Slashdot Mirror

You read the original, unammended bill.

The bill as signed does indeed prohibit cash for second-hand transactions in Section 1864.3:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/17424316421/louisiana-makes-it-illegal-to-use-cash-secondhand-sales.shtml

Oh yeah New Hampshire is a free state.

Wiretapping gone wrong

Or that they will just vote against their party's stance in copyright issues for no apparent reason, like Swedish Green MEP Isabella LÃvin did when she voted in favour of the Gallo report last year. Her fellow MEP from the Swedish Green party, Carl Schlyter, indicated that there had been a lot of pressure from lobbyists on that issue (but didn't explicitly mention LÃvin).

If a Green MEP had voted against their own party in an environmental issue it would almost certainly had made headlines. Now no one cared, and most of her voters probably still don't know about it even though the Greens in Sweden have used their stance against draconian copyright laws in the campaigns in the last few national and EU election cycles.

I'd much rather pay the extra 99c and not have to do a 10minute round trip in the car.

Agreed, the added value is worthwhile... however, your system is either piracy (frowned upon by the court system), or not quite there yet (I hear Netflix/Hulu have horrible selection).

My method allows me to hit a website, pick a movie, find out which nearby kiosk it's in, go pick it up, and be watching my chosen movie in just a few minutes.

Or were you referring to iTunes? If so, then my response is that I'd just as soon not give any money to a company that thinks the "walled garden" is a good concept. Or that decides it's ok not to honor a warranty. Or that sued a major US city for having the nerve to be called "the Big Apple".

As an aside, RedBox has spit in the face of the movie industry several times, and I kinda like their chutzpah. For example, when they were told they wouldn't be allowed to purchase DVDs at the same time as other rental outfits because they wouldn't wait to distribute them to their customers, they responded by buying retail DVDs at Wal-Mart and distributing those (or at least threatening to, I don't recall exactly how all that went down). They caved in eventually, but they stood up for themselves pretty well, and I've always rooted for the underdog. There's a bunch of stories at techdirt about Redbox, and they've had a fairly exciting legal career for the short (relatively speaking) time they've had their doors open (so to speak).

I guess you didn't look to see if as well as this snarky contest they spend a lot of time offering real working ideas about how to adapt. http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/

Did not not make it to the end of the article http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/14595315829/sarkozy-routes-around-parliament-ditches-net-neutrality-forces-copyright-clauses-into-all-isp-terms-service.shtml. "Sarkozy Routes Around Parliament, Ditches Net Neutrality, Forces Copyright Clauses Into All ISP Terms Of Service" that's the headline from linked to at the bottom of the article. Don't forget that's 650,000 households, 650,000 families and those families of course will have relatives and other associations beyond that and the law isn't even a month old, youch.

Or maybe it was b/c these four Senators specifically broke away from the Democratic party and labeling them IDC would confuse most people? Or maybe it's just fucking TechDirt, who apparently don't bother with that custom?

I knew you were a Republican as soon as you started crying about the "Liberal Media". It's funny, the wimps (D) are usually the biggest whiners (R) in real life, but not in politics.

But but.. how are they going to find a judge who doesn't use wireless technology? The entire system is against them! Oh, the poor trolls!

Seriously though, maybe this one.

You mustn't be looking hard enough. Techdirt has a post with links to at least four videos of the same incident, all from different angles. With plenty of time before the cop comes up and shoots the women directly in the face with pepper spray. Even the blue shirts around him appear surprised.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/09480916110/can-nypd-back-up-its-claim-confrontation-that-required-pepper-spray-despite-more-video-evidence.shtml

As I understand it, that was about articles posted by the operator of the site, not about articles posted by subscribers. The liability limitation under OCILLA extends only to materials posted by subscribers.

That's not important. There is still no requirement to send a takedown notice (or anything else) before suing, even if the content was posted by a user of the site and not the site operators.

Once the big wealthy targets win these lawsuits, the little guys can use the precedents.

If they can afford to, and they can convince a judge that their situation is exactly the same. Otherwise, prepare for a long and expensive battle.

That's being litigated.

No, it's not. The seizure has happened. What is being litigated is whether the US has to give it back. Regardless of the outcome, there won't be any legal fees awarded (since it's not a civil seizure). Maybe you can afford a couple of million just to fight to have a ".com" domain but I'd rather spend a few hundred dollars to get a relatively untouchable .me or .to domain. Note that this is especially important for companies based entirely in other countries. It is in their best interest to not have a TLD controlled by the US as their primary presence, because you never know what lobbyist will pay a congressman enough to get their domain pulled.

First, your understanding of the law is flawed.

I acknowledge this; I've never been to law school. But 1. it's a sorry state when people are expected to follow laws that they don't understand, and 2. it's your turn to show that these flaws are relevant.

Righthaven started many lawsuits over copyright infringement without any DMCA takedown request preceding the lawsuits.

As I understand it, that was about articles posted by the operator of the site, not about articles posted by subscribers. The liability limitation under OCILLA extends only to materials posted by subscribers.

If the party on the other side is big enough, it doesn't matter if you end up being "liable" or not...if they can prove they sued "in good faith", you probably aren't going to be awarded anything to offset your legal fees.

The courts are slowly getting around to interpreting OCILLA, defining what it means to sue in good faith. See Lenz v. Universal and Viacom v. YouTube.

YouTube and various file lockers are in the middle of lawsuits even though they comply with the law.

Once the big wealthy targets win these lawsuits, the little guys can use the precedents.

Last, if you haven't been watching, the domain seizures by ICE happen to sites without any warning of any kind

That's being litigated.

You should look around, even in this slashdot threads, there are a lot of cases where it's not clear cut, and you can find one sample here, as in geekprime post (10 minutes before your post, we can accept that you had not been aware of those cases if you never stumbled on them)

You apparently haven't been paying attention to what is actually going on.

Here, educate yourself.
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Puerto+80 [techdirt.com]

From the page
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/15132515831/puerto-80-responds-forcefully-to-dojs-claims-concerning-domain-seizures.shtml [techdirt.com]

You should look around, even in this slashdot threads, there are a lot of cases where it's not clear cut, and you can find one sample here, as in geekprime post (10 minutes before your post, we can accept that you had not been aware of those cases if you never stumbled on them)

You apparently haven't been paying attention to what is actually going on.

Here, educate yourself.
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Puerto+80 [techdirt.com]

From the page
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/15132515831/puerto-80-responds-forcefully-to-dojs-claims-concerning-domain-seizures.shtml [techdirt.com]

You apparently haven't been paying attention to what is actually going on.

Here, educate yourself.
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Puerto+80

From the page
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/15132515831/puerto-80-responds-forcefully-to-dojs-claims-concerning-domain-seizures.shtml

-------------------
Puerto 80 Responds Forcefully To DOJ's Claims Concerning Domain Seizures

While Puerto 80 has already appealed the rejection of its attempt to get back its domain names (the two rojadirecta domains that Homeland Security seized), the separate case, involving the permanent forfeiture of those domains, continues. As you may recall, Puerto 80 put forth its motion to dismiss, noting that the government appeared to be wholly making up a legal standard that doesn't exist, while also showing that Puerto 80 did not break criminal copyright law. The government responded bizarrely by trying to argue that Puerto 80's actions don't really matter, because it's not about Puerto 80... and then spent most of its brief explaining why Puerto 80 did things that broke the law.

Now Puerto 80 has responded, and this time it's coming out even more forcefully against the government, explaining how its theory for seizure and forfeiture is absolutely ridiculous, and would effectively allow the government to seize all sorts of property if it so chose, including any search engine domain, any telephone network infrastructure, any electrical company's infrastructure -- just because such tools could be shown to have been used by someone, somewhere, possibly for illegal purposes, even if the company in question had nothing to do with it:

The government’s view of its powers under the civil forfeiture law, articulated for the first time in its opposition to Puerto 80’s motion to dismiss, is breathtaking. In the government’s view, it doesn’t need to allege that Puerto 80 violated any law, or even engaged in any civil wrong, in order to seize and shut down its Internet domain name. As long as the government thinks that someone, somewhere in the world, is engaged in copyright infringement, it believes it is entitled to seize any asset that might be connected to that infringement, whether or not the owner engaged in any wrongdoing, and whether or not that asset in fact “facilitated” the commission of any crime. And it further believes it is entitled to seize Internet domain names and shut down protected speech without ever having to prove that the speech was, in fact, unlawful, much less that the owner of the asset was responsible for any crime.

On the government’s view of its powers, it is entitled to seize the Google, Bing, or Yahoo web site, because someone, somewhere, has used those sites’ search engines to find infringing content. It is entitled to seize Verizon’s telephone network for the same reason. It is entitled to seize the power company, since numerous crimes are “facilitated” by the use of electricity. And the only reason the government lost the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), is that it asserted the wrong statute. Had the government simply seized the New York Times’ printing presses, pointing out that they were being used to “facilitate” the disclosure of government secrets, it would have been able to block the disclosure of Daniel Ellsberg’s secrets.

As the filing notes, "this cannot be the law." And, almost certainly, it's unconstitutional.

The full filing (embedded below) is fantastic. It no longer dances ar

You apparently haven't been paying attention to what is actually going on.

Here, educate yourself.
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Puerto+80

From the page
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/15132515831/puerto-80-responds-forcefully-to-dojs-claims-concerning-domain-seizures.shtml

-------------------
Puerto 80 Responds Forcefully To DOJ's Claims Concerning Domain Seizures

While Puerto 80 has already appealed the rejection of its attempt to get back its domain names (the two rojadirecta domains that Homeland Security seized), the separate case, involving the permanent forfeiture of those domains, continues. As you may recall, Puerto 80 put forth its motion to dismiss, noting that the government appeared to be wholly making up a legal standard that doesn't exist, while also showing that Puerto 80 did not break criminal copyright law. The government responded bizarrely by trying to argue that Puerto 80's actions don't really matter, because it's not about Puerto 80... and then spent most of its brief explaining why Puerto 80 did things that broke the law.

Now Puerto 80 has responded, and this time it's coming out even more forcefully against the government, explaining how its theory for seizure and forfeiture is absolutely ridiculous, and would effectively allow the government to seize all sorts of property if it so chose, including any search engine domain, any telephone network infrastructure, any electrical company's infrastructure -- just because such tools could be shown to have been used by someone, somewhere, possibly for illegal purposes, even if the company in question had nothing to do with it:

The government’s view of its powers under the civil forfeiture law, articulated for the first time in its opposition to Puerto 80’s motion to dismiss, is breathtaking. In the government’s view, it doesn’t need to allege that Puerto 80 violated any law, or even engaged in any civil wrong, in order to seize and shut down its Internet domain name. As long as the government thinks that someone, somewhere in the world, is engaged in copyright infringement, it believes it is entitled to seize any asset that might be connected to that infringement, whether or not the owner engaged in any wrongdoing, and whether or not that asset in fact “facilitated” the commission of any crime. And it further believes it is entitled to seize Internet domain names and shut down protected speech without ever having to prove that the speech was, in fact, unlawful, much less that the owner of the asset was responsible for any crime.

On the government’s view of its powers, it is entitled to seize the Google, Bing, or Yahoo web site, because someone, somewhere, has used those sites’ search engines to find infringing content. It is entitled to seize Verizon’s telephone network for the same reason. It is entitled to seize the power company, since numerous crimes are “facilitated” by the use of electricity. And the only reason the government lost the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), is that it asserted the wrong statute. Had the government simply seized the New York Times’ printing presses, pointing out that they were being used to “facilitate” the disclosure of government secrets, it would have been able to block the disclosure of Daniel Ellsberg’s secrets.

As the filing notes, "this cannot be the law." And, almost certainly, it's unconstitutional.

The full filing (embedded below) is fantastic. It no longer dances ar

Nope, that's exactly what they do, thanks to the magic of the first sale doctrine. They're not "broadcasting" anything, so they don't have to pay royalties. Video stores don't either, those high price VHS tapes you remember were from back in the days when studios didn't sell most movies retail and charged outrageous prices to the video stores for every copy.

The studios hate the DVD by mail service with a firey burning passion, but their hands are tied unless they can bribe enough congressmen to sneak a new law through, and that's not as easy as people make it sound.

It will probably be patentable, and even the algorithm could be patented, but that would hardly be a useful patent. See what the creators of Graphene said about it

We considered patenting; we prepared a patent and it was nearly filed. Then I had an interaction with a big, multinational electronics company. I approached a guy at a conference and said, "We've got this patent coming up, would you be interested in sponsoring it over the years?" It's quite expensive to keep a patent alive for 20 years. The guy told me, "We are looking at graphene, and it might have a future in the long term. If after ten years we find it's really as good as it promises, we will put a hundred patent lawyers on it to write a hundred patents a day, and you will spend the rest of your life, and the gross domestic product of your little island, suing us." That's a direct quote.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101008/09595411336/why-this-year-s-physics-nobel-winner-never-patented-graphene.shtml

Proof. I pay for movies. What I want is for movies to last longer than 5 minutes in a house with young kids who think DVDs make excellent coasters and frisbees. Thank the good ol' USA for making decss illegal.

Amen. People need to be playing offense, not defense when it comes to copyright bullies.

Considering the news from just the last week:

• WikiLeaks: Iraqi children in U.S. raid shot in head, U.N. says
• Wall Street Journal: Why Does Jeanne Whalen Have a Hardon for Julian Assange?
• The Guardian Leaks unredacted unpublished US diplomatic cables
• Former Wikileaks Spokesman Destroyed Documents
• New Your Times: The Nixonian henchmen of today:

I am not surprised at all that powerful organizations continue to attack them, cheered on by the usual propaganda fan club.

Why bother?

Hollywood Accounting — Masterclass Level: over a million sales, around $10+ million in gross money, and the band still owes debt to the label.
Original Slashdot story

Recording labels fuck everyone, they fuck the artist through accounting tricks that leave the artist in debt and they fuck their country by claiming to have made losses on their accounting books to cut a tax break. The only people not being screwed over are the executives and share holders, and I for one, don't give a shit about them.

*Cough* They have.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/03544615342/judge-waxes-comedic-whether-you-can-trademark-quilted-diamonds-toilet-paper.shtml

What. The. Hell. Idiocracy here we come?

As a side note, I did enjoy that Judge's remarks on the case.

*Cough* They have.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/03544615342/judge-waxes-comedic-whether-you-can-trademark-quilted-diamonds-toilet-paper.shtml

Mod parent up. The major labels tried to push music recordings on the list in the late 90s as a "spelling correction" but it didn't work out in the end because the public found out and it caused a huge uproar among artists.

Jack Kirby's family tried it against Marvel/Disney.

It didn't work...

it's bad for business. the same policy killed friendster:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071101/194615.shtml

friendster started deleting fake names. this was the height of friendster's popularity, 2003. so people left in droves for this new funky site called "myspace"

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030813/2010251.shtml

1. if you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it, GOOGLE PLUS I'M TALKING TO YOU

2. the BOTTOM LINE you idiots. this policy hurts your BOTTOM LINE. just ask friendster, circa 2003

it's bad for business. the same policy killed friendster:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071101/194615.shtml

friendster started deleting fake names. this was the height of friendster's popularity, 2003. so people left in droves for this new funky site called "myspace"

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030813/2010251.shtml

1. if you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it, GOOGLE PLUS I'M TALKING TO YOU

2. the BOTTOM LINE you idiots. this policy hurts your BOTTOM LINE. just ask friendster, circa 2003

What if the individual senders didn't know or have reason to know about the limitation of the recipient? I know when I send an email I don't think to myself "hmm, I wonder how big their inbox is and if it's full?... Maybe I'd better ring them before sending the email to make sure there's room".

You can't call them, that's hacking too. FTFA "because it asked members to email and call an employer many times"

Another source: "The calls clogged access to Pulte’s voicemail system, prevented its customers from reaching its sales offices and representatives, and even forced one Pulte employee to turn off her business cell phone."

Since you don't know who else is calling or emailing them you could be contributing to "hacking".

Anyone reading this should also read how Cisco lied and got him arrested in Canada ... there's a link right below the description but I'm posting it again here as well:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110722/02351315202/how-cisco-justice-department-conspired-to-try-to-destroy-one-mans-life-daring-to-sue-cisco.shtml

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/a-pound-of-flesh-how-ciscos-unmitigated-gall-derailed-one-mans-life.ars/1

If you can prevent most people from doing it, you can then start issuing insane prison sentences/fines on those who do. Isolate and punish. No one is going to give jail time or excessive fines...(right? please?)...to the 14 year old who stumbled on Napster, but the computer geek who "bypasses DNS" using a dangerous hacker operating system called "linux": http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090414/1837144515.shtml

In short, first you make sure only a tiny minority can sympathize with them, follow it up with character attacks, and BAMN: you can start sentencing people to a few decades in prison for a victim-less crime committed in their late teens.

Sure I'm being more than a little hyperbolic here, but the point is that the more steps you go to to bypass this sort of thing, the more you start to look like an unsympathetic, evil hacker to the nice gentlepersons on the jury...don't dismiss the value of making it harder for the average person to the censorship lobby's efforts.

http://thelegalwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/01/capacious-crimes-and-creative.html
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-article.html
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/02/12/08/2244247.shtml
http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/486/news/news_2/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110716/01290815117/vague-law-vindictive-law-enforcement-hide-your-veggies.shtml
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-unbearable-vagueness-of-%E2%80%9Chonest-services-fraud%E2%80%9D/

Obviously, you have to prove that the photos. contain you to the authorities. :(

Just because the photo contains an image of you does not give you any copyright ownership.
Unless specified otherwise by a written agreement the photographer in general owns the right to the photos. You would also need to prove you created the scene/captured the picture, so have a copyright claim, which is quite difficult if you were a subject of the picture.

This kind of thing comes up a lot when people employ the services of a professional photographer. The photographer/studio that takes the pictures owns the pictures, is the only entity that can legally copy, scan, or otherwise reproduce them, and in general, they'll charge a pretty penny for rights to personal use/reproduction or any digital copy of professionally taken portraits, e.g. $100+ per image.

Remember the article about Photographer Who Took Family Portrait Of Girl Shot In Tucson Suing Media For Using The Photo ?

The photographers who take family pics apparently often keep all the old ones on file, and look for any media or anyone else daring to attempt to use their pics in publications, or anyone scanning and posting to the internet, so they can sue for a payday. :-/

I might suggest Marshall, Texas. No containment necessary.

Can't see any issues with this. Nope, I've got nothin'.

Or let's look at it this way:

Feinstein: Anti constitutional rights
Wyden&Udall: anti spying

Considering that feinstein is the head, we're kinda screwed. That and the complete lack of transparency, not that they were ever going to make good on it .

I've thrown all the feeds from each of these sites into Google Reader. In no particular order:

wired.com
slashdot.org
spectrum.ieee.org
scientistscanvas.com
arxiv.org
techcrunch.com
techdirt.com
news.discovery.com
physicsworld.com
newscientist.com
physorg.com
nationalgeographic.com
scienceblog.com

I have plenty more. Any RSS feeder app works. You get some repeats but there's a constant stream of science news.

Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 12th, 2011 @ 8:14pm

You make a couple of references to US Copyright Law and the DMCA, another US invention. Surely any copyright on these photos, whether it be held by the UK Daily Mail or Caters, is under United Kingdom jurisdiction. Do you feel TechDirt is complying with UK Copyright Law in terms of Fair Use?

Doesn't matter. We're a US site. Based in the US. Hosted on US servers. Targeting a US audience. The only law that matters is US law. Should there be an attempt to enforce this under UK law, we have the SPEECH Act that protects us from foreign rulings that go against US rulings on such things. UK laws and a UK court have no jurisdiction over us.

A quick google reveals...
drug-dealers: http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/seattle_drug_bust.shtm/
money-launderers: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110605/22322814558/senator-schumer-says-bitcoin-is-money-laundering.shtml/
terrorists: http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/new-tsa-pat-down-procedures.html/
pedophiles: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20078653-281/police-internet-providers-must-keep-user-logs/

These are all from this decade. It may be an old meme but it is still relevant.

Cell phone patent thicket. You're in research. Think of where we'd be if all the money being wasted on lawyers was instead being invested in research on better cell phone technology. And it's gonna get worse once the Apple/Microsoft/RIM consortium get all the patents they bought from the Nortel dissolution sorted. All three are renowned for spending money on lawyers rather than on innovating.

which do you want, microsoft or an ISP?

ISPs: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/024003.shtml

Microsoft:http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,25448106?hilite=google
or: http://advertising.microsoft.com/windows-live-hotmail

love that last one where it goes:

Why advertise on Hotmail?
Through innovative ad technologies and rich media formats, Hotmail showcases your brand in a clean, uncluttered environment that gives your message supreme visibility to a targetable, web-savvy audience. And they pay close attention: Hotmail offers the second highest share of minutes (21%) in the email category.1 You can choose from one of several advertising categories for more refined targeting. See the Audience Profile tab for more information.

Or shall I continue? How about MS's deal with facebook, while facebook is also selling people's info?

Nice try anonshills. Where's your proof of google selling your personal info?

Jealous much, faggot cunt?

Do you have no idea how silly that makes you look? Think anatomically, assuming you're at least capable of some thought. Twit.

Trolls: The Town Drunks of the Internet

Or the story from a year ago where a Harry Potter movie somehow lost $167 million. Basically, studio ends up paying itself distributions fees, advertising costs, and interest on it's own money. It's flimsier than most government accounting!

I'm sorry it's just... this has been covered ad nauseum.

This kind of crap happened to Courtney Love. (Original Salon story here.
Happened to TLC.
Happened to Lyle Lovett.
Happened to Janis Ian.

Has happened to almost every goddamn band to walk the face of the earth, with the exception of maybe the "chosen few" like Metallica (who are too fucking brain-dead to check if they are getting ripped off)... and even those usually make the vast majority of their money not from their music, but from endorsement contracts.

There’s this company, TerraPower, which former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myrhvold and I have spun out of his invention group, Intellectual Ventures. We’ve got a new nuclear design, a generation four.

If only energy companies would depend on the patented technologies of Gates' cronies, the world would be a much better place. Intellectual Ventures is that patent troll company run by ex-Microsofters.

http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2010/12/08/intellectual-ventures-files-first-three-patent-infringement-lawsuits-against-nine-companies-including-mcafee-symantec-altera/

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/11073712190/intellectual-ventures-files-its-first-lawsuits-giant-patent-troll-awakened.shtml

As in, the US Gov seizes trademark because they don't like it, then they use the trademark to try to take it down.

This is correct. Traffic hit a giant decline post-paywall , not that you need to be a genius to figure that out if you look at last time as well.

So yes, more could have been spent on being a good website that covers real news.

Valve has shown that lowering prices increases revenues.

For one thing, this is true in the case of urban gamers, who have access to with triple digit GB/mo transfer allowances. Gamers in rural areas depend on cartridges or discs because all they can get for Internet access is satellite or 3G, whose cap generally isn't high enough for a dual-layer DVD's worth of data in a whole month. Production of cartridges and discs adds a fixed overhead to the price of each copy.

For another, some games are based on a work of authorship or setting licensed from another party. This includes any book or movie tie-in, any sports game whose player characters represent real life athletes, or any rhythm game (e.g. DDR or Rock Band) or sandbox game (e.g. GTA series) with a licensed soundtrack. The licensor may insist on a fixed fee in dollars per copy sold, which likewise adds a fixed overhead.

Valve has shown that lowering prices increases revenues.

If the problem is that you can't sell for less because there are too many middlemen to pay, then it's obvious what your problem is.

It's being called the patent thicket at techdirt.

Still misunderstanding the world I see...

Maybe you would prefer it if MSFT took the "sue your ass off" route that Apple currently uses?

And what "sue your ass off" route would that be, exactly? The only major lawsuit that come to mind that aren't countersuits are the one against Samsung for copying Apple's designs. It's quite possible there are more, but it's definitely not some sort of "route that Apple currently uses".

It is kind of funny though, you mention lawsuits that MS has undertaken, and are currently undertaking, but somehow they *aren't* taking a '"sue your ass off" route', whereas Apple, who isn't engaged in such suits, is?

Uhm.. regardless of Microsoft, Apple is considered a quite aggressive litigious company. To the extent of even suing teenage driven Mac fan sites. Which though not patent related is RIAA-level low in my view. Some other Apple lawsuits or threats (not by a long shot an extensive list, but what turned up in a quick search) in addition to Samsung suit you mentioned and not including suits like the multitouch patent suit Apple filed against Motorola, as you excluded "countersuits".

Apple sues HTC for infringing 20 iPhone patents
Apple Threatening Patent Lawsuits Over New Palm Pre
Amazon Appstore is now live, Apple is suing for the name
The Reason Why Apple Is Suing Sanho Corp. (HyperMac) Revealed


--
“And boy, have we patented it.” — Steve Jobs, 2007.