I didn't realize people who were stupid enough to buy something from an infomercial actually know how to get online and post to forums. Ok, sorry, off topic, but still...Who buys anything they see in an infomercial anyway?
I agree totally that people who are tech savvy enough to unlock their iPhones but aren't smart enough to heed warnings get what they deserve. I didn't even think about the scenario you described either. In your case, instead of forcing you down the road of unlocking your phone, I wish AT&T and/or Apple would refund your money. I live in San Antonio (AT&T World HQ) and not surprisingly, I have coverage from here are the way to Dallas without interruption. I haven't been down to Houston yet, so maybe there are big gaping coverage holes that way.
That sure was nice of Apple to warn people then, if they DELIBERATELY did what you say. The problem is, you're an Apple-hater, and your logic is biased.
The problem with your statement is that many of us did rush out and buy a $500 iPhone, but MOST of us don't care that it is tethered to AT&T and MOST of us will never add a third party app to it on our own. See, only on slashdot does this become an issue: the land of the
For the record, I moved back to the States in August and needed a new cell phone, so I don't consider my purchase to be a "rush" job. It just happened to be available at the time I needed a new phone, and I wasn't already locked in to some other contract. See, this is the REAL reason people are miffed. They got suckered into lengthy Verizon contracts and shitty phones 1.2 years ago and are shifting the blame to Apple and AT&T. I find it VERY difficult to believe the average cell phone consumer can discern the service quality between AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc. If anything, AT&T in the two months I've used them, have the best online tool to pay bills and I have had zero service interruptions. I've been with Sprint and Verizon before, and AT&T has been better so far, but it doesn't really matter, because "better" when it comes to crappy all around is vaguely relative.
The difference is, Apple is making some f'ing awesome products, and people are falling over each other to buy them.
And it is such a HUGE difference, that I doubt Apple will ever garner as much hatred as Microsoft. It would be one thing if Apple continued the trend in their behavior AND offered crappy products, like Microsoft does, but Apple still puts awesome products first, profit and bottom-line second.
This was a case of compensatory damages. If you think the RIAA deserves more in the form of punitive damages, then you are cruel AND unusual.
Yeah, so thanks for twisting my words, but they still stand. The RIAA is trying to deter the behavior of this woman and to CRIMINALIZE her actions (or at least they've done a well enough job that most people in this thread are confusing her case with a criminal trial). They don't care about the money, as evident by the snarky comments made by the gloating a-hole attorney on TV. See, this is what happens to you when you BREAK THE LAW!
Thank you for answering the question of deterence I've asked in two other places thus far. I'm glad I'm not the only person in the world who thinks it isn't a civil courts' place to seek deterence in their judgments.
Just curious as why you think (or society in general) that it is a civil court's place to act as a deterent? I thought civil courts were in place to let one private entity try to recover damages from ONE other private entity if they feel they've been wronged. In that scenario, there is no room for punitive or excessive statutory damages.
Yes, the classic argument, "the defense is a liar!". The plaintiff has the responsibility to prove their case. You don't prove your case by having the defendant NOT prove theirs. I agree, it sounds like she is lying, but that doesn't prove anything. SHOW the jury how she stole the songs and just exactly WHO she shared them with. PROVE how it was her and could only have been her. Otherwise you haven't proven shit, other than a long string of coincedences.
My lord, no, no, no. I hope I don't live in a society that you just described. You actually condone what you say?
The Death Penalty has proven to be no deterent. The more death sentences are carried out, the more murders occur. Why do you think this RIAA *civil* trial would be any different?
This was a civil trial, not a criminal court. It isn't the job of a civil trial to deter crime. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you can't even get punitive damages, unless their is fraud involved (thank you People's Court!). I would have wrecked this jury, because from the evidence I've read (granted, I wasn't in the court room), the RIAA failed to prove how many times the stolen songs were shared. If all they can prove was she stole the songs, then they deserve about $25 for their efforts.
Yes, but I have little faith in holding MY fate in the hands of ordinary people (guilty or not). They aren't "willing" either. You get called to jury duty, you show up, then you do everything in your power to try to get out of it. The "ordinary" person you speak of acts like an "ordinary" idiot when detained to a jury room for 8 hours each day. The mere notion that ONE juror may have changed their mind just so they could go home tells you everything that is wrong about these sorts of trials. The RIAA lawyers even setup their arguments in ways to cause jury infighting. They pick stupid people on purpose, in hopes of getting 7 out of 12 dolts who just want to be home by five so they can watch Judge Judy. My mom is a clerk of court, in charge of juries. I grew up watching these fools bicker, complain, ignore judges instructions...they've made me the cynic that I am.
Wow, you've got it completely backwards. The idiots on the jury are to blame, not some out of control judge you try to depict. In fact, if I ever find myself in criminal court, I hope I NEVER face a trial of my peers, because quite frankly, most of my peers are idiots.
Shouldn't your girlfriend just have burned her iTunes song to a cd, then reripped it to her computer, then put it on her non-iPod? That would be legal, as far as I can tell trying to read in between all the RIAA rhetoric.
Re:An actual comparison between the two?
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 1
My point being, that just because something has a "feature" doesn't make it any good, unless that feature is made and implemented with quality. When a product tends to focus on "features" that is USUALLY because they are trying to cover the fact that their products' performance and quality sucks. When you add an FM Tuner, that arguably completely misses the whole point of owning an mp3 player in the first place, that doesn't make the device better than an iPod for having more "features". You can add a toaster and a laser beam and it still doesn't make it better. Sometimes, less is actually more because when you get too many features, it is impossible to bring them together in one cohesive and logical interface.
Re:Oy... hate to even get involved...
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 1
Well said, except for the fact that 99% of non slashdot readers have no idea what DRM is, and half of the slashdot readers don't care, so it is a non-issue.
Re:An actual comparison between the two?
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 1
User interface and quality trumps features every day of the week. This is why feature-for-feature reviews usually always get it 180 degrees wrong. Consumers, in general, over evaluate the importance of features, and companies know this. Just look at the advertisements for any of the non-big players in the Sunday Best Buy flyers and you get a list of "features", yet the iPod stands on its own merit with minimal feature list of how many GBs it holds.
There are three major flaws with the logic of this story. First, guitar players don't switch guitars out between songs solely for different tuning. Good guitar players have a lot of guitars that have different tones. They simply like to swap guitars out for different musical situations, not just tuning.
Only the least technical, uneducated guitar players depend on "drop-d" tuning. It is the easy/lazy way to play guitar. Nothing wrong with that (I love Stone Sour just as much as the next wannabe headbanger), but you might as well just tune your guitar to drop d in the first place then keep it in tune throughout the gig. Most of the hard rock gigs that use drop-d write EVERY song with drop-d tuning in mind, so there is no need to switch back and forth.
Having a machine tune a guitar is never foolproof, nor would the guitar be foolproof by tuning itself. It still takes skill and musicianship to play a guitar in tune, even if the guitar is "in tune" to begin with. A good guitar player can play a slightly out of tune guitar in tune, thus making this device a gimmick.
But hey, I'm just a drummer, so what do I know? I keep the drumsticks on my dashboard so I can park in the handicapped zones.
Switching systems for the middle lanes might work in DC (I've never been there) but in San Antonio, there are just as many cars heading towards downtown as are leaving downtown during rush hours. I think all the people who live in the outskirts work downtown and all the people who live downtown work in the outskirts. I'm not sure if EVERY major city is this way (this is the biggest city I've ever lived in), but it sure would be nice if they freed up any of the 3-4 lanes NOT in use due to construction for at least one HOV lane.
Seriously! Most people are assholes. And drivers the highest asshole ratio of all classes of people. It doesn't help that people like Britney Spears can drive around in broad daylight with everyone on the planet knowing she doesn't actually have a license. Oops a bit off topic, but did I mention people are assholes?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't realize people who were stupid enough to buy something from an infomercial actually know how to get online and post to forums. Ok, sorry, off topic, but still...Who buys anything they see in an infomercial anyway?
Overrated. Unless, I guess, you hack into my bank account, but you really don't need to be hacked into my network to do that.
Would you like to provide some proof that Apple would have to honor warranty work for software hacked phones?
I agree totally that people who are tech savvy enough to unlock their iPhones but aren't smart enough to heed warnings get what they deserve. I didn't even think about the scenario you described either. In your case, instead of forcing you down the road of unlocking your phone, I wish AT&T and/or Apple would refund your money. I live in San Antonio (AT&T World HQ) and not surprisingly, I have coverage from here are the way to Dallas without interruption. I haven't been down to Houston yet, so maybe there are big gaping coverage holes that way.
Says a cynic with a grudge.
That sure was nice of Apple to warn people then, if they DELIBERATELY did what you say. The problem is, you're an Apple-hater, and your logic is biased.
For the record, I moved back to the States in August and needed a new cell phone, so I don't consider my purchase to be a "rush" job. It just happened to be available at the time I needed a new phone, and I wasn't already locked in to some other contract. See, this is the REAL reason people are miffed. They got suckered into lengthy Verizon contracts and shitty phones 1.2 years ago and are shifting the blame to Apple and AT&T. I find it VERY difficult to believe the average cell phone consumer can discern the service quality between AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc. If anything, AT&T in the two months I've used them, have the best online tool to pay bills and I have had zero service interruptions. I've been with Sprint and Verizon before, and AT&T has been better so far, but it doesn't really matter, because "better" when it comes to crappy all around is vaguely relative.
Yeah, so thanks for twisting my words, but they still stand. The RIAA is trying to deter the behavior of this woman and to CRIMINALIZE her actions (or at least they've done a well enough job that most people in this thread are confusing her case with a criminal trial). They don't care about the money, as evident by the snarky comments made by the gloating a-hole attorney on TV. See, this is what happens to you when you BREAK THE LAW!
Thank you for answering the question of deterence I've asked in two other places thus far. I'm glad I'm not the only person in the world who thinks it isn't a civil courts' place to seek deterence in their judgments.
Just curious as why you think (or society in general) that it is a civil court's place to act as a deterent? I thought civil courts were in place to let one private entity try to recover damages from ONE other private entity if they feel they've been wronged. In that scenario, there is no room for punitive or excessive statutory damages.
Yes, the classic argument, "the defense is a liar!". The plaintiff has the responsibility to prove their case. You don't prove your case by having the defendant NOT prove theirs. I agree, it sounds like she is lying, but that doesn't prove anything. SHOW the jury how she stole the songs and just exactly WHO she shared them with. PROVE how it was her and could only have been her. Otherwise you haven't proven shit, other than a long string of coincedences.
The Death Penalty has proven to be no deterent. The more death sentences are carried out, the more murders occur. Why do you think this RIAA *civil* trial would be any different?
This was a civil trial, not a criminal court. It isn't the job of a civil trial to deter crime. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you can't even get punitive damages, unless their is fraud involved (thank you People's Court!). I would have wrecked this jury, because from the evidence I've read (granted, I wasn't in the court room), the RIAA failed to prove how many times the stolen songs were shared. If all they can prove was she stole the songs, then they deserve about $25 for their efforts.
Judgment is for the plaintiff in the form of $25.
Yes, but I have little faith in holding MY fate in the hands of ordinary people (guilty or not). They aren't "willing" either. You get called to jury duty, you show up, then you do everything in your power to try to get out of it. The "ordinary" person you speak of acts like an "ordinary" idiot when detained to a jury room for 8 hours each day. The mere notion that ONE juror may have changed their mind just so they could go home tells you everything that is wrong about these sorts of trials. The RIAA lawyers even setup their arguments in ways to cause jury infighting. They pick stupid people on purpose, in hopes of getting 7 out of 12 dolts who just want to be home by five so they can watch Judge Judy. My mom is a clerk of court, in charge of juries. I grew up watching these fools bicker, complain, ignore judges instructions...they've made me the cynic that I am.
Wow, you've got it completely backwards. The idiots on the jury are to blame, not some out of control judge you try to depict. In fact, if I ever find myself in criminal court, I hope I NEVER face a trial of my peers, because quite frankly, most of my peers are idiots.
Shouldn't your girlfriend just have burned her iTunes song to a cd, then reripped it to her computer, then put it on her non-iPod? That would be legal, as far as I can tell trying to read in between all the RIAA rhetoric.
My point being, that just because something has a "feature" doesn't make it any good, unless that feature is made and implemented with quality. When a product tends to focus on "features" that is USUALLY because they are trying to cover the fact that their products' performance and quality sucks. When you add an FM Tuner, that arguably completely misses the whole point of owning an mp3 player in the first place, that doesn't make the device better than an iPod for having more "features". You can add a toaster and a laser beam and it still doesn't make it better. Sometimes, less is actually more because when you get too many features, it is impossible to bring them together in one cohesive and logical interface.
Well said, except for the fact that 99% of non slashdot readers have no idea what DRM is, and half of the slashdot readers don't care, so it is a non-issue.
User interface and quality trumps features every day of the week. This is why feature-for-feature reviews usually always get it 180 degrees wrong. Consumers, in general, over evaluate the importance of features, and companies know this. Just look at the advertisements for any of the non-big players in the Sunday Best Buy flyers and you get a list of "features", yet the iPod stands on its own merit with minimal feature list of how many GBs it holds.
Only the least technical, uneducated guitar players depend on "drop-d" tuning. It is the easy/lazy way to play guitar. Nothing wrong with that (I love Stone Sour just as much as the next wannabe headbanger), but you might as well just tune your guitar to drop d in the first place then keep it in tune throughout the gig. Most of the hard rock gigs that use drop-d write EVERY song with drop-d tuning in mind, so there is no need to switch back and forth.
Having a machine tune a guitar is never foolproof, nor would the guitar be foolproof by tuning itself. It still takes skill and musicianship to play a guitar in tune, even if the guitar is "in tune" to begin with. A good guitar player can play a slightly out of tune guitar in tune, thus making this device a gimmick.
But hey, I'm just a drummer, so what do I know? I keep the drumsticks on my dashboard so I can park in the handicapped zones.
So you are saying you know how to give an inflatable dummy friction eh?
Switching systems for the middle lanes might work in DC (I've never been there) but in San Antonio, there are just as many cars heading towards downtown as are leaving downtown during rush hours. I think all the people who live in the outskirts work downtown and all the people who live downtown work in the outskirts. I'm not sure if EVERY major city is this way (this is the biggest city I've ever lived in), but it sure would be nice if they freed up any of the 3-4 lanes NOT in use due to construction for at least one HOV lane.
Seriously! Most people are assholes. And drivers the highest asshole ratio of all classes of people. It doesn't help that people like Britney Spears can drive around in broad daylight with everyone on the planet knowing she doesn't actually have a license. Oops a bit off topic, but did I mention people are assholes?