So go ahead and do it. I was pointing out how stupid they were with sarcasm (illustrating the absurdity of allowing the SMB server to only connect to the printer). That joke clearly flew over your head too.
can't (legally) use that software for my business unless I turn around and purchase a commercial license.
Right, but this is more like you create a Word document (using Home edition Office) and never open Word again. Then sell that Word document to someone else later. Without opening Word again.
The actual artwork doesn't necessarily contain the font program (embedded ttf). If it just contains an image of the letterform or a drawing of it, you're no longer actually using the font program when you reuse the output.
If you use cracked Photoshop and only gave copies of created artwork to Universal, this is what I'm talking about - not distributing the software. A font is software, but if you're distributing pictures of letterforms created by the font they are not the software. I don't know where you're pulling your made up scenarios from.
You're not a slave. It's like you're saying if I start a business, I have to at least make minimum wage at it. That's simply not the case unless you prove that there's an employer-employee relationship.
I know what you meant. That's the only way they have to put money back on your card in the system (at least from the customer service side). I forgot to include that part. So the reimbursement would make the order go into negative, which apparently doesn't work.
They refund me - but for the wrong order. And more than they should.
Their system doesn't allow a negative balance on an order, I don't think. I end up with customer service credits on random orders from months back. It sure looks amateurish from the customer side, though.
if users see prices rapidly fluctuating they'll get annoyed and potentially switch to competitors
That would also make it a pretty good incentive for the drivers not to do it... On the other hand, detecting a massive sign-off should be taken into account when setting the surge pricing - this could still be fixed with automation.
1) Uber is deliberately under-pricing their service, meaning Uber (and drivers) can make more in the short term by raising prices.
This much is already well-known and well-documented. Just another web-bubble example of spend first, monetize later.
Yes, they were trying to raise the surge pricing to a higher surge pricing. But it should go back down to the normal surge pricing very quickly when the supply of drivers appears back in the system.
Fair pay? The drivers are the ones supporting this bubble in the first place, and they're doing it as independent contractors. Independent contractors fully have the right to screw themselves over.
So when all the drivers log back in, the supply goes way up. Surge pricing should drop like a rock very quickly if the system is designed correctly. And if you're coordinating all that effort for only 1-2 drivers to get the boost (and likely not you), that ends this behavior almost immediately.
I agree. This also means that the damages should be limited to the one infringing use of the font program (ttf) to create the logo. Derivatives of the output are not the same as derivatives from the code, so using that logo everywhere does not constitute a derivative work.
Font licensing is a huge racket. Output from a non-commercial use of the font could later be monetized and it would only violate the EULA post-hoc. Tell me how any other software program can get away with licensing like that?
So let's say I use a pirate copy of Photoshop to design an image for Universal. Universal then can be sued by Adobe for stealing of Photoshop? No.
A font file is a program. Any images that it creates are still owned by the user - typefaces are not copyrightable.
Designing a logo that's converted to outlines is a single violation - of a software license agreement (the font program). All future uses of that logo have nothing to do with the font company and are not damages. I don't care what the terms of the EULA say. I hope that Universal wins this rather than settling.
The designer maybe created it as a work for hire - they can't control what Universal does afterward. What Universal did with the generated image is governed by copyright law. I really think these font makers have some impossible terms in their license.
I'm sure it was already licensed for "commercial use" but font companies decide that there's something like "bigger commercial use" that this would have fallen under. Since Universal only used the generated images, I'm not sure how they're in any violation of the software license purchased by the designer.
making tens of thousands of dollars trading BTC and other cryptocurrency
This is called creating a bubble out of thin air. You might make money, but you're doing it by (effectively) taking other people's money. That's little better than a standard old pyramid scheme. Get out while you can, and leave someone else holding the bag.
Slashdot Mirror
They used to charge only by impressions - not just on the web, but TV, newsprint, everywhere. Pay-per-click is the new one.
Or just use Jenny's number with the local area code. Chances are, someone's already set up a loyalty account for you.
Digital evidence can be copied and checksummed. No reason to hold onto it other than because they can get away with it.
So go ahead and do it. I was pointing out how stupid they were with sarcasm (illustrating the absurdity of allowing the SMB server to only connect to the printer). That joke clearly flew over your head too.
can't (legally) use that software for my business unless I turn around and purchase a commercial license.
Right, but this is more like you create a Word document (using Home edition Office) and never open Word again. Then sell that Word document to someone else later. Without opening Word again.
The actual artwork doesn't necessarily contain the font program (embedded ttf). If it just contains an image of the letterform or a drawing of it, you're no longer actually using the font program when you reuse the output.
If you use cracked Photoshop and only gave copies of created artwork to Universal, this is what I'm talking about - not distributing the software. A font is software, but if you're distributing pictures of letterforms created by the font they are not the software. I don't know where you're pulling your made up scenarios from.
You're not a slave. It's like you're saying if I start a business, I have to at least make minimum wage at it. That's simply not the case unless you prove that there's an employer-employee relationship.
I know what you meant. That's the only way they have to put money back on your card in the system (at least from the customer service side). I forgot to include that part. So the reimbursement would make the order go into negative, which apparently doesn't work.
Which they can exploit if they actually fail to deliver that many times.
They refund me - but for the wrong order. And more than they should.
Their system doesn't allow a negative balance on an order, I don't think. I end up with customer service credits on random orders from months back. It sure looks amateurish from the customer side, though.
if users see prices rapidly fluctuating they'll get annoyed and potentially switch to competitors
That would also make it a pretty good incentive for the drivers not to do it... On the other hand, detecting a massive sign-off should be taken into account when setting the surge pricing - this could still be fixed with automation.
1) Uber is deliberately under-pricing their service, meaning Uber (and drivers) can make more in the short term by raising prices.
This much is already well-known and well-documented. Just another web-bubble example of spend first, monetize later.
Yes, they were trying to raise the surge pricing to a higher surge pricing. But it should go back down to the normal surge pricing very quickly when the supply of drivers appears back in the system.
Customers frequently buy one of each size, try them all on, and send back the ones that don't fit well. Now we have to pay for all that shipping.
Amazon shouldn't be paying for that either. While you may have great products, selling clothes online is full of landmines like this.
That doesn't mean the same at all.
They only do that to sellers, right? I've never had that happen as a buyer.
I live 3 miles from an Amazon Distribution Center, you insensitive clod!
Fair pay? The drivers are the ones supporting this bubble in the first place, and they're doing it as independent contractors. Independent contractors fully have the right to screw themselves over.
Sort of both. The medallions can be re-sold. That can be used to set a base price when a medallion is added to the system.
So when all the drivers log back in, the supply goes way up. Surge pricing should drop like a rock very quickly if the system is designed correctly. And if you're coordinating all that effort for only 1-2 drivers to get the boost (and likely not you), that ends this behavior almost immediately.
I agree. This also means that the damages should be limited to the one infringing use of the font program (ttf) to create the logo. Derivatives of the output are not the same as derivatives from the code, so using that logo everywhere does not constitute a derivative work.
Font licensing is a huge racket. Output from a non-commercial use of the font could later be monetized and it would only violate the EULA post-hoc. Tell me how any other software program can get away with licensing like that?
So let's say I use a pirate copy of Photoshop to design an image for Universal. Universal then can be sued by Adobe for stealing of Photoshop? No.
A font file is a program. Any images that it creates are still owned by the user - typefaces are not copyrightable.
Designing a logo that's converted to outlines is a single violation - of a software license agreement (the font program). All future uses of that logo have nothing to do with the font company and are not damages. I don't care what the terms of the EULA say. I hope that Universal wins this rather than settling.
On using the software.
The designer maybe created it as a work for hire - they can't control what Universal does afterward. What Universal did with the generated image is governed by copyright law. I really think these font makers have some impossible terms in their license.
I'm sure it was already licensed for "commercial use" but font companies decide that there's something like "bigger commercial use" that this would have fallen under. Since Universal only used the generated images, I'm not sure how they're in any violation of the software license purchased by the designer.
making tens of thousands of dollars trading BTC and other cryptocurrency
This is called creating a bubble out of thin air. You might make money, but you're doing it by (effectively) taking other people's money. That's little better than a standard old pyramid scheme. Get out while you can, and leave someone else holding the bag.
Well, I mean...if the photos are posed well. I would love to start an Instagram account doing nothing but posting fancy photos of crappy food.
a 'sub-bitcoin' offering that is backed by bitcoin, but doesn't require a full calculation on each transaction.
Like put all the bitcoin somewhere safe like Fort Knox and issue paper substitutes?