And you're setting up a bit of a straw man. Maybe in one case that's the issue, but as a general principle, people go into physical stores to look directly at a product and maybe handle it, without automatically needing to 'pester' the staff - but it still costs the store to keep products on hand. Of course, getting 'expert' advice is another reason, but that's always been a problem - the internet has just added something else to the list - it could just as easily be the local Wal-Mart that gets the sale.
Any serious store that has to charge people to look at products, unless they have some sort of 'natural' monopoly or get a lot of 'desperate' custom, are going to find they get a lot less footfalls, and therefore sales. Unless they can somehow steer those customers to their own online offering and make it compelling enough.
So don't try to derail things with minor (and incomplete) quibbles. How about adding something to the discussion instead of trying to become OotB #2?
What was pointed out in the discussion in the UK about the fall and recovery of the camera company Jessops is that there has *always* been a problem of people coming to (specialist) bricks-and-mortar stores, then getting it cheaper in a store elsewhere, or even by mail order. This has been going on for a long long long time - it's part of the *point* of capitalism - you are supposed to be able to shop around for better prices.
What this also doesn't address is what happens when stores want to lower their own online or offline costs, or what happens when a bricks-and-mortar store is offering cheaper than an online one - or even, which offline costs are the baseline for this stupidity.
Still, you have to remember it's the French; they are pretty 'socialist' (i.e. protectionist) even by European standards, and notoriously averse to 'free' trade - just look at the strikes and blockades they throw up constantly when not getting their way economically.
British lamb? Mais non! Laissez-faire capitalism sur l'internet? Zut alors!
So illegal workers who are being illegally exploited by shady employers who don't declare anything to do with them are less 'slaves' then regular tax-paying citizens?
If you work but earn less than the amount you can be taxed on (UK anyway), does that somehow make you less of a 'slave' than someone who is earning enough to pay tax, even though it means you are either doing few hours or earning very little money?
Frankly, capitalism (and most other economic systems) make sure workers are labour 'slaves' regardless of whether taxes are paid.
One of the reasons that taxation is often used is that it benefits society as a whole to have decent broadband, just like it benefits society to have decent roads. But at least a Kickstarter would be a bit more accountable, hopefully.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course it's anti-competitive!
Relatively they are only a tiny proportion, so I'd probably not even bother with argon unless I wanted to tell people that they were breathing in a smog of dioxygenated nitrogen, argon-infused carbon anhydride and dihydrogen monoxide. For short and snappy, dioxygenated nitrogen works, although I could go for 'dioxygenated mephitic azote'
Becausee the DOJ can still utterly ruin your life with piled-on 'fake' charges and escalating civil penalties into grand felonies. I'm sure most people would rather not have to go to court and would rather not be charged with 'felony interference with a government donor's business failure model' because they changed a lightbulb for themselves.
I take it you are redefining 'communist' according to Faux News and Conservapedia as 'someone I don't like who is to the right of Genghis Khan but still left of me'?
Hollywood may have a somewhat so-called 'liberal' bias in their film-making, but they are nowhere close to communist. Plus, their management system is far too capitalist-abusive to be even socialist, let alone communist. Where is the 'common good' of how they treat their artists or the public?
I don't think that's 'transformative' enough, as it's going for an exact reproduction. Same as taking pictures of old public domain paintings - there has to be some element of change to add an additional copyright.
So if someone took a picture of the Mona Lisa and adds other photo-manipulations in, that picture can gain copyright and anyone copying that one is on the hook. But it doesn't suddenly mean someone has 'stolen' the copyright to the original.