People who want to ban after market sales (e.g., games or CDs) are essentially arguing this: We are losing money we never had a right to in the first place.
Here is the arugment. Currently, we can only sell our products once. We would make more money if we could sell our products multiple times. Because we cannot sell our products multiple times, we are actually losing money. That last step is the key. It twists the argument around by assuming they had the right to resell in the first place.
I can make a similar argument about crack. If I could sell crack I could make a tons of money. Since I cannot legally sell crack, I'm losing tons of money. My rights are being violated; I'd better call Congress. The real problem is that when the music or gaming industry uses this ridiculous argument, Congress listens.
I never thought I'd read an article proposing that we give up resale rights!!! And the exact same argument you make regarding video games could apply to ANYTHING!!!
When you buy a used car, the original manufacturer doesn't get any money, thus they cannot innovate. Those old clothes you're trying to dump in a yard sale, those poor clothes designers will be out of work, as they don't get a dime from your yard sale. And don't even think of buying a used house. It should be mandated that old houses get torn down and new ones built, just to keep architects employed.
You're essentially arguing that we should never really own anything!!! Is that really the world you want to live in?!
Congress responds to two things: Money and votes. There are a greater number of automobile owners than there are Xbox owners. That's why Congress treats them differently.
"You can't start saying, well I like this artist/album/song better so lets put more money into it."
Sure you can say that. People in the industry used to say that all the time, way back when the music industry was successful. One of the reasons it's no longer successful is because they STOPPED saying that.
Of course it has to be run like a business. No one doubts that. But the pendulum has swung way to far. No one in the industry cares about music and are treating it merely, strictly, and only has a widget.
Like I said, back when radio had much looser formats, back when the music industry loved music, back when it didn't matter what you looked like but how you performed, the music industry did better. Obviously either the current music industry has to collapse or the pendulum has to shift back.
Either the FCC or the courts have to define the internet aspect of cable companies as common carriers.
Currently phone companies are defined as such, and they have to carry all calls. They cannot exclude fax transmission, modem connections, or any voice connections. They must carry them all.
Current the ISP side of the cable industry is NOT defined in that way. They have every legal right to block content.
The article reads like a story from the Onion. I love this quote, "copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so."
Yeah, the members of the RIAA are just too broke to file their own lawsuits.
And if these civil suits are so easy to win, then why are the RIAA not filing them. It sounds like easy money to me. Heck, suing filesharers could become a new business model.
Corporate America has been telling us for decades that unregulated free markets, i.e., competition, is the best economic system. Now via patented business plans, they've essentially eliminated all competition. What's capitalism without competition? Corporate fascism.
Nothing will stop Microsoft from continuing to use the word "windows." The problem for Microsoft is that everyone else will be able to use it too.
You may be right about my second prediction, time will tell. All I know for certain is that Microsoft will NEVER admit they lost. My prediction allows them to save face.
Linux is perfect for clustered due to the price and because any superfluous processes can be taken out. It's a lean mean clustering machine. There is NO way Microsoft will succeed. They'll demand an exorbitant amount of money per CPU and will not allow the freedom to tweak.
Microsoft will either be forced to pay Lindows a LOT of money to settle this or to lose their trademark at trial. My prediction: Microsoft will not settle and is willing to lose at trial.
Let's face it, even if they settle with Lindows, every one else will know that the Windows trademark is toast. So by settling Microsoft would only be setting itself up for more lawsuits and more payouts.
In fact, I predict that Microsoft will attempt use their loss of the Windows trademark to their advantage. They'll give Longhorn an entirely new name because they'll claim it's an entirely new OS.
I hate to admit it, but I'm partially wrong and you're partially right. I re-read the case and the McSleep did not sell food. The markets were completely different. The court held that "mc" prefix is identified to such a degree in the public's mind to McDonalds, that the likelihood of confusion would exist even if the market's are different. It specifically held that combining the "mc" prefix with a generic term is a no-no, unless you want to be sued.
Still, that would not necessarily stop me from opening a repair shop called McDonalds, e.g., in Michigan we have a dairy and a painting company each with the name McDonald. But you're right in that it would certainly stop me from opening a repair shop called "McCarFix."
The standard for trademark is confusion in the marketplace. I.e., will consumers be confused about the similarities in the names. E.g., I could legally open an automobile repair facility called McDonalds because consumers would not confuse crappy food with having your car repaired.
From what I gather, Kasner's family has absolutely no business from which consumers could get confused. They're essentially trying to trademark a word merely because a former family member came up with it. That's not the law. Not only will this case get kicked out, the family will be sanctioned for bringing it.
I live in Michigan so I meet quite a number of ex-Candadian who left and will never go back. Mostly because of the healthcare system. Sure it's free, but the problem is that you're always on waiting lists for even simple procedures. Some people die waiting for treatment. Also, they complain about the very high taxes.
But like my title says, my opinion is biased because I only hear from those who left Canada, not from those who love it and choose to stay.
Slashdot Mirror
People who want to ban after market sales (e.g., games or CDs) are essentially arguing this: We are losing money we never had a right to in the first place.
Here is the arugment. Currently, we can only sell our products once. We would make more money if we could sell our products multiple times. Because we cannot sell our products multiple times, we are actually losing money. That last step is the key. It twists the argument around by assuming they had the right to resell in the first place.
I can make a similar argument about crack. If I could sell crack I could make a tons of money. Since I cannot legally sell crack, I'm losing tons of money. My rights are being violated; I'd better call Congress. The real problem is that when the music or gaming industry uses this ridiculous argument, Congress listens.
I never thought I'd read an article proposing that we give up resale rights!!! And the exact same argument you make regarding video games could apply to ANYTHING!!!
When you buy a used car, the original manufacturer doesn't get any money, thus they cannot innovate. Those old clothes you're trying to dump in a yard sale, those poor clothes designers will be out of work, as they don't get a dime from your yard sale. And don't even think of buying a used house. It should be mandated that old houses get torn down and new ones built, just to keep architects employed.
You're essentially arguing that we should never really own anything!!! Is that really the world you want to live in?!
Congress responds to two things: Money and votes. There are a greater number of automobile owners than there are Xbox owners. That's why Congress treats them differently.
"You can't start saying, well I like this artist/album/song better so lets put more money into it."
Sure you can say that. People in the industry used to say that all the time, way back when the music industry was successful. One of the reasons it's no longer successful is because they STOPPED saying that.
Of course it has to be run like a business. No one doubts that. But the pendulum has swung way to far. No one in the industry cares about music and are treating it merely, strictly, and only has a widget.
Like I said, back when radio had much looser formats, back when the music industry loved music, back when it didn't matter what you looked like but how you performed, the music industry did better. Obviously either the current music industry has to collapse or the pendulum has to shift back.
Back when the music business was NOT run like a business, back when the owners did it because they loved music, it was MORE successful.
Selling art as widgets simply doesn't work.
Either the FCC or the courts have to define the internet aspect of cable companies as common carriers.
Currently phone companies are defined as such, and they have to carry all calls. They cannot exclude fax transmission, modem connections, or any voice connections. They must carry them all.
Current the ISP side of the cable industry is NOT defined in that way. They have every legal right to block content.
The article reads like a story from the Onion. I love this quote, "copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so."
Yeah, the members of the RIAA are just too broke to file their own lawsuits.
And if these civil suits are so easy to win, then why are the RIAA not filing them. It sounds like easy money to me. Heck, suing filesharers could become a new business model.
It's still a shitty game.
Corporate America has been telling us for decades that unregulated free markets, i.e., competition, is the best economic system. Now via patented business plans, they've essentially eliminated all competition. What's capitalism without competition? Corporate fascism.
Nothing will stop Microsoft from continuing to use the word "windows." The problem for Microsoft is that everyone else will be able to use it too.
You may be right about my second prediction, time will tell. All I know for certain is that Microsoft will NEVER admit they lost. My prediction allows them to save face.
Linux is perfect for clustered due to the price and because any superfluous processes can be taken out. It's a lean mean clustering machine. There is NO way Microsoft will succeed. They'll demand an exorbitant amount of money per CPU and will not allow the freedom to tweak.
Microsoft will either be forced to pay Lindows a LOT of money to settle this or to lose their trademark at trial. My prediction: Microsoft will not settle and is willing to lose at trial.
Let's face it, even if they settle with Lindows, every one else will know that the Windows trademark is toast. So by settling Microsoft would only be setting itself up for more lawsuits and more payouts.
In fact, I predict that Microsoft will attempt use their loss of the Windows trademark to their advantage. They'll give Longhorn an entirely new name because they'll claim it's an entirely new OS.
than following the law.
Then why does anyone even bother seeing them?! If you feel III will suck, here's an idea: DON'T PAY TO SEE IT!!!
When are we going to see Tia Carrere in Daedalus Encounter II?!
I hate to admit it, but I'm partially wrong and you're partially right. I re-read the case and the McSleep did not sell food. The markets were completely different. The court held that "mc" prefix is identified to such a degree in the public's mind to McDonalds, that the likelihood of confusion would exist even if the market's are different. It specifically held that combining the "mc" prefix with a generic term is a no-no, unless you want to be sued.
Still, that would not necessarily stop me from opening a repair shop called McDonalds, e.g., in Michigan we have a dairy and a painting company each with the name McDonald. But you're right in that it would certainly stop me from opening a repair shop called "McCarFix."
I never said that you should trust my reading or memory of the case, I specifically said that I would.
I read the case in-depth in lawschool. I'd trust the case (and my memory of it) versus some writer's article about it.
I'm familiar with the case, however, the Inn sold food. Thus, there was a likelihood of confusion.
The standard for trademark is confusion in the marketplace. I.e., will consumers be confused about the similarities in the names. E.g., I could legally open an automobile repair facility called McDonalds because consumers would not confuse crappy food with having your car repaired.
From what I gather, Kasner's family has absolutely no business from which consumers could get confused. They're essentially trying to trademark a word merely because a former family member came up with it. That's not the law. Not only will this case get kicked out, the family will be sanctioned for bringing it.
...that the celebrity I most resemble is Dennis Franz's ass!
I live in Michigan so I meet quite a number of ex-Candadian who left and will never go back. Mostly because of the healthcare system. Sure it's free, but the problem is that you're always on waiting lists for even simple procedures. Some people die waiting for treatment. Also, they complain about the very high taxes.
But like my title says, my opinion is biased because I only hear from those who left Canada, not from those who love it and choose to stay.
Warez monkeys get what they deserve
Illinois loses all in-state software development. Thousands laid off as those jobs are sent overseas.