Wow. Here's a quote:
"Now, you can argue the morality of used games all you want, but the bottom line is that developers feel it takes money away from their business, and so they have every right to try and combat it."
It has nothing to do morality. And it does not take a single penny from their business. And they don't have a right to eliminate the first sale doctrine based upon their feelings.
I would not mind Microsoft's attempt at killing the used game market if the price of new games were drastically reduced. There is simply no way I'd ever buy a new game for 60 dollars if I could never sell it again. If games cannot be resold, they're going to have to get cheaper. 10 to 15 bucks.
But if Microsoft attempts to keep new prices high while eliminating cheaper used games, I predict the Xbox One will bomb and bomb hard. The console industry has crashed before, the Wii U has already bombed and the PS3 failed compared to the PS2. So Microsoft's actions could push the entire industry over the cliff.
South Korea doesn't always have the firmest grasp on science. For example, it is widely believed in SK that an electric fan left running overnight in a closed room can cause the death of those sleeping inside.
I must admit, this is not an example of a guy claiming a trademark on a generic term, and then suing everyone. In other words, he's not a trademark troll. His restaurant allegedly invented the pie and trademarked the name way back in '68.
Do I think the term is generic? Maybe, but I've never heard of the pie by any name until today. Regardless, as of now no court has held that it is generic. So he has a valid trademark and he's enforcing it.
I personally think he's in the PIE business and should stop spending so much money on litigation, but it's not my place to tell him how to run his business. And as a lawyer I commend his desire to employ us so handsomely.
Big legacy players such as ESPN don't want a free and open internet. They want to make sure the little guys have to pay a toll to get through. The money they're paying to bypass datacaps will likely be a great investment in avoiding a future disruptive web-based technology.
The argument I've heard is that Kickstarter is for people without hollywood connections. And as a hollywood insider, Zach should use those connections. However, he has said in interviews that he has tried traditional hollywood resources to make his movie without success.
But that's not even the real issue: Why should someone be forever tied to the hollywood system merely because he has used it in the past?! That makes no sense. Kickstarter allows anyone, even someone inside the system, to connect with fans and make the exact project they want. Without corporate/investor interference.
That's the beauty of Kickstarter. And to deny that to certain people for arbitrary reasons is simply asinine.
This is also an indictment against journalists who feel they have to tell both sides to the story. They don't.
If there's a story it should be reported, regardless of whether someone involved decides not to respond.
Can you imagine if the New York Times had decided to wait until the government responded to the Pentagon Papers? Or if Upton Sinclair had waited to get the side of the American meat packing industry before releasing the Jungle?
I still remember reading that statement. Did Jack ever explain himself? I've looked, but I have been unable to find anything. I can't believe that in all the subsequent interviews he did not one "journalist" ever called him on that BS.
It's coming back, in part, because of cases similar to the Aereo case.
But, more so than that, having a monopoly is not enough. They want absolute control of everything. This treaty will ensure that.
If you try to put up any public domain show or movie on the web, they'll sue you claiming they have broadcast rights. You'll have to hire an attorney and prove you did not violate those rights. So instead you'll settle. And eventually no one will post public domain content.
To me the push to eliminate open WIFI actually has nothing to do with securing WIFI connections. It's all about creating a person or entity liable for the connection.
If it's open and child porn is being shared on it, there's plausible deniability. "It wasn't me, it was someone else."
But once a connection point is required to be locked down, it's the person or entity's responsibility to ensure that it's locked down. Even if someone "hacks" in, it's still the owner's fault for allowing it to happen.
It's sort of like the DRM requirement of the DMCA. It's not to stop people from copying, it's to make people liable for allowing or facilitating copying.
The government, wireless carriers, ISPs, and the copyright industry all hate open WIFI. It's gonna be killed, it's only a matter of time.
My prediction, within five years open WIFI will be illegal. We'll see stories about child porn, hacking, identify theft, copyright theft... etc. And we'll gladly give it up for the sake of children and profits.