You're missing the point. I have a few friends who share my interest in books. The problem is they tend to lend me the books, not recommend them. This is great for the average consumer, but not for the authors and publishers that want to sell books.
And online sites you can never be sure of the authenticity of someone's review (see: the many stories of companes paying people to write reviews) and even if they are, you can't look at the book the way you can in the bookstore (if you really wanted to, you could read the whole book). Furthermore, even if there are sites out there it's entirely possible that a really great book gets missed by the greater community or even by me as I'm searching for something to read. Most of the time when I do look online for a new book, I see alot of websites pointing me to the same books, and usually very recent ones. Granted, that's anecdotal evidence, but try it for yourself and see how often the same books tend to pop up across multiple sites. There's no way that every book I would like has been reviewed and prominently displayed online in the way a store would have it. And even if they were, would I neccassarily buy it based on the review of someone I've never seen, and at best a chapter or two I can skim through? Again, not only are sales lost, but now I'm not even reading the books.
Tim asked if "A robust book marketplace demands both bookstore showrooms to properly display new titles and online distribution for the convenience of customers." The answer is yes, because a book store is still the best place to look for new books.
PS You totally could 'help me out;' you could have said 'try this site' or 'I like this independent authorís book, try him' if you wanted to. Instead, you simply chose to get high and mighty about how you don't give a shit about supporting a store. That's a very bad attitude to have if you care about the books you read or the authors that write them.
The NYT blamed Piracy? For what? People ripping off the articles they post online for anyone to read? And where did you read about their protests? Was it in an article like the one below? Yeah, they're real anti piracy.
If you need proof that book and morter stores are essential to the survival of the industry, go there someday and look around. Don't go in, grab the book you want and get out, but actually look around. Go the the section and actually physically see the books on display. Open one that looks interesting, read a few pages (not just the preface or half of the first chapter, but any of the book). Ask a clerk what they think of such and such. You'll probably end up picking up some books you might never have known you wanted, or even existed.
Online shopping is great when you know exactly what you want. You want World War Z? Done. You want it as cheap as possible? Great, we can give it to you as an ebook for less then a coffee or even if you want the hardcover we can still sell it to you for less then those chumps at Barnes and Nobles.
The problem is that people will not only buy cheaper books (can you even call them books? Arn't they just texts without the physical element?), but they'll buy fewer books, because they won't be able to seek them out as thoroughly. Yes there's the 'we recomend' thing, but you can't compare that to a guy physically showing you another book he likes, explaining why he likes it so much, and possibly even showing you his favourite sections or points. I never would have read some of my favourite books if I didn't see them on the shelf of a book store. ("Strategic Ignorance", "Theories of International Politics and Zombies", and "Is Eating People Wrong?" just to name a few).
Couldn't you just fraps whatever you wanted to use? The lock on the actual file wouldn't be broken and you'd get what you need. Granted, there might be a bit of quality degredation depending on how you do it, but it should be good enough for most purposes.
It's also lose/lose for Sony if they go to court. Either they win and set a precedent that hampers their ability to sue everyone under the sun for copyright infringement, or they lose and suddenly a flood gate opens up. Technically if this sets a precedent then even billboard advertisers could claim their 'creations' were used in the video without their concent.
I'm pretty sure the constitution has something to say about the unlawfull taking of other people's property though. Also, can you point me to the amendment that says that if you don't like the price of the product you have the right to obtain it illegally?
Also things like "She knows a guy whose best friend former room mate once attended a meeting for this group." They literally have to put that kinda stuff in their report, or else if it's discovered later they look like they didn't do their diligence.
You might be missing the point though. If you completely abandon the morality issue, then you can't complain when the other side does as well. If you say 'who cares if you're right?' on the issue of piracy, then can you really get mad at them when they 'who cares if you're right?' on the free speech or privacy issue.
Those arn't really $I factors though. They all increased the overall cost of the game, but they don't effect $I directly. They do however make the $I of downloading the game illegally APPEAR that much smaller compared to the overall costs of importing the game or waiting for them to debut in America.
Yes, because I don't know about you, but I personally have more faith in anyone who registers their own unique fake online name on this website than the people who just take the default fake online name that site gives them.
I may be naive in saying this, but isn't there a chance that they DO throttle to stop bandwidth hogs, and it's just not having the desired affect? It seems kind of a stretch to go from "Their plan didn't work" to "They must have lied about what their real plans were!" I bash the telecom companies all the time, but sometimes they're just stupid, not evil.
Actually there are many conflicting philosophies of the purpose of the institution of a justice system. I personally believe the rehabilitation school of thought myself, but there's also the school of it being a punishment or deterrent, and a third theory of it being a means of separating undesirables out of the rest of society at large. While the truth falls somewhere in the sweet spot of all three, you can't really blame someone for thinking it's primarily about punishment, especially if he lives in a state that practices capital punishment (hard to rehabilitate a corpse).
That being said, the fact that our dear troll bob thinks that punishing these sights one by one, when it takes several months for it to get through the legal system and shut the site down while new sites spring up like gremlins in a bath tub, makes him either an idiot or a troll. My money's on idiot.