The Second Apocalypse

General => Author Q&A => Topic started by: MisterGuyMan on July 31, 2017, 11:37:59 pm

Title: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MisterGuyMan on July 31, 2017, 11:37:59 pm
The more time people spend consuming free media, the less time they spend consuming purchased media, the less money they spend. You can spike your samples any which way (the way IP foes do), cherry-pick countless happy scenarios, but it all comes down to this: people spending less, and content producers struggling more.

Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...
This isn't actually how the market has evolved though.  Consumers are spending just as much money as they ever have on legitimate media and the media industry isn't struggling.  The only difference is how that money is being allocated.  In the music industry, for example, people are buying less albums and singles.  That's the big bullet point record companies cite.  What they don't point out is that consumers make upo that difference and more with concert sales.  This results in individual artists making more per capita today and the big losers are the record labels which historically have played the role of middle men.  As I stated before the primary limiting factor of media spending isn't determined by anything media suppliers can manipulate.  Consumers simply have a finite amount of disposable income and they spend a certain amount of that income on media.

I was always interested in how you specifically would view this considering the major themes of TSA.  Copyright and IP isn't actually universal and has only been around for a few hundred years.  It's original intention was a form of censorship.  Creative arts have flourished before copyright and it flourishes today in markets with lax copyright laws.  In the West we've been conditioned to view copyright as an intrinsic right when the historically it's actually the anomoly.

I hesitate to even continue this debate since you are my favorite author and it would be easy for you to conclude that I'm advocating  "theft" of your work.  I'm not.  I'm just pointing out that the marketplace is ever evolving and we can't put the genie back in the box.  Good to artists have always found ways to profit from their work before and after the Internet. 
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: generalguy on July 31, 2017, 11:48:14 pm
The more time people spend consuming free media, the less time they spend consuming purchased media, the less money they spend. You can spike your samples any which way (the way IP foes do), cherry-pick countless happy scenarios, but it all comes down to this: people spending less, and content producers struggling more.

Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...
This isn't actually how the market has evolved though.  Consumers are spending just as much money as they ever have on legitimate media and the media industry isn't struggling.  The only difference is how that money is being allocated.  In the music industry, for example, people are buying less albums and singles.  That's the big bullet point record companies cite.  What they don't point out is that consumers make upo that difference and more with concert sales.  This results in individual artists making more per capita today and the big losers are the record labels which historically have played the role of middle men.  As I stated before the primary limiting factor of media spending isn't determined by anything media suppliers can manipulate.  Consumers simply have a finite amount of disposable income and they spend a certain amount of that income on media.

I was always interested in how you specifically would view this considering the major themes of TSA.  Copyright and IP isn't actually universal and has only been around for a few hundred years.  It's original intention was a form of censorship.  Creative arts have flourished before copyright and it flourishes today in markets with lax copyright laws.  In the West we've been conditioned to view copyright as an intrinsic right when the historically it's actually the anomoly.

I hesitate to even continue this debate since you are my favorite author and it would be easy for you to conclude that I'm advocating  "theft" of your work.  I'm not.  I'm just pointing out that the marketplace is ever evolving and we can't put the genie back in the box.  Good to artists have always found ways to profit from their work before and after the Internet.

recording artists, who have deals not too different from authors, have generally made most of their money off touring and ancillary products like merch, not selling albums. The advent of Spotify as a capitulation to this hasn't really killed off artists--it killed off piracy much faster.

I think it would make sense to publish say, the atrocity tales, as a kindle singles or have a different way of publishing the last series, since the classic publisher-backed book deal hasn't done wonders.

Though if Overlook owns the characters and setting, that might be hard.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Cū'jara-Cinmoi on August 01, 2017, 01:55:53 am
The more time people spend consuming free media, the less time they spend consuming purchased media, the less money they spend. You can spike your samples any which way (the way IP foes do), cherry-pick countless happy scenarios, but it all comes down to this: people spending less, and content producers struggling more.

Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...
This isn't actually how the market has evolved though.  Consumers are spending just as much money as they ever have on legitimate media and the media industry isn't struggling.  The only difference is how that money is being allocated.  In the music industry, for example, people are buying less albums and singles.  That's the big bullet point record companies cite.  What they don't point out is that consumers make upo that difference and more with concert sales.  This results in individual artists making more per capita today and the big losers are the record labels which historically have played the role of middle men.  As I stated before the primary limiting factor of media spending isn't determined by anything media suppliers can manipulate.  Consumers simply have a finite amount of disposable income and they spend a certain amount of that income on media.

I was always interested in how you specifically would view this considering the major themes of TSA.  Copyright and IP isn't actually universal and has only been around for a few hundred years.  It's original intention was a form of censorship.  Creative arts have flourished before copyright and it flourishes today in markets with lax copyright laws.  In the West we've been conditioned to view copyright as an intrinsic right when the historically it's actually the anomoly.

I hesitate to even continue this debate since you are my favorite author and it would be easy for you to conclude that I'm advocating  "theft" of your work.  I'm not.  I'm just pointing out that the marketplace is ever evolving and we can't put the genie back in the box.  Good to artists have always found ways to profit from their work before and after the Internet.

Actually consumers are spending less money--way less in some circumstances. Large musical acts are able to recoup income via concerts, but I have friends in the industry who've sacrificed health and relationships touring and touring endless dives, sometimes glad just to get paid in drinks because of the glut of bands out there. Otherwise, the marketers now utterly rule the mainstream music scene.

Even if your spiked versions of the data that consumers were paying the same were true, that would still count as an economic loss, a year over year loss compounded into a genuine disaster in a mere decade.

The only argument worse than this is the argument that IP is an oppressive and artificial cultural device. All economic norms are oppressive and artificial. Yars just pick and choose those that make them feel better, they way all free-riders do.

Otherwise, who said anything about putting the genie in back in the box? It's about creating a culture that maximizes the number of people who do pay, and dispelling the ridiculous argument that giving away free content actually increases the amount of money ALL artists receive. It may help certain artists in certain circumstances, the same way giving away Toyotas at hockey games helps sell Toyotas. It's proselytizing Yars like you, the ones who think returning to the age patronage is good, 'natural,' and that the vast explosion of professionalized creativity arising out of IP was 'unnatural,' 'oppressive,' bad--YOU are the virus, the one slowly ensuring every piece of content is selling something other than itself, via patronage obligations, or product placement, or the simple terror of doing anything different as a profession.

YOU WOULD NOT HAVE READ A SINGLE ONE OF MY BOOKS, were it not for this oppressive, unnatural system you're decrying.
 
A few years back my agent asked me to pull together some illegal download numbers for PoN to convince Overlook to lower their kindle price point. So I toured a wide number of sites--those possessing download counters. I stopped once I surpassed the number of books I had actually sold. And this actually helped my sales? Give me a fucking break buddy. Go peddle your self-serving bullshit to someone who doesn't have a family to feed, but wants to feel like they're sticking it to the man taking food out of the mouths of the people they claim to admire and adore. Steal if you want, but stop pretending you're doing good, let alone heeding destiny's call.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Hiro on August 01, 2017, 08:57:08 am
The more time people spend consuming free media, the less time they spend consuming purchased media, the less money they spend. You can spike your samples any which way (the way IP foes do), cherry-pick countless happy scenarios, but it all comes down to this: people spending less, and content producers struggling more.

Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...
This isn't actually how the market has evolved though.  Consumers are spending just as much money as they ever have on legitimate media and the media industry isn't struggling.  The only difference is how that money is being allocated.  In the music industry, for example, people are buying less albums and singles.  That's the big bullet point record companies cite.  What they don't point out is that consumers make upo that difference and more with concert sales.  This results in individual artists making more per capita today and the big losers are the record labels which historically have played the role of middle men.  As I stated before the primary limiting factor of media spending isn't determined by anything media suppliers can manipulate.  Consumers simply have a finite amount of disposable income and they spend a certain amount of that income on media.

I was always interested in how you specifically would view this considering the major themes of TSA.  Copyright and IP isn't actually universal and has only been around for a few hundred years.  It's original intention was a form of censorship.  Creative arts have flourished before copyright and it flourishes today in markets with lax copyright laws.  In the West we've been conditioned to view copyright as an intrinsic right when the historically it's actually the anomoly.

I hesitate to even continue this debate since you are my favorite author and it would be easy for you to conclude that I'm advocating  "theft" of your work.  I'm not.  I'm just pointing out that the marketplace is ever evolving and we can't put the genie back in the box.  Good to artists have always found ways to profit from their work before and after the Internet.

As an artist myself, I find this line of reasoning selfserving, to say the least. It's very simple: if you go your local supermarket, you pay for your food, right? And I assume that, whatever work you do, you get paid for that as well, right? Just because something is available on the internet, it does not mean that it is not stealing, or that it won't have that effect. Why do you assume that it is different for artists? Scott has already reflected on the bizarre faults in logic that come with these justifications.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MisterGuyMan on August 01, 2017, 12:51:27 pm
(click to show/hide)
Before accusing me, a person whose spending habits you have no basis to even speculate on, as the problem, we should actually define the actual problem first.  Worldwide, the amount spent on media has increased 8% (http://www.bizreport.com/2017/05/study-consumers-spending-more-on-media-content-streaming.html).  This outstips Global inflation which hovers around 3.5%.  You argued that the media industry is struggling but I don't actually see much evidence of this.(https://www.techdirt.com/skyisrising/)

Your second main argument is that the goal should revolve around "creating a culture that maximizes the number of people who do pay."  I actually agree with this.  The problem is we do not share basic assumptions.  If anything we're actually close to this "maximize paying" culture or we might be beyond it.  What exactly do you believe such a culture would look like?  Currently in the USA the average American Household carries over $8k in credit card debt and the vast majority do not pay off their balance each month.  I pointed out earlier that the limiting factor on media spending is a basic lack of disposable income.  The average credit card debt figure, which is approaching all time highs, strongly argues that Americans shouldn't be spending more on media at all and should probably spend less.  So if we maximize paying even more, what exactly would an economy like this even look like?  How could you argue that it's healthy?  This also ignoring the multiple counterexamples that we have in other countries with lax copyright laws.  Artistic creators are able to generate income in those countries too using different business models.

You accuse me also of being the problem and even called me a virus.  I didn't want to make an anecdotal example of myself but if you insist on using me as an example I can rock with it.  I recently had a planning meeting with a financial advisor and we concluded I wasn't saving enough.  Don't get me wrong I save more than most but still don't save enough.  I don't have terrible CC debts thankfully but it's pretty clear to me I spend too much on media.  I have first editions of all your PoN books and I overpaid terribly for a first edition of TTT which ebay advertised was signed by you.  With your second series, I've pre-ordered multiple copies from multiple sites to get them as soon as possible.  With TWLW I placed a next day order from Amazon Canada to get it a few days early without canceling my American Amazon hardcover which I still own because I want matching covers.  I paid a premium for an Advance Reader copy on Ebay for the Great Ordeal while, again, retaining a first edition hardcover for my display.  Most recently I ordered a UK copy of TGO because I needed to ensure I got my copy before I went on a 3 week vacation in Asia.  This is on top of my legitimate Kindle purchases of your all your books.  I don't care enough about music to pirate it since I listen to audiobooks or podcasts in my car and I only watch what's on TV and am an avid theater goer.  I also game mostly on XBO which, as far as I know, has never been hacked to play bootlegs.

So as you can see, I'm actually a model consumer if anything.  Just because you are my favorite author doesn't mean I'll just let you insult me or make incorrect assumptions about me.  I look at the issue of piracy on a macro scale whereas you seem to be arguing on an emotional level.  Any rational analysis of my spending habits would lead to the conclusion that I spend too much on media or media related merchandise.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MisterGuyMan on August 01, 2017, 01:14:51 pm
As an artist myself, I find this line of reasoning selfserving, to say the least. It's very simple: if you go your local supermarket, you pay for your food, right? And I assume that, whatever work you do, you get paid for that as well, right? Just because something is available on the internet, it does not mean that it is not stealing, or that it won't have that effect. Why do you assume that it is different for artists? Scott has already reflected on the bizarre faults in logic that come with these justifications.
I outlined my media consumption habits above and I generally pay for my media.  If anything I'm a collector and pay premiums for collectibles as my various display cases can attest.  So I deny that my arguments are self serving since I don't actually pirate. 

My arguments are based on economics and historic analysis of markets.  As a random person I am an easy person to target rather than addressing my actual points.

As for your analogy you're ignoring a vital difference.  Yes, I do go to a grocery store and pay for my groceries.  If I took them without paying, that's theft.  The difference here is that no physical copy is actually taken.  Suppose we developed the technology to just replicate food like in Star Trek.  Would that be stealing?  That's a closer analogy than stealing food at a supermarket.

Generally I'm a free market proponent.  People like to buy stuff and people like to sell stuff.  Technology changes how this is done but people will still buy and sell stuff.  Yes, piracy is changing the rules of business but this has happened before.  As an example, Edison pirated his favorite concert player and the musician said Edison's invention would lead to the extinction of musicians since he reasoned if people could listen to his music from home, they would never support his concerts.  That technology lead to musicians becoming stars by selling albums and today that industry is declining in favor of concert sales.  So suppose we banned recording technology because of moral reasons.  Do you really think musicians would be better off today? 

Same with Napster which lead to iTunes.  Pirated games also lead to Steam.  Technology moves forward and businesses need to adapt to it.  I refer again to developing markets.  They have lax copyright laws but creators are still finding ways to sell their works.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Cū'jara-Cinmoi on August 01, 2017, 07:43:58 pm
(click to show/hide)
Before accusing me, a person whose spending habits you have no basis to even speculate on, as the problem, we should actually define the actual problem first.  Worldwide, the amount spent on media has increased 8% (http://www.bizreport.com/2017/05/study-consumers-spending-more-on-media-content-streaming.html).  This outstips Global inflation which hovers around 3.5%.  You argued that the media industry is struggling but I don't actually see much evidence of this.(https://www.techdirt.com/skyisrising/)

Your second main argument is that the goal should revolve around "creating a culture that maximizes the number of people who do pay."  I actually agree with this.  The problem is we do not share basic assumptions.  If anything we're actually close to this "maximize paying" culture or we might be beyond it.  What exactly do you believe such a culture would look like?  Currently in the USA the average American Household carries over $8k in credit card debt and the vast majority do not pay off their balance each month.  I pointed out earlier that the limiting factor on media spending is a basic lack of disposable income.  The average credit card debt figure, which is approaching all time highs, strongly argues that Americans shouldn't be spending more on media at all and should probably spend less.  So if we maximize paying even more, what exactly would an economy like this even look like?  How could you argue that it's healthy?  This also ignoring the multiple counterexamples that we have in other countries with lax copyright laws.  Artistic creators are able to generate income in those countries too using different business models.

You accuse me also of being the problem and even called me a virus.  I didn't want to make an anecdotal example of myself but if you insist on using me as an example I can rock with it.  I recently had a planning meeting with a financial advisor and we concluded I wasn't saving enough.  Don't get me wrong I save more than most but still don't save enough.  I don't have terrible CC debts thankfully but it's pretty clear to me I spend too much on media.  I have first editions of all your PoN books and I overpaid terribly for a first edition of TTT which ebay advertised was signed by you.  With your second series, I've pre-ordered multiple copies from multiple sites to get them as soon as possible.  With TWLW I placed a next day order from Amazon Canada to get it a few days early without canceling my American Amazon hardcover which I still own because I want matching covers.  I paid a premium for an Advance Reader copy on Ebay for the Great Ordeal while, again, retaining a first edition hardcover for my display.  Most recently I ordered a UK copy of TGO because I needed to ensure I got my copy before I went on a 3 week vacation in Asia.  This is on top of my legitimate Kindle purchases of your all your books.  I don't care enough about music to pirate it since I listen to audiobooks or podcasts in my car and I only watch what's on TV and am an avid theater goer.  I also game mostly on XBO which, as far as I know, has never been hacked to play bootlegs.

So as you can see, I'm actually a model consumer if anything.  Just because you are my favorite author doesn't mean I'll just let you insult me or make incorrect assumptions about me.  I look at the issue of piracy on a macro scale whereas you seem to be arguing on an emotional level.  Any rational analysis of my spending habits would lead to the conclusion that I spend too much on media or media related merchandise.

The sheer number of media consumers worldwide is exploding, so of course there's an overall gain. In Western music markets, revenue remains around 60% of its 2000 mark. Even looking at the EU data correlating higher illegal downloading with higher purchasing you very quickly run into differential granularity problems: the fact is, the 'long tail' as they call it, is getting skinnier and skinnier, and the long tail is where the genuine novelty incubates. The skinnier it gets, the less incubation time it has, the more likely it is to die off, the more monotonous and mechanical the mainstream becomes. (Since concert/touring income is almost entirely restricted to the manufacturers of pap, and only applicable to musicians to boot, it is an argumentative canard).

Like all instances of free-riding, the viability depends on honest brokers. Since you seem to recognize this now (abandoning the assertion that IP is an artificial instrument of oppression), then the question is one of why you aren't decrying illegal downloading? At what point do you think illegal downloading will negatively impact sales. When it reaches 50%? 60%? 70%? 80%? Do you only plan to defend it so far?

To the extent you provide apparently articulate rationales for illegal downloading you are, most definitely, part of the problem. I thank you for buying my books, but as someone who regularly encounters 'I'll keep reading, but I ain't paying a cent,' comments because of some perceived moral failing on my part, I would kindly ask that you stop encouraging people to perpetuate my poverty. Do you really think product placement and merchandising are commensurate with projects like mine? What other 'business model' do you have in mind? Government handouts? The last I checked my books contravened pretty much every 'literary scruple' an arts bureaucrat can be expected to muster.

I am genuinely 'out there.' The only way fools like me get to make a difference is by toughing it out in the long tail. The problem I face, even though my sell-through percentages are in the high 80 percentile range, is that publishers are becoming less and less inclined to 'develop' midlist authors, and more and more inclined to grope for lightning in a bottle. Why pay an artist to hone their craft when you need only troll for magical amateurs? The less books I sell, the more expendable I become. As soon as I vanish from bookstore shelves, my single biggest point of exposure to new readers vanishes also, as well as any chance of receiving mainstream attention. Then odds are, it's off to the experimenter's graveyard. The genre community finds me pretentious, too 'academic.' The academic community finds me vulgar, too 'genre.' My publishers are the only institutional leg I have to stand on... of course I find your chiseling insulting. That which robs me makes me richer.

In one breath you say illegal downloading generates IP income, and in the next you say it's time to find something other than IP income. Then you say I'm advocating higher levels of household debt. Ooof. If we don't let people steal X, then we risk the economy collapsing. And X = 'content' as opposed to 'chairs' or 'diapers' or 'allergy medication' why?

Talk about rationalization.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Baztek on August 01, 2017, 10:17:52 pm
I'll give it to you Scott for toughing it out and sticking to your guns. The genre community are a bunch of plebs, and lol at what academics think about anything.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Madness on August 01, 2017, 10:42:56 pm
At the risk of alienating my favorite author, I'm firmly believe piracy is a bogeyman used by large media companies.

I've read a lot of studies on the issue and if you throw out the media sponsored ones and the ones that equate each pirated copy to a lost sale, the actual effect of piracy isn't bad and even has positive benefits.

In other words, big media are skewing results in order to minimize their profits... The only universe in which this argument could have bite is one where humans are hardwired to rationalize guilt

How would skewing results reduce their actual profits?

I'm skeptical on the whole piracy effect as well (I don't pirate, just to be clear) - I'd like to see some science done on it -  if forced, whether they'd buy the book if they had no other access to it. I suspect many pirates have a hording condition - they don't read what they download (they can download more than they could read in a lifetime, after all), they just sit on it, like a dragon on its horde. Madly collecting meaning. But maybe some science would show they do read en masse and would pay en masse. Given the money in the various media industries, it's surprising they haven't paid what would be a relative pittance to run some science on this.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Madness on August 01, 2017, 10:48:52 pm
It wouldn't be a Bakker thread if it didn't gnarl its way off in a direction random and kinda making sense at the same time!! Plus more posts popped up while I typed this, so...

As for your analogy you're ignoring a vital difference.  Yes, I do go to a grocery store and pay for my groceries.  If I took them without paying, that's theft.  The difference here is that no physical copy is actually taken.  Suppose we developed the technology to just replicate food like in Star Trek.  Would that be stealing?  That's a closer analogy than stealing food at a supermarket.
A physical copy is indeed taken? Digitizing isn't supernatural.

And star trek doesn't explain if people it's setting have to pay for the energy of replication, or if they have some kind of socialist (or something like that) system that would actual support an author and his/her family, rather than leave them to the winds of the open market.

Assuming star trek has some kind of 'look after each other' system, you seem to be treating it that being able to copy books means we have that benefit of the star trek world as well? As if social care goes hand in hand with technology? It sounds like a faith in technology.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MisterGuyMan on August 02, 2017, 01:58:55 am
(click to show/hide)
I'm still currently trying to see how feasible it would be to attend Zauduyanicon or Bakker on as I prefer to call it.  I'm hoping this disagreement won't prevent you from signing my books.

Your music figure is almost certainly only covering legitimate sales of recorded music.  If we examine the entire music industry, we see that despite the greatest recession in living memory, the music industry continues to thrive (http://www.economist.com/node/17199460).  So while albums and singles sales, which pays peanuts to artists, artists are making more money than ever from concert sales and other merchandise.

You asked me how high piracy rates would go before I stopped defending it.  I don't believe it's relevant to industry growth.  Here's the percentage I focus on 5.6%, which is the percentage of household income spent on entertainment.  Regardless of how much the piracy rate increases, the amount spent on entertainment is still only finite.  If the average household can only allot 5.6% of their income to entertainment then pirating more won't make them earn more money to spend on media.  I cited the CC debt figure to prove to you that the average American housold is, in fact, spending more money than it earns.  You want to maximize spending right?  So here's a simple thought experiment.  Where is this money coming from?  Money won't materialize just because we want to spend more on media.

I'm not advocating that people pirate to save the economy.  I'm pointing out a simple fact that people have finite money and should spend it as they wish.  We have multiple studies showing that most prolific pirates also spend the most on media so they are actually supporting media over, say, chairs.  Conversely, if some one values chairs over media then they should buy more chairs.  The market is good at allowing people to allocate their income however they want.  As income rises and prices fall, we see increases in legitimate purchasing and less piracy.  People just like to spend on media but we can only spend so much.

You are also correct when you point out that the media industry is growing because more and more people worldwide consume media.  The fastest growing media markets though have notoriously high piracy rates.  To reinforce my previous point, there is simply not enough money for the average person in developing markets to buy legitimate products.  We've seen firsthand how China's increasing middle class is buying more legitimate media even though the same people were buying pirated versions before.  As I keep arguing, disposable income determines how much money is spent on media.

As for publishers, why are we limiting ourselves to traditional publishing?  I've actually been reading up on Amazon's self publishing and for mid level authors, they could earn more by self publishing than they would with a traditional publisher.  The opportunities are there and if we examine the publishing industry as a whole, rather than focusing on traditional publishers.  The rise of self publishing more than compensates for the decline in traditional publishing.

Also yes in one breath, I have no qualms saying illegal downloading generates IP income, and in the next say it's time to find something other than IP income.  That's how complex markets work. There are many right ways to do things and wrong ways too.  You have found Comercial success with traditional publishing.  Others have found success by actively supplying their work for free.  Some authors have benefited from pirated versions of their works. So as much as I respect you, their business model is just as valid as yours.  To parallel the religious themes in TSA, there is no one right way to be a successful artist.

With respect, and this is a self serving request, I ask that you reconsider your stance on alternate sources of revenue if this issue really concerns you.  I'm trying to bridge our disagreement into a productive request.  There were a handful of people here already showing interest in action figures.  The custom Kellhus figure I mentioned earlier will probably cost me over $500 to make and that's largely because there's no official stuff to buy.  I would support you via patron if you ever decided to go that route.  Wilshire was upgrading your books into these awesome leatherbound and I said I would only sign up for a set  if you would agree to sign them as a semi official first edition collector set.  Your fans are dying to support you if you let us.

Consider this an olive branch.  I feel l have supported my position enough so you can at least see where I stand even though I know we will continue to disagree.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Callan S. on August 02, 2017, 03:49:34 am
Quote
People just like to spend on media but we can only spend so much.

To clarify here, MGM, you're not just saying people can only spend so much - it's that they can only spend so much and then they can keep getting more than what they've paid for, because they can only spend so much?

Quote
So as much as I respect you, their business model is just as valid as yours.  To parallel the religious themes in TSA, there is no one right way to be a successful artist.

But which is it, businessman or artist? Granted the current system has some staff at a publishing house to get past in order to be published, but apart from that a fair amount of artistic integrity is supported. How is artistic integrity maintained with self publishing, apart from appealing to an echo chamber (arguably zero artistic integrity at that point)? You can write what you want and be ignored, rather than engage thinking minds in the publishing industry and maybe get broadcast to people who would have otherwise ignored you?
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Redeagl on August 02, 2017, 05:03:39 pm
I'll give it to you Scott for toughing it out and sticking to your guns. The genre community are a bunch of plebs, and lol at what academics think about anything.
This has to be one of the most elitist comments I ever saw in my life.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Wilshire on August 02, 2017, 09:31:39 pm
I'm curious how you can get away with justifying that piracy is not theft because "nothing physical is taken".
That only makes sense if you believe that the issue has nothing to do with payment. Theft if taking something without paying, not simply removing something from anothers possession without permission.

When you wrongfully take something without paying, it's stealing, that's pretty basic. How does a taking a digital item from a digital store make a difference.

To me, by that logic, if someone took all the money from your bank account, it's not stealing because it's all just 1s and 0s? How is pirating a song any different?
It's called "getting your identity stolen" when someone gets enough digital info on you to buy stuff with your name. Is that not stealing? Again, how is that different than stealing an album?
For that matter, taking a record from a store is stealing, but as soon as it's online it's somehow not?

Argue that it's helpful if you want, but let's all call it what it is. Plain and simple, if someone is doing it, they're a thief. If that's not the case, please enlighten me.
If someone decides to give away their stuff for free and you get it, then you aren't pirating it. But otherwise, yes, that's theft.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Hiro on August 03, 2017, 08:04:38 am
I'm curious how you can get away with justifying that piracy is not theft because "nothing physical is taken".
That only makes sense if you believe that the issue has nothing to do with payment. Theft if taking something without paying, not simply removing something from anothers possession without permission.

When you wrongfully take something without paying, it's stealing, that's pretty basic. How does a taking a digital item from a digital store make a difference.

To me, by that logic, if someone took all the money from your bank account, it's not stealing because it's all just 1s and 0s? How is pirating a song any different?
It's called "getting your identity stolen" when someone gets enough digital info on you to buy stuff with your name. Is that not stealing? Again, how is that different than stealing an album?
For that matter, taking a record from a store is stealing, but as soon as it's online it's somehow not?

Argue that it's helpful if you want, but let's all call it what it is. Plain and simple, if someone is doing it, they're a thief. If that's not the case, please enlighten me.
If someone decides to give away their stuff for free and you get it, then you aren't pirating it. But otherwise, yes, that's theft.

Wilshire, you put it more eloquently than I could have. I had gotten as far as, 'so as technology changes, stealing is ok...?' / 'so if things are easily available, stealing is ok...?'
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: H on August 03, 2017, 10:42:16 am
Damn it, I really didn't want to be in this topic, but here I am, devil's advocate.

Let me start off by saying that I don't really agree with most of what I am about to say, but the issue is really not as simple, I don't think.

I'm curious how you can get away with justifying that piracy is not theft because "nothing physical is taken".
That only makes sense if you believe that the issue has nothing to do with payment. Theft if taking something without paying, not simply removing something from anothers possession without permission.

When you wrongfully take something without paying, it's stealing, that's pretty basic. How does a taking a digital item from a digital store make a difference.

Well, of  course theft can be removing something from someone's possession without permission.  If that wasn't the case, no one could ever steal something from a private party, because that party never had it for sale.

The difference, and where things are less clear when it comes to digital content, is that fact that really nothing is taken.  It isn't a zero sum game here, so where with any physical object someone taking something is a loss on the other party's part, a digital object is often quite different.  What is really at issue isn't theft, or stealing, it is unlawful duplication and distribution.

Consider, if I payed for a music CD, then make 100 copies and gave them to everyone I know, did I steal anything?  Did the people who got a copy steal anything?  No one has lost anything.

To me, by that logic, if someone took all the money from your bank account, it's not stealing because it's all just 1s and 0s? How is pirating a song any different?
It's called "getting your identity stolen" when someone gets enough digital info on you to buy stuff with your name. Is that not stealing? Again, how is that different than stealing an album?
For that matter, taking a record from a store is stealing, but as soon as it's online it's somehow not?

Again, there is the issue of the Zero Sum here.  If someone changes your bank account from $1,000 to $0 and their own from $0 to $1,000, there is certainly an issue that property that was had lawfully by one party is no longer in their possession.  Again though, if I had a CD I purchased, and someone makes a copy (perhaps while I was not looking) did they steal from me?  I still have mine and now they have one too.  The Zero Sum is violated, no property changed hands.

Idenity "theft" is really just fraud though, so I am not sure that just the fact that we use "theft" and "stolen" colloquially to refer to it, doesn't really mean that someone literally takes away possession of you identity.  You still have your own social security number, but someone else is fraudulently using it.

Argue that it's helpful if you want, but let's all call it what it is. Plain and simple, if someone is doing it, they're a thief. If that's not the case, please enlighten me.
If someone decides to give away their stuff for free and you get it, then you aren't pirating it. But otherwise, yes, that's theft.

I don't know.  Is there something unlawful going on?  Yes.  Does giving the simple label of theft make it a simple issue?  I don't know about that.

Interestingly enough, I think this is sort of the thing that Bakker talks about as a "crash space," a place where technology has us in a position where our language and our thinking don't really line up to the technological reality...
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Wilshire on August 03, 2017, 02:34:56 pm
I just don't get it. Yes, absolutely you are stealing when duplicate something and give it away unlawfully. Semantics all you want, you are taking money from the bank account of the person that would have been paid. The duplicate and the receiver are equally stealing.

There is no difference been that and someone removing money from your account. You can argue that it's not a dollar for dollar exchange, and I agree. But it's still theft, whether or not you are justifying it by "I wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't free". Just like if you go to the store and can't afford it, you simply don't get it.

No, it's not different. There is a manufacturing chain that produces the thing you are stealing. If that chain is physical people and plants that make the widget, the transaction at the end is still what pays all those people. Remove the transaction, no one gets paid.

 There is no difference if the manufacturing process is now digital, in both cases another one "can be made for free" from the thief's perspective. The origin, in the case of a widget, is usually some kind of patent which leads back to the inventors brain. The origin of a piece of media is still the brain of someone. There is no justification that makes sense that removes theft from the equation there.

It's just people pretending they aren't stealing because it's hard to look at yourself and admit it. Replicating paintings has always been theft, whether by hand or taking a picture. It's built into the fabric of him interaction, the difference between mine and yours, right and wrong. Fundamentally there is not change from physical to digital.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Somnambulist on August 03, 2017, 04:55:20 pm
This is a general statement of my feelings on this issue, and not directed at any one single person.  Just saying.

I feel like the argument for relaxing IP laws is a fundamentally entitled point of view.  Simply because something is digital and therefore more easily duplicated has no bearing on how much effort the creator put into whatever the product happens to be.  Because it's easier to copy a Kindle file than it is to transcribe a printed novel, it somehow makes it okay to appropriate that work without paying for it?  Or any other number of so-called reasons for what amounts to stealing?  Bullshit rationalizations is all I hear, ever.

Try spending an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade creating something, something you made with your own blood, sweat and tears, time, talent and sacrifices, only to have some jackass fucking get it for free.  See where you fall on this argument after that.

If you didn't create it, it's not fucking yours, and if you want it, pay for it.

Rant over.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MisterGuyMan on August 04, 2017, 11:00:18 am
To clarify here, MGM, you're not just saying people can only spend so much - it's that they can only spend so much and then they can keep getting more than what they've paid for, because they can only spend so much?
I'm a proponent of free markets.  A buyer's position is to buy what's in their best interest.  A seller's position is to entice a buyer to buy the seller's goods.  When those two interests intersect, we have a transaction.  I elaborate a bit on why I view copyrights and piracy unconventionally in a response to some one else below.

Quote
But which is it, businessman or artist? Granted the current system has some staff at a publishing house to get past in order to be published, but apart from that a fair amount of artistic integrity is supported. How is artistic integrity maintained with self publishing, apart from appealing to an echo chamber (arguably zero artistic integrity at that point)? You can write what you want and be ignored, rather than engage thinking minds in the publishing industry and maybe get broadcast to people who would have otherwise ignored you?
I don't believe I understand your question.  Artists create the content.  Businessmen sell the content.  There can be as much or as little overlap as there are artists.  You can write a beautiful manuscript and store it in your chest drawer for eternity.  Others sell literal pieces of crap as artwork. We live in a system of capitalism where effort alone doesn't guarantee a buyer.  The ability to create art doesn't necessitate the ability to monetize it.   

I also try to avoid judging what people buy.  It's their money.  So if people want to buy echo chamber fiction as you call it, then what's that to me?  Not sure if that addresses your point but I tried.

(click to show/hide)
Theft is different from piracy specifically because you theft actual removes possession.  That's the legal distiction and one that can't be ignored in any real world discussion of piracy.  If I email you a news article, that's piracy.  If I lend you my newspaper that's lending. 

I also don't think I have to justify anything.  I'm going to assume that we agree that piracy is theft of ideas.  Copying is a bedrock of human interaction.  If you went back a few hundred years and told people that it's immoral to copy things, I'm fairly certain they would look at you funny.

Here's another way to look at the issue:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/481096
Sorry but I'm on my phone on vacation which makes citations difficult and I can't cite the normal article links I have saved.  The basic point is that everyone commits piracy all the time the way copyright law is currently written.  We don't even need to get into legalities by examining fair use.  The problem lies in merely defining copyright as a concept.  Copyright, if you want to call it theft, is stealing ideas.  So first let's put aside legalities.  How would any society work if no one were allowed to copy ideas.  There's a reason copyright was only created with the invention of the printing press and a select few gatekeepers could, with the advent of new technology, control how certain materials were copied.  Copyright was an invention to censure books FYI not as a tool to protect creators.  Even in this discussion you copy my writing each time you reply to me.  What's the moral difference in why you can copy my messages without compensating me? 

Here's my personal example I always cite.  I love to eat sushi.  There's some guy in California that invented the Caliroll.  So some one copied that idea then some one else until today everyone freely makes Calirolls whenever they want.  If I went to that guy's restaurant and stole physical Sushi, that's theft.  Using your position and if I take the idea of a Caliroll by making one at my house, is that stealing too?  That physical copy is an important distinction.  Are we morally obligated to look at everything we consume and trace back every way something was copied from something else?  I assume we both view theft as immoral.  So if we define copyrights, which legally expre, as a moral issue, when does the immorality of copying an idea expire?
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Somnambulist on August 04, 2017, 02:01:43 pm
lol I obviously can't engage this topic on a rational level, so showing myself the door.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MSJ on August 04, 2017, 02:53:13 pm
But, there is another side of this you guys dont see and i will use an example from my own real life. When i got into fantasy and after finishing ASOIAF then TSA, i didnt know what to read. Everyone kept telling me to try Malazan, then everyone said it sucked and they couldn't understand it. So, i pirated it, The Gardens of the Moon, that is. And, said to myself if i like it cool if not ill just delete the file. I like it, alot. So, i went to Amazon and purchased every single Malzan written and still do to this day. Ive done this with other work also. But, always, no matter what, i either delete that shit or i become a paying customer. If i like it, i wanna own it. I want it in my Amazon account so i can read it on a new phone or what have you. Hell, with Malazan im working on buying the HC of each, up to House of Chains now, because those books i love i want a beatiful physical copy of. So, by me "pirating" GotM, ive ended up giving Erikson and Esslemont a shit ton of money. So, there are positives to piracy, no matter how you slice it.

I cant respect those that pirate everything and never pay a damn penny to the artists that create these great works of art. And, no matter what we argue, your not stopping piracy of ebooks. When was the last time someone has been prosecuted for downlowding a book off the internet. And, i don't think it effects sales at all or to much of a degree. The people who pirate just to pirate and thats either their only choice or their just too poor. Would never purchase any of these books anyway. If anything, it might help with making the artist more visible by word of mouth and fandom.

My case of piracy im sure is how alot of people use it. As a way of saying, "Do i wanna use my money on this?". It might be a small %, i dunno.

Is it theft? Sure. But, i dont feel as if ive ever stolen from any author. I would either start reading, not like it at all and delete the file, like perusing at a book store. Or, i become i fan, and said author gets my money everytime they release a new book. Do i feel bad? Nope. I lose no sleep at night, at all.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Wilshire on August 04, 2017, 07:15:47 pm
Part of this issue I think is people not actually talking about the same thing, creating a debate where there really isn't one.

Here's an example :
You work for a store that sells expensive bikes.
You can't afford the bikes, you just work there.
Neither can 10 of your friends, but everyone wants one.
So one day you take 11 bikes, give them to your friends and keep one.
The next day, 11 bikes show back up in the store like nothing happened because the manufacturer restocked them.

Now, you and your friends were never going to buy the bikes. Those bikes are not lost sales. However, you as the employee, and all your friends, did in fact steal the bikes.

Further, the next day, you and your friends decide it would be more fun if more people had bikes.
You all give your bikes to other people.
You get yourself and your friends some more bikes for free.
Again, bikes show back up in the store, you have 11 bikes and now 11 others have bikes. (See, bikes are free, the store shelves are always full!)

So 22 bikes now are out in the world. No lost sales. But all 22 are thieves.

From the perspective of all the people down the chain,
"there's no loss because I wasn't going to buy it anyway".  This if false. Someone made the bikes, they didn't get paid, the store owner didn't get paid, the bike inventor doesn't get paid.
"I'm not a thief". False. You all stole the bikes. Pretty simple there, don't think this needs explained.

It's exactly the same for digital content. The fact that it was made in a computer is irrelevant . The fact that you weren't going to buy it is irrelevant. It's stealing, both as the person who ripped the content and those who received it are thieves.

Again, argue that it's not a total loss or that some people use free distribution to sell stuff. There are arguments and semantics to be played with. But it's always theft.

If the idea of being mugged, or having your house broken  into, or your bank account emptied, is abhorrent to you, then you shouldn't be advocating for the virtues of piracy. Otherwise if it happens to you, someone might just look at you and argue, well all you lost was a specific arrangement of atoms so it doesn't matter - just assemble them again, atoms are free. Or, quarks and gluons pop into and out of existence, you just happen to be experiencing an anomalous poping out all at once - just wait for them to come back, its free.

And, if you are arguing the inventing a sushi roll is equivalent to creating a work of art - like a book or a painting - there's nothing further to talk about as the difference is self evident. I'll then posit that taking money from your bank account is the same as making a sushi roll because [insert flawed logic].
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MSJ on August 04, 2017, 07:25:09 pm
No, i get that Wilshire. I even admitted it was theft. But, my personal experience of piracy has led to a few authors being endowed with a portion of my earnings. The others i have pirated and started, didn't like, i deleted. Is it morally wrong, i dont think so. Not how i used it. I wont set here and advocate piracy for piracy's sake. But, as i used it, whats the harm?

Also, a library, buys a book once then a thousand people read said book for free. Whats the difference?
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Wilshire on August 04, 2017, 08:28:37 pm
Also, a library, buys a book once then a thousand people read said book for free. Whats the difference?

Note I am using 'you' generally, not specifically directed at anyone.

Government systems don't play by the rules, for one. But the real difference is they pay for the rights to do that. Everything but everything comes down to money. Same thing with movie theatres.

I'm not disagreeing that sometimes piracy can lead to sales. Nor am I suggesting that IP and copyrights are the only way, or even the best way, to make sure everyone gets their due.

The harm is the same as everything else. Take any system, define it how you want, and assume perfect outcomes and perfect/rational people, and there's nothing wrong with it. But 'people' as a whole are far from ideal. For every person operating altruistically there are many others that do not. People rob the system because its easy, and if you take enough, the whole thing breaks.

The fear that creators have is that there is no reason for anyone to actually pay them for their stuff if everyone gets it for free. This is a very real fear. I'd not be happy to go to work every day if my employer said they weren't going to pay me unless they felt like it, or that I'd only get paid by asking for handouts. I want to get paid for my work - I do this, as a non-creative, by exchanging hours for dollars. No dollars, no hours, and vice versa. Why should people who create not get paid for the things they make? That doesn't check out for me. If you remove the reward mechanism and burry it in tangential things, like praying for donations or 'merchandising', you remove all reason for most people to create. At the very least, there is no longer a reason for someone to create as a living. I'd prefer a society where people are encouraged to create, not disincentive.

Again, that's not to say it's impossible to make money any other way, nor that this is the best way, but the fear of not getting paid is real nonetheless.

Do you think that IP/copyright is the devil and is ruining society? Great. Do something to make it better, don't just rob peter to pay paul. Keyboard-warrioring isn't going to cut it. I know that I'm not willing to do that work, so I pay for the stuff I consume, be it an apple, a book, or a movie.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MSJ on August 04, 2017, 08:49:04 pm
Remind you Wilshire, neither am i disagreeing with you. I feel the same way. I am probably a small subset (though maybe not, who knows how exactly these things work), that uses it as a test run so to say. Do i really want this? Do i wanna fork out $10 for this book. If i dont, i delete the file. I dont have a Google Drive account of hoards of illegally downloaded ebooks. Matter of fact i have none. I read maybe 3 chapters of GotM and went to Kindle and paid for the book. I wanted it, i liked it, i think an artist deserves to be paid for his work, we are in 100% agreement.

I just wonder though. You know there are many people who would love to read many books, but have to make the choice - Do i feeed my kids or buy this book? Would them pirating a book and spreading fandom hurt an author? Dont you think that when the time presented itself they would indeed purchase said book? Maybe, maybe not. But, i guess they could request it from a library and get it that way. I know. Im just looking at it through all posssible angles.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Callan S. on August 05, 2017, 07:20:06 am
Also, a library, buys a book once then a thousand people read said book for free. Whats the difference?

As I understand it libraries participate in a royalty system where the author gets a little bit of money for each lend. Radio stations do the same for songs played.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Callan S. on August 05, 2017, 07:31:23 am
To clarify here, MGM, you're not just saying people can only spend so much - it's that they can only spend so much and then they can keep getting more than what they've paid for, because they can only spend so much?
I'm a proponent of free markets.  A buyer's position is to buy what's in their best interest.  A seller's position is to entice a buyer to buy the seller's goods.  When those two interests intersect, we have a transaction.  I elaborate a bit on why I view copyrights and piracy unconventionally in a response to some one else below.

If someone sneaks into a performance, do you feel that's legitimate and not theft? You seemed an advocate for performances before, so I'm guessing you don't advocate for sneaking into them?

But to use your own argument, nothing is taken if I sneak into a performance - they were still going to perform. What's wrong with me sneaking in and getting entertained for free? Why is that not legitimate, but the performance that is a book - people can sneak in to that performance and that is okay?

The only argument you've got left is you could buy a book and then lend the physical performance that it is to someone else. But the speed at which that works - one bought copy maybe taking several days to be read, then lent to another, it's slow. If you were advocating 'pirating' by lending bought, singular physical works, I wouldn't really call it pirating (maybe Scott would, dunno. Never know with that guy when it comes to an assumption), thus I use scare quotes.

So, do you think sneaking into performances is okay? Surely nothing is taken if you sneak into a performance?
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MSJ on August 05, 2017, 08:18:57 am
Quote from:  Callan S
As I understand it libraries participate in a royalty system where the author gets a little bit of money for each lend. Radio stations do the same for songs played.

Gotcha. But, as you pointed out in your next post what about me buying TUC and lending it out to 10 people? Nothing illegal about it, yet people are getting the content for free. This conversation is a circle i believe.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Wilshire on August 05, 2017, 04:25:43 pm
I wonder how creators think of second hand markets. Used video game stores, used book stores, ebay. Legality and copyright etc. etc. aside, how is a 'legit' second hand markets viewed from their side? It's functionally not much different than pirating in terms of funds paid to the creator, or is it? Im honestly not sure.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Callan S. on August 07, 2017, 07:56:24 am
Quote from:  Callan S
As I understand it libraries participate in a royalty system where the author gets a little bit of money for each lend. Radio stations do the same for songs played.

Gotcha. But, as you pointed out in your next post what about me buying TUC and lending it out to 10 people? Nothing illegal about it, yet people are getting the content for free. This conversation is a circle i believe.

You seem to be saying that where it is legal and permitted by the author to share the content for free that means you can share it in ways that aren't legal and aren't permitted by the author. That makes no sense. How on earth does an example that is legal and permitted make an argument for doing something that is illegal and not permitted?
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MisterGuyMan on August 07, 2017, 02:04:43 pm
If someone sneaks into a performance, do you feel that's legitimate and not theft? You seemed an advocate for performances before, so I'm guessing you don't advocate for sneaking into them....

(click to show/hide)
....So, do you think sneaking into performances is okay? Surely nothing is taken if you sneak into a performance?
The problem with sneaking into a concert is the actual trespassing.  I'm not advocating trespassing.  Aside from that I don't see a problem.  A close example to that would be how people rent out their rooftops so that people can look into stadiums.  I have no problem with that.  Do you?

I just don't get it. Yes, absolutely you are stealing when duplicate something and give it away unlawfully. Semantics all you want, you are taking money from the bank account of the person that would have been paid. The duplicate and the receiver are equally stealing.

And, if you are arguing the inventing a sushi roll is equivalent to creating a work of art - like a book or a painting - there's nothing further to talk about as the difference is self evident. I'll then posit that taking money from your bank account is the same as making a sushi roll because [insert flawed logic].
I'm putting these two quotes from different posts together because I believe contrasting them highlights my point.  You first argue that copying and unlawful distributing is stealing.  Then you somehow argue with the sushi example that some copying and distributing is fine.  In the eyes of IP law they're the same thing.  Otherwise you're arguing that 'stealing' small amounts is OK but once you hit a certain dollar amount then stealing is bad.  If you insist that piracy is theft then stealing the recipe for a sushi roll is just as much theft and stealing something you deem more valuable.

The ideas of sushi rolls should be protected just as much as a manuscript.  If you disbelieve me go look at the lengths that Coca Cola has gone to protect their recipe.  Your own opinion that Sushi rolls shouldn't be protected is a double standard that undermines any argument that infringing is equivalent to theft. 

Your bank example is also stealing.  If you take money from my account then I no longer have that money.  That's an actual loss of property.  The sushi roll example is a copying of an idea.  You believe this is semantics but it's actually the cornerstone of what copyright is.  The word itself identifies the difference.  Copyright is a right to make copies.  It's not related to stealing.  This isn't an insignificant difference.

Here's an example :
You work for a store that sells expensive bikes.
You can't afford the bikes, you just work there.
Neither can 10 of your friends, but everyone wants one....So 22 bikes now are out in the world. No lost sales. But all 22 are thieves.

From the perspective of all the people down the chain,
"there's no loss because I wasn't going to buy it anyway".  This if false. Someone made the bikes, they didn't get paid, the store owner didn't get paid, the bike inventor doesn't get paid.
"I'm not a thief". False. You all stole the bikes. Pretty simple there, don't think this needs explained.

It's exactly the same for digital content. The fact that it was made in a computer is irrelevant . The fact that you weren't going to buy it is irrelevant. It's stealing, both as the person who ripped the content and those who received it are thieves.
Bikes are a physical good that suffer wear and tear.  Simply taking them out erodes their various parts and opens up risk to accidents and breakage.  I'll go back to an earlier example I used.  This example would be better if I took a picture of those bikes and somehow I could replicate those bikes at home Star Trek style.  Then the store has their own bikes brand new and you and your 10 friends have your identical bikes brand new.  You could even have 100 of your friends ride the same bike at the same time to the store to stare at the original 10 bikes.

I honestly just dislike comparing intellectual properties to physical property. There are just very real differences that people sweep under a rug.  Trust me.  If we could replicate matter the way we replicate data, the laws would have to change very fast and it would unethical not too.  Forget bikes.  We're basically talking about being able to solve world hunger but if we used your insistence that replicating things is theft then we couldn't morally copy steaks and salads for everyone.  Laws follow demand and if we could torrent physical matter like we do movies then there is no way the laws would remain the same.

That's actually a great counterexample.  If you lived in the Star Trek universe is replication immoral?  What's the difference in that case?

Your example also doesn't reflect reality.  As I pointed out earlier the most prolific pirates are also the biggest spenders.  So let's assume that your 10 friends steal the bikes every night and ride them all night long.  These sound like very avid bike riders so why would they restrict themselves to nighttime rides?  If they ride that much anyway realistically they'd just pony up the money to spare themselves the inconvenience of only limiting their recreational bike time to when the store is closed.  A more accurate example to reality would be the 10 friends are avid bikers and already own multiple bikes and bike parts and they'll "borrow" a specific seat or bar handle to try it out. Most stores I know would just let them try it out if they're already good customers.  I get the intent of your example but it's just not realistic.

But, there is another side of this you guys dont see and i will use an example from my own real life. When i got into fantasy and after finishing ASOIAF then TSA, i didnt know what to read. Everyone kept telling me to try Malazan, then everyone said it sucked and they couldn't understand it. So, i pirated it, The Gardens of the Moon, that is. And, said to myself if i like it cool if not ill just delete the file. I like it, alot. So, i went to Amazon and purchased every single Malzan written and still do to this day.

This is called the sampling effect and there are many studies that show it's real.  As I mention before the biggest pirates are the biggest spenders.  I actually don't believe you're in the minority.  Ive bought all the Second Apocalypse books.  Then I pirated the ebooks because they weren't available on Kindle.  Then I bought the ebooks once they were on Amazon anyway.  I also had a master file will each book in the original series that I made to search for terms easier (note that doing this is certainly a violation of copyright but I doubt many if any of the people here have a problem with it).  The same goes for music fans.  If you're pirating terabytes of music then odds are you're spending a good chunk of your money or legitimate songs or going to concerts.  Ditto for videogames.

What I keep trying to bring out is that piracy occurs in tandem with legitimate buying and the big limitation of legitimate spending isn't piracy, it's plain old lack of cash.  Big companies FYI are completely aware of the sampling effect.  While the official company line is always that piracy is bad, software companies have been actively pushing for developing markets to pirate their software.  It was either Bill Gates or Steve Balmer who said that if they're going to pirate anyway, they want them to pirate Microsoft software.  The reasoning behind this is that once thes pirates become accustomed to one program, the more in demand that software will be as the economy develops.  The customers will also just prefer to continue using the pirated software they've always used.  There are similar nuances if we want to examine music or videogames.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Wilshire on August 07, 2017, 02:50:41 pm
So MGM, what I see is someone who doesn't have a horse in the race telling people who do how they should operate.

Also, you're whole post, to me, boils down to this:

I honestly just dislike comparing intellectual properties to physical property.
You define the system so you are always right. Which is great, but there's not much to discuss since you are now the holder of the definition. I agree that by your rules, you are correct, and the winner.

If we could replicate matter the way we replicate data, the laws would have to change
Then you go on to make Magic your primary argument

Your example also doesn't reflect reality.
Then you (incorrectly) claim I'm using Magic, which now isn't fair so my argument is invalid. Again, there's little room to discuss.

[Aside]
I submit that by your argument MGM, that there is no such thing as theft - at all. Everything is made of energy, be it digital content or the keyboard you are typing on. Since everyone can just get their e=mcc on and make new stuff for free, there is not property, there is no theft, and there is no ownership.
[/aside]

Anyways, back to reality, what we've got still is this very simple dichotomy:
Creators who create things like to be paid for their work.
Some people think that creators shouldn't get paid.

Choose your own reality.  I support the reality that doesn't lead to a world filled with no creators and only consumers.  You may choose to support whatever reality you prefer.

Since there seems to be a fundamental disagreement on what reality is, and what our different belief structures will lead to, it seems we've gone well past the point of effective communication, and for this I apologize for failing. I hope other's are able to better bridge this gap.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MisterGuyMan on August 08, 2017, 05:55:39 am
So MGM, what I see is someone who doesn't have a horse in the race telling people who do how they should operate.
I'm actually exploring self publishing on Amazon.  As a comparable example, you can give your novel away for free on Amazon.  That's functionally the same thing as piracy.  People find doing so worthwhile.  Plus I don't see the reason why my personal stake has any bearing on my actual arguments.

Quote
You define the system so you are always right. Which is great, but there's not much to discuss since you are now the holder of the definition. I agree that by your rules, you are correct, and the winner.
I'm trying not to be blunt but piracy and theft are legally considered different things and the removal of actual ownership is a very real difference.  Theft has existed since before human civilization.  Copyright has only existed for a few hundred years.  You want to equate them with real world physical examples.  I'm just pointing out why such examples are flawed on basic fundamental levels.

Quote
Then you go on to make Magic your primary argument.
You're dismissing the key differences you don't like.  Want to call this magic?  Well that's what online piracy would look like in an accurate real world example.  You create a duplicate where none existed before.  I make that analogy precisely to illustrate the significant difference between actual theft and copyright infringement.

Quote
Then you (incorrectly) claim I'm using Magic, which now isn't fair so my argument is invalid. Again, there's little room to discuss.
You are the one insisting we equate copying with theft with real world examples.  I'm sorry but if you insist on doing that then I will keep pointing out the lack of loss of ownership.

You seem to think that just because you equate piracy with theft that I have to agree.  I don't.  Each time you provide a real world example, I will point out key differences and to make your real world example accurate, we have to somehow make it possible to make physical copies without an actual loss of the original.  That's an undeniable and fundamental fact of copyright infringment.  That doesn't go away just because you want copyright infringement to be the same as theft.

Quote
Anyways, back to reality, what we've got still is this very simple dichotomy:
Creators who create things like to be paid for their work.
Some people think that creators shouldn't get paid.

Choose your own reality.  I support the reality that doesn't lead to a world filled with no creators and only consumers.  You may choose to support whatever reality you prefer.

Since there seems to be a fundamental disagreement on what reality is, and what our different belief structures will lead to, it seems we've gone well past the point of effective communication, and for this I apologize for failing. I hope other's are able to better bridge this gap.
My position is that you're arguing a false dichotomy.  This isn't either/or.  Creators find ways to get paid even as their world's are pirated.  Fans pirate created works and continue to pay for legitimate goods.  It's a point of historic fact that creative arts flourished before copyright was even invented and creators continue to thrive in markets with very high piracy rates.

This is all economics to me.  Supply and Demand.  There is a demand for created works and it's the creator's job to find efficient ways to monetize their efforts. 

To borrow from history again, you're repeating the same doomsday scenario that media providers have been repeating for the past few hundred years.  You're saying there's a threat of being in a world with no producers and only consumers.  As I mentioned earlier, Edison once pirated his favorite music artist when he invented the monophone.  The artist said that Edison invented something that would ruing all musicians because he reasoned that no one would even attend a concert if they could just listen to their words at home.  Today we found a way to monetize that and the same recording industry is crying that piracy is killing music.  Xerox technology had the same scare for book publishing and it went all the way to the Supreme Court IIRC.  Media companies tried to ban Tape recording VCRs saying people could fast forward through commercials and TV would die.  Today every huge media company touts high DVR rates as a badge of success.  So yeah... I simply don't buy these doomsday scenarios.  The market is very efficient and these new technologies in the long run benefit everyone, including artists.  Everyone has to adapt.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Callan S. on August 08, 2017, 07:53:18 am
If someone sneaks into a performance, do you feel that's legitimate and not theft? You seemed an advocate for performances before, so I'm guessing you don't advocate for sneaking into them....

(click to show/hide)
....So, do you think sneaking into performances is okay? Surely nothing is taken if you sneak into a performance?
The problem with sneaking into a concert is the actual trespassing.  I'm not advocating trespassing.  Aside from that I don't see a problem.  A close example to that would be how people rent out their rooftops so that people can look into stadiums.  I have no problem with that.  Do you?

Yes. And what harm is there in trespass, MGM, that you're so against? Isn't trespass like getting to get inside a book and seeing it without paying to get in? Property is just an 'intellectual property' as well, it's made up. How is a property reduced for sneaking onto it and furtively moving around there and experiencing it, eh?

It's like you keep not seeing yourself in the picture here - when you read a book, your brain gets modified. It doesn't matter if 'no physical property is taken', you are getting your brain modified for free in a way you could not do without the author. It seems like, BBT style, you just can't see yourself in all this - you just focus on the physical property.

Quote
You seem to think that just because you equate piracy with theft that I have to agree.  I don't.

Err, you really do. Right now you're just arguing that you just don't have to obey laws. Anyone can say that - and we treat them with some contempt because we get some benefit from following laws and people who don't follow those laws screw up the benefits we get - you're advocating taking from us. People should adapt to laws. You're being worse than the guy that wants to play a boardgame with a group, but wants to cheat at it. In the boardgame piracy and theft are the same - do you want to play with the group and accept the equivalency or go live in the mountains as a hermit? I have to wonder if you avoid social activities where people have to be turfed out if they don't adhere to the rules of the activity.

And suppose a technology comes out tomorrow that stops all pirating. How about adapting to that? You're not advocating for the technology because the technology in this example has cancelled pirating. So what are you advocating? Are you like Saubon, you think you have joined forces with technology, when really it has no loyalty to you at all? You advocate for there being no problem in pirating, but then technology switchbacks and stops pirating - what then, are you going to advocate that pirating was something to stop? If technology enables pirating you advocating pirating, if technology stops pirating you argue against pirating? A puppet?

Again, I think you've just distanced yourself from having to turf out people who don't follow the group activity. It's like we all distance ourselves from the building that kills our meat for us. You don't feel you have to enforce anyone to follow a set of mutual rules and as much you don't feel you have to follow any yourself. That you don't have to equate piracy with theft. Like none of us kill animals to have our meat but still enjoy our meat, you enjoy the benefits of civilization but feel you don't have to enforce or adhere to its rules to do so. Only trespass seems to get to you, to make you feel something wrong is happening. As if only trespass is breaking some kind of rule, but piracy isn't. It's really arbitrary.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: EdwardReynolds on August 08, 2017, 09:30:53 am
There seems to be two camps here, it is completely fine or it is totally bad.

My own opinion runs down the middle, based on some economic theory i can only half remember so bear with my clumsy rendition. This relates to concepts like substitution, exclusivity and elasticity - like I said I dont remember the exact definitions...I did economics years ago now. 

A physical object like a bike can be taken, and the original owner is now deprived of the use (or sale) of said bike.
An abstract object like a digital file, no matter how many times it is copied, in no way impacts the use of said file by the original owner.

For both forms of object, it can be argued, the 'thief' would not necessarily spend the money from their own pockets to acquire.
However when the abstract object is stolen it increases the number of users, rather then maintains or decreases available users. I.E. shifting the bike from Household A with 5 members to Household B with 2 members reduces the number of total people with access to a bike by 3 - with the caveat that in both cases only 1 person can ride the bike at one time.
Digital content, as an abstract, does not have this limitation. This is why people feel less compunction 'pirating' media.

The FBI warnings on DVDs used to say "You wouldnt download a car" - 3D printing puts the lie to this statement.
You're goddamn right people would download a car for cheaper then buying it from the car yard if they could.

End of the day though, support the people you consume content from. Bakker chooses to not have modern alternative income streams, so go buy his damn book if you like it.
If no one buys books Bakker wont write them for us. Simple as that. Consider how long it takes to read a book, the average fantasy book is less then a dollar an hour for entertainment. Its a no brainer. Skip 5 coffees and pay for the bloody thing.

This is how he chose to make his work available, support it or it will die. Like newspapers and cable companies. It doesn't matter, our man needs sales to continue. Moralising wankery looking at both sides with a calm rational mind aside, it's not a hard decision to make. Be the person that pays for it, or shut the fuck up.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Madness on August 08, 2017, 01:02:45 pm
Just out of curiousity MGM/ER, have either of you ever created something to sell and had it stolen, digitally or otherwise?
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Wilshire on August 08, 2017, 02:23:12 pm
First, ER, I think we're at least somewhere near the same stance (regardless of what I may or may not be discussing here)

Second, can you please explain a bit further as you appear to be able to have a conversation in a way that I can't seem to have with MGM.

A physical object like a bike can be taken, and the original owner is now deprived of the use (or sale) of said bike.
An abstract object like a digital file, no matter how many times it is copied, in no way impacts the use of said file by the original owner.
If you removed "(or sale)" this makes sense, but as soon as sale is thrown in there, I don't understand the logic. I have to think that the availability of the item for free affects the sale of that item.

However when the abstract object is stolen it increases the number of users, rather then maintains or decreases available users.
Digital content, as an abstract, does not have this limitation. This is why people feel less compunction 'pirating' media.

My whole point with the bike example was this very concept, though obviously with the opposite conclusion, and I'd like to figure out why.

My question is, doesn't this come down to how you are viewing/defining the system, or what part of it you are focused on?
From the thief's point of view, in either case, the thing stolen is magically duplicated. Bike shows up in the shop, new file shows up in the computer.
But if we zoom out to the creator - be it the manufacturer or the author - there is a real cost associated with this magical duplication. In both cases the 'real loss' to the system is the sale, not the use of the object. No one cares if you buy a bike and don't use it, or buy a book and don't read it. The loss of that sale is what makes the difference.
To me, it seems there's functionally infinite materials in the world to make an infinite number of bikes, just as there is an infinite amount of electricity to duplicate and store infinite copies of digital media. Once all the metal is gone, and once all the electricity runs out, both can no longer be made. So, to me, the 'physical loss' to the system is equally inconsequential for real vs. digital. Money is the only thing that matters.

So, what am I missing?

"You wouldnt download a car"
You're goddamn right people would download a car for cheaper then buying it from the car yard if they could.
I remember these public announcements with great fondness lol.

End of the day though, support the people you consume content from. Bakker chooses to not have modern alternative income streams, so go buy his damn book if you like it.
Agreed. Its not our job to disagree with his business model and usurp it. Whether anyone can agree that stealing is bad or not is irrelevant.

If no one buys books Bakker wont write them for us. Simple as that. Consider how long it takes to read a book, the average fantasy book is less then a dollar an hour for entertainment. Its a no brainer. Skip 5 coffees and pay for the bloody thing.

This is how he chose to make his work available, support it or it will die. Like newspapers and cable companies. It doesn't matter, our man needs sales to continue. Moralising wankery looking at both sides with a calm rational mind aside, it's not a hard decision to make. Be the person that pays for it, or shut the fuck up.

Yup. Nothing to add to that from my end.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Callan S. on August 08, 2017, 07:49:59 pm
ER, like MGM, you seem to not see yourself in the equation. You are having your brain stimulated by the media. Massaged, if you will. It doesn't matter if the medium is duplicatable, the service is occurring and it's freeloading to get the service without paying.

Why do you think you deserve the service for free? At least in this society - if you felt we should all live in a society where everyone is supported and we get easy duplications for free, I could see that as making some sense (because the author would be supported, because everyone would be supported)

But when people aren't supported and go without, why do you think you can argue you don't have to go without? Why should the author go without, but you don't have to?

Isn't it just an argument to saddle others with poverty for your own benefit? The sort of thing we accused wallstreet of during the GFC and hated them for it?
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: mostly.harmless on August 08, 2017, 10:26:30 pm
So MGM, what I see is someone who doesn't have a horse in the race telling people who do how they should operate.
I'm actually exploring self publishing on Amazon.  As a comparable example, you can give your novel away for free on Amazon.  That's functionally the same thing as piracy.  People find doing so worthwhile.  Plus I don't see the reason why my personal stake has any bearing on my actual arguments.

Quote
You define the system so you are always right. Which is great, but there's not much to discuss since you are now the holder of the definition. I agree that by your rules, you are correct, and the winner.
I'm trying not to be blunt but piracy and theft are legally considered different things and the removal of actual ownership is a very real difference.  Theft has existed since before human civilization.  Copyright has only existed for a few hundred years.  You want to equate them with real world physical examples.  I'm just pointing out why such examples are flawed on basic fundamental levels.

Quote
Then you go on to make Magic your primary argument.
You're dismissing the key differences you don't like.  Want to call this magic?  Well that's what online piracy would look like in an accurate real world example.  You create a duplicate where none existed before.  I make that analogy precisely to illustrate the significant difference between actual theft and copyright infringement.

Quote
Then you (incorrectly) claim I'm using Magic, which now isn't fair so my argument is invalid. Again, there's little room to discuss.
You are the one insisting we equate copying with theft with real world examples.  I'm sorry but if you insist on doing that then I will keep pointing out the lack of loss of ownership.

You seem to think that just because you equate piracy with theft that I have to agree.  I don't.  Each time you provide a real world example, I will point out key differences and to make your real world example accurate, we have to somehow make it possible to make physical copies without an actual loss of the original.  That's an undeniable and fundamental fact of copyright infringment.  That doesn't go away just because you want copyright infringement to be the same as theft.

Quote
Anyways, back to reality, what we've got still is this very simple dichotomy:
Creators who create things like to be paid for their work.
Some people think that creators shouldn't get paid.

Choose your own reality.  I support the reality that doesn't lead to a world filled with no creators and only consumers.  You may choose to support whatever reality you prefer.

Since there seems to be a fundamental disagreement on what reality is, and what our different belief structures will lead to, it seems we've gone well past the point of effective communication, and for this I apologize for failing. I hope other's are able to better bridge this gap.
My position is that you're arguing a false dichotomy.  This isn't either/or.  Creators find ways to get paid even as their world's are pirated.  Fans pirate created works and continue to pay for legitimate goods.  It's a point of historic fact that creative arts flourished before copyright was even invented and creators continue to thrive in markets with very high piracy rates.

This is all economics to me.  Supply and Demand.  There is a demand for created works and it's the creator's job to find efficient ways to monetize their efforts. 

To borrow from history again, you're repeating the same doomsday scenario that media providers have been repeating for the past few hundred years.  You're saying there's a threat of being in a world with no producers and only consumers.  As I mentioned earlier, Edison once pirated his favorite music artist when he invented the monophone.  The artist said that Edison invented something that would ruing all musicians because he reasoned that no one would even attend a concert if they could just listen to their words at home.  Today we found a way to monetize that and the same recording industry is crying that piracy is killing music.  Xerox technology had the same scare for book publishing and it went all the way to the Supreme Court IIRC.  Media companies tried to ban Tape recording VCRs saying people could fast forward through commercials and TV would die.  Today every huge media company touts high DVR rates as a badge of success.  So yeah... I simply don't buy these doomsday scenarios.  The market is very efficient and these new technologies in the long run benefit everyone, including artists.  Everyone has to adapt.
IMHO MGM makes some rational arguments here that have gone unanswered. I feel there's an emotional undercurrent to some responses, which is fine of course, but it feels unfair to pick and choose what to respond to.

What I perceive to be the main disagreement/misunderstanding, is that:
1. Copyright (as applied to Intellectual Property: ideas, patents, music, books) and it's subsequent infringement (unauthorized duplication) is in legal terms different from physical removal and theft of physical objects, or zero-sum property (e.g. a bike or money in your account). And I mean legally, not in perception (although that may also be true). It's not to troll, but I believe that in order to truly look objectively at this you need to define the terms used as clearly as possible. (and this is my attempt, by no means without flaws).
2. Theft in general is understood as the latter: appropriating zero-sum goods from the rightful owner.  Piracy or theft of IP or copyright infringement, is legally called..infringement.

Both trespasses (1.copyright infringement/piracy and 2. Zero-sum theft) 'remove' a potential sale from the creator's pocket. That is both why one side maintains piracy is unequivocally theft, and also why the other side does not: because of the 'potential' nature (and the sampling effect I think).

I will be branded a coward but I can see good arguments on both sides.

The loss of a sale is a loss for the original creator whether that is zero-sum or IP.  Someone appropriated your creation, or a copy thereof etc, without giving you due recompense.

Or, like said above me, someone wanted to try-before-you-buy, and made sure the product was to their liking before buying. Here you could argue that they could also use the 'send sample to kindle' feature, but if you don't have a Kindle or there isn't a sample you're out of luck. Still, I think this is a nice way of countering piracy among a certain group of ppl who might have pirated the books instead to sample them.

And there's the group of ppl that pirate because they don't have enough money to buy all the content/media they want. The 'benefit' to the author is that they expand the fan base and hopefully spread the word. They might buy the books later if they loved the experience (illegally obtained).  The detrimental consequence is that in spreading the word they might advocate the pirated copy, or buy less of their less-than-favourite-authors, because why spend on those when you've spent all your money on your favourite author already?  That sounds like the marketplace at work, and I can see this highly disfavors authors with a small fanbase. Then again, that would also be the case in a world where piracy isn't possible? (Or am I missing something?)

Pirates who pirate just for the sake of hoarding have other issues and I'm not sure where they fall tbh. Would they ever really buy the book, do they even read them? I agree it's unfair, but do these ppl, just by hoarding (not reading), hurt an author? (Disregarding the fact that they help perpetuate an underground/illegal marketplace).

Those that try to sell the material are criminals because they try to make a profit out of someone else's creative efforts.

End of late night rant.

Sent from mobile using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Callan S. on August 09, 2017, 01:31:43 am
Can people stop trying to act as if a pirating/theft 'distinction' is the real crux of their argument? There are fines or imprisonment for pirating. There are fines or imprisonment for theft. If people were arguing there should be no fines or imprisonment for pirating, it'd make some sense to argue that distinction. But as is, it has nothing to do with your argument, you're just insisting pirating can just happen and that's okay, even as it's pointed out bluntly to you that it gets fines and potential imprisonment.

You suffer a fairly nasty penalty for either of them if caught. See the equivalence?

We call it theft as a reference to 'you get fines or imprisonment for this if caught'. Because we agree that should happen - if you're sitting in prison but saying 'Ah ha, but I'm not here for theft, I'm here for infringement!' and you think it makes a difference, at best it's silly.

Quote
And there's the group of ppl that pirate because they don't have enough money to buy all the content/media they want.
No, that's an example of a sampling effect. People don't pirate because they lack money. People might steal food if starving, but when they lack money that doesn't somehow drive them to pirate.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: mostly.harmless on August 09, 2017, 08:06:12 am
Can people stop trying to act as if a pirating/theft 'distinction' is the real crux of their argument? There are fines or imprisonment for pirating. There are fines or imprisonment for theft. If people were arguing there should be no fines or imprisonment for pirating, it'd make some sense to argue that distinction. But as is, it has nothing to do with your argument, you're just insisting pirating can just happen and that's okay, even as it's pointed out bluntly to you that it gets fines and potential imprisonment.

You suffer a fairly nasty penalty for either of them if caught. See the equivalence?

We call it theft as a reference to 'you get fines or imprisonment for this if caught'. Because we agree that should happen - if you're sitting in prison but saying 'Ah ha, but I'm not here for theft, I'm here for infringement!' and you think it makes a difference, at best it's silly.

Quote
And there's the group of ppl that pirate because they don't have enough money to buy all the content/media they want.
No, that's an example of a sampling effect. People don't pirate because they lack money. People might steal food if starving, but when they lack money that doesn't somehow drive them to pirate.
Callan I think we're not understanding each other. I wasn't saying that the distinction is the crux of the argument. It just seems that that part of the discussion is where opinions diverge. I gave context as to why I think that that happens. Quite different from what you're suggesting. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough but that was my intent.

And I didn't say, or subscribe to this:
"But as is, it has nothing to do with your argument, you're just insisting pirating can just happen and that's okay, even as it's pointed out bluntly to you that it gets fines and potential imprisonment."

I never said it can just happen or that it was okay. I was describing the groups as I see them IRL, or think they exist. I also, bluntly, pointed out I see some merit to both sides, but that loss of a sale, whether through theft or infringement, is a loss to the creator. That part didn't count?

Sent from mobile using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Callan S. on August 09, 2017, 09:54:32 am
I never said it was specifically directed towards you, MH. But it was a charitable reading - just saying 'Piracy or theft of IP or copyright infringement, is legally called..infringement.' as if it was just a technical observation and was nothing to do with MGM's argument - well, that would be a non sequitur given the discussion before that point. A kind of random thing to say if it doesn't actually weigh in on any side or make an argument. Currently it feels like you're weighing in for for the 'theft/pirating is different' argument, by the way you're saying things which try to outline differences between theft/pirating.

Quote
I see some merit to both sides, but that loss of a sale, whether through theft or infringement, is a loss to the creator. That part didn't count?

You'd said it's a loss to the creator...OR someone might want to try before they buy...or they might not have the money to buy it. What does 'or' mean there, but 'it's a loss...or it's actually something else'?

If you're saying it's a loss and that's it, then there is no 'or it's something else'.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: mostly.harmless on August 09, 2017, 10:28:08 am
I never said it was specifically directed towards you, MH. But it was a charitable reading - just saying 'Piracy or theft of IP or copyright infringement, is legally called..infringement.' as if it was just a technical observation and was nothing to do with MGM's argument - well, that would be a non sequitur given the discussion before that point. A kind of random thing to say if it doesn't actually weigh in on any side or make an argument. Currently it feels like you're weighing in for for the 'theft/pirating is different' argument, by the way you're saying things which try to outline differences between theft/pirating.

Quote
I see some merit to both sides, but that loss of a sale, whether through theft or infringement, is a loss to the creator. That part didn't count?

You'd said it's a loss to the creator...OR someone might want to try before they buy...or they might not have the money to buy it. What does 'or' mean there, but 'it's a loss...or it's actually something else'?

If you're saying it's a loss and that's it, then there is no 'or it's something else'.
It was indeed a random thing, and a technical observation because I strongly believe that understanding (which does not mean agreeing with!) each other comes first through making sure we all know what we're talking about.
It was indeed a clarification or a technical observation.
Said technicality is not a reason, certainly not my reason, to handwave the argument away. It's sole purpose was to clarify. Semantics matters when discussing something. Especially when it involves legal labels. 

As to the latter half of your message. I don't see all of that as mutually exclusive. Piracy is a loss of a sale that should have rightfully taken place.
Piracy also happens, sometimes, because people want to try before they buy. Or because they are <insert other reason>.
One thing is to establish WHAT something is. The other is WHY do people do it. That's not an either/or situation. They are totally different things, but can be discussed together.
I'm not trying to be antagonizing but Im not blind to your annoyance with me so I will show myself the door.

Sent from mobile using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Wilshire on August 09, 2017, 11:36:18 am
Mostly.Harmless, thanks for weighing in.

I do see what you're saying, but I don't think that the semantics play a particularly important role because, as Callan pointed out, most people really just use them as misdirection.

Yes, copyright infringement falls under a different legal definition as theft. But, in most cases, piracy of all kinds is treated as a much more severe crime than petty theft. There is no petty piracy, tens of thousands of dollars in fines and years of jail time per occurrence. So really, if we all want to go down that silly path, piracy is one of the worst crimes possible.

On top of that, the law works in two ways, which everyone knows but likes to pretend like they dont. There is 'the letter of the law' and the 'intent of the law'. Which again brings us strictly to talking about semantics rather than the issue.

So using legal language is flawed on many levels, more levels imo than just talking about it. I used a story (painted a word picture) because thats how people understand eachother. Quoting definitions and pulling up studies is just a waste of time. We can all find studies and definitions that fit our assumptions. That's a zero sum game, and again a waste of time.

So rather than sitting around quoting wikipedia, I choose to actually think about the issue and attempt to  discuss it in what I think is a more meaningful way, rather than hiding behind overly complex legalities and online 'research'.

So, MH, while I seriously appreciate your contribution and believe it will help some people, I don't think that tactic is an effective way of communicating differences in feelings. Mostly because I'm pretty sure that most people here (maybe not elsewhere on the internet but in this place specifically) understand that there are differences in the semantics at play. I think we're all communicating in a way that people can understand if we so choose.
Does that make sense?

Or explained another way: It really is as simple as "taking something that isn't yours is [bad/good]" - circle one (or: right/wrong, legal/illegal, morally acceptable/reprehensible). We all know how laws work, we all know about morality, we all know about right vs. wrong. We don't need legal definitions and scientific studies to help us out, as it all boils down to 'what you feel' regardless. Here in the Bakker noosphere we all understand that right/wrong, good/bad, even legal/illegal, are a matter of personal preference, so understanding why the difference becomes far more important in this discussion. We could all lawyer up and have teams of researchers posting articles, and we'd be no closer to reaching an understanding than if we could just have a discussion. We all know the basics here, so lets talk to eachother, rather than around eachother.



You're definitely right though that there are high emotional states here at play. And while things could certainly be worse, I think everyone should do a gut check before each of their posts (I do include myself here) ((for the record, I think ER and MH in their last few posts have done a better job than than the rest of us)).
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MisterGuyMan on August 09, 2017, 02:21:30 pm
My response is a little outdated.  I go from WiFi spot to WiFi sport sometimes days apart and I just respond to the points I see and by the time I can post them there's more.

Anyway I think there are 3 main ways to argue copyrights and infringement.  Morally, Legally and economically.  The arguments against seem to be weighted towards moral arguments but I see a bit of the others sprinkled in there to justify why it's morally wrong.  I feel like we should discuss the three perspectives separately because weaving between the three is counterproductive.

Anyway here's my replies as of a few days ago:

Yes. And what harm is there in trespass, MGM, that you're so against? Isn't trespass like getting to get inside a book and seeing it without paying to get in? Property is just an 'intellectual property' as well, it's made up. How is a property reduced for sneaking onto it and furtively moving around there and experiencing it, eh?
If the problem is merely that it's wrong to "get into a book without paying" then going to a bookstore and looking through books is wrong.  Or at least refer to the example I made earlier with people renting out their rooftops to look into arena events.  Is that wrong?  The analogy with trespassing is that trespassing has actual risks involved.  If some one breaks into my house, my first assumption is that I'm probably in danger and I have legal recourse to defend myself even possibly with lethal force.  There's also just physical limitations as to how many people a venue can accommodate. 

Quote
It's like you keep not seeing yourself in the picture here - when you read a book, your brain gets modified. It doesn't matter if 'no physical property is taken', you are getting your brain modified for free in a way you could not do without the author. It seems like, BBT style, you just can't see yourself in all this - you just focus on the physical property.
Ok so am I morally obligated to compensate someone everytime external stimuli modifies my brain?  Here's an actual example from today.  I'm walking down the street and overhear some one one humming some catchy tune.  I have no idea what song it is but it's stuck in my head so there's no question that my brain was modified.  So am I supposed to track down the IP owner of that song and compensate them for modifying my brain?  According to copyright law that tune belongs to some one and some one's copyrighted property modified my brain. 

I'll get into the problems with actual *not* breaking copyright law later.

I actually like the modifying brain argument since it illustrates an important point.  That's the inherent difficulty of discussing intellectual property like it's physical property.  EVERYTHING modifies your brain but copyrights try to draw arbitrary lines as to which types of brain modifications count and which don't.

I used the Sushi example.  Ichiro Mashita is the inventor of the CaliRoll.  Are all eaters of Americanized Sushi morally obligated to pay him since his idea modified their brains?  What about the example of watching arenas from your roof?  Is that immoral?  Please answer because it highlights why we're even having this discussion.  The most important question is why?  Why do you think those things are different?

Quote
Err, you really do. Right now you're just arguing that you just don't have to obey laws. Anyone can say that - and we treat them with some contempt because we get some benefit from following laws and people who don't follow those laws screw up the benefits we get - you're advocating taking from us. People should adapt to laws. You're being worse than the guy that wants to play a boardgame with a group, but wants to cheat at it. In the boardgame piracy and theft are the same - do you want to play with the group and accept the equivalency or go live in the mountains as a hermit? I have to wonder if you avoid social activities where people have to be turfed out if they don't adhere to the rules of the activity.
If you insist on arguing this on legal grounds to justify a moral argument then I suggest you look at this:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/481096
Like it or not, if you're trying to attack me for breaking copyright laws then you're being a hypocrite likely without knowing it.  You break copyright laws too wether you like it or not.  In our society, it's unavoidable.  That's why I liked your "modified brain" phrase.  Copyright defines any idea as owned property at the moment on inception.  So functionally speaking where does copying start?  So im actually not a hermit at all.  I'm a regular old everyday pirate that infringes on copyrights... just like you.

Here's another way of looking at this through a socio historic lense.  I'm guessing you're probably in a well developed country.  Generally the richest countries with the highest valued IP laws push for the strongest copyright laws.  Developing countries have very lax copyright laws.  This makes sense because copyrights and also patents are defined as intellectual monopolies and those with monopolies push for laws to protect their monopolies.  By the numbers though, most of the world's populations don't value copyrights as highly as developed western countries.  Even the USA, the one pushing for ever stronger copyright laws was always this way. Historically, when the USA wadeveloping nation, it defied European IP because the fledgling nation couldn't afford them.  This fueled the American Industral Revolution.  So the perspective that infringing copyrights is stealing is tied directly to how wealthy one's country is.  The richer countries want to maintain their IP monopolies.  Poorer countries don't.  Bakker uses the term "the inference of the purse" to identify self serving ideologies.  Copyright, historically, is exactly that.

Quote
And suppose a technology comes out tomorrow that stops all pirating....If technology enables pirating you advocating pirating, if technology stops pirating you argue against pirating? A puppet?
Even discussing a hypothetical piracy free world is hard.  I actually posited this same question earlier.  What does a world with no copying of ideas even look like?  Superman and Captain Marvel were at one point decided to be too similar to each other.  Patent laws are broken specifically because patents prevent the copying of innovative ideas even when the one who made the idea never actually did anything with it.  Music borrows from past music all the time.  Here's a great copyright infringement lawsuit example:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/songs-on-trial-10-landmark-music-copyright-cases-20160608/vanilla-ice-vs-queen-and-david-bowie-1990-20160608
So is every 5 note sequence now owned by someone?  Adding a fifth note to a four note sequence is piracy?

I dont believe you understand how pervasive copyright law is since youre asking me to comment on a society that would be incomprehensible to the one we live in.

Quote
Again, I think you've just distanced yourself from having to turf out people who don't follow the group activity. It's like we all distance ourselves from the building that kills our meat for us. You don't feel you have to enforce anyone to follow a set of mutual rules and as much you don't feel you have to follow any yourself. That you don't have to equate piracy with theft. Like none of us kill animals to have our meat but still enjoy our meat, you enjoy the benefits of civilization but feel you don't have to enforce or adhere to its rules to do so. Only trespass seems to get to you, to make you feel something wrong is happening. As if only trespass is breaking some kind of rule, but piracy isn't. It's really arbitrary.
I refer you again to the Infringement Nation article I cited earlier.  How does your position change now that you know that you're breaking these rules weekly if not daily?  If you play videogames at all you probably violate those EULAs that you agree to.  One common clause says you buy a single non-transferable license to play the software.  So, if we're talking technically, you're violating your contract if you let your friend play a game you bought.  How do you justify this or will you say that your rule breaking is OK but trespassing is not ok?

My position is simple.  Laws are laws.  Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's good or bad.  You seem to be hitching all your horses on "if it's a law then you have to follow it."

Just out of curiousity MGM/ER, have either of you ever created something to sell and had it stolen, digitally or otherwise?
I mentioned earlier how I'm considering self publishing to supplement my income.  My basic position is that if anyone pirated my work without interacting with me, it's my failure as a businessman.  I want to offer something better than torrents.  Offer it free on Amazon for a limited time, offer free chapters for review on Patreon.  I'd also probably leak a version of it myself on torrent where it starts and ends with "thank you for your interest" message and I ask you to support me.  I know of more than one successful artist that allows downloads of all their books on their official website.  I'm honestly exploring all of this to see the best way/sequence to implement them.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Callan S. on August 10, 2017, 12:57:11 am
I never said it was specifically directed towards you, MH. But it was a charitable reading - just saying 'Piracy or theft of IP or copyright infringement, is legally called..infringement.' as if it was just a technical observation and was nothing to do with MGM's argument - well, that would be a non sequitur given the discussion before that point. A kind of random thing to say if it doesn't actually weigh in on any side or make an argument. Currently it feels like you're weighing in for for the 'theft/pirating is different' argument, by the way you're saying things which try to outline differences between theft/pirating.

Quote
I see some merit to both sides, but that loss of a sale, whether through theft or infringement, is a loss to the creator. That part didn't count?

You'd said it's a loss to the creator...OR someone might want to try before they buy...or they might not have the money to buy it. What does 'or' mean there, but 'it's a loss...or it's actually something else'?

If you're saying it's a loss and that's it, then there is no 'or it's something else'.
It was indeed a random thing, and a technical observation because I strongly believe that understanding (which does not mean agreeing with!) each other comes first through making sure we all know what we're talking about.
It was indeed a clarification or a technical observation.
Said technicality is not a reason, certainly not my reason, to handwave the argument away. It's sole purpose was to clarify. Semantics matters when discussing something. Especially when it involves legal labels.
I don't think you're getting that we aren't discussing semantics, we are deciding semantics.

We're deciding what things will get you locked up in prison. It's like we've got someone lined up in front of a firing squad but you're trying to argue he's being shot for infringement, not theft. In the old days they'd hang you for murder or stealing an apple - murder aint stealing, but being hung for both makes drawing a difference kind of pointless. Semantic arguments are pointless unless we get down to physical outcomes. Like Cnaiur says to Moenghus, he is lettered - that he complains about the slaver killing his slaves or the husband striking his wife. "But. You! Do! Nothing!". A conversation that goes into 'do nothing' semantics is stonewalling.

Quote
As to the latter half of your message. I don't see all of that as mutually exclusive. Piracy is a loss of a sale that should have rightfully taken place. Piracy also happens, sometimes, because people want to try before they buy. Or because they are <insert other reason>.
One thing is to establish WHAT something is. The other is WHY do people do it. That's not an either/or situation. They are totally different things, but can be discussed together.
They can't be discussed together - they are two different subjects. When you say 'It's a loss of sale...or it's X', that's making it one subject. "The light switch can be on or it can be off" makes on or off part of the same subject.

Quote
I'm not trying to be antagonizing but Im not blind to your annoyance with me so I will show myself the door.
Well you're putting words/emotions in my mouth there, after making your argument then saying you're leaving after having made it. Making it a one way communication where I am to listen but not be listened to. These aren't exactly positive things to do. At best I think you're confusing straight talk for annoyance.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Callan S. on August 10, 2017, 01:54:47 am
MGM,

Quote
Or at least refer to the example I made earlier with people renting out their rooftops to look into arena events.  Is that wrong?
I already said yes. It was the first thing I said in reply. At most the concert providers have accepted people who already live there will look out of their windows. Adding more people doing that without talking with the concert providers (particularly at a profit) - well, what do you call it when people do things without actually asking permission first? At the very least, its the mark of people who do not work together. People who want to eat the bread but put no effort into baking it. Freeloaders.

I have no idea why you raise 'risks' of trespass as being a point of difference. Because an author wont come and personally defend their income in the same way as you defending your home - with potential lethal force? Sounds like you think you have teeth in regards to trespass, but the author does not - so it's different to you because of the level of potential violence.

Quote
If the problem is merely that it's wrong to "get into a book without paying" then going to a bookstore and looking through books is wrong.

Depends if it's legal. Also you can't read it properly/to it's full extent. I once saw a guy who I suspect had a photographic memory scanning the pages of a technical book in a store. Yes, I'd say he was wrong to do that. But it's so edge case I'm not going to go on about that one.

Quote
Ok so am I morally obligated to compensate someone everytime external stimuli modifies my brain?

Right after I've said 'modified in a way you could not have without the author' you repeat it in this severed version - this is disingenuous argument. Then giving a completely off topic example - as if pirates are just walking down the street and then someone keeps flashing the words of a book at them or something. As if they didn't seek out the modification. You've got multiple red flags here of just blocking out huge chunks of what is being said to you - it really is coming off as a rationalising Yar.

Are you just here to advertise an ideology? To be listened to but offer no listening in exchange for that? I wont bother reading the rest if it's a commercial. And me saying that will be the mark of the advertiser. As soon as they aren't listened to they leave in a huff (with little effort even put into that) because that's all they were there for to begin with. To have ears while their own were closed. Getting listening for free. More freeloading, hidden under a guise of genuine discussion. Kellhus-like.

Or maybe you'll put effort into listening and take my example as any amount of charity would show it - that you can't get your brain modified without the author and if you sought to do so then you owe her or him the exchange they seek. I hope it's this - I hope I just went on a questioning rant about advertisers as a false positive and I'm wrong on that and just look silly for ranting. I'd rather be wrong. That's why I raised it as a question, rather than an advertisement of fact.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MisterGuyMan on August 10, 2017, 01:32:12 pm
Quote
I already said yes. It was the first thing I said in reply. At most the concert providers have accepted people who already live there will look out of their windows. Adding more people doing that without talking with the concert providers (particularly at a profit) - well, what do you call it when people do things without actually asking permission first? At the very least, its the mark of people who do not work together. People who want to eat the bread but put no effort into baking it. Freeloaders.
The problem is this basic thing called property rights that predate copyright.  As a matter of fact, copyright cannot even exist without the assumption that property rights also exist.  Basically if I own a building then I have a right to do whatever I want with it.  What you're arguing is mere courtesy if that.  Did the stadium owners ask the neighborhood building owners if it was OK to alter their rooftop view?  So why are the building owners morally obligated to limit their property usage? 

Quote
I have no idea why you raise 'risks' of trespass as being a point of difference. Because an author wont come and personally defend their income in the same way as you defending your home - with potential lethal force? Sounds like you think you have teeth in regards to trespass, but the author does not - so it's different to you because of the level of potential violence.
You're basically somehow sweeping public safety concerns under a rug and you believe this is a a valid argument.  I can use a historic example if you want.  In the Middle Ages, before copyright, Monks copied a lot of the classic important works.  No one had a problem with this.  This is not to say that those same people would have been ok with allowing people to actually do violence against the monks.  That's the best reply I have since I'm honestly not sure how to respond to a point that is trying to dismiss concerns about violence.

Quote
Depends if it's legal. Also you can't read it properly/to it's full extent. I once saw a guy who I suspect had a photographic memory scanning the pages of a technical book in a store. Yes, I'd say he was wrong to do that. But it's so edge case I'm not going to go on about that one.
Not as fringe case as you think.  I know for a fact that lots of people finish entire manga books in bookstores.

Plus since you're relying on legalities again, I redirect you once more to the Infringement Nation article.  Based purely on legalities, are you allowing yourself to be a pirate.

Quote
Right after I've said 'modified in a way you could not have without the author' you repeat it in this severed version - this is disingenuous argument. Then giving a completely off topic example - as if pirates are just walking down the street and then someone keeps flashing the words of a book at them or something. As if they didn't seek out the modification. You've got multiple red flags here of just blocking out huge chunks of what is being said to you - it really is coming off as a rationalising Yar.
Please stop the soap box antics.  You have basically ignored every major point I've responded with.  I'm at least making an effort to discuss the issue with you.  Let's be real here.  You have made no effort, at all, to even acknowledge seriously, let alone respond to, my major points.

But feel free to highlight whatever point you think is important that I ignored.  I have no qualms addressing it.  You wanted the "modify your brain" standard so I addressed why such a standard doesn't actually help you in any way. 

Quote
Are you just here to advertise an ideology? To be listened to but offer no listening in exchange for that? I wont bother reading the rest if it's a commercial. And me saying that will be the mark of the advertiser. As soon as they aren't listened to they leave in a huff (with little effort even put into that) because that's all they were there for to begin with. To have ears while their own were closed. Getting listening for free. More freeloading, hidden under a guise of genuine discussion. Kellhus-like.
Is is a bunch of blatant Ad Hominem and Red Herring Fallacies.  I'm sorry but this is a genuine discussion.  You so far just repeat your morality argument while ignoring everything I say. 

Quote
Or maybe you'll put effort into listening and take my example as any amount of charity would show it - that you can't get your brain modified without the author and if you sought to do so then you owe her or him the exchange they seek. I hope it's this - I hope I just went on a questioning rant about advertisers as a false positive and I'm wrong on that and just look silly for ranting. I'd rather be wrong. That's why I raised it as a question, rather than an advertisement of fact.
That's the entire point.  I don't know who the author of that unnamed song is and I don't know what compensation they're seeking.  If you dislike that then apply the Cali-Roll example you keep ignoring.  Am I supposed to write the Cali-Roll inventor and ask for terms?  What about the nearly-as-universal Philly Roll?  Tempura Roll? 

I also don't even see what your "without the author" criteria.  That applies to any created work ever.  The unknown song I heard?  An unnamed author wrote it.  No brain modification from that song is possible without the author actually writing the song in the first place.

And since you seem to think I'm ignoring your points, you should at least be aware that you hypocritical do the same:
1.  I pointed out that your theft and piracy is a false equivalence.  I gave legal and practical differences.  You have ignored this point.
2. You argued that copying a sushi roll isn't theft because... no reason actually.  I pointed out the double standard of such a position and showed that just because the idea of sushi rolls were 'small' would no mean that, under your logic, it's OK to steal small things. You have ignored this.
3.  You argued that we should follow copyright laws because they're laws.  I then pointed out that you, wether you realize it not, are a hypocrite for trying to make this argument at all.  You have ignored this point.
4. You argued a thinly veiled appeal to majority fallacy when you equated me to a Hermit that tries to cheat at boardgames.  I pointed out that for the vast history of human civilization, copyright wasn't even a thing and even today, the majority of the world's population live in countries with lax copyright laws.  This is, again, something you just ignore.

I'm raising very legitimate points here and you seem to think I'm the one evading.  Feel free to repeat whatever it is you think I missed and I'll address it.  I'd expect the same courtesy from you though.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: H on August 10, 2017, 02:31:57 pm
Moderator note: Just a friendly reminder that if we aren't going to conduct this in a civil manner, we aren't going to do it at all.

Not saying anyone has been uncivil just yet, but I think we are very near a precipice.  Let's be charitable in our reading of each other.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Redeagl on August 10, 2017, 02:57:52 pm
Moderator note: Just a friendly reminder that if we aren't going to conduct this in a civil manner, we aren't going to do it at all.

Not saying anyone has been uncivil just yet, but I think we are very near a precipice.  Let's be charitable in our reading of each other.
Ahh H, TUC made you ascend into a Mod.... Gone is the guy who just makes mad NG theories.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Wilshire on August 10, 2017, 04:21:54 pm
Moderator note: Just a friendly reminder that if we aren't going to conduct this in a civil manner, we aren't going to do it at all.

Not saying anyone has been uncivil just yet, but I think we are very near a precipice.  Let's be charitable in our reading of each other.

To add, if anyone feels that there should be more or less moderation in this thread, please let us know :) . You guys are all great, thanks for engaging.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MisterGuyMan on August 11, 2017, 10:51:54 pm
No Problem.  I really do prefer the prevention method of moderation and we should be good going forward.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Frail on August 12, 2017, 02:35:32 am
I can't quite nail this point down, but there is something to be said about millennials taking this issue too personally, and having a warped perspective. The internet has been so instrumental in their lives / growing up that they cant help but see themselves personally shaping it. "I am apart of this movement."

It also doesn't help that we live live in an Everything Now era. Any critism of this new state is met with "Get with the times old man!"

And yeah, people will make record profits even with piracy, the internet has simply built more roads to access customers.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Callan S. on August 13, 2017, 04:41:43 am
MGM,

Quote
Please stop the soap box antics.  You have basically ignored every major point I've responded with.

Maybe it's just that. And in regards to what I say, that you're reading my example uncharitably, could that be the case?

Or only I could be doing 'soap box antics', but you could not be falling into any similar habit? Only the other guy, me, could be doing something wrong, not you?

If you want to tell others they've done wrong but not consider you might have done wrong, then it's just a question of whether the forum involved enables your trolling. It really is trolling to say others are doing something wrong, but not consider you could be too.

I've said 'Maybe' to your charge of soap boxing. Can you say 'maybe' to my charge you've read and replied uncharitably? (Edit: and at the start of your post, like I did, because we're not going to enable one way listening/advertising here). If not, you're trolling. I don't know why you think you think you're better and can tell others they've done something wrong, but you don't have to say you'll consider you've done something wrong - you're not our peer? I would prefer moderation to step in at that point, rather than enabling someone to tell others they are doing something bad but plug their ears to hearing they are doing something bad.

If I'm ignoring all your points, if you actually say 'Maybe' to the idea you've read and replied uncharitably, we'll see if I ignore that.

In regards to moderation: Yeah, I don't think someone acting like they are not everyone else's peer in how they feel they can judge others without considering judgements apply to them...I don't think that's social behavior. If you're gunna judge, you've gotta be able to openly consider judgements laid toward you. Something that Voxday or acrackedmoon would never do, o/c.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MSJ on August 13, 2017, 02:52:25 pm
Callan S., I've noticed in this forum and at the "other" one also, you seem to get very confrontational and seem to talk down to others. Now, I am not saying this is your intent, sir. I am very bad at internet conversation and tend to say things the wrong way. In a earlier post, MGM, explicicty said that he felt your anger towards him. And, he was "showing hisself the door". You haven't acknowledged that. Maybe MGM needs to acknowledge certain things to make this conversation more amicable. Maybe you need to acknowledge certain other things than what you chose to pick to acknowledge. You want his respect of readiing your whole post and acknowledging all of it, but, you haven't done the same.

Sorry, not a MOD, not trying to be one, just offering observations.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Redeagl on August 13, 2017, 03:20:22 pm
If I was a mod, I would close the
thread, it's really going nowhere and have been treading on the edge of the rules from page 1.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: MisterGuyMan on August 14, 2017, 05:11:47 pm
Maybe it's just that. And in regards to what I say, that you're reading my example uncharitably, could that be the case?

Or only I could be doing 'soap box antics', but you could not be falling into any similar habit? Only the other guy, me, could be doing something wrong, not you?

If you want to tell others they've done wrong but not consider you might have done wrong, then it's just a question of whether the forum involved enables your trolling. It really is trolling to say others are doing something wrong, but not consider you could be too.

I've said 'Maybe' to your charge of soap boxing. Can you say 'maybe' to my charge you've read and replied uncharitably? (Edit: and at the start of your post, like I did, because we're not going to enable one way listening/advertising here). If not, you're trolling. I don't know why you think you think you're better and can tell others they've done something wrong, but you don't have to say you'll consider you've done something wrong - you're not our peer? I would prefer moderation to step in at that point, rather than enabling someone to tell others they are doing something bad but plug their ears to hearing they are doing something bad.

If I'm ignoring all your points, if you actually say 'Maybe' to the idea you've read and replied uncharitably, we'll see if I ignore that.

In regards to moderation: Yeah, I don't think someone acting like they are not everyone else's peer in how they feel they can judge others without considering judgements apply to them...I don't think that's social behavior. If you're gunna judge, you've gotta be able to openly consider judgements laid toward you. Something that Voxday or acrackedmoon would never do, o/c.
Your entire reply had no actual relevant information at all.  I posted multiple points you ignored.  I asked you to address them.  You have not.  I asked you to point out what points you feel I ignored.  You have not.  I'm simply not interested in your apparent attempts to make this topic about me.

If you dislike whatever soap box antics I'm committing, then feel free to ignore those soapbox statements.  I made several actual points that are also worth responding to.
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: H on August 14, 2017, 06:52:17 pm
OK, we tried, but this does not look like it is going to be working out.  I think everyone is pretty well entrenched at this point and I doubt the civility level will really rise.  Not to mention, I very much doubt that any real headway is actually going to be made on the topic at hand.

We're going to lock this up.  If someone has an issue, feel free to PM me (or another Staff member).

[EDIT Madness: Spelling.]
Title: Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
Post by: Madness on September 26, 2017, 04:22:05 pm
I know the thread is closed but for science (https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-found-piracy-do-1818629537)!