Fake positive reviews are kind of easy to recognise, so we can make rules to control them.
What about fake negative reviews on competing products, though? Not as straight-forward to make rules to control those.
For example, Grooveshark came up a couple of weeks ago, which is a phenomenal service, even though the industry hates it. If you looks for reviews, you'll see many of them saying "will give you viruses!", even though that can't possibly be true. It's quite clear all of those reviews were written by the same person, and it's to wonder who is *really* responsible for them...
Typical Microsoft. They wait until somebody else has control of the market (Adobe, Google, Apple, etc etc), and then they try to butt in and steal some market share. More often than not, they fail miserably and end up wasting millions.
Then they *shouldn't* sell the printers for break-even.
This is a business model choice: should they make a fixed profit off every printer they sell, or should they keep making more and more profits off incredibly over-priced ink?
If they go for the first, they have to keep innovating to make better and better printers so people will keep buying new ones; if they go for the second, they have to make sure to have a monopoly on ink.
Consumers would benefit from the first option, but printer manufacturers would benefit from the second...
If they could brick the "infringing" printers from far away, they'd do it -- just like Microsoft did with the Xbox last year, and just like Apple is planning to do with jailbroken iPhones.
The Japanese are usually trend-makers. If something (sensible!) is being in Japan now, the Western world will probably follow within a decade.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with scanning books you own. Ebook sellers might complain "but it's a different product, so you are infringing copyrights and you are evil", but isn't selling people the SAME product twice more evil than personal copying?
Lucasfilm doesn't have the trademark on Jedi and they have no competing products that could confuse consumers (Jedi Mind seem to be selling thought-controlled games and software, apparently).
If they win this outright, it's because the judge was biased and was thinking that Jedi must go to Lucas by default -- but that's not the law, is it?
Yes, I completely agree. I believe the content licensing is a HUGE and pretty much unsolvable problem that no sane businessman would want on his hands -- it outweighs all the benefits of owning such a site.
I really don't see how legalising any of the big torrent websites is a good business decision. I'd have to be crazy to invest in a company that tried it, especially one based in "MAFIAA-land" USA.
Look at Mininova for example: regardless of the brand recognition they had, the moment they were forced to purge their database they were history. They truly dropped off the internets.
If that's not what he means by "legalising", then I highly doubt the rights holders would agree to allow their content to appear on an all-you-can-eat torrent website. It'd be totally awesome if they did, but they won't.
On the post: FTC Cracks Down On Marketing Firm That Put Up Fake Reviews In iPhone App Store
Re: Re: Re:
Narwhals are even better.
On the post: FTC Cracks Down On Marketing Firm That Put Up Fake Reviews In iPhone App Store
Re: Re:
On the post: FTC Cracks Down On Marketing Firm That Put Up Fake Reviews In iPhone App Store
What about fake negative reviews on competing products, though? Not as straight-forward to make rules to control those.
For example, Grooveshark came up a couple of weeks ago, which is a phenomenal service, even though the industry hates it. If you looks for reviews, you'll see many of them saying "will give you viruses!", even though that can't possibly be true. It's quite clear all of those reviews were written by the same person, and it's to wonder who is *really* responsible for them...
On the post: Has Microsoft Extinguished Silverlight?
On the post: Why Are Gay Porn Producers So Quick To Get Involved In Shakedown Copyright Pre-Settlement Schemes?
On the post: Facebook Sues Teachbook Over Trademark Concerns; Where's Legalbook?
I think you forgot THE example: iThingies
On the post: Airport Scanner Technology Mounted On US Gov't Vans To Scan What's In Nearby Vehicles
Re: And People are worried about Google?
On the post: Airport Scanner Technology Mounted On US Gov't Vans To Scan What's In Nearby Vehicles
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/08/25/192208/GPS-Tracking-Without-a-Warrant-Declared-Leg al
Personal privacy is eroded at such an incredible rate it's just ridiculous.
On the post: Man Trademarks 'Welcome To Parry Sound,' Demands Money From Parry Sound Organizations
On the post: Lexmark, HP Using Patent Law To Try To Block Replacement Ink Cartridges From The Market
Re: Probably a minority viewpoint
This is a business model choice: should they make a fixed profit off every printer they sell, or should they keep making more and more profits off incredibly over-priced ink?
If they go for the first, they have to keep innovating to make better and better printers so people will keep buying new ones; if they go for the second, they have to make sure to have a monopoly on ink.
Consumers would benefit from the first option, but printer manufacturers would benefit from the second...
On the post: Lexmark, HP Using Patent Law To Try To Block Replacement Ink Cartridges From The Market
On the post: Digitizing Your Own Books Becoming Popular In Japan
There is absolutely nothing wrong with scanning books you own. Ebook sellers might complain "but it's a different product, so you are infringing copyrights and you are evil", but isn't selling people the SAME product twice more evil than personal copying?
On the post: Agency Representatives Threaten Gawker For Showing Jennifer Aniston Photos [Allegedly] Sans Photoshop [Updated]
On the post: Agency Representatives Threaten Gawker For Showing Jennifer Aniston Photos [Allegedly] Sans Photoshop [Updated]
Re: Huh...
On the post: Did The RIAA Just Destroy Its Own Argument Concerning Innocent Infringement?
Re:
This is the funniest thing I've read all week :D
On the post: LucasFilm Skips The Jedi Mind Trick And Just Straight Up Sues 'Jedi Mind'
If they win this outright, it's because the judge was biased and was thinking that Jedi must go to Lucas by default -- but that's not the law, is it?
On the post: Warner Bros. Upset About Harry Popper Condoms
On the post: Dear Hans Pandeya: Buying A Website Involves More Than Just Saying You're Going To Buy It...
Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Hans Pandeya: Buying A Website Involves More Than Just Saying You're Going To Buy It...
Look at Mininova for example: regardless of the brand recognition they had, the moment they were forced to purge their database they were history. They truly dropped off the internets.
If that's not what he means by "legalising", then I highly doubt the rights holders would agree to allow their content to appear on an all-you-can-eat torrent website. It'd be totally awesome if they did, but they won't.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Dear Karl
What the hell is wrong with you?
Love and kisses
cc
Next >>