"we used to be making a lot more money, they're making a lot of money now -- therefore, they must have taken "our" money."
I think it's actually worse. I think it's: "We used to be making a lot more money, they're making a lot of money now -- therefore, we must have their money."
As mentioned before, the copyright industry does not work in a free and open market. They don't care about competing or getting customers. They exist solely because the law says particular people have to pay. Because Google has money, the copyright industry has decided it should pay.
Think about it from the copyright industry's perspective. They're old men. They don't really understand the internet. And as far as they're concerned, Google is the internet. If that's true, well, make 'em pay, god damnit!
"In fact, he very clearly blames 9/11 on civil liberties advocates"
Baker's actually absolutely right. If this country had no civil liberties and was the police state he dreams about, Islamic militants never would have attacked us in the first place. They hate us for our freedom, right? Take away the freedom, you get rid of the hate.
So, do you watch yourself or do you have your own watcher? But then who watches him... Is there a never-ending chain of watchers watching other watchers? I suppose having other watchers watch the same other watchers could in theory break the chain...
Can someone explain something to me. How is tracking everyone's phone calls supposed to stop terrorism when anyone can buy a private phone?
Last week I bought a TracFone for my son and got it working without ever having to provide any personal information. I bought it and the card with cash. And signed up for the service with a new email address.
"Any tariff proposal should include provisions to prevent that from happening again."
Actually, that's exactly why there should be no such tariff. Government should not be dictating what foreign and domestic prices should be. Get the government out of it.
If a domestic corporation has its IP infringed, let it work out the matter in court or mediation after presenting evidence on both sides.
The government should never be arbitrarily putting a dollar amount on mere allegations of IP theft and demanding payment from anyone to cover such allegations. That's just an open door to widespread government/corporate corruption.
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.