Actually no, it seems no one understood what I meant at all.
regardless of the situation that IS possibly what gateway would hope to accomplish with this. and are you saying its would be a bad thing for documents that users are 'forced' to read be limited to a reasonable length?
Shhhh! Pointing out artificially imposed regional pricing schemes sind verboten!
In all seriousness though, this is one of the major points that most companies definitely dont want getting to the forefront of consumer conciousness. Basing ones prices on "what the market will bear" is an age old practice tied entirely to the old supply and demand concept. Companies for years have been adjusting their prices based on region, not only in the media content industry.
The funny thing here is the more infrastructure we have to assist in globalizing our perspective, the more people are exposed to the pricings worldwide. Our regional markets are slowly becoming side-by-side with the global human market, making it harder and harder for such pricing schemes to exist. I doubt we will see much change in this in the short run though, as companies will hang on tooth and nail to any means to increase margins without having to make their pricings homogenous.
I do not particularly BLAME the various corps for this, as its a simple fact that given a fixed region, theres differing levels of scarcity and so goods will be valued differently (read: people may pay more or less depending on the value they give the good, which in turn depends on their environment). I mean, how many of us go into a job interview and advertise the LEAST amount we'd be willing to accept?
You mean... ice? Actually, the interesting thing there is that it is a specific kind of high pressure ice. If you never thought a topic as mundane as ice could have complexity, check out the different different known phases.
Surely he means 'hear'? Maybe they just mean we're going to go somewhere, whereabouts squidgy things in outer space are!
This is far from a new tactic amongst companies; Attempt to drum up company morale with a "special offer" stressing the "loyalty to your company". I've seen this in a variety of industries (granted, mostly service providers) where employees are offered an additional discount if they are switching from a competitor to the companies service.
The funny thing about most such projects is to those with any marketing exposure, it comes across as the most annoying angle. If a certain product or service is cheaper/better suited for my purposes from a competitor, switching to your own companies service only really makes sense with regards to funding competitors. However, most people needs to focus on their bottom lines.
Yes, funding a competitor of the company who provides your ability to live is a bit iffy, but what companies try to make us forget is that employees are also consumers. If the replacement good is perfect for the employee and they get a decent deal, great! Thats perfect for morale. If they don't need it or if the good isnt equivalent to what they're using now, well thats just the way it goes.
Microsoft is orchestrating all of this so that they can sell licenses without disclosing WHAT is being licensed.
Sounds like buying an insurance policy where it covers nothing...and wouldnt that be illegal? or are they insulated by the fact that they can "come up with" the information at any time if necessary in court?
'administratively impossible to keep up' with the list And yet it was NOT administratively impossible for them to verify that said patents were being infringed upon? Does ANYONE actually think that makes any sense whatsoever? Any patent lawyers or business people well versed with such situations able to clarify this? Or is it the idiocy it appears to be.
I realize that there would be a lot of paperwork involved in defending those patents once groups start having to verify with MS as to specific infringements, but isnt this overhead a cost of doing business concerning protecting your IP? Can companies infringing on patents that companies refuse to disclose information for even be considered to be infringing?
Ignorance of the law may not be a defense, but being told that you CANT know what the law is sure seems different. Mind boggling, unless i'm missing something key.
Perspectives are necessary, someone point out what i'm missing.
Which is why there are no massive offshore spam server farms, piracy groups, or other such activities? Which of these rules are even POSSIBLE for them to enforce globally? Sure there may be a crackdown once the US speaks with certain governments, but how often has say...Russia cared to american copyright law? How about Ascension island? Rwanda? etc etc?
The US DOES have a lot of clout economically and internationally, but the internet is one realm where geographic location is one of the lesser important aspects EXCEPT for the legalities of that jurisdiction; No location, location, location. If american legislators and international negotiators try to enforce such taxation abroad, they'll find they've found yet another moneysink that CANNOT be plugged unless they simply give up.
Explain to me HOW they willl be able to impose such standardization when they cant even win out concerning things like Softwood Lumber from Canada, Steel from China, etc?
Speaking of China, can you imagine ANYONE forcing China to do anything? When was the last time you heard of China caving to US pressure economically?
What are you talking about. ALL regions are not under the jurisdiction of any government.
Are you referring to all regions of the united states? in that case, companies will simply pull their servers out of the united states. or insert your preferred country or limit of jurisdiction for the government you mean.
Given the current state of paranoid useless security measures, i doubt that would ever happen.
Airline companies are almost as bad as School Administrators these days for kneejerk uninformed reactions, and the instant someone says "no check-in" people will probably spaz out concerning passenger list verification.
The day legislators around the world wake up and realize that their jurisdiction over the internet is only valid for servers operated within their regions will be a good day indeed.
I think most do not even realize that such legislation will merely push many services and providors outside of their jurisdiction, so they lose even the business and income taxes that they COULD have been receiving if they hadnt been caught up in asshattery.
This is something that infuriated my history professor no end when I was taking AP US history back in highschool. I spent my junior and senior year in an american highschool after spending most of my previous schooling here in Canada.
I was amazed at how such subjects as the Trail of Tears involving the Cherokee and the treatment of apache and sioux nations were barely mentioned, if at all. Subjects such as manifest destiny would come up, but when attempting to discuss such things as the "54 40 or fight" issue or the border conflicts in northern maine, or the burning of a portion of the soon to be whitehouse, our teacher would get frustrated with the fact that they were even brought up.
Such things were never involved in the testing or assignments, which would obviously mean such details would not imprint as forcefully in our minds, and thus is not truely taught.
I found this especially sad and alarming, but wrote most of it off to the fact that our history teacher was a mccarthyist freakjob, but it sounds a lot more standard that i would have liked to think.
we look like a pile of D**ks to everybody now I almost hope you're right in that line of thinking, for a company to realize they've been d**ks and implement change because of it seems pretty rare.
Now I always thought barratry is more threatening to sue someone without the intention of actually taking the case to court to get a settlement. This certainly LOOKS like the case here, except that there is no settlement. The threat in and of itself is giving microsoft what it wants, and since it isnt ASKING for a settlement i doubt this would make it under that definition.
When I looked it up on Wikipedia it only contained the parents much more ambiguous definition.
Yet again, another IANAL, but are there any lawyers out there would clarify this? With respect to US law of course, specific information concerning even just specific states would be informative.
Out of curiousity, do any of our UK friends know how pricing works with regards to the royalties? Is it flat rate regardless of song or label, legislated, or is it a private licensing scheme where the labels license to each station individually? If the latter, are titles that the labels WANT played more the same pricing scheme as their entire catalogue?
Seriously, discounts on the crap that gets played would be one obvious reason for the similarities. Especially if its billed as "Hey, look at how the ratings went back in the US!" *cough*thanksCC*cough*.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually no, it seems no one understood what I meant at all.
regardless of the situation that IS possibly what gateway would hope to accomplish with this. and are you saying its would be a bad thing for documents that users are 'forced' to read be limited to a reasonable length?
In this case? Possibly a precedent that not reading the EULA's is definitively NOT an excuse despite the way EULA's are treated in the real world.
The only legislation here that i pray for though is forcing any document that a user is LEGALLY BOUND to read must be limited to a certain length.
Do you have any idea what it is like to be a fembot in a manbot's, manputer's world?
How can he listen to himself if hes listening to an 18 year old American Idol choir boys templated debut album while not paying for it?
or hopefully he meant he wouldnt be paying OR CONSUMING such fare.
Is that really funny? Since we don't have an Apt or Depressing mod, i'd say Insightful at least.
I'm pretty sure they produce a net ignorance increase....but i dont have the studies to back this up.
Shhhh! Pointing out artificially imposed regional pricing schemes sind verboten!
In all seriousness though, this is one of the major points that most companies definitely dont want getting to the forefront of consumer conciousness. Basing ones prices on "what the market will bear" is an age old practice tied entirely to the old supply and demand concept. Companies for years have been adjusting their prices based on region, not only in the media content industry.
The funny thing here is the more infrastructure we have to assist in globalizing our perspective, the more people are exposed to the pricings worldwide. Our regional markets are slowly becoming side-by-side with the global human market, making it harder and harder for such pricing schemes to exist. I doubt we will see much change in this in the short run though, as companies will hang on tooth and nail to any means to increase margins without having to make their pricings homogenous.
I do not particularly BLAME the various corps for this, as its a simple fact that given a fixed region, theres differing levels of scarcity and so goods will be valued differently (read: people may pay more or less depending on the value they give the good, which in turn depends on their environment). I mean, how many of us go into a job interview and advertise the LEAST amount we'd be willing to accept?
I'll take one Kuang Grade Mk. XI to go please.
This is far from a new tactic amongst companies; Attempt to drum up company morale with a "special offer" stressing the "loyalty to your company". I've seen this in a variety of industries (granted, mostly service providers) where employees are offered an additional discount if they are switching from a competitor to the companies service.
The funny thing about most such projects is to those with any marketing exposure, it comes across as the most annoying angle. If a certain product or service is cheaper/better suited for my purposes from a competitor, switching to your own companies service only really makes sense with regards to funding competitors. However, most people needs to focus on their bottom lines.
Yes, funding a competitor of the company who provides your ability to live is a bit iffy, but what companies try to make us forget is that employees are also consumers. If the replacement good is perfect for the employee and they get a decent deal, great! Thats perfect for morale. If they don't need it or if the good isnt equivalent to what they're using now, well thats just the way it goes.
So let me get this straight.
Microsoft is orchestrating all of this so that they can sell licenses without disclosing WHAT is being licensed.
Sounds like buying an insurance policy where it covers nothing...and wouldnt that be illegal? or are they insulated by the fact that they can "come up with" the information at any time if necessary in court?
You know, that makes more sense of microsofts actions in the past 5-7 years than any other opinion i've seen.
Danke.
I realize that there would be a lot of paperwork involved in defending those patents once groups start having to verify with MS as to specific infringements, but isnt this overhead a cost of doing business concerning protecting your IP? Can companies infringing on patents that companies refuse to disclose information for even be considered to be infringing?
Ignorance of the law may not be a defense, but being told that you CANT know what the law is sure seems different. Mind boggling, unless i'm missing something key.
Perspectives are necessary, someone point out what i'm missing.
Which is why there are no massive offshore spam server farms, piracy groups, or other such activities? Which of these rules are even POSSIBLE for them to enforce globally? Sure there may be a crackdown once the US speaks with certain governments, but how often has say...Russia cared to american copyright law? How about Ascension island? Rwanda? etc etc?
The US DOES have a lot of clout economically and internationally, but the internet is one realm where geographic location is one of the lesser important aspects EXCEPT for the legalities of that jurisdiction; No location, location, location. If american legislators and international negotiators try to enforce such taxation abroad, they'll find they've found yet another moneysink that CANNOT be plugged unless they simply give up.
Explain to me HOW they willl be able to impose such standardization when they cant even win out concerning things like Softwood Lumber from Canada, Steel from China, etc?
Speaking of China, can you imagine ANYONE forcing China to do anything? When was the last time you heard of China caving to US pressure economically?
What are you talking about.
ALL regions are not under the jurisdiction of any government.
Are you referring to all regions of the united states? in that case, companies will simply pull their servers out of the united states. or insert your preferred country or limit of jurisdiction for the government you mean.
Theres a wide world out there sir.
Given the current state of paranoid useless security measures, i doubt that would ever happen.
Airline companies are almost as bad as School Administrators these days for kneejerk uninformed reactions, and the instant someone says "no check-in" people will probably spaz out concerning passenger list verification.
LITIGATE! LITIGATE! LITIGATE!
THANK you heh.
The day legislators around the world wake up and realize that their jurisdiction over the internet is only valid for servers operated within their regions will be a good day indeed.
I think most do not even realize that such legislation will merely push many services and providors outside of their jurisdiction, so they lose even the business and income taxes that they COULD have been receiving if they hadnt been caught up in asshattery.
This is something that infuriated my history professor no end when I was taking AP US history back in highschool. I spent my junior and senior year in an american highschool after spending most of my previous schooling here in Canada.
I was amazed at how such subjects as the Trail of Tears involving the Cherokee and the treatment of apache and sioux nations were barely mentioned, if at all. Subjects such as manifest destiny would come up, but when attempting to discuss such things as the "54 40 or fight" issue or the border conflicts in northern maine, or the burning of a portion of the soon to be whitehouse, our teacher would get frustrated with the fact that they were even brought up.
Such things were never involved in the testing or assignments, which would obviously mean such details would not imprint as forcefully in our minds, and thus is not truely taught.
I found this especially sad and alarming, but wrote most of it off to the fact that our history teacher was a mccarthyist freakjob, but it sounds a lot more standard that i would have liked to think.
Sanity is overrated.
Now I always thought barratry is more threatening to sue someone without the intention of actually taking the case to court to get a settlement. This certainly LOOKS like the case here, except that there is no settlement. The threat in and of itself is giving microsoft what it wants, and since it isnt ASKING for a settlement i doubt this would make it under that definition.
When I looked it up on Wikipedia it only contained the parents much more ambiguous definition.
Yet again, another IANAL, but are there any lawyers out there would clarify this? With respect to US law of course, specific information concerning even just specific states would be informative.
Out of curiousity, do any of our UK friends know how pricing works with regards to the royalties? Is it flat rate regardless of song or label, legislated, or is it a private licensing scheme where the labels license to each station individually? If the latter, are titles that the labels WANT played more the same pricing scheme as their entire catalogue?
Seriously, discounts on the crap that gets played would be one obvious reason for the similarities. Especially if its billed as "Hey, look at how the ratings went back in the US!" *cough*thanksCC*cough*.
Any inputs?
I'm Sparticus and so's my wife!