Actually, since I AM, in fact, the center of the Universe, you be getting your C&D letter shortly along with a letter from my attorney. Or, you could simply make this all go away with a 5-6 digit "donation" to a charitable cause of MY choosing, namely - me and I'll grant you a 5 year license so you can also claim to be COTU!
Actually, since I AM, in fact, the center of the Universe, you be getting your C&D letter shortly along with a letter from my attorney. Or, you could simply make this all go away with a 5-6 digit "donation" to a charitable cause of MY choosing, namely - me and I'll grant you a 5 year license so you can also claim to be COTU!
Agreed (my bad), unlimited quantities of data are simply not a part of any major wireless carrier's plan - unlimited access is what they claim to advertise.
Having worked in the wireless industry for several years I can tell you why there aren't more lawsuits for false advertising. The companies offer unlimited "service" - not unlimited bandwidth - you can access the service anytime 24/7 and use the service. However, the bandwidth is indeed limited (eventually) on virtually every wireless service provider. That is how these companies get away with advertising "unlimited", they're talking about access to the service while consumers think "unlimited" bandwidth which is entirely different.
I don't like the practice of using the term unlimited (meaning access is unlimited) when it's quite clear the public see the word "unlimited" and thinks bandwidth. It's simply deceptive advertising.
So copyright works like charity! People collect the money for a cause and after the collectors get paid, whatever is left goes to the cause (artists in this case). I SO get it now!
"I think the line is when people start sharing on their own. At that point it goes from purposely misleading information to bad advice. Astroturfing does not count as "on their own"."
That's exactly where the line is drawn. However, I could see this scenario coming soon if it hasn't already: where the people giving the "bad advice" are paid by the drug companies which is surely illegal, once they get caught.
Re: I don't understand how the parents aren't being held responsible...
If you were a little more out of touch with your analogies we could watch you drift off into space!
Exactly what action were you expecting to be taken here and what crime are you punishing?
"The judge notes that this case may involve "cyberbullying," but thankfully New York has no anti-cyberbullying laws, so being a jerk online may still be childish, but is hardly actionable legally speaking"
People raise kids who turn out to be jerks all the time - a handful of those kids end up here on TD whining about why parents aren't being held responsible for their kids who act like jerks!
Re: Reading source code is not reverse engineering
"None of this increases innovation, and its effort to waste, its re-inventing the wheel every time you want to design a car.
It does not increase competition, or innovation and does not give the comsumer more variety, just 2 versions of the same thing, or more than 2 versions."
I disagree completely. Two versions of the same thing will not have the same price, typically. It's called competition. Without competition, the sole provider lacks any incentive to improve the product or innovate. It is the very heart of a free market.
Actually, this does seem like a good way to market a subscription. The best of both worlds and the convenience of the printed version for your leisure time plus less materials being used during the week when only the online version is available. I agree that this doesn't necessarily appeal to me but I could see how a larger audience may like the idea.
It is truly a sad day indeed to see that Bourne Music would demand $2000 + $200 per performance for a child who is raising money for hospice.
On the bright side, I have made a donation to her cause since your reprehensible actions have brought this to my attention.
Unfortunately, as a business, I want you to know I will never be a customer of yours and I will be sure to spread the word among my network of friends, family, and business associates.
Congratulations, you've just won the Darwin Award for Business!
In all honesty, you SHOULD donate the $2000 you demanded from her, to her cause! The next time an attorney recommends something so unbelievably inconsiderate fire them and hire a new one. Your actions are beyond shameful.
Hypocrites are always wrong, at least half the time! ~Rezendes
Yes, this is an original quote, feel FREE to use it - just be sure to give credit to the author, thanks.
Since you are claiming to be so right and upstanding on the practice of copying material from others and how wrong that is to do, you have now proven exactly the opposite point by using the avatar you selected. Your credibility has diminished faster than the price of a digital copy and is near zero as well!
"Arguing with you guys is fun."
You're arguing with yourself at this point, and yes, it is becoming entertaining to watch you stumble all over the place trying to claim the moral high ground while actually being the poster child for infringement.
Try this thought out for just a moment, what if the creators got paid for the actual goods the first time they sold them? Once you sell the item you no longer have any control over it. I can burn it, paint it, resell it, take a picture of a dufus who believes copyright laws protect the world from evil, whatever - it's mine, I bought it.
If the creators want to make more money they just have to make more things? You can make as much money as you want - just keep producing tangible/scarce items that cannot be reproduced for virtually no cost, like a table or chair.
You seem like the kind of person who would cheat at solitaire then feel good when you win. Those people always strike me as odd.
"actually, you have seen 1 blog writer jump ship."
That's pretty impressive that you know what other's have seen!
Unless of course you're a Siamese twin then it might make some sense but, only most of the time since you could conceivably look in opposite directions.
I've been patiently waiting for the smartphone shakeout and Apple has already committed suicide in my eyes, Motorola has just joined them. My comparison chart now only contains HTC models - that makes my decision much easier - thanks MOT!
It's the re-introduction wireless carrier meaning of unlimited!
In the wireless communications world the term unlimited was meant to mean that you had unlimited "access" to the network - as in you could use whenever you wanted but NOT that you could use it as MUCH as you wanted.
It's blatantly misleading to use the word unlimited in this case as well. Regardless of why you use the system which, unless you are doing something illegal, is none of anyone's effing business in the first place, even if I do claim it as a business expense.
If I paid for an unlimited pass then I should be able to use it WITHOUT LIMITS! If this costs the company money then maybe they should reconsider offering this type of pass. However, I suspect they do a fairly decent amount of business with these passes and it may turn out that NOT offering the passes would cost them even more revenue than the few extra trips some small portion of the riders might use.
If you advertise something as "unlimited" then it is logically incorrect to place a limit of any type on this item. Pick a new name for the pass: 7/21 weekly pass with 21 ride limit; 3/30 or the "33" Pass - will allow you 3 rides a day for thirty days; or the 90 Pass - 90 rides no time restraint. Once your 90 rides have occurred you need to re-up your pass.
Take your pick on what you want to call it but don't call it unlimited especially if you have no intention of honoring it.
On the post: Patenting The Geophysical Center Of Europe?
Re: Center of what?
On the post: Patenting The Geophysical Center Of Europe?
Re: As long as...
On the post: Why Aren't More Companies Sued For Bogus 'Unlimited' Service Claims?
Re: Re: Unlimited is not bandwidth!
On the post: Why Aren't More Companies Sued For Bogus 'Unlimited' Service Claims?
Unlimited is not bandwidth!
I don't like the practice of using the term unlimited (meaning access is unlimited) when it's quite clear the public see the word "unlimited" and thinks bandwidth. It's simply deceptive advertising.
On the post: Newsweek Insists People Don't Do Stuff For Free... And Then Shows Why People Do Stuff For Free
Re: Where's our money!
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows How Copyright Can Hinder The Spread Of Knowledge
Re:
On the post: FDA Tells Novartis That 'Facebook Sharing' Widget On Its Site Violates Drug Ad Rules
Re:
That's exactly where the line is drawn. However, I could see this scenario coming soon if it hasn't already: where the people giving the "bad advice" are paid by the drug companies which is surely illegal, once they get caught.
On the post: For An Industry Being Destroyed By 'File Sharing,' Film Industry Keeps Reporting Record Numbers
Re: Re:
If piracy is killing the industry AND the industry is claiming fantastic returns then one of those two statements is logically incorrect.
Face-palm for the industry!
On the post: Parents Not Responsible For Kids' Nasty Facebook Posts
Re: I don't understand how the parents aren't being held responsible...
Exactly what action were you expecting to be taken here and what crime are you punishing?
"The judge notes that this case may involve "cyberbullying," but thankfully New York has no anti-cyberbullying laws, so being a jerk online may still be childish, but is hardly actionable legally speaking"
People raise kids who turn out to be jerks all the time - a handful of those kids end up here on TD whining about why parents aren't being held responsible for their kids who act like jerks!
On the post: Is Emulating How A Piece Of Software Functions Copyright Infringement? UK Court Doesn't Think So...
Re: Reading source code is not reverse engineering
It does not increase competition, or innovation and does not give the comsumer more variety, just 2 versions of the same thing, or more than 2 versions."
I disagree completely. Two versions of the same thing will not have the same price, typically. It's called competition. Without competition, the sole provider lacks any incentive to improve the product or innovate. It is the very heart of a free market.
Epic fail, two handed face-palm!
On the post: Australian Newspaper Says The Only Way To Get Its iPad App Is To Subscribe To The Paper Version
Re: They do have ONE interesting idea...
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re:
It is truly a sad day indeed to see that Bourne Music would demand $2000 + $200 per performance for a child who is raising money for hospice.
On the bright side, I have made a donation to her cause since your reprehensible actions have brought this to my attention.
Unfortunately, as a business, I want you to know I will never be a customer of yours and I will be sure to spread the word among my network of friends, family, and business associates.
Congratulations, you've just won the Darwin Award for Business!
In all honesty, you SHOULD donate the $2000 you demanded from her, to her cause! The next time an attorney recommends something so unbelievably inconsiderate fire them and hire a new one. Your actions are beyond shameful.
What in the world were you people thinking?
Sincerely,
Ron Rezendes
On the post: Deutsche Bank Report Notes That It's Time To Rethink Copyright
Re: below average_joe
Yes, this is an original quote, feel FREE to use it - just be sure to give credit to the author, thanks.
Since you are claiming to be so right and upstanding on the practice of copying material from others and how wrong that is to do, you have now proven exactly the opposite point by using the avatar you selected. Your credibility has diminished faster than the price of a digital copy and is near zero as well!
"Arguing with you guys is fun."
You're arguing with yourself at this point, and yes, it is becoming entertaining to watch you stumble all over the place trying to claim the moral high ground while actually being the poster child for infringement.
Try this thought out for just a moment, what if the creators got paid for the actual goods the first time they sold them? Once you sell the item you no longer have any control over it. I can burn it, paint it, resell it, take a picture of a dufus who believes copyright laws protect the world from evil, whatever - it's mine, I bought it.
If the creators want to make more money they just have to make more things? You can make as much money as you want - just keep producing tangible/scarce items that cannot be reproduced for virtually no cost, like a table or chair.
You seem like the kind of person who would cheat at solitaire then feel good when you win. Those people always strike me as odd.
On the post: Frankie Valli And Ex-Jersey Boys Actors Sue Each Other Over Who Can Sing What Songs
Ok so...
On the post: Looking At The Details Of The
ReleasedLeaked ACTA DraftRe: fake leak
On the post: Early Indications Say Paywall For The Times Is A Dreadful Failure
RE: AC and his/her superpowers
That's pretty impressive that you know what other's have seen!
Unless of course you're a Siamese twin then it might make some sense but, only most of the time since you could conceivably look in opposite directions.
On the post: Motorola Does Openness Wrong; Bricks Your Droid X If You Tamper
Hello HTC!!
On the post: MTA Pretends 'Unlimited' Means 90
It's the re-introduction wireless carrier meaning of unlimited!
It's blatantly misleading to use the word unlimited in this case as well. Regardless of why you use the system which, unless you are doing something illegal, is none of anyone's effing business in the first place, even if I do claim it as a business expense.
If I paid for an unlimited pass then I should be able to use it WITHOUT LIMITS! If this costs the company money then maybe they should reconsider offering this type of pass. However, I suspect they do a fairly decent amount of business with these passes and it may turn out that NOT offering the passes would cost them even more revenue than the few extra trips some small portion of the riders might use.
If you advertise something as "unlimited" then it is logically incorrect to place a limit of any type on this item. Pick a new name for the pass: 7/21 weekly pass with 21 ride limit; 3/30 or the "33" Pass - will allow you 3 rides a day for thirty days; or the 90 Pass - 90 rides no time restraint. Once your 90 rides have occurred you need to re-up your pass.
Take your pick on what you want to call it but don't call it unlimited especially if you have no intention of honoring it.
On the post: Trademark And Domain Names... Two Very Different Rulings From One Judge
On the post: A Paywall... For Obituaries?
Next >>