This is a great idea. Rather than improve customer service, why not just dump the customer's you've screwed over the most? That way customer satisfaction surveys won't reflect their opinion because they are no longer customers.
Sprint should have to pay an early termination fee to the customers. What's the point of a two year contract if it doesn't work both ways? As it is, cell phone contracts require the customer to pay a non-prorated early termination fee and to pay whatever Sprint says to pay. Sprint is required to do virtually nothing since they can change the terms of the contract whenever they feel like it and they can dump customers in the middle of their contracts. That is inequitable.
"Did no one notice that they tried this for three months at "about a dozen" Best Buys and only one agent took the bait? I'm sorry, but this is very far from evidence of systemic problem."
Yeah, extrapolated it means that only 8% of all transactions at Geek Squad result in the downloading of your private files to the technicians flash drive, could be fingerprinted music from iTunes, photos and movies of your family, your girlfriend or even your private financial data. Let's see, multiply that 8% by the number of Geek Squad transactions per day across the country and you have a metric shiltoad of personal files being ripped. Yup, not a systemic problem at all.
Let's take that same 8% and apply it to a different scenario to put it in perspective. What if 8% of all Best Buy purchases resulted in the theft of your credit card? Still think 8% would be "far from" a "systemic problem?" Me? I'd say 8% is a damn big number.
If signals can't get out, they can't get in either so no using your cell phone inside or taking the cordless landline into the back yard. As for AM and FM radio, well who listens to that at home? (Well, me, since low bitrate music streams suck...)
Anyways, you need to shield your walls and doors for this window film to be effective. Or you could just use grounded window screens instead... Somehow, I doubt anyone is Van Eck Phreaking your home at the moment
"So put 2 guards in the parking lot to make sure nobody takes the trolleys"
The mechanical system has a huge advantage over guards--lack of confrontation. Customers denied egress with their loaded shopping carts at the edge of the parking lot will get angry at the guards and the store. If the store wants to keep the customers and the carts, the mindless mechanical system is much less confrontational--no one to get mad at, argue with, yell at or hit.
As to guards, 2 guards just to patrol for shopping carts, full time is a huge cost--especially for 24 hour grocery stores. That's 336 man hours per week, 52 weeks a year, or about $175, 000 (at 7 dollars per hour plus employment taxes and such for an estimate of $10/hr). I'm guessing that the the locking system is the better deal in the long run.
"can the cost of putting a remote control boot, sensors, transmitters etc. really cheaper than losing some carts?"
Obviously, yes, that is why stores pay big bucks for these systems. Remember, they don't just lose a few carts, they lose all of them one at a time. They have to hire people to cruz neighborhoods looking for them and bring them back. Those they do find are often worse for the wear. Ones they don't find wind up rusting in creeks and abandoned, broken in alleys and fallow yards.
Locking shopping carts help prevent neighborhoods from being littered with these abandoned carts brought home on one-way trips by people who can't be bothered to buy a "granny cart." The addition of locks to my local shopping center's carts has quickly eliminated those carts from being strewn about by people walking home with groceries. The newer systems are much better than earlier iterations that use purely mechanical devices triggered by small "speed bump" like berms which rimmed the parking lot. These new systems are more reliable and have fewer false triggers--well, until now:-)
Note, I support walking to the store but I don't support stealing the cart just because it is convenient to push home--and no, most of those people pushing carts home are not fragile elderly people, at least not in my area, so that isn't the issue. And no, nobody ever takes them back, either. If they did, it wouldn't be as big a deal.
"I think there's something illegal about creating your own tender or money in the US."
It isn't about creating "your own legal tender," it is about creating something which has value. And in the case of Second Life, the value can be potentially bartered or sold. Keep in mind that stocks are virtual property, too, but you wouldn't want the NYSE kicking out of trading and keeping your stocks. Also, the IRS **is** looking into the possibility of taxing virtual property in games.
"Kind of like how they put "no cash value" on coupons huh?"
Coupons are **discounts** and are not at all comparable to Second Life property.
It seems that there is no improvement or add on that MS could not claim was an evasion of a "technical limitation." The term is loosely defined and a number of companies release old versions for free because they are less technically capable--thus their bugs or general lack of features could be considered "technical limitations" compared to the current flagship product. Under such a circumstance a MS could claim that any improvement is a work around of a technical limitation--silly but legally defensible. I'd say the ELUA was tremendously over-broad.
You sort of had me going until you said "I've never heard of a follower of Mithras or Ganesha...so I can't say its been of real importance to me to evaluate their value."
So, you are dismissing all Hinduism.
"In Hinduism, Ganesha is one of the most well-known and beloved representations of God. As the lord of beginnings and eliminator of obstacles, he is said to be the most worshipped divinity in India"
While your ignorance is understandable, it shows the failure of your system of evaluating religious systems: you come to sound conclusions about the import of religions based on your own **lack** of information. This is generally a logical fallacy called "the argument from ignorance" and your argument of "I've never heard of it so it can't be important" falls squarely into it.
What you have carefully avoided is the question of "fact." You talk about compartmentalizing religion into belief and behavior. While it may be pragmatic to evaluate religions on their relative "good" or "harm" to society you leave open the metrics for such an evaluation. You especially ignore the harm caused to society by the perpetuation of non-reason over reason.
You claim that you analyze religions only "in terms of their precepts (which are generally unprovable) but rather in terms of their value." Value as what? But, even before trying to answer the question you beg, one must point out that many religious precepts can be tested, e.g. "prayer cures all ills", "this relic could not have been created by human hands", "you'll be struck down by our god if you blaspheme," etc.
"So if agnosticism and atheism are both untenable, what's left?"
You've mis-summarized my point. I said that " 'true' agnosticism is as untenable as absolutist, positive atheism." The difference hinges on the absoluteness of the two qualified positions I laid out. "'true' agnosticism" would be the "we can never know anything for sure" position and "absolutist, positive atheism" would be the "it's physically impossible for any kind of god whatsoever to exist" position. Both extremes are untenable.
In everyday life and in science when something is sufficiently proven it becomes a "fact" and we accept it as true until proven otherwise rather than say "until we can prove that we know all there is to know, I will remain curious, but nothing more." We will never "know all there is to know" and to withhold judgement until then is a silly solipsistic position which isn't practical, or, I think, reasonable or valid.
So, I think one can take the strong atheist position and say that there is no reasonable, scientific reason to believe in the existence of the god of Christianity--and to say that absent such reason it is reasonable to say such a god doesn't exist. Someday, incontrovertible evidence could prove such a position wrong but one does not need to consider the question an open one in the meantime.
Keeping an open mind can mean being able to change it, not pretending their are no facts in the world and that everything, including the question of god and if the world is real, is an open question. The absolutist "agnostic" position eventually becomes the solipsistic one when taken to its logical conclusion.
You write: "My point is this: either until God manifests himself in whatever form happens to fit our definition, or until we can prove that we know all there is to know, I will remain curious, but nothing more."
Indeed, a thinking person must keep his mind open but there are limits. If you are keeping your mind open to the general idea of "god" are you also keeping it open to the possibility that the entire pantheon of Greek Gods? It is one thing to admit that certain general and un-restricted propositions, like a vague "god", cannot be disproved or falsified yet it is another to actually keep your mind open to all possibilities. I would be surprised to find out that you are **truly** agnostic and believe that any and all specific claims of god(s) are possible and I'm going to guess that you actually have ruled some of them out. Zuess? Thor? Mithras? Ganesha? L. Ron Hubard? The Rev. Moon?
The reality is that "true" agnosticism is as untenable as absolutist, positive atheism.
We mustn't mistake a cognitive tendency to believe in religion for an affirmation of the truth of religion. We have many cognitive quirks as a species and even Pigeons can learn "superstitious" believes in Skinner boxes so I doubt any neurological basis for religious belief is anything but an artifact of our characteristics as social animals.
It seems that our desire to believe in a supreme being may be mis-adaptation of our built in need for parents. When we grow up, we know we know our parents no longer have all the answers but we still desire that idea of a parent who knows "everything", protect us and insure that we are treated fairly.
"Then how is my local public library able to offer computer software and musical works?"
I'm not sure if they are legally allowed to offer software except for devices with embedded software and video game cartridges.. However, non-profit libraries and educational institutions do have a specific exemption to the exemption of first sale when it comes to phonorecordings.
"Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. The transfer of possession of a lawfully made copy of a computer program by a nonprofit educational institution to another nonprofit educational institution or to faculty, staff, and students does not constitute rental, lease, or lending for direct or indirect commercial purposes under this subsection."
I don't know if there is much codification of "public library" in the copyright code. INAL. But I believe you are completely free to start your own library and even charge money for book renta. You would have to buy legitimate physical copies of the books. That and projects like the Distributed Library Project would seem to clearly fall under your rights of ownership of a physical copy. However, right of first sale doesn't apply in the same way to computer software or musical works as it does to books.
There is something magical in libraries. It is called the "right of first sale" or "first purchase." This is the one and only thing that allows the libraries, used bookstores and used record stores. This basic tenet of American copyright law says that when you buy a physical copy of a copyrighted work you can do what you want with that copy without needing authorization from the copyright holder, including re-sell it.
Without "first purchase," all libraries, used bookstores, used record stores, video rental stores, etc. would have to separately negotiate the right to lend, resell or rent each and every copyrighted work and pay royalties--and that's assuming they could even find the rights holders. There would be no libraries. The copyright industry doesn't like the secondary market that "first purchase" allows because it means that multiple people can enjoy a copy of a book or video. "First purchase" also interferes with their ability to create scarcity in the market which lets them raise prices. Currently the copyright industry is working on making your "first purchase" rights null by using DRM to make exercising your rights technologically impossible. For instance, legally you may have a right to re-sell a song you have purchased on iTunes (Apple has even admitted it to CNet) but they will not make it possible to transfer a song technologically.
" he wanted some kind of court order to prevent them from continuing to email them"
Yeah, and he wanted an **arrest warrant** for them!!! He has since asked to drop the request for their arrest but the fact that he even asked for it is galling.
"That explains why they apply DRM even to music that is sold in DRM-less versions elsewhere..."
Yes, isn't it curious that iTunes is completely DRMed. Even music by bands who don't demand DRM is DRMed. Jobs comments come off as insincere in the face of that.
" 'An Apple lawyer has already said that Apple wouldn't ditch DRM for iTunes even if the labels stopped demanding it.'
The CEO says differently. Guess who wins."
Indeed, the CEO would win--if he were being honest. I'm not convinced that Jobs actually wants to dump DRM. I mentioned the Apple lawyer's comments not as proof of what Jobs must do but as evidence that Apple's DRM scheme is *not* because of the labels but because Apple benefits from customer lock in. It is this fact that makes Jobs statements that Apple's DRM is only at the behest of the labels questionable at best.
"What is amazing to me is that Jobs/Apple have a near monopoly on digital music downloads/players that would only be hurt by a lack of DRM lock-in and yet Jobs is still advocating for the change. Would any other company or CEO do this?"
Jobs probably said this knowing full well that the Music Industry will not stop demanding DRM. An Apple lawyer has already said that Apple wouldn't ditch DRM for iTunes even if the labels stopped demanding it. As long as one Music Company demands it, Jobs can have it both ways: iTunes and iPods will lock customers in and Jobs will blame **Apple's** lock in on the music industry at large.
"I want to live where you live! Expanded Basic (NOT digital!) + cable modem is over $100/mo in San Francisco."
People are making a straw man out of my comments. I said internet access and basic cable could be had for $13/mo. I didn't say broadband or Expanded basic. My point was that you can get a lot of services that are for $13/mo that involve as much or more infrastructure than Tivo's TV schedule system and that by comparison sending a small TV schedule database to your Tivo (a trivial cost per subscriber) for $13/mo is expensive. I get TV for $13/mo, you get a tv schedule. Something is out of whack there in the pricing scheme. Oh, sure, the content on TV is ad supported but so is Tivo's service!!!!!!!
Media companies and Tivo owners do not have the same interests. If Tivo starts catering to media interests it is not likely to be a "win, win" situation: Tivo owners want to skip ads. Media companies want you to watch them. These two interests are opposite.
"for the subscription price being "over inflated": $13 per month is just under $.45 per day."
Um, I can get a month of full internet access for that. Or a month of basic cable. Does the database Tivo supplies cost anything near $13 per subscriber/mo? How about a few pennies per subscriber. Seeing as how I can look up shows for free on ad supported sites, its pretty clear that the schedule doesn't cost that much to make when divided per suscriber. Just a guess, but I'd say the mark up for the subscription service is around 10,000%--and that's still not enough of your money for them. Nope, the not only want your cash, they want you. By selling your viewing habits, they are collectively pimping out their customers to the media companies Tivo now calls its "clients."
So, you love your Tivo. But will you love it as much when Tivo ads more menu and fast forwarding ads? When they start enforcing the DRM that is now built into your Tivo? What Tivo's new "clients" want and what you want are different and those differences will become more apparent as Tivo gets closer and closer ties with the media companies. You may eventually regret not opposing the gradual erosion of Tivo's retail customer focus as your Tivo becomes less and less made for you and more and more made to the media companies whims and desires.
"Which part of not-tied-to-personal-accounts are you not getting?"
The part where they say they aren't doing it now but don't make a binding irrevocable promise not to in the future. The only way to completely insure that private data doesn't get misused (say, for example, desegregated) is not to collect the data in the first place.
Just because the current management says they won't collect individual viewing habits doesn't mean that tomorrow's management will have the same position, nor any company that may purchase Tivo in the future. In fact, I'm not even sure if there is a way they can promise not to use the data that is fully binding on a company that purchases Tivo. So, the easiest, safest solution from a consumer perspective? Respect the fact that Tivo **owners** and **subscribers** are your customers, not media comanies. Once you do that, there is absolutely no reason to collect any data and sell it to outside companies.
"An end result would (potentially) be eventual extinction of really annoying and bad ads.."
This presumes a simplistic senario: that we skip bad ads and watch quality ads. This false dichotomy is a misunderstanding of the options that advertisers and media companies may choose to use. The research data could result in more static and boring ads that still can be read while in fast forward mode or more ads superimposed over the regular programing the way that shows are now obnoxiously promoed. You might also get more Tivo driven ads during fastforwarding. Additionally, now that Tivo is becoming more and more of an insider and less of an upstart the data they sell could lead to Tivo selling out and prohibiting the fast forwading of ads, either totally or selectivly. Tivo could even sell UOP's to advertisers for certain shows and blocks.
It would be a grave mistake to presume that more feedback for advertisers will benefit Tivo users. To presume so would be to presume that Tivo and advertisers have consumers best interests in mind even though there is absolutely no reason to believe any such thing.
"Please note, that the supermarkets do exactly the same thing. Why do you think loyalty cards exist?"
They can try, but I can get an anonymous loyalty card. Just be careful what name you put on it because the checkers always try and thank you by name. You really don't want to choose a bad name and hear, "Thank you Mr. Dumbsh*t" every time you use your discount card...
Try getting an anonymous account with your Tivo subscription. It would be a lot harder. Besides Tivo is even worse in one sense, it monitors you in real time, all the time.
However, monitoring by anyone is bad in my book. the fact that your supermarket is spying on you is hardly an argument that the practice should be expanded or is desirable for consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a great idea. Rather than improve customer service, why not just dump the customer's you've screwed over the most? That way customer satisfaction surveys won't reflect their opinion because they are no longer customers.
Sprint should have to pay an early termination fee to the customers. What's the point of a two year contract if it doesn't work both ways? As it is, cell phone contracts require the customer to pay a non-prorated early termination fee and to pay whatever Sprint says to pay. Sprint is required to do virtually nothing since they can change the terms of the contract whenever they feel like it and they can dump customers in the middle of their contracts. That is inequitable.
"Did no one notice that they tried this for three months at "about a dozen" Best Buys and only one agent took the bait? I'm sorry, but this is very far from evidence of systemic problem."
Yeah, extrapolated it means that only 8% of all transactions at Geek Squad result in the downloading of your private files to the technicians flash drive, could be fingerprinted music from iTunes, photos and movies of your family, your girlfriend or even your private financial data. Let's see, multiply that 8% by the number of Geek Squad transactions per day across the country and you have a metric shiltoad of personal files being ripped. Yup, not a systemic problem at all.
Let's take that same 8% and apply it to a different scenario to put it in perspective. What if 8% of all Best Buy purchases resulted in the theft of your credit card? Still think 8% would be "far from" a "systemic problem?" Me? I'd say 8% is a damn big number.
If signals can't get out, they can't get in either so no using your cell phone inside or taking the cordless landline into the back yard. As for AM and FM radio, well who listens to that at home? (Well, me, since low bitrate music streams suck...)
Anyways, you need to shield your walls and doors for this window film to be effective. Or you could just use grounded window screens instead... Somehow, I doubt anyone is Van Eck Phreaking your home at the moment
"So put 2 guards in the parking lot to make sure nobody takes the trolleys"
The mechanical system has a huge advantage over guards--lack of confrontation. Customers denied egress with their loaded shopping carts at the edge of the parking lot will get angry at the guards and the store. If the store wants to keep the customers and the carts, the mindless mechanical system is much less confrontational--no one to get mad at, argue with, yell at or hit.
As to guards, 2 guards just to patrol for shopping carts, full time is a huge cost--especially for 24 hour grocery stores. That's 336 man hours per week, 52 weeks a year, or about $175, 000 (at 7 dollars per hour plus employment taxes and such for an estimate of $10/hr). I'm guessing that the the locking system is the better deal in the long run.
"can the cost of putting a remote control boot, sensors, transmitters etc. really cheaper than losing some carts?" Obviously, yes, that is why stores pay big bucks for these systems. Remember, they don't just lose a few carts, they lose all of them one at a time. They have to hire people to cruz neighborhoods looking for them and bring them back. Those they do find are often worse for the wear. Ones they don't find wind up rusting in creeks and abandoned, broken in alleys and fallow yards. Locking shopping carts help prevent neighborhoods from being littered with these abandoned carts brought home on one-way trips by people who can't be bothered to buy a "granny cart." The addition of locks to my local shopping center's carts has quickly eliminated those carts from being strewn about by people walking home with groceries. The newer systems are much better than earlier iterations that use purely mechanical devices triggered by small "speed bump" like berms which rimmed the parking lot. These new systems are more reliable and have fewer false triggers--well, until now :-)
Note, I support walking to the store but I don't support stealing the cart just because it is convenient to push home--and no, most of those people pushing carts home are not fragile elderly people, at least not in my area, so that isn't the issue. And no, nobody ever takes them back, either. If they did, it wouldn't be as big a deal.
...being informative and being boring are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason vacation photos can't do **both**.
"I think there's something illegal about creating your own tender or money in the US."
It isn't about creating "your own legal tender," it is about creating something which has value. And in the case of Second Life, the value can be potentially bartered or sold.
Keep in mind that stocks are virtual property, too, but you wouldn't want the NYSE kicking out of trading and keeping your stocks. Also, the IRS **is** looking into the possibility of taxing virtual property in games.
"Kind of like how they put "no cash value" on coupons huh?"
Coupons are **discounts** and are not at all comparable to Second Life property.
It seems that there is no improvement or add on that MS could not claim was an evasion of a "technical limitation." The term is loosely defined and a number of companies release old versions for free because they are less technically capable--thus their bugs or general lack of features could be considered "technical limitations" compared to the current flagship product. Under such a circumstance a MS could claim that any improvement is a work around of a technical limitation--silly but legally defensible. I'd say the ELUA was tremendously over-broad.
" 'These images must contain hundreds of important discoveries about Mars. We just need time to realize what they are.'" ...er, and discover them.
You sort of had me going until you said "I've never heard of a follower of Mithras or Ganesha...so I can't say its been of real importance to me to evaluate their value."
So, you are dismissing all Hinduism.
"In Hinduism, Ganesha is one of the most well-known and beloved representations of God. As the lord of beginnings and eliminator of obstacles, he is said to be the most worshipped divinity in India"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesha
While your ignorance is understandable, it shows the failure of your system of evaluating religious systems: you come to sound conclusions about the import of religions based on your own **lack** of information. This is generally a logical fallacy called "the argument from ignorance" and your argument of "I've never heard of it so it can't be important" falls squarely into it.
What you have carefully avoided is the question of "fact." You talk about compartmentalizing religion into belief and behavior. While it may be pragmatic to evaluate religions on their relative "good" or "harm" to society you leave open the metrics for such an evaluation. You especially ignore the harm caused to society by the perpetuation of non-reason over reason.
You claim that you analyze religions only "in terms of their precepts (which are generally unprovable) but rather in terms of their value." Value as what? But, even before trying to answer the question you beg, one must point out that many religious precepts can be tested, e.g. "prayer cures all ills", "this relic could not have been created by human hands", "you'll be struck down by our god if you blaspheme," etc.
"So if agnosticism and atheism are both untenable, what's left?"
You've mis-summarized my point. I said that " 'true' agnosticism is as untenable as absolutist, positive atheism." The difference hinges on the absoluteness of the two qualified positions I laid out. "'true' agnosticism" would be the "we can never know anything for sure" position and "absolutist, positive atheism" would be the "it's physically impossible for any kind of god whatsoever to exist" position. Both extremes are untenable.
In everyday life and in science when something is sufficiently proven it becomes a "fact" and we accept it as true until proven otherwise rather than say "until we can prove that we know all there is to know, I will remain curious, but nothing more." We will never "know all there is to know" and to withhold judgement until then is a silly solipsistic position which isn't practical, or, I think, reasonable or valid.
So, I think one can take the strong atheist position and say that there is no reasonable, scientific reason to believe in the existence of the god of Christianity--and to say that absent such reason it is reasonable to say such a god doesn't exist. Someday, incontrovertible evidence could prove such a position wrong but one does not need to consider the question an open one in the meantime.
Keeping an open mind can mean being able to change it, not pretending their are no facts in the world and that everything, including the question of god and if the world is real, is an open question. The absolutist "agnostic" position eventually becomes the solipsistic one when taken to its logical conclusion.
But are you agnostic to **all** religious claims?
You write:
"My point is this: either until God manifests himself in whatever form happens to fit our definition, or until we can prove that we know all there is to know, I will remain curious, but nothing more."
Indeed, a thinking person must keep his mind open but there are limits. If you are keeping your mind open to the general idea of "god" are you also keeping it open to the possibility that the entire pantheon of Greek Gods? It is one thing to admit that certain general and un-restricted propositions, like a vague "god", cannot be disproved or falsified yet it is another to actually keep your mind open to all possibilities. I would be surprised to find out that you are **truly** agnostic and believe that any and all specific claims of god(s) are possible and I'm going to guess that you actually have ruled some of them out. Zuess? Thor? Mithras? Ganesha? L. Ron Hubard? The Rev. Moon?
The reality is that "true" agnosticism is as untenable as absolutist, positive atheism.
We mustn't mistake a cognitive tendency to believe in religion for an affirmation of the truth of religion. We have many cognitive quirks as a species and even Pigeons can learn "superstitious" believes in Skinner boxes so I doubt any neurological basis for religious belief is anything but an artifact of our characteristics as social animals.
It seems that our desire to believe in a supreme being may be mis-adaptation of our built in need for parents. When we grow up, we know we know our parents no longer have all the answers but we still desire that idea of a parent who knows "everything", protect us and insure that we are treated fairly.
"Then how is my local public library able to offer computer software and musical works?"
0 0000109----000-.html
I'm not sure if they are legally allowed to offer software except for devices with embedded software and video game cartridges.. However, non-profit libraries and educational institutions do have a specific exemption to the exemption of first sale when it comes to phonorecordings.
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_
"Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. The transfer of possession of a lawfully made copy of a computer program by a nonprofit educational institution to another nonprofit educational institution or to faculty, staff, and students does not constitute rental, lease, or lending for direct or indirect commercial purposes under this subsection."
INAL
I don't know if there is much codification of "public library" in the copyright code. INAL. But I believe you are completely free to start your own library and even charge money for book renta. You would have to buy legitimate physical copies of the books. That and projects like the Distributed Library Project would seem to clearly fall under your rights of ownership of a physical copy. However, right of first sale doesn't apply in the same way to computer software or musical works as it does to books.
There is something magical in libraries. It is called the "right of first sale" or "first purchase." This is the one and only thing that allows the libraries, used bookstores and used record stores. This basic tenet of American copyright law says that when you buy a physical copy of a copyrighted work you can do what you want with that copy without needing authorization from the copyright holder, including re-sell it.
Without "first purchase," all libraries, used bookstores, used record stores, video rental stores, etc. would have to separately negotiate the right to lend, resell or rent each and every copyrighted work and pay royalties--and that's assuming they could even find the rights holders. There would be no libraries. The copyright industry doesn't like the secondary market that "first purchase" allows because it means that multiple people can enjoy a copy of a book or video. "First purchase" also interferes with their ability to create scarcity in the market which lets them raise prices. Currently the copyright industry is working on making your "first purchase" rights null by using DRM to make exercising your rights technologically impossible. For instance, legally you may have a right to re-sell a song you have purchased on iTunes (Apple has even admitted it to CNet) but they will not make it possible to transfer a song technologically.
" he wanted some kind of court order to prevent them from continuing to email them"
Yeah, and he wanted an **arrest warrant** for them!!! He has since asked to drop the request for their arrest but the fact that he even asked for it is galling.
"That explains why they apply DRM even to music that is sold in DRM-less versions elsewhere..."
Yes, isn't it curious that iTunes is completely DRMed. Even music by bands who don't demand DRM is DRMed. Jobs comments come off as insincere in the face of that.
" 'An Apple lawyer has already said that Apple wouldn't ditch DRM for iTunes even if the labels stopped demanding it.'
The CEO says differently. Guess who wins."
Indeed, the CEO would win--if he were being honest. I'm not convinced that Jobs actually wants to dump DRM. I mentioned the Apple lawyer's comments not as proof of what Jobs must do but as evidence that Apple's DRM scheme is *not* because of the labels but because Apple benefits from customer lock in. It is this fact that makes Jobs statements that Apple's DRM is only at the behest of the labels questionable at best.
"What is amazing to me is that Jobs/Apple have a near monopoly on digital music downloads/players that would only be hurt by a lack of DRM lock-in and yet Jobs is still advocating for the change. Would any other company or CEO do this?"
Jobs probably said this knowing full well that the Music Industry will not stop demanding DRM. An Apple lawyer has already said that Apple wouldn't ditch DRM for iTunes even if the labels stopped demanding it. As long as one Music Company demands it, Jobs can have it both ways: iTunes and iPods will lock customers in and Jobs will blame **Apple's** lock in on the music industry at large.
"I want to live where you live! Expanded Basic (NOT digital!) + cable modem is over $100/mo in San Francisco."
People are making a straw man out of my comments. I said internet access and basic cable could be had for $13/mo. I didn't say broadband or Expanded basic. My point was that you can get a lot of services that are for $13/mo that involve as much or more infrastructure than Tivo's TV schedule system and that by comparison sending a small TV schedule database to your Tivo (a trivial cost per subscriber) for $13/mo is expensive. I get TV for $13/mo, you get a tv schedule. Something is out of whack there in the pricing scheme. Oh, sure, the content on TV is ad supported but so is Tivo's service!!!!!!!
Media companies and Tivo owners do not have the same interests. If Tivo starts catering to media interests it is not likely to be a "win, win" situation: Tivo owners want to skip ads. Media companies want you to watch them. These two interests are opposite.
"for the subscription price being "over inflated": $13 per month is just under $.45 per day."
Um, I can get a month of full internet access for that. Or a month of basic cable. Does the database Tivo supplies cost anything near $13 per subscriber/mo? How about a few pennies per subscriber. Seeing as how I can look up shows for free on ad supported sites, its pretty clear that the schedule doesn't cost that much to make when divided per suscriber. Just a guess, but I'd say the mark up for the subscription service is around 10,000%--and that's still not enough of your money for them. Nope, the not only want your cash, they want you. By selling your viewing habits, they are collectively pimping out their customers to the media companies Tivo now calls its "clients."
So, you love your Tivo. But will you love it as much when Tivo ads more menu and fast forwarding ads? When they start enforcing the DRM that is now built into your Tivo? What Tivo's new "clients" want and what you want are different and those differences will become more apparent as Tivo gets closer and closer ties with the media companies. You may eventually regret not opposing the gradual erosion of Tivo's retail customer focus as your Tivo becomes less and less made for you and more and more made to the media companies whims and desires.
"Which part of not-tied-to-personal-accounts are you not getting?"
The part where they say they aren't doing it now but don't make a binding irrevocable promise not to in the future. The only way to completely insure that private data doesn't get misused (say, for example, desegregated) is not to collect the data in the first place.
Just because the current management says they won't collect individual viewing habits doesn't mean that tomorrow's management will have the same position, nor any company that may purchase Tivo in the future. In fact, I'm not even sure if there is a way they can promise not to use the data that is fully binding on a company that purchases Tivo. So, the easiest, safest solution from a consumer perspective? Respect the fact that Tivo **owners** and **subscribers** are your customers, not media comanies. Once you do that, there is absolutely no reason to collect any data and sell it to outside companies.
"An end result would (potentially) be eventual extinction of really annoying and bad ads.."
This presumes a simplistic senario: that we skip bad ads and watch quality ads. This false dichotomy is a misunderstanding of the options that advertisers and media companies may choose to use. The research data could result in more static and boring ads that still can be read while in fast forward mode or more ads superimposed over the regular programing the way that shows are now obnoxiously promoed. You might also get more Tivo driven ads during fastforwarding. Additionally, now that Tivo is becoming more and more of an insider and less of an upstart the data they sell could lead to Tivo selling out and prohibiting the fast forwading of ads, either totally or selectivly. Tivo could even sell UOP's to advertisers for certain shows and blocks.
It would be a grave mistake to presume that more feedback for advertisers will benefit Tivo users. To presume so would be to presume that Tivo and advertisers have consumers best interests in mind even though there is absolutely no reason to believe any such thing.
"Please note, that the supermarkets do exactly the same thing. Why do you think loyalty cards exist?" They can try, but I can get an anonymous loyalty card. Just be careful what name you put on it because the checkers always try and thank you by name. You really don't want to choose a bad name and hear, "Thank you Mr. Dumbsh*t" every time you use your discount card... Try getting an anonymous account with your Tivo subscription. It would be a lot harder. Besides Tivo is even worse in one sense, it monitors you in real time, all the time. However, monitoring by anyone is bad in my book. the fact that your supermarket is spying on you is hardly an argument that the practice should be expanded or is desirable for consumers.