You want to be as close to the "real" price during IPO as possible.
You want to be close, but you want to be below. You have to put something on the table for the buyer too. If they buy it and it goes straight down.. that's no good either.
Remember, post IPO, the company is owned by all those shareholders who just lost a bunch of money. Facebook didn't just rip-off "the public", or "retail investors" it ripped off its new owners.
You can argue whether the copyright holders were actually damaged that much, but until you win that argument you can't argue that the award was excessive.
Of course you can. Most of this award has nothing whatsoever to do with "damages". Its statutory, as in the "award" amount is defined by the statute, with no regard for actual damages at all.
A statutory penalty amount is appropriate as a punishment and as a deterrent, however applying it times the number of works infringed in a single non-commercial p2p filesharing case is as idiotic as charging a guy who stole a carton of cigarrets with 240 separate thefts, and then putting him in jail for 1 year for each one of them.
The punitive component of this case should be up around 2 thousand dollars TOPS for a first offense, as an individual in a noncommercial setting. Plus potential liabilty for actual damages.
Meaning the recording industry defnitively has to prove this guy personally harmed them 673,000 bucks.
And -that- is going to be impossible. One only has to look at the p2p network and calculate that there are easily 100 million people worldwide sharing 30 works each.
Thus collectively, they are being harmed 100,000,000 user x 673,000 $/user... which comes to 67 Trillian... yes, Trillian with a T.
The idea that the p2p harm to the recording industry is the GDP of the entire planet is absurd on its face.
Since when do you have a right to privacy in a public place?
Why does it need to be a right?
I don't have a constitutional right to good service by the serving staff at a restaurant, but that's not reason to accept being subjected to lousy service.
I'll find somewhere else to eat.
Similiarly, if a restaurant decides to invade my privacy, why shouldn't I decide to eat somewhere else?
I don't care in the slightest if the restaurant staff "see me", but I don't really want them mounting cameras at my table recording me eating my meal, and posting it on the web, along with facial recognition to tag me and the people im with.
I may not have some sort of constitutional "right to privacy" in a restaurant, but I sure as hell have the right to seek out restaurants that aren't run by complete asshats.
I don't think you can really say 'most people prefer GUIs'.
You can. And it would be true.
It depends what market segment you're talking about
"most people"
I certainly prefer a command prompt to a GUI when dealing with administrative tasks, it just makes it a lot simpler and more efficient to do that sprawling through menus and options.
Meh, beause reading through a 20 page man page to sort out what option you need on some rarely adjusted setting is better how?
The command line is great for scripting.. to make something easily repeatable, or to apply the same setting to a lot of systems.
To look something up, or make a change on one system, especially a change that isn't something you do daily... the gui is simpler, faster, and less prone to error.
but thanks for spelling out exactly what I just said.
What you said exactly was "my problem with the xkcd scheme..." when your problem is with the users, not the xkcd scheme at all. I realize that's where you ended up, but it was as clear as mud.
The solution to the issue of users picking words, is to just assign them passwords... have dictionary generate the passwords for them.
your password is: fishpopsiclemustardocelot
let them keep hitting "generate" until they see one they like...
The privacy policy does matter, as the 'legally binding document' dictates that the privacy policy trumps the EULA.
Then why put it in the eula? Seriously. Given the community is fairly upset about it, why not just remove it?
If you're not cool with that, don't use the service, that's opting-out. Get your games from Steam, or buy a console.
I don't buy "Origin" games. However, I think its perfectly legitimate for me to tell them as loudly as I like why I don't buy them, and to advocate others not buy them as well.
But a company saying "we want to know what hardware people have, and what installation/uninstallation problems they have and what background processes may be running that will b0rk our shit, and you need to tell us that in order to use our service" isn't worth raising a fuss over.
It is to me. There are all kinds of abusive things they can do with the information that fall short of selling it. And more to the point, I don't really care what they do with it; I don't think its any of their damned business.
Microsoft asks for permission to send an error report, and I can turn that off without any issue. If Microsoft made it a condition of using their operating system that they got to collect this information, there would be huge lawsuits. And lets be honest here... microsoft has at least as much, if not more of a legitimate need for this data. But they have decency to ask for it, and respect the wishes of users who say "no".
EA doesn't.
I run it under a different user account and lock it out of anywhere I don't think it needs to be.
Then perhaps you should be posting the links to sandboxing origin's client rather than links claiming Origin is a "non-story", because I don't have any software on my PC that I've felt compelled to sandbox to that degree just to retain some that level of control over my own privacy from the vendor.
The gamer/law article calling it a non-story doesn't make it so.
The terms EA expect you to agree to exceed what any one else is expecting you to agree to.
The reference to the "privacy policy" is irrlevant. It doesn't matter what the privacy policy says. They've declared they can take stock of everything installed on your computer, what is running, and when you run things. Period.
It doesn't really matter what they promise to do with that information. They don't need it as a condition of providing me service, they have no business collecting it in the first place, and not providing an opt-in or even an opt-out is bullshit.
As an addendum, a "privacy policy" is pretty weaksauce in terms of a legally binding document granting you protection. Its a policy -- since when does a company policy count as a legally binding contract with you?
My problem with the xkcd scheme is that users are lazy and rather than pick 4 random words, they'll pick 4 words that are easy to remember in sequence
To be fair that is not the xkcd scheme. 4 random words is the xkcd scheme. 4 words that are part of a common pre-existing phrase is not.
Your critisism with the xkcd scheme is sort of like criticising by observing that users are lazy, and rather than pick 4 random words... they'll just pick two. Again... not that's not the xkcd scheme.
But the real problem that needs solving is password reuse. I can remember something like correcthorsebatterystaple, easily enough, but I can't remember a different random set of words for all the literally dozens of logins I have.
And since I feel like ranting I am frustrated in that half the time I'm constrained by annoying limits... must be a least 5 letters but less than 10 must have a punctuation and 1 digit and a capital that isn't the first letter... oh, and i have to change it every 30 days... but i start getting nagged to change it 14 days before it expires... so either i change it every 14 days or I get nagged half of every month that my password is expiring soon. Oh, and I can change it to the last password I used either...
Is it any wonder that people come up really lousy passwords?
I'm arguing that you don't have permission to utilize it which would also include the copying.
I don't need "permission" to utilize it.
That is where your argument rests on an incorrect assumption.
We no doubt agree that copyright grants copyright owners a variety of exclusive rights over the works they create, but who may -use- a work is NOT one of them.
Copyright owners have exactly 6 rights. They have the exclusive to authorize someone else or do themselves: 1) make copies 2) make derivative works 3) distribute copies 4) perform the work for the public 5) display the work to the public 6) broadcast the work to the public
That is ALL. The copyright holder does not have the exclusive right to decide who can perform, display, or otherwise "utilize" the work in a private setting.
Subject to sections 107 through 122 [17 USC Â Â107 through 122], the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Now, to address the situation of using a legally purchased copy of software:
sections 3 through 6 do not apply. The copy is not being redistributed or made available to the "public" in any fashion. The user is using it on their computer in a private setting.
1 and 2 absolutely do apply. Installing it on the hard drive is clearly making a copy, and it may even be transformed in some fashion in the process and the installed copy could even be argued to be an derivative work.
However, that's where the opening line: "Subject to sections 107 through 122" comes in. Section 117 explicitly allows for the copies and adaptations made as an essential step of using software. So you don't need copyright holders authorization to make the installation or in memory copies either.
You needed them to authorize the creation of the copy you purchased. Really that is all. So as long as the copy you are using was created with the authorization of the copyright holder you are not infringing copyright.
In fact, I'll go even further and contend that you don't even have to have LEGALLY obtained the copy. If you STOLE a book or CD or computer program (by actually physically stealing someone elses authorized copy) then you could not be sued for copyright infringment for possessing and using someone elses authorized copy of a book, CD, or computer program.
Of course, you still could and should be charged with theft.
That's mainly due to complacency, not due to a limitation of resources.
How do you figure? Bandwidth is a scarce resource in precisely the way electricity is. There is a finite amount available -- sure they can expand capacity, but that's not free.
The future is tiered metered data. very much like tiered metered electricity - first X kWh at one price, next X kWh at another... maybe offpeak kWh at a 3rd price.
You can scurry to another provider for a while chasing "unlimited", but the endgame is inevitable.
If you're not limited, you'll embrace and use whatever services you find useful.
But bandwidth is limited. Networks have a capacity to transfer data and its not infinite.
Bandwidth is like electricity. Its relatively inexpensive, but its not FREE.
Nobody sits around saying metered electricity is inhibiting the embracement of new technology because of the mental drain in assessing what each new widget they plug in is going to cost them.
And you know what, that's a good thing.
If you're limited, there's a mental drain involved in assessing limits *constantly*.
I'm peripherally aware of my electrical bill, or what a trip costs in my car. It doesn't inhibit me from using them normally. However if the fact that they are metered causes me to do a double take on the operating price when my son asks for a flaming gasoline fountain... GOOD.
High bandwidth on cellular is still something of a luxury the prices are dropping and the service is improving. But for normal inernet requirements its pretty good.
If some twit decides he's going to transfer bluray rips over the cellular network... and the fact that this might actually cost him something... is a good thing imho.
Fact of the matter is the cellular companies see the future...
Yes. One day maybe we'll pay for data the way we pay for electricity. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
But unless you show me where they promised you unlimited data -for life-, they aren't breaking the deal.
If you got your 1- or 2- or 3-year contract with unlimited data, and then decide to renew and they tell you can't keep your unlimited data plan anymore, that's not breaking the deal.
$10/GB is about what they are charging for the plans themselves.
The one plan is $30 for 2GB Next up is $50 for 5GB Next up is $80 for 10GB
$10/GB is not punitive at all. Its pretty proportional for what one would be paying all along.
You may feel that $10/GB is too much. And that's your perogative, but you can't argue that they are punishing you for going over your cap, when the rate is proportional to the cap.
If the price jumped up to $50 or $100 / GB that would be punitive.
If you want to see truly "Punitive" rates check out what happens when you go over a roaming data cap -- it can be idiotic like 10 cents a kilobyte, which works out to $10,000/GB.
How is that not punitive? Watch one movie, pay $50?
To stream a bluray rip to your phone after you've hit your data cap? Yeah, $50 isn't punitive at all.
I think I was being charged 10 cents a kilobyte for a data overage (roaming data mind you) just a couple years ago. Your 5GB rip would have cost me... uh... $52,000.
As it was it was about $800 to check a few emails, and look at a couple online maps.
At $10 a gigabyte for overage, you can be right at your cap, and have a windows 7 service pack hit your internet stick, and still have enough room to download a linux live CD without costing you more than a couple starbucks coffees
The current actual price is about $0.02/GB.
Is that on a wireless cellular data network after covering some sort of fixed overhead for infrastructure maintenance... never mind expansion.
So this pisses me off, i am probably in the bottom 1% of bandwidth user, jsut giving them money for almost no reason whatsoever, just my piece of mind
That's insane. Paying for a highend plan just in case one day you might need it?
Its cheaper to get the plan that actaully fits, and just pay the overage if you bump into it... as long as the overage isn't "punitive". Which with verizon's current plans of $10 / GB it is not.
I mean, what does unlimited really mean? 1000GB ? 2000 GB? 5000GB? More? If they priced the plan based on the peope who actually felt entitled to use it that much, would you pay for that tier just "for piece of mind" ?
Most of the time my usage is between 2 and 3 GB per month. I don't want a limited data plan because I don't want to have to worry about my data usage not because I am a digital glutton.
I hear ya, but at some point you have to recognize that in your case then it really doesn't matter.
There is no reason people using 500GB should be paying the same as you and using 100x as much, just so you can "not worry".
As long as the overage rates are reasonable, then it doesn't matter... at 25 cents a kilobyte or something the way they used to be one was legitimately terrified of hitting the cap.
at $10/GB which is the current overage rate, its not really something one should need to worry all that much about even if you do bump into the cap one month.
Regardless of how much data I actually use, if Verizon didn't want me to be able to use unlimited amounts of data, they shouldn't have offered me an unlimited data plan
You are right. They shouldn't have. Offering unlimited data is as stupid as the power company offering unlimited electricity. Sooner or later that business model is going to fail.
Now I don't blame you for taking advantage of them. Not for one second. What? You think I don't have an unlimited plan myself?
They already got rid of them for new subscribers, and now they are getting rid of them for people who are "grandfathered" as in people who they've already completed a contract with, and then when the user renewed, the plan they were on was no-longer offered as an option, but they elected to allow them to keep it. Now they are saying, hey, you had the unlimited free ride, we even let you keep it after we stopped offering it, and now we're done.
Unless you think they are obligated to offer unlimited data in perpetuity? Which they aren't. That was never the deal you had.
You strike me as the type who blames rape victims for wearing tight jeans. Why don't you do the world a favor and go fuck yourself. Hard.
If they really, really want to let me out of my contract here in a month or two, so be it. T-mobile and Sprint still have unlimited plans, so I guess that's where I'll be heading
Seriously, you are like the archtypical obscenely fat glutton at the $9 all-you-can-eat-buffet threatening to take his business somewhere else.
You purchased a license and copy of the installation media, subject to the terms that you will only use it on Apple branded computers.
Except that I did not agree to those terms anywhere, ever.
At $29, you did not pay the full price that Apple would need to charge if they were selling an OS for installation on just any hardware.
So what? I don't disagree with you. But it doesn't matter. They set the price, not me.
I bought a printer once for $50 bucks with $50 mail in rebate... I'm not going to pretend the printer company made any money on me on that deal, especially as I even got ink refills at some cheap refiller. But, bottom line, its not my job to make sure the company's pricing makes sense.
If that pricing model loses them more money then they make back in ink sales that's their problem, not the customers.
Using copyrighted software without a license, is copyright infringement.
So using a copyrighted book without a license, is copyright infringement? I bought a book just the other day and never saw a license. Why exactly do I need a license to use software? (Hint: I don't).
I need a license to make copies. But I'm not making copies, I'm just using it. (And the copies we make as essential steps in using are except from copyright... per copyright law itself. 17 USC 117 (a) (1).
Using it in violation of the license agreement may be copyright infringement.
Using it is not infringement. Copyright law is about "copies"*, not "use" Making copies of it may be infringment.
(*ok... not just copies, it also covers public performances, broadcasts,... etc... but it doesn't cover "using things")
Copyright infringement IS illegal, and as you're certainly aware, the penalties can be very high.
Yes. If you make copies. Buying software, and then using that copy it is not making copies.
To my knowledge, Apple has never sued someone who built their own "hackintosh"
Because it would cost a lot to go after one user, and its pretty unclear what they would actually be sued for.
But that doesn't mean you're not breaking the law if you do it.
Aside from copy it in any way such as installing it on something. You are 100% correct. Without a license you don't have permission to make copies even the first copy of installing though. Otherwise enjoy your Frisbee, coaster or signal mirror.
ORLY?
17 USC 117 (a)... it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
Not only can I make the first copy of installing it, but the copy made when loading it into ram, L2 cache, and even the copy when it gets paged out to disk...
Now I'm pretty sure that step of putting the frisbee into the computer and loading the software it is an essential step to utilizing the copy in conjunction with a computer, and therefore an authorized copy...
Are you arguing that it isn't? Or did you just not know that the law said this?
Slashdot Mirror
You want to be as close to the "real" price during IPO as possible.
You want to be close, but you want to be below. You have to put something on the table for the buyer too. If they buy it and it goes straight down.. that's no good either.
Remember, post IPO, the company is owned by all those shareholders who just lost a bunch of money. Facebook didn't just rip-off "the public", or "retail investors" it ripped off its new owners.
You can argue whether the copyright holders were actually damaged that much, but until you win that argument you can't argue that the award was excessive.
Of course you can. Most of this award has nothing whatsoever to do with "damages". Its statutory, as in the "award" amount is defined by the statute, with no regard for actual damages at all.
A statutory penalty amount is appropriate as a punishment and as a deterrent, however applying it times the number of works infringed in a single non-commercial p2p filesharing case is as idiotic as charging a guy who stole a carton of cigarrets with 240 separate thefts, and then putting him in jail for 1 year for each one of them.
The punitive component of this case should be up around 2 thousand dollars TOPS for a first offense, as an individual in a noncommercial setting. Plus potential liabilty for actual damages.
Meaning the recording industry defnitively has to prove this guy personally harmed them 673,000 bucks.
And -that- is going to be impossible. One only has to look at the p2p network and calculate that there are easily 100 million people worldwide sharing 30 works each.
Thus collectively, they are being harmed 100,000,000 user x 673,000 $/user... which comes to 67 Trillian... yes, Trillian with a T.
The idea that the p2p harm to the recording industry is the GDP of the entire planet is absurd on its face.
Since when do you have a right to privacy in a public place?
Why does it need to be a right?
I don't have a constitutional right to good service by the serving staff at a restaurant, but that's not reason to accept being subjected to lousy service.
I'll find somewhere else to eat.
Similiarly, if a restaurant decides to invade my privacy, why shouldn't I decide to eat somewhere else?
I don't care in the slightest if the restaurant staff "see me", but I don't really want them mounting cameras at my table recording me eating my meal, and posting it on the web, along with facial recognition to tag me and the people im with.
I may not have some sort of constitutional "right to privacy" in a restaurant, but I sure as hell have the right to seek out restaurants that aren't run by complete asshats.
I don't think you can really say 'most people prefer GUIs'.
You can. And it would be true.
It depends what market segment you're talking about
"most people"
I certainly prefer a command prompt to a GUI when dealing with administrative tasks, it just makes it a lot simpler and more efficient to do that sprawling through menus and options.
Meh, beause reading through a 20 page man page to sort out what option you need on some rarely adjusted setting is better how?
The command line is great for scripting .. to make something easily repeatable, or to apply the same setting to a lot of systems.
To look something up, or make a change on one system, especially a change that isn't something you do daily... the gui is simpler, faster, and less prone to error.
but thanks for spelling out exactly what I just said.
What you said exactly was "my problem with the xkcd scheme..." when your problem is with the users, not the xkcd scheme at all. I realize that's where you ended up, but it was as clear as mud.
The solution to the issue of users picking words, is to just assign them passwords... have dictionary generate the passwords for them.
your password is: fishpopsiclemustardocelot
let them keep hitting "generate" until they see one they like...
The privacy policy does matter, as the 'legally binding document' dictates that the privacy policy trumps the EULA.
Then why put it in the eula? Seriously. Given the community is fairly upset about it, why not just remove it?
If you're not cool with that, don't use the service, that's opting-out. Get your games from Steam, or buy a console.
I don't buy "Origin" games. However, I think its perfectly legitimate for me to tell them as loudly as I like why I don't buy them, and to advocate others not buy them as well.
But a company saying "we want to know what hardware people have, and what installation/uninstallation problems they have and what background processes may be running that will b0rk our shit, and you need to tell us that in order to use our service" isn't worth raising a fuss over.
It is to me. There are all kinds of abusive things they can do with the information that fall short of selling it. And more to the point, I don't really care what they do with it; I don't think its any of their damned business.
Microsoft asks for permission to send an error report, and I can turn that off without any issue. If Microsoft made it a condition of using their operating system that they got to collect this information, there would be huge lawsuits. And lets be honest here... microsoft has at least as much, if not more of a legitimate need for this data. But they have decency to ask for it, and respect the wishes of users who say "no".
EA doesn't.
I run it under a different user account and lock it out of anywhere I don't think it needs to be.
Then perhaps you should be posting the links to sandboxing origin's client rather than links claiming Origin is a "non-story", because I don't have any software on my PC that I've felt compelled to sandbox to that degree just to retain some that level of control over my own privacy from the vendor.
The gamer/law article calling it a non-story doesn't make it so.
The terms EA expect you to agree to exceed what any one else is expecting you to agree to.
The reference to the "privacy policy" is irrlevant. It doesn't matter what the privacy policy says. They've declared they can take stock of everything installed on your computer, what is running, and when you run things. Period.
It doesn't really matter what they promise to do with that information. They don't need it as a condition of providing me service, they have no business collecting it in the first place, and not providing an opt-in or even an opt-out is bullshit.
As an addendum, a "privacy policy" is pretty weaksauce in terms of a legally binding document granting you protection. Its a policy -- since when does a company policy count as a legally binding contract with you?
My problem with the xkcd scheme is that users are lazy and rather than pick 4 random words, they'll pick 4 words that are easy to remember in sequence
To be fair that is not the xkcd scheme. 4 random words is the xkcd scheme. 4 words that are part of a common pre-existing phrase is not.
Your critisism with the xkcd scheme is sort of like criticising by observing that users are lazy, and rather than pick 4 random words... they'll just pick two. Again... not that's not the xkcd scheme.
But the real problem that needs solving is password reuse. I can remember something like correcthorsebatterystaple, easily enough, but I can't remember a different random set of words for all the literally dozens of logins I have.
And since I feel like ranting I am frustrated in that half the time I'm constrained by annoying limits... must be a least 5 letters but less than 10 must have a punctuation and 1 digit and a capital that isn't the first letter... oh, and i have to change it every 30 days... but i start getting nagged to change it 14 days before it expires... so either i change it every 14 days or I get nagged half of every month that my password is expiring soon. Oh, and I can change it to the last password I used either...
Is it any wonder that people come up really lousy passwords?
but with DSL I feel absolutely no guilt about "torrenting all night" or downloading and uploading gobs of software and data.
You've fallen hard for the dedicated link DSL marketing myth.
You do know what happens to your connection at the local CO right? It gets switched onto an uplink shared with all your neighbors...
I'm arguing that you don't have permission to utilize it which would also include the copying.
I don't need "permission" to utilize it.
That is where your argument rests on an incorrect assumption.
We no doubt agree that copyright grants copyright owners a variety of exclusive rights over the works they create, but who may -use- a work is NOT one of them.
Copyright owners have exactly 6 rights. They have the exclusive to authorize someone else or do themselves:
1) make copies
2) make derivative works
3) distribute copies
4) perform the work for the public
5) display the work to the public
6) broadcast the work to the public
That is ALL. The copyright holder does not have the exclusive right to decide who can perform, display, or otherwise "utilize" the work in a private setting.
From the copyright act itself:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/106.html
Now, to address the situation of using a legally purchased copy of software:
sections 3 through 6 do not apply. The copy is not being redistributed or made available to the "public" in any fashion. The user is using it on their computer in a private setting.
1 and 2 absolutely do apply. Installing it on the hard drive is clearly making a copy, and it may even be transformed in some fashion in the process and the installed copy could even be argued to be an derivative work.
However, that's where the opening line: "Subject to sections 107 through 122" comes in. Section 117 explicitly allows for the copies and adaptations made as an essential step of using software. So you don't need copyright holders authorization to make the installation or in memory copies either.
You needed them to authorize the creation of the copy you purchased. Really that is all. So as long as the copy you are using was created with the authorization of the copyright holder you are not infringing copyright.
In fact, I'll go even further and contend that you don't even have to have LEGALLY obtained the copy. If you STOLE a book or CD or computer program (by actually physically stealing someone elses authorized copy) then you could not be sued for copyright infringment for possessing and using someone elses authorized copy of a book, CD, or computer program.
Of course, you still could and should be charged with theft.
This is all about Verizon becoming the monopoly content distributor on their network, ...
Its not really.
Think about it. If verizon was nothing but an internet pipe, selling bandwidth transfer and nothing else.. no tv, no voip, nothing... just bandwidth
Then they would still be looking to tier and meter bandwidth.
The content provider issues you mention are real, but they are an orthogonal problem.
That's mainly due to complacency, not due to a limitation of resources.
How do you figure? Bandwidth is a scarce resource in precisely the way electricity is. There is a finite amount available -- sure they can expand capacity, but that's not free.
The future is tiered metered data. very much like tiered metered electricity - first X kWh at one price, next X kWh at another... maybe offpeak kWh at a 3rd price.
You can scurry to another provider for a while chasing "unlimited", but the endgame is inevitable.
If you're not limited, you'll embrace and use whatever services you find useful.
But bandwidth is limited. Networks have a capacity to transfer data and its not infinite.
Bandwidth is like electricity. Its relatively inexpensive, but its not FREE.
Nobody sits around saying metered electricity is inhibiting the embracement of new technology because of the mental drain in assessing what each new widget they plug in is going to cost them.
And you know what, that's a good thing.
If you're limited, there's a mental drain involved in assessing limits *constantly*.
I'm peripherally aware of my electrical bill, or what a trip costs in my car. It doesn't inhibit me from using them normally. However if the fact that they are metered causes me to do a double take on the operating price when my son asks for a flaming gasoline fountain... GOOD.
High bandwidth on cellular is still something of a luxury the prices are dropping and the service is improving. But for normal inernet requirements its pretty good.
If some twit decides he's going to transfer bluray rips over the cellular network... and the fact that this might actually cost him something... is a good thing imho.
Fact of the matter is the cellular companies see the future...
Yes. One day maybe we'll pay for data the way we pay for electricity. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
A deal is a deal.
I agree.
But unless you show me where they promised you unlimited data -for life-, they aren't breaking the deal.
If you got your 1- or 2- or 3-year contract with unlimited data, and then decide to renew and they tell you can't keep your unlimited data plan anymore, that's not breaking the deal.
$10/GB is about what they are charging for the plans themselves.
The one plan is $30 for 2GB
Next up is $50 for 5GB
Next up is $80 for 10GB
$10/GB is not punitive at all. Its pretty proportional for what one would be paying all along.
You may feel that $10/GB is too much. And that's your perogative, but you can't argue that they are punishing you for going over your cap, when the rate is proportional to the cap.
If the price jumped up to $50 or $100 / GB that would be punitive.
If you want to see truly "Punitive" rates check out what happens when you go over a roaming data cap -- it can be idiotic like 10 cents a kilobyte, which works out to $10,000/GB.
How is that not punitive? Watch one movie, pay $50?
To stream a bluray rip to your phone after you've hit your data cap? Yeah, $50 isn't punitive at all.
I think I was being charged 10 cents a kilobyte for a data overage (roaming data mind you) just a couple years ago. Your 5GB rip would have cost me ... uh... $52,000.
As it was it was about $800 to check a few emails, and look at a couple online maps.
At $10 a gigabyte for overage, you can be right at your cap, and have a windows 7 service pack hit your internet stick, and still have enough room to download a linux live CD without costing you more than a couple starbucks coffees
The current actual price is about $0.02/GB.
Is that on a wireless cellular data network after covering some sort of fixed overhead for infrastructure maintenance... never mind expansion.
No. I didn't think so.
So this pisses me off, i am probably in the bottom 1% of bandwidth user, jsut giving them money for almost no reason whatsoever, just my piece of mind
That's insane. Paying for a highend plan just in case one day you might need it?
Its cheaper to get the plan that actaully fits, and just pay the overage if you bump into it... as long as the overage isn't "punitive". Which with verizon's current plans of $10 / GB it is not.
I mean, what does unlimited really mean? 1000GB ? 2000 GB? 5000GB? More? If they priced the plan based on the peope who actually felt entitled to use it that much, would you pay for that tier just "for piece of mind" ?
Most of the time my usage is between 2 and 3 GB per month. I don't want a limited data plan because I don't want to have to worry about my data usage not because I am a digital glutton.
I hear ya, but at some point you have to recognize that in your case then it really doesn't matter.
There is no reason people using 500GB should be paying the same as you and using 100x as much, just so you can "not worry".
As long as the overage rates are reasonable, then it doesn't matter... at 25 cents a kilobyte or something the way they used to be one was legitimately terrified of hitting the cap.
at $10/GB which is the current overage rate, its not really something one should need to worry all that much about even if you do bump into the cap one month.
Regardless of how much data I actually use, if Verizon didn't want me to be able to use unlimited amounts of data, they shouldn't have offered me an unlimited data plan
You are right. They shouldn't have. Offering unlimited data is as stupid as the power company offering unlimited electricity. Sooner or later that business model is going to fail.
Now I don't blame you for taking advantage of them. Not for one second. What? You think I don't have an unlimited plan myself?
They already got rid of them for new subscribers, and now they are getting rid of them for people who are "grandfathered" as in people who they've already completed a contract with, and then when the user renewed, the plan they were on was no-longer offered as an option, but they elected to allow them to keep it. Now they are saying, hey, you had the unlimited free ride, we even let you keep it after we stopped offering it, and now we're done.
Unless you think they are obligated to offer unlimited data in perpetuity? Which they aren't. That was never the deal you had.
You strike me as the type who blames rape victims for wearing tight jeans. Why don't you do the world a favor and go fuck yourself. Hard.
Class act.
If they really, really want to let me out of my contract here in a month or two, so be it. T-mobile and Sprint still have unlimited plans, so I guess that's where I'll be heading
Seriously, you are like the archtypical obscenely fat glutton at the $9 all-you-can-eat-buffet threatening to take his business somewhere else.
They probably can't wait for you to leave.
Until you address the fact that you never had a license to use Mac OS X without buying a Mac, nothing you have to say about it is relevant.
Nothing you have to say is relevant until you realize you don't need a license to software to use it.
You purchased a license and copy of the installation media, subject to the terms that you will only use it on Apple branded computers.
Except that I did not agree to those terms anywhere, ever.
At $29, you did not pay the full price that Apple would need to charge if they were selling an OS for installation on just any hardware.
So what? I don't disagree with you. But it doesn't matter. They set the price, not me.
I bought a printer once for $50 bucks with $50 mail in rebate... I'm not going to pretend the printer company made any money on me on that deal, especially as I even got ink refills at some cheap refiller. But, bottom line, its not my job to make sure the company's pricing makes sense.
If that pricing model loses them more money then they make back in ink sales that's their problem, not the customers.
Using copyrighted software without a license, is copyright infringement.
So using a copyrighted book without a license, is copyright infringement? I bought a book just the other day and never saw a license. Why exactly do I need a license to use software? (Hint: I don't).
I need a license to make copies. But I'm not making copies, I'm just using it. (And the copies we make as essential steps in using are except from copyright... per copyright law itself. 17 USC 117 (a) (1).
Using it in violation of the license agreement may be copyright infringement.
Using it is not infringement.
Copyright law is about "copies"*, not "use"
Making copies of it may be infringment.
(*ok... not just copies, it also covers public performances, broadcasts, ... etc... but it doesn't cover "using things")
Copyright infringement IS illegal, and as you're certainly aware, the penalties can be very high.
Yes. If you make copies. Buying software, and then using that copy it is not making copies.
To my knowledge, Apple has never sued someone who built their own "hackintosh"
Because it would cost a lot to go after one user, and its pretty unclear what they would actually be sued for.
But that doesn't mean you're not breaking the law if you do it.
It doesn't mean you are breaking the law either.
Aside from copy it in any way such as installing it on something. You are 100% correct. Without a license you don't have permission to make copies even the first copy of installing though. Otherwise enjoy your Frisbee, coaster or signal mirror.
ORLY?
17 USC 117 (a) ... it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
Not only can I make the first copy of installing it, but the copy made when loading it into ram, L2 cache, and even the copy when it gets paged out to disk...
Now I'm pretty sure that step of putting the frisbee into the computer and loading the software it is an essential step to utilizing the copy in conjunction with a computer, and therefore an authorized copy...
Are you arguing that it isn't? Or did you just not know that the law said this?
Actually the US law is even more permissive.
It explicitly allows for the creation of copies that are essential steps in using the software.
Installing the software on on a computer is a pretty essential step for using the software.