Regardless of the answer, This is a failiure to recognize the symbiotic relationship between web sites and search engines. Traffic is not something that is "due" to web sites out of the blue. You have to work for it. Search engines are but one tool in this regard.
If today's judges are amusing themselves in their rulings with strong cultural references of their time, which i find awesome, how long until we see rulings incorporating "lol", "roflcopter","umadbro?!" and much more from the internet and video game culture ?
I wonder if judges in Japan make anime references in their rulings... :P
Natural selection in the capitalist sphere seems to have hit the overdrive recently. Artists, Shops, large corporations (news and entertainment), etc. are hellbent on removing themselves overnight from the gene pool of anything that will be relevent to the next society. All in the name of weak conjectures. We should hand them Darwin Awards.
That shop owner just made sure it will not get any new customers(genes) and most likely annoy the loyal ones enough back to the supermarkets. Forever. I wonder how the owner plans to measure the cost/benefit of that or is he just going to roll with empty conjectures.
Square Enix too was rocked by a failiure very similar to this. Final Fantasy XIV was a bullet in the knee cap for the brand. And the FF brand always carries so much expectations. SE did three things:
Apologize and waive the monthly fees.
Setup a solid communication channel with the fans.
Rebuild the game from the ground up.
The key part here is the constant communication with the fans. Apologising will only hold up the fans from leaving long enough to hear your next statement. It must be followed by concrete actions that engages the audience and demonstrate a will to change rather than simply giving people a cookie. I'm not saying that Stardock is wrong, just that i feel it may be lacking in effort if its not followed by strong PR to engage the fans.
The ultimate phoenix down for FFXIV, in my own FFXIV player opinion won't simply be the rebuilt version of the game, but the support of the fans generated by all the PR efforts and tools.
Your analogy would be correct only if Uber was exacly like taxi cab company, however Uber offers a different class of vehicules, coverage, means of payment(you dont pay the driver directly) and hailing, etc.
What we're looking at is not one club with two lines, but 2 similar clubs with different offerings and pricings. Does FedEx or Purolator discriminate against USPS users for offering faster delivery at a higher price ?
I'll concede that a quick, surface look does make it seems like Uber is a taxi cab company.
In this case, people would be overcharged on the fly by their origin and spoken language alone. Tiping customs are another debate, but not disclosing the "Quebec tax" upfront to customers before taking their orders is deceptive and discriminatory.
However in the taxi case, the 20% gratuity is disclosed upfront and applied to everybody, rich or poor. This is not discriminatory.
Mr Taplin seems to equate the biggest and richest to 'everyone'. The fact that he can only name people who made 100K+/year as examples and looks down on Nina Paley demonstrates this. At this point, the word "fair" lost all its meaning to me.
He claims the MPAA/RIAA have been poisonous about finding ways to solve the problem, that "the royalties have ceased", yet he blames only Google as being the entire problem. Why didn't he blame the labels first ? I mean, they are the ones handing out checks and suddently stopping. Thats the biggest innovation from the content industry: manipulating people into thinking "it's everybody elses fault, but our's when we dont pay".
Has the industry learned anything from the Napster and Limewire cases ? Stopping those services did not stop piracy nor did the settelement money ended up in the rightful hands. These cases are undeniable counter examples to his magical thinking solution, but yet he keeps on digging Carreon's style.
... Previously I was a little peeved that other people would take something I posted online and do whatever they wished...
How can this feeling come natuarally to any human being ? How can any human being expect to assert control, by default on others behaviour with such ephemeral and intangible things as images, sound, ideas, words, etc. It seems to me as a fabricated and endoctrinated state of mind.
If you want to have full control over intangible items, do not share them at all.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Maxwell.