The kind of total control over their platform which they expect to have. I'm reminded of the quote on Twitter the other day from the story about the top developers fired by Activision: "Getting mad at [Apple] for this is like getting mad at an ape for throwing feces. It's just how the beast communicates."
This kind of control is Apple's MO, and anyone buying their products should either know that, or wouldn't be affected by it (some people do want their choices made for them).
Is Apple actively trying to destroy any developer relationship that they had, and are they trying to show the community that they are not up to the challenge of hosting an app store?
No, they're just trying to show their users that they have total control. Just to remind you. In case you forgot.
Is it not possible to explain to this person the negative impact that his actions have? You explained it to us with one sentence:
In so doing, he causes the designer's computer to grind to a near-halt as the harddrive is now tasked with his open/save requests along with whatever the designer is doing.
Right after that line you say he doesn't see anything wrong with it. Have you not explained this to him?
And why are you sharing every workstation instead of using a single file server?
They do have electricity, they just basically power down the country at night. If you're looking for a reason, the government probably doesn't want to pay to generate power all night, and the people don't have input on the issue.
For the unauthorized access, using a bot to buy tickets constituted unauthorized access because the polices of the site specifically excluded bots, and they also hacked into a couple networks to steal source code and identify the countermeasures being used. I didn't read up on the wire fraud charges.
Should the box office continued selling $5 tickets until game time?
Yankee Stadium doesn't exactly have $5 seats but, yeah, surprise surprise, I think they should continue selling tickets at face value until the tickets are sold out (or the event ends). Weird idea, I know.
That's IMPOSSIBLE because all those tickets would have sold out in minutes.
So what? Why is that a problem?
If the scalper can buy the tickets and sell them all at much higher prices then the event was under priced to begin with.
Yeah, maybe so, but I'm not arguing about what the proper price is for any given event. I'm arguing against one entity buying up all of the supplies of a finite resource, then doling them out for a higher price. That's simply not fair. When corporations do that it's called price fixing. What do you think Apple would do if one group bought 90% of the iPads on launch day, then turned around and started selling each one for twice as much on ebay?
Is it legal? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Is it ethical? Some may argue so. Is it an asshole move? Yeah, it's an asshole move, and it would be pretty difficult for you to argue that they are providing a service by allowing everyone with disposable income to purchase an iPad to the exclusion of everyone else.
So you think a scalper is simply going to swallow the loss on a 100 tickets? A scalper who does that won't be in business very long.
If they received a significant premium on the tickets they did sell, then yes they can afford some unsold stock.
You just have to remember that once the event kicks off those tickets quickly go to zero value.
Right, they sell off excess stock for low prices, because $1 is better than nothing. Still, they can afford to sit on stock as long as they've made ridiculous profit on what they've already sold.
When a scalper is buying up groups of hundreds or thousands of tickets (which is what they did in this case) and selling them for twice as much, they can afford to only sell half. If they sell 3/4, and end up with 1/4 unsold, they've made a lot of profit. They bought almost 2000 tickets for the 2007 Yankees playoffs, so imagine how many of those went unsold. Probably not very many.
So you're saying that scalpers are good because they allow people with more money to see more events, and people with less money aren't able to see them. I guess it depends on your point of view whether or not you think they're doing you a service. If you're flush with cash and always wait until the last minute, then yeah, you might think scalpers are pretty great. If you make a normal amount of money and buy your tickets when they go on sell, I guess you're just out of luck. You should be making more money.
I'll just point out that scalpers don't allow anyone to get tickets. The people with more money could have gotten tickets on day 1 like anyone else, and paid the same price. They can "demonstrate their higher commitment to seeing the game" by purchasing the tickets when they go on sale, not by paying twice as much.
I could also point out that a person who doesn't make much money, but still wants to go to the event, probably has a higher commitment than the person who makes enough money to pay whatever the cost. The cost isn't going to affect the lifestyle of the more wealthy person, but the "regular" person may need to sacrifice in order to see it. That sounds like commitment to me, and those are the people who your scalpers "shut out".
If scalpers are able to sell the tickets at the increased price it means that demand exceeded the supply of tickets at the fixed price.
Not necessarily. It could also mean that the scalpers artificially reduced supply, which is exactly what they try to do. They might be sitting on 100 tickets, but the guy on the street only has 4 that he "really needs to sell fast". You think you're paying a premium for the last tickets, but the reality is that the stock levels are fine, and they sell all the tickets for that much.
Again, scalpers do no one a service except themselves.
You missed the point. The scalper did you a service by even giving you the chance to see the concert. If there were no scalpers and every ticket sold was legit then there would be no tickets on ebay and your action of missing the ticket sale means you have zero options to attend.
You're assuming every event always sells out.
Explain this to me: these guys bought 883 of the 1000 available 2006 Rose Bowl tickets. How exactly is that doing anyone a service? People still have to buy the tickets, so why does it do people a service when they have to buy them second-hand for more money versus just buying them from the box office for face value?
IANAL, but I think parent is right in saying that these guys have actually not done anything illegal
Did you even consider reading the indictment? It's linked to from TFA. Or are you just going to assume you know all the facts, and make your judgement? Maybe the government lawyers were just winging it when they wrote up a 43-count federal indictment, right? Here's a hint: one of the things they did was break into other people's networks to steal source code. Maybe that's not illegal in your world, but it is in the one where they got charged.
BTW, writing "IANAL" is not an excuse for ignorance. I've never studied law either, I just clicked on the indictment because I was wondering exactly what they did that was illegal.
It's not illegal to break a corporate policy, at least not in itself. They got charged with 43 counts of unauthorized access and wire fraud. Part of the unauthorized access was from the bots, where the site had a disclaimer saying they are not authorized if they are using an "automated" program (BTW, which program is not automated? Isn't that the point?), so since they were using a bot they were not authorized to use the site. The other part of the unauthorized access is a little more blatant - hacking into the sites and networks to steal source code to see how the companies implemented bot deterrence.
So how would P2P software be installed without consent?
If the person doing the installing (such as a corporate or government employee) doesn't have the permission of the computer owner (such as a corporation or government).
The government doesn't really care about stopping home users from unwittingly sharing their vast collection of Word documents. It's corporate and government documents they're trying to get a handle on.
It sounds to me like they're specifically trying to target corporate and government agencies. This part:
would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.
Sounds like they're making it illegal for an employee to install P2P without permission from the boss (the computer owner). It sounds like they are trying to clamp down on corporate and government files being unknowingly shared because a user wanted to download some music (or whatever else). That seems to be in line with the FTC sending notices to companies warning them that their data is being leaked. They probably concluded that the reason for that was because some of their users had installed P2P software to do one thing, and instead unknowingly started sharing their documents.
Basically, this sounds like a legal requirement to educate users of P2P software, and they're putting that requirement on the makers of P2P software. It doesn't really sound like a bad idea to me, and I'm a bit confused why this is filed under censorship.
What? It works any time someone has to go to court who was stupid enough to turn his computer into a spambot! Why shouldn't it work with cars?
Because Microsoft doesn't issue a highly-publicized worldwide recall when someone gets an infection. That's why. You don't need to understand the details of the fix to know that your car is under recall and that you need to take it in for repairs.
Slashdot Mirror
What does Apple gain by removing these things?
The kind of total control over their platform which they expect to have. I'm reminded of the quote on Twitter the other day from the story about the top developers fired by Activision: "Getting mad at [Apple] for this is like getting mad at an ape for throwing feces. It's just how the beast communicates."
This kind of control is Apple's MO, and anyone buying their products should either know that, or wouldn't be affected by it (some people do want their choices made for them).
Is Apple actively trying to destroy any developer relationship that they had, and are they trying to show the community that they are not up to the challenge of hosting an app store?
No, they're just trying to show their users that they have total control. Just to remind you. In case you forgot.
If big companies are not spared what about the individual developers?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they aren't spared either.
No, the scarcity comes from one entity buying all available resources and hording them. That's artificial.
Right. Most people think intelligently. Graphic artists using Macs think differently.
Right, multiple folders all over your harddrive are way easier to manage and find then making a bunch of subdirectories under My Documents.
Is it not possible to explain to this person the negative impact that his actions have? You explained it to us with one sentence:
In so doing, he causes the designer's computer to grind to a near-halt as the harddrive is now tasked with his open/save requests along with whatever the designer is doing.
Right after that line you say he doesn't see anything wrong with it. Have you not explained this to him?
And why are you sharing every workstation instead of using a single file server?
Interesting is, they are in violation of the GPL.
No, interesting would be if they were not in violation of anything.
They do have electricity, they just basically power down the country at night. If you're looking for a reason, the government probably doesn't want to pay to generate power all night, and the people don't have input on the issue.
For the unauthorized access, using a bot to buy tickets constituted unauthorized access because the polices of the site specifically excluded bots, and they also hacked into a couple networks to steal source code and identify the countermeasures being used. I didn't read up on the wire fraud charges.
Is it fair that the jobless guy who can camp out for weeks gets a ticket and I don't because I'm working?
Of course it is, if he wants to waste his time waiting then he can do that. If he wants to spend money instead of making it, great, go for it.
And since I'm willing to pay more than the next guy why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a ticket from whomever?
You are allowed to buy a ticket from whomever you want. Assuming, of course, that they're willing to sell their tickets.
Price fixing generally requires cornering the entire market. Find me a scalper who is buying 20k-30k seats at venues and fixing the price.
When a scalper buys 883 of the 1000 available tickets for an event like the Rose Bowl, you can consider the market cornered.
It doesn't work when the scarcity is artificial.
Should the box office continued selling $5 tickets until game time?
Yankee Stadium doesn't exactly have $5 seats but, yeah, surprise surprise, I think they should continue selling tickets at face value until the tickets are sold out (or the event ends). Weird idea, I know.
That's IMPOSSIBLE because all those tickets would have sold out in minutes.
So what? Why is that a problem?
If the scalper can buy the tickets and sell them all at much higher prices then the event was under priced to begin with.
Yeah, maybe so, but I'm not arguing about what the proper price is for any given event. I'm arguing against one entity buying up all of the supplies of a finite resource, then doling them out for a higher price. That's simply not fair. When corporations do that it's called price fixing. What do you think Apple would do if one group bought 90% of the iPads on launch day, then turned around and started selling each one for twice as much on ebay?
Is it legal? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Is it ethical? Some may argue so. Is it an asshole move? Yeah, it's an asshole move, and it would be pretty difficult for you to argue that they are providing a service by allowing everyone with disposable income to purchase an iPad to the exclusion of everyone else.
So you think a scalper is simply going to swallow the loss on a 100 tickets? A scalper who does that won't be in business very long.
If they received a significant premium on the tickets they did sell, then yes they can afford some unsold stock.
You just have to remember that once the event kicks off those tickets quickly go to zero value.
Right, they sell off excess stock for low prices, because $1 is better than nothing. Still, they can afford to sit on stock as long as they've made ridiculous profit on what they've already sold.
When a scalper is buying up groups of hundreds or thousands of tickets (which is what they did in this case) and selling them for twice as much, they can afford to only sell half. If they sell 3/4, and end up with 1/4 unsold, they've made a lot of profit. They bought almost 2000 tickets for the 2007 Yankees playoffs, so imagine how many of those went unsold. Probably not very many.
So you're saying that scalpers are good because they allow people with more money to see more events, and people with less money aren't able to see them. I guess it depends on your point of view whether or not you think they're doing you a service. If you're flush with cash and always wait until the last minute, then yeah, you might think scalpers are pretty great. If you make a normal amount of money and buy your tickets when they go on sell, I guess you're just out of luck. You should be making more money.
I'll just point out that scalpers don't allow anyone to get tickets. The people with more money could have gotten tickets on day 1 like anyone else, and paid the same price. They can "demonstrate their higher commitment to seeing the game" by purchasing the tickets when they go on sale, not by paying twice as much.
I could also point out that a person who doesn't make much money, but still wants to go to the event, probably has a higher commitment than the person who makes enough money to pay whatever the cost. The cost isn't going to affect the lifestyle of the more wealthy person, but the "regular" person may need to sacrifice in order to see it. That sounds like commitment to me, and those are the people who your scalpers "shut out".
It's pretty tough when he links to the page with all those quotes on it, isn't it?
If scalpers are able to sell the tickets at the increased price it means that demand exceeded the supply of tickets at the fixed price.
Not necessarily. It could also mean that the scalpers artificially reduced supply, which is exactly what they try to do. They might be sitting on 100 tickets, but the guy on the street only has 4 that he "really needs to sell fast". You think you're paying a premium for the last tickets, but the reality is that the stock levels are fine, and they sell all the tickets for that much.
Again, scalpers do no one a service except themselves.
You missed the point. The scalper did you a service by even giving you the chance to see the concert. If there were no scalpers and every ticket sold was legit then there would be no tickets on ebay and your action of missing the ticket sale means you have zero options to attend.
You're assuming every event always sells out.
Explain this to me: these guys bought 883 of the 1000 available 2006 Rose Bowl tickets. How exactly is that doing anyone a service? People still have to buy the tickets, so why does it do people a service when they have to buy them second-hand for more money versus just buying them from the box office for face value?
IANAL, but I think parent is right in saying that these guys have actually not done anything illegal
Did you even consider reading the indictment? It's linked to from TFA. Or are you just going to assume you know all the facts, and make your judgement? Maybe the government lawyers were just winging it when they wrote up a 43-count federal indictment, right? Here's a hint: one of the things they did was break into other people's networks to steal source code. Maybe that's not illegal in your world, but it is in the one where they got charged.
BTW, writing "IANAL" is not an excuse for ignorance. I've never studied law either, I just clicked on the indictment because I was wondering exactly what they did that was illegal.
Feel free to read the indictment yourself, but they:
A) Bought tickets while they were not authorized to do so (automated bots are not authorized)
B) Hacked into vendor networks to steal source code and identify bot deterrence used by the websites
C) Committed wire fraud
In total, they have 43 counts of unauthorized access and wire fraud against them.
But 25 million would take quite a few years for most people to earn.
It took them 8.
P.S. Did they do anything that was actually illegal?
The indictment (TFI?) lists 43 counts of unauthorized access and wire fraud.
It's not illegal to break a corporate policy, at least not in itself. They got charged with 43 counts of unauthorized access and wire fraud. Part of the unauthorized access was from the bots, where the site had a disclaimer saying they are not authorized if they are using an "automated" program (BTW, which program is not automated? Isn't that the point?), so since they were using a bot they were not authorized to use the site. The other part of the unauthorized access is a little more blatant - hacking into the sites and networks to steal source code to see how the companies implemented bot deterrence.
So how would P2P software be installed without consent?
If the person doing the installing (such as a corporate or government employee) doesn't have the permission of the computer owner (such as a corporation or government).
The government doesn't really care about stopping home users from unwittingly sharing their vast collection of Word documents. It's corporate and government documents they're trying to get a handle on.
It sounds to me like they're specifically trying to target corporate and government agencies. This part:
would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.
Sounds like they're making it illegal for an employee to install P2P without permission from the boss (the computer owner). It sounds like they are trying to clamp down on corporate and government files being unknowingly shared because a user wanted to download some music (or whatever else). That seems to be in line with the FTC sending notices to companies warning them that their data is being leaked. They probably concluded that the reason for that was because some of their users had installed P2P software to do one thing, and instead unknowingly started sharing their documents.
Basically, this sounds like a legal requirement to educate users of P2P software, and they're putting that requirement on the makers of P2P software. It doesn't really sound like a bad idea to me, and I'm a bit confused why this is filed under censorship.
What? It works any time someone has to go to court who was stupid enough to turn his computer into a spambot! Why shouldn't it work with cars?
Because Microsoft doesn't issue a highly-publicized worldwide recall when someone gets an infection. That's why. You don't need to understand the details of the fix to know that your car is under recall and that you need to take it in for repairs.