Netflix started over a decade ago, charging 4bucks a rental, plus 2 bucks postage, with late fees. Today, its 8 bucks a month for unlimited (based on your isp) streaming. Of course, now, netflix has about 25 million subscribers. They didn't hit 10 million until 2009. The value of the starz deal is based on viewers and expected growth (yes, netflix will get even more subscribers in the future). You also have to factor in exclusivity (does starz sell out to anyone but netflix, and how much of the netflix user base turns down the alternatives in favor of netflix based on price/quality/availability) and on a related point, corporate cannibalism.
You can not claim that 200-300 million is an unreasonable price simply because you personally are bad at math.
Buying a cd or a song on itunes (or equivalent) does not include distribution rights. Technically, you can't play your cd for your friends at a party thrown in your own house. To be fair, no one is going to stop you from doing that.
When was the last time you went to a karaoke bar that didn't pay a licensing fee? I realize that lip-synching is slightly different, but public performance (even within the confines of private business) is public performance.
I believe the PATRIOT act was signed into law on October 26, 2001, whereas 911 was September 11th. Then it took another 90 days to go into effect. So So it took at least 4 months in which public opinion had the opportunity to fight back. It still (sadly) does. Regardless of what legislation is signed into law, the internet is not locked down. I can still play online poker (for real money, with real cashouts), I can still create an online alias if I choose to do so,
On a relevant point, I definitely believe that government exists to stop hackers. The alternative is vigilante justice, While I want people who release personal information that has been contracted to be held private through an act of breaking security to be punished (as much as I want someone who breaks into my house by breaking the locks on my doors), I certainly don't want random people deciding the punishment without oversight.
Take away their internet permanently. Put them in prison for a while (I hear that jail is worse than having your porn habits released publicly, and quite possibly worse than having to replace your credit cards). Your insinuation that government shouldn't stop harassing hackers is absurd. I don't know how that will happen (it won't be through legislation directly), but I certainly hope it isn't through people like you.
Sony's stock has been on a relative rise since 2009, going from 19-30ish.
The fact that your friend broke a tv mounting it to the wall means that your friend doesn't know how to wall mount a tv.
The original PS2 warranty was a full year, so you would have gotten a replacement. Of course, the PS2 didn't have internal storage, it used memory cards, so you didn't even lose anything if your system broke (except the 2-4 weeks while Sony attempted to fix your system before sending you a new/refurbished one). Today, a used PS2 will come with a 30 day return it if you don't like it clause and a 90 day warranty. Thats not bad for a $60 electronic device. You can even add a year long warranty from squaretrade for maybe $10.
You are a bitter, lying, pathetic person. Snap out of it before it causes you health problems.
It makes no sense to have a color-coded terror alert system when after naming a color, you then have to explain what the color means.
Just use a 10 point scale, and if it hits 7, shut down the airports. If it hits 9, we are actually in progress of having major cities under attack. Not complicated, not difficult to understand, doesn't help terrorists to know what it is.
That article simply shows a link between behaviours exhibited by cell phone users and social smokers, based on the fact that a questionnaire based survey had people characterize cell phone users (but not smokers) and found that positive social traits associated with cell phone use were in common with commonly associated traits of smokers. It says absolutely nothing about cell phone usage being linked to reductions in youth smoking, nor does it claim that youth smoking is on the decline. On the other hand, it did claim that cell phone use is seen as an addictive behavior, much like smoking.
If you want to look at something truthful, youth smoking is on the rise in the UK (where the questionnaires were given). The only place I found, anywhere, regarding youth smoking and cell phone use was directions on how to strip the insides of a cell phone to hide your cigarettes.
So, your town has several towing companies located within it, but only one of them is legally allowed to tow vehicles within it...This would indicate that your town is the only town that has this policy, as the other towing companies must be towing nearby cities/towns.
On the highway note, if my car breaks down on the highway near your town, I call AAA, they are going to tell me they can't tow my car?
Geohot has the same rights that Sony does, no rights have been dismissed, trampled upon, or infringed, at least not unless Geohot loses the case and a court of law finds him guilty of having done so to Sony.
Lets say that you are a mechanic that only works on specific models of high end vehicles. You receive information from someone about how to modify vehicles such that it voids the warranty, but not in such a way that Porsche can find out (yet it actually affects warranty costs for Porsche). Even if it doesn't affect Porsche, it migh make the cars no longer street legal, which means your clients get better mileage but can't drive it on a public road. When the person who gave away the information on how to illegally mod the Porsche gets sued, and you donated to his legal defense fund, and a judge wants a list of all the cars your mechanic's shop has worked on so they can figure out what state holds jurisdiction for the lawsuit, your rights have not been dismissed, rather the rights of the public welfare have been upheld.
Innovation, however, is what happens when you introduce something new, not when you reverse engineer from something old. That would be called a reformulation, or an upgrade, and would generally require R&D or licensing, and for damn good reason.
Except that this is a Sony brand vehicle, which is used exclusively for Sony brand racetracks, and Sony brand racetracks don't allow you to add a turbo if you want to race on Sony's racetrack. Geohot has diseminated information on how to build your own racetrack, for free, in your backyard, without taking up space, while reformulating Sony brand fuel, Sony brand tires, Sony brand engines, and Sony brand track fee/repair, all while still driving on Sony brand track against others who pay their fees because they enjoy the social experience (for the slow people, the racetrack is the console, the car is the game).
As for improvements to your house in which you have financed the payment with a mortgage, the bank does, in fact, own the house until you have paid every penny. If the bank mortgage contract says you have to keep the house the same color as every other house on the block, tough nuggets. When you go ahead and change the paint color, the bank may foreclose and make you repay for damages, if that is stipulated to in your mortgage agreement. If you have oceanfront property and your local homeowners agreement says 'don't build a jetty' and you go ahead and do it to keep your front deck from getting wet at high tide, you will be personally liable for all the dead on your neighbor(s)'s property from the resulting red tide (ok that example is a bit out there, but you should get the point).
There is no maybe, I am absolutely correct (right is a moral statement, whereas I make a statement of fact). Anything that goes through as an earmark is simply a statement that even if that earmark goes through, the original bill is worth passing. It in no way, shape, or form even implies that the earmark is worthwhile. I find the concept of an earmark offensive, because if it were good enough to stand on its own, it would be its own bill, and not attached to something that can't be failed without it.
Ron Paul sucks too. He, like all the other representatives, pushed for earmarks (17M in 2010, 242nd out of 435, right in the middle of the pack). For 2011, he is one of 4 republicans to do so (not that I'm defending republicans). So much for principles.
In parts of Africa, coke is not an everyday drink. It is very expensive (relatively), and used for special occasions or tourists. There is not enough of a market to sell 30 kinds of soft drinks, so they have 3 (maybe 4 in some places if they include dimpled sprite) choices; flavored fanta drinks, and regular coke (the one made with real sugar). All of these are easily distinguishable by color (beneficial for those who can't read, for example).
Coke started a campaign to make coke available anywhere in the world during WWII, sending coke overseas to US soldiers. Since then, they have expanded quite a bit.
The promotion was for buy one dvd, get one dvd of equal or lesser value free. Fatwallet allowed users to purchase one dvd at 3.97 (the cheapest in the promotion) and receive a free dvd of any price. This was clearly not the correct pricing (unless the 2nd dvd was also priced at 3.97). Since this was a sale of goods, the UCC applies, even for non-merchants, so this action is a counteroffer, which Amazon is not required to accept.
Amazon did not accept, but instead allowed people who improperly took advantage of a flawed checkout system to either return for a full refund (including return shipping) or pay the actual listed price, with a full month in which to do so. The only people who could possibly have been adversely affected by this were international orders (by definition not prime users, but still people who were legally only giving a counteroffer).
People who disputed the charges (rather than sending the product back or paying the difference) had their accounts frozen because they were in breach of contract, as outlined in the terms of service for all amazon users (not just prime accounts). Amazon did not hold money hostage, nor did they deprive Prime users of prime benefits, they simply demanded payment for contracts entered into by purchasers.
Keep in mind that I am not backtracking; amazon never changed their price, amazon had permission to make the charges because purchasers had accepted a contract and then breached (giving anyone who had a unilateral mistake access to a refund), and there is absolutely no basis for claiming that amazon prime isn't worth the money based on anything in gp post.
Any/.er (or anyone who managed to graduate from high school, for that matter) should be able to recognize how much 2 day shipping costs per item, the total cost of prime, and figure out how much they have to buy in a year to make it worthwhile. For me, its 6 items. That is one every two months. That is disgustingly worth it.
As for your second downside, Amazon is a merchant, and as such, would never post a price for an item, charge a credit card, ship an item, and then ask for a second payment. They would have no legal basis for doing so, and furthermore, they would be subject to lawsuit for fraud from anyone (not just someone who purchased from them).
I dont know why you are lying about amazon, but I find it offensive.
Am I the only one who finds it a little creepy that a foreign company can come into the U.S. and just wantonly try to violate the 1st and 4th amendment rights of our citizens (and presumably, many other citizens around the world)? p>
Its just you.
The rest of understand that freedom of speech doesn't mean consequence free speech. If Sony suffers damages from your speech, they can sue for those damages. Then, you get the opportunity to defend your actions in a court of law.
There is absolutely no unreasonable search and seizure when you post something on youtube.and Sony sees it. In fact, the posting of something on youtube creates probably cause to search the poster's property provided that a judge issues a warrant. Sony has done nothing wrong in acting in its own best interests. They simply asked a judge to create a warrant so that they can legally search for those whom Sony believes has actually harmed them.
I assume you lock your door at night, and even if you leave your door unlocked one night, it doesn't excuse theft. However, if someone were to post a youtube video showing specifically how your brand of door lock can be picked, it could be judicially warranted to extract the information of people who subsequently linked to schematics showing where you store valuables in your home, posted when you left for vacation, or otherwise recorded a method of breaking into your house.
As big a bunch of tools as Google are, I would hope they would at least tell Sony to go to hell on the identities of commenters and viewers of a web video. And, if they do hand these over, I think the FBI should be investigating THEM.
Obviously youtube has already refused to turn over user information, which is why Sony is asking a judge to overrule them. No need for the FBI here.
Actually, every news channel did accuse Bing of copying google search results. Quite directly. Microsoft responded to them, not directly to google. Google pointed out that they created user data for 100 non-word search terms and a minority of them created enough influence to affect Bing search results.
Microsoft is capturing your search data (not your mouse clicks) when you opt in to bing toolbar in IE, and telling you that this is what they are doing when you sign up. You being disturbed simply means that you agree to things without reading them and like to be offended.
Slashdot Mirror
Netflix started over a decade ago, charging 4bucks a rental, plus 2 bucks postage, with late fees. Today, its 8 bucks a month for unlimited (based on your isp) streaming. Of course, now, netflix has about 25 million subscribers. They didn't hit 10 million until 2009. The value of the starz deal is based on viewers and expected growth (yes, netflix will get even more subscribers in the future). You also have to factor in exclusivity (does starz sell out to anyone but netflix, and how much of the netflix user base turns down the alternatives in favor of netflix based on price/quality/availability) and on a related point, corporate cannibalism.
You can not claim that 200-300 million is an unreasonable price simply because you personally are bad at math.
More importantly, who measures electronic waste in terms of cell phones?
Nope.
Buying a cd or a song on itunes (or equivalent) does not include distribution rights. Technically, you can't play your cd for your friends at a party thrown in your own house. To be fair, no one is going to stop you from doing that.
When was the last time you went to a karaoke bar that didn't pay a licensing fee? I realize that lip-synching is slightly different, but public performance (even within the confines of private business) is public performance.
No, owning sheet music = licensing the right to specific performance. That is why you pay for each copy of each part.
I believe the PATRIOT act was signed into law on October 26, 2001, whereas 911 was September 11th. Then it took another 90 days to go into effect. So So it took at least 4 months in which public opinion had the opportunity to fight back. It still (sadly) does. Regardless of what legislation is signed into law, the internet is not locked down. I can still play online poker (for real money, with real cashouts), I can still create an online alias if I choose to do so,
On a relevant point, I definitely believe that government exists to stop hackers. The alternative is vigilante justice, While I want people who release personal information that has been contracted to be held private through an act of breaking security to be punished (as much as I want someone who breaks into my house by breaking the locks on my doors), I certainly don't want random people deciding the punishment without oversight.
Take away their internet permanently. Put them in prison for a while (I hear that jail is worse than having your porn habits released publicly, and quite possibly worse than having to replace your credit cards). Your insinuation that government shouldn't stop harassing hackers is absurd. I don't know how that will happen (it won't be through legislation directly), but I certainly hope it isn't through people like you.
What kind of car can I lease for that price?
Sony's stock has been on a relative rise since 2009, going from 19-30ish.
The fact that your friend broke a tv mounting it to the wall means that your friend doesn't know how to wall mount a tv.
The original PS2 warranty was a full year, so you would have gotten a replacement. Of course, the PS2 didn't have internal storage, it used memory cards, so you didn't even lose anything if your system broke (except the 2-4 weeks while Sony attempted to fix your system before sending you a new/refurbished one). Today, a used PS2 will come with a 30 day return it if you don't like it clause and a 90 day warranty. Thats not bad for a $60 electronic device. You can even add a year long warranty from squaretrade for maybe $10.
You are a bitter, lying, pathetic person. Snap out of it before it causes you health problems.
It makes no sense to have a color-coded terror alert system when after naming a color, you then have to explain what the color means.
Just use a 10 point scale, and if it hits 7, shut down the airports. If it hits 9, we are actually in progress of having major cities under attack. Not complicated, not difficult to understand, doesn't help terrorists to know what it is.
That is nearly the definition of a false dichotomy.
Your choices are not 1) download a movie or 2) murder a family while intoxicated. There must be something else that you can do.
That article simply shows a link between behaviours exhibited by cell phone users and social smokers, based on the fact that a questionnaire based survey had people characterize cell phone users (but not smokers) and found that positive social traits associated with cell phone use were in common with commonly associated traits of smokers. It says absolutely nothing about cell phone usage being linked to reductions in youth smoking, nor does it claim that youth smoking is on the decline. On the other hand, it did claim that cell phone use is seen as an addictive behavior, much like smoking.
If you want to look at something truthful, youth smoking is on the rise in the UK (where the questionnaires were given). The only place I found, anywhere, regarding youth smoking and cell phone use was directions on how to strip the insides of a cell phone to hide your cigarettes.
Actually, none of the listed items would be original music. Its not a gray area; a remix or reinterpretation is by definition not new or original.
As for the RIAA's worldview, I wouldn't try to make statements about hypothetical music on their behalf.
So, your town has several towing companies located within it, but only one of them is legally allowed to tow vehicles within it...This would indicate that your town is the only town that has this policy, as the other towing companies must be towing nearby cities/towns.
On the highway note, if my car breaks down on the highway near your town, I call AAA, they are going to tell me they can't tow my car?
It sounds like you are a liar.
Not even close.
Google did its IPO in 2004. It is now 2011. CPI has moved about 11.7% in that time, not over 100.
Geohot has the same rights that Sony does, no rights have been dismissed, trampled upon, or infringed, at least not unless Geohot loses the case and a court of law finds him guilty of having done so to Sony.
Lets say that you are a mechanic that only works on specific models of high end vehicles. You receive information from someone about how to modify vehicles such that it voids the warranty, but not in such a way that Porsche can find out (yet it actually affects warranty costs for Porsche). Even if it doesn't affect Porsche, it migh make the cars no longer street legal, which means your clients get better mileage but can't drive it on a public road. When the person who gave away the information on how to illegally mod the Porsche gets sued, and you donated to his legal defense fund, and a judge wants a list of all the cars your mechanic's shop has worked on so they can figure out what state holds jurisdiction for the lawsuit, your rights have not been dismissed, rather the rights of the public welfare have been upheld.
Innovation, however, is what happens when you introduce something new, not when you reverse engineer from something old. That would be called a reformulation, or an upgrade, and would generally require R&D or licensing, and for damn good reason.
Except that this is a Sony brand vehicle, which is used exclusively for Sony brand racetracks, and Sony brand racetracks don't allow you to add a turbo if you want to race on Sony's racetrack. Geohot has diseminated information on how to build your own racetrack, for free, in your backyard, without taking up space, while reformulating Sony brand fuel, Sony brand tires, Sony brand engines, and Sony brand track fee/repair, all while still driving on Sony brand track against others who pay their fees because they enjoy the social experience (for the slow people, the racetrack is the console, the car is the game).
As for improvements to your house in which you have financed the payment with a mortgage, the bank does, in fact, own the house until you have paid every penny. If the bank mortgage contract says you have to keep the house the same color as every other house on the block, tough nuggets. When you go ahead and change the paint color, the bank may foreclose and make you repay for damages, if that is stipulated to in your mortgage agreement. If you have oceanfront property and your local homeowners agreement says 'don't build a jetty' and you go ahead and do it to keep your front deck from getting wet at high tide, you will be personally liable for all the dead on your neighbor(s)'s property from the resulting red tide (ok that example is a bit out there, but you should get the point).
There is no maybe, I am absolutely correct (right is a moral statement, whereas I make a statement of fact). Anything that goes through as an earmark is simply a statement that even if that earmark goes through, the original bill is worth passing. It in no way, shape, or form even implies that the earmark is worthwhile. I find the concept of an earmark offensive, because if it were good enough to stand on its own, it would be its own bill, and not attached to something that can't be failed without it.
Ron Paul sucks too. He, like all the other representatives, pushed for earmarks (17M in 2010, 242nd out of 435, right in the middle of the pack). For 2011, he is one of 4 republicans to do so (not that I'm defending republicans). So much for principles.
In parts of Africa, coke is not an everyday drink. It is very expensive (relatively), and used for special occasions or tourists. There is not enough of a market to sell 30 kinds of soft drinks, so they have 3 (maybe 4 in some places if they include dimpled sprite) choices; flavored fanta drinks, and regular coke (the one made with real sugar). All of these are easily distinguishable by color (beneficial for those who can't read, for example).
Coke started a campaign to make coke available anywhere in the world during WWII, sending coke overseas to US soldiers. Since then, they have expanded quite a bit.
Ok, I misread that, it was 20 times sales, not 800.
That makes the second number 36628 rather than 917, but still less than 1/3 of the gain.
Except that in the summary, it was pointed out that the price was reduced from 2.99 to 99 cents, and sales went up 800 times, not double.
350,000X.99X.35 = 121275
438 X 2.99 X.7 = 917
Well, when you put it that badly;
the buyers were in the wrong.
The promotion was for buy one dvd, get one dvd of equal or lesser value free. Fatwallet allowed users to purchase one dvd at 3.97 (the cheapest in the promotion) and receive a free dvd of any price. This was clearly not the correct pricing (unless the 2nd dvd was also priced at 3.97). Since this was a sale of goods, the UCC applies, even for non-merchants, so this action is a counteroffer, which Amazon is not required to accept.
Amazon did not accept, but instead allowed people who improperly took advantage of a flawed checkout system to either return for a full refund (including return shipping) or pay the actual listed price, with a full month in which to do so. The only people who could possibly have been adversely affected by this were international orders (by definition not prime users, but still people who were legally only giving a counteroffer).
People who disputed the charges (rather than sending the product back or paying the difference) had their accounts frozen because they were in breach of contract, as outlined in the terms of service for all amazon users (not just prime accounts). Amazon did not hold money hostage, nor did they deprive Prime users of prime benefits, they simply demanded payment for contracts entered into by purchasers.
Keep in mind that I am not backtracking; amazon never changed their price, amazon had permission to make the charges because purchasers had accepted a contract and then breached (giving anyone who had a unilateral mistake access to a refund), and there is absolutely no basis for claiming that amazon prime isn't worth the money based on anything in gp post.
Your post is full of lies.
Any /.er (or anyone who managed to graduate from high school, for that matter) should be able to recognize how much 2 day shipping costs per item, the total cost of prime, and figure out how much they have to buy in a year to make it worthwhile. For me, its 6 items. That is one every two months. That is disgustingly worth it.
As for your second downside, Amazon is a merchant, and as such, would never post a price for an item, charge a credit card, ship an item, and then ask for a second payment. They would have no legal basis for doing so, and furthermore, they would be subject to lawsuit for fraud from anyone (not just someone who purchased from them).
I dont know why you are lying about amazon, but I find it offensive.
Really?
Why is it not a good foundation to provide the cheapest or the best (your words)?
Am I the only one who finds it a little creepy that a foreign company can come into the U.S. and just wantonly try to violate the 1st and 4th amendment rights of our citizens (and presumably, many other citizens around the world)? p>
Its just you.
The rest of understand that freedom of speech doesn't mean consequence free speech. If Sony suffers damages from your speech, they can sue for those damages. Then, you get the opportunity to defend your actions in a court of law.
There is absolutely no unreasonable search and seizure when you post something on youtube.and Sony sees it. In fact, the posting of something on youtube creates probably cause to search the poster's property provided that a judge issues a warrant. Sony has done nothing wrong in acting in its own best interests. They simply asked a judge to create a warrant so that they can legally search for those whom Sony believes has actually harmed them.
I assume you lock your door at night, and even if you leave your door unlocked one night, it doesn't excuse theft. However, if someone were to post a youtube video showing specifically how your brand of door lock can be picked, it could be judicially warranted to extract the information of people who subsequently linked to schematics showing where you store valuables in your home, posted when you left for vacation, or otherwise recorded a method of breaking into your house.
As big a bunch of tools as Google are, I would hope they would at least tell Sony to go to hell on the identities of commenters and viewers of a web video. And, if they do hand these over, I think the FBI should be investigating THEM.
Obviously youtube has already refused to turn over user information, which is why Sony is asking a judge to overrule them. No need for the FBI here.
Actually, every news channel did accuse Bing of copying google search results. Quite directly. Microsoft responded to them, not directly to google. Google pointed out that they created user data for 100 non-word search terms and a minority of them created enough influence to affect Bing search results.
Microsoft is capturing your search data (not your mouse clicks) when you opt in to bing toolbar in IE, and telling you that this is what they are doing when you sign up. You being disturbed simply means that you agree to things without reading them and like to be offended.