It will never happen, there will never be faster-then-light travel i'm told because some old man in a patent office said so with no real proof of it, he just liked the idea. There can be no time travel because you would be able to undo what your just then doing and that just couldnt be possibe.
There are posulated conjectures about how FTL could work and still not violate Einstein's theory of relativity. Bendng space, quantum entangled gateways--and the very easy conjecture that Einstein's just missing a principle that kicks in at.9c or something.
(FWIW, 'Trek's "warp" system actually does fit in, in an accidential kind of way, with relativity.)
Sci-Fi is and always has been a fantasy, and that will never change.
Science Fiction is an expression of ideas.
Fantasy is telling epic tales about different places.
There is a LOT of overlap, but there are also easly spotted differences. Asimov wasn't fantasy--if a fantasy writer wrote as badly as he did, they'd be sacked. Tolkien wasn't science fiction--he managed to not have a single new idea, and his writing added a bit too many extraneous details.
I will admit, though, that Enterprise isn't really science fiction. Some of the other Star Trek series/movies were, but Enterprise is a completely lost cause.
I wouldn't say that. At the least, it's a neruotic attempt to explore the possible ramifications of time travel.
Nintendo develops their games to try and hide the loading times as much as possible.
Then they really, really messed up on a few.
When entering a stage in SM. Sunshine, Soulcalibur 2 (probably not Nintendo's fault), or even Pikmin, there is a noticable load-time.
It's only annoying when you're moving back and forth from the same stage for some odd reason--like you do whenever you die on SM.Sunshine oustide of the "secret" levels.
There's a lot to be said for conceptually simple mechanics. I've taught D6 systems to complete noobs, and they really appreciate the "roll what it says on your character sheet" system. It may not be faster than D&D3.5, but it's plenty fast, no reference materials needed
I agree. Simple-structure systems like Storyteller or d6 are fairly simple, and let folk not worry about the rules and just worry about RPing.
Unfortunatly, they can get a bit hariy when you do things like multiple actions and defense and initative--but thankfully, they're simple enough that even running it wrong works out just fine.
(I could go out on a limb about how Storyteller & d6 aren't really "balanced" unless you die-roll a lot of variable things, but I won't. I just happen to like d20 more--probably because I'm a fan of fantasy, and fantasy often implies combat.)
Skill incrementing systems are faster, easier and better than levelling systems. Systems where one doesn't need to use a table and just need to add numbers end up being faster, and it opens up my gaming groups to people that aren't prone to memorizing tables. And it puts the GM power in my hands, not the hands of some g**d**ned chart.
And how do you measure relative power of characters?
Skill-based systems are fun--heck, any game can be fun--but they're not automatically superior to level-based games.
And they're certainly not faster. "Roll xd6 and add opposed to my xd6 roll" simply isn't "faster" than "roll 1d20+x to beat Y." Conceptually simpler, yeah. Sometimes even easier to setup. But not faster in execution.
(And, FWIW, the charts in 3e-on all make a LOT more sense than 2e's did. Memorize a few simple math formulas, and you don't even need the tables anymore.)
Well, if you're using the OGL, you cannot use trademarks in any way without permission. If you're using the d20, you can use the D&D trademark, but you have to live with worse restrictions.
You cannot use the d20STL without using the OGL; use of the OGL is one of the requirements for the d20STL.
If you're not using either license, you can say "Use this book with 3rd Ed. D&D" without restriction (provided it's clear that the owners of the D&D trademark do not endorse your product).
Theoretically, yes. And, theoretically, when they come and sic their lawyers on you, you might be able to get away. And, you might even be able to convince distributors to carry your product.
But I doubt you could make money off of it--especially when there's a lawyer-free alternative. Oh, and you couldn't reprint copyrightable parts of D&D verbatium.
When Valar first announced the Book of Vile Darkness, they broke a whole bunch of rules in their press relase. They used the "Dungeons & Dragons" trademark, and they outright claimed compatability with said trademark.
(The OGL prohibits using anyone else's trademark without permission, and claiming compatability with anyone without permission. The d20STL gives some very specific allowances to use the d20 logo, the "d20 System" trademark, and the Dungeons & Draogns trademarks. Oh, and the OGL considers "advertising" as part of the work... AV claimed that his Press Release wasn't advertising, which got the publishers in quite a tizzy.)
It'd have been bad enough if a different known name (like Steve Jackson games) had done it, and had done it for some mainstream product, but Valar's the company of Anthony Valterra--who, at the time, was WotC VP in charge of policing licensing adherence.
The interesting part is that most of the objections to WotC's new d20STL aren't objections to the concept of Quality Standards--it's how WotC changed the license, and how WotC kept unilateral power to order the pulping of product.
It seems like people should avoid using both licenses now.
Dear god, no!
The OGL can't be meaningfully edited or changed without an act of SCOTUS; unless the GPL and the concept of copyleft itself are nullified, the OGL will stand forever.
The d20STL _only_ covers that "d20" logo that you see on the back of most RPG products now--it's an indicator of compatability with the World's Most Popular Fantasy RPG.
A lot of publishers DO drop it--Mutants and Masterminds and the Everquest RPG are two notable products to do so. Heck, most of the big publishers could drop it right now, and they wouldn't even notice a dip in sales.
The d20 logo matters to the little guys who want distributors to carry their product, game stores to stock it next to D&D, and gamers to pick it up and use it in their D&D, d20-Modern, Everquest, etc. games.
There's essay upon essay about the network theories behind the d20 System, and why it's a valuable thing to put on a product that's created using the OGL and the SRD.
They're different licenses, and both give different value--but if you want to stop using one, stop using the d20STL.
(And, while I'm distributing clue to/.ers, the l33t gamers all use the FGA's OpenDie and Prometheus logos.)
If one were to actually read the d20 Licence Guide (which I have--I was the one who posted the GamingReport.com article), you'd probably realize that the "covered but not quite graphic" coverage of the BoVD is well within the new d20 agreement.
The big controversy isn't that they want quality guidelines--it's that Valar Publishing, makers of the Book of Erotic Fantasy, broke the rules (really, really, REALLY broke the rules--which they really didn't have to do!), and the rules were changed stealthfully to this new "WotC can kill your product if we find it immoral" stance.
Every producer of d20 products, aside from Wizards of the Coast themselves, has expressed doubt and worry over what the new license changes might mean for them.
I may very well be mistaken. This is/.--"I might be wrong" is as superfluous as "I am not a lawyer."
Unless they require you to read a contract & sign a contract, this would have no hope in hell (even then).
Not all contracts must be written; for most, it just makes proving the existance of a contract easier. Some contracts, like those dealing with Real Estate, must be in writing--but I don't know about license agreements.
In order to do what you are suggesting, you would need a signed contract.
Contract, yes. Signed, maybe. Even an EULA is a contract--you pay $X for an offer for a contract, rather than the full deal. (Odd, I know.)
I didn't say it was easy, and I certainly pointed out that there were, at the least, economoic reasons not to do it. But it is theoretically feasible.
For a less extreme topic, let's say that I'm a recording studio, in the business of selling CDs. I decide to sell my CDs only through a specific license agreement: in exchange for $X and an agreement not to re-sell your copy or your interest, you get one physical CD and a lifetime right to replace your music through whatever medium you wish. If I move to the next great format, you get a new physical copy from me at-cost. If your CD breaks, you can get a replacement from me at-cost. If you want to have oodles and ooldes of digial copies of your format, that's great--I'll even give them to you--but you can't share them with anyone.
Simple? No. Econonomically feasible? Maybe. At least, a heck of a lot more feasible than throwing labels on books to prohibit re-selling that would cost too much to enforce.
In the case of the RIAA, all the prices stay artificially high. Good/Bad/Ugly slaves would all go for the same price.
This isn't true. There are labels and musicians who have nothing to do with the RIAA, and you may be able to get a lower price from them.
(This, of course, is just in the "you should pay whatever the artist charges" theory, to attack 'file-sharing.' RIAA's actual price fixing is a differnet matter.)
Oh. I'll write the RIAA a letter asking to buy the song/CD/tape for $20. Would you think that I would actually get a response? A month later, I hop on Kazaa or whatever filesharing app is OMG so good. Now that my hands are out of my pants long enough to switch from 'movie' to 'song' in my search, I look for that song on a whim.
If you do this, and you don't get a response (even a "we'll give it to you for $100" - special orders are ethically more expensive), then I think that you _should_ be able to claim "nonaccessability" as a defense--for the precise music you were trying to get.
But if you don't make a reasonable effort to try to get the music legally--well, then you should be slapped.
Back on topic: Let them do what they can legally do and sue infringers, and give amnesty to others. I will still be able to do what I can legally do - refuse to purchase their product, and attempt to get others to understand that if you're not getting a product in a way that you want to use it and be able to use it, DON'T BUY IT.:) I like you. A/.'er that has ethics.:)
We're not talking about burgers here, we're talking about individualistic content. Just because you have alternatives doesn't mean they should be allowed to get away with price fixing.
Come again?
Let's say that slavery is legal again. Why should there be a limit on what I can charge for my slaves--they are unique, and I can set my price whatever I want--if folk don't like it, they can get their manual labor elsewhere.
Same thing for music--BECAUSE it's a unique creation, the creator can charge whatever the hell they want--and if we want to go elsewhere for cheaper music, we can.
"This is the only place I can get this!" is a reson to pay MORE, not less.
Ergo in the U.S., you are owned by the state. Don't like it? Change the laws. As it stands right now, you are the government's chattle if you live in the U.S.
We need to move from binary computer logic to, at the least, unform "fuzzy" logic (trinary). Computer geeks have too hard a time realizing that there is a middle ground between "free" and "slave" or "capitalist" and "communist."
In any society--be it US or otherwise--each individual has an obligation to all other members of said society. The US is fairly loose in a lot of obligations, but "don't hurt anyone else" and "keep yourself and your house in order" are too big ones. And suicide violates the second one.
Now, of course, if you DO decide to kill yourself, we really can't do anything once you succeed--well, other than take away all of the safeguards we have against accidental death. If you fail, and we find you, we'll very likely treat you as a mentally distrubed person--which, oddly enough, you are.
Note to smd4985 -- we've had years of local bands, indie artists, and classical music to indulge in if RIAA doesn't suit us. We can always go somewhere else for our music--but if we take what they're selling, we should still pay for it.
What, pray tell, do you find an acceptable course of action for the RIAA?
Oooh, ooh! I know this one!
First, RIAA should not go after P2P services. They should go after the actual infringers. But not in a cruel way--these are fad-following college kids, after all. How about they tell them that it's wrong, and then find out who does it anyway, and go after the worst of them--and offer amnesty for anyone who is willing to give it up?
Oh, and they have to have a few ways to get digital music legally...
Hey, wait, they're doing that! What's up with that! How can we rail about how evil the RIAA is if they do what's morally and legally right for them to do!:)
Now, if you had some kind of contractual agreemnt and LOANED the books, that's different...
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Slap the warning label, put it on the recipt, require distributors and stores to inform the public of the terms of the sale--and sell it for a comparativly reduced price.
It doesn't have to be a loan, but it does have to be enough to pass muster at the court as a contract and not a simple sale.:) In an area where EULAs have been held up, a sticker saying "you agree not to re-sell this book to anyone but the store you bought it from; by opening this book, you agree to not do this." or somesuch might even be enough to be a legal contact.
So basically, you can't write the no resell clause inside the book and expect people to be bound by it. The consumer has to be aware of the restriction before he pays.
Go back and read my post. Pay attention to the "tell everyone about it." This would include the sales clerk saying "you realize this book is cheaper because you waive your right of re-sale, right?"
IANAL(RU), but as far as I know, waiving or not-waiving the Doctrine of Fair Use is contract law.
The right of first sale totally and completely aplies unless--get this--it's specifically waived as a condition of the sale.
For example, if, for some reason I sell novels and ebooks, and I include a "you may not resell this" clause in the (printed) novels but not the ebooks, and I point the clause out to everyone, and they're the exact same price... well, you're able to bandy around the ebooks, but you can't resell the novels.
More to the point, I could take you to court for reselling the novel in breach of contract, and I wouldn't get tossed out. but if I took you to court for re-selling the ebooks, you could get me tossed out of court even without a lawyer.
Then for some reason nobody knows, begins covering Bob Segar tunes, testifies to the senate against Napster, and then wonders why their sales are down???
Sheesh.
Firstly, the "reason nobody knows" the same reason that Load had a country tune--they wanted to do it. When you've got millions of dollars and can make money touring, you get to do whatever you want in a studio.
Second, Napster was a criminal corporation from the get-go. If they had done the same thing with a CD press or a bunch of cassete spools., the outcome would have been exactly the same.
Third, and probably the most important--Metallica's recent alnum has a bunch of hallmarks that scream "yeah, we know that this is going to sell less." No jewel case, apparantly has a concert DVD included--and the darn thing sells for $6-$8 less than the other alblumns around it.
I wouldn't piss on Lars Ulrich's head if he was on fire.
Fine by me--water probably works better (or a fire extinguisher.) At any rate, don't you think the best way to not like a group is to, oh, I don't know, just ignore them?
Odd, $8 less than all the other CDs on the rack sounds like a great price for that.
Oh, wait. We have to hate metallica because they're semi-luddites who told their agent to stop Napster's trading their unfinished music. sorry, I forgot.;)
Slashdot Mirror
It will never happen, there will never be faster-then-light travel i'm told because some old man in a patent office said so with no real proof of it, he just liked the idea. There can be no time travel because you would be able to undo what your just then doing and that just couldnt be possibe.
.9c or something.
There are posulated conjectures about how FTL could work and still not violate Einstein's theory of relativity. Bendng space, quantum entangled gateways--and the very easy conjecture that Einstein's just missing a principle that kicks in at
(FWIW, 'Trek's "warp" system actually does fit in, in an accidential kind of way, with relativity.)
Sci-Fi is and always has been a fantasy, and that will never change.
Science Fiction is an expression of ideas.
Fantasy is telling epic tales about different places.
There is a LOT of overlap, but there are also easly spotted differences. Asimov wasn't fantasy--if a fantasy writer wrote as badly as he did, they'd be sacked. Tolkien wasn't science fiction--he managed to not have a single new idea, and his writing added a bit too many extraneous details.
I will admit, though, that Enterprise isn't really science fiction. Some of the other Star Trek series/movies were, but Enterprise is a completely lost cause.
I wouldn't say that. At the least, it's a neruotic attempt to explore the possible ramifications of time travel.
Our budget, passed by congress, for the year 2003 was around 288 million dollars. It was 286 million in 2002.
So yes, the DoE spends a lot on theories, but 6 grand a minute sounds excessive.
Let's assume that Fermi doesn't run 24 hours a day, but works on a somewhat comparable "regular work week."
40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year: 2,000 hours a year. 60 minutes in a hour = 120,000 minutes a year.
$288,000,000 budget / 120,000 minutes : $2,400 a minute.
Yeah, he's a bit excessive. But not by more than an order of magnitude.
(FWIW, if Fermi ran 24/365, or 8,750 hours a year, it'd cost "only" $547.95 a minute.)
For more number fun... if we assume 10% overhead, Fermi's budget could let 5,184 families live at 50,000 a year--which is far more than welfare pays.
Nintendo develops their games to try and hide the loading times as much as possible.
Then they really, really messed up on a few.
When entering a stage in SM. Sunshine, Soulcalibur 2 (probably not Nintendo's fault), or even Pikmin, there is a noticable load-time.
It's only annoying when you're moving back and forth from the same stage for some odd reason--like you do whenever you die on SM.Sunshine oustide of the "secret" levels.
There's a lot to be said for conceptually simple mechanics. I've taught D6 systems to complete noobs, and they really appreciate the "roll what it says on your character sheet" system. It may not be faster than D&D3.5, but it's plenty fast, no reference materials needed
I agree. Simple-structure systems like Storyteller or d6 are fairly simple, and let folk not worry about the rules and just worry about RPing.
Unfortunatly, they can get a bit hariy when you do things like multiple actions and defense and initative--but thankfully, they're simple enough that even running it wrong works out just fine.
(I could go out on a limb about how Storyteller & d6 aren't really "balanced" unless you die-roll a lot of variable things, but I won't. I just happen to like d20 more--probably because I'm a fan of fantasy, and fantasy often implies combat.)
No, that's a true story. Look for it in the Salon.com archives--when the story broke, it was verified by folk who worked at Wizards as true.
Explains why an ex-VP and bunch of their staff would write the Book of Erotic Fantasy, though.
Gamecube load times are comparatively negligable.
But still annoying--die in Mario Sunshine, and it takes 30 seconds of loading, stage-select, and re-loading to continue
*sigh* Gamecube is plauged with what I like to call "crappy engineering."
Skill incrementing systems are faster, easier and better than levelling systems. Systems where one doesn't need to use a table and just need to add numbers end up being faster, and it opens up my gaming groups to people that aren't prone to memorizing tables. And it puts the GM power in my hands, not the hands of some g**d**ned chart.
And how do you measure relative power of characters?
Skill-based systems are fun--heck, any game can be fun--but they're not automatically superior to level-based games.
And they're certainly not faster. "Roll xd6 and add opposed to my xd6 roll" simply isn't "faster" than "roll 1d20+x to beat Y." Conceptually simpler, yeah. Sometimes even easier to setup. But not faster in execution.
(And, FWIW, the charts in 3e-on all make a LOT more sense than 2e's did. Memorize a few simple math formulas, and you don't even need the tables anymore.)
Well, if you're using the OGL, you cannot use trademarks in any way without permission. If you're using the d20, you can use the D&D trademark, but you have to live with worse restrictions.
You cannot use the d20STL without using the OGL; use of the OGL is one of the requirements for the d20STL.
If you're not using either license, you can say "Use this book with 3rd Ed. D&D" without restriction (provided it's clear that the owners of the D&D trademark do not endorse your product).
Theoretically, yes. And, theoretically, when they come and sic their lawyers on you, you might be able to get away. And, you might even be able to convince distributors to carry your product.
But I doubt you could make money off of it--especially when there's a lawyer-free alternative. Oh, and you couldn't reprint copyrightable parts of D&D verbatium.
When Valar first announced the Book of Vile Darkness, they broke a whole bunch of rules in their press relase. They used the "Dungeons & Dragons" trademark, and they outright claimed compatability with said trademark.
(The OGL prohibits using anyone else's trademark without permission, and claiming compatability with anyone without permission. The d20STL gives some very specific allowances to use the d20 logo, the "d20 System" trademark, and the Dungeons & Draogns trademarks. Oh, and the OGL considers "advertising" as part of the work... AV claimed that his Press Release wasn't advertising, which got the publishers in quite a tizzy.)
It'd have been bad enough if a different known name (like Steve Jackson games) had done it, and had done it for some mainstream product, but Valar's the company of Anthony Valterra--who, at the time, was WotC VP in charge of policing licensing adherence.
The interesting part is that most of the objections to WotC's new d20STL aren't objections to the concept of Quality Standards--it's how WotC changed the license, and how WotC kept unilateral power to order the pulping of product.
It seems like people should avoid using both licenses now.
/.ers, the l33t gamers all use the FGA's OpenDie and Prometheus logos.)
Dear god, no!
The OGL can't be meaningfully edited or changed without an act of SCOTUS; unless the GPL and the concept of copyleft itself are nullified, the OGL will stand forever.
The d20STL _only_ covers that "d20" logo that you see on the back of most RPG products now--it's an indicator of compatability with the World's Most Popular Fantasy RPG.
A lot of publishers DO drop it--Mutants and Masterminds and the Everquest RPG are two notable products to do so. Heck, most of the big publishers could drop it right now, and they wouldn't even notice a dip in sales.
The d20 logo matters to the little guys who want distributors to carry their product, game stores to stock it next to D&D, and gamers to pick it up and use it in their D&D, d20-Modern, Everquest, etc. games.
There's essay upon essay about the network theories behind the d20 System, and why it's a valuable thing to put on a product that's created using the OGL and the SRD.
They're different licenses, and both give different value--but if you want to stop using one, stop using the d20STL.
(And, while I'm distributing clue to
If one were to actually read the d20 Licence Guide (which I have--I was the one who posted the GamingReport.com article), you'd probably realize that the "covered but not quite graphic" coverage of the BoVD is well within the new d20 agreement.
The big controversy isn't that they want quality guidelines--it's that Valar Publishing, makers of the Book of Erotic Fantasy, broke the rules (really, really, REALLY broke the rules--which they really didn't have to do!), and the rules were changed stealthfully to this new "WotC can kill your product if we find it immoral" stance.
Every producer of d20 products, aside from Wizards of the Coast themselves, has expressed doubt and worry over what the new license changes might mean for them.
I may very well be mistaken. This is /.--"I might be wrong" is as superfluous as "I am not a lawyer."
Unless they require you to read a contract & sign a contract, this would have no hope in hell (even then).
Not all contracts must be written; for most, it just makes proving the existance of a contract easier. Some contracts, like those dealing with Real Estate, must be in writing--but I don't know about license agreements.
In order to do what you are suggesting, you would need a signed contract.
Contract, yes. Signed, maybe. Even an EULA is a contract--you pay $X for an offer for a contract, rather than the full deal. (Odd, I know.)
I didn't say it was easy, and I certainly pointed out that there were, at the least, economoic reasons not to do it. But it is theoretically feasible.
For a less extreme topic, let's say that I'm a recording studio, in the business of selling CDs. I decide to sell my CDs only through a specific license agreement: in exchange for $X and an agreement not to re-sell your copy or your interest, you get one physical CD and a lifetime right to replace your music through whatever medium you wish. If I move to the next great format, you get a new physical copy from me at-cost. If your CD breaks, you can get a replacement from me at-cost. If you want to have oodles and ooldes of digial copies of your format, that's great--I'll even give them to you--but you can't share them with anyone.
Simple? No. Econonomically feasible? Maybe. At least, a heck of a lot more feasible than throwing labels on books to prohibit re-selling that would cost too much to enforce.
In the case of the RIAA, all the prices stay artificially high. Good/Bad/Ugly slaves would all go for the same price.
This isn't true. There are labels and musicians who have nothing to do with the RIAA, and you may be able to get a lower price from them.
(This, of course, is just in the "you should pay whatever the artist charges" theory, to attack 'file-sharing.' RIAA's actual price fixing is a differnet matter.)
If this was anywhere close to legally feasible, the RIAA would have tried using it to shut down used CD stores by now.
Probably not. While it _may_ be legally feasible, it's almost certainly not economically feasible.
Oh. I'll write the RIAA a letter asking to buy the song/CD/tape for $20. Would you think that I would actually get a response? A month later, I hop on Kazaa or whatever filesharing app is OMG so good. Now that my hands are out of my pants long enough to switch from 'movie' to 'song' in my search, I look for that song on a whim.
:) I like you. A /.'er that has ethics. :)
If you do this, and you don't get a response (even a "we'll give it to you for $100" - special orders are ethically more expensive), then I think that you _should_ be able to claim "nonaccessability" as a defense--for the precise music you were trying to get.
But if you don't make a reasonable effort to try to get the music legally--well, then you should be slapped.
Back on topic: Let them do what they can legally do and sue infringers, and give amnesty to others. I will still be able to do what I can legally do - refuse to purchase their product, and attempt to get others to understand that if you're not getting a product in a way that you want to use it and be able to use it, DON'T BUY IT.
We're not talking about burgers here, we're talking about individualistic content. Just because you have alternatives doesn't mean they should be allowed to get away with price fixing.
Come again?
Let's say that slavery is legal again. Why should there be a limit on what I can charge for my slaves--they are unique, and I can set my price whatever I want--if folk don't like it, they can get their manual labor elsewhere.
Same thing for music--BECAUSE it's a unique creation, the creator can charge whatever the hell they want--and if we want to go elsewhere for cheaper music, we can.
"This is the only place I can get this!" is a reson to pay MORE, not less.
Ergo in the U.S., you are owned by the state. Don't like it? Change the laws. As it stands right now, you are the government's chattle if you live in the U.S.
We need to move from binary computer logic to, at the least, unform "fuzzy" logic (trinary). Computer geeks have too hard a time realizing that there is a middle ground between "free" and "slave" or "capitalist" and "communist."
In any society--be it US or otherwise--each individual has an obligation to all other members of said society. The US is fairly loose in a lot of obligations, but "don't hurt anyone else" and "keep yourself and your house in order" are too big ones. And suicide violates the second one.
Now, of course, if you DO decide to kill yourself, we really can't do anything once you succeed--well, other than take away all of the safeguards we have against accidental death. If you fail, and we find you, we'll very likely treat you as a mentally distrubed person--which, oddly enough, you are.
Note to smd4985 -- we've had years of local bands, indie artists, and classical music to indulge in if RIAA doesn't suit us. We can always go somewhere else for our music--but if we take what they're selling, we should still pay for it.
What, pray tell, do you find an acceptable course of action for the RIAA?
:)
Oooh, ooh! I know this one!
First, RIAA should not go after P2P services. They should go after the actual infringers. But not in a cruel way--these are fad-following college kids, after all. How about they tell them that it's wrong, and then find out who does it anyway, and go after the worst of them--and offer amnesty for anyone who is willing to give it up?
Oh, and they have to have a few ways to get digital music legally...
Hey, wait, they're doing that! What's up with that! How can we rail about how evil the RIAA is if they do what's morally and legally right for them to do!
Now, if you had some kind of contractual agreemnt and LOANED the books, that's different...
:) In an area where EULAs have been held up, a sticker saying "you agree not to re-sell this book to anyone but the store you bought it from; by opening this book, you agree to not do this." or somesuch might even be enough to be a legal contact.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Slap the warning label, put it on the recipt, require distributors and stores to inform the public of the terms of the sale--and sell it for a comparativly reduced price.
It doesn't have to be a loan, but it does have to be enough to pass muster at the court as a contract and not a simple sale.
So basically, you can't write the no resell clause inside the book and expect people to be bound by it. The consumer has to be aware of the restriction before he pays.
Go back and read my post. Pay attention to the "tell everyone about it." This would include the sales clerk saying "you realize this book is cheaper because you waive your right of re-sale, right?"
IANAL(RU), but as far as I know, waiving or not-waiving the Doctrine of Fair Use is contract law.
This may just be a crazy theory...
It is.
The right of first sale totally and completely aplies unless--get this--it's specifically waived as a condition of the sale.
For example, if, for some reason I sell novels and ebooks, and I include a "you may not resell this" clause in the (printed) novels but not the ebooks, and I point the clause out to everyone, and they're the exact same price... well, you're able to bandy around the ebooks, but you can't resell the novels.
More to the point, I could take you to court for reselling the novel in breach of contract, and I wouldn't get tossed out. but if I took you to court for re-selling the ebooks, you could get me tossed out of court even without a lawyer.
Then for some reason nobody knows, begins covering Bob Segar tunes, testifies to the senate against Napster, and then wonders why their sales are down???
Sheesh.
Firstly, the "reason nobody knows" the same reason that Load had a country tune--they wanted to do it. When you've got millions of dollars and can make money touring, you get to do whatever you want in a studio.
Second, Napster was a criminal corporation from the get-go. If they had done the same thing with a CD press or a bunch of cassete spools., the outcome would have been exactly the same.
Third, and probably the most important--Metallica's recent alnum has a bunch of hallmarks that scream "yeah, we know that this is going to sell less." No jewel case, apparantly has a concert DVD included--and the darn thing sells for $6-$8 less than the other alblumns around it.
I wouldn't piss on Lars Ulrich's head if he was on fire.
Fine by me--water probably works better (or a fire extinguisher.) At any rate, don't you think the best way to not like a group is to, oh, I don't know, just ignore them?
Odd, $8 less than all the other CDs on the rack sounds like a great price for that.
;)
Oh, wait. We have to hate metallica because they're semi-luddites who told their agent to stop Napster's trading their unfinished music. sorry, I forgot.