I agree with you. I still keep my old original Xbox in the closet just in case I have to play a DVD, but honestly, compared to the streaming offering from Netflix, DVD's are a pain in the ass. I'd rather torrent something and copy it to a flash drive to plug into my Roku so I can watch it on my TV than dig out the DVD player...and I don't usually torrent things. I never even had the DVD offering from Netflix, so this whole change doesn't effect me. I can understand a bit of anger at the price hike, but let's be real here: Comcast offers a $99 one year deal when you sign up, and after that year it shoots up to almost or over double that, depending on what options you have. The fact that you got both streaming and DVD's from Netflix for as long as you did should buy them a bit of leeway...especially since we ALL KNOW the more successful they got, the more they'd be "taxed" by hollywood...
I don't think the guys who founded Napster had a crystal clear goal of breaking the law to make tons of money with no risk of losing any... I understand what you're saying, and if we hold one accountable it could have negative side effects for others, but I think there are two very different situations here, and hopefully the law can distinguish between them so as to only go after the Righthaven's of the world...those criminals who believe they are smart enough to work around the law and cover their tracks so as to not risk any penalties for their egregious acts...
In Napster's case, people were sharing mixed tapes like nobody's business, people were burning and sharing mixed CD's already, and none of those people were being sued. That they saw this, and simply wanted to make it easier to do the same sharing that was already going on kind of takes the "they knew before hand that it was illegal, and they willfully broke the law to make a bunch of money" argument off the table...it was a couple of college kids and not certified lawyers ya know...
If Starz doesn't want me to watch Spartacus for a reasonable price, I may just have to not pay for it. I won't pay Comcast for a basic package, and then pay them even more for Starz, especially if Spartacus is the only thing from Starz I want to watch. I have absolutely NO problem with, and I'm even a little excited to, pay Netflix the $8/month for access to Starz content. If Netflix even had to compartmentalize the Starz offering, and charge an extra $2/month or something, I'd still have no problem paying the then $10/month. What I do have a problem with, is paying Comcast so much more than that, for them to provide a far worse viewing experience, for them to include a bunch of crap that I would rather pay them NOT to provide, for them to then charge me an extra, still larger, fee to include the same Starz programming that Netflix was trying to include.
To Starz, HBO and Showtime:
Get out of bed with Cable providers, you can reach a lot more people that way, and with more customers, you can make more money. You're not helping yourselves out any.
There is no bigger issue, there is only then and there, there is only that moment when a terrorist HAS decided to bring danger to the airport. And when that happens, and they get through to hijack/blow up/take over a plane, and they make it through the TSA checkpoints in a wheelchair for $20 (they had to be generous, so the dumb bitch wouldn't think twice) and it's your family killed in the next attack after your wife had to get sexually violated to get on board that plane which she died on, when all of that happens, will you still be championing the effectiveness of this theater?
Why, might I ask, do you think the airplanes will be empty??? I know over half a dozen close friends who haven't flied since the TSA was introduced, and won't fly again until they are gone. Tell me, if they finally feel good about going back to the airport, buying a ticket and flying somewhere, why would their plane be emptier than it was when they refused to fly???
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.