Wouldn't it be the world's biggest irony if there was some anarchist at Sony who's thinking is "Hey, it will take about 20 years before this technology is really possible...if I patent it now, then by the time it's actually built, it will be public domain!"
But if you return the movie after, say, 8 days, they refund the "Purchase Price" but charge you a $1.50 "restocking fee" (i.e, a late fee.) Thus, you are assessed a fee when you return the merchandise late, thus you have paid a late fee.
It's a semantic game. They can change the name of their late fees so they can turn around and claim they don't have any. But if it's money you pay because you returned something late, it doesn't matter if you call it "Cajun Fried Chicken"--it's STILL a late fee.
Sure, they may not succeed in tricking you if you pay attention, but that doesn't excuse the fact that they tried. I'm tired of having to assume everything anyone ever tells me is a lie with an asterisk by it. That's not the kind of world I want to live in.
The real issue isn't whether they told you that there would be late fees; it's that they said there wouldn't. If you say there won't be late fees when there will, you're lying regardless of how many trailing asterisks you put next to it. (Attention American Advertisers: A footnote does not, in fact, excuse you from making a false factual statement. Troglodytes.)
The states' point seems to be that it's not legit for them to say "No late fees!" then charge money for movies that aren't returned on time. I sure as heckunz don't think changing the words they use to refer to the event legally constitutes changing the event.
In detail: If a late fee is defined as charging people money for not returning something on time, and blockbuster's new policy is to charge people money for not returning something on time, then their new policy is still a late fee. Ergo, when they say "No late fees!" yet still charge you money for returning something late, they've lied.
What they're doing amounts to the kind of legal defense that 5-year-olds use. "I didn't hit him! The stick did!"
But then, modern advertising has sickened me for a long time. They have done their best to reclassify the word "Lie" to mean something so specific that it is logically impossible to actually do, thus deciding they are free to intentionally and blatantly decieve all they want. Then they're shocked when people get pissed off. The simplest example? We live in a country where 100 out of 100 competing stores will state that they have the lowest prices on everything and nobody bats an eye--there's no district attorney general who acts on the fact that 99 out of those 100 are obviously lying. At this point people don't even consider the assertion "We have the lowest prices!" to be deceptive at all! (In my mind, it's simple enough--if you say something that isn't actually true, THAT'S WHAT A LIE IS. Ergo, if you use the word "Lowest Prices," and ANYONE has lower prices than you, you have lied. Is it that hard to understand? That if it's not actually true, it's still a lie, even if it's good for business!?)
In fact, it's even more humiliatingly stupid when you examine this specific case. It amounts to this.
Come to blockbuster! No late fees!* * Late fees apply.
How can those two assertions POSSIBLY both be true? And guess what? If you make two mutually exclusive factual statements, you have made one false factual statement. Telling the truth does not negate telling a lie. And the fact that consumers can tell you are lying sure as F*** does not excuse it.
MS produces a product. You pay for the use of that product.
In the case of a download tax, you'd be paying the state not to send police to your house.
Of course, it's not extortion, because...well, because they don't call it that.
In order to prevent our children from being exposed to the blasphemies of the human body, we slap down broadcasters with fines and imprisonment.
So instead of risking that our children start to think that they shouldn't be ashamed of their bodies, we instead show them firsthand that it's okay to hurt people if it gets what you want.
Congressfolks will not change. They have their own beliefs and agendas which they are not only committed to mentally, but are entrenched in with existing deals and agreements and compromises. Those who see the problems are already trying to enact change and facing insurmountable resistance; those who don't will never have an incentive to let go of their current ways; not only do some of them honestly believe they're doing the right thing, but they're also backed up by unimaginable financial firepower.
Being a citizen of Utah, I write to Orin "Grease me up, **AA" Hatch just about every year, stating what my views and the views of every Utahn I know are, explaining the rationale behind them and basically asking--in very polite, reasonable language--just what the hell is wrong with him. We can see how much good that has done. Every year I get a form letter back saying "We share your concerns about copyright legislation blah blah blah" right on the back of a news story saying "Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) proposes a U.N. amendment of the Geneva Convention, seeking to classify intellectual property theft as a war crime..."
However, these compromised senators will not be around forever. Today's hotbutton is tomorrow's policy debate. Some of the people janking around on Slashdot today are going into politics tomorrow, so discussing these things here is not quite as useless as you may think.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be the world's biggest irony if there was some anarchist at Sony who's thinking is "Hey, it will take about 20 years before this technology is really possible...if I patent it now, then by the time it's actually built, it will be public domain!"
But if you return the movie after, say, 8 days, they refund the "Purchase Price" but charge you a $1.50 "restocking fee" (i.e, a late fee.) Thus, you are assessed a fee when you return the merchandise late, thus you have paid a late fee.
It's a semantic game. They can change the name of their late fees so they can turn around and claim they don't have any. But if it's money you pay because you returned something late, it doesn't matter if you call it "Cajun Fried Chicken"--it's STILL a late fee.
Sure, they may not succeed in tricking you if you pay attention, but that doesn't excuse the fact that they tried. I'm tired of having to assume everything anyone ever tells me is a lie with an asterisk by it. That's not the kind of world I want to live in.
The real issue isn't whether they told you that there would be late fees; it's that they said there wouldn't. If you say there won't be late fees when there will, you're lying regardless of how many trailing asterisks you put next to it. (Attention American Advertisers: A footnote does not, in fact, excuse you from making a false factual statement. Troglodytes.)
The states' point seems to be that it's not legit for them to say "No late fees!" then charge money for movies that aren't returned on time. I sure as heckunz don't think changing the words they use to refer to the event legally constitutes changing the event.
In detail: If a late fee is defined as charging people money for not returning something on time, and blockbuster's new policy is to charge people money for not returning something on time, then their new policy is still a late fee. Ergo, when they say "No late fees!" yet still charge you money for returning something late, they've lied.
What they're doing amounts to the kind of legal defense that 5-year-olds use. "I didn't hit him! The stick did!"
But then, modern advertising has sickened me for a long time. They have done their best to reclassify the word "Lie" to mean something so specific that it is logically impossible to actually do, thus deciding they are free to intentionally and blatantly decieve all they want. Then they're shocked when people get pissed off. The simplest example? We live in a country where 100 out of 100 competing stores will state that they have the lowest prices on everything and nobody bats an eye--there's no district attorney general who acts on the fact that 99 out of those 100 are obviously lying. At this point people don't even consider the assertion "We have the lowest prices!" to be deceptive at all! (In my mind, it's simple enough--if you say something that isn't actually true, THAT'S WHAT A LIE IS. Ergo, if you use the word "Lowest Prices," and ANYONE has lower prices than you, you have lied. Is it that hard to understand? That if it's not actually true, it's still a lie, even if it's good for business!?)
In fact, it's even more humiliatingly stupid when you examine this specific case. It amounts to this.
Come to blockbuster! No late fees!*
* Late fees apply.
How can those two assertions POSSIBLY both be true? And guess what? If you make two mutually exclusive factual statements, you have made one false factual statement. Telling the truth does not negate telling a lie. And the fact that consumers can tell you are lying sure as F*** does not excuse it.
Or better yet, why doesn't he go out and pass a law ensuring that people with different moral values have to live their lives according to his?
Oh wait.
MS produces a product. You pay for the use of that product. In the case of a download tax, you'd be paying the state not to send police to your house. Of course, it's not extortion, because...well, because they don't call it that.
In order to prevent our children from being exposed to the blasphemies of the human body, we slap down broadcasters with fines and imprisonment.
So instead of risking that our children start to think that they shouldn't be ashamed of their bodies, we instead show them firsthand that it's okay to hurt people if it gets what you want.
How noble we are.
Congressfolks will not change. They have their own beliefs and agendas which they are not only committed to mentally, but are entrenched in with existing deals and agreements and compromises. Those who see the problems are already trying to enact change and facing insurmountable resistance; those who don't will never have an incentive to let go of their current ways; not only do some of them honestly believe they're doing the right thing, but they're also backed up by unimaginable financial firepower.
Being a citizen of Utah, I write to Orin "Grease me up, **AA" Hatch just about every year, stating what my views and the views of every Utahn I know are, explaining the rationale behind them and basically asking--in very polite, reasonable language--just what the hell is wrong with him. We can see how much good that has done. Every year I get a form letter back saying "We share your concerns about copyright legislation blah blah blah" right on the back of a news story saying "Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) proposes a U.N. amendment of the Geneva Convention, seeking to classify intellectual property theft as a war crime..."
However, these compromised senators will not be around forever. Today's hotbutton is tomorrow's policy debate. Some of the people janking around on Slashdot today are going into politics tomorrow, so discussing these things here is not quite as useless as you may think.