When I said “if you want to bitch” I was talking about people who come onto news websites like this one and start posting ignorant comments without first doing research to determine if what they are saying is even valid.

I am pretty sure TD doesn’t consider itself a news site, nor adheres to journalistic standards. I don’t understand why you believe this point is valid. Your perception may be severely skewed.

Not sure where you are getting rentals from this. Also what hotel do you know of that would tell you that as long as you stay in the room you only have to pay the one day and you can stay as long as you like. The rental argument doesn’t hold any water because it is trying to twist two things into objects that can be compared when they are not.

DRM is a method to manage your rights. In many cases it limits rights without adding value to the users.

The utility of this computer game has changed dramatically. In comparison, this game can be considered quite limited in comparison to other games. These affect playability and under certain conditions, this can be severely limited, quite substantial, and unavoidable. But the main problem is that it’s not disclosed, and goes against the fundamentals of many other major games on the market.

Instead of obfuscation of this “limited playability” feature set, (which could be seen as a modification of what could be considered generally accepted terms and conditions as perceived by a reasonably educated consumer, it should be disclosed, possibly in every advert.

A reasonable consumer may also expect this to be disclosed to users by the production house, not by 2,000 reviews. But alas, since the production house omits this, people are taking it upon themselves to educate the masses.

I don’t see what’s wrong with Amazon Customers sharing what may have been glared over as a marginal item. This “DRM feature set” apparently matters to a good deal of customers, but was passed up by someone.

What does clicking on ad have to do with getting your information straight before you start ranting. It is obvious that very few, if any, of the people that posted negative comments, on this article, actually check to see if Amazon has the rights to remove reviews. And I am talking about people who rant not those who keeps their perspectives to themselves. If you want to open your mouth then you should first make sure you have something intelligent to say.

Who is ranting?

I believe every journalist will tell you that the point to writing an article is to get as many readers as possible.

Again, this is a blog and an open conversation. Not a journalistic website that adheres to hierarchical standards. Have you visited other blogs? Some have similar comment technology in place. Secondly, I am lost at why you fighting an uphill battle against engagement of readers.

An open comment system is always subject to abuse and I am sure Techdirt knows that.

They are just as susceptible as comment systems on other sites such as CNN, Fox News, Youtube, Et cetera.

…The general public thinks they, in the comments, can just spew forth any old thing they want and assume is carries as much weight as the article.

If there are people are that susceptible to what others say, then those people should limit their web viewing to sites such as AP or Reuters which report without engagement technology.

It is obvious that you did not take my advise and research before you ranted considering most of your questions were already answered if you had just taken the time to scroll up.

I am not ranting and am at a loss that you think so. I am, however interested that you’ve decided to continue to make your point. This assists to further my understanding to realize how Netzine views of utility are separated from those like your own.

Lastly, consider how off base and sometimes confusing your interpretation of my words were you might want to refrain from posting anymore – you obviously don’t have the cognitive abilities necessary for these types of conversations.

Protip: When you post as Anonymous, comments are more susceptible to additional scrutiny because we can only judge the message and assume an attempt to understand it’s underlying intent. Thanks for your detailed analysis on my cognitive abilities too.