"May God grant him the mercy he denied his victims,' the attorney general wrote"
People who believe in fairies shouldn't be given such control over other peoples' lives, or in this case deaths.
The majors are in it for the money, so they're going to find out what people want most and sell it to them.
I'm sure marketing has something to do with the populrity of the major's music. But it's not everything.
Apple could stop selling DRM music tomorrow. That would be a very strong sign to the record labels.
But they won;t stop, because they make money from it.
All very true and fair except for this: "If someone's directly searching for your brand what possible reason is there to show other listings, except for Google to make more money? It's not a customer benefit."
It is a customer benefit. If I want to book a cheap flight I might google for lastminute, but I'd be very happy if along with the results for lastminute google gave me several alternatives - they may be cheaper or better in some other way.
The only reason I search for lastminute is because they're the one I've heard of. So yes, lastminute's competitors are benefiting from their trademark, but so are the public. In fact lastminute is a good example of this because their actual service is so generic, there are many other sites that do exactly the same thing. The only difference between them is that lastminute had a lot of funding and spent a lot on advertising. If that money was mispent because the public end up finding out about their competitors too then tough luck!
It does!
Even before the first proper result it says: "Try your search on Yahoo, Ask, AllTheWeb, Live, Lycos, Technorati, Feedster, Wikipedia, Bloglines, Altavista"
If you don't buy Metallica's new album (their 'art') solely because of their stance on p2p (their 'business') then you're as bad as any artist who compromises their art for business reasons. You're doing exactly the same as the artist who sells out: they mess up their art over money, you're messing up your art consumption over money!
Don't buy it cos you don't like them, not to take some moral higher ground you don't have a right to stand on.
The tactic won;t even work, how are Metallica supposed to know you're teaching them a lesson?
You seem to be saying that Pokemon is less worthy than Polish Solidarity, but the latter was a transitory and boring part of social history, wheras the former has enlived the childhoods and imaginations of millions!
I'm not an Apple fan, but its computers and OSX are gaining popularity even though they have some of the same problems that linux does.
Maybe something can be learned from Apple?
Amazon would be providing music to someone outside the geographical area they are licenced to, so they're violating a contract with the record coampnies, right?
"Expecting judge or jury to be fonts of all knowledge, and know everything about the non-legal aspects of every case that comes before them is unrealistic."
That's true, but knowing what a website is is hardly arcane, expert knowledge is anymore.
A judge is still expected to know about humans and society in general, and the web and the internet are such important aspects of everyday life for many people in the UK nowadays that someone so ignorant of them shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of a case like this.
An apple may be less abstract than a billion dollars, but it's also completely different. To make it clear, I am saying that someone with a billion dollars doesn't need another billion dollars.
"I figured you probably thought that it kicked in about the time I did something to acquire some wealth and ended up with more than you had" - no, why would you think that?
So the apples are Disney's IP, Disney are the person climbing the tree and and the Chinese are the people who are being laughed at?
Yeah? That's pretty abstract and unrelated!
Why would I have a right to the apples? Is it a shared tree, or the only one availible? Why would you laugh in someone's face just because they asked you for an apple?
our minds and the minds of our children that they have gone beyond what any one company or small group of people has any sort of right to own. Also, the creators of those characters are all either rich or dead, so what does this park cost them?
Slashdot Mirror
They had plenty of time to do their own testing BEFORE they released it.
"They are not solving the problem as reported, they are redefining the problem to something they can fix without a hardware recall. " EXACTLY!
"May God grant him the mercy he denied his victims,' the attorney general wrote" People who believe in fairies shouldn't be given such control over other peoples' lives, or in this case deaths.
"'The times they are a changin',' quipped Jobs" What a very old-man thing to say. Want some Werthers Originals Steve?
You're right, but how come no one else mentioned it to this point? First thing I thought if. Googleopen source
The majors are in it for the money, so they're going to find out what people want most and sell it to them. I'm sure marketing has something to do with the populrity of the major's music. But it's not everything.
Apple could stop selling DRM music tomorrow. That would be a very strong sign to the record labels. But they won;t stop, because they make money from it.
Gotta love what it says at the bottom of their homepage of links to mp3s: "Copyright(2001-2007) All Rights Reserved"
It is a customer benefit. If I want to book a cheap flight I might google for lastminute, but I'd be very happy if along with the results for lastminute google gave me several alternatives - they may be cheaper or better in some other way.
The only reason I search for lastminute is because they're the one I've heard of. So yes, lastminute's competitors are benefiting from their trademark, but so are the public. In fact lastminute is a good example of this because their actual service is so generic, there are many other sites that do exactly the same thing. The only difference between them is that lastminute had a lot of funding and spent a lot on advertising. If that money was mispent because the public end up finding out about their competitors too then tough luck!
It does! Even before the first proper result it says: "Try your search on Yahoo, Ask, AllTheWeb, Live, Lycos, Technorati, Feedster, Wikipedia, Bloglines, Altavista"
If you don't buy Metallica's new album (their 'art') solely because of their stance on p2p (their 'business') then you're as bad as any artist who compromises their art for business reasons. You're doing exactly the same as the artist who sells out: they mess up their art over money, you're messing up your art consumption over money! Don't buy it cos you don't like them, not to take some moral higher ground you don't have a right to stand on. The tactic won;t even work, how are Metallica supposed to know you're teaching them a lesson?
LOL!
I also block Slashdot ads using adblock. If they didn't want me to do that they'd stop me, it's easy enough, but they can't be bothered.
You seem to be saying that Pokemon is less worthy than Polish Solidarity, but the latter was a transitory and boring part of social history, wheras the former has enlived the childhoods and imaginations of millions!
I'm not an Apple fan, but its computers and OSX are gaining popularity even though they have some of the same problems that linux does. Maybe something can be learned from Apple?
French Fries? You've GOT to be kidding! Have you ever even tried chips? (And I'm not talking about crisps!)
Amazon would be providing music to someone outside the geographical area they are licenced to, so they're violating a contract with the record coampnies, right?
If Microsoft are too busy to list all the patents then let them name just one.
What trademark are they infringing then? "Silhouettes in adverts"?
"Expecting judge or jury to be fonts of all knowledge, and know everything about the non-legal aspects of every case that comes before them is unrealistic."
That's true, but knowing what a website is is hardly arcane, expert knowledge is anymore.
A judge is still expected to know about humans and society in general, and the web and the internet are such important aspects of everyday life for many people in the UK nowadays that someone so ignorant of them shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of a case like this.
That doesn't seem very fair, surely there's good compromise in between without going to the extremes you're suggesting.
An apple may be less abstract than a billion dollars, but it's also completely different. To make it clear, I am saying that someone with a billion dollars doesn't need another billion dollars.
"I figured you probably thought that it kicked in about the time I did something to acquire some wealth and ended up with more than you had" - no, why would you think that?
So the apples are Disney's IP, Disney are the person climbing the tree and and the Chinese are the people who are being laughed at? Yeah? That's pretty abstract and unrelated!
Why would I have a right to the apples? Is it a shared tree, or the only one availible? Why would you laugh in someone's face just because they asked you for an apple?
It doesn't cost dead people anything, and the only people it costs (potential) billions are billionaires already so deserve no sympathy for this.
our minds and the minds of our children that they have gone beyond what any one company or small group of people has any sort of right to own.
Also, the creators of those characters are all either rich or dead, so what does this park cost them?