The EU is not led by Viviane Reding alone. The opinion of one Justice Commissioner is not the official opinion of the Union. In fact, the "leadership" of the EU is so complex and changes so frequently that talking about what the EU wants is meaningless until something actually happens. The EU is a constant political battlefield of different groups with different interests.
I realize that - it is much like the US was before we went to a strong federal system. None the less, the argument put forth is not necessarily good even if the privacy angle is.
The difference is that Facebook has a presence in Europe. If Europe would just block Facebook instead of making them liable, that would be an invasion of free speech and the free net.
True, but the EU apparently wants to exercise jurisdiction even if a company has no physical presence in the EU:
On Jan. 25, EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding unveiled a wide-ranging data protection program that aims to regulate all companies doing business online in the EU, not just those based there. The data protection laws, which will take about a year to be enacted, will be uniform across all 27 member states.
"Companies must understand that if they want access to 500 million consumers in the EU, then they have to comply. This is not an option," says Matthew Newman, spokesperson for the justice commissioner.
The EU essentially wants to exercise the same type of extra-territorial reach as the US. While people amy like the privacy implications, that stance has a far broader implication that is worrisome.
EVERY INTERNET COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF IT'S CUSTOMER NATIONS.
Your option is to abide by the laws and regulations of the nations where your customers and users are, or to be blocked from those markets for non-compliance.
That applies to EVERYONE in the world, not just US companies.
That's easy to say but it has serious implications - should a site be subject to penalties because it hosts material that violates one country's laws even if the material is legal in the location the material is hosted? For example, lets suppose a company is in country A and has users in country B. What if a site publishes material, in servers located in country A, that country B viewed as damaging and was gotten through illegal means (based on country B's laws). Should the site be liable to prosecution in country B? Even if what they did was legal in country A? Your position seems to be yes - they violated B's laws and have users there so they should have followed those laws.
'Companies must understand that if they want access to 500 million consumers in the EU, then they have to comply. This is not an option,' said a spokesman for the EU Justice Commissioner."
The EU is essentially claiming that accessibility of a site to EU users subjects the site to EU laws. That's the same argument that the US uses to go after overseas sites that violate US law. While privacy is certainly a valid concern, the overall concept is a dangerous one. If a company doesn't have a physical prince in a location should it be subject to local laws? Should the government where it is located enforce foreign judgements?
If getting information about previous exams is cheating, it's cheating. The people designing a test get to define the parameters of what's cheating and what's not.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with you strongly there. The people administering the test do get to decide what is allowed and what isn't allowed in the examination room, during the test. That includes, as you point out, allowing or disallowing calculators, text books, or whatever else they wish to prohibit or allow. But that authority stops at the exam room door. What you do on your own time to prepare for the exam, or who you talk to and what you talk about after the exam is your own business.
I disagree - they are allowed to set the parameters of the test - it's a simple contract between the person taking and the organization giving the test. If they don't want previous exams to be leaked, then they have the right to say that violates the terms you agreed to to take the exam and is cheating. Of course, as the article pointed out, proving that is next to impossible.
There are of course exceptions to this rule pertaining to especially egregious conduct, like breaking into a professor's office before an exam to steal a copy, which is clearly cheating, but nothing like that was going on here.
I've taught at both the university and high school level, and the rule of thumb that is generally followed is that once an exam is given to a group of students, and they leave the examination room at the end, that exam becomes public information, and if we assume otherwise, we give some future students an unfair advantage over others. I photocopy and hand out previous years exams (which I have created) to students, both as a study aid, and as way to level the playing field. I think these medical exams should be run the same way, in the interest of fairness.
While I agree with what you say here, the point is you have the right to decide the testing parameters. I worked for an organization that gave a very rigorous exam and made the entire exam bank, which was hundreds of essay questions, available. In fact, they encouraged you to use it; the theory being if you cold answer all the questions you really knew the material, an approach I think was very enlightened. In undergrad and grad school, I asked my professors if they minded me studying previous exams - and was never told no; but I felt they deserved the courtesy of being asked.
> ITunes its much more of a plug and play solution;
Only until you want to use your own content.
Considering that Kaleidoscope was the original comparison, which uses one's own content, that's exactly the point.
iTunes is not "just fine" for random things you try to import into it. It doesn't handle this at all. What 3rd party add-ons exist are inferior as well as having the inherent problem of being cobble ware.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that iTunes isn't just fine for imported content. I've brought in a lot on non-Apple content with zero issues.
No. It's iTunes that looks like a "hobby" when compared to Plex.
iTunes only suits 99.9% of users needs if they are unwilling or unable to see beyond the Apple company store.
Considering the challenges with getting and keeping plea working compared to those with iTunes I'd say Plex is much more of a hobbyist solution. I've gotten more random non-related cover art, stuff not showing up in Plex despite searching for new content, random freezes and crashes, etc. with Plex; stuff I never experience with the exact same content in iTunes. Sure Plex does more, and I think it is a neat program; but it takes a lot more hand holding then iTunes. I really with Pelx was as solid a solution as iTunes but it simply isn't; which makes it less useful for the 99.9% of users you keep talking about.
As for seeing beyond the Apple company store , I really don't care who makes the product as long as it works without having to constantly mess with it.
> HUh? I can import files into iTunes that I did not buy from them. Just rip into a compatible format and import.
You lost 99.9 percent of the Apple contingent at the "rip" part.
Probably, but then again 99.9 percent of all users are probably lost at "rip"
Never mind the "compatable format" part. Then "importing" is going to be a vastly inferior thing compared to what Boxee or Plex or even MythTV gives you.
Here I disagree. I have setup Plex on my Mac, and while it is anise interface it has enough quirks to make it more of a hobbyist tool than a "ready for prime time" app. ITunes its much more of a plug and play solution; which makes it more appealing to the average user. As for 'vastly inferior' I find iTunes quite acceptable for someone who just wants to watch movies/TV/listen to music and have some IMDB type info attached. In the end, it just works and is free; criteria that meet 99.9% of users' needs.
When I was in the Air Force they cannibalized eqipment all the time. Planes, trucks, flightline generators and other equipment. You have two grounded planes because they're waiting for parts, they simply took the good part from one plane and installed it on the other. When the parts came the second one was again in service.
We did the in the Navy as well, although I'm sure the Air Force and Army guys that donated the stuff didn't consider it cannibalization.
The installation, calibration, etc. is already paid for; the mechanics all get paid whether they have planes to fix or not.
Yea, it'll probably be a hanger queen with the critical stuff pulled and shipped back to a repair depot.
> You can also do it with Apple TV and iTunes; with a lot less fiddling around, so there is even a solution for the non-trchincally inclined.
The only way the iTunes approach is going to yield "less fiddling" is if you restrict yourself entirely to what's available on iTunes and pay their prices. Unfortunately, their prices are high and their selection is inadequate.
The end result will be much like the Kaledescape. You can only play your stuff on devices from the single vendor. Although the Kaledescape allows you to shop at Target and Best Buy.
HUh? I can import files into iTunes that I did not buy from them. Just rip into a compatible format and import.
The average US teacher salary is more like $45k. And it doesn't matter much whether the students move around to different classrooms, the student to teacher ratio remains the same.
Correct, but the OP assumes 1 teacher per class, when the average is 15 students per teacher - so at his $6K and your 45K that leaves 45K for everything else, not his $100K. That was my point - it's not just 1 teacher per class on average even though classes may have 30+ students.
What the MPAA wanted to make sure is that a Kalidescape system didn't become an everyday item. The technology is Kalidescape is not that difficult, and today you can do the same with:
1. NAS storage server
2. Computer with ripping software of your choice
3. XBMC running on cheap receivers.
4. Download movie/tv info from tvdb.com/IMDB/etc.
All of the above can be put together for well under $1000.
You can also do it with Apple TV and iTunes; with a lot less fiddling around, so there is even a solution for the non-trchincally inclined.
Actually, it's not clear what the law regarding resale of software. There's caselaw that supports both arguments: one that digital content is licensed, and one that digital content is purchased. You would think it's obvious that you can resell anything you've purchased, but it's not that simple.
Wow. The voice of reason and you're not even new here. I'd go one further - the doctrine of first sale is not even clear on tangible goods as laws vary from state to state and even within existing laws there is a lot of gray area. At least that's what I learned, from real lawyers, researching an article on it I wrote 10 years ago in reference to the resale of student casebooks.
The point is simple, if I buy a game first hand and you buy it second hand from someone else, I am subsidizing your gameplay. That does not seem like a good deal to me.
Actually, you're not. I would not buy it at the release price, and if it stays there new or used I simply won't buy it. You decide it has value at the $60 price, or at $6 less the release value. If you resell it , the used buyer is lowering your price for the game experience you want.
Game companies survive on first sales, and 2nd hand sales hurt this. Saying game companies should just deal with not getting paid for the games they make is not a long term solution. It is not as if games have a very long shelf life like music or movies, games have to earn their development costs in the first month of release before they end up in the bargain bin.
They should deal with it - it's called a free market. They can deal with it several ways - dlc that needs to be purchased by used game buyers, pricing strategies to try to capture more new game sales, etc. If they spend more to make a game then they recover in sales then it's their own bad business decision. The market does not owe them a profit. The problem is they need Gamestop, despite all their whining. Some percentage of new game buyers buy it on day 1 because they know they can play it and then sell it to GS - so their purchasing decision is based on their view they are "paying" less than the release price. Take that away and some games won't sell as well on release, costing publishers money; of course, many see each used game sale as a lost new game sale when simple economics says it is not.
A number of people have declared this to be simple greed, but the situation isn't that simple. Consider this: When you buy a game from Gamestop, the studio gets nothing. Buying a used game and pirating the game outright are identical as far as their impact on the studio's revenue. That's inherently frustrating for developers, and the problem is made substantially worse by Gamestop itself.
Equating piracy with a lost sale due to buying used is incorrect, since the publisher already got their cut from the first sale. The used buyer is not in the market for a $60 game, so there was no lost sale. It's simple supply and demand. If the publisher wanted to get that sale, cut prices dramatically after the initial release. Of course, some people who would buy new will start to wait, but you will dramatically reduce the used market values since GS et al will have to factor in the impact of a large price cut on what they will pay for a used game to avoid taking a loss on their used stock. In the end, the publishers have to decide is X Sales at $60 > (X-n) sales at $60 plus Y sales at some lower price (where n is the lost sales due to people waiting for a price cut, and Y - n + buyers that buy new instead of used at the new price).I don't think the price cut needs to be that drastic - looking at GS used game prices they generally are relatively close to new on popular titles for a while after the initial release.
Frustrating? Yes, because they want X at $60 plus some cut of Y and are trying to figure out how to do it. My guess is they think they can significantly reduce the used game market by a)making the resale value so low that sellers won't bother to trade in a game for the $5* or so they'd get; and b)using the psychological impact of "buying me" to make new seem a better deal to buyers
* - why about $5? Lets assume its a $60 game with a $30 DLC fee - so at best a used game can sell for $30 on average. I'd guess it'd be more like $20 and given the margins on used games (games often sell for 3-4x trade in per a friend in the business - although that was a few years ago) that means the trade in value will be real low.
$5000 for a classroom of 30 students is $150,000 a year. If the teacher gets $50,000, where does the other $100,000 go? Every year?
That's per class - say seven classes per day with 4 different teachers (at more like 30k/year if they are lucky) and you have 30K left for staff/supplies/maintenance/etc. Not really that much.
Is it just me, or shouldn't we already have this by hiring competent, caring, understanding educators in the first place?
I know one of those - a special ed teacher. She truly loves her kids and and does whatever she can to help them; but she is caught in system that says she *must* teach the same curriculum as for regular ed kids. Never mind that her kids, after a week of teaching them the color red, forget what it is as soon as they learn blue; she must teach a specified curriculum. The kids do not have to learn it, she must however prove she exposed them to each part of it. So, instead of being taught skills they can use in life they sit through lessons that they'll never remember. She tries hard to make them interesting and appropriate, but it is frustrating. I would not be surprised when she qualifies for retirement she decides to quit and do something else; not because she doesn't like teaching or isn't good at it but the system seems to be designed to make it a miserable experience. Add in pay cuts despite signing a contract at the start of the year and parents who expect 24 by 7 availability (she gets emails on Christmas and New Years Day) and it's no wonder teachers leave the profession or simply give up and coast to retirement.
We truly do not value education; and in the end get what we deserve.
If there are people you want to stay in contact with, e.g. a spouse, think long and hard before trying to subscribe to both the Economist and Foreign Affairs at the same time.
"Europeans live on an infrastructure that supports pedestrian life."
And you don't even get mugged on it.
Unfortunately that is changing. It may be that it was a lot rarer and no is more noticeable, but many of my UK friends complain about the rid win crime in cities such as London (especially pickpockets) which they attribute to the EU. Portuguese friends complain about muggings on the subway - a system that used to be so safe you could ride it anytime.
They have also highways and bridges that don't crumble to dust, cars that people actually buy throughout the world, high-speed trains, a couple of thousand different cheeses, and also science fiction stuff like global health insurance and powerful unions that actually help people.
Speaking as a European and American, yes Europe has much to offer; but it has its problems as well. Most of my friends complain about the cost of living, such as why does a Mac cost more in Pounds or Euros than in Dollars, taxes (just as we do in the US), health care systems while there is no fee at the point of service navigating them can be a mess, etc. They also find the US much more open to entrepreneurs and risk taking; and more of a meritocracy (if somewhat brutally so).
OTOH, I find the pace of life more enjoyable in Europe and the idea that everyone takes August off a brilliant idea. As for transportation, I'd say the Germans build cars everyone wants to drive, the rail / metro systems are great, and I love walking around the major cities.
In the end, as a relative of mine was fond of saying: "Not better, not worse, just different."
they just need to come up with a compelling reason for them to help.
Because blackmail is such an ugly word.
It doesn't have to be blackmail - in fact blackmail is probably less effective than other means. What you want to do is show them how doing what you want benefits them as well. No need to threaten anything. Make a deal - what kind of a deal? - a deal deal. For example, while the data in question may involve something that was done against country A and did not involve or threaten country B where the data resides - how doe sB know that the person will not do the same thing to them in the future? It may be in their best interest to take action now to avoid having a problem in the future, not with A but the target of A.
Not all nations in this world kow tow to the mighty Uncle Sam, you know?
True, but the notion there is anyplace that can fully guarantee data does not end up in the hands of the US (or any other country, for that manner) is naive. Each of these countries ha their own self interest at heart, and if the US (or some other country) wants their help doing something they just need to come up with a compelling reason for them to help. Governments also change, as do a nations goals and interests.
The bottom line is, once you cede control of your data to third party, you lose the ability to ensure it will never get passed on to someone's. Or,a s the saying goes, two people can keep a secret only if one of them is dead.
I wonder how successful would be a company providing data storage service like Dropbox, but with guaranteed data security. I mean that all encryption would be done by client software (with source code provided so everyone can verify that) and no keys or unencrypted data would be ever transmitted to company's servers. In this case complying with warrants and subpoenas would be no problem - here is all we have, have fun decrypting.
All a court will do is compel the owner to provide the keys to allow decryption. There's a case right now where a judge has down just that; I hope it will go to SCOTUS who will squash it but that's not a sure bet. If you refuse, it's contempt of court and jail time until you comply.
Personally, I think you should be able to plead the fifth and not be compelled to decrypt; but until SCOTUS decides the law is unclear in the US.
You further proved the opposite of what you claim. Apple is asking you to assign rights to them. The right to publish. That gives them control over copyrighted material. Not complete control. Not complete rights. But it grants them contractual rights under copyright law.
So? The author retains the copyright and control over the material. They decide who they will let distribute it, and if both sides agree they enter into a contract giving the publisher permission to publish. That's no different than what authors and publishers have been doing for years.
Apple is getting specific contractual permission to publish one version of the material; not unlimited rights to everything as the GP claimed. Merely using the software doesn't grant Apple any permission to distribute; that has to be done is a separate agreement.
Do I like Apple's license for iBook Author? It's OK, but I would like to be able to create a standard ePub version with multimedia; but I understand Apple's viewpoint as well. If I don't like it I simply don't use there software. All this nonsense about "Apple taking authors rights away.." is just that - nonsense and FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
The EU is not led by Viviane Reding alone. The opinion of one Justice Commissioner is not the official opinion of the Union. In fact, the "leadership" of the EU is so complex and changes so frequently that talking about what the EU wants is meaningless until something actually happens. The EU is a constant political battlefield of different groups with different interests.
I realize that - it is much like the US was before we went to a strong federal system. None the less, the argument put forth is not necessarily good even if the privacy angle is.
The difference is that Facebook has a presence in Europe. If Europe would just block Facebook instead of making them liable, that would be an invasion of free speech and the free net.
True, but the EU apparently wants to exercise jurisdiction even if a company has no physical presence in the EU:
On Jan. 25, EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding unveiled a wide-ranging data protection program that aims to regulate all companies doing business online in the EU, not just those based there. The data protection laws, which will take about a year to be enacted, will be uniform across all 27 member states.
"Companies must understand that if they want access to 500 million consumers in the EU, then they have to comply. This is not an option," says Matthew Newman, spokesperson for the justice commissioner.
The EU essentially wants to exercise the same type of extra-territorial reach as the US. While people amy like the privacy implications, that stance has a far broader implication that is worrisome.
EVERY INTERNET COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF IT'S CUSTOMER NATIONS.
Your option is to abide by the laws and regulations of the nations where your customers and users are, or to be blocked from those markets for non-compliance.
That applies to EVERYONE in the world, not just US companies.
That's easy to say but it has serious implications - should a site be subject to penalties because it hosts material that violates one country's laws even if the material is legal in the location the material is hosted? For example, lets suppose a company is in country A and has users in country B. What if a site publishes material, in servers located in country A, that country B viewed as damaging and was gotten through illegal means (based on country B's laws). Should the site be liable to prosecution in country B? Even if what they did was legal in country A? Your position seems to be yes - they violated B's laws and have users there so they should have followed those laws.
'Companies must understand that if they want access to 500 million consumers in the EU, then they have to comply. This is not an option,' said a spokesman for the EU Justice Commissioner."
The EU is essentially claiming that accessibility of a site to EU users subjects the site to EU laws. That's the same argument that the US uses to go after overseas sites that violate US law. While privacy is certainly a valid concern, the overall concept is a dangerous one. If a company doesn't have a physical prince in a location should it be subject to local laws? Should the government where it is located enforce foreign judgements?
. /. needs to avoid publishing nonsense
\What? You want /. to disappear?
If getting information about previous exams is cheating, it's cheating. The people designing a test get to define the parameters of what's cheating and what's not.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with you strongly there. The people administering the test do get to decide what is allowed and what isn't allowed in the examination room, during the test. That includes, as you point out, allowing or disallowing calculators, text books, or whatever else they wish to prohibit or allow. But that authority stops at the exam room door. What you do on your own time to prepare for the exam, or who you talk to and what you talk about after the exam is your own business.
I disagree - they are allowed to set the parameters of the test - it's a simple contract between the person taking and the organization giving the test. If they don't want previous exams to be leaked, then they have the right to say that violates the terms you agreed to to take the exam and is cheating. Of course, as the article pointed out, proving that is next to impossible.
There are of course exceptions to this rule pertaining to especially egregious conduct, like breaking into a professor's office before an exam to steal a copy, which is clearly cheating, but nothing like that was going on here.
I've taught at both the university and high school level, and the rule of thumb that is generally followed is that once an exam is given to a group of students, and they leave the examination room at the end, that exam becomes public information, and if we assume otherwise, we give some future students an unfair advantage over others. I photocopy and hand out previous years exams (which I have created) to students, both as a study aid, and as way to level the playing field. I think these medical exams should be run the same way, in the interest of fairness.
While I agree with what you say here, the point is you have the right to decide the testing parameters. I worked for an organization that gave a very rigorous exam and made the entire exam bank, which was hundreds of essay questions, available. In fact, they encouraged you to use it; the theory being if you cold answer all the questions you really knew the material, an approach I think was very enlightened. In undergrad and grad school, I asked my professors if they minded me studying previous exams - and was never told no; but I felt they deserved the courtesy of being asked.
> ITunes its much more of a plug and play solution;
Only until you want to use your own content.
Considering that Kaleidoscope was the original comparison, which uses one's own content, that's exactly the point.
iTunes is not "just fine" for random things you try to import into it. It doesn't handle this at all. What 3rd party add-ons exist are inferior as well as having the inherent problem of being cobble ware.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that iTunes isn't just fine for imported content. I've brought in a lot on non-Apple content with zero issues.
No. It's iTunes that looks like a "hobby" when compared to Plex.
iTunes only suits 99.9% of users needs if they are unwilling or unable to see beyond the Apple company store.
Considering the challenges with getting and keeping plea working compared to those with iTunes I'd say Plex is much more of a hobbyist solution. I've gotten more random non-related cover art, stuff not showing up in Plex despite searching for new content, random freezes and crashes, etc. with Plex; stuff I never experience with the exact same content in iTunes. Sure Plex does more, and I think it is a neat program; but it takes a lot more hand holding then iTunes. I really with Pelx was as solid a solution as iTunes but it simply isn't; which makes it less useful for the 99.9% of users you keep talking about.
As for seeing beyond the Apple company store , I really don't care who makes the product as long as it works without having to constantly mess with it.
> HUh? I can import files into iTunes that I did not buy from them. Just rip into a compatible format and import.
You lost 99.9 percent of the Apple contingent at the "rip" part.
Probably, but then again 99.9 percent of all users are probably lost at "rip"
Never mind the "compatable format" part. Then "importing" is going to be a vastly inferior thing compared to what Boxee or Plex or even MythTV gives you.
Here I disagree. I have setup Plex on my Mac, and while it is anise interface it has enough quirks to make it more of a hobbyist tool than a "ready for prime time" app. ITunes its much more of a plug and play solution; which makes it more appealing to the average user. As for 'vastly inferior' I find iTunes quite acceptable for someone who just wants to watch movies/TV/listen to music and have some IMDB type info attached. In the end, it just works and is free; criteria that meet 99.9% of users' needs.
When I was in the Air Force they cannibalized eqipment all the time. Planes, trucks, flightline generators and other equipment. You have two grounded planes because they're waiting for parts, they simply took the good part from one plane and installed it on the other. When the parts came the second one was again in service.
We did the in the Navy as well, although I'm sure the Air Force and Army guys that donated the stuff didn't consider it cannibalization.
The installation, calibration, etc. is already paid for; the mechanics all get paid whether they have planes to fix or not.
Yea, it'll probably be a hanger queen with the critical stuff pulled and shipped back to a repair depot.
I've been an A&P for over 35 years and I've seen worse. (by pilots and mechanics)
I worked in the power industry and the funniest one I saw was a screwdriver wedged into the bottom support plate of a steam generator's U-tubes.
> You can also do it with Apple TV and iTunes; with a lot less fiddling around, so there is even a solution for the non-trchincally inclined.
The only way the iTunes approach is going to yield "less fiddling" is if you restrict yourself entirely to what's available on iTunes and pay their prices. Unfortunately, their prices are high and their selection is inadequate.
The end result will be much like the Kaledescape. You can only play your stuff on devices from the single vendor. Although the Kaledescape allows you to shop at Target and Best Buy.
HUh? I can import files into iTunes that I did not buy from them. Just rip into a compatible format and import.
The average US teacher salary is more like $45k. And it doesn't matter much whether the students move around to different classrooms, the student to teacher ratio remains the same.
Correct, but the OP assumes 1 teacher per class, when the average is 15 students per teacher - so at his $6K and your 45K that leaves 45K for everything else, not his $100K. That was my point - it's not just 1 teacher per class on average even though classes may have 30+ students.
What the MPAA wanted to make sure is that a Kalidescape system didn't become an everyday item. The technology is Kalidescape is not that difficult, and today you can do the same with:
1. NAS storage server 2. Computer with ripping software of your choice 3. XBMC running on cheap receivers. 4. Download movie/tv info from tvdb.com/IMDB/etc.
All of the above can be put together for well under $1000.
You can also do it with Apple TV and iTunes; with a lot less fiddling around, so there is even a solution for the non-trchincally inclined.
Actually, it's not clear what the law regarding resale of software. There's caselaw that supports both arguments: one that digital content is licensed, and one that digital content is purchased. You would think it's obvious that you can resell anything you've purchased, but it's not that simple.
Wow. The voice of reason and you're not even new here. I'd go one further - the doctrine of first sale is not even clear on tangible goods as laws vary from state to state and even within existing laws there is a lot of gray area. At least that's what I learned, from real lawyers, researching an article on it I wrote 10 years ago in reference to the resale of student casebooks.
The point is simple, if I buy a game first hand and you buy it second hand from someone else, I am subsidizing your gameplay. That does not seem like a good deal to me.
Actually, you're not. I would not buy it at the release price, and if it stays there new or used I simply won't buy it. You decide it has value at the $60 price, or at $6 less the release value. If you resell it , the used buyer is lowering your price for the game experience you want.
Game companies survive on first sales, and 2nd hand sales hurt this. Saying game companies should just deal with not getting paid for the games they make is not a long term solution. It is not as if games have a very long shelf life like music or movies, games have to earn their development costs in the first month of release before they end up in the bargain bin.
They should deal with it - it's called a free market. They can deal with it several ways - dlc that needs to be purchased by used game buyers, pricing strategies to try to capture more new game sales, etc. If they spend more to make a game then they recover in sales then it's their own bad business decision. The market does not owe them a profit. The problem is they need Gamestop, despite all their whining. Some percentage of new game buyers buy it on day 1 because they know they can play it and then sell it to GS - so their purchasing decision is based on their view they are "paying" less than the release price. Take that away and some games won't sell as well on release, costing publishers money; of course, many see each used game sale as a lost new game sale when simple economics says it is not.
A number of people have declared this to be simple greed, but the situation isn't that simple. Consider this: When you buy a game from Gamestop, the studio gets nothing. Buying a used game and pirating the game outright are identical as far as their impact on the studio's revenue. That's inherently frustrating for developers, and the problem is made substantially worse by Gamestop itself.
Equating piracy with a lost sale due to buying used is incorrect, since the publisher already got their cut from the first sale. The used buyer is not in the market for a $60 game, so there was no lost sale. It's simple supply and demand. If the publisher wanted to get that sale, cut prices dramatically after the initial release. Of course, some people who would buy new will start to wait, but you will dramatically reduce the used market values since GS et al will have to factor in the impact of a large price cut on what they will pay for a used game to avoid taking a loss on their used stock. In the end, the publishers have to decide is X Sales at $60 > (X-n) sales at $60 plus Y sales at some lower price (where n is the lost sales due to people waiting for a price cut, and Y - n + buyers that buy new instead of used at the new price).I don't think the price cut needs to be that drastic - looking at GS used game prices they generally are relatively close to new on popular titles for a while after the initial release.
Frustrating? Yes, because they want X at $60 plus some cut of Y and are trying to figure out how to do it. My guess is they think they can significantly reduce the used game market by a)making the resale value so low that sellers won't bother to trade in a game for the $5* or so they'd get; and b)using the psychological impact of "buying me" to make new seem a better deal to buyers
* - why about $5? Lets assume its a $60 game with a $30 DLC fee - so at best a used game can sell for $30 on average. I'd guess it'd be more like $20 and given the margins on used games (games often sell for 3-4x trade in per a friend in the business - although that was a few years ago) that means the trade in value will be real low.
$5000 for a classroom of 30 students is $150,000 a year. If the teacher gets $50,000, where does the other $100,000 go? Every year?
That's per class - say seven classes per day with 4 different teachers (at more like 30k/year if they are lucky) and you have 30K left for staff/supplies/maintenance/etc. Not really that much.
Is it just me, or shouldn't we already have this by hiring competent, caring, understanding educators in the first place?
I know one of those - a special ed teacher. She truly loves her kids and and does whatever she can to help them; but she is caught in system that says she *must* teach the same curriculum as for regular ed kids. Never mind that her kids, after a week of teaching them the color red, forget what it is as soon as they learn blue; she must teach a specified curriculum. The kids do not have to learn it, she must however prove she exposed them to each part of it. So, instead of being taught skills they can use in life they sit through lessons that they'll never remember. She tries hard to make them interesting and appropriate, but it is frustrating. I would not be surprised when she qualifies for retirement she decides to quit and do something else; not because she doesn't like teaching or isn't good at it but the system seems to be designed to make it a miserable experience. Add in pay cuts despite signing a contract at the start of the year and parents who expect 24 by 7 availability (she gets emails on Christmas and New Years Day) and it's no wonder teachers leave the profession or simply give up and coast to retirement.
We truly do not value education; and in the end get what we deserve.
If there are people you want to stay in contact with, e.g. a spouse, think long and hard before trying to subscribe to both the Economist and Foreign Affairs at the same time.
This is /. That shouldn't be a problem here...
Well, I live in the EU and I must say that apart from healthcare and government (which are linked), you're pretty much right.
I'll leave women outside the debate for now out of fear that it may degenerate. Flame wars are just so interesting.
You have something against degenerate women?
"Europeans live on an infrastructure that supports pedestrian life."
And you don't even get mugged on it.
Unfortunately that is changing. It may be that it was a lot rarer and no is more noticeable, but many of my UK friends complain about the rid win crime in cities such as London (especially pickpockets) which they attribute to the EU. Portuguese friends complain about muggings on the subway - a system that used to be so safe you could ride it anytime.
They have also highways and bridges that don't crumble to dust, cars that people actually buy throughout the world, high-speed trains, a couple of thousand different cheeses, and also science fiction stuff like global health insurance and powerful unions that actually help people.
Speaking as a European and American, yes Europe has much to offer; but it has its problems as well. Most of my friends complain about the cost of living, such as why does a Mac cost more in Pounds or Euros than in Dollars, taxes (just as we do in the US), health care systems while there is no fee at the point of service navigating them can be a mess, etc. They also find the US much more open to entrepreneurs and risk taking; and more of a meritocracy (if somewhat brutally so).
OTOH, I find the pace of life more enjoyable in Europe and the idea that everyone takes August off a brilliant idea. As for transportation, I'd say the Germans build cars everyone wants to drive, the rail / metro systems are great, and I love walking around the major cities.
In the end, as a relative of mine was fond of saying: "Not better, not worse, just different."
they just need to come up with a compelling reason for them to help.
Because blackmail is such an ugly word.
It doesn't have to be blackmail - in fact blackmail is probably less effective than other means. What you want to do is show them how doing what you want benefits them as well. No need to threaten anything. Make a deal - what kind of a deal? - a deal deal. For example, while the data in question may involve something that was done against country A and did not involve or threaten country B where the data resides - how doe sB know that the person will not do the same thing to them in the future? It may be in their best interest to take action now to avoid having a problem in the future, not with A but the target of A.
Not all nations in this world kow tow to the mighty Uncle Sam, you know?
True, but the notion there is anyplace that can fully guarantee data does not end up in the hands of the US (or any other country, for that manner) is naive. Each of these countries ha their own self interest at heart, and if the US (or some other country) wants their help doing something they just need to come up with a compelling reason for them to help. Governments also change, as do a nations goals and interests.
The bottom line is, once you cede control of your data to third party, you lose the ability to ensure it will never get passed on to someone's. Or,a s the saying goes, two people can keep a secret only if one of them is dead.
I wonder how successful would be a company providing data storage service like Dropbox, but with guaranteed data security. I mean that all encryption would be done by client software (with source code provided so everyone can verify that) and no keys or unencrypted data would be ever transmitted to company's servers. In this case complying with warrants and subpoenas would be no problem - here is all we have, have fun decrypting.
All a court will do is compel the owner to provide the keys to allow decryption. There's a case right now where a judge has down just that; I hope it will go to SCOTUS who will squash it but that's not a sure bet. If you refuse, it's contempt of court and jail time until you comply.
Personally, I think you should be able to plead the fifth and not be compelled to decrypt; but until SCOTUS decides the law is unclear in the US.
You further proved the opposite of what you claim. Apple is asking you to assign rights to them. The right to publish. That gives them control over copyrighted material. Not complete control. Not complete rights. But it grants them contractual rights under copyright law.
So? The author retains the copyright and control over the material. They decide who they will let distribute it, and if both sides agree they enter into a contract giving the publisher permission to publish. That's no different than what authors and publishers have been doing for years.
Apple is getting specific contractual permission to publish one version of the material; not unlimited rights to everything as the GP claimed. Merely using the software doesn't grant Apple any permission to distribute; that has to be done is a separate agreement.
Do I like Apple's license for iBook Author? It's OK, but I would like to be able to create a standard ePub version with multimedia; but I understand Apple's viewpoint as well. If I don't like it I simply don't use there software. All this nonsense about "Apple taking authors rights away.." is just that - nonsense and FUD.