I like the way you think. This ruling could perhaps also be interpreted to mean that any satellite signals I "accidentally" intercept without paying for would not be covered by US property/IP law. Also, any technology blasted into space would automatically become public domain. Not to mention piracy in international waters (real piracy, mind you, not this copyright BS) would now be OK because all of my stuff, having left its country of origin, no longer belongs to me anyway.
I understand the issue of "open box" vs. "new," but I fail to see how this is intent to defraud. If it was advertised/sold as an imported Omega watch with the engraving removed, that is exactly what you would be getting. I don't see fraud. Also, Omega Seamaster watches were retailing for $1,995. Costco was selling them for $1,299. Even if it cost an extra $50 per watch to have someone scratch off the logo, there's still plenty of room left for profit.
As someone who bought into the idea four years ago that the Obama administration would in some way be better at this than the previous administration/s, I officially admit that I am a dumbass, I am a dupe, and I officially give up.
So, if it is simply because of a miniscule logo engraved on the bottom of the watch that is the object of copyright, can I not simply scratch, etch, acid wash, or otherwise obscure the logo as to make it unrecognizable? No logo = no infringement = sell the watches at Costco.
Obviously such a solution has no bearing on the Big Picture problems associated with this obviously wrong-headed reading of the law (aside from my ability to also etch logos off iPads, cell phones, etc.) but there is a (twisted and tortured) thread of logic to the ruling that would imply "remove the logo, remove the copyright violation." Even if the copyright act says you can't do that, these watches were not legally made under the copyright act, so...
You're right, I didn't think of that. I apologize. I guess I thought that HBO was international. That's what I get for not leaving the house. I agree wholeheartedly that windowing is stupid and counterproductive. A viable option for those that can't otherwise subscribe is certainly warranted.
I generally agree with most of the ideas posted around here, but I think I will respectfully disagree with this one. One of the recurring themes on this site is the "Reason To Buy." HBO has created top quality programming (compared to most other TV), which is also available to subscribers both on-demand and on mobile devices. They also have a respectable web presence (sans episodes) for the more popular shows. This, at least to me, seems like a fairly compelling "Reason To Buy". For the 15 or 20 bucks a month I pay for HBO, it seem like a good deal. If I paid $2 per show for just the shows and and movies I watched, it would be as much as the cost of a subscription, maybe more.
Yes, it is technologically possible, and perhaps even feasible, to offer streaming/downloading over the internet in order to obtain the content independent of a subscription, but that's what DVDs/BRDs are for. If you absolutely must have it right now as soon as it airs, you can always get HBO. This site often touts the "social aspect" of theater-going as one of the services that pirates can't match. It is probably this same social aspect that drives much of this talk of "I want it now, but without a subscription." We want to be able to talk about it and watch it with friends while it's still fresh. Why is this considered a legitimate "Reason to Buy" for a movie theater, but not for HBO?
I hate to sound like a shill, but I have enjoyed being an HBO subscriber, and they continue to offer compelling reasons for me to remain one.
Again, I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I just disagree.
I will certainly concede that I have to pay entirely too much to the cable company to get the basic-> expanded-> digital-> HD package-> and THEN get HBO for 15 or 20 bucks. However, to me that seems more like a "big picture" problem, and deserving of a different conversation than just "HBO needs to wise up." I will also concede that if the wife didn't require her vampire porn, that I would likely be cutting the cord soon, but HBO would be one of the few things I actually missed. As another poster suggested, I would gladly throw another 15 bucks or so on top of a Netflix subscription to get HBO that way instead.
It may also be worth noting that the publishers wanted the judge to consider only the primary text of the book (not including prefaces, introductory chapters, footnotes, tables, appendices, etc.) when factoring what percentage of a work was used. The judge instead ruled that the entire work counted when factoring percentages. It would not be surprising to see the publishers challenge this.
I am currently driving a 97 Chevy. Before that it was an 89 Oldsmobile, and before that another Chevy. By the end of next year I plan to be in a new car. It will not be anything (read: GM) with this crap attached to it. Congratulations for chasing away a life-long customer during the worst recession in two generations (and I am likely not alone). The amount of undiluted stupid oozing out of this marketing scheme is incredible.
I mean, seriously, this is your plan to sell cars? Spy on your customers and sell the details of their private lives? I hope you get good money for the info you collect, because you're already in the hole for at least $25,000 or $30,000 because I am no longer planning to buy one of these.
Letting people die around the world is not good for the economy.
Actually, fewer living people means lower unemployment, less drain on resources, and a greater abundance of food. Fewer workers means higher wages for labor and thus an improved standard of living, as well as an increase in tax revenue. This leads to a sharp decrease in the prosperity gap between rich and poor nations, ultimately resulting in the return of working-class jobs to the good old USA. It's really a win/win for everyone. Unless, of course, you have a soul or a conscience, or whatever. Which, fortunately, no one does.
Honestly, for the price of a mediocre steak sandwich and a pint of beer you can get both sides of Netflix. If it's true that they're adding games, it's still the best entertainment value I have access to (short of a library card), even if it does cost twice as much as last year. You can barely play a computer game for less than $15 a month anymore. My wife and I watch a lot of movies, and if the Better-Half wasn't addicted to the Vampire Bill Show, we would probably cancel cable before Netflix.
I understand being upset at the price hike, as well as the way it was handled, but the level of anger seems disproportionate to the level of insult. Especially because it's not entirely Netfix's fault. If my Netflix subscription keeps me and the wife away from the movie theater or the bar even just once a month, it has more than paid for itself. I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy, it's just that based on the way the internet's collective head has exploded over this, I feel like Netflix deserves at least a little bit of understanding. It bottles the mind that someone would complain about Netflix "abusing" their customers, and then say they're going back to Blockbuster.
Also, I'm not sure I understand all of the plastic disc hating going on. Streaming is great, sure, but if you have even a halfway decent home theater setup, then you know that the quality you can get from a disc is far superior to even the rare "HD" stream from Netflix. The disc selection is superior to the streaming options and the quality of playback, particularly for blu-ray, is superior as well (at least in my experience). I always considered the streaming to be a good bonus, but not a substitute, even if it is responsible for me sometimes sitting on a single disc for a month.
To be fair to the school, The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (I think that's the one) contains provisions that require campuses to police their networks for piracy or risk losing funding (read: federal scholarship money). The language of the law is a bit vague, so schools are free to go about it in whatever way they deem appropriate enough to be considered a good faith effort. A lot of schools don't really do much it seems, but UNC may just be trying to comply with a bad law, especially if they have been in hot water with the internet cops before.
As someone who pretty much just plays Battlefield and Portal, I find it amusing that the only reason I even know Driver:SF exists is because of the constant barrage of negative publicity. I'm almost tempted to buy just to see for myself what the fuss is about. almost. Perhaps I should just download it like I would a car.
Except for the fact that all the Idiot Cop has to do is claim that "what you can't hear on the tape is me being threatened, and maybe even the sounds of gunfire." The Idiot Cop's own recording of the incident will have been "unfortunately lost" or "damaged in the scuffle," so we'll just have to take his word for it.
Breaking News: The government has just declared that it is logically impossible for those who create, buy, or enforce the law to break the law. One well respected judge was quoted as saying "I AM THE LAW!"
This Just In: The price of bullets has risen ten-fold overnight with many retailers reporting shortages.