Re: Where's the diff, Mike? Both say some version of "self-policing".
Let's extend this logic and see what other services need to be shut down then.
- Phone companies. I'm sure drug dealers use the phone a lot, not to mention terrorists and Pedophiles. Gasp! What about the children? They should screen all the calls to be sure everything is safe.
- US Post. Didn't you read that they sometimes use the post to send threat letters? Clearly illegal so if they can't prevent it, shut it down. Shear volume (not to mention constitutional issues) is NO EXCUSE.
- The Stock exchange. Some broker just went bankrupt and there is talk of foul play and illegal use of funds. We could also mention everybody's favorite Madoff. If the Exchange can't stop illegal trading or wrongdoings they should shut down! Sheer volume is NO EXCUSE
- Flea markets: Some people use flea markets to sell stolen goods so they're all criminals. Shut them down!
Orwell and Huxley would be proud of you OOTB. You're their best chance of proving their predictions right.
YES!! I have it. I can simplify all this court stuff for you, too complicated. Let's go back to the old times.
If you are accused, they'll take your servers and drop them in the deepest part of the ocean. If they float, obviously you were criminally infringing and should be locked up for life.
If theys sink you were innocent.
As a non-US resident I have mixed feelings about all the antics of your elected representatives...
There is definitely a Schadenfreude element to it where I feel this is what you deserve for electing them in the first place. I'm ashamed for this but still the feelings are there. Also the US seems hell-bent on creating opportunities for other countries to become the leading economy.
The other part is fear. The US is pivotal in the worldwide economy and if the US is doing badly it will have negative influences everywhere. Besides, what will replace it as the leading economy? Probably China. Doesn't sound like an improvement...
I feel that US voters need to wake up and start voting for candidates that will reform campaign financing. This is the only way that you will ever have politicians that look after your interests (assuming such a mythological creature exists). For me, looking from a distance, this is where it all starts.
Is it me or am I reading it wrong? I see nobody that is worried that Hotfile gave WB some software that let's them delete files at will, without oversight. And nobody at Hotfile thought that was a recipe for disaster? They agreed to that without a court order and threat of grievous bodily harm?
Seriously, of all the things I've read on this site, that must be the scariest thing yet. So wherever you store something, Google for example, you're never sure that some random content company is not looking over your shoulder because they've been given a nice piece of software. Without informing the customer. Additionally if the name of my file corresponds to some random phrase they don't like, it will be deleted...
Correct me if I'm wrong but the idea of a "Locker" is that you store stuff in a place inaccessible for others, is it not? So, Hotfile is a service that calls itself a digital locker which (I assume, didn't check) advertises safety for your digital property and discretion but they give the keys to the first neigbourhood bully that passes by? Sounds like an invitation for a class action lawsuit.
I was already not overly fond of storing things in "The Cloud" but this convinces me I'm much better off keeping things on my local hard drive. No company on the net can be trusted with my files.
"then the overlaid crap is back, SPOILING the nostalgia"
That reminds me of a story. Some years back I heard a song from Limp Bizkit, Behind blue eyes. It sounded familiar but I couldnīt place it immediately. After a couple of weeks of hearing it on the radio something clicked and I remembered. It was a cover from The Who, a band which I used to love but which I never played anymore (yes Iīm an old geezer too).
That actually made me want to listen to the original again and I found out that the original was infinitely better. Of course I could be like you and let the Limp Bizkit version "SPOIL the nostalgia" (I almost forgot the all caps there) but it actually revived some of the nostalgia and how many good songs they made. I ended up buying a good many The Who songs again but now digitally. Yes, you read that right, I actually spent money.
So, you tell me. If you let bad covers SPOIL your nostalgia is it something inherently wrong with covers or is it perhaps some personal issue you have. I think at least Pete Townsend wasnīt complaining...
Additionally, some covers can be just as good, or better than the original. My personal opinion is that any cover of a Frank Sinatra song would be better than the original but thatīs my personal opinion.
The bottom line is this: Donīt force your tastes on anybody else. If you donīt like covers (or (re)mixes for that matter) switch it off and donīt listen. Let me however enjoy it if I want to.
I just wondered: Did anybody ever calculate how much more, for example, a copy of Windows costs just because Microsoft pays license fees to a ton of non-innovators? They must price it in as variable cost if they pay a license for every copy.
I'd think that if it turned out that out of every copy of Windows $30 goes to licensing fees, people might feel a bit different about it and even politicians might get a better picture.
If you also add the lawyer fees, which of course are fixed costs (no pun intended) it would give a clear indication how high the patent tax is.
I'm all for allowing people to go to court whenever they want about whatever they want but isn't it time we somehow limited lawyer stupidity/greed?
Just an idea: If somebody files a lawsuit and is laughed out of court (or Anti-Slapped), the lawyer involved shouldn't be allowed to send a bill for the work unless he told the client this was a stupid idea and let him sign a waiver to that effect. Something like: "I discussed this with my legal counsil and against his express legal advice I still want to press this case. Signed Mr. M. Oron"
It seems that now there is no incentive for lawyers to discourage customers from pressing dubious lawsuits. Not sure this is the best solution but I feel that (in some cases) we need to force lawyers to give proper legal advice or suffer from their own incompetence.
I think it would probably work better if it was some kind of bidding system, as mentioned above. That way you'll get a better idea of what people are prepared to pay and will thus gain important market info. Right now it will be too easy for people to start making calculations and that will mean they'll probably end up on or around the 50.000 mark.
I've just read a book from Dan Ariely titled "Predictably Irrational". According to his research it is relatively easy to get people to offer in the right price range, provided they have no direct product to compare it with. To do that you need to "anchor" the price. Funnily enough it can be just random numbers. He asked people to write down the last 2 digits of their social security number and then asked them to bid on certain items. People with high numbers also bid significantly higher. To anchor the price in this case they should just open the bids and mention that comparable products retail for $ 25, something like that. Right now they've anchored it at the 16.67 mentioned above.