The buggy is the physical media, and it is going away. What didn't go away back then, and isn't going away now, was the increased speed of travel allowed by buggys, and the content being produced. What did happen, is that people got what the buggys gave them, only better and more efficient, so buggys went away. This is happening again, because digital media is better and more efficient than physical media. The movies aren't getting any better, so the price shouldn't be going up. The efficiency is getting better, which should bring price down. People realize this, companies are trying hard not to.
the fact that any are reversed is a symptom of everything being broken. There should be absolutely NONE reversed, because a reversal is a failure to catch a bad application, that should have been rejected in the first place. Fix that, then no more reversals, and we don't really need to worry about this type of thing, even as an exception. So you're not, not everything is broken, just the foundation, which makes everything else look broken...
My mom thought that about me all the way up until she dropped me off at college one weekend after a visit home, and my dorm room was covered with empty beer cans and cups... I tried to tell her, "Mom, I was home with you all weekend, this stuff only happens when I'm not here!" But it was probably my inability to keep a straight face while saying that which made her finally realize, I was a normal teenage boy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why isn't the PD being sued as well?
No, it's exactly the same. This time, you should finally be able to understand... a $60 price tag for a non-working laptop puts the price in the range of 'so inconclusive that it's not even relevant', which makes it, in that particular instance, irrelevant.
"Companies such as Netflix, HBO, PPV, and streaming companies pay top dollar for content."
And they pay the same to the MPAA regardless of how many people pay them, so the people who download instead of use Netflix aren't considered a 'loss' to the MPAA in this sense. They are considered a loss, because that pumps up the numbers, and in order to make the numbers look good, you have to assume that they would have bought a DVD at the price of 3 months worth of Netflix... This strawman is even bigger than it looks at first glance.
"The judge ruled that she had reasonable cause to believe the $60 offer was reasonable, given that the machine was 2 years old and non-working when she obtained it."
So if I buy a new PC with no OS on it, I can expect it to be super cheap as it isn't "working?"
You're a clown. There's a very clear, and very large difference between the two. If you buy new, you're buying from the supplier, and you're expecting all of the hardware to be fully operational. Used doesn't just mean that it's been turned on, it means that it's been out of factory care and there's really no telling what could have been done with it. 'non-working' when she got it could have meant that there was a bad hard drive or memory stick, or maybe the touchpad had stopped working....much more than just a missing OS. And tell me, how much would you spend for a laptop that didn't have a working touchpad??
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why isn't the PD being sued as well?
The height is relevant unless it falls in the range where it can go either way. If you're 6 feet tall, there are enough 6 foot people who are good, and enough who are bad, to make that particular number irrelevant. So yes, height might be relevant, but there is a certain height range that renders the factor irrelevant for certain equations. That's all I'm getting at. Price is relevant, but the fact that the price tag was $60 makes it inconclusive, and therefore in this particular instance, irrelevant.
Anyone with sense knows that if you protect something too much, it becomes dependent on that protection and can never fend for itself in the real world... If you stopped protecting your games, you'd be able to spend more developing them into something that actually has a chance to make it based on it's own merits.
"Do you ever record serial #'s for insurance reasons or maybe just to locate item after it has been stolen?"
Nope. I save the original documentation of expensive things I buy new, but I've never once even LOOKED for the serial number on anything I've bought used, especially something I've bought for as little as $60.
You mention above that you also look for the MS license key, and that is also something that I never look for. I would prefer if it didn't even have one, so that once I got it home and put my clean Linux installation on it, it would have no signs of having ever been tainted by that inferior OS.
Different strokes for different folks big guy. You can't expect everyone in the world to think about doing something because you're so OCD that it's the first thing you would even think to do. Not all minds work like yours, and I thank whatever higher power there is for that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why isn't the PD being sued as well?
If it can be refuted, then an argument can be made both ways, and it pretty much becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?? I mean, if it doesn't show anything one way or the other, how could it possibly be relevant to the argument??
And you actually do need conclusive, irrefutable proof to be proven guilty of a crime....beyond a reasonable doubt and all that.
I've even skipped seeing a movie in the theater because I caught some of a downloaded/bootlegged version, and it turned out the movie was crap and not worth the ticket price. Of course, I only ever did that after I was so fed up about paying ticket prices for too many movies that weren't worth it, so really, Hollywood is their own worst enemy here. They drove me to piracy. If I felt any confidence about a movie being worth the price, I wouldn't even question myself about going to see it. But they put out too much crap, and so I need to protect my own bank account.
Sure, a lot of people will say, "Then just don't watch them, you don't have to pirate the things and rob the people who worked on it of their financial reward!" or something like that. The thing is, I'm not robbing anyone of anything. If I liked the movie for free, I'll go see it on the big screen and have no problems paying for the theater experience. If I didn't like it for free, then it's one that I'd have either opted not to watch in the theater, or I would have seen it, gotten pissed cuz it sucked, and then made up my mind not to watch anything from that studio/producer/director...whoever, without a 5 star, two thumbs up, glowing review from a close, trusted friend. The ability to watch a bad movie without paying for it actually makes the chances that I'll go to the theater for a later movie from that studio significantly higher.
I got my laptop for free, 3 years used, because the person who gave it to me had a new one and no longer had a need for it. Not everyone is so greedy that they would need to sell something used, that they don't have a need for anymore, for the highest possible price, and this teacher could have thought the seller was a genuinely nice person. I know, it's hard for some to believe that those still exist, but they do, and I for one hope they don't go away because clowns like you think they should question every thing a person does which appears to be out of kindness. Have you ever heard of FreeCycle?
Well, you might not worry about it, and Kevin Smith probably isn't really going to miss that money....but that's the price of a new KIA isn't it? If the film is good enough to win an Oscar, isn't it the same quality film regardless of how much money was spent on advertisements? Hell, if that had been donated to the right charity, it likely could have fed a whole African family for nearly a year, spent on something they didn't want to spend it on...and for what? An unreasonable rule, probably created when newspapers gave a huge chunk of start up money to the AMPAS under the condition that they get a little bit back for every movie reviewed... Is racketeering the right word??
And it's "because designers would like to be lazier. They don't want competition and they don't want to have to innovate at the same pace."
They've made their money the hard way, now they want to sit back Scrooge McDuck style and watch the money keep coming in while they swim in it. Normal people, when they reach that point, they retire and do the things in life that they had been too busy working to do. Rich, greedy assholes though, the only thing they want to do is make money, and once they have some, they want to keep making it by doing even less to deserve it.