It *isn't* fair, although rather than what you would like to believe, I didn't just say "omg megacorp has sooo much money that they shouldn't be allowed to sue!"
Rather, I said that there should be some way for *any defendant* (rich or poor) to obtain fees + some compensation from a plaintiff who is determined to have used litigation bully without merit. (Yes, this would require judgment on the part of the judge (shocking) and wouldn't be perfect.)
The comment you quote is only CYA. What she means is,
"It costs us money and doesn't work like we want it to, so we're scrapping it. Since our customers don't like it, we will market it as a step forward on our part, rather than a setback on the path to effective DRM."
Management doesn't care if we can make backups or upload to any player you didn't buy directly from them. They'd prefer if we couldn't, in fact.
Nothing I said comes close to translating to "if you're poor, then you can break the law," and the fact that you keep bringing it up as such implies to me some other agenda. It's as if you're raising that argument up as something, outside of my own commentary, to argue against...
No, armchair lawyers on slashdot should not decide if a lawsuit is justified or not, but *actual* lawyers, held on retainer by MegaCorp should be required to ensure that there is a legal basis for their claim - just as any plaintiff should, large or small. The class action suit against Nintendo seems to be in more of a gray area than this, but I still think it falls under the same umbrella - a lawsuit designed to bring about some sort of gain by virtue of the lawsuit itself, not by law.
It is not up to Disney... to determine whether or not something illegal has transpired, it is up to a court of law.
Inane. If it is not up to Disney to decide whether something illegal has transpired, then they should sue every time anything involving them happens. I mention Mickey Mouse in this post -- hey, that COULD be some sort of copyright infringement or defamation of character, right? Break out the cease & desist.
There simply needs to be a way to hold accountable *anyone* who uses litigation to bully. Repayment of legal expenses of the wronged party is not enough, since it is (often) small beans to the plaintiff, and legal expenses break the bank NOW, and repayment happens (up to) YEARS later.
Representing yourself is not so trivial as you make it sound, *especially* if you aren't a lawyer or even initiated into the legal system somehow. Fighting in this case carries all the risk for Spocko and none for Disney, and it is THEY who are violating the law (er... I think, IANAL - by suing over something they know is not illegal). If there were any kind of punishment to be meted out to Disney if they were shown to be in the wrong, then this idea of 'picking your battles' would be a good one. However, all they have to do is bully without fear of reprisal
By reasonable, do you mean not scalped, or less than the $600 asking price? If you mean you don't mind paying the asking price, there are a dozen PS3s down at the local best buy that no one else is buying...
I'm not one of those "I want to believe," types, but I think that your comment that 'it's not like what we have one earth, so it's very unlikely' is short sighted. Converse to that, I could see some sort of race living with no life sustaining liquid element, but rather a very precise sort of dry nutrient transfer system, saying 'liquid media? that would be far too imprecise to allow proper distribution of vital nutrients.'
Say 'I'll wait for the evidence' all you want, hell, I agree with you and so will I. This kind of 'news' about life on Mars seems like a rehash of every other story similar to it.
But to say it's unlikely simply because life there would have to be very different than life here? Well... define alien again for me?
Do you really mean that if he can't afford to outspend a corporation in a legal battle, he shouldn't be able to criticize that corporation? They don't seem to be contending slander or libel here.
You comment that perhaps the clips he uses are too long - It seems that reposting approximately 0.37% (40 seconds) of a single morning show (assumed to be 3 hours) would not be enough to draw away listenership by providing an alternate source - the main test, in this case, for fair use.
Unless, I guess, their own listeners think that less than half a percent of the material generated is worth listening to...
*Of course* they would press the lawsuit, unless a law firm picked up the case for free, or a rival corporation or fund decided to help out the blogger. Why? Because it's an excellent gamble. At a minimal cost to them (lawyers on retainer anyhow), they can probably just get the guy to shut up (as they did) because he can't begin to afford to fight off the onslaught of litigation he would face. It would likely take a team of lawyers to do it, despite the fact that he is in the right.
I totally agree. When complaining to someone about a rootkit, just call it a virus.
People don't know what those are either, but they have been scared by the media into understanding that they might slip out of the computer and steal their TV.
You could just summarize that Sony BMG 'Put a virus-like program on their computer, which transmitted information to them secretly, and would destroy your OS if you tried to remove it.'
Unfortunately, this is unassailable logic. Although, personally, I think the PS3 will be a flop unless they lower prices, Sony as a brand is here to stay.
Further, I wonder if, in a survey, people would say 'PlayStation' is the brand name of PS/2/3 rather than Sony.
Personally, my own boycott of Sony is progressing... not that it will make any difference but to me.
...but if they announced it, and did not begin the patenting process, couldn't someone else just work on their ideas and patent it in turn?
I figure they announce it to generate funding, and they patent it to prevent it from being stolen from them. Either they patent it or someone else will, right? It's not their evil motives, it's our reality.
In any case, they will (er... might) perfect the idea or someone else will, and then they will be paid for the rights to manufacture it. Then the patent will belong to big pharma and the monetary pain will commence.
It ekes out over the XBox360 in hardware, but in practical performance, right now at least, they're on par graphically.
In every other category, the XBox has had many moons to be better than the PS3. Live, tons of games, and market security.
The PS3 is a risk to me, since it is being outperformed so badly (my anecdotal support: The Wii is constantly sold out everywhere here, the local Best Buy sold roughly 100 XBox 360 Pros from Christmas to now, and there was a stack of 9-10 PS3s in that same best buy on Dec. 27, and on Jan. 3 there were still 6 - no telling if some were replaced.) So if no one buys the PS3, it will lose exclusive developer support and with that, it will lose the people with motivation to program for the console's full potential.
So, from everyone's perspective excepting rabid Sony Fanboys (to borrow your turn of phrase), PS3 is not the 'best' console out there.
Parent: Jonny said he wanted the PS3, but the Wii is so much more child-friendly and less than half the price!
Casual gamer: 'The Wii looks like a lot of fun! Maybe my girlfriend/boyfriend/SO would even be interested in this!' or 'My friend told me how cool XBox live is, and it would be fun to be able to keep playing Halo with my frat brothers now that we've graduated.' or 'Halo3!'
Gamer: "PS3 ekes out over the XBox360 in hardware, but in practical performance, right now at least, they're on par graphically. In every other category, the XBox has had many moons to be better than the PS3. Live, tons of games, and market security." or "Zelda!"
Technophile: PS3 has the best hardware, and I must have it! However, I'm buying all three anyhow, so...
A more reliable laptop, which is lighter, less prone to failure from abuse, and may even last longer on a charge, at the price of not much storage space and... the price.
Seems like the target market should be the military.
If they open a package/letter without a warrant, they'll be reviewed by the legal system. If a DA decides to prosecute, then it will be decided by a jury. I figure that if it was opened because they were curious, they will be found guilty of... whatever, and if it was opened because they thought it contained a bomb/anthrax and there was some reason for suspicion, they would be found innocent... of whatever.
Also, they could be sued somehow, I'm sure.
So, the difference is that as it is right now (or was?), opening a package without a warrant needs to be justified in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the psmonline subscription Parent is me! Freaky. And knowing me, that has to be a blow to his self esteem.
You know, to fund necessary things for the public good?
No profit in it, but that's why we pay taxes. So the government can do something that doesn't turn a huge profit.
It *isn't* fair, although rather than what you would like to believe, I didn't just say "omg megacorp has sooo much money that they shouldn't be allowed to sue!"
Rather, I said that there should be some way for *any defendant* (rich or poor) to obtain fees + some compensation from a plaintiff who is determined to have used litigation bully without merit. (Yes, this would require judgment on the part of the judge (shocking) and wouldn't be perfect.)
The comment you quote is only CYA. What she means is,
"It costs us money and doesn't work like we want it to, so we're scrapping it. Since our customers don't like it, we will market it as a step forward on our part, rather than a setback on the path to effective DRM."
Management doesn't care if we can make backups or upload to any player you didn't buy directly from them. They'd prefer if we couldn't, in fact.
Nothing I said comes close to translating to "if you're poor, then you can break the law," and the fact that you keep bringing it up as such implies to me some other agenda. It's as if you're raising that argument up as something, outside of my own commentary, to argue against ...
No, armchair lawyers on slashdot should not decide if a lawsuit is justified or not, but *actual* lawyers, held on retainer by MegaCorp should be required to ensure that there is a legal basis for their claim - just as any plaintiff should, large or small. The class action suit against Nintendo seems to be in more of a gray area than this, but I still think it falls under the same umbrella - a lawsuit designed to bring about some sort of gain by virtue of the lawsuit itself, not by law.
Inane. If it is not up to Disney to decide whether something illegal has transpired, then they should sue every time anything involving them happens. I mention Mickey Mouse in this post -- hey, that COULD be some sort of copyright infringement or defamation of character, right? Break out the cease & desist.
There simply needs to be a way to hold accountable *anyone* who uses litigation to bully. Repayment of legal expenses of the wronged party is not enough, since it is (often) small beans to the plaintiff, and legal expenses break the bank NOW, and repayment happens (up to) YEARS later.
Representing yourself is not so trivial as you make it sound, *especially* if you aren't a lawyer or even initiated into the legal system somehow. Fighting in this case carries all the risk for Spocko and none for Disney, and it is THEY who are violating the law (er... I think, IANAL - by suing over something they know is not illegal). If there were any kind of punishment to be meted out to Disney if they were shown to be in the wrong, then this idea of 'picking your battles' would be a good one. However, all they have to do is bully without fear of reprisal
By reasonable, do you mean not scalped, or less than the $600 asking price? If you mean you don't mind paying the asking price, there are a dozen PS3s down at the local best buy that no one else is buying...
I'm not one of those "I want to believe," types, but I think that your comment that 'it's not like what we have one earth, so it's very unlikely' is short sighted. Converse to that, I could see some sort of race living with no life sustaining liquid element, but rather a very precise sort of dry nutrient transfer system, saying 'liquid media? that would be far too imprecise to allow proper distribution of vital nutrients.'
Say 'I'll wait for the evidence' all you want, hell, I agree with you and so will I. This kind of 'news' about life on Mars seems like a rehash of every other story similar to it.
But to say it's unlikely simply because life there would have to be very different than life here? Well... define alien again for me?
Do you really mean that if he can't afford to outspend a corporation in a legal battle, he shouldn't be able to criticize that corporation? They don't seem to be contending slander or libel here.
You comment that perhaps the clips he uses are too long - It seems that reposting approximately 0.37% (40 seconds) of a single morning show (assumed to be 3 hours) would not be enough to draw away listenership by providing an alternate source - the main test, in this case, for fair use.
Unless, I guess, their own listeners think that less than half a percent of the material generated is worth listening to...
*Of course* they would press the lawsuit, unless a law firm picked up the case for free, or a rival corporation or fund decided to help out the blogger. Why? Because it's an excellent gamble. At a minimal cost to them (lawyers on retainer anyhow), they can probably just get the guy to shut up (as they did) because he can't begin to afford to fight off the onslaught of litigation he would face. It would likely take a team of lawyers to do it, despite the fact that he is in the right.
Who did invent clamshell packaging? So we can lynch him. Or, better, sue him for $150,000 per cut received...
...will come to One Million, Three Hundred and Thirty-Seven Thousand dollars.
Yeah... I did a >b> and not a >p>.
Oops, my mistake.
... and that worked out *so very well* for them ...
Here's to hoping it does again. *Buys HD-DVD player*
I totally agree. When complaining to someone about a rootkit, just call it a virus.
People don't know what those are either, but they have been scared by the media into understanding that they might slip out of the computer and steal their TV.
You could just summarize that Sony BMG 'Put a virus-like program on their computer, which transmitted information to them secretly, and would destroy your OS if you tried to remove it.'
Why mod the parent troll? I avoid sony, and I encourage others to do the same.
Bought a 360, and soon will buy the HDDVD attachment to it, to place my vote firmly on that side of the debate.
Unfortunately, this is unassailable logic. Although, personally, I think the PS3 will be a flop unless they lower prices, Sony as a brand is here to stay.
Further, I wonder if, in a survey, people would say 'PlayStation' is the brand name of PS/2/3 rather than Sony.
Personally, my own boycott of Sony is progressing... not that it will make any difference but to me.
They didn't even have to do that, apparently!
*Ducks.*
...but if they announced it, and did not begin the patenting process, couldn't someone else just work on their ideas and patent it in turn?
I figure they announce it to generate funding, and they patent it to prevent it from being stolen from them. Either they patent it or someone else will, right? It's not their evil motives, it's our reality.
In any case, they will (er... might) perfect the idea or someone else will, and then they will be paid for the rights to manufacture it. Then the patent will belong to big pharma and the monetary pain will commence.
PS3 = Paper Tiger.
It ekes out over the XBox360 in hardware, but in practical performance, right now at least, they're on par graphically. In every other category, the XBox has had many moons to be better than the PS3. Live, tons of games, and market security.
The PS3 is a risk to me, since it is being outperformed so badly (my anecdotal support: The Wii is constantly sold out everywhere here, the local Best Buy sold roughly 100 XBox 360 Pros from Christmas to now, and there was a stack of 9-10 PS3s in that same best buy on Dec. 27, and on Jan. 3 there were still 6 - no telling if some were replaced.) So if no one buys the PS3, it will lose exclusive developer support and with that, it will lose the people with motivation to program for the console's full potential.
So, from everyone's perspective excepting rabid Sony Fanboys (to borrow your turn of phrase), PS3 is not the 'best' console out there.
Parent: Jonny said he wanted the PS3, but the Wii is so much more child-friendly and less than half the price!
Casual gamer: 'The Wii looks like a lot of fun! Maybe my girlfriend/boyfriend/SO would even be interested in this!' or 'My friend told me how cool XBox live is, and it would be fun to be able to keep playing Halo with my frat brothers now that we've graduated.' or 'Halo3!'
Gamer: "PS3 ekes out over the XBox360 in hardware, but in practical performance, right now at least, they're on par graphically. In every other category, the XBox has had many moons to be better than the PS3. Live, tons of games, and market security." or "Zelda!"
Technophile: PS3 has the best hardware, and I must have it! However, I'm buying all three anyhow, so...
Just my .002 cents.
Er... Your word was constitution, I am guessing, and I was just joking. I guess D could stand for dumb joke.
A more reliable laptop, which is lighter, less prone to failure from abuse, and may even last longer on a charge, at the price of not much storage space and ... the price.
Seems like the target market should be the military.
Or call the bomb squad.
If they open a package/letter without a warrant, they'll be reviewed by the legal system. If a DA decides to prosecute, then it will be decided by a jury. I figure that if it was opened because they were curious, they will be found guilty of... whatever, and if it was opened because they thought it contained a bomb/anthrax and there was some reason for suspicion, they would be found innocent... of whatever.
Also, they could be sued somehow, I'm sure.
So, the difference is that as it is right now (or was?), opening a package without a warrant needs to be justified in the end.
IANAL, and IDNRTFA.
Or RTFD! Your turn.