Have you never needed another ticket last minute? Or only found out that you can go to an event after all, but only after all of the tickets are sold out? Or find out that you can't go, and you only have one ticket but people only want to buy 2?
Scalpers add liquidity to the market for tickets, which makes it more efficient. They are most certainly adding value.
So people are ok that terms and conditions can ban reselling tickets above their face value? Where are the complaints that they bought the ticket so they own it, like when people complain about software "licenses"?
Sure for some reason people dislike scalpers (except at the last minute when they realize they need one more ticket), and the restrictions on software licenses are generally more draconian, but there is no real difference between the two types of restrictions.
Good legislation is also easier to craft in secret. Do you want some good and some bad, or just lots of mediocre? That's a serious question.
I think it's a mistake to make it sound like discussing behind closed doors is always bad and openness is always good. I thought this to be especially true during the deficit negotiations, when people complained that the super committee was meeting behind closed doors. Do you expect any Republican to agree to raising taxes in an open meeting? Or a Democrat to suggest a replacement for unfunded entitlement programs?
Of course, the other view is that government can't do anything right, and that it needs to be restrained in every way possible. While they may pass a few good laws, most of them will be terrible, in which case openness would be good, as it creates gridlock.
Now I don't think that this law is necessarily good (because we probably elect more terrible politicians than great ones that are constrained by their party/constituents), but I don't think everyone here seems to be aware of the implicit tradeoff they're making when demanding openness.
It seems that it is purely a trademark/unfair competition issue and not copyright (the decision is here).
Defendants contend that “there are, frankly, only so many ways the term Buckeye can look in all caps.” This Court agrees. That is why when a
company wants to make use of the trademarked term in connection with a website or print
publication exclusively related to Ohio State athletics it must obtain a license.
I guess just about every fan site is illegal according to this judge.
Re: Re:
Scalper's aren't adding value? I beg to differ.
Have you never needed another ticket last minute? Or only found out that you can go to an event after all, but only after all of the tickets are sold out? Or find out that you can't go, and you only have one ticket but people only want to buy 2?
Scalpers add liquidity to the market for tickets, which makes it more efficient. They are most certainly adding value.
So people are ok that terms and conditions can ban reselling tickets above their face value? Where are the complaints that they bought the ticket so they own it, like when people complain about software "licenses"?
Sure for some reason people dislike scalpers (except at the last minute when they realize they need one more ticket), and the restrictions on software licenses are generally more draconian, but there is no real difference between the two types of restrictions.
*flouting the law, not flaunting
closed isn't always bad
Good legislation is also easier to craft in secret. Do you want some good and some bad, or just lots of mediocre? That's a serious question.
I think it's a mistake to make it sound like discussing behind closed doors is always bad and openness is always good. I thought this to be especially true during the deficit negotiations, when people complained that the super committee was meeting behind closed doors. Do you expect any Republican to agree to raising taxes in an open meeting? Or a Democrat to suggest a replacement for unfunded entitlement programs?
Of course, the other view is that government can't do anything right, and that it needs to be restrained in every way possible. While they may pass a few good laws, most of them will be terrible, in which case openness would be good, as it creates gridlock.
Now I don't think that this law is necessarily good (because we probably elect more terrible politicians than great ones that are constrained by their party/constituents), but I don't think everyone here seems to be aware of the implicit tradeoff they're making when demanding openness.
It seems that it is purely a trademark/unfair competition issue and not copyright (the decision is here).
I guess just about every fan site is illegal according to this judge.copyright on a typeface?
Can you copyright a typeface in England? I know in the US you can't, so there wouldn't even be a case.