So you tie your paypal account to a credit card, and every time you log in they say "Give us all your bank account information, that will be really convenient!".
And you wonder, who are they trying to kid? Paypal answers to no one, and it appears they want access to your bank account not because it's convenient, but because when they deal with a credit card company, *there are federal laws that give you protections that PayPal would rather you not have*.
Like: Right to dispute a charge, and PayPal has to answer within a short time or they lose
Processes that must be followed, or else PayPal loses
And I'm supposed to give that up because... it's convenient? I'll bet a lot of people have linked their bank account to these guys, too. I think that's a foolish mistake. Once they have money from your bank, you're basically screwed. You're at the whim of a low-level clerk at PayPal. Thanks, but no thanks.
Why do people expect singers and guitar players to have a unique view on life for all of us to share?
Imagine that a football player gave his view on copyright and innovation. You'd laugh. But a guy sings a song on the radio, and all the sudden his utterances appear in the NY Times?
If someone points their finger at me and says "bang", they might really believe that they're going to shoot me. That simply makes them crazy, not a danger to me.
"You can buy a "pay as you go" phone but the cost/minute is generally higher than the contract plans. "
Only when you reach certain thresholds like about 400-600 minutes a month. However, for most people who fall into that category, it would be more cost-effective to get a landline, or a VoIP alternative at home and avoid burning up expensive cell phone minutes.
If people will walk away from the table if they become associated with the effort, then what does it tell you about the effort?
It tells me that ACTA is something that companies want to increase their profits without the bad publicity of trying to throw their "customers" in jail.
Perhaps it's better if we stopped the charade here.
"Contrary to the GP's post, the penalty is, in principle, because of the phone subsidy."
I think that's incorrect.
If you get a $200 phone for $100 because of 2 year agreement, not considering interest, you think, "right, subsidy of about $4.16 per month". But yet, when you hit the 25th month, the monthly service doesn't go down by $4.16. Worse, if you bring your own phone to the carrier, they don't lower the price.
In my opinion, you're getting a subsidy for the difference between the "normal" price and the price with the two year plan because you've committed to a 24 month revenue stream. [That doesn't hold true in the second case though; if you bring your own phone and agree to a 2 year plan, you don't get a break in price]
A fair termination fee would be the difference between the phone price you paid and the phone price without plan subtracting the amount of time that you paid them for the plan. Perhaps that should even be waived if you turn in the phone.
But let's stop playing this game. Carriers charge people a lot of money for everything *because we pay it*. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.
1) They're stealing his headlines 2) Google may or may not have the right to search 3) We'll attack their right to search 4) So if they know what's good for them, pay us to be included in google searches
You are quite correct. I bought 2 Tivo's about 3 years ago when there was a rumor of the end of lifetime service. They keep trying to sell me a new HD box, and I'd like to buy, but they either don't offer transfer of my lifetime, or they want another $300 or so.
So as much as we like the Tivo, it's not cost effective over Verizon's DVR.
I would like to turn them into time-based recorders, but the rational thing to do is sell these boxes to someone for $300 each (the subscription can be transferred).
It's crazy how the Tivo crowd thinks that unless you're paying Tivo a monthly fee that somehow you're not doing the right thing.
Lawsuits are a business tactic, they're not a end in-and-of themselves, they're simply a way to get to your goal.
If people sue each other, it's because it's gotten personal, they want to feel vindicated. Companies sue because it will increase profits or maintain control of a market. They're not looking to right a wrong.
"a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition's brand strength"
Well, I don't think it is. When I first saw the ad, they said pretty clearly "3G coverage". That's not misleading.
Also, when I target a competitor, I am aiming to dilute the competitions brand strength. If there is something false, then AT&T is a big boy. They can come up with a snappy ad that says something like "Why does Verizon not want to tell you the truth?".
Frankly, it hard to think either AT&T or Verizon is a "good guy" in any sense of the word.
People forget that when the Audi 5000 was released, it was hit with the same allegations. Owners swore the car started accelerating by itself, even though they were pressing as hard as they could on the brake!
60 minutes did a hatchet job on the car, and it almost ruined Audi.
And at the time, clearer heads pointed out (in car magazines, newspapers) that it is impossible for an engine to overcome the brakes in a car. This is clearly true. But people swore they were pressing the brake.
Here's what NHSTA found: the Audi had much smaller pedals than American cars, particularly the brake, so that when people were panicked, they were actually pressing the accelerator, not the brake. It seems impossible, but true! The car was designed for European audiences and had smaller pedals to accommodate a clutch, even when it had an automatic transmission. So when people moved from old-style American cars with a huge, wide brake pedal, they were not reacting properly in a panic situation.
I've seen the same thing in relatives. About 2 decades ago, a female relative claimed she got into an accident because the car started accelerating, no matter how hard she pressed on a brake. She swore this to be true, even though what she was suggesting was a physical impossibility. But to this day, she believes it.
So I would be skeptical of this claim by owners. Not impossible, but highly improbable based on what we've seen from people in this situation many times before.
I agree with the overall assessment that people who drive manual transmissions are overall better drivers.
In fact, as I watch people struggle with basic things like steering and braking on a daily basis, I'm convinced that regardless of what your daily driver will be, you should be required to pass your driver's test in a manual transmission. In a way, it's sort of like the requirement to pass morse code for ham radio operators; it's less about knowing morse code than it is about showing a commitment to learning your craft better.
"Let's say, I want to slap you. But you say no? Well that's to bad because I have a "moral right" to do whatever the hell I want with your property regardless of your wishes."
I'm not following this at all. Maybe you missed a sentence? I think right between the "you say no?" and the "Well that's to bad". Because the analogy doesn't make any sense the way you've written it.
Ha, you don't know how good dealers are at taking trades away from people for nothing and then reselling them for $10K. In fact, dealers probably make more on 3 year old trade-ins than they do on the new car itself!
"You could think of it as an idiot tax for poor drivers"
Oh, that's not any worse than someone who sells a paid-for SUV and then gets themselves into $25K of debt for a Prius because the gas mileage is better.
Yes, when I studied Computer Science (admittedly about 30-40 years ago), it was a requirement to study numerical analysis which basically laid out the fundamentals of how and when floating point numbers failed in binary representation. So the idea that people in the 70's either didn't know or care about these issues isn't true.
If you haven't heard of the Euler or Runge-Kutta, you probably should before doing any sort of system design that involves floating point numbers.
I think everybody is too busy teaching programming these days to study computer science;)
"What we have here is a classic free market setup."
We have the opposite of a free market today; we have large companies that effectively use congress as a tool to maximize profit.
I respect your position, but I think you're hearkening back to a day that cannot be brought back. Copying is trivial now and always will be trivial. You can put in all sorts of laws to punish people, but you can't stop people from copying a movie or music for their buddies. That bargain that used to exist before all media was digital is gone, never to return.
Do I want to repeal copyright? Goodness no. But the bargain of Copyrights between producer and purchaser needs to change from the current model to one that's more equitable and enforces broader fair use rights for the public, shorter copyright time limits (less than 17 years certainly), compulsory licensing, and perhaps government enforcement only for commercial infringement.
Those changes will almost certainly happen little by little over the next decade.
"I don't actually view copyright as a matter of fairness"
But unless the bargain is fair it will never stick. I don't think you can get around that.
No offense, your position on copyrights seems to be a bit like King Canute; you think that all that need to be done is educate and prosecute and that nothing else needs to be changed and that the law will be observed. But the king cannot command the sea.
Copyright laws and enforcement have gotten progressively more stringent and yet copyright violations continue to expand (by the current legal definition). At a certain point, you've got to acknowledge that it's not working and take a different approach to copyright and change the current bargain the people have made with people who want copyright protection.
Slashdot Mirror
"how is this different than MS banning hacked consoles from XBL or Blizzard banning cheaters from their servers."
Because it's not cheating. That's the first thing that comes to mind. I'm sure there are other ways this analogy falls apart.
"I'll use PayPal once it is regulated, meself."
So you tie your paypal account to a credit card, and every time you log in they say "Give us all your bank account information, that will be really convenient!".
And you wonder, who are they trying to kid? Paypal answers to no one, and it appears they want access to your bank account not because it's convenient, but because when they deal with a credit card company, *there are federal laws that give you protections that PayPal would rather you not have*.
Like: Right to dispute a charge, and PayPal has to answer within a short time or they lose
Processes that must be followed, or else PayPal loses
And I'm supposed to give that up because... it's convenient? I'll bet a lot of people have linked their bank account to these guys, too. I think that's a foolish mistake. Once they have money from your bank, you're basically screwed. You're at the whim of a low-level clerk at PayPal. Thanks, but no thanks.
Every kid of a certain age who has seen "Avatar" correctly notes that it's a mash-up of "Fern Gully" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104254/ and the Disney version of "Pocahontas" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114148/.
The plot of Avatar is hardly new. It was an entertaining movie, but let's not pretend any of this was a new idea.
Why do people expect singers and guitar players to have a unique view on life for all of us to share?
Imagine that a football player gave his view on copyright and innovation. You'd laugh. But a guy sings a song on the radio, and all the sudden his utterances appear in the NY Times?
Crazy.
I don't think that's true.
If someone points their finger at me and says "bang", they might really believe that they're going to shoot me. That simply makes them crazy, not a danger to me.
"You can buy a "pay as you go" phone but the cost/minute is generally higher than the contract plans. "
Only when you reach certain thresholds like about 400-600 minutes a month. However, for most people who fall into that category, it would be more cost-effective to get a landline, or a VoIP alternative at home and avoid burning up expensive cell phone minutes.
It's okay. One person on here thought that perhaps the constant references to hookers in the basement might've been disturbing "especially if true".
If people will walk away from the table if they become associated with the effort, then what does it tell you about the effort?
It tells me that ACTA is something that companies want to increase their profits without the bad publicity of trying to throw their "customers" in jail.
Perhaps it's better if we stopped the charade here.
"Contrary to the GP's post, the penalty is, in principle, because of the phone subsidy."
I think that's incorrect.
If you get a $200 phone for $100 because of 2 year agreement, not considering interest, you think, "right, subsidy of about $4.16 per month". But yet, when you hit the 25th month, the monthly service doesn't go down by $4.16. Worse, if you bring your own phone to the carrier, they don't lower the price.
In my opinion, you're getting a subsidy for the difference between the "normal" price and the price with the two year plan because you've committed to a 24 month revenue stream. [That doesn't hold true in the second case though; if you bring your own phone and agree to a 2 year plan, you don't get a break in price]
A fair termination fee would be the difference between the phone price you paid and the phone price without plan subtracting the amount of time that you paid them for the plan. Perhaps that should even be waived if you turn in the phone.
But let's stop playing this game. Carriers charge people a lot of money for everything *because we pay it*. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.
He's asking Google to pay him to index his site.
Parse it out...
1) They're stealing his headlines
2) Google may or may not have the right to search
3) We'll attack their right to search
4) So if they know what's good for them, pay us to be included in google searches
You are quite correct. I bought 2 Tivo's about 3 years ago when there was a rumor of the end of lifetime service. They keep trying to sell me a new HD box, and I'd like to buy, but they either don't offer transfer of my lifetime, or they want another $300 or so.
So as much as we like the Tivo, it's not cost effective over Verizon's DVR.
I would like to turn them into time-based recorders, but the rational thing to do is sell these boxes to someone for $300 each (the subscription can be transferred).
It's crazy how the Tivo crowd thinks that unless you're paying Tivo a monthly fee that somehow you're not doing the right thing.
They asked for everything including the kitchen sink.
They got everything except the kitchen sink, and you're trumpeting this as a success of rights?
This was the plan all along. Ask for everything settle for half. Except they got about 80% of what they wanted and they gave up nothing in exchange.
If ISP's could successfully block all fraud sites, why not other sites that the government decides need to be blocked?
I suspect that's the larger agenda.
Lawsuits are a business tactic, they're not a end in-and-of themselves, they're simply a way to get to your goal.
If people sue each other, it's because it's gotten personal, they want to feel vindicated. Companies sue because it will increase profits or maintain control of a market. They're not looking to right a wrong.
"a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition's brand strength"
Well, I don't think it is. When I first saw the ad, they said pretty clearly "3G coverage". That's not misleading.
Also, when I target a competitor, I am aiming to dilute the competitions brand strength. If there is something false, then AT&T is a big boy. They can come up with a snappy ad that says something like "Why does Verizon not want to tell you the truth?".
Frankly, it hard to think either AT&T or Verizon is a "good guy" in any sense of the word.
http://www.audifans.com/archives/1998/07/msg02207.html
People forget that when the Audi 5000 was released, it was hit with the same allegations. Owners swore the car started accelerating by itself, even though they were pressing as hard as they could on the brake!
60 minutes did a hatchet job on the car, and it almost ruined Audi.
And at the time, clearer heads pointed out (in car magazines, newspapers) that it is impossible for an engine to overcome the brakes in a car. This is clearly true. But people swore they were pressing the brake.
Here's what NHSTA found: the Audi had much smaller pedals than American cars, particularly the brake, so that when people were panicked, they were actually pressing the accelerator, not the brake. It seems impossible, but true! The car was designed for European audiences and had smaller pedals to accommodate a clutch, even when it had an automatic transmission. So when people moved from old-style American cars with a huge, wide brake pedal, they were not reacting properly in a panic situation.
I've seen the same thing in relatives. About 2 decades ago, a female relative claimed she got into an accident because the car started accelerating, no matter how hard she pressed on a brake. She swore this to be true, even though what she was suggesting was a physical impossibility. But to this day, she believes it.
So I would be skeptical of this claim by owners. Not impossible, but highly improbable based on what we've seen from people in this situation many times before.
I agree with the overall assessment that people who drive manual transmissions are overall better drivers.
In fact, as I watch people struggle with basic things like steering and braking on a daily basis, I'm convinced that regardless of what your daily driver will be, you should be required to pass your driver's test in a manual transmission. In a way, it's sort of like the requirement to pass morse code for ham radio operators; it's less about knowing morse code than it is about showing a commitment to learning your craft better.
"Let's say, I want to slap you. But you say no? Well that's to bad because I have a "moral right" to do whatever the hell I want with your property regardless of your wishes."
I'm not following this at all. Maybe you missed a sentence? I think right between the "you say no?" and the "Well that's to bad". Because the analogy doesn't make any sense the way you've written it.
Ha, you don't know how good dealers are at taking trades away from people for nothing and then reselling them for $10K. In fact, dealers probably make more on 3 year old trade-ins than they do on the new car itself!
"You could think of it as an idiot tax for poor drivers"
Oh, that's not any worse than someone who sells a paid-for SUV and then gets themselves into $25K of debt for a Prius because the gas mileage is better.
Well, once would have to wonder if CMU produces any IP as a result of this free data, would they release all copyrights and patents for free?
Or is that different?
Yes, when I studied Computer Science (admittedly about 30-40 years ago), it was a requirement to study numerical analysis which basically laid out the fundamentals of how and when floating point numbers failed in binary representation. So the idea that people in the 70's either didn't know or care about these issues isn't true.
If you haven't heard of the Euler or Runge-Kutta, you probably should before doing any sort of system design that involves floating point numbers.
I think everybody is too busy teaching programming these days to study computer science ;)
"to million-dollar Comcast"
Comcast is a $16 BILLION dollar company.
"What we have here is a classic free market setup."
We have the opposite of a free market today; we have large companies that effectively use congress as a tool to maximize profit.
I respect your position, but I think you're hearkening back to a day that cannot be brought back. Copying is trivial now and always will be trivial. You can put in all sorts of laws to punish people, but you can't stop people from copying a movie or music for their buddies. That bargain that used to exist before all media was digital is gone, never to return.
Do I want to repeal copyright? Goodness no. But the bargain of Copyrights between producer and purchaser needs to change from the current model to one that's more equitable and enforces broader fair use rights for the public, shorter copyright time limits (less than 17 years certainly), compulsory licensing, and perhaps government enforcement only for commercial infringement.
Those changes will almost certainly happen little by little over the next decade.
"I don't actually view copyright as a matter of fairness"
But unless the bargain is fair it will never stick. I don't think you can get around that.
No offense, your position on copyrights seems to be a bit like King Canute; you think that all that need to be done is educate and prosecute and that nothing else needs to be changed and that the law will be observed. But the king cannot command the sea.
Copyright laws and enforcement have gotten progressively more stringent and yet copyright violations continue to expand (by the current legal definition). At a certain point, you've got to acknowledge that it's not working and take a different approach to copyright and change the current bargain the people have made with people who want copyright protection.