That isn't what was said. What was said is that the publishers knew that the higher price point would lead to piracy, and rather then choose a more affordable price point the publishers chose to encourage piracy. No where did he say that piracy was ok, nor did he suggest anyone go out and pirate ebooks.
Except because of a lack of price flexability and competition in the market, the publishers were capable of retaining a non-optimal price point above the stablization price for the books. This cost them sales, and overall probably cost them money, but likely lead to more sales then the price point would normally sustain. Because with many books, you have no other option. If your favorite author's publisher is only publishing through Apple at the heavy markup, you only have one option to get that ebook. They hurt their sales, but not enough that it kills their business, and now the books are selling for "what they are worth".
I would like to point out that Cadbury wanted a trademark on the specific shade of purple it uses in its UK packaging, which Nestle had started using with a new bar with the seeming intent of confusing UK customers. I don't otherwise know why "My Purple Bar" would be considered a good name for a chocolate colored chocolate bar. So while I agree the trademark probably was correctly not granted, to say that it was a ridiculous fight discounts the real questions about nestle's packaging decisions.
The problem with that approach is it only help for those first few shifts and even then not really. You can total your taxi in an at-fault accident and not get fired. Once your employed, its really hard to be not employed. The vetting process in many areas is a joke, and after it you still have no idea how good a driver is.
Well fuck. I just recorded a great rant about how gmail's free email can prevent my email from being handed to someone else (and somehow comcast's paid email can't), and then google goes and pulls this shit and just dumps over the entire theory. Yeah, technically they are very different services and what happened here is an edge case that is almost nothing like the Comcast cases, but hell. I just know someone is going to bring it up if I post that rant now.
I could buy their arguments (I wouldn't agree with them, just buy into them), if it weren't for the copyright levies. See, the levies are already paying legacy media companies for your second copy. You can't say you aren't. And therefore, banning personal archival copies on the basis that your second copy is lost revenue is bunk.
Obama has spent most of his term in office pandering to Republicans while at the same time giving lip service to the Democratic party. His biggest successes have supported republican policies. He'll just be showing his true colors when he signs in TPA without TAA.
Its happened twice, and while the technical folks have said this isn't supposed to happen (and the customer was told its impossible), Comcast has implied there currently exists no technical limitation preventing this from happening. This is implied by the statement from Comcast that they might be able to implement a technical measure to prevent this from happening, quoted in the Ars Technica article.
So for something thats not supposed to happen, its gonna keep happening, cause there is nothing to prevent it from happening.
Given the fact that any free email host has a 'technical measure' to prevent this very action, I wonder if Comcast's lack could be considered negligence?
Other commentors have mentioned this general case, but i have some specific examples, and a better question. See, at a junior high (5th-8th grade) near my home, it has become common for the children to decide that playing frogger in the traffic is a fun past time. I have been in an accident because some kid mistimed his jumps, and a car had to swerve to dodge the kid. The real cost of that 4 car accident was potentially higher then if the car had hit the kid. So here's the real question, do we cause the multi car accident or do we hit the kid? The automated cars might be able to all swerve and reduce the multi-car accident's damage, but you can not eliminate the pedestrians and bicycles on the road and you can not predict the actions of those not tied into the automated network.
NIcve of you to pull out of the threaded duscussion. I have done my homework. I do not read what you read. I am asking for you to explain your conclusions so I understand them, because clearlyI do not. You elsewhere have given us this:
"...provides guidance in the form of factors on how the Commission will apply the standard in practice..."
to support your claims, which is the last sentance for this block:
A Standard for Future Conduct: Because the Internet is always growing and changing, there must be a known standard by which to address any concerns that arise with new practices. The Order establishes that ISPs cannot “unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage” the ability of consumers to select, access, and use the lawful content, applications, services, or devices of their choosing; or of edge providers to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to consumers. Today’s Order ensures that the Commission will have authority to address questionable practices on a case-by-case basis, and provides guidance in the form of factors on how the Commission will apply the standard in practice.
Your quoted line reads to indicate that The Order provides factors to guide the application of the general standard that ISPs can not unreasonably disadvantage or unreasonably interfere with general access to the internet.
I fail to see how this provision does anything to grant the FCC power to compel where users go, and what users read. This regulation has no authority over website operators and other content creators, and so can not compel the injection of content as they could with broadcast television.
So, I again plead with you, please provide the analysis of the quoted region to explain how your 3 claims of regulatory horrors are proven by this section.
Yeah, I kinda assumed you were pointing me at the actual rules document, rather then the press release version without the actual legal language. That was my mistake Read the summary. Still don't know which provisions support the claims you made. Pointing me at a 5-page summary without the specific language which could easily make or break your claim does not prove your point. Pointing me at a specific passage would be the way to do it. You are attempting to state a conclusion from a legal analysis, but refuse to share the actual analysis, or point to any details.
Pointing me at an 80+ page document and telling me to read it does not bequeath your understanding of what is likely a paragraph buried in the middle of the document. That's why Other commentators and I are all asking for you to cite a specific passage. You have instead told us that all the evidence is on your site, but the last entry for net neutrality was in 2011 (based on using your search tool and typing in Net neutrality).
I am beginning to believe you aren't interested in reasoned debate.
Could you please point either directly to the sections of the rules that support these claims or to an article that does? I've read the rules, I did not see that anywhere in the proposed Title II rules, but I am not a lawyer, so the true impact of a section may have been missed. I would love to be properly educated on the subject.
Except that they claim to have legitimate reasons (beyond greed) to cut off Zenefits. They have repeatedly claimed either traffic spikes or security, but have failed to provide any evidence. They have lied to a court about their motives in cutting off Zenefits.
Why are they trying to give a reason? What they are cutting Zenefits off from is standard industry practice. That could cost them far more then Zenefits customers, as large HR/Accounting firms might not want to work with a product that has shown the willingness to cut them off. They need to somehow dodge the PR bullet they just ate, and this article is about their flailing attempts to do that.
The way to shame ADP into admitting the truth is highlighting the attempt to hide the fact that ADP requires money if your firm is big enough.