What about all the kids that have been removed from his class, by demand of the parents?
How many parents did this?
What about all the angry parents storming the school and demanding he be fired?
How many parents did this?
Here's what the article said:
The profile did not use McGonigle's name, but identified the person pictured as a "principal," and described him as a 40-year-old married, bisexual man whose interests included "being a tight ass," "fucking in my office" and "hitting on students and their parents," according to Munley's opinion.
If you read that, would you believe a word of it? Would you extrapolate that the guy was a paedophile and a sex addict?
Somewhere between none and lots. Depends on how plausible the accusation is. If it's clearly a joke then none. If there's some fabricated facts then plenty.
And perhaps the guy who defamed me should consider himself lucky that I just keyed his car rather than suing him. Doesn't mean I'd get off from the charge of criminal damage if I did that, nor does it mean I wouldn't be able to sue for defamation.
It's highly speculative and slightly risky from EMI. They're hoping that someone else (mobile phone companies or cheap mp3 player manufacturers perhaps) will provide some of the essential infrastructure for this to become a success.
This does reduce the effective cost of a music player. Mp3 players currently need a PC to work. This makes them quite expensive. The only problem is most people who are likely to want an mp3 player have a PC these days.
It prevents casual copy of the original game media, and obviously you just reinforce the idea that people will. You're going to end up pushing these companies to do more invasive DRM schemes or even change how they do games all together, such as, using the World of Warcraft model to DRM.
What's the WoW model to DRM?
We've demonstrated that we dislike invasive DRM, and that DRM increases piracy. If they keep pushing they'll eventually run out of customers, and more civilised companies will pick up the slack. They can do it that way if they like.
That's just what they argue legally in court.
If they didn't think piracy cost them sales, they would just ignore it. Perhaps they think that me not buying it costs them as much. Either way, one way I get to play the game, the other way I don't. I'll go for the way that benefits me.
These are statutory damages. They're not punitive. Punitive damages can be awarded on top of these ludicrous amounts!
Honestly, I'm not keen on the idea of punitive damages anyway. The victim has no right to be rewarded for being a victim. Only compensated. Excessive damages result in people suing hoping to get a disproportionate payout. There's a perfectly functional criminal court system which is designed specifically to discourage this sort of behaviour.
You can do that in emacs, or use the search replace function (honestly have no idea why emacs is considered arcane). In vi, you first need to learn how to type something...
You could also do that by simply not getting the game at all and posting such as a review on a site like amazon.com - that you won't buy the game for that reason.
Then I don't get the game. I'm trying to punish EA. Not me.
Your current actions however, can just be seen to reinforce EA's policy on continuing to use DRM.
Why? It clearly doesn't work otherwise my actions would be impossible.
It isn't punishing EA, as you're also bringing the perception that their game is so great, you have to get it anyway.
They see it as a lost sale. They don't see someone not buying it as a lost sale.
I believe an "act of infringement" is any number of copies of a specific work. So if he makes a single copy or 1000 copies of Call Of Duty, that's a single act. If he makes a single copy of each of 2 games then that's 2 acts.
Although that said, it isn't just a file sharer. This may actually be a major large scale for-profit piracy organisation, in which case this could be quite reasonable.
Yes... If they sued him for the amount they would have made in sales then I'd totally support that. They seem to be suing for a ludicrous amount that in no way could reflect their actual losses. Litigation really shouldn't be a profit centre. The idea is that it's meant to put the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the action not occurred.
Didn't realise just how much profit they made on second hand games (never having sold one and if I did I'd use eBay).
Still, there's supply and demand here. Presumably you have no stats as to how many times games are resold on average.
Honestly, I don't fault Gamespot for doing this. Games are expensive, and they're serving an apparent market niche here. I think people are insane for paying so much and selling for so little but they have the choice.
The developers themselves tend not to receive royalties anyway (the studio does but it tends not to trickle down to the actual coders, artists and designers), so I'm not really too fussed.
Slashdot Mirror
How many parents did this?
What about all the angry parents storming the school and demanding he be fired?
How many parents did this?
Here's what the article said:
If you read that, would you believe a word of it? Would you extrapolate that the guy was a paedophile and a sex addict?
You have to prove that harm was done. Not make vague generalisations that harm could be done. If nobody believes the claim their career is unharmed.
Somewhere between none and lots. Depends on how plausible the accusation is. If it's clearly a joke then none. If there's some fabricated facts then plenty.
Perhaps she should.
And perhaps the guy who defamed me should consider himself lucky that I just keyed his car rather than suing him. Doesn't mean I'd get off from the charge of criminal damage if I did that, nor does it mean I wouldn't be able to sue for defamation.
You also have to prove that harm has been done.
Really it's just Germany. Even The Hoff seems bemused by his popularity there.
Kudos to EMI for doing something digital without DRM, but how is this better than what Amazon.com offers us now?
Amazon requires an internet connection.
And a PC.
A catchy name!
Seriously, this is quite important for adoption.
It's highly speculative and slightly risky from EMI. They're hoping that someone else (mobile phone companies or cheap mp3 player manufacturers perhaps) will provide some of the essential infrastructure for this to become a success.
This does reduce the effective cost of a music player. Mp3 players currently need a PC to work. This makes them quite expensive. The only problem is most people who are likely to want an mp3 player have a PC these days.
Most mp3 players will play this format, at least if you copy the data.
mp3 is a bit old and virtually all other formats are better, but it's the de facto standard. 320kbit at least should give a decent reproduction.
It prevents casual copy of the original game media, and obviously you just reinforce the idea that people will. You're going to end up pushing these companies to do more invasive DRM schemes or even change how they do games all together, such as, using the World of Warcraft model to DRM.
What's the WoW model to DRM?
We've demonstrated that we dislike invasive DRM, and that DRM increases piracy. If they keep pushing they'll eventually run out of customers, and more civilised companies will pick up the slack. They can do it that way if they like.
That's just what they argue legally in court.
If they didn't think piracy cost them sales, they would just ignore it. Perhaps they think that me not buying it costs them as much. Either way, one way I get to play the game, the other way I don't. I'll go for the way that benefits me.
There would be no reason not to offend.
These are statutory damages. They're not punitive. Punitive damages can be awarded on top of these ludicrous amounts!
Honestly, I'm not keen on the idea of punitive damages anyway. The victim has no right to be rewarded for being a victim. Only compensated. Excessive damages result in people suing hoping to get a disproportionate payout. There's a perfectly functional criminal court system which is designed specifically to discourage this sort of behaviour.
You search for foo_*, delete it and type *Foo.
You can do that in emacs, or use the search replace function (honestly have no idea why emacs is considered arcane). In vi, you first need to learn how to type something...
They do provide a service on the internet.
You could also do that by simply not getting the game at all and posting such as a review on a site like amazon.com - that you won't buy the game for that reason.
Then I don't get the game. I'm trying to punish EA. Not me.
Your current actions however, can just be seen to reinforce EA's policy on continuing to use DRM.
Why? It clearly doesn't work otherwise my actions would be impossible.
It isn't punishing EA, as you're also bringing the perception that their game is so great, you have to get it anyway.
They see it as a lost sale. They don't see someone not buying it as a lost sale.
This is why we have criminal law as well as civil law.
Of course, in criminal law, the onus of proof is much higher.
You're right.
Maybe I just want to punish EA.
And if a court orders punitive damages they're explicitly stated as such. The point of statutory damages isn't to punish.
I believe an "act of infringement" is any number of copies of a specific work. So if he makes a single copy or 1000 copies of Call Of Duty, that's a single act. If he makes a single copy of each of 2 games then that's 2 acts.
Although that said, it isn't just a file sharer. This may actually be a major large scale for-profit piracy organisation, in which case this could be quite reasonable.
Yes... If they sued him for the amount they would have made in sales then I'd totally support that. They seem to be suing for a ludicrous amount that in no way could reflect their actual losses. Litigation really shouldn't be a profit centre. The idea is that it's meant to put the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the action not occurred.
What gives you the right to pirate this game?
Who cares? I have the ability to pirate it, so I will. I'm not willing to pay for it unless I can be sure I can still play it in 5 years time.
Didn't realise just how much profit they made on second hand games (never having sold one and if I did I'd use eBay).
Still, there's supply and demand here. Presumably you have no stats as to how many times games are resold on average.
Honestly, I don't fault Gamespot for doing this. Games are expensive, and they're serving an apparent market niche here. I think people are insane for paying so much and selling for so little but they have the choice.
The developers themselves tend not to receive royalties anyway (the studio does but it tends not to trickle down to the actual coders, artists and designers), so I'm not really too fussed.
A lot of people have come up with this theory. It certainly fits the facts, but is the second hand market really that big a problem?
That gives me infinite installations!
For god's sake! I could see a limit to the number of installs in a certain time making some sort of sense, but they've still removed any resale value.