Presumably if illegal content is not taken down by the customer then the host cancels the service, right? Otherwise the host risks liability. That's different from revealing the IP of a customer which requires a court order.
You can rollover to get around contribution limits [1], and the government gets your money now rather than later,
> A Roth IRA rollover (or conversion) shifts money from a traditional IRA or 401(k) into a Roth. You can get around Roth IRA income limits by doing a rollover. You'll owe tax on any amount you convert, and it could be substantial.
Limiting the max amount would reduce near-term government tax revenue. So I don't think it would happen.
> I 100% agree Thiel has broken no crime and I think you should be embarrassed to say that the people who created the Roth intended this. There is no evidence of that. We should recognize that this Roth IRA is sheltering more money than people expected and make (or refrain from making) regulatory changes in response.
I remember when I was young and maxed out my Roth, also converted a lot into it, and a tax accountant warned me that the government could change the rules so the gains are taxed. I thought, "no way, they couldn't do that!"
Now I see they very well could as a response to arguments such as yours.
I can't say I'm a fan of Thiel's business or writings however many of us rely on Roth remaining as-is. It already has limits. Thiel simply made good investments. We shouldn't punish that unless there was something like insider trading occurring. And that should not impact the existence of the Roth.
> Apple doesn't have to be a ring leader to be legally responsible for their actions
It does make a difference in the ruling and applied punishment.
The 7th circuit's decision from Toys R Us vs. FTC decision states,
As TRU correctly points out, the critical question here is whether substantial evidence supported the Commission's finding that there was a horizontal agreement among the toy manufacturers, with TRU in the center as the ringmaster, to boycott the warehouse clubs. [1]
The Toys R Us ruling was referenced in the 2nd circuit court of appeals ruling against Apple. Therefore, the above statement has bearing and Apple did need to be perceived as the ringleader to receive the brunt of the punishment.
> So please, respond as you like. But I'm filtering out your posts from now on. You're the exact kind of person I shouldn't engage with on HN.
That's your choice. I think I've been cordial. Feel free to point out anywhere I haven't been respectful. If disagreement is disrespectful to you, I don't know how else I can help.
> No, agency model gave LESS revenue to publishers
Why would publishers ask for an agency model if it earned them less money?
> What the heck has to do windowing with what I have said?
Your last sentence above, "Because if a majority of publishers" runs together. Perhaps I misunderstood what you said.
> It is clear that you have your opinion fixed on stone.
I don't
> It is a waste of time trying to discuss anything
At this point I agree
> For you Apple is innocent, period
Not really. To me it seems Apple was a final piece to the puzzle and not a ring master. As I mentioned in another comment, I believe Apple ought to have known better about the risks of appearing like the master conspirator in this case. Apple ought to have known better about the risks, and it seems they could have launched this model, albeit slower, without such a concerted effort.
The difference between us is, for you, Apple is guilty, period. For me, it isn't so obvious.
> I am not pointing a mind control ray at you or threatening your family.
That's good. It would be really strange if you were. This is an internet conversation which I consider to be pretty casual. Most likely, only you and I will ever read this, and whoever else reads it will stop when they find it uninteresting.
> "Evil" is not an interesting conversation here.
That's subjective. I say it's interesting, you think it isn't. I have no problem with that.
> You can't just say "Apple Happened To Be There™."
I gave a summary of my take on the situation. Again, I see no problem with that.
It's hard for me to see Apple as a ring leader as the DOJ claims, or that publishers were convinced by Apple to pursue this course. They already had this plan together before Apple came to the table. Apple was more like the final piece to the puzzle than the ring leader. They asked Apple for a proposal and told Apple the terms under which they would agree, essentially creating the proposal themselves, yet having it come from Apple's mouth.
Perhaps it will make you feel better to know that I believe Apple ought to have known better about the risks of appearing like the master conspirator in this case. As I mentioned in another comment, Apple ought to have known better about the risks, and it seems they could have launched this model, albeit slower, without such a concerted effort.
> You've been given a smoking gun and Eddy Cue's fingerprints and replied, "Gosh that sounds complex, why isn't this easier to search?"
None of us are privy to all the details of this case. We get summaries, and I'm saying they are in a lousy format, unsearchable and low resolution. It's a side rant but relevant towards increasing transparency of our government. We all have limited time, and making things easier to read helps everyone. If you feel that's off topic, that's cool. My comment about the DOJ's awful document-creation skills is not the basis of my support of Apple. However, it does contribute to my theory that our government does not understand technology, and that we need more representatives who have technical knowledge like Ted Lieu.
I'd argue those points are relevant because price fixing laws were created to thwart monopolistic behavior and spur competition. In this case, Apple was trying to bring in a competitor model that would earn publishers more money, thus allowing them to develop higher quality content. The consumer has lost as a result of this court decision. That's my opinion and you are free to disagree.
> Because if a majority of publishers are on board, they can force the OTHER stores threatening to stop selling ebooks though them
Some of the publishers did not support windowing, that is, withholding new releases from being available as ebooks, so that argument doesn't quite hold up.
They may, but who cares? This is the internet. It is a medium you can choose to ignore or stop reading the moment you find someone's argument is unreasonable. I suppose you could fear real world retaliation if someone knew your identity, but, if you're saying something online that you would not say to someone in person then I'd say you are not yet comfortable with your own thoughts. Don't censor yourself just because people down vote you or disagree with you on the internet. That is allowing mob logic to win. Promoting discussion, sharing facts, and suggesting alternate views are all ways to stimulate learning. Even if you end up being convinced of an alternate view and disagreeing with yourself, at least you dug into an issue you care about.
> At what point will you admit Apple's wrongdoing and stop talking about the searchability? Please have the grace to admit you were wrong in public.
Hi Kirin, I'm a different commenter with my own opinion.
Increasing transparency of government actions is something I care about. I also believe in competitive markets.
The first slide isn't evidence showing Apple knowingly conspired to do evil, in my opinion, and nor is the rest of the deck. Before Amazon started selling eBooks, publishers were able to sell hardcover books, i.e. new releases, for a higher price point. Then Amazon, being the only ebook retailer, was able to very quickly undercut the publishers' in-store new-release prices on a global scale due to the nature of digital products and their position as a monopoly in the ebook retailer market. This cost the publishers money. Then Apple appeared as another retailer and publishers asked Apple to give them their agency model back. And, publishers said they would only join Apple if all the publishers would do it. Apple said okay.
Regardless of this court decision, I imagine we'll see more agency model pricing in the future when more options open up for publishers.
It's perfectly fine if you disagree. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just sharing my opinion.
This case was in court for years. If it were so cut and dry as you proclaim, the case would have been over much sooner.
Nobody wants to answer those questions because the court ruling did not address it. All the DOJ had to do was demonstrate Apple conspired to raise prices. Nobody needed to think as far ahead as you are now in order to prove the case according to existing law.
I think they're great questions, really interesting and forward thinking, and it's too bad you're being downvoted for promoting interesting discussion.
The ruling doesn't undo any of the results of what happened, as far as I can tell. I see varying ebook prices on Amazon and I can only imagine that publishers now have the ability to do agency model pricing.
All this means is that Apple and others will be really careful about working with content creators or publishers in the future who are stuck with a wholesale model but desire agency-model pricing. And maybe content quality will go down since the creators earn less. Or maybe more people move to independent publishing sooner. I guess it is impossible to know.
Ironically, back around 2000, we hailed Jobs for working together with the record labels and convincing them to enter the digital age. Until the iTunes store, nobody was able to convince the labels that mp3s could be a safe way to make money. It wasn't exactly the same situation, but I could see how, from Apple and Jobs' perspective, the effort involved in the ebook situation would've seemed the same and innocent. The difference was, instead of being first to market and able to set prices without oversight, they were second and had to figure out how to compete. They realized they could compete by giving publishers a legit pricing model that they wanted, but didn't realize they could be held liable for price fixing.
Another thing I'm wondering about is why the publishers were so insistent that the others must also join. Each told Apple they would only join the plan if a minimum of 4 others did too. I don't follow why that was necessary, since books are published exclusively by one publisher and there wouldn't be any overlap. Anyway, I'm with you. It sounds like the publishers were begging for this circumstance and Apple was caught unaware. The DOJ saw an easy prize on a desirable target based on existing law and they went for it. Ultimately, though, Apple ought to have known better about the risks, and it seems they could have launched this model, albeit slower, without such a concerted effort.
> So is opening the store based on an agency model illegal?
I don't think it is. There's an opportunity for some store to do that.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that it isn't so cut and dry that Apple set out to fix prices or do evil here. They were simply one gateway to higher prices desired by publishers. Selling electronic goods is sufficiently different from selling tangible goods to warrant additional consideration beyond existing case law.
I think the DOJ/government finds Apple difficult to work with. During the encryption congressional hearing, Trey Gowdy was begging Apple to lobby for legislation, or come up with their own new legislation. It was disgusting. The DOJ and our Congress do not understand technology and it hurts the industry.
I do not think Amazon looks like a villain in the article. Good guys drink champagne too, and the Cheshire Cat was not a bad guy, he was neutral.
It is relevant to mention Amazon. Although Amazon isn't named in the case, Apple was competing with Amazon directly by offering publishers a service through which they can set their own prices. With Amazon, publishers don't set the price of books, Amazon does.
The ruling does effect Amazon's business. They have one less competitor model to worry about.
What is it about the DOJ that makes them produce unsearchable, low-resolution PDF documents?
I spent 5-10 minutes looking through that document and can't find anything that makes Apple look bad. I see the publishers telling each other to "double delete" each other's emails. That looks bad. But it isn't obvious to me that Apple is engaging in any illegal behavior based on the email quotes in that document.
It seems more like consumers and government were accustomed to Amazon's pricing model, in which they sometimes take a loss. Then, when publishers wanted to set their own prices, they sought a service that would allow them to do that and found Apple. I'm a consumer and don't like high prices, but I can also understand how a publisher might like to decide how to price their books. It's beyond me why that should be deemed illegal.
<rant>
If the DOJ or FBI get an increased budget I hope some of that goes towards increasing their transparency by not only making information available, but also making it searchable.
And why do I need to pay for C-Span transcripts? Wouldn't it be nice if we could all read and search through what our representatives are saying?
</rant>