That is an interesting observation but its wrong from a marketing perspective.
Okay, I have to agree. I was wrong. There are tons of things that I purchase on a regular basis without comparing them to their competitors, so the name on the package does matter. :P
...tailor it to respond specifically to the thread you are replying in.
I did. If you truly read it every time that I posted it, you'd know that.
Also, discussing the point with people who have already posted is more valuable to me than slightly annoying people who can quickly skim past it. In fact, I've had tons of discussion on various points with this technique, but this is the only protest I've ever seen. :)
A simple solution would be to create a rule that doubles the penalties for not having the counterfeits labeled "knock off" with double the civil and criminal penalities.
That doubles the penalties to who? The site that this guy mentioned isn't an American site, so nothing we do can change it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
I can always choose to stop shopping at a given business if I don't like how they play at politics.
Libertarian, then? Look, I ♥ Heinlein, too, but this is not a realistic solution. If it were, we wouldn't have a completely corrupt Congress. Don't like my answer? What's yours?
Yikes. That's not a solution to government corruption, it's an invite!
They don't lose integrity, just perspective. You know, preaching to the choir sort of stuff.
Sure, in ordinary conversation, but in a publicized panel? I'd be careful about what I said if I were any of them.
See? You start with an attitude on this one.
What are you talking about?
Solitary confinement is not considered torture.
Yes, it is, by every country except ourselves and the countries that we censure for human rights abuses.
If it was, there would be literally thousand of people in federal prison in the US being tortured every day.
There are, which why why the UN wants to censure us for human rights abuses.
No, not an expert, just some experience in the area.
Which is why you were factually incorrect about what you said, then? Which is what you're saying that one of the panel speakers was? That's pretty hypocritical there.
That remains to be seen.
Yes, it does. Right along with who leaked the 250,000 documents.
Considering that there are official(s) of a foreign government involved in Wikileaks, it isn't clear if this is some sort of whistleblowing or some sort of espionage deal.
It also isn't clear if Bugs Bunny is involved, which is why conjecture like this isn't helpful.
Clearly whistleblowing wouldn't need 250,000 documents. So it doesn't stick.
Why not? The Pentagon Papers, which were leaked by whistle-blower Ellsberg, consisted of 47 volumes. Does the length of the document somehow invalidate the value of that leak?
Anyway, those 250,000 documents have already shed light on quite a few important things, so I'd say that they're proven their value quite neatly.
Based on some of what is discussed on this panel, they were certainly given to opinion and wandering ideas rather than pure factual discussion.
The point of panels like these is to discuss what these speakers thought those facts meant, which absolutely means opinions and wandering ideas. That's the awesomeness of it.
If it's just about facts, then they can issue a bulleted press release and not waste our time reading it out loud. These guys aren't exactly voice actors, you know.
When nobody tells you that you have gone too far, how far is too far?
When nobody has come up with an actual objection to a statement, how can you claim that it's too far?
..instead of spending half his profits to accomplish nothing...
He didn't spent half of his profits on this. In fact, there's no way to tell what potion of his profits he spent on this, because he doesn't tell us what his profits are. He does tell us that his company had 150 million dollars in sales, and that he spent 3/4th of a million dollars on this. That's a very small portion of sales.
...maybe... he should spend it on something else? Ads with a line like "Accept no substitutes" or somesuch?
I absolutely agree. Then the people whom are tricked into purchasing counterfeit strings would know to purchase from him. (If they can get past the price difference.)
I respect this guy; he sounds like an honest businessman who has good reason to be ticked off. But when your current business strategy ends up flushing $750,000 down the toilet, it's a sign that you need to very carefully re-examine things.
Again, I absolutely agree. That would be much smarter than flushing more money down the toilet or pissing off customers by supporting COICA.
Technically, the moderation of censorship would be the elimination or lessening of censorship, and the sort of person who would moderate censorship would probably not have a problem with free speech.
However, it's hard to say for certain, since you didn't give any contextual details whatsoever. Also, because you're crazy.
Jim D'Addario obviously cares about what I have and haven't heard about his guitar strings, because he spent three-quarters of a million dollars trying to keep people like me from mistakenly purchasing the wrong guitar strings. I say it would be better spent on advertising than attorney's fees, and you call that entitlement? Really?
Um, AC, quit it with the anonymity. You'll never get points for being Insightful or Funny as an AC. Unless... Could it be...? Do you post entirely without regard for the voting, like I do?
Anyway, the point is to engage in a discussion. I guess you don't realize it, because you're an AC, but many of us with profiles will click directly to our comments to see if anyone has responded. If no one has, on to the next post. Thus, the beauty and purpose of copying and pasting on these types of posts.
This, if true, seems like possibly quite strong evidence that customers are genuinely confused by the counterfeits and that the counterfeits may well be actually harming the brand...
The solution to this problem isn't to sue every tiny online storefront that sells counterfeit strings. It's publicity.
Make sure your customers know the only legitimate ways to purchase your products. Call out the names of the sites that sell counterfeit strings, and sue a few of the bigger ones. You probably won't get much money out of them, but you will get more publicity, for less money than he spent on whatever he spent that quarter of a million bucks on.
After that, only people who want the cheaper, non-A'Daddrio strings are going to buy them. Compete for the business of the cheaper consumers, if you want their business. Problem solved.
Okay, I see that some people who buy the knock-off strings might not know that they're knock-off strings. I still contend that most people would know, but I accept that some may not and this is a problem both because the money goes to the wrong pocket, and because the cheap string experience might damage their reputation.
However, the solution to this problem isn't to sue every tiny online storefront that sells counterfeit strings. It's publicity.
Make sure your customers know the only legitimate ways to purchase your products. Call out the names of the sites that sell counterfeit strings, and sue a few of the bigger ones. You probably won't get much money out of them, but you will get more publicity, for less money than he spent on whatever he spent that quarter of a million bucks on.
After that, only people who want the cheaper, non-A'Daddrio strings are going to buy them. Compete for the business of the cheaper consumers, if you want their business. Problem solved.
Exactly. He spent close to a million dollars and I hadn't heard a word about it. Me, the consumer.
The solution to this problem isn't to sue every tiny online storefront that sells counterfeit strings. It's publicity.
Make sure your customers know the only legitimate ways to purchase your products. Call out the names of the sites that sell counterfeit strings, and sue a few of the bigger ones. You probably won't get much money out of them, but you will get more publicity, for less money than he spent on whatever he spent that quarter of a million bucks on.
After that, only people who want the cheaper, non-A'Daddrio strings are going to buy them. Compete for the business of the cheaper consumers, if you want their business. Problem solved.
Exactly. He spent close to a million dollars and I hadn't heard a word about it. Me, the consumer.
The solution to this problem isn't to sue every tiny online storefront that sells counterfeit strings. It's publicity.
Make sure your customers know the only legitimate ways to purchase your products. Call out the names of the sites that sell counterfeit strings, and sue a few of the bigger ones. You probably won't get much money out of them, but you will get more publicity, for less money than he spent on whatever he spent that quarter of a million bucks on.
After that, only people who want the cheaper, non-A'Daddrio strings are going to buy them. Compete for the business of the cheaper consumers, if you want their business. Problem solved.
...regardless of what percentage of people we're talking about, some consumers ARE going to be fooled by the infringement, and a business's name is their livelihood.
The solution to this problem isn't to sue every tiny online storefront that sells counterfeit strings. It's publicity.
Make sure your customers know the only legitimate ways to purchase your products. Call out the names of the sites that sell counterfeit strings, and sue a few of the bigger ones. You probably won't get much money out of them, but you will get more publicity.
After that, only people who want the cheaper, non-A'Daddrio strings are going to buy them. Compete for the business of the cheaper consumers, if you want their business. Problem solved.
Except that the RIAA panels are filled with people who are inherently dishonest and have no intellectual integrity. I don't think you could say the same about Mike Masnick and Daniel Ellsberg.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
Answered by the second part; because we're already in synch with his viewpoint and we want him to win.
Yes. Because he'll do what we want. That's why we're giving him money, in your hypothetical situation.
So, out of curiosity, why are corporations giving money to candidates, in your view?
Ugh, so then my tax money will taken from me and be used to contribute to every politician's campaign equally. No thanks.
Financially, this isn't very different than your non-tax money being taken by corporations and given to candidates that protect their interests. Do you think corporations print that money themselves? Nope, just like the government, they get it from you.
Only this way, candidates aren't beholden to chance and corporate interests. They're beholden to you, the voter, as it should be.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, I have to agree. I was wrong. There are tons of things that I purchase on a regular basis without comparing them to their competitors, so the name on the package does matter. :P
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did. If you truly read it every time that I posted it, you'd know that.
Also, discussing the point with people who have already posted is more valuable to me than slightly annoying people who can quickly skim past it. In fact, I've had tons of discussion on various points with this technique, but this is the only protest I've ever seen. :)
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That doubles the penalties to who? The site that this guy mentioned isn't an American site, so nothing we do can change it.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: moderation of censorship
Sometimes I'm too nice for my own good.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re: TD censoring the Internet
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
Libertarian, then? Look, I ♥ Heinlein, too, but this is not a realistic solution. If it were, we wouldn't have a completely corrupt Congress. Don't like my answer? What's yours?
Yikes. That's not a solution to government corruption, it's an invite!
On the post: Daniel Ellsberg And Others Discuss The Serious Implications Of Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, in ordinary conversation, but in a publicized panel? I'd be careful about what I said if I were any of them.
See? You start with an attitude on this one.
What are you talking about?
Solitary confinement is not considered torture.
Yes, it is, by every country except ourselves and the countries that we censure for human rights abuses.
If it was, there would be literally thousand of people in federal prison in the US being tortured every day.
There are, which why why the UN wants to censure us for human rights abuses.
No, not an expert, just some experience in the area.
Which is why you were factually incorrect about what you said, then? Which is what you're saying that one of the panel speakers was? That's pretty hypocritical there.
That remains to be seen.
Yes, it does. Right along with who leaked the 250,000 documents.
Considering that there are official(s) of a foreign government involved in Wikileaks, it isn't clear if this is some sort of whistleblowing or some sort of espionage deal.
It also isn't clear if Bugs Bunny is involved, which is why conjecture like this isn't helpful.
Clearly whistleblowing wouldn't need 250,000 documents. So it doesn't stick.
Why not? The Pentagon Papers, which were leaked by whistle-blower Ellsberg, consisted of 47 volumes. Does the length of the document somehow invalidate the value of that leak?
Anyway, those 250,000 documents have already shed light on quite a few important things, so I'd say that they're proven their value quite neatly.
Based on some of what is discussed on this panel, they were certainly given to opinion and wandering ideas rather than pure factual discussion.
The point of panels like these is to discuss what these speakers thought those facts meant, which absolutely means opinions and wandering ideas. That's the awesomeness of it.
If it's just about facts, then they can issue a bulleted press release and not waste our time reading it out loud. These guys aren't exactly voice actors, you know.
When nobody tells you that you have gone too far, how far is too far?
When nobody has come up with an actual objection to a statement, how can you claim that it's too far?
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re:
He didn't spent half of his profits on this. In fact, there's no way to tell what potion of his profits he spent on this, because he doesn't tell us what his profits are. He does tell us that his company had 150 million dollars in sales, and that he spent 3/4th of a million dollars on this. That's a very small portion of sales.
...maybe... he should spend it on something else? Ads with a line like "Accept no substitutes" or somesuch?
I absolutely agree. Then the people whom are tricked into purchasing counterfeit strings would know to purchase from him. (If they can get past the price difference.)
I respect this guy; he sounds like an honest businessman who has good reason to be ticked off. But when your current business strategy ends up flushing $750,000 down the toilet, it's a sign that you need to very carefully re-examine things.
Again, I absolutely agree. That would be much smarter than flushing more money down the toilet or pissing off customers by supporting COICA.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: moderation of censorship
However, it's hard to say for certain, since you didn't give any contextual details whatsoever. Also, because you're crazy.
On the post: DailyDirt: Looking To Improve Infrastructure Designs
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: $750,000?!?!
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, the point is to engage in a discussion. I guess you don't realize it, because you're an AC, but many of us with profiles will click directly to our comments to see if anyone has responded. If no one has, on to the next post. Thus, the beauty and purpose of copying and pasting on these types of posts.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re:
The solution to this problem isn't to sue every tiny online storefront that sells counterfeit strings. It's publicity.
Make sure your customers know the only legitimate ways to purchase your products. Call out the names of the sites that sell counterfeit strings, and sue a few of the bigger ones. You probably won't get much money out of them, but you will get more publicity, for less money than he spent on whatever he spent that quarter of a million bucks on.
After that, only people who want the cheaper, non-A'Daddrio strings are going to buy them. Compete for the business of the cheaper consumers, if you want their business. Problem solved.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Expensive lawsuits or cheap publicity?
However, the solution to this problem isn't to sue every tiny online storefront that sells counterfeit strings. It's publicity.
Make sure your customers know the only legitimate ways to purchase your products. Call out the names of the sites that sell counterfeit strings, and sue a few of the bigger ones. You probably won't get much money out of them, but you will get more publicity, for less money than he spent on whatever he spent that quarter of a million bucks on.
After that, only people who want the cheaper, non-A'Daddrio strings are going to buy them. Compete for the business of the cheaper consumers, if you want their business. Problem solved.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re:
The solution to this problem isn't to sue every tiny online storefront that sells counterfeit strings. It's publicity.
Make sure your customers know the only legitimate ways to purchase your products. Call out the names of the sites that sell counterfeit strings, and sue a few of the bigger ones. You probably won't get much money out of them, but you will get more publicity, for less money than he spent on whatever he spent that quarter of a million bucks on.
After that, only people who want the cheaper, non-A'Daddrio strings are going to buy them. Compete for the business of the cheaper consumers, if you want their business. Problem solved.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: $750,000?!?!
The solution to this problem isn't to sue every tiny online storefront that sells counterfeit strings. It's publicity.
Make sure your customers know the only legitimate ways to purchase your products. Call out the names of the sites that sell counterfeit strings, and sue a few of the bigger ones. You probably won't get much money out of them, but you will get more publicity, for less money than he spent on whatever he spent that quarter of a million bucks on.
After that, only people who want the cheaper, non-A'Daddrio strings are going to buy them. Compete for the business of the cheaper consumers, if you want their business. Problem solved.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re:
The solution to this problem isn't to sue every tiny online storefront that sells counterfeit strings. It's publicity.
Make sure your customers know the only legitimate ways to purchase your products. Call out the names of the sites that sell counterfeit strings, and sue a few of the bigger ones. You probably won't get much money out of them, but you will get more publicity.
After that, only people who want the cheaper, non-A'Daddrio strings are going to buy them. Compete for the business of the cheaper consumers, if you want their business. Problem solved.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Daniel Ellsberg And Others Discuss The Serious Implications Of Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
Yes. Because he'll do what we want. That's why we're giving him money, in your hypothetical situation.
So, out of curiosity, why are corporations giving money to candidates, in your view?
Ugh, so then my tax money will taken from me and be used to contribute to every politician's campaign equally. No thanks.
Financially, this isn't very different than your non-tax money being taken by corporations and given to candidates that protect their interests. Do you think corporations print that money themselves? Nope, just like the government, they get it from you.
Only this way, candidates aren't beholden to chance and corporate interests. They're beholden to you, the voter, as it should be.
Next >>