You don't get it if all you play is the multi-player part of the game. I have a friend that did just that. They got it so that they could play in the multi-player levels with me. Yet have never played the stand alone game.
You and I both know that's not how this law will be used. That's just what the people pushing the law say it's about. Go and read it. Youtube, google, facebook, myspace, mailing lists, usenet, and email all fit under the 'rouge' site definitions of that law. I can't work out what part of the internet doesn't fall under the law.
The only problem I have with the free to play style of game is that, from what I can see, it focuses on games as an addiction. Such games are designed to try and get people 'hooked' on the game and not so much on a story narrative or creative game play.
The unavailing of the LG Prada took place in 2006 while the iphone was unveiled in 2007.
The Prada sold about 1M units in the first 18 months. So it was a well received phone.
So, given that it is an older phone and LG wasn't making a music player, is the ability to make a play list a 'big' or a 'small' feature? Or a feature that would have been added in by software if the phone had become wildly popular?
There is one point that I think you miss that really would change the picture about the ipad and that is, in absolute terms, the bigest group of ipad owners, are iphone owners.
So when looking at sales, one of the things that should be looked at is how well the ipad is penetrating the market beyond iphone users and how well the android tablets are doing with the non-iphone users.
Techdirt tends to go for some harsh stories about police and such but I would like to note that I still believe that the majority of cops are trying to do their jobs. Most of the time that I have heard of cops going for people with camera's its because they really were doing something excessive.
Filming arrests with cell phones, has gotten popular here where I live. Lots of people bring the camera's out when they see the police now. So far from what I have seen they just ask people to step back and stay out of the way.
It gets better though. Even if it isn't ligit and the company doesn't want something like that on the market, this is getting into the religious spectrum. Where things that are normally not allowed, can happen. Think about it this way, during prohibition, there were still vineyards making wine, a few, for the catholic church. Specifically used during their religious practice.
So by extension... We will leave that question open.
One of the things that I have seen about music is that many of the new bands I know of are not using the big labels. In recent years, take the last ten or so, the number of small start up music labels has actually grown.
It's those small labels that are signing new bands and putting out their 'first' studio album and such. At least that is the way it is working in Portland, OR and Seattle, WA.
What I have also seen is bands that are working with a small label and do really well do sometimes sign with a big label. However by then they have a full time lawyer, are after selling in Wal-Mart, and can cut a much better deal as they don't need the 'upfront studio costs' that new bands need.
So for the big labels there are some extra pressure and a new reality. They are not making the same kind of money off bands they are signing today as they were thirty years ago.
It's why I have suspected for a long time that the major labels are mostly making money off their back catalogs.