Re:Article seems like BS justification to me.
on
Why Games Cost $60
·
· Score: 1
$7.75 is the cost to me if I were to ground ship each package individually to a different location.
Just checked my UPS rates... It's actually less that $5 to ground ship a software box or game title from San Diego to New York City...
Article seems like BS justification to me.
on
Why Games Cost $60
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The article's pricing justification seems like complete BS to me. Just looking at the claimed "retail + shipping" costs tell me that the values are completely inflated.
$10 to manufacture and ship? WTF?
It costs approximately $0.75* to manufacture the DVD, print it's label, print the wrap that goes in the amaray case and package it. The packaging is approximately $0.55-$1.50* more (depending on how much junk / crap they stuff inside plus the manual).
Then once packaged the product gets bulk shipped. Claiming $7.75 for shipping per product would mean that a case of 20 unites would cost $155 to ground ship. That's a pretty absurd number. $7.75 is the cost to me if I were to ground ship each package individually to a different location.
No, this article is nothing but BS justification for game prices. The real reason why games cost exactly $59.99 has nothing to do with costs or logistics and revolves entirely around price point.
$59.99 is exactly the price point that industry wants per game, regardless of actual cost/development.
*Note: I work for a company that replicates DVD's and print the packaging and assemble. Thus I know the real costs for the packaging.
I do estimating at my work (and also a little IT) and we used to have a system for "rush quotes" that people could submit. Over the course of a month, it turned out that every quote was a rush quote, which made the system pointless.
So, I'd be wary of instituting something with a "rush" system...
I stopped playing CoH / CoV because it got boring / repetitive.
Wasn't CoH/CoV losing playerbase before the expac release?
If so, the current actions seem... counter productive...
To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquility would be to calculate on the weaker springs of human character
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 34, January 4, 1788
Sorry, but I have to agree with wjousts. The belief that:
1.) Everyone will reach a consensus out of good will,
2.) That an unfettered "majority rules" system will not oppress the minority,
3.) That mankind is not selfish,
Is somewhat delusional.
Unfettered Democracy is tyrannical by it's very nature. Which is why our Founding Father's discarded that notion.
I will not say our current system of government is the best, but is closer towards that goal than 51% of the majority telling the remaining 49% what to do.
Baen's stuff is largely trade paperbacks. Fairly cheap, per book, and read largely for pleasure. TFS's compression textbook is a textbook. Considerably more expensive, and presumably read for a course, or for reference.
You raise an excellent counter point!
I think it is fair to say there is a definite difference between a college level text book and a trade paper back.
As to your other points, about textbooks being more likely replaced with pirated digital copies, let me ask you this, "Why do you suppose so?"
Take a look again point #3 that Eric Flint wrote:
3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market Ã" especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people Ã" is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.
So, what is really the cause of the piracy here? Didn't iTune's prove that if you price it reasonably you can capture sales that you wouldn't have had?
As numerous people have posted here, one of the huge problems with college textbooks is that they are over priced and intentionally designed to be obsolete. This combined with the duplicity and involvement by the professors requiring said textbooks (whom are often involved with the writing, i.e. have a financial vested interest in the book sales) that force students to resort to such measures.
The poster who mentioned professors requiring the last page/cover/whatever being turned in with the final is a prime example.
Being in the printing industry, I know how much a textbook costs to produce from a manufacturing perspective, and what these books go for, with the way in which text books are issued and required, is down right extortion.
The free copies are in fact helping his sales. He is just not aware of this fact.
Baen Books has been giving out free e-books for years now and because of the free e-books that these books sell for longer on the shelves and the hardbound versions sell more than the ones that don't offer the ebook.
Eric Flint has a commentary on baen's free library website here:
I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:
1. Online piracy â" while it is definitely illegal and immoral â" is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.
2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.
3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market â" especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people â" is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.
In the course of this debate, I mentioned it to my publisher Jim Baen. He more or less virtually snorted and expressed the opinion that if one of his authors â" how about you, Eric? â" were willing to put up a book for free online that the resulting publicity would more than offset any losses the author might suffer.
The minute he made the proposal, I realized he was right. After all, Dave Weber's On Basilisk Station has been available for free as a "loss leader" for Baen's for-pay experiment "Webscriptions" for months now. And â" hey, whaddaya know? â" over that time it's become Baen's most popular backlist title in paper!
And so I volunteered my first novel, Mother of Demons, to prove the case. And the next day Mother of Demons went up online, offered to the public for free.
Sure enough, within a day, I received at least half a dozen messages (some posted in public forums, others by private email) from people who told me that, based on hearing about the episode and checking out Mother of Demons, they either had or intended to buy the book. In one or two cases, this was a "gesture of solidarity. "But in most instances, it was because people preferred to read something they liked in a print version and weren't worried about the small cost â" once they saw, through sampling it online, that it was a novel they enjoyed. (Mother of Demons is a $5.99 paperback, available in most bookstores. Yes, that a plug. )
Exactly how many laws are on the books in the state where you live?
20,000?
50,000?
What about federal laws?
Does anyone honestly know?
The point is, that there are so many laws on the book, it is impossible to not be guilty of one of them. And also given the fact that a vast majority of them are punctuated with discretionary conditions in them, such as "what an average person would believe" or "Probable Cause" or "Credible Suspicion", etc., who is to say definitively? Afterall, the officer has sole discretion in interpretation of these conditions.
Are these "plenty of cases which EULAs have been enforced" really cases where the judge ruled them to be enforceable?
Or maybe one party folded to save themselves from the attorney costs? Or even settled outside of court?
Last I checked, when I go down to the local software vendor and buy a piece of software. My contractual obligation for gaining ownership of the property is between myself and the agent of the merchant selling me the product.
At no point do I have any dealings with the manufacturer (unless the merchant is the manufacturer). Moreover, at no point does the merchant or it's agent make any mention of any EULA's that must be agreed to prior to the conclusion of our contractual agreement of exchange of goods in compensation for money.
The merchant and/or it's agent are agreeing to sell me the product, and it's contents, including what is contained within, to me. The ONLY limitations on my purchase are that they require an equitable exchange in money, and maybe agreement to adhere to a return policy (if they have one).
Those are the only limitations and agreements placed upon my purchase. In contract law, in order for a contractual agreement to be binding, there must be "consideration". Or an equitable exchange.
The "consideration" is that the merchant gets my money and I get the goods. AT THAT POINT I OWN THE GOODS. THEY ARE MY PROPERTY (within copyright limitations). So what "consideration" would the EULA owner be "offering" me? At this point I already own the contents. It is too late to include a limitation on my ownership and use after the fact.
I already own the contents of the product at this point, so any additional licensing inside the box is irrelevant.
In order for the licensing in the box to be binding, I must first agree to it PRIOR to conclusion of the contract. Since the merchant never mentioned, included or stipulated agreement to the EULA, I am not bound by it.
This is the equivalent of buying a car 100% cash down and signing the papers. And after you sign the papers and get in the car to drive home, the dealer comes out and tells you that before you leave the lot, you have to agree to sign some other contract saying that you'll do some other thing for the privilege of driving the car. The car that you already bought and paid for.
In REAL business, contracts are presented up front, BEFORE the contractual agreement is concluded. (Money exchanges hands).
Any large business would laugh at you and then sue the crap out of you if you tried to throw in an additional contract and force them to agree to it AFTER you already sold them the product and received money for it.
1. Prohibited uses. Bulk e-mailing may not be used for personal purposes, advertising or solicitations, or political statements or purposes.
2. Permitted uses for broad cross-University mailing. Bulk e-mailing may be used only by University offices to send communications necessary to the normal course of business and which typically require some official action be taken individually by recipients. Such permitted uses include: a. Dissemination of urgent information of health and safety concern for students and University employees. b. Communication of information regarding changes of University policies or procedures, or actions that affect employment or compensation status, or status as a student. c. Regular communications (for example, to University employees) that are required by law, regulation or University policy for which bulk e-mail may largely replace paper transmittal.
Clearly the intended use was within school guidelines as the student's email is directly covered by exception 2(b) of the School's own bulk emailing policy.
Looks to me like the IT director got butt-hurt for being brushed off and now is flexing his e-peen.
The premise of the article is that these robots are incorruptible. However such a premise is flawed at it's very core.
Because such robots will be designed, programed and manufactured, by man, who is corruptible.
The point of what pwnies was saying is that the ability to alter and subvert a piece of computer programming is a skill set that is highly prevalent in today's society.
Here's the thing, though. The RIAA does have some information. They're not suing people at random--they're suing people that they believe have done something wrong. Their methods are almost certainly unsound, and their theory of what constitutes infringement is questionable. Their evidence for infringement is generally weak. And their attempts to strong-arm people into settlements is also unsettling.
However, whether this constitutes criminal behavior is also questionable. The RIAA can claim that they have a reasonable belief that they've sued are the right people. They can argue a reasonable belief that they will prevail in court. And they can claim their settlement offers are reasonable within the standards the law currently provides. The RIAA may be wrong about all these things (and probably are), but that doesn't necessarily mean what they're doing is illegal.
Not everyone who brings a lawsuit and loses is a criminal.
The problem is that when you use illegal means to gain information to then use to coerce an individual into an unfavorable settlement, else they face great financial damages executed by your behalf against them, and you do this to a great many people, that is called racketeering or extortion. Which is illegal.
What the RIAA is doing is in effect the same as a Mob boss shaking down businesses in an area for "Protection" money.
Wow... a sample group of only 246? A margin of error of 5% +/- would skew the 20.7% horribly either way.
According to the wiki article on H-1B visas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B_visa, the total quota for H-1B visas was 65,000 + 20,000 advanced visas for 85,000 total.
That means that the sample group in this article of 246 represents 0.0029% of the total figure.
I'm sorry, but a sample group of 0.0029% is not going to get you any meaningful data about the whole.
This article is nothing but F.U.D. and bad statistics.
I've noticed this trend (to the parent post).
Libertarian views seem to be exclusive to the tech startups.
Where as the small business tend to be conservative, and the rank and file workers of mega-corps tend to be liberal.
It appears people have misread my post because of the threading.
I was asking the AC who said:
That's fine in theory, but in jurisdictions where guns are legal a lot of people are killed by members of their family because there just happens to be a gun in the right place at the right time (for "right" read "wrong"). It is clear that he is manipulating the representation of the statistics. Obviously households of law abiding citizens in areas were firearms are not legal will not have firearm related intra familial deaths, because they can't have firearms to have intra familial deaths with.
To then say that there will be "A lot more (than zero)" in areas were firearms are allowed is a gross misrepresentation of statistics.
Wait... so you are comparing one person argues against a one of several inalienable rights, yet promotes the rest to people accepting torture, wiretapping and the violation of habeas corpus so long as one of the inalienable rights that they are the most for is affirmed?
Wow... what an intellectually dishonest statement!
I can't believe such a disingenuous comparison designed to cast a negative connotation on something by associating it with other negative things was modded "5 Insightful".
The problem is one of convenience. The average citizen is uneducated as to the nuances of liberty and freedom. (Not, I should say, uneducated in general). Given then the ignorance of liberty and freedom, they are easily swayed into giving up their constitutional power under the guise of necessity. For it is much more inconvenient to object and much more convenient to acquiesce.
Take a look at every legislation that resulted in the encroachment, or out right infringement of the 4th amendment. Every single incident was precipitated by some perceived "danger" to society as a whole in which that specific piece of legislation was to address.
Ironically, this is nothing new. And again, the masses are ignorant. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Give the masses their bread, give them their entertainment, and they will become complacent. Make it too inconvenient for them to question and they will not until the very end.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -Thomas Jefferson
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster
I purchased the game (legally) and I spent 4 hours attempting to install the game. Thanks to the way the installer installs securom on vista computers... it doesn't work. I had to track down the solution by MANUALLY installing the game. Manually entering the license key, etc.
Eventually the game started to work. However, If I play for too long the game will crash randomly (most prominently during dialogs). From the errors it gives me, I am believing this has something to do with securom and its memory problems.
It's sad that I may have to resort to illegal means to use a product that I legally purchased.
I forgot to add, that when you buy a hardbound book from baen, it includes a CD with an electronic version of every book they have published that month.
Needless to say, their hardbound book sales figures extend for a longer period of time than normal because of this.
I also almost exclusively buy ebooks and paper books from them now because of their policies.
Slashdot Mirror
$7.75 is the cost to me if I were to ground ship each package individually to a different location.
Just checked my UPS rates... It's actually less that $5 to ground ship a software box or game title from San Diego to New York City...
The article's pricing justification seems like complete BS to me. Just looking at the claimed "retail + shipping" costs tell me that the values are completely inflated.
$10 to manufacture and ship? WTF?
It costs approximately $0.75* to manufacture the DVD, print it's label, print the wrap that goes in the amaray case and package it. The packaging is approximately $0.55-$1.50* more (depending on how much junk / crap they stuff inside plus the manual).
Then once packaged the product gets bulk shipped. Claiming $7.75 for shipping per product would mean that a case of 20 unites would cost $155 to ground ship. That's a pretty absurd number. $7.75 is the cost to me if I were to ground ship each package individually to a different location.
No, this article is nothing but BS justification for game prices. The real reason why games cost exactly $59.99 has nothing to do with costs or logistics and revolves entirely around price point.
$59.99 is exactly the price point that industry wants per game, regardless of actual cost/development.
*Note: I work for a company that replicates DVD's and print the packaging and assemble. Thus I know the real costs for the packaging.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Judge needs to be removed and disbarred.
LOL @ Rush first...
I do estimating at my work (and also a little IT) and we used to have a system for "rush quotes" that people could submit. Over the course of a month, it turned out that every quote was a rush quote, which made the system pointless.
So, I'd be wary of instituting something with a "rush" system...
BR
I stopped playing CoH / CoV because it got boring / repetitive. Wasn't CoH/CoV losing playerbase before the expac release? If so, the current actions seem... counter productive...
To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquility would be to calculate on the weaker springs of human character
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 34, January 4, 1788
Sorry, but I have to agree with wjousts. The belief that:
1.) Everyone will reach a consensus out of good will,
2.) That an unfettered "majority rules" system will not oppress the minority,
3.) That mankind is not selfish,
Is somewhat delusional.
Unfettered Democracy is tyrannical by it's very nature. Which is why our Founding Father's discarded that notion.
I will not say our current system of government is the best, but is closer towards that goal than 51% of the majority telling the remaining 49% what to do.
Baen's stuff is largely trade paperbacks. Fairly cheap, per book, and read largely for pleasure. TFS's compression textbook is a textbook. Considerably more expensive, and presumably read for a course, or for reference.
You raise an excellent counter point!
I think it is fair to say there is a definite difference between a college level text book and a trade paper back.
As to your other points, about textbooks being more likely replaced with pirated digital copies, let me ask you this, "Why do you suppose so?"
Take a look again point #3 that Eric Flint wrote:
3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market Ã" especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people Ã" is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.
So, what is really the cause of the piracy here? Didn't iTune's prove that if you price it reasonably you can capture sales that you wouldn't have had?
As numerous people have posted here, one of the huge problems with college textbooks is that they are over priced and intentionally designed to be obsolete. This combined with the duplicity and involvement by the professors requiring said textbooks (whom are often involved with the writing, i.e. have a financial vested interest in the book sales) that force students to resort to such measures.
The poster who mentioned professors requiring the last page/cover/whatever being turned in with the final is a prime example.
Being in the printing industry, I know how much a textbook costs to produce from a manufacturing perspective, and what these books go for, with the way in which text books are issued and required, is down right extortion.
Baen Books has been giving out free e-books for years now and because of the free e-books that these books sell for longer on the shelves and the hardbound versions sell more than the ones that don't offer the ebook.
Eric Flint has a commentary on baen's free library website here:
http://baen.com/library/
I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:
1. Online piracy â" while it is definitely illegal and immoral â" is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.
2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.
3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market â" especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people â" is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.
In the course of this debate, I mentioned it to my publisher Jim Baen. He more or less virtually snorted and expressed the opinion that if one of his authors â" how about you, Eric? â" were willing to put up a book for free online that the resulting publicity would more than offset any losses the author might suffer.
The minute he made the proposal, I realized he was right. After all, Dave Weber's On Basilisk Station has been available for free as a "loss leader" for Baen's for-pay experiment "Webscriptions" for months now. And â" hey, whaddaya know? â" over that time it's become Baen's most popular backlist title in paper!
And so I volunteered my first novel, Mother of Demons, to prove the case. And the next day Mother of Demons went up online, offered to the public for free.
Sure enough, within a day, I received at least half a dozen messages (some posted in public forums, others by private email) from people who told me that, based on hearing about the episode and checking out Mother of Demons, they either had or intended to buy the book. In one or two cases, this was a "gesture of solidarity. "But in most instances, it was because people preferred to read something they liked in a print version and weren't worried about the small cost â" once they saw, through sampling it online, that it was a novel they enjoyed. (Mother of Demons is a $5.99 paperback, available in most bookstores. Yes, that a plug. )
Exactly how many laws are on the books in the state where you live?
20,000?
50,000?
What about federal laws?
Does anyone honestly know?
The point is, that there are so many laws on the book, it is impossible to not be guilty of one of them. And also given the fact that a vast majority of them are punctuated with discretionary conditions in them, such as "what an average person would believe" or "Probable Cause" or "Credible Suspicion", etc., who is to say definitively? Afterall, the officer has sole discretion in interpretation of these conditions.
Are these "plenty of cases which EULAs have been enforced" really cases where the judge ruled them to be enforceable?
Or maybe one party folded to save themselves from the attorney costs? Or even settled outside of court?
Last I checked, when I go down to the local software vendor and buy a piece of software. My contractual obligation for gaining ownership of the property is between myself and the agent of the merchant selling me the product.
At no point do I have any dealings with the manufacturer (unless the merchant is the manufacturer). Moreover, at no point does the merchant or it's agent make any mention of any EULA's that must be agreed to prior to the conclusion of our contractual agreement of exchange of goods in compensation for money.
The merchant and/or it's agent are agreeing to sell me the product, and it's contents, including what is contained within, to me. The ONLY limitations on my purchase are that they require an equitable exchange in money, and maybe agreement to adhere to a return policy (if they have one).
Those are the only limitations and agreements placed upon my purchase. In contract law, in order for a contractual agreement to be binding, there must be "consideration". Or an equitable exchange.
The "consideration" is that the merchant gets my money and I get the goods. AT THAT POINT I OWN THE GOODS. THEY ARE MY PROPERTY (within copyright limitations). So what "consideration" would the EULA owner be "offering" me? At this point I already own the contents. It is too late to include a limitation on my ownership and use after the fact.
I already own the contents of the product at this point, so any additional licensing inside the box is irrelevant.
In order for the licensing in the box to be binding, I must first agree to it PRIOR to conclusion of the contract. Since the merchant never mentioned, included or stipulated agreement to the EULA, I am not bound by it.
This is the equivalent of buying a car 100% cash down and signing the papers. And after you sign the papers and get in the car to drive home, the dealer comes out and tells you that before you leave the lot, you have to agree to sign some other contract saying that you'll do some other thing for the privilege of driving the car. The car that you already bought and paid for.
In REAL business, contracts are presented up front, BEFORE the contractual agreement is concluded. (Money exchanges hands).
Any large business would laugh at you and then sue the crap out of you if you tried to throw in an additional contract and force them to agree to it AFTER you already sold them the product and received money for it.
Ah damn, I missed that part!
It still wasn't "Bulk" though.
1. Prohibited uses. Bulk e-mailing may not be used for personal purposes, advertising or solicitations, or political statements or purposes.
2. Permitted uses for broad cross-University mailing. Bulk e-mailing may be used only by University offices to send communications necessary to the normal course of business and which typically require some official action be taken individually by recipients. Such permitted uses include:
a. Dissemination of urgent information of health and safety concern for students and University employees.
b. Communication of information regarding changes of University policies or procedures, or actions that affect employment or compensation status, or status as a student.
c. Regular communications (for example, to University employees) that are required by law, regulation or University policy for which bulk e-mail may largely replace paper transmittal.
Clearly the intended use was within school guidelines as the student's email is directly covered by exception 2(b) of the School's own bulk emailing policy.
Looks to me like the IT director got butt-hurt for being brushed off and now is flexing his e-peen.
The premise of the article is that these robots are incorruptible. However such a premise is flawed at it's very core.
Because such robots will be designed, programed and manufactured, by man, who is corruptible.
The point of what pwnies was saying is that the ability to alter and subvert a piece of computer programming is a skill set that is highly prevalent in today's society.
Here's the thing, though. The RIAA does have some information. They're not suing people at random--they're suing people that they believe have done something wrong. Their methods are almost certainly unsound, and their theory of what constitutes infringement is questionable. Their evidence for infringement is generally weak. And their attempts to strong-arm people into settlements is also unsettling.
However, whether this constitutes criminal behavior is also questionable. The RIAA can claim that they have a reasonable belief that they've sued are the right people. They can argue a reasonable belief that they will prevail in court. And they can claim their settlement offers are reasonable within the standards the law currently provides. The RIAA may be wrong about all these things (and probably are), but that doesn't necessarily mean what they're doing is illegal.
Not everyone who brings a lawsuit and loses is a criminal.
The problem is that when you use illegal means to gain information to then use to coerce an individual into an unfavorable settlement, else they face great financial damages executed by your behalf against them, and you do this to a great many people, that is called racketeering or extortion. Which is illegal.
What the RIAA is doing is in effect the same as a Mob boss shaking down businesses in an area for "Protection" money.
Yes, you'd be just a funny goofball. An armed and dangerous goofball to be sure...
Now if you were saying Allahu Akbar instead of Allah is Great... then things might be different.
You do realize that GrumblyStuff is responding to the AC calling Ironix a troll?
Inconceivable!
Doh, I fail at decimal places! You are right, 0.29%... still a meaningless sample group =P
Wow... a sample group of only 246? A margin of error of 5% +/- would skew the 20.7% horribly either way.
According to the wiki article on H-1B visas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B_visa, the total quota for H-1B visas was 65,000 + 20,000 advanced visas for 85,000 total.
That means that the sample group in this article of 246 represents 0.0029% of the total figure.
I'm sorry, but a sample group of 0.0029% is not going to get you any meaningful data about the whole.
This article is nothing but F.U.D. and bad statistics.
I've noticed this trend (to the parent post). Libertarian views seem to be exclusive to the tech startups. Where as the small business tend to be conservative, and the rank and file workers of mega-corps tend to be liberal.
I was asking the AC who said: That's fine in theory, but in jurisdictions where guns are legal a lot of people are killed by members of their family because there just happens to be a gun in the right place at the right time (for "right" read "wrong").
It is clear that he is manipulating the representation of the statistics. Obviously households of law abiding citizens in areas were firearms are not legal will not have firearm related intra familial deaths, because they can't have firearms to have intra familial deaths with.
To then say that there will be "A lot more (than zero)" in areas were firearms are allowed is a gross misrepresentation of statistics.
Wait... so you are comparing one person argues against a one of several inalienable rights, yet promotes the rest to people accepting torture, wiretapping and the violation of habeas corpus so long as one of the inalienable rights that they are the most for is affirmed?
Wow... what an intellectually dishonest statement!
I can't believe such a disingenuous comparison designed to cast a negative connotation on something by associating it with other negative things was modded "5 Insightful".
Can you substantiate your claims with facts? Because every statistic and study I have read contradict what you are saying.
The problem is one of convenience. The average citizen is uneducated as to the nuances of liberty and freedom. (Not, I should say, uneducated in general). Given then the ignorance of liberty and freedom, they are easily swayed into giving up their constitutional power under the guise of necessity. For it is much more inconvenient to object and much more convenient to acquiesce.
Take a look at every legislation that resulted in the encroachment, or out right infringement of the 4th amendment. Every single incident was precipitated by some perceived "danger" to society as a whole in which that specific piece of legislation was to address.
Ironically, this is nothing new. And again, the masses are ignorant. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Give the masses their bread, give them their entertainment, and they will become complacent. Make it too inconvenient for them to question and they will not until the very end.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -Thomas Jefferson "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster
Saddly this is true.
I purchased the game (legally) and I spent 4 hours attempting to install the game. Thanks to the way the installer installs securom on vista computers... it doesn't work. I had to track down the solution by MANUALLY installing the game. Manually entering the license key, etc.
Eventually the game started to work. However, If I play for too long the game will crash randomly (most prominently during dialogs). From the errors it gives me, I am believing this has something to do with securom and its memory problems.
It's sad that I may have to resort to illegal means to use a product that I legally purchased.
I forgot to add, that when you buy a hardbound book from baen, it includes a CD with an electronic version of every book they have published that month.
Needless to say, their hardbound book sales figures extend for a longer period of time than normal because of this.
I also almost exclusively buy ebooks and paper books from them now because of their policies.