None of the players will buy all of those, i doubth they have more than a dozen buyers for some of those. So i would guess they have to keep the prices high to make some money.
Except you're forgetting basic economics. If they were to drop the price of the DLC to, say, a tenth of what it is right now, then maybe instead of getting a dozen buyers, they might get hundreds. 20 or 30 times as many sales at a tenth the profit each is still 2 or 3 times the profit.
Now I'm not saying this is exactly what would happen; simulator folk aren't known for their frugality. However, I figure they're currently only buying packs at the top of their list instead of the top ten things on their list.
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (part of the constitution) reads:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
That sounds an awful lot like what the the 1st amendment says. The only significant difference is that the charter rights are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." (Section 1). As far as I'm concerned it's a small price to pay.
But, in the end, this isn't a free speech issue, it's a harassment issue, and the thought that a conviction “will have a chilling effect on people’s ability to communicate" is what's ludicrous. There's a line between a spirited debate and harassment, and from what I read in the article, he may have crossed that line. I don't know, myself, if he did or not, and it's not something that's up to me, that's up to the judge.
Now if only Nintendo fully realized and embraced this. They've relented somewhat, but full time Let's Players still won't play the games if Nintendo is going to take a cut, or worse, try and shut them down. I can understand some restrictions for LPing certain games (for instance, turning off the music in some games, which has its own licensing), but completely blocking something is denying a source of free advertising for no good reason.
No really, the fix for a malfunctioning Canadian government is to fall back on lower level routines, and reboot the UI. Granted, the reboot takes at least a month (as is mandated by the design document), and there is a lot of resource fighting between the various UI routines while they start up, ultimately ending in a race condition where certain routines will gain enough resources to proceed to full initialization.
While the US government undergoes a partial UI reboot every 2 years, there is no specified means of rebooting the entire UI when a major problem is discovered. This seems to be a flaw in the design document, and the problem it introduces was probably not foreseen by the designers.
Disregarding the fact that Fox essentially copied Coulton's work for a moment, if it was perfectly legal for Fox to perform a cover of a song in a style completely different from the original, despite the wording of s.115, then how is it not legal for Coulton to do the same, assuming they received the same license to cover the song?
So let's take this from the opposite perspective: that Coulton's work as a whole is indeed transformative. Now I'm no lawyer, but why wouldn't you be able to claim a copyright on the aspect that makes the work transformative, outside of the scope of a copyright for the recording, namely the arrangement that Coulton wrote? More simply, how does Coulton not have a copyright on his arrangement? It is, for all intents and purposes, a separate work from the copyrighted material he used (under license), i.e. the lyrics.
Because his song is a cover, does that mean that the copyright owner now also owns the copyright to the arrangement that Coulton wrote? Or does no one own the copyright? Either case is deeply troubling.
Free as in beer and free as in gratis are the same thing. I think you meant free as in libre.
So yes, if we were to reword subsection B as "Everyone has the right to participate at their liberty in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits", then there is no conflict with subsection A as long as there are no undue restrictions on a member of a community from participating in said acts.
There are only 2 ways to live your life totally spoiler free:
* Watch it live.
* Not care at all.
Unfortunately, 2 seems difficult when it comes to Olympics, and NBC has made 1 all but impossible. Lucky for me, I live in Canada, and CTV (et al) seem to be much more reasonable, as I watched a good chunk of the Can-GB women's soccer match live, and the last part of the marathon Federer match live.
I know that some people find this to be some form of "selling out"
Selling out would be signing up with a major record label. This coming from someone far removed from the music industry doesn't mean much, but lucky for me, Jack Conte basically made the same point a while back, coincidentally about the OK Go Rube Goldberg machine video (although he mistakenly credited HP instead of State Farm for that sponsorship). Retaining creative integrity is the opposite of selling out, IMHO.
In this case, if Chevy wasn't going to provide the money, someone else would have. I think there is some synergy in the name of the vehicle, which obviously made the choice easier. While the cost of this video was probably much higher than some of their other ads, I still think it's marketing dollars well spent.
Yes, there was a stage collapse in Canada, but it certainly wasn't in Corner Brook or Gander, Newfoundland, nor was it in the smaller towns of Grand Falls-Windsor or Deer Lake, or the tiny town of St. Anthony, which the #1 circle is approximately centered on. In fact, I can't think of any major concert related mishap on Newfoundland in the past decade. If, in fact, they meant the Ottawa concert, then I hate to say it, but they're more than 1500km (~1000 miles) off.
I've been saying that this should be done for a while. While I have DVR included with my cable subscription, I've only used it during the summer for a daily show that I watch. During the regular TV season it sees much more action to squeeze an extra hour or so of TV viewing into the evening by allowing me to skip commercials.
So, the first condition would be that I should be able to skip the commercials on the free offering. In a similar vane, the video should be in a community supported format, the current de facto standard for 720p video being a Matroska video (.mkv) container, and should be DRM free so I can choose the video player to use.
The next thing that my DVR allows me to do is watch a show while it's still recording, so my next condition is that the torrents be available for downloading when the show actually airs, or at the very latest, the next day. None of this 8 days later crap.
Do I think these conditions are very onerous? No. Will the lack of DRM allow pirates to take those videos and cut out the commercials? Yes, but by the time they get their torrent uploaded, it's basically too late, as everyone else who doesn't care about the commercials has gotten the official version already. I think this just makes sense.
If the TSA (or the government at large) thinks that sexually assaulting 6 year-olds will make the skys safer, then the terrorists have already won. As a Canadian, it's disconcerting to see my neighbours to the south have their rights and liberties slowly whittled away in the name of national security. I'm also not ignorant that the same thing is happening here, but at the very least, things seem to be a bit more reasonable.
At least Molly Wood (the cnet editor) is smart enough to tell her podcast watchers not to google her, as there is (according to her) a porn star that shares her name. Hell, if I shared a name with a porn star, I'd do everything in my power to get my website to the top of google. Something like "If you were looking for a porn site, try this link, otherwise you're in the right place" can go a long way.
Digital music has allowed for much more widespread discovery by consumers. If it wasn't for YouTube, I would have never discovered a duo from California because I live on the opposite side of the continent. They don't play concerts here, their music isn't played on the radio here (not that I listen to the radio anymore), I'd have no other exposure. In the past, they would have to have been discovered by a label before I'd be able to discover them myself. Now, they can be discovered by anyone with an internet connection anywhere in the world, and they can sell them music at virtually no incremental cost, all without the help of a label. They also get a much larger cut from the sale of their music than anyone signed to a label.
Moving physical CDs (cassettes, 8-tracks, vinyl records) to a record store or radio station can cost a lot, especially compared to what it costs to send digital copies over the internet. And what for? The chance that someone might pick up a copy? You need widespread appeal before you can do that, and in the olden days you needed a label to get that appeal.
Digital music means that musicians can earn an honest to goodness living without the aid of a label. Will they earn as much as a Billboard Top 40 pop artist? Probably not, but it can be high enough to live comfortably.
As Mike said, the regulations were introduced primarily to combat American programming (which is still prevalent, btw) and to promote Canadian talent. Before, this meant cut rate local programming and lots of children's content, but luckily, that's starting to change. Three TV series come to mind: Rookie Blue, The Bridge, and Flashpoint, all of which have been successful in Canada, and even have seen some success south of the boarder. (Hmm, three cop dramas set in Toronto. So when is Toronto getting a CSI and Law and Order franchise?)
Netflix is already (partially) following the regulations, and voluntarily I might add. Although their current selection of Canadian movies is limited, they have vowed to increase it, specifically in the area of French Canadian content.
Also, not only is Shaw a broadcaster and ISP, they are also the incumbent cable provider in parts of Canada. They are "old money" in the Canadian broadcasting world. We already know what happens to those guys if they don't innovate and just try to squeeze out their new competition.
The Supreme Court of Canada has decided to hear the case, and will hopefully agree with the lower courts. I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't agree, as overturning the previous rulings could have a dramatic chilling effect for online free speech.