That copyright is being used to line the pockets of those unable to either let go of antiquated business models, or devise new and innovative ways to deliver their products.
Witness that the *AA's (the main litigants in most copyright cases) seek to kill technologies they didn't think of, a la Napster, Grokster, Bittorrent, etc., simply so they can increase their revenue streams. They now salivate, *years* after the introduction of P2P and streaming, at the thought of charging "consumers" not for a show/song/episode/album, but on a per-device price for the *same content*.
Copyright is a barely sustainable concept, and then only when the original author/s of the content hold them.
When corporations get into the mix, we all get screwed.
Actually, the rest of the United States would be fine...and even that is technically incorrect since one other state, Hawaii, doesn't adhere to DST.
...Ben Franklin was off his rocker when he dreamed this one up.
No, IIRC he was dealing with shortages in his own time, that of candles.
But the fundamental fallacy both he and the current politicaos have fallen prey to is that you can legislate behaviour. I'm pretty sure no matter how much you change the rules, the monkeys will do what they've always done, unless it serves their self interest to stop.
Individually your 4.95 and up account is piffle.
In the aggregate however, hundreds, or thousands of such charges represent considerable sums.
Even if company X gives you a refund after 30, 60 or 90 days, they have had, in essence, an interest free loan amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases.
Not a bad plan if you a shady operator, or a marginal service, to boost your bottom line.
Slashdot Mirror
makes me sad to say I live in the same state he does.
That copyright is being used to line the pockets of those unable to either let go of antiquated business models, or devise new and innovative ways to deliver their products.
Witness that the *AA's (the main litigants in most copyright cases) seek to kill technologies they didn't think of, a la Napster, Grokster, Bittorrent, etc., simply so they can increase their revenue streams. They now salivate, *years* after the introduction of P2P and streaming, at the thought of charging "consumers" not for a show/song/episode/album, but on a per-device price for the *same content*.
Copyright is a barely sustainable concept, and then only when the original author/s of the content hold them.
When corporations get into the mix, we all get screwed.
Actually, the rest of the United States would be fine...and even that is technically incorrect since one other state, Hawaii, doesn't adhere to DST.
No, IIRC he was dealing with shortages in his own time, that of candles.
But the fundamental fallacy both he and the current politicaos have fallen prey to is that you can legislate behaviour. I'm pretty sure no matter how much you change the rules, the monkeys will do what they've always done, unless it serves their self interest to stop.
Individually your 4.95 and up account is piffle. In the aggregate however, hundreds, or thousands of such charges represent considerable sums. Even if company X gives you a refund after 30, 60 or 90 days, they have had, in essence, an interest free loan amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases. Not a bad plan if you a shady operator, or a marginal service, to boost your bottom line.