If a product costs X to develop, manufacture(code), supply, advertise, and the revenue generated from selling that product < X, you don't make the freakin product.
If it's gonna cost $2billion to make a movie, yet the analysis shows you are only gonna make $0.5bill in revenue, you don't make it.
If a game costs $20mill, yet there are only 10,000 people in the world who will buy it, then you better make damn sure it's good enough that those 10k people will pay the $2000 per copy, or don't make it.
And, guess what? Of course you don't always know beforehand exactly what revenue you are going to get. There are too many variables (especially in an entertainment product - are people even going to like it?) to know exactly beforehand if it's gonna make enough revenue to cover it's costs let alone a profit.
That's the risk you take in business. Sometimes you lose, sometimes you win. The better your analysis of the market vs what you want to make, the more often you'll win.
If you want to make a profit you don't need DRM or anti-cheating/hacking code or whatever.
You need a GOOD product, that people WANT to use, at a price that enough people are willing to pay.
If you miss out on any of those points - sorry, it's not the customers, or pirates, or cheaters fault. Its the businesses fault. Either it was a crap product in the first place (nothing anyone needs, wants, or gives a toss about), or badly implemented (poor manufacturing, poor coding -- i.e. buggy , poor graphics design - crap visuals) or badly marketed (hey look, let's call our product an offensive name that noone wants anything to do with - or let's get Hitler as our spokesperson). And poor management for not performing a market analysis properly first.
Tell me, why is there free, open source products out there that even tho they are free, do actually generate money for some people? You get products where people like it enough that they donate enough to it that the developers make money from it. Or business that charge for value-added-services, e.g. RedHat makes money from the totally free, open source Linux operating system by charging for (and providing) support to those who'd rather pay someone than try to support it themselves. Or the writers who make money on speaking/academic circuits - people pay them stupid money to come to a conference to talk about their product or sometimes anything else.
No, if you aren't making money, you aren't good enough - either the management is bad, the analysts are bad, the producers are bad, the coders are bad, the marketeers are bad, the manufacturers are bad, or just the damn product is bad. End of story.
I guess then they should put a $ cost on the hassle and restocking fees.
Then, compare that $ cost to the $ cost of losing 58% of their sales (60000 down to 25000).
Then, since they are selling less volume, the manufacturing cost of making 25k items vs 60k has probably increased on a per item basis. Therefore their profit per item may have gone down due to a possible manufacturing cost increase.
Only they can decide if the sums before and after are worth it to them. But did they actually do the sums, actually quantify it, or just leave it as an emotional decision?
It's not Facebook or any single .com that is to blame for declining revenues.
It is because of search engines in general. Services like Google, Yahoo, Alta Vista, hell even AOL, that led to this.
With the advent of the internet and a practical way to search it, we can now find our own preferred news source on a story-by-story basis.
The idiom "if you don't like it go somewhere else" is exactly applicable here.
30 years ago, if you didn't like the news reporting, what were you to do? Depending on the size of the community you lived in, there may only be 2 or 3 easily accessible newspapers, or only a few news shows on TV. Sure, you could always place special order with your newsagent for out-of-town/state/country papers - but that's a hassle, especially if there are only 1 or 2 particular articles or a short period of time you are interested in.
Now, I can "go somewhere else" at the click of a button.
Not to mention, the variety. I mean, how many local news papers and TV shows do you need to actually watch to have the significant local news events - or the ones you are interested in - covered?
Now, now can explore what's happening around the world by viewing THEIR news. Why wait a few days for the news (if it's even regarded as important enough by your local outlets) to worm its way too you when you can go straight to the source country? Something happening in Brazil? Stream a Brazilian TV report, or read about it on a Brazilian website. Something happening in Croatia - go to a Croatian news site. And so on.
If you want to know what's happening with BREXIT, go read some British newspapers, or blogs, or forums, for THEIR view. Want to know the Europeans views on BREXIT? Read some German, French, Italian, Austrian and whoever else's reports you want. You don't have to wait for the editors politically-motivated, filtered and 'spun' view you get in your own local news.
The news industry needs to face the fact that 90% of their revenues was derived from a captive market audience. They need to get over the fact that for most news organisations, that is the only reason they were viable businesses.
We are no longer a captive market.
So they need to get over themselves. While once they were a useful service, many of them are now nothing but parasites with a sense of entitlement. They need to adapt like any other business to change.
but who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing? In the age of social media, I would think it's only pictures of our children that out-mass pictures of our food among those we share with our followers and friends.
Well, perhaps posting it where only actual friends and family can see it, rather than the 1000's of so-called 'friends' and followers people have on Facepalm, twatter, or whatever this decades flavour is, can see?
If someone isn't a close enough friend or relative that you would have over for 'a cup of tea' and be allowed to flick through the coffee table family photo album, then perhaps they shouldn't be on a distribution list for photos of your children?
While embarrassing, I doubt that if the photos were only visible to a few dozen people, grandparents, uncles/aunties, close cousins, family friends, etc., that the now grown-up child would be too terribly upset about them. I mean, the chances are that those people have similarly embarrassing photos of themselves or their kids that can be seen - glass houses....
This extradition is happening in Polish courts. It is solely a matter under Polish law at the moment. As it is occuring in Polish courts under Polish law, unless Rothken is allowed to practice Polish law in Polish courts, then in Poland he is NOT a lawyer.
If defendants Polish practicing lawyer wishes to consult a US lawyer on the ramifications of US law, he is entitled to do so, just like with any other expert consultant or witness.
Do Polish courts usually allow random consultants/expert witnesses access to a defendant that's being held in custody? In this context (Polish law), in this location (Polish courts), all Rothken is is an expert witness or consultant, he is NOT a lawyer. Therefore he should have no greater access to the defendant than any other non-lawyer would have.
Now, whether the Polish custodial system should be routinely denying access to non-lawyers, such as Rothken, or say if the defendant had hired a PI, or whomever is another question. But the fact that Rothken is a lawyer in the US does not grant him lawyer-level access in Poland.
IANAL, but, as I understand copyright under the Berne convention (I _think_ it as Berne anyway...), copyright is automatic and does not require any sort of registration.
Writing this message here gives me an automatic copyright (or possibly techdirt if that's it's terms of service etc) in this message.
I send an email I automatically, without having to do anything apart from writing the message, have a copyright.
Therefore if the original copyright holder changes a work, adds/subtracts anything to it, whether it's a derivative work or regarded as a new work, they have copyright in it without having to do anything at all. THere's no form to fill out, no agency/body to notify, nothing.
All that registering a copyright does, is: 1) gives you stronger evidence that you actually do have a copyright - you might be challenged in court as to whether you really do have a copyight, well, if you can produce the original documents that predate someone else who's trying to claim they have it that's good enough, or you can produce the registration (that predates whatever a dispute's date beginning is) that's even better. But you don't have to have a registration to have a copyright. 2) If you want to claim statutory (as opposed to actual) damages, you can only claim statutory damages from the date of registration. But you can still claim actual damages pre-dating registration.
It's nothing to do with TCP/IP, or p2p, or any other SOFTWARE protocols
I haven't read through all the comments, but certainly most of the ones at the top seem to be blaming IPv4, or talking about p2p, ditributed computing or whatnot.
None of those are relevant. They are all software protocols that lie atop the physical, cabling/satellite, infrastructure. And as I understand it, we are talking about the network infrastructure, the CABLES, where they go, where they concentrate, and so on here.
Have a look at the submarine cable map. Most of the worlds data goes through a few key landing points. And a landing point is a big datacentre/routing point for massive amounts of data. And beyond that, the main trans-continental (land-based backbones) concentrate through a few key distribution points.
You 'break' half a dozen core physical cable concetration points, you can break an awful lot of the internet. And I'm not talking physical breakage. All the distribution within those conecntrations of cable termination points is done with gateway routers, core routers, and so on. It is these devices we are talking about breaking. These devices that control all the data flow can be hacked, DDoSed, lobotomised.
Sure, some of it will be worked around, but those key choke points between them provide the lions share of the available bandwidth, well in excess of 60% of the internet bandwidth throughout their regions. Most secondary backbones that bypass those core datacentres are, relatively speaking, low-bandwidth, like satellite, or links to small regional areas etc. So, break half a dozen key regional concentration points, and suddenly the internet in trying to route around the break, trying to jam 100Gb/s (or more) through links that are only 1 or 2 Gb/s. And with the atrocious way that core routers, border gateways cache too much, flow-control will be broken beyond recognition. Suddenly all these 100GB/s+ are choking, breaking the remaining backbones. It's like a traffic jam, there's so much traffic it all sits there going nowhere. And "poof", there goes the internets across very large regions, national if not continental-scale telecommunications failures.
And it doesn't matter whether you are using IPv6, IPv4, P2P like torrenting, cloud datacentres, TCP/IP, ATM, IPX, (although IPoA will still work fine unless as long as you don't need to interface with any telco's!) it's all irrelevant. All the infrastructure that carries that data will be inaccessable.
Law 0: Stupidity cannot be destroyed, only deflected. Law 1: Stupidity expands to fill the space available. Law 2: Stupidity flows from the more stupid to the less stupid.* Law 3: Too many laws for the stupid to count.
*Because there is more of it, and it's armed with more clubs.
"Sure, we could break the encryption on that message. It'll be a brute-force attack, take 18 months and it'll be $6.3Billion dollars in Amazon AWS fees for the compute power. Where should we send the bill?"
FBI: "This is a really important case, this person's been leaking that the director spits his chewing gum on the sidewalk rather than into bins! We can cover that, send the bill to our head office. We'll indicate the 150 text messages we want decrypted."
Apple: "150? The quote we gave was for ONE message decryption."
There are many specific jobs/tasks that fall under the umbrella of journalism.
Like many professions, a simple descriptor like journalism or journalist is a high-level description of the types of task one may accomplish.
Like saying someone works in medicine - they could be a medical doctor, a surgeon, a specialist (brain surgeon, oncologist), a nurse, a chemist (pharmicist), and so on.
Therefore journalist covers several sub-type areas, who each have their function. And of course, the same person can be performing different aspects, or different roles (wearing different hats) depending on the circumstances (or their job at that particular point in time).
To me, the basic different roles covered under journalism are: 1) reporting (e.g. news reporter); 2) Investigative reporting; 3) Analyst.
== Reporter == A reporter is exactly that. They are reporting what is happening, the facts. They report what the police said, or witnesses, or what they saw, he said-she said, and so on.
This is what I expect from the nightly 6pm news shows. A recounting of the facts. I would not expect any personal opinions or analysis of what's going on.
== Investigative Reporter == This is where we get into someone who 'chases' a particular in-depth story. They interview many people over a period of time, building up a major report. These are the types of situations where I'd expect fact checking, comparisons, calling people out on lies and so on. The ones getting in people's faces to find out the 'truth'.
== Analyst == Like the title says, analyse intelligence. Where in this case it's getting the reports from reporters, and building up a bigger picture, tasking investigative reporters to root around for them and get them information. A "bigger picture" sort of person.
Different types of businesses undertake the different types of journalism. The nightly news is mostly just 'reporting'. The current/breaking news in newspapers also.
The current affairs businesses (60 minutes, Foreign Correspondent, time magazine, wired, TechDirt, all these types of businesses) are of the investigative reporting/Analyst type businesses. Expose's, and so on.
All of the above ARE journalism, they are just different aspects of it.
And the same person on different days could be undertaking different aspects. Someone could be known as a hard-hitting investigative reporter, but gets hired by a local TV station freelance to quickly grab a news report of a local event for that night's nightly news.
Or they could be doing a completely different job. Say, as a moderator at a debate.
In general, a moderator at a debate is just a referee of the debate, to make sure the debaters stick to their time limits, to pass the questions around, and so on. It is not a moderators job, unless it has been explicitly listed as their job, to analyse, report on, the statements made by the debaters. They are not performing journalism, they are performing debate moderation, which is a different job.
Hiring a journalist to be a moderator at a debate is no different to hiring anyone else famous, a movie star, a sports star, local celebrity or what have you. The purpose is to make it look good by having someone famous in the mix. And for something like a debate, it just looks better if that famous person is a journalist or similar rather than a front-rower. It's a publicity stunt.
If you wanted journalism, analytical/investigative-type journalism, you wouldn't hold a debate. You'd hold a series of interviews.