jedipunk’s Techdirt Profile


About jedipunk

jedipunk’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 22nd, 2015 @ 6:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, I understand and I agree it would be beneficial to the bar.

    Obviously, the current arrangement is beneficial to HBO or they wouldn't continue doing it.
  • Apr 22nd, 2015 @ 5:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    As well, HBO probably has less of a problem with them offering a public viewing of GoT than they have with them advertising that they have a GoT night.
  • Apr 22nd, 2015 @ 5:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's my point. The bar is not paying any licensing to publicly show GoT.
  • Apr 22nd, 2015 @ 5:11am


    They did the same thing during when bars where having Sopranos night.

    Why should the bars be permitted GoT night and not the local theaters?
  • May 29th, 2013 @ 5:48am

    (untitled comment)

    Ignore the title.
  • May 29th, 2013 @ 5:47am

    $50 book * 2,100 students

    From the article:
    --No charges had been filed against the teenager as of Tuesday afternoon.
    --The school estimated the costs of reprinting 720 yearbooks at $41,000.
    --She could be charged with first-degree property damage, a felony, and harassment.
  • Feb 5th, 2013 @ 11:02am

    Spending more to get it "free"...

    It actually costs to get it "free" and be careful.

    If you want to be safe from being sued a VPN will run you $40/yr or more.

    If you use usenet expect to pay $50-100/yr.

    Of course, some folks will use bit torrent wihtout a vpn.

    It isn't that "pirates" won't to steal it is that distributors are not willing to distribute the way we want to consume it.

    I would gladly pay $30/month for a service that gives me access to TV shows soon after they air and movies soon after the DVD is released and allows me to watch it on demand on whatever device I like.
  • Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 6:13am

    He must have Pee Wee logic

    Dottie: Pee-wee, how are you ever going to pay a reward like that?
    Pee-wee: It's simple. Whoever returns the bike is obviously the person who stole it. So they don't deserve any reward!
  • Oct 18th, 2012 @ 7:55am

    Nutkao it is.

  • Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 6:32am

    force folks to abandon

    force folks to abandon cable and find all the "free" stuff available, resulting in more pirates.

  • Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 10:15am

    Find away for customers to buy the discs.

    It would be interesting if Redbox could convince customers to buy the discs, watch them, then sell them to Redbox (at a discount) and receive redbox credit at any kiosk. Netflix could do the same thing.

    I don't know what the going rate is for buying from distributors is but I might be willing to do this. Netflix could just ask customers to include the disc in a mailer and Redbox could have mailers at the kiosk.
  • Jan 16th, 2012 @ 1:25pm

    (untitled comment)

    we got behind on coverage

    Was that a pun?
  • Aug 17th, 2010 @ 10:39am

    (untitled comment)

    I don't think the issue is that they used "God Squad" but that they commandeered the logo along with it.

    So, an idiot in a hurry could easily misinterpret the logo. That fact that it is on a beetle makes it even more likely.

    Related link.
  • May 13th, 2010 @ 3:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evil

    I can't say that I believe this is only a move to reduce second hand sales because I think the second hand sellers (Gamestop) are going to have to eat the $10 cost by dropping the price. Second hand sales will still occur they just will not get to make a 400% profit.

    If it was a move to kill secondhand sales they would make the online pass cost higher or not offer one at all. That being said they even offer a trail for free.

    That being said, your currently monthly fee is for access to maybe Xbox live. It does not include in its cost premium content game manufactures may offer.
  • May 13th, 2010 @ 3:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Evil

    But they are not building the games to expire.

    Shelf life refers to the length of time they are willing to support a system for game play. In this case, there is the additional "how long do they plan to support online game play" question.

    No company is going to keep servers online forever for online game play and these still play without the online pass. Heck, even digital music distributors are realizing the DRM servers are a pain for non subscription services. Apple is the only big one still doing it, I think, and even there you can buy DRM free. If it is a pain for something as simple song licenses it has to be a much bigger pain to maintain a server for the extras of online game play (especially when no new money is coming in).

    Regardless, requiring a fee for online game play of a game bought second hand allows them to recoup some of the cost required in extending the life on online game play when that second hand purchase would not give anything to the company originally (but extended game life cost).
  • May 12th, 2010 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Evil

    I don't care if those dollars can be used elsewhere, those dollars are supposed to be used to support a game I bought legally, whether or not i bought it used or new.

    If you bought the game used then none of the money you spent went to support the game.

    Developers give everything a shelf life. A game you bought in 1991 is not going to work on systems today. My father complains about this a lot. He hates today's games and his old computer (that will play the game) barely works. He thinks his new computer should be able to play his old game.
  • May 12th, 2010 @ 10:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Evil

    So, are you saying that if I buy the game new on day 1, it should work for me 6 years later, but it shouldn't work for people who bought it used?
    Yes, that is what I am saying because buying used adds no income to the people supporting the online pass system. If the online pass required no maintenance from EA then I would feel differently. Refer to my club analogy. Club X is built. Memberships are valid for a lifetime. Investors expect that these fees accumulated by members will pay for upkeep. New members use resource more often the older members. As member interest wains, Club X benefits. If Club X allowed for members to sell the membership then Club X will have a group of members that have not contributed anything to the maintenance of the building. They are only there because they got a good deal when a previous member moved or got bored. So now the new member has extended the life of a membership ruining the anticipated ROI to the company. If we extend this out and allow for the possibility that eventually everyone will simply transfer their membership to recoup their cost then Club X will cease to be. No new income means that they will operate in the red and go under.
  • May 11th, 2010 @ 5:16pm

    Re: Evil

    I see the online pass as a lifetime (of the game) membership to the a privileged area that new buyers get free with the game and used buyer must pay extra for. What club would allow the free transfer of a lifetime membership to someone else when a member gets tired of the club?

    Regardless, why should EA or anyone shell out more support costs, hardware costs, etc. for a person who buys the game 6 years after it came out (that would be me btw)? Even if it is negligible, those are dollars that could be used elsewhere rather than on someone who gave no money back to EA.

    To address others complaining of borrower/renters getting access, EA does allow a 7 day trial for each game prior to purchase.

    Games/Software have an expected shelf life on which companies anticipate an ROI. If people don't like the terms vote with your wallet.
  • Oct 22nd, 2008 @ 5:11am

    (untitled comment)

    I use netflix watch now heavily.
    Typically, a one hour show daily and one or two movies on the weekend. Very good quality video.
    I also have 1 child that is a big myspace & youtube watcher (but that amount is negligible.

    I use about 12gb a week and watch roughly 7-8 hour of tv over the internet.

    If I get rid of cable my wife will watch QVC over the internet and who know how much bandwidth that will eat.
  • Jun 4th, 2008 @ 5:32am

    (untitled comment)

    I have said before that unbundling channels for cable (going a la carte) will make channels more expensive. Instead I look for the cheapest bundle with the channels we like.

    It isn't that people hate bundles it is the fact that something that has become nearly a commodity is being priced out of the commodity market and they blame bundles.

    I however disagree with some of the arguments made throughout the article. Popular channels will remind cheap. Niche channels will skyrocket. I believe the bundles are about subsidizing.

More comments from jedipunk >>

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it