How long after the product warranty expires can the customer do this? If the answer is that the subscription can only be transferred during he warranty, it would appear that my argument remains quite intact.
They wouldn't have to explain it if the naming wasn't deceptive. For a subscription service, lifetime shouldn't mean anything other than the subscriber's lifetime.
What TiVo's doing is directly analogous to a company offering a "lifetime warranty" on a washing machine, then saying out the other side of its mouth that "lifetime" means the lifetime of the washer--when it breaks, the warranty is over.
They could have called it a "unit subscription" or similar if they had wanted to be forthright.
And calling out a disingenuous marketing practice isn't being a conspiracy theorist, thank you very much.
I don't care what fineprint they stash on their website or stuffed on a little piece of paper inside the box--the use of the word "lifetime" to describe that arrangement is deceptive on its face. That it takes a long paragraph of legalese to wiggle out of the actual meaning of the word "lifetime" only reinforces the fact.
TiVo Inc. has made it clear that they would release some unknown (not yet public) backdoors . ..
That's nice, but I can think of two problems:
1. The people with the backdoors would probably be legally enjoined from releasing them if TiVo were to die, say, by a bankruptcy court. If you were a creditor that was going to own the remnants of TiVo, wouldn't you want control of the boxes? There's no revenue without that control.
2. TiVo could be taken over by a more rapacious company, which could, say, triple the subscription fees. (The "lifetime" subscription isn't an option, since it's only for the lifetime of the box--deceptive advertising, IMHO.) There is no danger of this with a non subscription-based solution like the Hauppage PVR.
I have been hesitant to buy a PVR because I don't watch much TV to begin with, and because I don't want to become a lifetime cash cow for one of these companies, only to have them remove features (30 second skip, for example) and force updates (like the one that removed the 30 second skip) at their whim. They have a right to use that business model, so long as they're honest about it--I'm just not interested myself.
The requirement for parental information to be considered is there because Congress recognized that a young person's college education costs should be contributed to by the parents. If parents choose not to contribute, that hardly constitutes independence. (If it did, I imagine there wouldn't be many parents helping out with college--everyone would be "independent.") I don't believe this constitutes a "bias" of any kind, particularly not against non-traditional students, who tend to be older making this a moot point, anyway.
That said, financial aid officers have the ability to exercise professional judgement, and to not include parental income and assets in case of genuine estrangement or abuse. But they won't tend to help mom and dad get out of helping to pay for college. If they choose not to, it's not the taxpayer's to pick up the bill.
a) student loans are at 5+%, and is a miserable deal compared to any real discount, which is what the government used to offer. (between 3-4%, while inflation was closer to 5% back several years ago)
In-school rates for FFEL loans are between 4 and 5% now. They go down more July 1. Thought the rates are variable up to 8.25%, they can be locked in through consolidation, for now.
b) you may need to pay to be eligible for financial aid (see the college board's extortion sheet, the CSS/Profile)
The Profile's a special case. That's why I said FAFSA:). But still, you shouldn't pay anyone to fill out even the CSS/Profile. I would ask for help from the Financial Aid office where I intended to go to school if I had trouble. Of course, in the private school realm where the Profile dominates, students/parents sometimes feel like they are in an adversarial relationship with the financial aid office, and will hire consultants to help "stage" assets and income to protect them from institutional need analysis. You can guess how I feel about the ethics of that, but people trying to shave $10,000/year off $40,000 private school tuition for Muffy and Biff know what they're paying for. The people I hate hearing about are those who have paid anywhere from $75-$1,000 to have these forms filled out for them, often with bogus promises of "guaranteed financial aid," that usually amounts to freshman loan eligibility. Very sleazy industry taking advantage of very vulnerable parents, particularly those of first-generation college kids.
c) you can always go to a state school in a state like Georgia, where a B average will get you free tuition. This is the best plan for anyone who can put off college until they establish residency (1 year, i think)
That's an awesome plan. Do you mean a high school B average? If so, does a B average in another state's high school cut it for Hope (?) after you establish residency?
(all of which have a bias toward traditional students)
I can't speak to the particular people you spoke with at your particular institution, but I can tell that the Federal need analysis formula:
o in no way takes into account whether you are going full or part-time to school (though you must be at least half-time to receive federal aid)
o uses age to determine whether parents should contribute to the cost of education for unmarried, non-veteran, non-orphan/ward of the court students--this actually benefits older students, as no parent contribution decreases the amount a student is expected to provide on his own
o uses age to determine an "asset protection allowance"--meaning that the older you are, the more money the government says you, the student, can hang on to without being expected to contribute a percentage of it to your education, again, benefiting the student, whom the governemt assumes is saving for retirement as he ages
o does not take into account whether you attend a two-year, four-year, technical, trade, proprietary, or hairstyling school.
Here's federal financial aid in a nutshell. Your school determines your cost of attendance (COA) which includes tuition, fees, books, and living expenses (at your school's discrection). Your FAFSA determines how much you and/or your parents are expected to contribute out of pocket before federal loans and grants (unfortunately, the bulk of federal aid is in the form of loans--fortunately, those are at around 4% at the moment). That number is called your estimated family contribution. The difference between that cost of attendance and your contribution is referred to as "need." So need = COA - EFC. A school's financial aid office may meet that need with federal loans or grants, (and/or with its own money in the form of tuition waivers or scholarships; or loans from banks that aren't part of the federal programs, but those aren't federal).
The EFC formula's not top secret, you can look at it in detail here. You also have access to every piece of information the federal government publishes for aid officers, as a citizen. There's detail, but none of this should be beyond the reasoning of someone reading/posting to Slashdot.
Being somewhat familiar with it, I fail to see how you can say the federal financial aid system favors the traditional student. If the financial aid office where you start out seems to not care about you, perhaps you should find a school that suits your academic needs and has one that does.
One other good sources of information about financial and and scholarships are finaid.org. And whatever you do DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PAY ANYONE A FEE TO FILL OUT A FAFSA. DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PAY TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR A SCHOLARSHIP. I cannot emphasize that enough.
Nice idea. However, have you tried getting an order from Lik Sang through Customs lately? (Granted, that's HK and not mainland China, but the same idea nonetheless).
But I don't have to go to Zaire if Mobutu can obtain a judgement in one of his kangaroo courts, and the authorities here in the USA will enforce it! That's essentially what we're talking about here, except with respect to state lines.
I'm not sure whether I agree with whether someone being able to "snipe" from their home jurisdiction is a good thing or not yet.
- It does appear that this could benefit the little guy, except that not having to travel to file suit is cold comfort when one goes up against a multi-billion dollar corporation that can literally make the plaintiff's life hell, dig up his past, harass him/her and family, etc.
- Does your liking for this concept extend over national boundaries? I understand (from my study of law on Usenet <grin>) that Great Britain has libel laws that essentially make one liable if one hurts the plaintiff's feelings. I know I certainly don't want to a judgement in GB on behalf of some prick physicist (purely hypothetically speaking, of course, not being acquainted with any British physicists, mind you) who was offended because of a flamewar or something.
- IANAL, but couldn't this be contorted by judges to allow the country (or other jurisdiction) with the most repressive laws to make the rules for the entire Internet? (This argument should look familiar; it's one of the ones used against the CDA.)
And ya know, the MPAA could solve that problem today by selling unencumbered copies of its videos online for a reasonable price. But they'd rather take the route of calling every viewer a potential criminal.
There's obviously a demand for "video on demand"--what's there's not a demand for is "pay every time you watch the video you bought," which is what the industry wants to sell.
So they buy legislation in an attempt to cram it down our throats. Ultimately, we all lose.
Nobody protests the software industry for putting copy protection on their stuff.
That just plain is not true. Copy protection almost completely died, the last holdouts being Lotus and Ashton Tate, except for vertical market stuff. Now that it's coming back, the market is tolerating it for now, but the backlash that forced the elimination of copy protection from PC software will come back to haunt those using it.
Copy protection keeps the dishonest users working around it and the honest users pissed off.
Oh, yes, BTW, I believe that if media are copy protected, then the manufacturer should be required to provide downloadable copies to those who can prove they're licensed in perpetuity. Do I think that will actually happen? No. But if they can legally take away the means to make a legal backup, then they are certainly morally obligated to.
Unfortunately, they can afford more congressmen than I can.
Yes, they're both programs, but they're legally different. Copyright terms are different for "mask works" like ROMs and EPROMs. There's no right to a backup of a mask work. However, mask work copyrights expire in 10 years, rather than 95 years + eternity as copyright holders can afford legislation, which is why you don't hear much about them anymore.
Oh, and if you have to buy SimCity again, you aren't just buying the same game on different media. You get an entirely new product. (The AC is I--I forgot to log in before replying.)
Welcome to reality. IE is the standard now, thanks to "embrace and extend." Third parties would do well not to say "but the web page your trying to load is broken," because people will then just use IE.
I registered several.us domains (though I got neither calcul.us nor allyourbasearebelongto.us) and was able to update DNS information, etc. the day after.us went live. My registrar is GoDaddy. Only a satisfied customer, no other affiliation, yadda yadda yadda.
That sounds like they're just doing what software companies do, nothing radically different.
Where can I send my Judas Priest 45 that's worn from normal playing for a nominal cost replacement--on period media or current?
The record companies want it both ways. They want to say you only bought a license, but also want you to pay again when the physical media wears out of is obsoleted.
Lets use this example. If I go to Borders and buy a book on P2P from O'Reilly and I decide to use it as home plate in a game of baseball, is Borders or O'Reilly responsible for replacing it?
Ah, but that argument is disingenuous--O'Reilly isn't claiming to be selling you only a license to the book to use as they see fit, they're selling you a physical object with words on it that you can use as home plate if you want (at your peril).
The record industry, on the other hand, claims that music is like software--that you only own the medium. Yet, they want to have it both ways--claim they've only licensed you a right to use, but yet deny you the right to a backup copy (e.g. MP3, tape for the car, what have you).
Record companies should be forced to provide downloadable backup copies in the event they (God forbid) ever succeed with DRM.
Which reminds me of the aprocryphal story about Gerber sending baby food to the third world with the traditional picture of the Gerber baby on the jar. Apparently, it didn't go over very well, since custom on the continent was to display a picture of the contents on the can . . . Of course, it's an urban legend.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they'll just wait until he comes to the U.S.
How long after the product warranty expires can the customer do this? If the answer is that the subscription can only be transferred during he warranty, it would appear that my argument remains quite intact.
What TiVo's doing is directly analogous to a company offering a "lifetime warranty" on a washing machine, then saying out the other side of its mouth that "lifetime" means the lifetime of the washer--when it breaks, the warranty is over.
They could have called it a "unit subscription" or similar if they had wanted to be forthright.
And calling out a disingenuous marketing practice isn't being a conspiracy theorist, thank you very much.
I don't care what fineprint they stash on their website or stuffed on a little piece of paper inside the box--the use of the word "lifetime" to describe that arrangement is deceptive on its face. That it takes a long paragraph of legalese to wiggle out of the actual meaning of the word "lifetime" only reinforces the fact.
That's nice, but I can think of two problems:
1. The people with the backdoors would probably be legally enjoined from releasing them if TiVo were to die, say, by a bankruptcy court. If you were a creditor that was going to own the remnants of TiVo, wouldn't you want control of the boxes? There's no revenue without that control.
2. TiVo could be taken over by a more rapacious company, which could, say, triple the subscription fees. (The "lifetime" subscription isn't an option, since it's only for the lifetime of the box--deceptive advertising, IMHO.) There is no danger of this with a non subscription-based solution like the Hauppage PVR.
I have been hesitant to buy a PVR because I don't watch much TV to begin with, and because I don't want to become a lifetime cash cow for one of these companies, only to have them remove features (30 second skip, for example) and force updates (like the one that removed the 30 second skip) at their whim. They have a right to use that business model, so long as they're honest about it--I'm just not interested myself.
That said, financial aid officers have the ability to exercise professional judgement, and to not include parental income and assets in case of genuine estrangement or abuse. But they won't tend to help mom and dad get out of helping to pay for college. If they choose not to, it's not the taxpayer's to pick up the bill.
In-school rates for FFEL loans are between 4 and 5% now. They go down more July 1. Thought the rates are variable up to 8.25%, they can be locked in through consolidation, for now.
b) you may need to pay to be eligible for financial aid (see the college board's extortion sheet, the CSS/Profile)
The Profile's a special case. That's why I said FAFSA :). But still, you shouldn't pay anyone to fill out even the CSS/Profile. I would ask for help from the Financial Aid office where I intended to go to school if I had trouble. Of course, in the private school realm where the Profile dominates, students/parents sometimes feel like they are in an adversarial relationship with the financial aid office, and will hire consultants to help "stage" assets and income to protect them from institutional need analysis. You can guess how I feel about the ethics of that, but people trying to shave $10,000/year off $40,000 private school tuition for Muffy and Biff know what they're paying for. The people I hate hearing about are those who have paid anywhere from $75-$1,000 to have these forms filled out for them, often with bogus promises of "guaranteed financial aid," that usually amounts to freshman loan eligibility. Very sleazy industry taking advantage of very vulnerable parents, particularly those of first-generation college kids.
c) you can always go to a state school in a state like Georgia, where a B average will get you free tuition. This is the best plan for anyone who can put off college until they establish residency (1 year, i think)
That's an awesome plan. Do you mean a high school B average? If so, does a B average in another state's high school cut it for Hope (?) after you establish residency?
Thanks :)--even though I completely forgot to mention work-study.
I can't speak to the particular people you spoke with at your particular institution, but I can tell that the Federal need analysis formula:
o in no way takes into account whether you are going full or part-time to school (though you must be at least half-time to receive federal aid)
o uses age to determine whether parents should contribute to the cost of education for unmarried, non-veteran, non-orphan/ward of the court students--this actually benefits older students, as no parent contribution decreases the amount a student is expected to provide on his own
o uses age to determine an "asset protection allowance"--meaning that the older you are, the more money the government says you, the student, can hang on to without being expected to contribute a percentage of it to your education, again, benefiting the student, whom the governemt assumes is saving for retirement as he ages
o does not take into account whether you attend a two-year, four-year, technical, trade, proprietary, or hairstyling school.
Here's federal financial aid in a nutshell. Your school determines your cost of attendance (COA) which includes tuition, fees, books, and living expenses (at your school's discrection). Your FAFSA determines how much you and/or your parents are expected to contribute out of pocket before federal loans and grants (unfortunately, the bulk of federal aid is in the form of loans--fortunately, those are at around 4% at the moment). That number is called your estimated family contribution. The difference between that cost of attendance and your contribution is referred to as "need." So need = COA - EFC. A school's financial aid office may meet that need with federal loans or grants, (and/or with its own money in the form of tuition waivers or scholarships; or loans from banks that aren't part of the federal programs, but those aren't federal).
The EFC formula's not top secret, you can look at it in detail here. You also have access to every piece of information the federal government publishes for aid officers, as a citizen. There's detail, but none of this should be beyond the reasoning of someone reading/posting to Slashdot.
Being somewhat familiar with it, I fail to see how you can say the federal financial aid system favors the traditional student. If the financial aid office where you start out seems to not care about you, perhaps you should find a school that suits your academic needs and has one that does.
One other good sources of information about financial and and scholarships are finaid.org. And whatever you do DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PAY ANYONE A FEE TO FILL OUT A FAFSA. DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PAY TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR A SCHOLARSHIP. I cannot emphasize that enough.
Nice idea. However, have you tried getting an order from Lik Sang through Customs lately? (Granted, that's HK and not mainland China, but the same idea nonetheless).
Only the ones used to copy FOIA-released documents.
But I don't have to go to Zaire if Mobutu can obtain a judgement in one of his kangaroo courts, and the authorities here in the USA will enforce it! That's essentially what we're talking about here, except with respect to state lines.
- It does appear that this could benefit the little guy, except that not having to travel to file suit is cold comfort when one goes up against a multi-billion dollar corporation that can literally make the plaintiff's life hell, dig up his past, harass him/her and family, etc.
- Does your liking for this concept extend over national boundaries? I understand (from my study of law on Usenet <grin>) that Great Britain has libel laws that essentially make one liable if one hurts the plaintiff's feelings. I know I certainly don't want to a judgement in GB on behalf of some prick physicist (purely hypothetically speaking, of course, not being acquainted with any British physicists, mind you) who was offended because of a flamewar or something.
- IANAL, but couldn't this be contorted by judges to allow the country (or other jurisdiction) with the most repressive laws to make the rules for the entire Internet? (This argument should look familiar; it's one of the ones used against the CDA.)
Thanks for the nice writeup!
C:\w@r3z\> date 01-01-2125
There's obviously a demand for "video on demand"--what's there's not a demand for is "pay every time you watch the video you bought," which is what the industry wants to sell.
So they buy legislation in an attempt to cram it down our throats. Ultimately, we all lose.
Nobody protests the software industry for putting copy protection on their stuff.
That just plain is not true. Copy protection almost completely died, the last holdouts being Lotus and Ashton Tate, except for vertical market stuff. Now that it's coming back, the market is tolerating it for now, but the backlash that forced the elimination of copy protection from PC software will come back to haunt those using it.Copy protection keeps the dishonest users working around it and the honest users pissed off.
Oh, yes, BTW, I believe that if media are copy protected, then the manufacturer should be required to provide downloadable copies to those who can prove they're licensed in perpetuity. Do I think that will actually happen? No. But if they can legally take away the means to make a legal backup, then they are certainly morally obligated to.
Unfortunately, they can afford more congressmen than I can.
Yes, they're both programs, but they're legally different. Copyright terms are different for "mask works" like ROMs and EPROMs. There's no right to a backup of a mask work. However, mask work copyrights expire in 10 years, rather than 95 years + eternity as copyright holders can afford legislation, which is why you don't hear much about them anymore.
Oh, and if you have to buy SimCity again, you aren't just buying the same game on different media. You get an entirely new product. (The AC is I--I forgot to log in before replying.)
Welcome to reality. IE is the standard now, thanks to "embrace and extend." Third parties would do well not to say "but the web page your trying to load is broken," because people will then just use IE.
I registered several .us domains (though I got neither calcul.us nor allyourbasearebelongto.us) and was able to update DNS information, etc. the day after .us went live. My registrar is GoDaddy. Only a satisfied customer, no other affiliation, yadda yadda yadda.
Where can I send my Judas Priest 45 that's worn from normal playing for a nominal cost replacement--on period media or current?
The record companies want it both ways. They want to say you only bought a license, but also want you to pay again when the physical media wears out of is obsoleted.
Ah, but that argument is disingenuous--O'Reilly isn't claiming to be selling you only a license to the book to use as they see fit, they're selling you a physical object with words on it that you can use as home plate if you want (at your peril).
The record industry, on the other hand, claims that music is like software--that you only own the medium. Yet, they want to have it both ways--claim they've only licensed you a right to use, but yet deny you the right to a backup copy (e.g. MP3, tape for the car, what have you).
Record companies should be forced to provide downloadable backup copies in the event they (God forbid) ever succeed with DRM.
Which reminds me of the aprocryphal story about Gerber sending baby food to the third world with the traditional picture of the Gerber baby on the jar. Apparently, it didn't go over very well, since custom on the continent was to display a picture of the contents on the can . . . Of course, it's an urban legend.
Good. The first thing civilization needs is for the people doing that to die. Or at least stop being able to reproduce.
That's pretty funny. But it is still streaming only.