Does Recettear feature any form of copy protection? Recettear does not feature copy protection (or "DRM") of any kind. Neither Carpe Fulgur nor EasyGameStation believe in compromising the user's privacy and freedom to use their computers as they wish.
But doesn't that mean I can just pirate your game? or But aren't you afraid of getting pirated into oblivion? Well, we'll say this: Recettear would be pirated regardless of whether we used copy protection or not. We're adults and we understand that our work will be stolen by someone who doesn't want to pay for it; that's how the Internet works in this day and age. Any prospective pirates who enjoy our work, however, must realize that we can only continue to produce localizations for games - and possibly help foster new projects on our own - if we make enough money to make a living at it.
If you like the game even a little bit, please purchase it. We respect our customers enough to not put any invasive DRM programs into Recettear - we hope the respect will be repaid in kind.
"Have creative people ever lost out on proper rewards as a result of bootlegging?"
What's proper? Who determines that? the "creative people"?
Have you ever known a gourmet chef? how about a tattoo artist? or fashion designer? a high-end hair stylist? Are these "creative people"? does their stuff get copied? do they still make a living?
What you're talking about is the technical amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act that was passed in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 - specifically, in Public Law Number 106-113, app. I, sec. 5005 (which can be found here, but you'll have to search for "sound recording" - it's near the bottom). Semi-contemporary coverage of this can be found here. The legal ramifications of that attempt at stealth-legislation are discussed in David Nimmer's Sound Recordings, Works for Hire, and the Termination-of-Transfers Time Bomb.
But, that scandal was fixed - in the Work Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000, Public Law Number 106-379, which can be found here.
The greater scandal is the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, Pubic Law Number 105-304, which is still codified at 17 U.S.C. ch. 13 (the law can be found here). David Nimmer has speculated in his treatise and elsewhere that the sui generis protection for boat hull designs is a trojan horse to later allow new designs to be protected by this bizarre "copyright" provision. And in fact, such protection has been considered for fashion designs.
Fact of the matter is that stealth amendments happen all the time. Copyright is not an area of that law that congress people pay much attention to.
The ASCAP letter is throwing an awful lot of FUD around, but in essence it comes down to the freedom to engage in legal contracts....To seriously reach at the heart of open source and the creative commons, they would have to impose a whole new doctrine of only allowing contracts that are good for the country or the economy or whatever. It's as unlikely as snowball fights between flying pigs.
I see what you're getting at, but I think there's actually a really easy (as in, technically easy - definitely not legislatively easy) way for ASCAP to get what it wants. And get what it wants in a big way. And without really abridging people's contracting rights.
ASCAP could totally kill open licensing by requiring all licenses and transfer of copyright to be exclusive. I.e., no more nonexclusive licenses.
That's probably way too radical to ever happen, but a similar result could be obtained by tweaking section 204 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 204), which requires transfers of copyright ownership (i.e., exclusive licenses) to made in writing and signed by the owner. If that were changed to require all licenses to be signed by the owner (whether exclusive or nonexclusive), open licenses would be rendered impractical. Because regular folks really don't have the time to sit down and sign every license (even with an electronic signature, it would be too inconvenient), what this change would do is essentially cement ASCAP into a permanent part of all future copyright business. ASCAP is a collective rights organization - so, in other words, it acting as the owner's agent and signing licenses for them is already its business model. If even Creative Commons licenses had to be signed, then, as a practical matter, CC licenses would have to go through ASCAP. And you can bet your ass that they would charge a fee, even when processing "free" licenses.
American sporting stadiums are, by and large, riot free. So if you get piss drunk, punch the person in front of you, then light your pants on fire and throw them at a player as he's exiting the field; you will likely be arrested. You are only allowed to act this way in Detroit.
Sometimes, people can be held VICARIOUSLY liable for the acts of others, but only if the legislature explicitly makes it so.
Vicarious liability developed under common law. This means that it is a judge-made law, and statutes are not necessary for its enforcement. In fact, the US Copyright Act of 1976 doesn't include vicarious liability, and yet courts do find some defendants vicariously liable.
"The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another....The absence of such express language in the copyright statute does not preclude the imposition of liability for copyright infringements on certain parties who have not themselves engaged in the infringing activity. For vicarious liability is imposed in virtually all areas of the law, and the concept of contributory infringement is merely a species of the broader problem of identifying the circumstances in which it is just to hold one individual accountable for the actions of another."
Limewire was sued under the inducement doctrine. If a manufacturer or provider of a service induces customers to use the product for copyright infringement, then they can be held liable. I don't know the specifics for Limewire, but they probably, at some point in the past, advertised Limewire as helping users download music, movies, games, etc. without having to pay for them. There are probably also internal company emails in which the executives/managers acknowledge that illegal use is important for the success of the product. These were the things that got Grokster in deep shit.
The betamax doctrine isn't much of a shield to secondary liability anymore, at least when the manufacturer/service provider's business is greatly benefited from the copyright infringement.
When I was 19 I worked at a pawn shop. After working there for 6-8 months something (I don't know what) happened and everyone was lined up from 3 stores for polygraphs. We were let know in no uncertain terms we would lose our jobs if we failed.
Commercial businesses may not polygraph their employees on a generalized suspicion that someone did something. They may polygraph an employee if they have a "reasonable" suspicion that that employee did certain illegal things, like theft or embezzlement. Even in those situations, employers must follow specific, strict rules - the employee must be given the opportunity to review all questions in advance, consult with an attorney, and not must not be asked questions about things like his political beliefs, associations with unions, etc. Most importantly, the results of the test may not be used as the sole basis for disciplining/firing an employee - there must be independent corroborating evidence.
And that's just the federal law on polygraphs. Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin all have other, stricter laws regarding polygraph testing by private businesses. Governments, of course, generally do not limit their own use of polygraphs in such ways.
There are areas without enough water where the lack thereof may affect human settlement, but I and millions of others don't live there and are not affected by the death of those who do.
Do you live in the central United States?
When the Ogallala Aquifer dries up in 25 years, you'll suddenly be in one of those areas without enough water.
"About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation. In addition, the aquifer system provides drinking water to 82 percent of the people who live within the aquifer boundary."
So maybe you live somewhere else in the US...
"The regions overlying the Ogallala aquifer are some of the most productive regions for ranching livestock, and growing corn, wheat and soybeans in the United States. (They have been called the "breadbasket of America")."
Loss of the Ogallala Aquifer is going to have a major impact on the production and distribution of food in the United States. It will affect you, especially if you like beef.
...the primary purpose of the document is to LIMIT GOVERNMENTAL POWERS.
The Constitution was drafted to fix the Articles of Confederation, which gave the national government too little power. So actually I think the primary purpose of the Constitution was to provide strong governmental powers to the national government - but, in a way that was stable and prevented tyranny.
the free market instead serves as much of the population as it profitably can. It would be too much to ask them to operate at a loss, so this is the most you could hope for.
Or, you could regulate the market.
Markets will exist whether they are free or regulated, so long as there is supply, demand, and private parties are able exchange goods. Profit will always* occur in a market. Rather than only asking whether a seller can make a profit, you should also ask whether a buyer can satisfy his demand. From GP's story, it sounded like price wasn't the problem. Think about that. GP wants competition on quality/features, not merely competition on price... but, and this is the heart of the matter, price is the most obvious and easily understood piece of information about a good for sale.
GP's point was that consumers aren't informed of the dangers or benefits of certain ingredients. People being what they are - creatures of finite intelligence, education, attention, and motivation - they will never be perfectly informed as to what even their own preferences are, much less whether certain goods meet them. Government regulation of this problem is basically the gamble that specialist technocrats (i.e., regulators) are better able to weigh the costs and benefits of these ingredients for the whole population than individuals making private decisions for themselves only (i.e., what happens in the free market).
In some cases, aggregated private decisions (the free market) are best. But believing that the free market is always best seems over-optimistic of the capabilities of humans to gather and analyze information.
* in the long run, and from the point of view of the entity selling the good, as opposed to simply the exchange that occurs between buyer and seller. In other words, for example, a seller may reap more profit by selling certain goods at a loss but other goods at a higher profit.
You used a religiously sensitive name that caused another person to be offended and react aggressively, and other people agreed that your religiously sensitive name was offensive.
In comparison, other religiously sensitive names, such as Jesus and God, were banned.
Therefore, "The Muslim extremists have already won."
I think we should all do our duty and go out and kill on LGBT person today, to help tip the scales back to average
Why is this modded funny?
The GP's link indicated that "more than 50 young people aged 30 and under were murdered violently by assailants who targeted them because they did not fit stereotypes for masculinity or femininity... [LGBT is] a unique vulnerability at the intersection of age, race, and gender nonconformity that makes a fatal assault exponentially more likely."
Parent post pretends that "only 50" LGBT people were murdered in the past 10 years. That's not at all what the link suggested. 50 people were targeted and murdered because of their identity. The parent post actually advocates (sarcastically*) targeting and murdering more LGBT people because "only 50" murders is not enough.
Whats funny about that?
* I assume the parent was just being extreme for the ironic humor. whatever. I'm not upset at the parent - I'm upset at the mods for affirmatively recommending the post as funny.
The incumbents are almost universally public utilities. They are granted a local monopoly as having more than one company digging up the streets to lay cable/phone/fiber would be insanity.
Incumbents are not granted monopolies. They may have a de facto monopoly, but it is not the result of ongoing government restriction of competition.
See: 47 U.S.C. 253(a) (dealing with telephone operators): "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."
47 U.S.C. 541(a)(1) (dealing with cable operators): "A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise."
When were blue jeans invented? are they still in style?
What about tennis shoes? T-shirts? push-up bras?
Some fashion goes in and out of style. Other fashions stay in style for a long fucking time. Blue jeans are the best example I can think of.
The same is true of music. Some songs remain popular for decades or even centuries. Others - most others - are forgotten. This is especially true of "popular" music, just as it is especially true of cutting-edge fashion.
Regardless of whether or not its a good idea to say one thing or another, the government better have a pretty damn good reason to punish you for what you say.* If it's not a "good idea" to say something, then societal norms will do the punishment just fine. i.e., saying racist things causes you to get shunned pretty damn fast, no government action required.
This person was punished by the government, which frankly doesn't have any right to control our speech, and especially not private speech. By private, I mean, this person wasn't speaking on government time or property, but (presumably) on her own time, and on a third party website.
* good reasons might be: putting someone in fear that their life or that of someone they love might be threaten (true threats); active incitement to violent action against public order (real sedition); blatant lies that hurt someone, either socially or economically (defamation), etc.
I don't know about serving "the public good"—that isn't really the purpose of contracts, at least not directly
No, that's the purpose of contract law and policy. Because contracts are private agreements between parties, they do not, and need not, necessarily serve the public good. But in the aggregate, the public good can (can) be diminished when a party with substantial market power systematically exploits other parties with less market power. These power positions may not have anything to do with the normative worth of the parties (by which I mean - in a democracy, a rich man is not normatively more important than a poor person; there is no external, noneconomic justification for why the rich person should have power over the poor person; they ought to be of equal noneconomic power).
The question about contracts is: should this private agreement be enforced with the power of the state? If an agreement is exploitative and unconscionable, I don't see why the government should use its coercive authority to enforce it. Unlike private parties, the government must have a normative justification for its use of power.
if there was only one grocery store in a remote town and it required all shoppers to register with it as part of a "Buyer's Club" before shopping there. One of the conditions of the "Buyer's Club" contract is a clause that forbids the shopper from shopping at another grocery store for a fixed period (say, five years).
Can you find a single example where that has happened
Something similar is known as a company town and there are hundreds of examples.
in many housing markets, housing is constrained... In these markets, any quantity of housing will be consumed
Because people can't move?
Often not.
1) see above about company towns. 2) people have to live near where they work. The poorer you are, the more this is true. Living somewhere cheaper is not feasible when you can't afford a car and the associated costs.
we wouldn't have the industries we have today if they were magically prohibitively expensive.
Unless they were prohibitively expensive except for the profits gained from patents.
The patent system as it exists now might be screwed up and inefficient. But that doesn't defeat the truth that a patent system can shape market behavior in a way that's beneficial to us in the long run.
The patients who come in who have diagnosed themselves correctly, or close to correctly, such as getting the 'genus' of a disorder or disease correct while the 'species' is incorrect, are so rare that they tend to remember them.
Compare it to a Help Desk worker -- how many callers, per centum, do you think that Help Desk worker gets who would call up, have a correct or nearly so idea about what is wrong, and be calling only to get instructions on how to fix it?
I've called tech support a number of times in order to get access to software or patches that I know will fix my computer problem. Some hardware companies don't make their drivers/software freely available, so I have to call tech support if I need an old driver or somesuch.
Same thing with doctors. Sometimes I know exactly what I have, and I go to a doctor for a prescription. Have you ever gotten a splinter, not think much about it, and then it realize it's become infected? You don't need a doctor to tell you that, you need a doctor to give you a prescription for antibiotics.
Sometimes doctors double check for you - like making sure strepthroat isn't mono - but I think that people are right a fair amount of the time when they think they have a cold or the flu, an infected cut, chicken pox, etc. And the internet makes that self-diagnosis easier.
Slashdot Mirror
From the FAQ:
Does Recettear feature any form of copy protection?
Recettear does not feature copy protection (or "DRM") of any kind. Neither Carpe Fulgur nor EasyGameStation believe in compromising the user's privacy and freedom to use their computers as they wish.
But doesn't that mean I can just pirate your game?
or
But aren't you afraid of getting pirated into oblivion?
Well, we'll say this: Recettear would be pirated regardless of whether we used copy protection or not. We're adults and we understand that our work will be stolen by someone who doesn't want to pay for it; that's how the Internet works in this day and age. Any prospective pirates who enjoy our work, however, must realize that we can only continue to produce localizations for games - and possibly help foster new projects on our own - if we make enough money to make a living at it.
If you like the game even a little bit, please purchase it. We respect our customers enough to not put any invasive DRM programs into Recettear - we hope the respect will be repaid in kind.
When did you sign the contract? If it was during or after 1978, and you are the author, your termination rights might be coming up.
"Have creative people ever lost out on proper rewards as a result of bootlegging?"
What's proper? Who determines that? the "creative people"?
Have you ever known a gourmet chef? how about a tattoo artist? or fashion designer? a high-end hair stylist? Are these "creative people"? does their stuff get copied? do they still make a living?
Don't people ever learn from history?
I don't know if that's ever happened before.
No Bell in the right mind accepts ANI from their customer
Bell? what is this "Bell" stuff you're talking about? All the baby bells have been gobbled up. AT&T and Verizon are all that's left...
What you're talking about is the technical amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act that was passed in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 - specifically, in Public Law Number 106-113, app. I, sec. 5005 (which can be found here, but you'll have to search for "sound recording" - it's near the bottom). Semi-contemporary coverage of this can be found here. The legal ramifications of that attempt at stealth-legislation are discussed in David Nimmer's Sound Recordings, Works for Hire, and the Termination-of-Transfers Time Bomb.
But, that scandal was fixed - in the Work Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000, Public Law Number 106-379, which can be found here.
The greater scandal is the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, Pubic Law Number 105-304, which is still codified at 17 U.S.C. ch. 13 (the law can be found here). David Nimmer has speculated in his treatise and elsewhere that the sui generis protection for boat hull designs is a trojan horse to later allow new designs to be protected by this bizarre "copyright" provision. And in fact, such protection has been considered for fashion designs.
Fact of the matter is that stealth amendments happen all the time. Copyright is not an area of that law that congress people pay much attention to.
The ASCAP letter is throwing an awful lot of FUD around, but in essence it comes down to the freedom to engage in legal contracts. ...To seriously reach at the heart of open source and the creative commons, they would have to impose a whole new doctrine of only allowing contracts that are good for the country or the economy or whatever. It's as unlikely as snowball fights between flying pigs.
I see what you're getting at, but I think there's actually a really easy (as in, technically easy - definitely not legislatively easy) way for ASCAP to get what it wants. And get what it wants in a big way. And without really abridging people's contracting rights.
ASCAP could totally kill open licensing by requiring all licenses and transfer of copyright to be exclusive. I.e., no more nonexclusive licenses.
That's probably way too radical to ever happen, but a similar result could be obtained by tweaking section 204 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 204), which requires transfers of copyright ownership (i.e., exclusive licenses) to made in writing and signed by the owner. If that were changed to require all licenses to be signed by the owner (whether exclusive or nonexclusive), open licenses would be rendered impractical. Because regular folks really don't have the time to sit down and sign every license (even with an electronic signature, it would be too inconvenient), what this change would do is essentially cement ASCAP into a permanent part of all future copyright business. ASCAP is a collective rights organization - so, in other words, it acting as the owner's agent and signing licenses for them is already its business model. If even Creative Commons licenses had to be signed, then, as a practical matter, CC licenses would have to go through ASCAP . And you can bet your ass that they would charge a fee, even when processing "free" licenses.
...given that the opinions I post here have already earned me 3 'foes'...
You know, in the slashdot friends/foes system, you choose your foes. So if you have three of them, it's because you disliked their opinions.
Perhaps you mean you've earned three "freaks"?
American sporting stadiums are, by and large, riot free. So if you get piss drunk, punch the person in front of you, then light your pants on fire and throw them at a player as he's exiting the field; you will likely be arrested. You are only allowed to act this way in Detroit.
...Or, Los Angeles.
Sometimes, people can be held VICARIOUSLY liable for the acts of others, but only if the legislature explicitly makes it so.
Vicarious liability developed under common law. This means that it is a judge-made law, and statutes are not necessary for its enforcement. In fact, the US Copyright Act of 1976 doesn't include vicarious liability, and yet courts do find some defendants vicariously liable.
The following is taken directly from Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 434-35 (1984):
"The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another. ...The absence of such express language in the copyright statute does not preclude the imposition of liability for copyright infringements on certain parties who have not themselves engaged in the infringing activity. For vicarious liability is imposed in virtually all areas of the law, and the concept of contributory infringement is merely a species of the broader problem of identifying the circumstances in which it is just to hold one individual accountable for the actions of another."
If a product has a legal use, but the user uses it for an illegal use it isn't the manufacture’s fault, but the consumer who did the illegal action.
That's the Betamax doctrine.
Limewire was sued under the inducement doctrine. If a manufacturer or provider of a service induces customers to use the product for copyright infringement, then they can be held liable. I don't know the specifics for Limewire, but they probably, at some point in the past, advertised Limewire as helping users download music, movies, games, etc. without having to pay for them. There are probably also internal company emails in which the executives/managers acknowledge that illegal use is important for the success of the product. These were the things that got Grokster in deep shit.
The betamax doctrine isn't much of a shield to secondary liability anymore, at least when the manufacturer/service provider's business is greatly benefited from the copyright infringement.
When I was 19 I worked at a pawn shop. After working there for 6-8 months something (I don't know what) happened and everyone was lined up from 3 stores for polygraphs. We were let know in no uncertain terms we would lose our jobs if we failed.
When was this? If this happened after 1988, it was very likely illegal under the The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988.
Commercial businesses may not polygraph their employees on a generalized suspicion that someone did something. They may polygraph an employee if they have a "reasonable" suspicion that that employee did certain illegal things, like theft or embezzlement. Even in those situations, employers must follow specific, strict rules - the employee must be given the opportunity to review all questions in advance, consult with an attorney, and not must not be asked questions about things like his political beliefs, associations with unions, etc. Most importantly, the results of the test may not be used as the sole basis for disciplining/firing an employee - there must be independent corroborating evidence.
And that's just the federal law on polygraphs. Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin all have other, stricter laws regarding polygraph testing by private businesses. Governments, of course, generally do not limit their own use of polygraphs in such ways.
There are areas without enough water where the lack thereof may affect human settlement, but I and millions of others don't live there and are not affected by the death of those who do.
Do you live in the central United States?
When the Ogallala Aquifer dries up in 25 years, you'll suddenly be in one of those areas without enough water.
"About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation. In addition, the aquifer system provides drinking water to 82 percent of the people who live within the aquifer boundary."
So maybe you live somewhere else in the US...
"The regions overlying the Ogallala aquifer are some of the most productive regions for ranching livestock, and growing corn, wheat and soybeans in the United States. (They have been called the "breadbasket of America")."
Loss of the Ogallala Aquifer is going to have a major impact on the production and distribution of food in the United States. It will affect you, especially if you like beef.
...the primary purpose of the document is to LIMIT GOVERNMENTAL POWERS.
The Constitution was drafted to fix the Articles of Confederation, which gave the national government too little power. So actually I think the primary purpose of the Constitution was to provide strong governmental powers to the national government - but, in a way that was stable and prevented tyranny.
the free market instead serves as much of the population as it profitably can. It would be too much to ask them to operate at a loss, so this is the most you could hope for.
Or, you could regulate the market.
Markets will exist whether they are free or regulated, so long as there is supply, demand, and private parties are able exchange goods. Profit will always* occur in a market. Rather than only asking whether a seller can make a profit, you should also ask whether a buyer can satisfy his demand. From GP's story, it sounded like price wasn't the problem. Think about that. GP wants competition on quality/features, not merely competition on price... but, and this is the heart of the matter, price is the most obvious and easily understood piece of information about a good for sale.
GP's point was that consumers aren't informed of the dangers or benefits of certain ingredients. People being what they are - creatures of finite intelligence, education, attention, and motivation - they will never be perfectly informed as to what even their own preferences are, much less whether certain goods meet them. Government regulation of this problem is basically the gamble that specialist technocrats (i.e., regulators) are better able to weigh the costs and benefits of these ingredients for the whole population than individuals making private decisions for themselves only (i.e., what happens in the free market).
In some cases, aggregated private decisions (the free market) are best. But believing that the free market is always best seems over-optimistic of the capabilities of humans to gather and analyze information.
* in the long run, and from the point of view of the entity selling the good, as opposed to simply the exchange that occurs between buyer and seller. In other words, for example, a seller may reap more profit by selling certain goods at a loss but other goods at a higher profit.
Your calculations estimate the plume at around 1.1x10^4 cubic meters of oil... That amount of oil is literally a drop in the ocean.
No, it literally is not.
Wait, let me get this straight:
You used a religiously sensitive name that caused another person to be offended and react aggressively, and other people agreed that your religiously sensitive name was offensive.
In comparison, other religiously sensitive names, such as Jesus and God, were banned.
Therefore, "The Muslim extremists have already won."
I think we should all do our duty and go out and kill on LGBT person today, to help tip the scales back to average
Why is this modded funny?
The GP's link indicated that "more than 50 young people aged 30 and under were murdered violently by assailants who targeted them because they did not fit stereotypes for masculinity or femininity... [LGBT is] a unique vulnerability at the intersection of age, race, and gender nonconformity that makes a fatal assault exponentially more likely."
Parent post pretends that "only 50" LGBT people were murdered in the past 10 years. That's not at all what the link suggested. 50 people were targeted and murdered because of their identity. The parent post actually advocates (sarcastically*) targeting and murdering more LGBT people because "only 50" murders is not enough.
Whats funny about that?
* I assume the parent was just being extreme for the ironic humor. whatever. I'm not upset at the parent - I'm upset at the mods for affirmatively recommending the post as funny.
The incumbents are almost universally public utilities. They are granted a local monopoly as having more than one company digging up the streets to lay cable/phone/fiber would be insanity.
Incumbents are not granted monopolies. They may have a de facto monopoly, but it is not the result of ongoing government restriction of competition.
See:
47 U.S.C. 253(a) (dealing with telephone operators): "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."
47 U.S.C. 541(a)(1) (dealing with cable operators): "A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise."
When were blue jeans invented? are they still in style?
What about tennis shoes? T-shirts? push-up bras?
Some fashion goes in and out of style. Other fashions stay in style for a long fucking time. Blue jeans are the best example I can think of.
The same is true of music. Some songs remain popular for decades or even centuries. Others - most others - are forgotten. This is especially true of "popular" music, just as it is especially true of cutting-edge fashion.
Regardless of whether or not its a good idea to say one thing or another, the government better have a pretty damn good reason to punish you for what you say.* If it's not a "good idea" to say something, then societal norms will do the punishment just fine. i.e., saying racist things causes you to get shunned pretty damn fast, no government action required.
This person was punished by the government, which frankly doesn't have any right to control our speech, and especially not private speech. By private, I mean, this person wasn't speaking on government time or property, but (presumably) on her own time, and on a third party website.
* good reasons might be: putting someone in fear that their life or that of someone they love might be threaten (true threats); active incitement to violent action against public order (real sedition); blatant lies that hurt someone, either socially or economically (defamation), etc.
I don't know about serving "the public good"—that isn't really the purpose of contracts, at least not directly
No, that's the purpose of contract law and policy. Because contracts are private agreements between parties, they do not, and need not, necessarily serve the public good. But in the aggregate, the public good can (can) be diminished when a party with substantial market power systematically exploits other parties with less market power. These power positions may not have anything to do with the normative worth of the parties (by which I mean - in a democracy, a rich man is not normatively more important than a poor person; there is no external, noneconomic justification for why the rich person should have power over the poor person; they ought to be of equal noneconomic power).
The question about contracts is: should this private agreement be enforced with the power of the state? If an agreement is exploitative and unconscionable, I don't see why the government should use its coercive authority to enforce it. Unlike private parties, the government must have a normative justification for its use of power.
if there was only one grocery store in a remote town and it required all shoppers to register with it as part of a "Buyer's Club" before shopping there. One of the conditions of the "Buyer's Club" contract is a clause that forbids the shopper from shopping at another grocery store for a fixed period (say, five years).
Can you find a single example where that has happened
Something similar is known as a company town and there are hundreds of examples.
in many housing markets, housing is constrained... In these markets, any quantity of housing will be consumed
Because people can't move?
Often not.
1) see above about company towns.
2) people have to live near where they work. The poorer you are, the more this is true. Living somewhere cheaper is not feasible when you can't afford a car and the associated costs.
we wouldn't have the industries we have today if they were magically prohibitively expensive.
Unless they were prohibitively expensive except for the profits gained from patents.
The patent system as it exists now might be screwed up and inefficient. But that doesn't defeat the truth that a patent system can shape market behavior in a way that's beneficial to us in the long run.
The patients who come in who have diagnosed themselves correctly, or close to correctly, such as getting the 'genus' of a disorder or disease correct while the 'species' is incorrect, are so rare that they tend to remember them.
Compare it to a Help Desk worker -- how many callers, per centum, do you think that Help Desk worker gets who would call up, have a correct or nearly so idea about what is wrong, and be calling only to get instructions on how to fix it?
I've called tech support a number of times in order to get access to software or patches that I know will fix my computer problem. Some hardware companies don't make their drivers/software freely available, so I have to call tech support if I need an old driver or somesuch.
Same thing with doctors. Sometimes I know exactly what I have, and I go to a doctor for a prescription. Have you ever gotten a splinter, not think much about it, and then it realize it's become infected? You don't need a doctor to tell you that, you need a doctor to give you a prescription for antibiotics.
Sometimes doctors double check for you - like making sure strepthroat isn't mono - but I think that people are right a fair amount of the time when they think they have a cold or the flu, an infected cut, chicken pox, etc. And the internet makes that self-diagnosis easier.