Make sure you mention the stock price. I know he is proud of it.
If I lived in the USA, I would even be inclined to invite that fuckwad to sue me for the same shit. The nice thing is, I cannot imagine a school like Princeton taking crap like this lying down. If Sunncomm ever did file suit (and I bet money it won't happen), Princeton will have some nice attorneys to meet that pathetic, piece of shit company head-on.
I can only say that if the current state of the SW:G forums reflects an effort at censorship, the attempt is pathetic at best.
The real problem from my side is that forums are the absolute least effective means of communicating to a community the size of SW:G and to try and use them for bug reporting and feature requests is cause to never visit them again.
The fact is, SW:G has had many problems and also a lot of vocal users who do not like particular design aspects of the game. To open up forums for them to post endlessly in may seem a nice thing for SOE to do, but the current situation is that it is just too damn hard to filter through the chaff and get to anything relevant. Any particular forum on their site will have well over 1000 posts in a day, and I can promise you that even with their rating system you end up seeing a lot of worthless junk.
Just checked in the mirror again and confirmed I am not slashdot. I am still just me, an individual.
When I go to the slashdot website, I do not become part of some monolithic entity known as slashdot. I still have varying opinions about various subjects.
The only exception to this is when I go to a porn site. In that case, I do become the guy in most of the photos. I'm lucky like that.
The left wing in this country have suceeded in creating an environment where no one is held accountable for the consequences of their decisions. The lamest of excuses, like "I saw it in a video game," or "I ate too many twinkies" are sucessfully used to deflect blame onto third parties.
As interesting as your little diatribe was, you might want to do a quick search on Jack Thompson. I think he could hardly be considered from the "left wing". In fact, he's pretty clearly one of your boys.
Last I checked, the vast majority of music is free and legal to download. We have just become accustomed to this idea that we have to pay for it or we've violated someone's copyright.
Many many many artists make their copyrighted materials available for free. For the RIAA to point to this newspaper advertisement just shows that they know they have a effective monopoly on the distribution of copyrighted music that you are supposed to pay for.
SBC isn't doing this for altruistic reasons, but the results could be good.
The filesharing services would start differentiating themselves with new functionality etc.
Some would die as happens with all markets with too much overall supply. While I agree that the majority of people would flock to fewer services, niche markets would exist just as they do right now in the music industry.
The problem is that the cost of entering the music distribution market would drop considerably. Therefore you would see MORE services, not fewer, with each catering to market segments.
The reason why compulsory license is opposed by the RIAA and their members is because it just legalizes exactly what they are trying to prevent: loss of control of music distribution.
You're right, it's not a fair comparison...but your analysis is incorrect.
First, the vast majority of films lose money during their theatrical release.
Second, most movies don't have any tie-ins so there is no revenue stream there.
DVD sales (and home video sales in general) saved the entire movie industry and allowed it to move to the current huge budgeted movies that are produced (you decide if that's a good thing). The movie industry did not go into this model peacefully. Under Jack Valenti's leadership, they did everything they could to stop it but alas, it ended up saving them and took them to new heights of profitability.
The movie industry business model changed despite the resistance of the industry. The music industry business model will change despite the resistance of the industry. Once the music industry finds a workable model to earn money in the current world, they will be fine. The longer they insist on the old model, the more they will see their industry continue to erode.
By "music industry" I only mean the RIAA members who insist on their control of distribution.
The fact is, even taking inflation into consideration, the cost of CDs is extremely high. Comparing it to other forms of entertainment and it is REALLY high. That's why you see video game and DVD sales increasing. They are better value propositions.
If the music industry cannot make their product more valuable, then the laws of economics require the industry to die. Too bad. So sad.
If you think about it, that's a really stupid section in the license. It has no affect.
Kazaa does not need to add this restriction in their license because the behavior they are claiming to restrict is already illegal regardless of their stupid license.
It has been somewhat heart-wrenching for some fans (including myself) of Madonna, Metallica, and others, to see thier musical heroes betray them in such a way.
Those are your musical heroes? Wow. Madonna is a no talent total bitch and Metallica is just a bunch of fucking assholes. You should get new heroes.
I think SOE should have taken a more balanced approach to this new policy. As an SWG player, I read the forums and see the negative postings etc. But I also see the forums being used as a communication platform for the players (ie vendors "advertise" on the forums).
Non-players might have an interest in some of the content and to get a better impression of the game but do not need to see the discussions about games changes, recommendations and the intra-game communication mentioned above.
So maybe SOE should not have taken an all or nothing approach. There could be forums intended for the players (the majority) and forums for non-players. Then they would have the best of everything.
Honestly, you really would have to think SOE's employees are total idiots to think the decision will help stop negative comments about the game. There are plenty of game review sites and even specific SWG sites with public content on the topic.
Finally, I would like to say that SWG (like all MMORPGs) is a time sink. But for me, it is very cost effective entertainment! I now have no time to spend money on CDs (not that I will buy anything from those price-fixing, monopoly-having, child suing bastards at the RIAA), DVDs, movie theaters, shopping, eating out, etc. $15/mo is nothing compared to what I used to spend on my entertainment.
But alas, there are problems with the content in the game right now. I am sure this will get fixed and when it does, I have a developed character with enough money to take advantage of that content. This was always my approach.
Carey Sherman's statement that people do not shoplift because they are afraid of being prosecuted is a perfect example of how the RIAA does not understand things.
Laws are meant to reflect society's values and the rules we want to live by. Prosecution and punishment for violating laws serves two primary purposes: 1) as a deterrent against people who would engage in the behavior and 2) as a punishment for people who engage in the behavior.
The act of shoplifting (which is actually the general crime of larceny) is illegal because there is a general consensus that the behavior is wrong.
But I would argue that the purpose of this law is almost entirely to serve the punishment purpose of laws and not the deterrence.
Most people do not shoplift because they feel it is wrong to take someone else's property. This is our shared value. We don't refrain from doing it because we are scared to go to jail.
The problem for the RIAA is that they have a legal protection through copyright but they do not have the consensus anymore regarding the behavior. They are at serious risk of society eventually desiring a change in the law. I think the RIAA knows this and why they want to "change the attitude" of people.
Currently, the behavior is clearly illegal. But many people in society now feel that the property right over copyrighted music should not be so absolute. The RIAA, however, insists on keeping the status quo and therefore will not change its business model.
I suspect what will happen is that in 10-15 years, the current music industry will be radically changed. Maybe songs will be licensed. Currently, you buy the physical media which contains the music. Many people want more flexibility in what they can do with the underlying content. The RIAA does not want more flexibility. One side has to change, and I think the RIAA will be on the short side of the stick...eventually.
Suing your consumers will speed up the process. I am actually glad the RIAA is doing it. I feel sorry for the people being sued, as most probably do not have the resources to defend themselves or even pay a settlement. But the overall effect will be to alienate its customer base and further the process of people demanded changes.
All of what you claim is interesting and maybe a viable message to the RIAA, but it isn't relevant. Call a spade a spade. If you copy and distribute copyrighted material without the owners permission, it's both illegal and brings civil penalties.
Don't like it? Get the law changed.
I completely agree that the RIAA is being stupid and suing its customers. So what, then let the customers send them a message and stop buying ANY music.
I completely agree that the music industry continues its price fixing in the face of decreasing sales.
I completely agree that the music industry sells a product that is completely overpriced for the entertainment value it brings.
I completely agree that the music industry is trying to protect its stranglehold over distribution.
All of that means...SO WHAT. Don't wanna buy it? Then don't. Want to try it out first but the record companies don't let you? Too bad. They are stupid and you don't have an inalienable right to copyrighted material. Get over it. Go outside. Enjoy the fresh air. But don't try to justify it.
My personal solution is I just don't buy music. I don't download it either. I continue to live. The world continues to rotate. And my discretionary spending money goes somewhere else.
The music industry in its current form will be dead in 10-15 years...if it even takes that long. Wait until you see the backlash from parents who ended up dealing with these RIAA lawsuits. Talk about a pissed off demographic.
But my message is YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO STEAL THE MUSIC.
You left a major point out: spamming is illegal in many jurisdictions and that number is increasing every day.
The current problem with spammers is they are hiding and very difficult to track down. The certificate requirement will make any legal consequences enforceable.
In the US, I think it is very unlikely that spamming will be made entirely illegal. Instead, you will see opt out requirements and/or tagging of the message as unsolicited commercial email.
Regardless, if you can truly identify who is sending the email, you can enforce the other requirements.
The real issue is whether we are now ready to give up the ability to send anonymous email directly. But there will still always be anonymous remailers.
I received a letter. I ignored it. I received the second letter and a form lawsuit complaint with my name filled in. I wrote a response letter. Now we will see what they do, but I can tell you their verbal position was "Pay or we will sue you."
I did quite a bit of reading and luckily, there are quite a few victories against DTV now. I learned the following points which are very important.
1) DTV is suing based only on the purchase of a smart card programmer.
2) DTV never does any additional research to determine whether the named defendant could or is stealing the satellite signal.
3) DTV verbally assures you that purchase and/or possession is enough proof.
4) Every judge so far has disagreed and ruled in favor of the defendant who fights the lawsuit.
5) DTV wins a lot of default judgments because defendants ignore the lawsuit.
6) DTV includes a claim that it can sue you under a federal criminal law. Judges have ruled every time that this is not true and dismiss this claim.
The fact is, DTV is losing in every single case where someone fights it. Why? Because they only have the purchase records for a smart card programmer. This is not enough legally.
As everyone has already said, DTV is setting the settlement amount so that people will settle instead of pay more to an attorney. I personally dispute this conclusion, as many experienced attorneys can now make this go away for a lot less than $3,500.
And lest you think I am just one of those guilty people who wants to fight, I will add a little fact to the details. I live in Europe. That's right. If DTV sues me, they have a little problem proving that I stole their signal because it is completely IMPOSSIBLE! But they have another little problem. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will let me get quite some money if they sue me with such a frivolous lawsuit. Ya see, DTV doesn't know something else about me. I'm a pissed off attorney right now.
That is a load of crap. It is an absolute lie that simply owning a smart card progammer (despite any additional functionality as an unlooper) is a crime. Nor is buying one.
If you would bother doing a SIMPLE search, you will find plenty of legal judgments (you know, those things from JUDGES) that buying or owning a "black box" or a smart card programming device of ANY kind is not per se a crime. It can only be used as additional circumstantial evidence that someone was committing the actual crime of signal theft or could be civilly liable against the company.
So don't make crap up or say things you do not know about. People are getting sued for real about this and it is important that at least some of them establish legal records showing DTV can be stopped. Making such a statement makes some people believe they cannot possibly win because through actual purchase they have already sealed their fate.
Jesus, you are one stupid fuck
on
Opengroupware
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
What the hell was that? I want my time back. Can I write to Congress, Jack Valenti, Bill Gates and my mother about that shit too?
The only fuck more stupid than you is the moderator who gave you points.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly the problem. There is no mind greater than mine.
http://www.sunncomm.com/asktheprez/asktheprez.asp
Make sure you mention the stock price. I know he is proud of it.
If I lived in the USA, I would even be inclined to invite that fuckwad to sue me for the same shit. The nice thing is, I cannot imagine a school like Princeton taking crap like this lying down. If Sunncomm ever did file suit (and I bet money it won't happen), Princeton will have some nice attorneys to meet that pathetic, piece of shit company head-on.
I agree with your sentiments completely.
I can only say that if the current state of the SW:G forums reflects an effort at censorship, the attempt is pathetic at best.
The real problem from my side is that forums are the absolute least effective means of communicating to a community the size of SW:G and to try and use them for bug reporting and feature requests is cause to never visit them again.
The fact is, SW:G has had many problems and also a lot of vocal users who do not like particular design aspects of the game. To open up forums for them to post endlessly in may seem a nice thing for SOE to do, but the current situation is that it is just too damn hard to filter through the chaff and get to anything relevant. Any particular forum on their site will have well over 1000 posts in a day, and I can promise you that even with their rating system you end up seeing a lot of worthless junk.
Just checked in the mirror again and confirmed I am not slashdot. I am still just me, an individual.
When I go to the slashdot website, I do not become part of some monolithic entity known as slashdot. I still have varying opinions about various subjects.
The only exception to this is when I go to a porn site. In that case, I do become the guy in most of the photos. I'm lucky like that.
Dear Mr. Zick,
You're an asshole and I steal all your client's fucking stuff. Then I delete it because it's all total crap.
Fuck you.
It's the French for god's sake! You don't need an army. They will surrender immediately.
I say good for you. Cheese kills.
As interesting as your little diatribe was, you might want to do a quick search on Jack Thompson. I think he could hardly be considered from the "left wing". In fact, he's pretty clearly one of your boys.
Last I checked, the vast majority of music is free and legal to download. We have just become accustomed to this idea that we have to pay for it or we've violated someone's copyright.
Many many many artists make their copyrighted materials available for free. For the RIAA to point to this newspaper advertisement just shows that they know they have a effective monopoly on the distribution of copyrighted music that you are supposed to pay for.
SBC isn't doing this for altruistic reasons, but the results could be good.
The filesharing services would start differentiating themselves with new functionality etc.
Some would die as happens with all markets with too much overall supply. While I agree that the majority of people would flock to fewer services, niche markets would exist just as they do right now in the music industry.
The problem is that the cost of entering the music distribution market would drop considerably. Therefore you would see MORE services, not fewer, with each catering to market segments.
The reason why compulsory license is opposed by the RIAA and their members is because it just legalizes exactly what they are trying to prevent: loss of control of music distribution.
You're right, it's not a fair comparison...but your analysis is incorrect.
First, the vast majority of films lose money during their theatrical release.
Second, most movies don't have any tie-ins so there is no revenue stream there.
DVD sales (and home video sales in general) saved the entire movie industry and allowed it to move to the current huge budgeted movies that are produced (you decide if that's a good thing). The movie industry did not go into this model peacefully. Under Jack Valenti's leadership, they did everything they could to stop it but alas, it ended up saving them and took them to new heights of profitability.
The movie industry business model changed despite the resistance of the industry. The music industry business model will change despite the resistance of the industry. Once the music industry finds a workable model to earn money in the current world, they will be fine. The longer they insist on the old model, the more they will see their industry continue to erode.
By "music industry" I only mean the RIAA members who insist on their control of distribution.
The fact is, even taking inflation into consideration, the cost of CDs is extremely high. Comparing it to other forms of entertainment and it is REALLY high. That's why you see video game and DVD sales increasing. They are better value propositions.
If the music industry cannot make their product more valuable, then the laws of economics require the industry to die. Too bad. So sad.
If you think about it, that's a really stupid section in the license. It has no affect.
Kazaa does not need to add this restriction in their license because the behavior they are claiming to restrict is already illegal regardless of their stupid license.
Just some lawyers justifying their time.
It has been somewhat heart-wrenching for some fans (including myself) of Madonna, Metallica, and others, to see thier musical heroes betray them in such a way.
Those are your musical heroes? Wow. Madonna is a no talent total bitch and Metallica is just a bunch of fucking assholes. You should get new heroes.
No, but you're gonna pay for the damn flowers you trampled on.
Just because I don't lock the door of my house does not mean you are allowed to come in.
I think SOE should have taken a more balanced approach to this new policy. As an SWG player, I read the forums and see the negative postings etc. But I also see the forums being used as a communication platform for the players (ie vendors "advertise" on the forums).
Non-players might have an interest in some of the content and to get a better impression of the game but do not need to see the discussions about games changes, recommendations and the intra-game communication mentioned above.
So maybe SOE should not have taken an all or nothing approach. There could be forums intended for the players (the majority) and forums for non-players. Then they would have the best of everything.
Honestly, you really would have to think SOE's employees are total idiots to think the decision will help stop negative comments about the game. There are plenty of game review sites and even specific SWG sites with public content on the topic.
Finally, I would like to say that SWG (like all MMORPGs) is a time sink. But for me, it is very cost effective entertainment! I now have no time to spend money on CDs (not that I will buy anything from those price-fixing, monopoly-having, child suing bastards at the RIAA), DVDs, movie theaters, shopping, eating out, etc. $15/mo is nothing compared to what I used to spend on my entertainment.
But alas, there are problems with the content in the game right now. I am sure this will get fixed and when it does, I have a developed character with enough money to take advantage of that content. This was always my approach.
Carey Sherman's statement that people do not shoplift because they are afraid of being prosecuted is a perfect example of how the RIAA does not understand things.
Laws are meant to reflect society's values and the rules we want to live by. Prosecution and punishment for violating laws serves two primary purposes: 1) as a deterrent against people who would engage in the behavior and 2) as a punishment for people who engage in the behavior.
The act of shoplifting (which is actually the general crime of larceny) is illegal because there is a general consensus that the behavior is wrong.
But I would argue that the purpose of this law is almost entirely to serve the punishment purpose of laws and not the deterrence.
Most people do not shoplift because they feel it is wrong to take someone else's property. This is our shared value. We don't refrain from doing it because we are scared to go to jail.
The problem for the RIAA is that they have a legal protection through copyright but they do not have the consensus anymore regarding the behavior. They are at serious risk of society eventually desiring a change in the law. I think the RIAA knows this and why they want to "change the attitude" of people.
Currently, the behavior is clearly illegal. But many people in society now feel that the property right over copyrighted music should not be so absolute. The RIAA, however, insists on keeping the status quo and therefore will not change its business model.
I suspect what will happen is that in 10-15 years, the current music industry will be radically changed. Maybe songs will be licensed. Currently, you buy the physical media which contains the music. Many people want more flexibility in what they can do with the underlying content. The RIAA does not want more flexibility. One side has to change, and I think the RIAA will be on the short side of the stick...eventually.
Suing your consumers will speed up the process. I am actually glad the RIAA is doing it. I feel sorry for the people being sued, as most probably do not have the resources to defend themselves or even pay a settlement. But the overall effect will be to alienate its customer base and further the process of people demanded changes.
All of what you claim is interesting and maybe a viable message to the RIAA, but it isn't relevant. Call a spade a spade. If you copy and distribute copyrighted material without the owners permission, it's both illegal and brings civil penalties.
Don't like it? Get the law changed.
I completely agree that the RIAA is being stupid and suing its customers. So what, then let the customers send them a message and stop buying ANY music.
I completely agree that the music industry continues its price fixing in the face of decreasing sales.
I completely agree that the music industry sells a product that is completely overpriced for the entertainment value it brings.
I completely agree that the music industry is trying to protect its stranglehold over distribution.
All of that means...SO WHAT. Don't wanna buy it? Then don't. Want to try it out first but the record companies don't let you? Too bad. They are stupid and you don't have an inalienable right to copyrighted material. Get over it. Go outside. Enjoy the fresh air. But don't try to justify it.
My personal solution is I just don't buy music. I don't download it either. I continue to live. The world continues to rotate. And my discretionary spending money goes somewhere else.
The music industry in its current form will be dead in 10-15 years...if it even takes that long. Wait until you see the backlash from parents who ended up dealing with these RIAA lawsuits. Talk about a pissed off demographic.
But my message is YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO STEAL THE MUSIC.
You left a major point out: spamming is illegal in many jurisdictions and that number is increasing every day.
The current problem with spammers is they are hiding and very difficult to track down. The certificate requirement will make any legal consequences enforceable.
In the US, I think it is very unlikely that spamming will be made entirely illegal. Instead, you will see opt out requirements and/or tagging of the message as unsolicited commercial email.
Regardless, if you can truly identify who is sending the email, you can enforce the other requirements.
The real issue is whether we are now ready to give up the ability to send anonymous email directly. But there will still always be anonymous remailers.
The Supreme Court has always held that the ex-post facto restriction in the US Constition applies only to criminal laws, not civil.
How about a big poster that says:
"SCO is a bunch of donkey raping shit eaters. I have pictures proving it."
Of course, I will just make everyone sign an NDA and promise to show the pictures of Daryl McBride raping a donkey.
Libelous? I hope so, but I don't think it meets the requirements.
I predict you will die alone, in a corner and clutching a piece of cheap porn.
I received a letter. I ignored it. I received the second letter and a form lawsuit complaint with my name filled in. I wrote a response letter. Now we will see what they do, but I can tell you their verbal position was "Pay or we will sue you."
I did quite a bit of reading and luckily, there are quite a few victories against DTV now. I learned the following points which are very important.
1) DTV is suing based only on the purchase of a smart card programmer.
2) DTV never does any additional research to determine whether the named defendant could or is stealing the satellite signal.
3) DTV verbally assures you that purchase and/or possession is enough proof.
4) Every judge so far has disagreed and ruled in favor of the defendant who fights the lawsuit.
5) DTV wins a lot of default judgments because defendants ignore the lawsuit.
6) DTV includes a claim that it can sue you under a federal criminal law. Judges have ruled every time that this is not true and dismiss this claim.
The fact is, DTV is losing in every single case where someone fights it. Why? Because they only have the purchase records for a smart card programmer. This is not enough legally.
As everyone has already said, DTV is setting the settlement amount so that people will settle instead of pay more to an attorney. I personally dispute this conclusion, as many experienced attorneys can now make this go away for a lot less than $3,500.
And lest you think I am just one of those guilty people who wants to fight, I will add a little fact to the details. I live in Europe. That's right. If DTV sues me, they have a little problem proving that I stole their signal because it is completely IMPOSSIBLE! But they have another little problem. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will let me get quite some money if they sue me with such a frivolous lawsuit. Ya see, DTV doesn't know something else about me. I'm a pissed off attorney right now.
That is a load of crap. It is an absolute lie that simply owning a smart card progammer (despite any additional functionality as an unlooper) is a crime. Nor is buying one.
If you would bother doing a SIMPLE search, you will find plenty of legal judgments (you know, those things from JUDGES) that buying or owning a "black box" or a smart card programming device of ANY kind is not per se a crime. It can only be used as additional circumstantial evidence that someone was committing the actual crime of signal theft or could be civilly liable against the company.
So don't make crap up or say things you do not know about. People are getting sued for real about this and it is important that at least some of them establish legal records showing DTV can be stopped. Making such a statement makes some people believe they cannot possibly win because through actual purchase they have already sealed their fate.
What the hell was that? I want my time back. Can I write to Congress, Jack Valenti, Bill Gates and my mother about that shit too?
The only fuck more stupid than you is the moderator who gave you points.
That's it. Shut it all down.
So much free time, so many new worthless creations.
You forgot:
T13: Terminator Vacation