However, if she is sleeping with both her 2nd & 3rd husband then there is statistically an increased risk and that doesn't even take into account if both of them only have one partner namely, her.
Whether or not they are present at the same time is a whole different story! That would imply consensual sex unless she is letting them share her and then still seeing #2 on the side unbeknown to #3. I'll stay off that road thank you. ;)
Since no method of prevention is 100% effective, there is at least some increased risk of acquiring an STD from his adulteress spouse. Claims to the contrary would redefine years of medical research and I'll go out on a limb and guess that isn't your intent with that statement.
"You'd be surprised what alters the courts decisions and proof is not especially needed when a woman's word is used against a man in a court room for custody purposes. ... Been there - seen it first hand, sorry epic fail and if you're fortunate its because of a lack of experience or exposure to the Family Court System."
"Wow, you're incredibly wrong. Most states don't allow a judge to consider past physical abuse of the mother, because 'it's not proof that they would abuse the child'. Been there, lived it first-hand. Sorry, epic fail on your part."
Obviously you were not in the same courtroom I was when my own child was taken across state lines in the middle of the night and was out of contact for several months because Mommy was on the run from creditors. As she literally yelled at the judge I simply said "This is what I've been dealing with Your Honor". Less than two minutes later bang went the gavel and she was found of no wrong doing despite violating several portions of the custody agreement while I had no violations or other concerns regarding my well being and the ability to care for my child whom I could no longer see because of the 1500 miles between us.
Two handed face palm for you Rose - this was my personal experience and for you to even claim that I'm wrong is at least somewhat insensitive and at most completely disrespectful of the facts.
"Calling yourself a parent doesn't denote experience in child custody situations, and this man didn't act on behalf of the child, or in a way that might help secure the child from potential danger. Nice try, though."
I still believe contacting bio-Dad is the right first step, if bio-Dad says "Call the cops!" then onward and away to the authorities. CPS is not the first call to make unless the child is already being subjected to the abuse.
"Your desire to know is irrelevant. Hubby #3 didn't say that he called Bio Dad because he knew Bio Dad would want to know. That would be more acceptable than his crappy 'Child Protection' excuse."
This is beyond obvious that I'm conveying an opinion here so it can't possibly be irrelevant to making my point - it provides perspective. Opinions aren't ever wrong because they belong to the person who holds them despite what their reason is for having said opinion. So my point still stands that calling bio-Dad regarding his child is warranted, however I can agree that we simply disagree on this point.
"No, there's a known allegation. There's pretty different from a 'known occurrence'. "
The story says: "Her e-mail showed she was having an affair with her second husband, a man who once had been arrested for beating her in front of her small son."
So we have at least one witness to the alleged action - compared to wishful thinking tied to the "innocent until proven guilty" side of it.
Again, this is my opinion and IANAL, but if the son witnessed it - it is awfully hard to claim that it didn't happen regardless of whether there were charges or a conviction involved.
We have come to the point where we actually agree that the guy shouldn't be charged but disagree on his actions and I'm OK with that. This isn't a win-lose scenario, simply a debate on actions of others with literally nothing at stake on the pages of TD.
"I don't know about all that. It seems like the term 'parent' should only be used with people who, you know, parent."
Ummm, sorry that happens to be your personal definition and as proof of how incorrect that statement is go visit juvenile hall - you'll find hundreds if not thousands of kids whose parents didn't parent. This is a quite a stretch to claim that you can only be (step)parent if you actually parent.
"He did. She's being sued for custody. If you don't think that most custody suits are fueled by anger at the other parent, then you're not paying attention."
Easy ace - he's not the one suing for custody - the father is and he certainly is well within his rights to do so especially if he feels his son may be endangered in an an unsafe environment. Sorry - no revenge motive for you.
"That would be an ineffective revenge, because who cares? Most employers certainly don't. Unless the wife is a politician and I missed it?"
Rose - I've never seen you so closed minded on a topic before but certainly many other professions would frown on this info being made public about an employee: counselor, school board member, public employee, any church related job, any government related job, etc. Politicians don't have a monopoly on extra marital affairs being bad for their careers and/personal lives. This aspect could easily be more damaging to a parent than a custody battle that is lost because you can wait until the child is of age (usually 18) and the child can see you whenever they wish whereas the career damage may become irreparable.
"As a parent, I'd say that his step-son wasn't in danger from the e-mails, and that if the wife moved in with the allegedly abusive ex, then it would be time to call the local Child Protective Service organization, who would interview the child, mom, any live-ins, and the bio dad, who would then be alerted to the situation in an appropriate way."
The emails aren't the danger, the man she's sending them to is the danger. Waiting for abuse to re-occur before doing anything about it - really? That's what you'd wait for? Hopefully it won't involve a sheet for Mom and the son as they are removed from the crime scene. There is a previous records of undesirable behavior and abuse - this is one of those types of behavior that overwhelmingly repeats itself - citation not even required on this one.
"It didn't cause a violent reaction, but it certainly caused a legal one. How does that not count as a revenge action?"
How does this not count as taking every reasonable step to ensure the child's safety from a known violent person? Wow!
"What's really obvious is that one alleged incident of abuse is not enough to make person ineligible for parenthood,..."
You'd be surprised what alters the courts decisions and proof is not especially needed when a woman's word is used against a man in a court room for custody purposes. She can say just about anything she wants and the gavel falls right before the guy says "But...!!" Been there - seen it first hand, sorry epic fail and if you're fortunate its because of a lack of experience or exposure to the Family Court System.
The parental perspective is not for moral high ground (those who claim moral high ground are usually in a ditch proclaiming such!) but for experience in child custody and divorce situations and what step parents may or may not do and whether they are better to ignore or act on the child's behalf as an adult if not as a biological parent.
and exchanging e-mails with someone who may or may not have previously abused a spouse certainly isn't grounds for a child abuse case.
"...and after a few paragraphs of text, I certainly believe that if the husband wanted to protect the child he would have:
a. waited until there was something to protect him from.
b. contacted the appropriate authorities to take care of the situation."
There is already a known occurrence of violence involving the two individuals - conviction or charges are NOT necessary when deciding on an appropriate action - he is not the law, nor should he act as if he were.
"Instead, this guy chose to:
a. contact the kid's dad and prompt him to begin a suit
b. which probably won't protect the child at all."
If that were my child you can bet your last dollar I'd want to be the first to know and you can be certain that I will protect my child at all costs - again the parental experience comes into play but not for moral high ground.
"With all of that being said, no way should this guy have even been charged with a crime."
Whatever happened to community property in a marriage? I think it's great that we both agree this man should not be charged with a crime.
He's (3rd husband) is the step-parent as a result of the marriage - this point is actually benign to the situation which is that the 3rd husband (2nd step-dad) acted in the best interest of the child by letting the father (1st husband) know that his son MAY be in an undesirable situation that could bring harm to the child (possibly being in the presence of violence to his mother which has already happened with these two specific individuals).
If that is not easily understood then there is simply nothing more that I can offer except my sympathy.
Revenge would have been if the current husband used the info to inflict harm or cause damage to his wife or her lover(2nd husband) by making the affair public or sending the info to his employer or hers.
As a parent, I'd say what this guy did with the email was his best option and done with honorable intentions with the child's welfare as the cornerstone reason for his actions.
Now, if the 3rd husband KNEW the 1st husband despised the 2nd husband to a point where this kind of information might cause a violent reaction by the 1st on the 2nd then you MAY have a some leg to stand on by saying this was purely revenge.
What really becomes obvious is that this woman has some serious issues to resolve and her child certainly should not be exposed to a man that is prone to spousal abuse which I believe is what the 3rd husband had in mind as well.
No, I'm not a psychic and I don't claim to know what others thoughts are but having the parental perspective and only a couple of paragraphs of text I'd err on the side that the 3rd husband was certainly acting in the child's best interest rather than the conspiracy of revenge being his motive for his actions.
"Politicians should be visible in what their doing both good and bad."
This is the exact reason why I love Wikileaks and Julian Assange!!
This mayor sounds like a guy who knows how to use technology for good rather than resist the inevitable - that technology can be useful in a variety of ways for purposes we may not have even considered - like helping people who need help!
What I'd like to see next is give the homeless all Twitter devices preset to follow a specific feed that would tell them where they can get food and shelter. Just because there are homeless people in America doesn't mean they HAVE to live on the street. The governments (federal & local) could use now defunct and/or closed military hospitals/bases to house the people (who also happen to consist of a large number of veterans) and have them "earn" their keep by providing maintenance and improvement projects on the properties and possibly even produce some of their own food or provide services they could exchange with the local businesses in return for other goods and services.
Think "Brubaker" without the jail cells and the involvement of the court system, or "workfare that includes housing".
I think I'll trademark the terms "Pedaling" and "Pedal Class" just in case the USPTO isn't paying attention (OK that's a given) so that when everyone renames their spin classes I'll be poised to corner the market and I'll only charge $1.00 per month to use the phrase. Too small for most to complain about and convenient enough they'll want to use it. Multiply that figure by thousands of gyms and I think i can afford to retire!!
"But in the Western world where there are structures in place and we don't have to bribe border guards to be able to conduct legal businesses, we don't have the same issues."
In the US you just lobby Congress to be your policeman and protect you from the bad guys (consumers) who MUST all be guilty of something because we can't sell as many shiny plastic discs as we used to.
"...the courts...understand that the links are part of the process of obtaining the illegal content."
Links also lead to far more legal content than illegal content - do you have a point to make or not?
"No, html isn't illegal. Words aren't illegal either. Driving you car isn't illegal. Each are only a tool."
You mean just like the search site is only a tool? Accordingly, they are not illegal either then, correct?
"The purpose of the site is to make it possible for people to find torrent files that would otherwise be just randomly out there, unreachable without the name."
Since torrent files themselves are not illegal, and you obviously understand what the purpose of the site is as stated above, could you please tell me where the law is being broken on the search site?
Actually what I'm saying is that the music industry went to a lower cost format with CDs vs. cassettes. However, album prices didn't go down with the lower overhead cost - they went up.
Not sure what the point of your link was since I saw exactly two albums on that first page that were $5.99:
The Gift by Susan Boyle was $5.99 on CD and $11.99 for the MP3 download!! One of those items actually has a materials cost for each copy created - the other one is a single file that will be copied thousands of times at least. So why does the single file command a higher price when it is obvious that the MP3 costs far less to "manufacture" and requires virtually no overhead in terms of shipping or raw materials?
The second album was O Holy Night (DVD/CD) by Jackie Evancho. I don't know Jackie nor have I ever even heard of her but she has a seasonal holiday album out and as seasonal items go this one has been marked down from $8.98 to $5.99 probably because the holiday season is coming to an end.
Those are the two out of twelve that are $6 and to be honest I wouldn't pay for either of these albums even if they were only 99 cents. I certainly wouldn't even take the time to download them for free - which I'm sure they could be found somewhere at that price.
The interesting part of that list is the other 10 albums:
1. Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album by Glee Cast
2. Sigh No More by Mumford & Sons
These two are marked down and cost less than $10 - reasonable in my book for an album price these days. The second one is even by an artist whose music I would actually buy!
However, the rest of the top twelve:
3. Speak Now by Taylor Swift $18.98 now $12.99
4. Glee: The Music, Volume 4 by Glee Cast $13.98 now $11.88
5. Illuminations by Josh Groban $18.98 now $12.99
6. MICHAEL by Michael Jackson $13.98 now $11.88
7. The Union by Elton John and Leon Russell $18.98 now $13.82
8. Live At The Troubadour (CD +DVD) by Carole King and James Taylor $19.98 now $12.49
Those albums run anywhere from $14 to $19 before the discount. Those highly inflated prices are incredibly ridiculous, as a consumer, I choose NOT to pay for them because they are not affordable. Apparently I am not alone, since all of these albums were discounted - most likely to increase sales.
9. Farmer's Daughter by Crystal Bowersox $11.99
Still a little higher than what I personally think is reasonable but this album makes the bestseller list without a discounted price - kudos to Crystal!
10. The Promise: The Darkness On The Edge Of Town Story (3 CD/3 DVD) by Bruce Springsteen $119.98!!
Wait...it's marked down to $97.01!!
Are you effing kidding me?? $100 for 3 plastic discs??
What was your point again?
Most albums are priced at half that.
Bullshit! Strike two!
Citation requested - please make sure these are prices on new albums also - I have no doubt I can find music from the '60's thru the '90's at less than $10/album. You're talking out your ass here and we can all see that without waiting for a Wikileaks transmission.
Seems more than fair considering albums were 6 bucks in the 70s, 30+ years ago.
Bullshit! Strike three!you're out! I still have several albums both on cassette and vinyl with price tags from local stores that are far higher than the $6 you claim. $8 to $10 was very common and is 33% to 67% higher than you suggest.
No the current prices do not "seem fair" - it would seem fair if the prices of albums were considerably less than they were in the 1980's when many of us updated our collections to the "new, low cost" CD format that was going to make music affordable again. That movement never got off the ground.
Here's a paper towel for you - please wipe your face off when you pull your head out of your ass and just slowly back away from the keyboard.
The things people take for free are the exact things that CAN'T be bought at the store or online!!
People want to purchase a movie/music/book they like, w/o useless DRM, w/o the damn FBI warning screen (which only appears on legal copies anyway - WTF?!), and without man made restrictions designed to force them to pay for multiple copies of the same piece of work! They want to be able to enjoy the content on their TV, PC, AND mobile device without having Homeland Security, ICE, the FBI, Roscoe P Coletrane or Barney Fife knocking down the door because they are violating some ridiculous statute that the gatekeepers hold up like a golden chalice on top of the mountain when they cry about how the pirates have robbed them blind, leaving them cold and wet in the street!
Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it!
Offer products people will pay for, allow them to use them as they wish and you too can enjoy the fruits of your labor on payday. If not, fill out your unemployment paperwork and quit bothering me - I'm trying to listen to my new FREE Nine Inch Nails album before I sit down to watch a couple of FREE movies without commercials or FBI Shield screens!
Reading your posts are an exercise in futility and frustration!
I'll simplify for the sake of convenience and generalize broadly since specific facts in the real world around you seem difficult to grasp.
Apparently, here in the Jetsons-like modern age of business your are stuck in the yester-world of the Flintstones.
You are so myopic! I wonder, if you were to wear glasses, do you think you might only need a single lens since your eyes would almost have to share the same socket to have such a narrow view of everything?
I'm in the market for a smart phone and after doing my homework for several months I was down to two choices:
iPhone 4 from Apple or an HTC EVO 4G
I understand Apple has the right to do business with whomever they choose based on the reasons they see fit (that are not race/color/religion/creed/aged based) and this is the result.
You have KILLED me as a possible customer for kowtowing to whatever external forces may be present and for siding with those who believe suppression of the truth by the US government, whose actions obviously need to be questioned based on the content released, is a good idea.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did charge?
However, if she is sleeping with both her 2nd & 3rd husband then there is statistically an increased risk and that doesn't even take into account if both of them only have one partner namely, her.
Whether or not they are present at the same time is a whole different story! That would imply consensual sex unless she is letting them share her and then still seeing #2 on the side unbeknown to #3. I'll stay off that road thank you. ;)
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Why did charge?
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Wow, you're incredibly wrong. Most states don't allow a judge to consider past physical abuse of the mother, because 'it's not proof that they would abuse the child'. Been there, lived it first-hand. Sorry, epic fail on your part."
Obviously you were not in the same courtroom I was when my own child was taken across state lines in the middle of the night and was out of contact for several months because Mommy was on the run from creditors. As she literally yelled at the judge I simply said "This is what I've been dealing with Your Honor". Less than two minutes later bang went the gavel and she was found of no wrong doing despite violating several portions of the custody agreement while I had no violations or other concerns regarding my well being and the ability to care for my child whom I could no longer see because of the 1500 miles between us.
Two handed face palm for you Rose - this was my personal experience and for you to even claim that I'm wrong is at least somewhat insensitive and at most completely disrespectful of the facts.
"Calling yourself a parent doesn't denote experience in child custody situations, and this man didn't act on behalf of the child, or in a way that might help secure the child from potential danger. Nice try, though."
I still believe contacting bio-Dad is the right first step, if bio-Dad says "Call the cops!" then onward and away to the authorities. CPS is not the first call to make unless the child is already being subjected to the abuse.
"Your desire to know is irrelevant. Hubby #3 didn't say that he called Bio Dad because he knew Bio Dad would want to know. That would be more acceptable than his crappy 'Child Protection' excuse."
This is beyond obvious that I'm conveying an opinion here so it can't possibly be irrelevant to making my point - it provides perspective. Opinions aren't ever wrong because they belong to the person who holds them despite what their reason is for having said opinion. So my point still stands that calling bio-Dad regarding his child is warranted, however I can agree that we simply disagree on this point.
"No, there's a known allegation. There's pretty different from a 'known occurrence'. "
The story says: "Her e-mail showed she was having an affair with her second husband, a man who once had been arrested for beating her in front of her small son."
So we have at least one witness to the alleged action - compared to wishful thinking tied to the "innocent until proven guilty" side of it.
Again, this is my opinion and IANAL, but if the son witnessed it - it is awfully hard to claim that it didn't happen regardless of whether there were charges or a conviction involved.
We have come to the point where we actually agree that the guy shouldn't be charged but disagree on his actions and I'm OK with that. This isn't a win-lose scenario, simply a debate on actions of others with literally nothing at stake on the pages of TD.
Respectfully,
Ron
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't know about all that. It seems like the term 'parent' should only be used with people who, you know, parent."
Ummm, sorry that happens to be your personal definition and as proof of how incorrect that statement is go visit juvenile hall - you'll find hundreds if not thousands of kids whose parents didn't parent. This is a quite a stretch to claim that you can only be (step)parent if you actually parent.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Easy ace - he's not the one suing for custody - the father is and he certainly is well within his rights to do so especially if he feels his son may be endangered in an an unsafe environment. Sorry - no revenge motive for you.
"That would be an ineffective revenge, because who cares? Most employers certainly don't. Unless the wife is a politician and I missed it?"
Rose - I've never seen you so closed minded on a topic before but certainly many other professions would frown on this info being made public about an employee: counselor, school board member, public employee, any church related job, any government related job, etc. Politicians don't have a monopoly on extra marital affairs being bad for their careers and/personal lives. This aspect could easily be more damaging to a parent than a custody battle that is lost because you can wait until the child is of age (usually 18) and the child can see you whenever they wish whereas the career damage may become irreparable.
"As a parent, I'd say that his step-son wasn't in danger from the e-mails, and that if the wife moved in with the allegedly abusive ex, then it would be time to call the local Child Protective Service organization, who would interview the child, mom, any live-ins, and the bio dad, who would then be alerted to the situation in an appropriate way."
The emails aren't the danger, the man she's sending them to is the danger. Waiting for abuse to re-occur before doing anything about it - really? That's what you'd wait for? Hopefully it won't involve a sheet for Mom and the son as they are removed from the crime scene. There is a previous records of undesirable behavior and abuse - this is one of those types of behavior that overwhelmingly repeats itself - citation not even required on this one.
"It didn't cause a violent reaction, but it certainly caused a legal one. How does that not count as a revenge action?"
How does this not count as taking every reasonable step to ensure the child's safety from a known violent person? Wow!
"What's really obvious is that one alleged incident of abuse is not enough to make person ineligible for parenthood,..."
You'd be surprised what alters the courts decisions and proof is not especially needed when a woman's word is used against a man in a court room for custody purposes. She can say just about anything she wants and the gavel falls right before the guy says "But...!!" Been there - seen it first hand, sorry epic fail and if you're fortunate its because of a lack of experience or exposure to the Family Court System.
The parental perspective is not for moral high ground (those who claim moral high ground are usually in a ditch proclaiming such!) but for experience in child custody and divorce situations and what step parents may or may not do and whether they are better to ignore or act on the child's behalf as an adult if not as a biological parent.
and exchanging e-mails with someone who may or may not have previously abused a spouse certainly isn't grounds for a child abuse case.
"...and after a few paragraphs of text, I certainly believe that if the husband wanted to protect the child he would have:
a. waited until there was something to protect him from.
b. contacted the appropriate authorities to take care of the situation."
There is already a known occurrence of violence involving the two individuals - conviction or charges are NOT necessary when deciding on an appropriate action - he is not the law, nor should he act as if he were.
"Instead, this guy chose to:
a. contact the kid's dad and prompt him to begin a suit
b. which probably won't protect the child at all."
If that were my child you can bet your last dollar I'd want to be the first to know and you can be certain that I will protect my child at all costs - again the parental experience comes into play but not for moral high ground.
"With all of that being said, no way should this guy have even been charged with a crime."
Whatever happened to community property in a marriage? I think it's great that we both agree this man should not be charged with a crime.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that is not easily understood then there is simply nothing more that I can offer except my sympathy.
On the post: How Newark Mayor Cory Booker Made All Politics Super Local With Twitter Following The Blizzard
Re:
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re:
Revenge would have been if the current husband used the info to inflict harm or cause damage to his wife or her lover(2nd husband) by making the affair public or sending the info to his employer or hers.
As a parent, I'd say what this guy did with the email was his best option and done with honorable intentions with the child's welfare as the cornerstone reason for his actions.
Now, if the 3rd husband KNEW the 1st husband despised the 2nd husband to a point where this kind of information might cause a violent reaction by the 1st on the 2nd then you MAY have a some leg to stand on by saying this was purely revenge.
What really becomes obvious is that this woman has some serious issues to resolve and her child certainly should not be exposed to a man that is prone to spousal abuse which I believe is what the 3rd husband had in mind as well.
No, I'm not a psychic and I don't claim to know what others thoughts are but having the parental perspective and only a couple of paragraphs of text I'd err on the side that the 3rd husband was certainly acting in the child's best interest rather than the conspiracy of revenge being his motive for his actions.
On the post: How Newark Mayor Cory Booker Made All Politics Super Local With Twitter Following The Blizzard
Re: Publicity Stunt?
This is the exact reason why I love Wikileaks and Julian Assange!!
This mayor sounds like a guy who knows how to use technology for good rather than resist the inevitable - that technology can be useful in a variety of ways for purposes we may not have even considered - like helping people who need help!
What I'd like to see next is give the homeless all Twitter devices preset to follow a specific feed that would tell them where they can get food and shelter. Just because there are homeless people in America doesn't mean they HAVE to live on the street. The governments (federal & local) could use now defunct and/or closed military hospitals/bases to house the people (who also happen to consist of a large number of veterans) and have them "earn" their keep by providing maintenance and improvement projects on the properties and possibly even produce some of their own food or provide services they could exchange with the local businesses in return for other goods and services.
Think "Brubaker" without the jail cells and the involvement of the court system, or "workfare that includes housing".
On the post: 'Spinning' Trademarked; Gyms Being Threatened For Holding Spinning Classes Sans License
Just applied for a trademark...
On the post: OC ReMix: From Fans To Game Maestros
Simply NOT possible!!
Everyone knows that if its on a Torrent site it HAS to be illegal because torrent sites don't host any legitimate material! /sarc
Someone please let one of those industry shill trolls come through this thread today...I have an urge to do some troll stomping!
On the post: How 'Piracy' Helped Establish The Dominance Of Nigerian Films
Re:
In the US you just lobby Congress to be your policeman and protect you from the bad guys (consumers) who MUST all be guilty of something because we can't sell as many shiny plastic discs as we used to.
On the post: Leaked Cable Shows That ACTA Secrecy Is Way Beyond Normal
Where's the flood of supporters?
Faux News does run 7/24 so they may be busy getting their Hannity on!
On the post: isoHunt Appeals Process Begins
I think you have answered your own questions...
Links also lead to far more legal content than illegal content - do you have a point to make or not?
"No, html isn't illegal. Words aren't illegal either. Driving you car isn't illegal. Each are only a tool."
You mean just like the search site is only a tool? Accordingly, they are not illegal either then, correct?
"The purpose of the site is to make it possible for people to find torrent files that would otherwise be just randomly out there, unreachable without the name."
Since torrent files themselves are not illegal, and you obviously understand what the purpose of the site is as stated above, could you please tell me where the law is being broken on the search site?
On the post: Debunking The 'But People Just Want Stuff For Free' Myth
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sure what the point of your link was since I saw exactly two albums on that first page that were $5.99:
The Gift by Susan Boyle was $5.99 on CD and $11.99 for the MP3 download!! One of those items actually has a materials cost for each copy created - the other one is a single file that will be copied thousands of times at least. So why does the single file command a higher price when it is obvious that the MP3 costs far less to "manufacture" and requires virtually no overhead in terms of shipping or raw materials?
The second album was O Holy Night (DVD/CD) by Jackie Evancho. I don't know Jackie nor have I ever even heard of her but she has a seasonal holiday album out and as seasonal items go this one has been marked down from $8.98 to $5.99 probably because the holiday season is coming to an end.
Those are the two out of twelve that are $6 and to be honest I wouldn't pay for either of these albums even if they were only 99 cents. I certainly wouldn't even take the time to download them for free - which I'm sure they could be found somewhere at that price.
The interesting part of that list is the other 10 albums:
1. Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album by Glee Cast
2. Sigh No More by Mumford & Sons
These two are marked down and cost less than $10 - reasonable in my book for an album price these days. The second one is even by an artist whose music I would actually buy!
However, the rest of the top twelve:
3. Speak Now by Taylor Swift $18.98 now $12.99
4. Glee: The Music, Volume 4 by Glee Cast $13.98 now $11.88
5. Illuminations by Josh Groban $18.98 now $12.99
6. MICHAEL by Michael Jackson $13.98 now $11.88
7. The Union by Elton John and Leon Russell $18.98 now $13.82
8. Live At The Troubadour (CD +DVD) by Carole King and James Taylor $19.98 now $12.49
Those albums run anywhere from $14 to $19 before the discount. Those highly inflated prices are incredibly ridiculous, as a consumer, I choose NOT to pay for them because they are not affordable. Apparently I am not alone, since all of these albums were discounted - most likely to increase sales.
9. Farmer's Daughter by Crystal Bowersox $11.99
Still a little higher than what I personally think is reasonable but this album makes the bestseller list without a discounted price - kudos to Crystal!
10. The Promise: The Darkness On The Edge Of Town Story (3 CD/3 DVD) by Bruce Springsteen $119.98!!
Wait...it's marked down to $97.01!!
Are you effing kidding me?? $100 for 3 plastic discs??
What was your point again?
On the post: New Newspaper Business Model: Create Compelling Graphic, Wait For Others To Use It... And Then Sue
Re:
Perhaps though - someone should sue the hotel for unlicensed use of Intellectual Property stolen for the solar power folks?! /sarcasm
On the post: Debunking The 'But People Just Want Stuff For Free' Myth
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit! Strike one!
Most albums are priced at half that.
Bullshit! Strike two!
Citation requested - please make sure these are prices on new albums also - I have no doubt I can find music from the '60's thru the '90's at less than $10/album. You're talking out your ass here and we can all see that without waiting for a Wikileaks transmission.
Seems more than fair considering albums were 6 bucks in the 70s, 30+ years ago.
Bullshit! Strike three!you're out! I still have several albums both on cassette and vinyl with price tags from local stores that are far higher than the $6 you claim. $8 to $10 was very common and is 33% to 67% higher than you suggest.
No the current prices do not "seem fair" - it would seem fair if the prices of albums were considerably less than they were in the 1980's when many of us updated our collections to the "new, low cost" CD format that was going to make music affordable again. That movement never got off the ground.
Here's a paper towel for you - please wipe your face off when you pull your head out of your ass and just slowly back away from the keyboard.
On the post: Debunking The 'But People Just Want Stuff For Free' Myth
Re:
The things people take for free are the exact things that CAN'T be bought at the store or online!!
People want to purchase a movie/music/book they like, w/o useless DRM, w/o the damn FBI warning screen (which only appears on legal copies anyway - WTF?!), and without man made restrictions designed to force them to pay for multiple copies of the same piece of work! They want to be able to enjoy the content on their TV, PC, AND mobile device without having Homeland Security, ICE, the FBI, Roscoe P Coletrane or Barney Fife knocking down the door because they are violating some ridiculous statute that the gatekeepers hold up like a golden chalice on top of the mountain when they cry about how the pirates have robbed them blind, leaving them cold and wet in the street!
Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it!
Offer products people will pay for, allow them to use them as they wish and you too can enjoy the fruits of your labor on payday. If not, fill out your unemployment paperwork and quit bothering me - I'm trying to listen to my new FREE Nine Inch Nails album before I sit down to watch a couple of FREE movies without commercials or FBI Shield screens!
On the post: Discussing The Music Industry Comically Speaking, With Mimi & Eunice
Double handed face palm
I'll simplify for the sake of convenience and generalize broadly since specific facts in the real world around you seem difficult to grasp.
Apparently, here in the Jetsons-like modern age of business your are stuck in the yester-world of the Flintstones.
You are so myopic! I wonder, if you were to wear glasses, do you think you might only need a single lens since your eyes would almost have to share the same socket to have such a narrow view of everything?
I hereby dub thee..."AC Cyclops"
On the post: Apple The Latest To Convict Wikileaks Despite No Charges Or Trial; Kills Wikileaks App For Violating Unnamed Laws
Want a casualty from the Wikileaks fiasco?
I'm in the market for a smart phone and after doing my homework for several months I was down to two choices:
iPhone 4 from Apple or an HTC EVO 4G
I understand Apple has the right to do business with whomever they choose based on the reasons they see fit (that are not race/color/religion/creed/aged based) and this is the result.
You have KILLED me as a possible customer for kowtowing to whatever external forces may be present and for siding with those who believe suppression of the truth by the US government, whose actions obviously need to be questioned based on the content released, is a good idea.
Congratulations Apple!
Next >>