Re:
Granted, from a legal perspective, it does appear to be false info being posted, so defamation may be grounded. However, ethically, I think they're doing the wrong thing.
On the post: Is Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Really The Best Way To Respond To A Potentially False Hotel Review?
The Review
Here's the review from Trip Adviser.
In case they remove it:
I can't read the rest of the actual suit document as my system here sucks. -shrug-. Does anyone know if it details the hotel's response to this complaint?
On the post: Is Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Really The Best Way To Respond To A Potentially False Hotel Review?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that they might have bedbugs... ok, that's a risk beyond their control after doing everything reasonably possible to prevent them... they could use all the pest control they want and still may have them. Suing customers, however, is a conscious decision made by the hotel... something beyond my control as a customer.
And when looking at the possible ramifications of those two possibilities... either maybe (but not likely) having bedbugs, or costing me $30k... I'll stay somewhere else, thanks. And it will be the risk of being sued (and good old principle) that makes that decision for me... not the remote possibilities of bedbugs.
So, in that case, suing customers cost them further business.
On the post: Is Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Really The Best Way To Respond To A Potentially False Hotel Review?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know... I travel a lot for work. I stay in hotels in the $100/night range (not very high-end). I've never had an issue with bedbugs. I've always wondered what the big deal with this whole thing was.
Now, if I knew one of the hotel chains sued their customers, I probably would be prohibited by my employer from staying there... just in case they get targeted for a lawsuit too.
On the post: Is Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Really The Best Way To Respond To A Potentially False Hotel Review?
Re: Re: Re:
If you respond to customer complaints with hostility and lawsuits, you won't have any customers. This hotel is not in business to be Right... it's in business to be a place to spend the night.
As I posted below, do what you can to address the problem. You can't please all people all of the time... if this turns out to be one of those people, the only thing you can do is move on.
How much money will be wasted on generating nothing but bad opinion of you simply to stop one customer from saying "ooh! bedbugs!"? You may no longer be thought of as "The Hotel with Bedbugs" but you'll be "The Hotel That Sues Its Customers". So, I'd have to congratulate them for being Right, and feel sorry for them being all alone on that high-ground.
On the post: Is Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Really The Best Way To Respond To A Potentially False Hotel Review?
Re:
This would accomplish three things:
1) Show that they are reasonable, fair and rational in replying to customer concerns. Those who yell 'THEY LIE!!!' usually are seen as someone with something to hide.
2) Demonstrate that they will bend over backwards to make things better for customers with a complaint (even if it's unfounded!!)
3) Send a problem customer to a competitor... a customer who will either a) see it really is worse on the other side of the fence, or b) become someone else’s problem.
And all it would cost (other than the pest control fee) is $100+/- for a gift certificate. Problem solved.
Look at it like the forums here in Techdirt... those who respond with rational statements with facts to back them up are usually regarded as more likely to be right... whereas posters (usually trolls) who comment with things like "STFU you don't know what you're talking about you [insert expletive]" are usually seen as... well... trolls, and are laughed at.
On the post: Would Fashion Copyright Have Made Kate Middleton's Knockoff Wedding Dress Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: Re: Re: Problem?
Look at my sunny home-state of Florida. We have a zero-tolerance law (don't get me started on ZTs...) of 10-20-Life. If you pull a gun during a crime, you get 10-years... period. No options, no appeals, nothing. 10-years added to whatever else you get. Shoot the gun and it's 20. Actually shoot someone (fatal or not) and you go to prison for life. No one and nothing can change that sentence... not even the judge. Pretty harsh. And pretty useless as a deterrent. I have read no fewer than three stories this year in my own city alone about shoot-outs between criminals which struck bystanders. One was a disagreement that turned to guns, the other was a drug deal gone bad. Both situations, the guns were being carried ILLEGALLY by people who would never have been given the license to carry. There are at least 3 people right there going to prison for the rest of their life. Do they regret it? I bet the do. Did the threat of 10-20-Life deter them from commit the crime? Nope.
When these people got up in the morning, and put on their socks and shoes, I don't think they stopped and asked themselves "should I leave my gun at home? It is illegal for me to bring this, after all".
Now, you're going to make the argument that those bystanders would not have been hit if not for those guns. But those shooters would have had the guns regardless. I don't know if they 'legally' acquired them or not. But I know that if they really wanted them, they'd have them.
For evidence, look at the drug trade. By your "no legal guns = fewer illegal guns" logic, there should be FAR fewer drugs because there is no legal source for them. But people want them, so people get them.
Next >>