The best thing you can do is buy a higher quality printer from a name you trust, and make sure the printer has multiple cartridges. That way, if you tend to print a lot of yellow, you can just replace the yellow cartridge, rather than having to replace a single multicolor cartridge that has 90% blue, 90% red, and 5% yellow ink remaining.
If this lawsuit is won by Lexmark, does that mean that Ford can sue to stop 3rd party parts manufacturers?
Only if those 3rd party manufactured parts contain copyrighted material, such as computer code, and Ford has not authorized 3rd party use of that material.
I am asking that if CDs were cheaper, would copying CDs no longer be morally justified?
No, and I was mistaken to assert that the price of CD's justifies copying them. Price doesn't matter, and there is a violation of law if you copy a CD. But that violation is of Copyright law, not personal property law. Your CD is not rare, and the recording on it is not rare, especailly if new copies of the CD is still being produced by the record company and there's no shortage in the market.
No one is making 300,000,000 copies of a CD, and if you have to multiply your loss of value by that much then it is essentially a zero loss at any reasonable amount of copying. Plus, you're assuming that people will value a Memorex CD-R duplicate equally to your real CD. Your CD still has value in that it is an original, with all the original artwork and packaging. Also, if there were only one (or ten or 1,000) people who wanted to buy that CD used, and everyone and their mother was selling their own store-bought used Britney CD, then you'd still be out of luck. On the other hand, if someone was making and selling mass quantities of counterfeit CD's, there are laws to stop them, and raids on counterfeit CD houses happen all the time, and their operators go to jail or pay heavy fines.
Also, since when do you have the right to sell that Britney CD? Did you pay the record company to be a commercial re-seller? Do you own the content on the disc? Can you do what you want with it? Do you have the right to do what you want with the ones and zeroes that make up the audio files on that disc?
I know half of my arguments will hold no water and the other half may be interesting. We both have good arguments. But just the fact that we (two random strangers on/.) have had this long conversation proves that the law needs to be debated in congress. We're in a digital age where old laws might not make sense: never before in history have the laws had to deal with zero-loss duplication of products. I hope new digital laws are decided in congress, and I hope it's not a repeat of the DMCA, and I really hope they're not decided by a court case of John. Q. Student vs. the RIAA.
These people are selling products, at the very least they can be traced to the guy who paid them to send the spam.
I always thought it'd be a good idea to people who are selling the products, not the advertisers. At least go after the legal liabilities for being in a business relationship with an unscrupulous spammer. That would force the sellers to choose their spammers wisely; for examlpe making sure they have a legitimate list of people who'd really like to be contacted with information about "enlargement" pills. In states where you can sue for receiving unsolicited spam, you should also be allowed to sue the seller, as they basically outsourced their advertising to a spammer.
You'd have to be careful, though, that someone wasn't sending out offensive spam for a competitor's product, in order to tarnish the competitor's name.
Copying currency really doesn't apply here; as its value is imaginary, but with a government that will stand behind it, it's no longer just a piece of paper. The amount of cash in our world is tightly controlled by governments. CD's are market items where supply is almost always greater than demand (have you ever not been able to find a store selling a new CD you wanted?).
You're right, and I usually don't fall into the camp that wrongly believes "if I can't afford something I want, I can steal it." My real beef with pending legislation and RIAA statements is the use of the word Stealing. It really isn't stealing in the sense that they make it out to be. No one on a P2P network is "stealing" music. They are stealing exclusive distribution rights, but they are not making any money off of it, which makes it a difficult thing to label. But it's not stealing. And will people stop calling them "pirates?" I don't even begin to understand that one:-)
No matter how hard you try, you can't prove that after I copy your CD, you have something less than you had before. Stealing means I take something from you, physical or not, so that you no longer have it. Copying the music of a CD doesn't make the CD any less rare. You paid $15 or whatever for a CD because you want to listen to the music. How does my copying your CD cause your listening experience to have any less value? If it makes you feel cheated, perhaps because you paid $15 for it and I paid nothing, then that's good! That's how I feel about the RIAA's monopoly; I'm paying $15 and they're paying nothing to produce it. It costs them virtually nothing to print a CD. They argue that most of the cost of a CD goes to pay for advertising and promotion. But if they didn't hire so many crap artists, and let the music promote itself (think Phish, Indigo Girls, Pink Floyd), then a band wouldn't need a corporation behind it to become successful. And yes I could buy independent music, but thanks to RIAA's expensive and heavy-handed promoting, only mainstream artists are getting to the radio these days. I don't agree with people who think they haev a right to steal something they can't afford (unless it means life or death). But something must be done to break the RIAA monopoly and fix the music industry. A little civil disobedience in the form of P2P MP3 trading might be the answer, in that it forces the government to show their hand and deal with the issue.
I don't know what a fair price is. I'd gladly spend $50 to see a concert of a band that I like rather than $15 for their CD.
If I ever have a band that people want to listen to, I'd hope I could distribute my music digitally for a low fee (bandwidth costs and such), and be a good enough musician and entertainer that people would want to come see my shows purely because my live performance is something that can't be reproduced digitally. It was that way at one point, where you went to a show to hear a band, and bought the CD to remind you of their music. These days, people hear a song on the radio once every 15 minutes, then go to the show to hear them play that song the same way they recorded it.
No matter what the price, I think that copying a CD isn't stealing, but as I said before, it is usurping the exclusive distribution rights that the record label thought they had.
nothing has been lost, because I have replaced your pile of paper with an equivalent stack of paper.
(I don't know why you got modded as a troll. You may be wrong, but you're not a troll.)
It's more like I saw your stack of $20 bills and took a photograph of it.
A $20 bill represents a promise from the US government that you can use it to pay taxes to them for their services. A $1 bill is the sme thing, but pays for 1/20th the amount of governmental services.
Excluding the few minutes it would take to do, if I copied a song off of one of your CD's onto my computer, then gave you back the CD, you have exactly what you had before I copied it. You don't have a less valuable item.
The purchase of the CD is buying the actual disc which has some music recorded onto it, the cover art, and a sturdy CD case. If I copy the CD onto my computer, the key word is *copy*. I have not taken the recording away from you in any way. You still have all of those pieces of your purchase, including the recording.
You could argue that I've taken away from the rarity of the recording on your CD, in that now there are two copies of the recording when before there were one. However, that is the inherent flaw with CD pricing and distribution. Recording companies have taken advantage of the convenience of digital recording and processing. No longer do you have to maintain master copies of analog recordings in a clean, climate controlled storage area, for fear of degradation. No longer do they have to spend long times recording things just right, to minimize difficult tape editing. Now they can keep as many master copies as they want, for the cost of just a few cents per CD or hard disk. However, they have not passed those savings on to the consumer. They have taken the profits for themselves, and used their monopoly power to keep the prices artificially high.
Consumers and independent artists have recently found that they too could use this digital technology to reduce their own costs. Observing the enourmous gap between what it costs to copy a CD (a few cents per CD) and what it costs to buy one from the record store ($15-$20), consumers have decided they'll risk the legal ramifications of violating copyright and make a copy, rather than surrender their hard earned money to inflated prices.
Piracy involves taking value away from someone else's property without compensating them for that loss. Taking something without compensating for it, whether or not the "thing" in question is a physical item, is stealing.
What is this "something" that was taken away? What did the person have before the so-called stealing took place, and what does the person have after the "stealing" took place? Explain how I can take something from you although you still have it.
And don't start claiming stuff about "lost sales" because for most file traders have said that the music they really like, they do buy, and for the music they listen to but don't really like, they would have just been satisfied hearing it onthe radio or not at all.
The only thing being "taken" is the distribution rights; when you take a recording and start distributing it. THIS IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. You are distributing goods without authorization, you are NOT distributing stolen goods. There's a world of difference.
or just use a home stationed fuel cell to recharge the electric car
Using it at home is pointless; just plug your car into an outlet and charge it that way.
Electric cars don't have a long enough charge to be roadworthy yet (mileage between recharges can't compare with a gas tank). So, they're trying to "build a better battery", and right now their latest battery (hydrogen fuel cell) is too fragile for the road.
The quote is not just about the holocaust, and my use of it was in no way demeaning to those who suffered. This poem is a lesson to all the world to stand up for your fellow man, and not to exist with a "hey, at least it didn't happen to me" attitude.
I don't need to be reminded by some AC of the fact that many people died in the Holocaust.
"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I wasnâ(TM)t a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak."
Since when does the IT community start apathetically abandoning individuals? What if you were one of those four people?
My most recent camera is SmartMedia (SSFDC) based, and I'm happy with it. The neat thing about the cards is that they're flat. I can tuck one into my cheek to conceal it, slobber all over it "I don't know what you're talking about officer", wipe it off, put it back into the camera, and it works flawlessly.
Make notes to self and listen to them while walking around. This helps me crunch the more mundane tasks by making it into a challenge: how to do x more efficiently because I'm on my way to this or that place.
Maybe I read that wrong, but it seems like you imitate obsessive compulsive tendencies in order to counteract attention deficit. Does that really work? Doesn't it really strain your body/mind, being pulled in two extreme directions?
I could even make a web page that shows my copyrighted image on it, and in the header it'll say you can only view this page with a text browser, and that rendering the.jpg file with an image program, including but not limited to Internet Explorer, is a breach of my god given Copyright. Then, I'll record the IP of anyone who looks at it, and BLAMMO! blast their computers into outer space.
Wow! I'm gonna, like, copyright some stuff right now, get some kid to upload it to Senator Hatch's computer, and BLAMMO! Good byyyyyyyeeeeee Senator's Snood!:-)
The article does say that they do not currently offer a left-hand version.
It'd probably take a redesign of the circuit board in order to get the controls on the other side of the watch. I guess it's not as easy as it sounds. Oh well!
Once again, lefties are left without usable controls. The watch is designed to be worn on the left hand, operated with the right hand. Lefties wear their watch on the right hand, typically. Anyone know if they're making them left-hand oriented as well?
...and b) the click of the phone hanging up after you're told you weren't hired, due to a terrible reference.
Actually, if a potential employer contacts your former employer to get a reference, the worst the former employer can say is that yes you were employed by his company, and you worked from this date to that date.
He can write you a bad reference letter, but he has to give it to you, and you can read it before you give it to any potential employer.
I just have to say that Quark Express is the worst f***** web browser EVER! And they've taken away all of the good options from the last version. Quite frankly I'm scared that Quark Express will be totally useless as a web browser with version 7
It's also not a very good snow shovel. But it's a great desktop publishing program.
but unless I can suggest a specific mechanism for creating one, there's no way I should be granted a patent.
As far as I know, you patent innovation along with a viable process for realizing that innovation, not just an idea. You don't patent "the ability to use a machine to process cotton into cloth," you patent the unique innovations within your design of a machine that accomplishes this task.
The problem is, in the 90's, laws were passed that allowed you to patent a business model. That's why eBay can have a (ridiculous) patent on doing online auctions. Thank goodness no one patented online shopping, or else we'd have just one shopping website, and no competition. Amazon has come close by patenting "one click shopping", which patents any online shopping that takes only a single action by the user, rather than the two clicks it takes at any other site. Why do they deserve this patent? This is a natural innovation that anyone would have thought of. I cannot believe that at no point in time did any company think "you know, the interface for using our site has too many actions required by the user, let's reduce that down a bit." My company considers that with every piece of software they design.
Younger children would be more likely to ask their parents to help them get their e-mail, while teenagers would be far more likely to want their parents to just leave them alone.
I think I would have a hard time masturbating if my parents were in the room.
It's even harder if they're the ones pictured in the pr0n mail.
Except, I don't see the option to put limitations back in. So if it does become a monoculture, there isn't much the FCC could do.
It takes a partisan 3 to 2 FCC vote to relax regulations so the conservative CEO's of Fox and Clearchannel can have yet more power, but it would take a huge (think ma-bell proportion) congressional act to cut them back down if they ever get too big.
I really wish the FCC had to explain (and justify) why they think it's in the public interest to allow mega media companies to expand further. So far their reason is, "well, we couldn't think of any good reason not to!", even though thousands of americans emailed and called in plenty of reasons against deregulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you know....God owns the copyright on the Bible. And if you steal it or copy it, he'll be pissed.
lol!
how does he feel about christian rock?
The best thing you can do is buy a higher quality printer from a name you trust, and make sure the printer has multiple cartridges. That way, if you tend to print a lot of yellow, you can just replace the yellow cartridge, rather than having to replace a single multicolor cartridge that has 90% blue, 90% red, and 5% yellow ink remaining.
If this lawsuit is won by Lexmark, does that mean that Ford can sue to stop 3rd party parts manufacturers?
Only if those 3rd party manufactured parts contain copyrighted material, such as computer code, and Ford has not authorized 3rd party use of that material.
I am asking that if CDs were cheaper, would copying CDs no longer be morally justified?
/.) have had this long conversation proves that the law needs to be debated in congress. We're in a digital age where old laws might not make sense: never before in history have the laws had to deal with zero-loss duplication of products. I hope new digital laws are decided in congress, and I hope it's not a repeat of the DMCA, and I really hope they're not decided by a court case of John. Q. Student vs. the RIAA.
No, and I was mistaken to assert that the price of CD's justifies copying them. Price doesn't matter, and there is a violation of law if you copy a CD. But that violation is of Copyright law, not personal property law. Your CD is not rare, and the recording on it is not rare, especailly if new copies of the CD is still being produced by the record company and there's no shortage in the market.
No one is making 300,000,000 copies of a CD, and if you have to multiply your loss of value by that much then it is essentially a zero loss at any reasonable amount of copying. Plus, you're assuming that people will value a Memorex CD-R duplicate equally to your real CD. Your CD still has value in that it is an original, with all the original artwork and packaging. Also, if there were only one (or ten or 1,000) people who wanted to buy that CD used, and everyone and their mother was selling their own store-bought used Britney CD, then you'd still be out of luck. On the other hand, if someone was making and selling mass quantities of counterfeit CD's, there are laws to stop them, and raids on counterfeit CD houses happen all the time, and their operators go to jail or pay heavy fines.
Also, since when do you have the right to sell that Britney CD? Did you pay the record company to be a commercial re-seller? Do you own the content on the disc? Can you do what you want with it? Do you have the right to do what you want with the ones and zeroes that make up the audio files on that disc?
I know half of my arguments will hold no water and the other half may be interesting. We both have good arguments. But just the fact that we (two random strangers on
1986
- Voyager 2 flies past Uranus
And you haven't unclenched your cheeks since!
These people are selling products, at the very least they can be traced to the guy who paid them to send the spam.
I always thought it'd be a good idea to people who are selling the products, not the advertisers. At least go after the legal liabilities for being in a business relationship with an unscrupulous spammer. That would force the sellers to choose their spammers wisely; for examlpe making sure they have a legitimate list of people who'd really like to be contacted with information about "enlargement" pills. In states where you can sue for receiving unsolicited spam, you should also be allowed to sue the seller, as they basically outsourced their advertising to a spammer.
You'd have to be careful, though, that someone wasn't sending out offensive spam for a competitor's product, in order to tarnish the competitor's name.
Copying currency really doesn't apply here; as its value is imaginary, but with a government that will stand behind it, it's no longer just a piece of paper. The amount of cash in our world is tightly controlled by governments. CD's are market items where supply is almost always greater than demand (have you ever not been able to find a store selling a new CD you wanted?).
:-)
You're right, and I usually don't fall into the camp that wrongly believes "if I can't afford something I want, I can steal it." My real beef with pending legislation and RIAA statements is the use of the word Stealing. It really isn't stealing in the sense that they make it out to be. No one on a P2P network is "stealing" music. They are stealing exclusive distribution rights, but they are not making any money off of it, which makes it a difficult thing to label. But it's not stealing. And will people stop calling them "pirates?" I don't even begin to understand that one
No matter how hard you try, you can't prove that after I copy your CD, you have something less than you had before. Stealing means I take something from you, physical or not, so that you no longer have it. Copying the music of a CD doesn't make the CD any less rare. You paid $15 or whatever for a CD because you want to listen to the music. How does my copying your CD cause your listening experience to have any less value? If it makes you feel cheated, perhaps because you paid $15 for it and I paid nothing, then that's good! That's how I feel about the RIAA's monopoly; I'm paying $15 and they're paying nothing to produce it. It costs them virtually nothing to print a CD. They argue that most of the cost of a CD goes to pay for advertising and promotion. But if they didn't hire so many crap artists, and let the music promote itself (think Phish, Indigo Girls, Pink Floyd), then a band wouldn't need a corporation behind it to become successful. And yes I could buy independent music, but thanks to RIAA's expensive and heavy-handed promoting, only mainstream artists are getting to the radio these days. I don't agree with people who think they haev a right to steal something they can't afford (unless it means life or death). But something must be done to break the RIAA monopoly and fix the music industry. A little civil disobedience in the form of P2P MP3 trading might be the answer, in that it forces the government to show their hand and deal with the issue.
I don't know what a fair price is. I'd gladly spend $50 to see a concert of a band that I like rather than $15 for their CD.
If I ever have a band that people want to listen to, I'd hope I could distribute my music digitally for a low fee (bandwidth costs and such), and be a good enough musician and entertainer that people would want to come see my shows purely because my live performance is something that can't be reproduced digitally. It was that way at one point, where you went to a show to hear a band, and bought the CD to remind you of their music. These days, people hear a song on the radio once every 15 minutes, then go to the show to hear them play that song the same way they recorded it.
No matter what the price, I think that copying a CD isn't stealing, but as I said before, it is usurping the exclusive distribution rights that the record label thought they had.
nothing has been lost, because I have replaced your pile of paper with an equivalent stack of paper.
(I don't know why you got modded as a troll. You may be wrong, but you're not a troll.)
It's more like I saw your stack of $20 bills and took a photograph of it.
A $20 bill represents a promise from the US government that you can use it to pay taxes to them for their services. A $1 bill is the sme thing, but pays for 1/20th the amount of governmental services.
Excluding the few minutes it would take to do, if I copied a song off of one of your CD's onto my computer, then gave you back the CD, you have exactly what you had before I copied it. You don't have a less valuable item.
The purchase of the CD is buying the actual disc which has some music recorded onto it, the cover art, and a sturdy CD case. If I copy the CD onto my computer, the key word is *copy*. I have not taken the recording away from you in any way. You still have all of those pieces of your purchase, including the recording.
You could argue that I've taken away from the rarity of the recording on your CD, in that now there are two copies of the recording when before there were one. However, that is the inherent flaw with CD pricing and distribution. Recording companies have taken advantage of the convenience of digital recording and processing. No longer do you have to maintain master copies of analog recordings in a clean, climate controlled storage area, for fear of degradation. No longer do they have to spend long times recording things just right, to minimize difficult tape editing. Now they can keep as many master copies as they want, for the cost of just a few cents per CD or hard disk. However, they have not passed those savings on to the consumer. They have taken the profits for themselves, and used their monopoly power to keep the prices artificially high.
Consumers and independent artists have recently found that they too could use this digital technology to reduce their own costs. Observing the enourmous gap between what it costs to copy a CD (a few cents per CD) and what it costs to buy one from the record store ($15-$20), consumers have decided they'll risk the legal ramifications of violating copyright and make a copy, rather than surrender their hard earned money to inflated prices.
Piracy involves taking value away from someone else's property without compensating them for that loss. Taking something without compensating for it, whether or not the "thing" in question is a physical item, is stealing.
What is this "something" that was taken away? What did the person have before the so-called stealing took place, and what does the person have after the "stealing" took place? Explain how I can take something from you although you still have it.
And don't start claiming stuff about "lost sales" because for most file traders have said that the music they really like, they do buy, and for the music they listen to but don't really like, they would have just been satisfied hearing it onthe radio or not at all.
The only thing being "taken" is the distribution rights; when you take a recording and start distributing it. THIS IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. You are distributing goods without authorization, you are NOT distributing stolen goods. There's a world of difference.
or just use a home stationed fuel cell to recharge the electric car
Using it at home is pointless; just plug your car into an outlet and charge it that way.
Electric cars don't have a long enough charge to be roadworthy yet (mileage between recharges can't compare with a gas tank). So, they're trying to "build a better battery", and right now their latest battery (hydrogen fuel cell) is too fragile for the road.
The quote is not just about the holocaust, and my use of it was in no way demeaning to those who suffered. This poem is a lesson to all the world to stand up for your fellow man, and not to exist with a "hey, at least it didn't happen to me" attitude.
I don't need to be reminded by some AC of the fact that many people died in the Holocaust.
They're threatening to take to court, what? 4?
"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not a gypsy.
When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I wasnâ(TM)t a Jew.
When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I am not a Catholic.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak."
Since when does the IT community start apathetically abandoning individuals? What if you were one of those four people?
My most recent camera is SmartMedia (SSFDC) based, and I'm happy with it. The neat thing about the cards is that they're flat. I can tuck one into my cheek to conceal it, slobber all over it "I don't know what you're talking about officer", wipe it off, put it back into the camera, and it works flawlessly.
Do I dare ask how you came to this finding?
Make notes to self and listen to them while walking around. This helps me crunch the more mundane tasks by making it into a challenge: how to do x more efficiently because I'm on my way to this or that place.
Maybe I read that wrong, but it seems like you imitate obsessive compulsive tendencies in order to counteract attention deficit. Does that really work? Doesn't it really strain your body/mind, being pulled in two extreme directions?
I could even make a web page that shows my copyrighted image on it, and in the header it'll say you can only view this page with a text browser, and that rendering the .jpg file with an image program, including but not limited to Internet Explorer, is a breach of my god given Copyright. Then, I'll record the IP of anyone who looks at it, and BLAMMO! blast their computers into outer space.
Wow! I'm gonna, like, copyright some stuff right now, get some kid to upload it to Senator Hatch's computer, and BLAMMO! Good byyyyyyyeeeeee Senator's Snood! :-)
And to think, it'd be perfectly legal!
The article does say that they do not currently offer a left-hand version.
It'd probably take a redesign of the circuit board in order to get the controls on the other side of the watch. I guess it's not as easy as it sounds. Oh well!
Once again, lefties are left without usable controls. The watch is designed to be worn on the left hand, operated with the right hand. Lefties wear their watch on the right hand, typically. Anyone know if they're making them left-hand oriented as well?
...and b) the click of the phone hanging up after you're told you weren't hired, due to a terrible reference.
Actually, if a potential employer contacts your former employer to get a reference, the worst the former employer can say is that yes you were employed by his company, and you worked from this date to that date.
He can write you a bad reference letter, but he has to give it to you, and you can read it before you give it to any potential employer.
Anything else is illegal blacklisting/slander.
I just have to say that Quark Express is the worst f***** web browser EVER! And they've taken away all of the good options from the last version. Quite frankly I'm scared that Quark Express will be totally useless as a web browser with version 7
It's also not a very good snow shovel. But it's a great desktop publishing program.
Crimony, how many times...It's not a "nookular bomb"!
;-)
Crimony?
You're not allowed to make fun of other people for pronouncing nuclear as "nookular" until you get some better interjections than "crimony."
but unless I can suggest a specific mechanism for creating one, there's no way I should be granted a patent.
As far as I know, you patent innovation along with a viable process for realizing that innovation, not just an idea. You don't patent "the ability to use a machine to process cotton into cloth," you patent the unique innovations within your design of a machine that accomplishes this task.
The problem is, in the 90's, laws were passed that allowed you to patent a business model. That's why eBay can have a (ridiculous) patent on doing online auctions. Thank goodness no one patented online shopping, or else we'd have just one shopping website, and no competition. Amazon has come close by patenting "one click shopping", which patents any online shopping that takes only a single action by the user, rather than the two clicks it takes at any other site. Why do they deserve this patent? This is a natural innovation that anyone would have thought of. I cannot believe that at no point in time did any company think "you know, the interface for using our site has too many actions required by the user, let's reduce that down a bit." My company considers that with every piece of software they design.
It's even harder if they're the ones pictured in the pr0n mail.
Biometric room safe -- so that the prostitute you bring in doesn't steal your stuff while you're sleeping
Wow, that room has everything!!! Even a prostitute-sized safe!!!
Except, I don't see the option to put limitations back in. So if it does become a monoculture, there isn't much the FCC could do.
It takes a partisan 3 to 2 FCC vote to relax regulations so the conservative CEO's of Fox and Clearchannel can have yet more power, but it would take a huge (think ma-bell proportion) congressional act to cut them back down if they ever get too big.
I really wish the FCC had to explain (and justify) why they think it's in the public interest to allow mega media companies to expand further. So far their reason is, "well, we couldn't think of any good reason not to!", even though thousands of americans emailed and called in plenty of reasons against deregulation.