Jeff 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (30) comment rss

  • On the post: Dear Macmillan, You Don't Embrace The New By Trying To Protect The Old

    Jeff ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2010 @ 06:55am

    Let them die

    These old dinosaurs just can't adapt and if they don't they are going to die out. If they want to price themselves out of business, I say let them.

    The only scary thing is when politicians give us the old "too big to fail" speech on the publishers in trouble and bail them out as well.

    The auto industry is facing this problem right now. They went out there keeping prices high and not paying attention, while these new guys came in from overseas and underpriced them and almost wiped them out.

  • On the post: Dear Macmillan, You Don't Embrace The New By Trying To Protect The Old

    Jeff ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2010 @ 06:49am

    Re: Oh come on now.

    You can spend hundreds or thousands on software, the same way you can spend hundreds on an ebook. But you don't have to on either.

    There are people out there pirating software just like music and not paying for it. Batting an eyelash, yeah piracy of software shows me someone is. and I hear people bitch an moan about Adobe and other high dollar software all the time. There are free versions out there of most software programs, take Gimp instead of Photoshop. Yeah you don't get quite the robust functionality, but hell it does almost the same thing for free.

    The market spoke and someone answered it.

    And you also have to realize those $1000 programs have 100's of programmers working on it, not like the one author that wrote the book. They want to be payed for their work too, but there are more ways to split up that check!

    As you said you haven't seen the data yourself, that is so evident.

  • On the post: Rep. Conyers Compares Lack Of A Performance Right Tax To Slavery

    Jeff ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2010 @ 11:17am

    I see a future without free radio waves soon. The local radio stations are already dieing out because of things like satellite radio, and all the mp3 devices now available.
    In my area they are about half the number we had 10/15 years ago. And the ones that are left are barely surviving.
    But lets see you want to help me out by giving me airplay and letting the locals hear my music, then you need to pay me to do it. It's like seeing a commercial on TV and the TV station had to pay the company in order to air the commercial.

    They just want to bite off the hand that feeds them. Lets see, force the local stations out of business. Lots of folks will not pay for satellite radio. When the stations are gone, what is the next best option of hearing new music?.?.?. gasp?...piracy?.... nooooooooo!

    They just don't understand that if they cut out the guy promoting them, then those musicians are gonna be the ones loosing out.

    Not everyone is a blind/deaf idiot and goes out and buys something they haven't heard just because there is an ugly cutout or poster for a new album. I know I wouldn't. If I don't know what it sounds like then you better believe that I won't hand over $15-25 bucks for a new CD.

    I don't pirate music, but you better believe if they cut out the option I have of hearing the new stuff, I'm gonna find a way to listen to a new song for hand over my hard earned paycheck to pay for it! And piracy is about the only option if there isn't radio to hear it!!!

    I guess they don't really understand how their own business model works. You get the fans screaming to buy the music by "advertising" it over the radio. You don't let them know what they are buying, then they won't buy it period!!!

  • On the post: Can Anyone Help HelpAReporterOut Understand That Competition Is Perfectly Legal

    Jeff ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2010 @ 10:13am

    I think Profnet should sue the hell out of him then. He admits his was based on theirs!

    Really sad to go out there and abuse the legal system and just claim anything and everything, hoping to either scare the new guy or hope to find one legal leg to stand on out of many and get him. Sad how the copyright, trademark, patent laws are being trashed by those that are afraid of a little competition. Oh he wants to compete, then I know there is a copyright, trademark, patent that I can use to put him out of business and continue on my monopolistic way to the top.

    This is why the laws need be written to stop this abuse. Making false claims and lawsuits should have a penalty. And they should have to pay for the legal fees and costs of those they are trying to hurt.

  • On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving… Then Rejecting .xxx

    Jeff ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2010 @ 02:18pm

    Pros and Cons

    Porn on the net is here to stay. Yeah you can try to restrict it, you can try to ban it, but it's such a huge part of the cash coming in that keeps the internet going. So don't expect it to just go away because you don't want it there.
    Now let see, create ".xxx" for the industry, and for use of that industry exclusively? What's the problem? It goes both ways. All the nanny filters can block .xxx and keep the kiddos that don't know how to circumvent it from going there. And for the industry it's a plus too. "Ok we have our site(s) on .xxx now and if you don't block it, then it's your own fault"
    And as far as the "moving our site to .xxx, but it's known for .com? Any web publisher with common sense knows you can put up the new site, and use redirects that automatically send the viewer to the new site and lets the search engines know that it's moving there, and to change it's listings. Soon the .com, .net, etc... traffic is going to be dead and you can keep the .xxx only.
    And after a while, when those .com, .net and such that arn't a porn sounding name are freed up, you can turn around and sell them to someone else that can use them for non-porn related internet.
    Now bear in mind this all won't happen over night, and I'm sure many many porn sites out there will not move, or will keep both. But eventually the govt, or domain name providers could start weeding them out if that's their plan.
    I would vote to allow the .xxx. The porn industry on the web isn't going to go away. And if you can help it to have it's own area that is recognizably porn, then you can put up the walls to keep your young ones, or you citizens out of that area even easier.

  • On the post: Once Again: The iiNet Decision Did Not Make Unauthorized Downloading Legit

    Jeff ( profile ), 12 Feb, 2010 @ 10:40am

    compare

    He gets all pissy over the fact that iiNet won. They are not responsible for what someone does with the access that is bought from them.

    How about we hold gun makers responsible for every murder or robbery.
    Why don't we hold auto makers responsible for drunk drivers actions. And then why don't we hold tax payers responsible too, because they provide the roads that drunk drivers use.
    Lets hold Microsoft,Apple,Linux responsible for all of this piracy too. Because they provide the OS that are used to illegally download the movies and music.

    These people just don't seem to get it. Why is it the responsibility of the ISPs to be the police of the internet? They just provide the connection, that's all!

  • On the post: Author Claims $9.99 Is Not A 'Real Price' For Books

    Jeff ( profile ), 12 Feb, 2010 @ 06:36am

    Greedy Author

    Sad when an author who is definitely having his own entitlement issues and tries to make his fans / readers out to be the bad guy.
    What did it really cost to get that digital copy to the reader in comparison to a hard copy. There is no printing costs, paper costs, etc... no distribution costs to ship the book to a store, no cost to have a book store employ stock the book and keep it on the shelf for a couple of months before it sold. But then his publisher probably takes just as big of a cut of each ebook sold as they do a hard copy book. I think his focus is misplaced here. I would be bitching about the publishers entitlement here. It didn't cost you hardly anything to put the ebook out to the masses, but you still think your entitled to get back the same amount on each sale.
    Yeah I know, I know you think it devalues the book when you price it lower for the consumer, but does it really. Take out those production costs, that you didn't actually spend, and you'll probably find the 9.99 price more along the lines of what it should be priced at. Yeah the hard copy is a bit higher, but if I wanted a hard copy to display on my bookshelf I'd pay a bit higher price for that added value, to support the costs of getting that hard copy to me.
    Basically this guy is just like the musicians that are bitching about their own fans and standing up for the RIAA, and making as much money off the consumer as they feel they are entitled to. Sad when you want to piss off those that are paying your bills, but don't come whining to me when you can't because they went elsewhere and you are broke Mr. high and mighty author.
    Yeah I say set your prices high, but don't get all butt-hurt when your readers don't buy your books and go to someone else!!!

  • On the post: Wal-Mart, Target Trying To Block Redbox From Purchasing DVDs?

    Jeff ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2010 @ 02:28pm

    Redbox vs. Walmart/Target now?

    Pretty sad how the whole industry has changed and went in the opposite of what they used to do. At one time you had to wait to purchase a DVD/VHS of a movie. It seemed the movies ran in theaters first, then for rent months later, then after a few more months they went on sale. Now they want it so that you can buy it before you can rent.
    I guess the reason is that the other rental outfits like Blockbuster, Hollywood and such must be giving them a percentage of the rental charges, and that is why you end up paying $4,5,6, to 10 if blueray to rent the movies there.
    So along comes redbox renting them at a dollar and whoa, we gotta start selling them now first before rentals to these guys. The reason, is because now we can't price fix the rentals and get a huge cut of the money, so we make it so that they can't rent them because now people will buy them leaving redbox out of the loop.
    Just another show of corporate greed! Screw the customer, and make it so they have to take it or else! If anyone tries to offer anything reasonable, we gotta find a way to put them out of business and keep our huge profit margins running!!!

  • On the post: iiNet Wins! AFACT Has To Pay. Australian Court Says ISPs Not Responsible For Infringing Users

    Jeff ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2010 @ 07:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ok, lets put your theory to another similar situation.

    So what you are saying is that if a guy is selling drugs from his apartment, then the apartment owners and the managers should go to jail too. After all they were living in the apartment and it was up to the apartment owners / managers to monitor their tenants at all times to make sure they are not doing something illegal. Or better yet, the guy is smoking a joint in the apartment, they should have a camera in each apartment to monitor this and then kick him out and make sure the guy is never able to move into any other house or apartment ever again.

    So the owners and managers should do everything to monitor each and every person because they own the place and have the power to stop them too!?!


    And maybe we should through every tax payer in each city in jail too. After all they pay for the streets. We know that they should monitor the drivers of every car, and if a driver is speeding, or running a light. Well that makes the owners of those streets just as responsible as well.


    Get it yet? Just because you provide a service, doesn't mean you are responsible if someone abuses that service. Yes you can disconnect a user of your service if they do something wrong, but it doesn't mean you have to be the police and enforce the law yourself.

  • On the post: iiNet Wins! AFACT Has To Pay. Australian Court Says ISPs Not Responsible For Infringing Users

    Jeff ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2010 @ 07:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ok, lets put your theory to another similar situation.

    So what you are saying is that if a guy is selling drugs from his apartment, then the apartment owners and the managers should go to jail too. After all they were living in the apartment and it was up to the apartment owners / managers to monitor their tenants at all times to make sure they are not doing something illegal. Or better yet, the guy is smoking a joint in the apartment, they should have a camera in each apartment to monitor this and then kick him out and make sure the guy is never able to move into any other house or apartment ever again.

    So the owners and managers should do everything to monitor each and every person because they own the place and have the power to stop them too!?!