I don't comment much these days but was logging in to state specifically this if somebody else didn't. That 30% cut gets the developers or publishers quite a bit of additional services rendered.
Another thing worth mentioning is that if a steam key is sold on another platform, the dev gets whatever cut they get there, such as 100% from their own website. Valve however still honors their part of the deal, despite getting no cut from that sale. Meaning they still support the game download and any other services (discussion boards, possible workshop support, groups for the gamers, etc) without getting any money whatsoever.
That 30% cut seems awfully reasonable in most circumstances once all of this other information is included.
Just a pet peeve but these things are pretty much always mislabeled. They are not endoscopes. Endoscopes would be the medically rated ones used by hospitals and stuck into bodies. These are actually borescopes. Do not use these to perform at home DIY colonoscopy. Just sayin'
One of the topics discussed during the podcast was lurkers and loyalty. I started reading TechDirt back in 2006. I went by a certain handle for the first 3ish years. My posts back then were much more angry and attacking at people with different views. I was in my young 20s then. At some point I grew up some, realized how vitriolic I was being, and created a new handle to leave the anger behind. It worked pretty well, and my posts since then have been of a much higher quality. I used to comment a ton as well. Over the last few years though I have barely commented. I have worked places where I am far more busy, and my home life, having kids, is also far more busy. I still find time to read most of the posts and still find myself agreeing with TD on just about everything, much the same as when I stumbled upon it. I am thankful for this site existing, helped contribute to the legal defense fund, and am one of those who come to the site directly. I currently fit that bill of lurker though. I don't comment much but am still around and likely always will be. I still link directly to your articles when I send them to friends from time to time when the topics or companies are things they have interest in.
With regards to Facebook though, bah humbug. I left it many years ago, and intend to stay away. Since I have been gone so long, I am not sure how much of an impact it plays on any of my friends or family. They know well enough by now not to bring up that company to me.
Can't recall if I found through iGoogle or just made sure to add it to iGoogle because I found it a hair before that. Either way, been reading since around 2006. Good stuff. Thank you for all of the work you have done. I recall many different experiments you've gone through. Including the "this person's favorite posts of the week" that I got picked for once. That was fun having a shot at contributing something more than just a comment. This is one of those things where I feel like I know you and if I saw you would want to talk like you know me even though you don't at all. Funny how that works. Here is to hoping this continues on for many more years and that crazies suffering from illusions of grandeur don't manage to damage it.
I don't log in much anymore, or make anywhere near the comments I used to make years back, but I still review every single article that TD posts as well as completely read roughly half of them. Threw in some money to the fund. TD deserves it. Hopefully you beat that worthless human being in court. This site is just as important as it was when I started reading it to keeping us up to date on a host of topics. Best of luck friends.
"AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson today defended his company's proposed acquisition of Time Warner, saying that critics who claim the merger will raise prices are "uninformed."
R. Stephenson: "Everyone knows that we raise prices every year regardless. This certainly won't affect that."
Interesting. If that is the case, I am sure the lawyers and the incredibly few people who were able to opt out will be happy they hardly have to split this with anyone.
I would not be surprised to see judges toss these based on the "binding arbitration" clauses that are in many customer's agreements these days. Courts really should have never recognized the arbitration clauses as they have been a massive way to undermine consumer's at every turn. When many consumers in many markets do not have choices (I am looking at you broadband market), the arbitration clauses should be illegal to begin with. I can only hope that they go through the courts and don't get tossed because of the contract's horrible terms that people were forced to agree to.
What is the phrase that the LEOs all around keep saying?
If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear
Well, their actions certainly show that they can't practice what they preach. That right there instantly lowers the respect they garner and the trust they desire.
Same here. It was already annoying that their RSS feed always had one sentence and then "read the story on wired". Once they went to blocking my traffic, I just removed from the feeds. Now I never go to their site for anything at all. Go figure.
First, the tone of the brief reads like an indictment. We've all heard Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch thank Apple for its consistent help in working with law enforcement. Director Comey's own statement that "there are no demons here." Well, you certainly wouldn't conclude it from this brief. In 30 years of practice I don't think I've seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo, and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case.
For the first time we see an allegation that Apple has deliberately made changes to block law enforcement requests for access. This should be deeply offensive to everyone that reads it. An unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple rather than confront the issues in the case.
Or the ridiculous section on China where an AUSA, an officer of the court, uses unidentified Internet sources to raise the spectre that Apple has a different and sinister relationship with China. Of course that is not true, and the speculation is based on no substance at all.
To do this in a brief before a magistrate judge just shows the desperation that the Department of Justice now feels. We would never respond in kind, but imagine Apple asking a court if the FBI could be trusted "because there is this real question about whether J. Edgar Hoover ordered the assassination of Kennedy — see ConspiracyTheory.com as our supporting evidence."
We add security features to protect our customers from hackers and criminals. And the FBI should be supporting us in this because it keeps everyone safe. To suggest otherwise is demeaning. It cheapens the debate and it tries to mask the real and serious issues. I can only conclude that the DoJ is so desperate at this point that it has thrown all decorum to the winds....
We know there are great people in the DoJ and the FBI. We work shoulder to shoulder with them all the time. That's why this cheap shot brief surprises us so much. We help when we're asked to. We're honest about what we can and cannot do. Let's at least treat one another with respect and get this case before the American people in a responsible way. We are going before court to exercise our legal rights. Everyone should beware because it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Link to other sources if possible, them if need be.
Used to have Wired in my RSS feeds. They were already annoying in that only a tiny piece was there and you had to click through if you wanted to read any more. Since they started blocking ad blockers, I came up with a more absolute solution. I no longer follow Wired in the RSS feeds. Not in the feeds, I never click through the site. Done.
On the post: Maybe Epic's Claims For Exclusivity Strategy To Benefit The Gaming Industry Isn't Entirely Crazy
Re:
I don't comment much these days but was logging in to state specifically this if somebody else didn't. That 30% cut gets the developers or publishers quite a bit of additional services rendered.
Another thing worth mentioning is that if a steam key is sold on another platform, the dev gets whatever cut they get there, such as 100% from their own website. Valve however still honors their part of the deal, despite getting no cut from that sale. Meaning they still support the game download and any other services (discussion boards, possible workshop support, groups for the gamers, etc) without getting any money whatsoever.
That 30% cut seems awfully reasonable in most circumstances once all of this other information is included.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Well .. shit.
On the post: Daily Deal: 1080p HD Waterproof WiFi Wireless Endoscopic Camera
Not an endoscope
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 151: Facebook Won't Save Democracy
My Time at TechDirt
With regards to Facebook though, bah humbug. I left it many years ago, and intend to stay away. Since I have been gone so long, I am not sure how much of an impact it plays on any of my friends or family. They know well enough by now not to bring up that company to me.
On the post: Techdirt Turns Twenty!
Huzzah!
On the post: DOJ Boss Promises The Return Of Everything That Didn't Work During The Last 40 Years Of Drug Warring
His Boss' Comments
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Still Around
On the post: AT&T's Already Making Things Up To Get Its Massive New Merger Approved
What wasn't said publicly
"AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson today defended his company's proposed acquisition of Time Warner, saying that critics who claim the merger will raise prices are "uninformed."
R. Stephenson: "Everyone knows that we raise prices every year regardless. This certainly won't affect that."
On the post: FCC Fines T-Mobile For Abusing The Definition Of 'Unlimited' Data
Re: Abusing the definition
On the post: Comcast Sued For Misleading Fees It Claims Are Just Its Way Of Being 'Transparent'
Re: Re: Arbitration Clauses?
On the post: Comcast Sued For Misleading Fees It Claims Are Just Its Way Of Being 'Transparent'
Arbitration Clauses?
On the post: Study Says Body Cameras Can Reduce Force Usage... But Only If Officers Turn Them On
What's that phrase?
If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear
Well, their actions certainly show that they can't practice what they preach. That right there instantly lowers the respect they garner and the trust they desire.
On the post: Movie Theater Security Guards Assault Women, Claim They Were Pirating Movie
Re: An intricate plot?
On the post: Digital Homicide Sues Steam Reviewers, Steam Drops It Like It's Hot
Prove em right!
Just because somebody calls the developers idiots in an online forum, doesn't mean you have to go and prove them right.
On the post: House Passes Bill Attempting To Gut Net Neutrality, Supporters Declare The Internet Saved
Re:
On the post: Why Are People Using Ad Blockers? Ads Can Eat Up To 79% Of Mobile Data Allotments
Re:
On the post: Apple General Counsel Blasts Justice Department For Crazy Filing
Re: -- Cheap Attempt
First, the tone of the brief reads like an indictment. We've all heard Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch thank Apple for its consistent help in working with law enforcement. Director Comey's own statement that "there are no demons here." Well, you certainly wouldn't conclude it from this brief. In 30 years of practice I don't think I've seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo, and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case.
For the first time we see an allegation that Apple has deliberately made changes to block law enforcement requests for access. This should be deeply offensive to everyone that reads it. An unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple rather than confront the issues in the case.
Or the ridiculous section on China where an AUSA, an officer of the court, uses unidentified Internet sources to raise the spectre that Apple has a different and sinister relationship with China. Of course that is not true, and the speculation is based on no substance at all.
To do this in a brief before a magistrate judge just shows the desperation that the Department of Justice now feels. We would never respond in kind, but imagine Apple asking a court if the FBI could be trusted "because there is this real question about whether J. Edgar Hoover ordered the assassination of Kennedy — see ConspiracyTheory.com as our supporting evidence."
We add security features to protect our customers from hackers and criminals. And the FBI should be supporting us in this because it keeps everyone safe. To suggest otherwise is demeaning. It cheapens the debate and it tries to mask the real and serious issues. I can only conclude that the DoJ is so desperate at this point that it has thrown all decorum to the winds....
We know there are great people in the DoJ and the FBI. We work shoulder to shoulder with them all the time. That's why this cheap shot brief surprises us so much. We help when we're asked to. We're honest about what we can and cannot do. Let's at least treat one another with respect and get this case before the American people in a responsible way. We are going before court to exercise our legal rights. Everyone should beware because it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On the post: What Should We Do About Linking To Sites That Block People Using Ad Blockers?
My 2 cents
Used to have Wired in my RSS feeds. They were already annoying in that only a tiny piece was there and you had to click through if you wanted to read any more. Since they started blocking ad blockers, I came up with a more absolute solution. I no longer follow Wired in the RSS feeds. Not in the feeds, I never click through the site. Done.
On the post: FOIA Request Results In Details Of Administration's War On FOIA Reform
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Blocks Release Of Anti-Abortion Videos As The Arbiter Of Journalism
Political Ads
Orrick focuses on how misleading the videos are and then claims them to not qualify as journalism.
Maybe he is just trying to lay the groundwork to save us all from political ads for the next 9 months?
Next >>