Fox Moves To Use Aereo Ruling Against Dish Streaming Service 210
An anonymous reader writes A day after a surprise U.S. Supreme Court decision to outlaw streaming TV service Aereo, U.S. broadcaster Fox has moved to use the ruling to clamp down on another internet TV service. Fox has cited Wednesday's ruling – which found Aereo to be operating illegally – to bolster its claim against a service offered by Dish, America's third largest pay TV service, which streams live TV programming over the internet to its subscribers and allows them to copy programmes onto tablet computers for viewing outside the home.
The Law of Intended Consequences (Score:5, Funny)
Er, UNintended Consequences....that's totally what I meant to say...
Jurisdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been numerous cases where a ruling from a court of a certain country (whether it be US or Europe or Timbuktu) regarding the Net has altered the way the Net operates
For example, a Canadian company was found to be "breaching the law" of the USA when its online poker operation was available in the USA and had to pay hundreds of millions in fine to the Uncle Sam
Well ... it's the Net, the operation is in the Net, the company is in Canada, and how come a court inside USA can fine a company in Canada any money in the first place ?
I mean, if USA does not want online poker to run inside its territory, the REAL JURISDICTION of that US court supposed to be limited to ordering that company to shut off the operation to IPs that originate from USA - and nothing else, really
Similar case here ...
A US court find that an online streaming service which streams TV programming (including those from the US teevee channels) has violated some laws INSIDE THE USA, and by jurisdiction, that US court can only order that company to shut off its operation to all IPs which are originated from USA, but no, that company had to shut off ALL OPERATION
What I want to know is, WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENS TO LEGAL JURISDICTION ???
And it is not only for online thing only
A French bank was found by USA to violate its (yes, USA's) policy on the embargo of Iran --- well, that bank was from France, and all its business dealings with Iran was done OUTSIDE the United States, --- and yet, US dare to fine that French bank hundreds of millions of dollars !
What the fuck is going on, people ?
How can the government of country A fine a company from country B any money when that company's dealing has NOTHING to do with country A in the first place ???
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:4, Informative)
The answer to your question is not simple. Most industrialized countries have treaties with each other that permit legal actions to be taken under any applicable jurisdiction. Even the jurisdiction of a single country can be broad: usually U.S. jurisdiction goes to any person or entity "doing business" on U.S. soil or by any infrastructure located on U.S. soil. European countries will enforce U.S. copyrights, and the U.S. will enforce european copyrights.
Can a U.S. court order a Canadian company to discontinue offering gambling over the Internet? It depends upon the treaties it has with the U.S.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
The US writes all the treaties. Amazing how that works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright, as in "intellectual property", is a notion that exploded from The Shining City on the Hill, namely Jesus's country, America. We've rammed each and every treaty down the world's throat for almost thirty years. Now that it's established, of course European copyright lords are helping seal us in with our cask of Amontlliado. But it is American in origin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright comes from the British empire.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true, and the other country does have to agree to it in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
The US writes all the treaties.
And ignores them when they're not convenient. Amazing how that works.
Re: (Score:2)
Creative works are one of the few remaining products where the US leads. Any wonder they are crazily protective of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, certainly such a treaty does exist, else no court in the USA would have had jurisdiction to demand the payments. And, from the standpoint of operating websites, it is pretty easy to block whole countries from seeing your website. All it takes is editing a .htaccess file.
As to the banking issue, France is a signatory of a treaty within the European Community of Nations as well as the United States to sanction Iran regarding their development of atomic weapons. This is an agreement between the United Sta
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I know your first thought might be, well we're not going to use our military against Canada/France, but we have many other forms of coercion. We can and will forbid a particular financial institution to do business with US-based businesses and individuals, so that is the force that keeps them in line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"How can the government of country A fine a company from country B any money when that company's dealing has NOTHING to do with country A in the first place ???"
Empire. Rules of an empire. We've thousands of nukes, hundreds of military bases in a hundred+ counties, and we create every single "treaty" that governs our actions. You are either a vassal, or a cooperating and subordinate power.
Americans are fine with this idea. They never leave home much, and even if they did, they would not mind the hate. We ar
Re: (Score:2)
Quick: name a country which doesn't think its ways are the obviously correct ways, and that the world wouldn't better if only everyone else would adopt their standards. Europeans are convinced that we should maintain a bit of aloof isolationism. The Middle East is convinced that a Muslim theocracy would benefit everyone. Much of Asia wishes we could get over the recent notion of individual rights instead of duties to country. And every single one of those groups write laws and UN proposals that - if adopted
Re: (Score:2)
>Quick: name a country which doesn't think its ways are the obviously correct ways, and that the world wouldn't better if only everyone else would adopt their standards.
>Europeans are convinced that we should maintain a bit of aloof isolationism. The Middle East is convinced that a Muslim theocracy would benefit everyone. Much of Asia wishes we could get over the recent notion of individual rights instead of duties to country.
These aren't all the same. A worldwide Muslim theocracy would affect everyo
Re: (Score:2)
As a side note: I despise a lot of the laws we've been pushing out and don't mean to defend them. I just get weary of the idea I hear too often that the US is uniquely and historically bad about this.
Re: (Score:2)
That's certainly not the case. Look at all the horrible things the European nations did back during their colonial days. Most nations, when sufficiently powerful, do pretty awful things to other nations just because they can and because it benefits them (or certain members of their population).
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even stop for a moment to think:"Hmm, this seem odd that the US can do this, why do those countries let them?"
That question alone should lead you to the answer.
But no. Posting in bolded caps is easier then actually learning something.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is Aereo uses antennas inside of the US to capture the content. This has been found to violate US copyright laws. I'd agree with you if they were using attennas located in Canada/Mexico to pickup signals originating in the US and then only selling in those countries. Still there probably is reciprocal agreements between those countries to respect each others copyrights. Its a similar thing with any large industry. For example healthcare: you don't need FDA approval in Canada but Health Cana
Re: (Score:2)
A French bank was found by USA to violate its (yes, USA's) policy on the embargo of Iran --- well, that bank was from France, and all its business dealings with Iran was done OUTSIDE the United States, --- and yet, US dare to fine that French bank hundreds of millions of dollars !
What the fuck is going on, people ?
How can the government of country A fine a company from country B any money when that company's dealing has NOTHING to do with country A in the first place ???
Simple, if your business wants to do business in the U.S.A., you'll need to mind the rules. That bank knew the rules and actively falsified documents to make it appear that it was abiding by those rules. They got caught and severely smacked. The fact that they are willing to pay that ginormous fine means they want to make amends with Uncle Sam and *continue* to do business in the U.S.A.
Re:The Law of Intended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Those consequences were quite intended by the broadcast industry which sued Aereo. Only Scalia, amazingly, got it right when he warned they were after this endgame. Blind adherence to the tiny details of the law give us this stinking pile to live with, just as when they ruled that eternal copyright was fine as long as there was *some* time limit mentioned, even if it was a century, even if the limit would be eternally extended, as it just obviously had been.
Re: (Score:2)
UnNintendo Consequences?
Big Difference (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a big difference. Dish pays for broadcast rights. Use of the internet is not a question, legally. It's just a transmission medium.
So as long as Dish is paying their fees, they should be free and clear.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They dont have re-transmission rights. It costs extra obviously.
Re: (Score:3)
They dont have re-transmission rights. It costs extra obviously.
The article says they have the right to 'broadcast' Fox content, however, it also says they are doing what Aereo was doing in violation of 'an express contractual prohibition'. Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.
Re:Big Difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.
The Supreme Court Betmax decision. Users obviously have the right to use VCRs and DVRs to "time shift" content. There's no law saying you can't take your DVR with you wherever you go.
In this case, your tablet is just acting like a DVR. I see nothing new at all here, even considering the recent (bad) SCOTUS decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony v Universal Studios [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This is ME saying this, but in Betamax decision, the SCOTUS said that *even though* VCR sometimes infringed on copyrights, that the non-infringing uses outweighed the "bad" use. Yes, that makes little sense, but blame copyright laws for that. Change the laws, change the decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
The Court's 5-4 ruling ... in favor of Sony hinged on the possibility that the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses, and that the plaintiffs were unable to prove otherwise.
The majority opinion:
[There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses...
Nothing about an "analog hole" anywhere in there. And tablets are clearly capable of non-infringing uses.
Indeed, devices already exist (such as Slingbox) that allow you to view content from your DVR from not just outside the home, but from anywhere on Earth that has a decent internet connection. And so far nobody has tried to say they are anything but perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:2)
VCRs always needed to use "analog hole" methods and unencrypted signals.... DVRs were not allowed to move programs without permission.
Sure they were...I did it all the time with recordings of OTA HDTV using a MyHD card in my PC.
I think you are assuming that "DVR" == "device supplied by cable or satellite company to record encrypted signals".
Re: (Score:2)
You see, there's a "broadcast flag" developed in the DVR software that is really the "can't copy flag" that would take away you ability to move that file around.
The MyHD DVR ignores the setting of the broadcast flag, as does pretty much every other OTA HD recorder. This is primarily because it has never been intentionally set on any program.
Try that with a PPV movie, an HBO/Showtime or similar movie. Try that with HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher... it won't work.
When those are broadcast OTA (over the air, i.e., TV using the same frequencies and antennas as has been used for 50 years) and can be decoded by any ATSC-compliant device, I suspect I'd have no problem moving the program anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but *your* VCR/DVR is very different than a service doing this; that is the nuance that lead to the recent Aero ruling.
I don't think the service is doing it. It is allowing YOU to do it. That might seem like nitpicking but it's actually a pretty big difference.
If cable companies and the RIAA could not legally stop people from doing it, how could Dish stop people from doing it? Would they be breaking the law?
I don't know. There are a lot of nuances here, and though I have been a Dish customer before, I'm not right now so I don't know much about how this particular thing works.
Re: (Score:3)
Fox lost any chance to prosecute as they didn't do it when the device was first introduced.
I thought it was common practise to wait as long as possible so the damages awards/threats can be maximised to either extract the most money possible through the courts or extort the largest out-of-court settlement.
Re: (Score:1)
My TiVo does virtually the exact same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if that's next on their list.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, the content providers are mortal enemies of DVRs (or at least DVRs that they do not control themselves). They don't like time shifting and they don't like skipping of advertisements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big Difference (Score:4, Informative)
They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.
You mean they are allowed to transmit Fox content live but not record it and then stream it to the user? Doesn't fair use also come into it? Users have the right to record TV content for personal use.
Re:Big Difference (Score:4, Insightful)
They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.
Users have the right to record TV content for personal use.
Then users should record TV content for personal use - which isn't the same as what Dish are doing, as they are retransmitting their own recording of the content. Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Cablevision would beg to differ.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, Scalia tried that with Bush V. Gore. "Only applies to this one election." Bull.
No, it doesn't work like that, unless someone is crookedly applying law. Law is law, and they don't get to choose what the consequences of their STUPID decision is.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
The decsion is based on some very specific point in the Aereo case.
Very few cases are as simple as the media makes it seem. The ruled the Aereo is behaving like a cable provider, and not just an equipment provider.
Si yes, if I start a company the grabs broadcasts and then streams them, the law would apply to me. Does that mean it should apply to dish?
I don't know. if Dish is doing the same thing or not. IF the are just time shifting content subscribers shows, then I would think not.
Re:Big Difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, only one copy of any given movie or album would ever be sold, because the person would promptly throw it up on the torrents. And that "should be" legal.
Not that that doesn't already happen to some degree.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.
So I can fix my own house, but I can't pay anyone to fix it for me without paying 50% of the repair cost to the original builder. Sounds fair.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or was your point that the "free market" can't exist when patents and copyrights do?
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that when you "buy" the software, you don't "own" it. You typically own a single copy of it and licensed rights necessary to use that single copy.
What happened to the days when we used to talk about software licenses around here? Have all of the open source people gone? I didn't think I'd have to explain so many times...
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that when you "buy" the software, you don't "own" it. You typically own a single copy of it and licensed rights necessary to use that single copy.
You're being pointlessly pedantic. That was obviously what AK Marc was talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that when you "buy" the software, you don't "own" it.
Then what did you mean by:
If you don't like the deal you're getting, go somewhere else.
If there's nowhere else I can go, then your statement is wrong and misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
From HBO. Of course, it will cost many millions of dollars, but then you own it and can do whatever you want with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually own it? well you would need to go to HBO and buy it form them. Probably 200 million dollars?
You don't own any movie. You never have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The free market for copyrightable works includes similar works made by other authors. The government-granted monopoly is not to all works of the kind of a copyrighted work, it is the monopoly to one particular expression within that kind. (I made another comment under this story using watermelons; I'm too lazy to go find it.)
The same kind of monopolies exist in real properties: I can't rent out a particular condo for less than the owner is willing to. Does the owner have a monopoly? Yes, on that particula
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy another game that runs on your preferred platform that plays with swords, armies, battles and territories (or whatever that game looks like). If you can't, then you can find the same game on another platform. If that's not possible, then you can get a knockoff of the game within 2-6 months of the original game's release. If that's not possible, then you can write your own game that plays the same way.
Same thing for videos. Can't get your desired movie with lots of action or romance having star
Re: (Score:2)
Words of art are not commodities, by definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Works of art too!
Re:Big Difference (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Big Difference (Score:4, Informative)
Before making such bold statements I'd do a little more research on the hopper and how it functions. There's no cloud storage here. All the functionality is on the customers DVR and iPad.
Re:Big Difference (Score:5, Funny)
Is it one of those things, like sex and human organs, that you can give away for free but you can't charge money for it?
Re: (Score:2)
"Is it one of those things, like sex and human organs, that you can give away for free but you can't charge money for it?"
You can't charge, either. You must remain a virgin until they license you to have sex, er, watch TV.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fair Use"? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! That was FUNNY! "Fair Use"!! Why, grampa here just peed in his Depends when he heard you mention that dead fish. Fair Use indeed. Whoo. Whee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to like it, but you're not entitled to make up crap and present it as fact.
Funny, I missed the part where he said anything other than Firefly's cancellation was fact.
"Good" and "famous" are both entirely subjective and thus opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I know, but "on the internet" has spawned a whole lot of new rules without rhyme and reason or roots in reality, so it seems that "on the internet" means "normal sanity does not apply".
Re: (Score:2)
The fee will rise to the point they go out of business.
Wow, I wish you were right. (Score:4, Insightful)
But you're not. (For the record, I work for $MAJORCABLECOMPANY as an engineer in the group... well, under discussion. So I'm somewhat informed.) Case in point: the ability to use a song in a movie for theatric release is not the same as the ability to use the song when released on DVD. Likewise, songs played on the radio cannot (unless, of course, specified) be willy-nilly copied for downloads in podcats. The biggie, of course, is region-enforced blackouts for sporting events.
I could give more pertinent examples, but I also like my job, so I guess I'll have to take a pass. But trust me: it ain't as easy as you'd like to make it out.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm curious about is how the system is implemented and will that matter?
If they're using Slingbox style implementation and using the customer's own outbound connection to stream, then things are way less murky for Dish.
If they're using their own infrastructure to serve out shows, then things are less clear about retransmission rights. Given the vast amount of storage needed, I don't think they are.
I suspect this will be a home run for Dish. They ARE paying the piper, and they're handing customers what
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "Slingbox style",it IS Slingbox. Dish owns sling and has built it into their DVRs.
Re: (Score:2)
I know they had Sling branding on the box, didn't know if the delivery mechanism was the same.
Still, Fox is shooting themselves in the feet here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying Aereo would have been OK if they'd sold one of those OTA DVRs and colocated them at their warehouse? Aereo's fatal flaw is that they rented people a homogeneous device rather than selling them one of a menu? That, my friend, is a legal Rube Goldberg much more intricate than the technical workaround Aereo intended.
Not exactly. The way I understood how the SC ruled was the device would need to get the signal directly from the broadcaster and be located in the consumer's residence. So a consumer would need to have the DVR located on the premises and receive the signal directly from broadcasters via a local antenna. The Tablo [tablotv.com] is basically the same as the Aero service except you own the device and set it up at home. The Tablo doesn't even have a video out port. It's tuners are only accessible through streaming clients. I
Re: (Score:2)
The antenna issue is what the ruling against them was based on. It's also how cable companies started. They put the antenna in a place that gets good reception and charge for the service of retransmitting that to you down your cable line. The content industry managed to get the 1992 Cable Act passed, making that illegal without a retransmission license.
The DVR in the cloud issue was a very minimized part of the ruling - hardly the basis of the decision at all. However, retransmission is never perfectly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not exactly. Dish does the same that Aereo did - they allow customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet. Aereo allowed customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet.
Aereo rents out the antenna Dish rents out the satellite dish Aereo rents out the DVR Dish rents out the DVR Aereo allows access over the Internet Dish allows access over the Internet
Dish pays broadcast rights to send things over their satellites to customers' antennae Local TV stations pay broadcast rights to send things to customers' antennae
I don't see a difference.
Take a look at the bold section, notice that it does not say Aereo. Aereo did not pay for broadcasting rights, Dish does, as even stated in your post.
Some people would like to outlaw the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The more I look, the LESS content is available legally without having a cable sub and piping in valid creds.
Pretty soon (if they haven't already) they will further limit such streaming to IP address known to be the same customers node. To prevent you from using your friends login and not having your own of course, even though it keeps legitimate customers fro
Re: (Score:2)
In the current model, a select few fleece the users and call it the cost of buinsess, because we steal and t
Re: (Score:2)
so after the paid billions of $$$ to get the rights they are supposed to give everyone free access?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NBC is in bed with Comcast though and just wants more cable subscriptions instead of providing a quality service.
NBC is owned by comcast. Comcast is NBC's pimp man. You give it up and pay out your earnings when your pimp comes along.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want to eliminate the internet. They want to turn it into a paid cable TV service with data for a fat extra charge. They want to own the internet, turn it into another corporate-owned asset. And they have won.
Greedy bastards (Score:1)
Let's see how useless and annoying we can make TV and still having people paying for it. It is incredible how much americans will put up with(I am thinking about the barrage of commercial breaks also).
I don't know any TV provider here these days who doesn't provide a option to see TV programs at least 14 days back and even a month.
That being said, I have given up on cable tv years ago myself.
Re: (Score:2)
It is incredible how much americans will put up with(I am thinking about the barrage of commercial breaks also).
I love all these comments that equate to, "Well, you Americans should just stop doing that. Duh!" It's not like there's an entrenched multibillion-dollar industry dedicated to preventing that exact eventuality or anything.
One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?
"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"
WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.
"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?
"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it."
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.
http://principiadiscordia.com/... [principiadiscordia.com]
Fox (Score:2)
No longer available. And nothing of value was lost.
Here we go (Score:2)
The beginning of the end for streaming services.
Sony Betamax (Score:4, Informative)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/... [findlaw.com]
There's no doubt in my mind that if the Sony case were being heard today, the VCR would be ruled an infringing device.
Re: (Score:2)
Well done, madam or sir. Exactly so.
Because we all know... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That article was authored (or co-authored) by Prof. Levine, who is a well-known economist. In my view (as an attorney) it is badly thought out and written:
It starts out in the first paragraph claiming that IP covers "ideas". That's just ridiculous. IP has never excluded anyone from thinking, for Pete's sake! That article marches along, criticizing the fictitious "intellectual property" created in someone's imagination and is not persuasive.
It even goes so far as to equate IP with contracts. Contracts or
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous:
You don't seem to understand the concepts. Ideas cannot exist outside of a person's mind. Expressions of ideas can, and sometimes those expressions can be copyrighted. The performance of a series of steps can be patented, if they are novel, non-obvious and fall under "statutory subject matter", but no one can prohibit the transference of a description of those steps. IP has never been about what's in a person's mind, hence IP is not about ideas as Prof. Levine suggests.
You are correct that com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the timing that this lawsuit was filed (right after the Aereo decision), I think Fox's lawyers have this very well thought out.
If everything you say is correct, then Fox may not win anything. But, Mr. Anonymous, I don't see anything persuasive in your recitation of alleged facts. I'm not eager to bet on your horse...
Re: (Score:2)
And what if Fox's agreement with Dish doesn't permit for re-broadcasting between boxes in a subscriber's equipment, and requires Dish to maintain control over its subscribers to have a license to Fox's copyrighted material? Then Dish would be in breach of the license with Fox, giving Fox cause to sue.
I don't know what the situation really is between Fox and Dish, but I assure you that your subscriber agreement with Dish does not control whether Fox has standing to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Be nice if that happened, but I don't think you live in the same world as most of humanity...
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because if we could pick and choose which channels we wanted and there were no barriers in the way, several dozen better channels than the big ones would immediately pop up and "steal" all the money. Can't have them destroying the big guys' market.
When you spend all your effort on legally quashing competition instead of trying to offer a good product is when you lose any sort of ethical standing. Fortunately, money is a decent substitute for ethical standing these days.
I bet the current entrenched