 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I really fail to see the logic in this business model. If someone wants
> to buy a piece of music, why should it matter where he lives?
The logic is that the distributers tailor their content for each region to
reduce costs. It would be a big waste of resources (for very little return)
to make available every piece of music worldwide that was even a bit popular
to every country.
What might be a good idea is a "no results found, would you like to search
international stores?", and then inform you that download times might be
longer because it's not coming from your regional server. But again, would
it be profitable to set up such a system?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, yes, but "everything" can be included in the "no other use is
> permitted" language.
True.
> Oh yes, I do remember those - I wanted one of those DeCSS T-Shirts, in
> fact, but never got around to purchasing one.
I think I still have the one with PGP encoded as barcodes on it. I was
actually involved in a company helping to fund the legal fund for that one.
> I'm not sure why they
> didn't use that argument (or why it didn't work if they did use it).
In part, they wanted the Louisiana venue because it was Napoleanic, and
hence much friendlier to the attacking party. One defendant was in
California and the other in Ontario or some such, IIRC, but they brought
suit in Lousiana based on both companies having customers in Louisiana.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> It would be a big waste of resources (for very little
> return) to make available every piece of music worldwide that was even a
> bit popular to every country.
Not on the internet. At least, not if you discount the costs imposed by
countries wanting to collect their taxes and such.
It's no harder for me to download a track from Japan than the US, and no
harder for them to sell it, except to the extent they may need to go thru
the hassle of getting a US sales tax collection thing, pay US taxes on
income, and so on. If the governments got out of the way and just taxed
their own citizens, it wouldn't cost any more.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Woops. I began to suspect that I might be wrong here. If I was in Japan,
> then I would, in fact, not be able to download songs from the US. Plus,
> they say that they check your country of origin to make sure that it
> corresponds to your address. So... If I happen to be living in Japan for
> 3 months, without a permanent address, I would be forbidden from
> downloading anything from any iTunes? Sigh...
It just seems that some companies are very shortsighted and do not consider
that people go abroad for periods of time.
For example I had this with a Poker website, because all my bank details are
from my UK address but my IP address is in Germany. They basically didn't
want my business. They even froze my account after I had won some money.
In the end I just gave up trying to talk to them. Have been using a
different site since then and had no problems whatsoever.
Even the UK driving licensing agency can't cope. A UK driving license is an
EU license, so is valid to use and keep in any EU country (no need to
change). However, they won't let you change your address to a non-UK one!
So when I called to ask what I should do (as I was moving to Germany) they
suggested I change the address to a friend or relative in the UK that could
forward any mail!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Isn't discrimination against customers based on their country of origin
> illegal in most places?
Yes, but it's only discrimination if there is no reason for it, and in most
cases you can come up with a reason.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It would be a big waste of resources (for very little return) to make
>> available every piece of music worldwide that was even a bit popular to
>> every country.
>
> Not on the internet.
Surely to store, index and deliver every song in the world on each iTunes
server is going to cost more than just the "locally selected" catalogue?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Interestingly, it was
> upheld because profession isn't one of the things you're disallowed from
> discriminating against.
That sounds quite unconstitutional. Well at least by our constitution.
Here you can't discriminate against anyone without a very good reason
which can be justified. Refusing to sell a house to someone because he is
a lawyer is certainly not such a good reason.
(One could ask what would be a "very good reason which can be justified"
to discriminate against anyone. Well, one good example is movie casting:
If the movie needs a young man for a role, it's logical that they would
hire a young man, rather than an old woman.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> If you are going to argue that, isn't it racism to have national borders?
> Even state lines?
There is a difference between refusing to sell something to someone
because of his nationality, and immigration issues.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Interestingly, it was
>> upheld because profession isn't one of the things you're disallowed from
>> discriminating against.
>
> That sounds quite unconstitutional. Well at least by our constitution.
>
> Here you can't discriminate against anyone without a very good reason
> which can be justified. Refusing to sell a house to someone because he is
> a lawyer is certainly not such a good reason.
It wasn't really that they didn't want lawyers. They just wanted the
best ones. As he couldn't win the court case, he was rejected.
--
Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Likely the license terms are that they not be sold abroad -
>> particularly back to the US. The reasoning makes sense.
>
> Then the question becomes who is violating the license, and when?
The person who sold it to me (online). Occasionally, these books are
shipped from abroad, but most of the time they're being sold within the
US. Either way, the seller knows where he's shipping to.
> Can the publisher enforce on me a contract by printing it inside the
> book? Am I required by US law to uphold a contract in India? Are you
> breaking Indian law by buying a book in the US sold to you in the US?
1. At least for the Indian books, it's usually listed either on the
front or back cover. Don't recall for the Korean ones...
2. That's why I said I don't know the legal implications. It's a
violation in Indian law, but I don't know about US law.
3. I doubt it. The condition says "not to be sold", not "not to be
bought". I wasn't informed in advance that there was a condition on it,
so I don't see why I should be liable. The sites do say "international
edition", but they don't say from which country and under what
agreements. In the old days (i.e. early 2000's<G>), such books usually
meant paperbacks from Europe (with no such terms written on them) - so I
can claim lack of knowledge...
--
Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
