Weird Al tickets used to cost around $250-$300. I recently bought tickets to his Portland, OR show for $125 and for that, I got some scarce goods along with it. Yeah, it's still expensive, but My Weird Al beats your Terry McBride in understanding the "Sell the Scarce" strategy.
But couldn't it adopt a position (if it wanted to) of "We are like craigslist and not going to take anything down even with a takedown notice"?
Didn't Google just win a safe harbors case that prevents DCMA takedowns or some such? I didn't read much on it, but I feel I'm missing the point.
"Actually it's a problem we all have. Everyone has a religion - even those who claim to be atheists or agnostics."
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=religion
Noun
* S: (n) religion, faith, religious belief (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny) "he lost his faith but not his morality"
* S: (n) religion, faith, organized religion (an institution to express belief in a divine power) "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
By the very definition, atheists do not have a religion.
It makes no sense because it makes no sense. ;)
The idea when running a game (I'm a LARP game developer and have quite a bit of experience with game world economies) is that you never want to take things away from the players. It reduces their want to continue to get "money".
What they should have done is to keep the economy stable (if this amount would've thrown it off by to much) is to give everyone the money and then raise the prices on things. Yes, people would've still complained, but they just got some extra money, so it would be less of a sting to them.
Over time then, slowly remove the money from the economy and generally lower prices to match being careful not to have any inflation. Once the money is removed (as the players themselves remove it and not the "gods"), things will be back to normal except the users will remember when they got some extra money and had fun with it.
TLDR: Balance the Economy by increasing the money in circulation. Not by removing it and causing users to get upset.
Oh.. and your comment of..
"All of you guys who are whining are simply whining"
makes no sense. If you are whining, you are whining. Here. I have a facebook group for you to join..
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=336697012237
So how were the users expected to separate a promotion to bring in more people and a promotion to.. well.. move people over to facebook?
Honestly, I think TechDirt should allow insiders to see what domain someone posts from and what domains they have posted from before because I suspect Michael that you would show up from Zynga.
Once you involve the courts, it becomes a 1st Amendment rights issue.
For example, Mike can choose to delete this comment if he wishes. No violation there.
If Mike sues me because of me posting, then (assuming he wins), it would be the justice system (hence, the government) telling me I can't post... That's when the courts overstepped their bounds.
Well, how does it differ from blackmail then? Same line of reasoning?
I mean, if I tell someone, "Pay me or else I will tell the cops what you did"... That is blackmail. Isn't it?
I did find this.. But this seems to put it clearly into illegal activity to the letter senders...
The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
I am curious. How does this differ from actual extortion (if at all)? Why can't the people who got letters sue for extortion?
This town I consider my hometown (actually, it was Roebling which was the next town south, but Bordentown was the nearest "big" town near me).
I feel ashamed all of a sudden.
Having worked in the CC industry, I can assure you, AOL would have used the checksum. If what you are saying is true from your point of view, then they were stolen credit card numbers.
Where exactly do you see him saying he was downloading it or refusing to pay for it (except when he said he was boycotting the persons work)?
He gave no argument for or against downloading the movie.
YEAH! Those coffee houses that have seats in them to entice people to drink their coffee in the place (and perhaps get them to buy more stuff when the caffeine kicks in) shouldn't be allowed to have them. They are only used by people who want to sit down for free.
Sorry.. I was under the impression that just saying "First" was not allowed. I didn't. I included a link about the topic (or at least, somewhat on topic).
If saying the word First is not allowed at all in the first post, then please change the word to "Top Post". Thank you. ;)
Re:
How is tower information hearsay?