And they never will, unless we get serious about stopping price gouging of sick people. When people only have the choice between buying something at an inflated price and dying, the price cannot be left up to a private company only beholden to it's shareholders.
My sister was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes when she was 7 years old. She's been through insurance companies forcing changes in the type of insulin she could have after they decided to no longer cover certain types. She's been stuck without insurance between jobs before the ACA went into effect, and even when she did have insurance, been unable to afford care she needed and nearly lost vision in both eyes (only lost most in 1, so at least she can function).
To be clear: I have no problem with pharma companies making reasonable profits when they are acting ethically. But ethically does not include evergreening of patents, buying out competition from generics or suing them into the ground, spending exorbitantly on advertising and lobbying or to buy and influence doctors, and raising rates even though the actual costs to make and sell their products are stable or decreasing.
If a single doctor prescribed 5 times as much oxycontin or percocet as any other doc, I bet the DEA would find that suspicious. But if it's a single state judge signing off on wiretaps, the DEA says that's standard operating procedure.
Sequence of events: 1) Service quotes guy in a story. 2) Guy gets copy of story. 3) Guy contacts service to discuss concerns about story. 4) Service ask guy where he got the copy. 5) other stuff happens
I have a problem with #4. Why would the news service ask the guy they quoted where/how he got a copy of the story?
Was the service afraid he was going to public say they misquoted him and were trying to shut him up with some kind of anti-disparagement clause?
There's a lot wrong in the free-to-play space, but a lawsuit isn't the way to fix it.
It ultimately comes down to poor impulse control and some (or many) developers predatory exploitation of it. There are exceptions, but much of it is in games that have player-vs-player elements, which devolve into whoever pays the most, wins, and those who don't pay can't hope to compete.
Re: Since when is requiring people to pay a pittance for goods a "stick"? That's basic free market.
You can't compete with free.
I could get all my music for free, whether through torrents, or ripping from Youtube or other sources.
Yet I've been paying $10 a month for Spotify for at least 2, if not 3 years now. I actually can't remember the last time I torrented music, and I've only ripped something from Youtube once or twice in the last year - and only because it wasn't on Spotify, and I'd have to actually spend time searching for where the things are on my hard drive.
Movies or TV? Similar story. I pay for Netflix, and am considering also getting Amazon Prime Video, and my personal piracy rate has dropped dramatically since I started on Netflix - it's just easier. On the other hand, I'll admit that I have torrented more often for video than music - again, it's strictly because the content isn't available in any convenient form for a reasonable price. I won't pay the absurd price for HBO Go along with the restrictions it has just for Game of Thrones. HBO doesn't get my money until they offer GoT for a reasonable price on a convenient service. But I did go and delete all my Dexter torrents from my hard drive, because its available on Netflix - so Showtime can get a cut of my money if I decide I want to rewatch that show sometime.
Yes, it's fear. Fear tends to be the first instinct when encountering something you don't understand, and there's good reasons this instinct was selected for via evolution. Unfortunately, that instinct doesn't translate well into the modern world where you encounter unfamiliar things on a regular basis. And the way to get over this particular fear is through exposure to the actual thing - which provides that understanding - instead of whatever strawman argument is put up of it. It's even starting to work on the Republicans (albeit slowly).
Agree. I think it's a shame that PETA regularly goes out of it's way too look both foolish and like extreme radicals for really no benefit to themselves or the animals they supposedly try to protect.
As to this story, I think there are some interesting questions on what kind of rights sufficiently intelligent non-humans should have that we'll need to address in the future. We already accept that children and those with certain mental handicaps have some rights, but not others. Whether the first time we have to confront it is some kind of AI, or a genetically enhanced smart animal, or something we can't even foresee, the day is eventually coming.
"They are simply trying to make their money back."
This drug was on the market 60 years ago. They already made their money back, many times over.
Tauring isn't a pharmaceutical company (at least not in this instance). It's an acquisition and licensing company. It basically bought the trademark name the drug is sold under, and only in the US.
Next development in this story: people will start importing this drug from other countries where Tauring doesn't have the monopoly, and Tauring will sic ICE or some other government agency for-hire on them.
Re: Man, what a cup of cold, left over the weekend with a cigarette in it, coffee this is to start the week with.
Quite the contrary - this proves that car software should be required to be open source. The ones with the most to gain from hiding things are the manufacturers as this story proves - the same manufacturers that want their software DRM'd and unable to be audited.
If I watched TV, I'd subscribe to a channel that showed 50% weather coverage, and 50% anchors standing stupidly (and dangerously) around in thunderstorms, hurricanes, and blizzards. Or even something where I could stream that on my phone. A buck or two a month would be worth it for that.
The problem isn't that news organizations need to work with their lawyers - the problem is that lawyers are actually running the news organizations. Them and business types who care about nothing but profit. The actual journalists aren't in charge.
If the news organizations would use and then defend their fair use rights instead of folding whenever it will cost them money, they wouldn't need to worry so much about it the second or 300th time.
As far as politicians - that's an entirely different scenario. When you're a politician and advocating that someone vote for you, and using a song, you don't ask because you need permission - you ask because artist doesn't like you, they're going to speak out and be given attention for someone else.