Look, I'm all for sticking it to the man, even if it's just an "I told you so" kind of thing, but I want to borrow from Kreskin here. When a prophet or fortune teller or psychic or whomever makes predictions, they are banking on the fact that you will find ways to interpret their predictions as being correct, and shrug off the ones that are wrong.
You kind of have that in reverse here. If a certain technology itself did not succeed, and is generally forgotten, there is even less likelihood of a prediction about it being remembered.
I wonder if some industry leader wrote off QR codes as a fad that would be relegated back to the stock rooms in less than a year? How about 3D TV? Has anyone shot that horse yet?
Where is the list of accurate Industry predictions about disruptive tech that didn't disrupt all that much?
Not as interesting if they were correct, so we don't have that list to ponder over.
This is not the same story we've seen time and time again.
Let's try shifting the nouns and see what happens.
Mitt Romeny decides to go to a Car Dealership in Delaware, sets up a table in their parking lot, where in a bid to gain political favor, he gives away a free car of the same make and model as anyone who was going to buy a car there today, and he gives them cars from his private stock, not bought from the dealership where he is camping out at.
Mitt isn't trying to compete with the car dealership as a business. His goal is to get votes. Yes the car manufacturer still gets sales, but this particular dealership is screwed for the day, if not week, once word gets out.
Once the customer's need for a car is sated (much like hunger) they aren't likely to go and buy a car from the dealership, even though they still have the resources to do so.
Can you understand why, they might insist he get the hell off of their Property?
This is not a story of some upstart Waffle Vendor pissing off all the legacy Waffle Vendors. This is a story of a political gimmick messing with a small business, and that small business doing the only thing it could do, complain to the people in charge.
When the Pirate Party shifts their main goal to serving waffles, I will recant, until then, I am afraid you guys are just towing the company line, instead of seeing the real picture. Sometimes a Merchant is allowed to be pissed off, even if nothing illegal is goign on.
Good point Gwiz. If the Waffle Maker Machine Company were giving away free Waffles, would that be ok?
I think we have to look to our old friend common sense, to see what would happen here. First, Is this the kind of place where Companies Sell Waffle Makers? Let's just say yes, for the sake of debate. (But when is the last time you saw people walking around the Blues Festival with a Microwave?)
I would offer as conjecture that the Waffle Maker Vendor would most likely offer a small sample of Waffles, not the entire Waffle. That might even HELP the waffle Vendor. Either way, the Waffle Vendor should still have been given prior notice that someone would be competing with their exact same food product for free.
The point I was hoping to make, and will try harder to do here is, The Vendors are doing business with the Festival Organizer. They are the customers to the Festival, they have a right to complain, and they had an expectation of fair competition. They entered an agreement with the Festival Godfather to sell Waffles there. Should the Festival Don have allowed the Pirate Party to give away food? Probably not. At the very least, the Waffle Nostra should have asked "what kind of free food, and in what quantity?" tot he Pirates before agreeing.
Furthermore, as a Waffle Vendor, they are not demanding that free waffles never be given away, or that all the waffle making equipment should be destroyed or only be licensed to approved Waffle Vendors. They just wanted what they expected when they purchased their right to be at the festival in the first place.
It seems to me that a lot of people want to see a big bad company trampling the rights of young Pirates to give away free Waffles, when in reality, you have a few small businesses and a Political Party BOTH that got put in a bad situation due to a lack of communication and planning at the fault of a third party (the organizer).
You be the champion for the politicians, I will be the champion for the Tasty Delicious Waffle Vendors.
You know, in this instance, I am going to side with the Waffle Vendors.
The article and a lot of the comments treat this as a disruption to a business by a competing business.
But the Pirate Party is not in the Food Vending business. They are a political party, and they are mixing it up with people who probably had to pay a fee to be vendors at this festival. Not Big Chains either, but people who travel from Festival to Festival, buying just enough food to use up before moving along. I am certain that those vendor's knew before they signed up that they would have to compete with other vendor's selling food, and were prepared for that.
But to compete with a political group, who does not need to make a profit from the food they serve, is impossible. If it were another vendor giving away free waffles, they would be limited by their costs/funds, etc. They would be forced, eventually, to start charging for Waffles, and things would return to a Supply/Demand/Tasty Delicious Waffles system.
Furthermore, the Person/Company that organized the Festival is most likely running a business themselves. It only makes sense to keep your vendor's happy, as they provide a needed service to the patrons, and provide you with income. Is the Young Pirate Party going to be giving away Free Waffles for all of your future events? If so, by all means, piss off the Waffle guys, and probably the other nearby vendor's of non-waffle food.
This is not a Copyrigt issue, or making infinite goods like mp3s artificially scarce; this is real world product, and real world business. Politics has no business here.
Since the actor(s) have a vested interest in the profitability of the film, and since the ROTJ has not made a profit yet, can the actor sue to have those who are in control of the rights/residuals replaced with a more competent team?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jamie Deitchman.
Mike might be wrong this time...
Look, I'm all for sticking it to the man, even if it's just an "I told you so" kind of thing, but I want to borrow from Kreskin here. When a prophet or fortune teller or psychic or whomever makes predictions, they are banking on the fact that you will find ways to interpret their predictions as being correct, and shrug off the ones that are wrong.
You kind of have that in reverse here. If a certain technology itself did not succeed, and is generally forgotten, there is even less likelihood of a prediction about it being remembered.
I wonder if some industry leader wrote off QR codes as a fad that would be relegated back to the stock rooms in less than a year? How about 3D TV? Has anyone shot that horse yet?
Where is the list of accurate Industry predictions about disruptive tech that didn't disrupt all that much?
Not as interesting if they were correct, so we don't have that list to ponder over.
RE: Waffle Wars
This is not the same story we've seen time and time again.
Let's try shifting the nouns and see what happens.
Mitt Romeny decides to go to a Car Dealership in Delaware, sets up a table in their parking lot, where in a bid to gain political favor, he gives away a free car of the same make and model as anyone who was going to buy a car there today, and he gives them cars from his private stock, not bought from the dealership where he is camping out at.
Mitt isn't trying to compete with the car dealership as a business. His goal is to get votes. Yes the car manufacturer still gets sales, but this particular dealership is screwed for the day, if not week, once word gets out.
Once the customer's need for a car is sated (much like hunger) they aren't likely to go and buy a car from the dealership, even though they still have the resources to do so.
Can you understand why, they might insist he get the hell off of their Property?
This is not a story of some upstart Waffle Vendor pissing off all the legacy Waffle Vendors. This is a story of a political gimmick messing with a small business, and that small business doing the only thing it could do, complain to the people in charge.
When the Pirate Party shifts their main goal to serving waffles, I will recant, until then, I am afraid you guys are just towing the company line, instead of seeing the real picture. Sometimes a Merchant is allowed to be pissed off, even if nothing illegal is goign on.
Re: Waffle Makers Manufacturing Inc.
Good point Gwiz. If the Waffle Maker Machine Company were giving away free Waffles, would that be ok?
I think we have to look to our old friend common sense, to see what would happen here. First, Is this the kind of place where Companies Sell Waffle Makers? Let's just say yes, for the sake of debate. (But when is the last time you saw people walking around the Blues Festival with a Microwave?)
I would offer as conjecture that the Waffle Maker Vendor would most likely offer a small sample of Waffles, not the entire Waffle. That might even HELP the waffle Vendor. Either way, the Waffle Vendor should still have been given prior notice that someone would be competing with their exact same food product for free.
The point I was hoping to make, and will try harder to do here is, The Vendors are doing business with the Festival Organizer. They are the customers to the Festival, they have a right to complain, and they had an expectation of fair competition. They entered an agreement with the Festival Godfather to sell Waffles there. Should the Festival Don have allowed the Pirate Party to give away food? Probably not. At the very least, the Waffle Nostra should have asked "what kind of free food, and in what quantity?" tot he Pirates before agreeing.
Furthermore, as a Waffle Vendor, they are not demanding that free waffles never be given away, or that all the waffle making equipment should be destroyed or only be licensed to approved Waffle Vendors. They just wanted what they expected when they purchased their right to be at the festival in the first place.
It seems to me that a lot of people want to see a big bad company trampling the rights of young Pirates to give away free Waffles, when in reality, you have a few small businesses and a Political Party BOTH that got put in a bad situation due to a lack of communication and planning at the fault of a third party (the organizer).
You be the champion for the politicians, I will be the champion for the Tasty Delicious Waffle Vendors.
I'm going to side with the Waffle Vendors.
You know, in this instance, I am going to side with the Waffle Vendors.
The article and a lot of the comments treat this as a disruption to a business by a competing business.
But the Pirate Party is not in the Food Vending business. They are a political party, and they are mixing it up with people who probably had to pay a fee to be vendors at this festival. Not Big Chains either, but people who travel from Festival to Festival, buying just enough food to use up before moving along. I am certain that those vendor's knew before they signed up that they would have to compete with other vendor's selling food, and were prepared for that.
But to compete with a political group, who does not need to make a profit from the food they serve, is impossible. If it were another vendor giving away free waffles, they would be limited by their costs/funds, etc. They would be forced, eventually, to start charging for Waffles, and things would return to a Supply/Demand/Tasty Delicious Waffles system.
Furthermore, the Person/Company that organized the Festival is most likely running a business themselves. It only makes sense to keep your vendor's happy, as they provide a needed service to the patrons, and provide you with income. Is the Young Pirate Party going to be giving away Free Waffles for all of your future events? If so, by all means, piss off the Waffle guys, and probably the other nearby vendor's of non-waffle food.
This is not a Copyrigt issue, or making infinite goods like mp3s artificially scarce; this is real world product, and real world business. Politics has no business here.
Here's a question...
Since the actor(s) have a vested interest in the profitability of the film, and since the ROTJ has not made a profit yet, can the actor sue to have those who are in control of the rights/residuals replaced with a more competent team?