Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - MisterGuyMan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« 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.

2
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« 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.

3
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« 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.

4
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« 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.

5
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« 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.

6
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« 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.

7
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« 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?

8
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« 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.

9
Author Q&A / Re: Unholy Consultation - *SUPER SPOILERIFIC*
« on: August 02, 2017, 01:56:12 am »
(click to show/hide)
I'm still currently trying to see how feasible it would be to attend Zauduyanicon or BakkerCon! on as I prefer to call it.  I'm hoping this disagreement won't prevent you from signing my books.

[I edited out the paragraphs here since they pertain to our private Piracy argument and posted the complete reply in Madness' new thread.]

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 you pay a premium for custom work if 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 [refer to Madness' new thread if you wish] so you can at least see where I stand even though I know we will continue to disagree.  I firmly believe consumers generally want to and continue to prove even today that they do prefer to support creators.

10
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« 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.

11
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« 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.

12
Author Q&A / Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« 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. 

13
Author Q&A / Re: Unholy Consultation - *SUPER SPOILERIFIC*
« on: July 31, 2017, 12:38:47 am »
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.

The simplest way to understand it is to examine consumers.  The limiting variable in how many books, movies or songs people buy is simply income.  People simply do not have enough money to buy it all the media they want.  Piracy is generally a supplementary activity in conjunction with legitimate spending.  A more accurate way to view this is by looking at pirates as fans and multiple studies actually confirm that the most prolific pirates are also usually the biggest spenders of legitimate media.

14
Author Q&A / Re: Unholy Consultation - *SUPER SPOILERIFIC*
« on: July 30, 2017, 01:19:21 am »
Thanks for answering my question.  Can't wait to start The No-God series!

I'll just quote this other poster's question since I've been waiting with my breath held since he posted it:
Quote
3- what can you say about Kellhus' role in TSTSNBN?  still a major player?
I need to know this!

15
Quote from:  MGM
Bakker just confirmed that Kellhus is no baby in the Q&A.
 

I know, i asked the question. But, to believers of said theory, here is their space and chance to argue their case. :)
I would point out that Bakker has lied before.  He said Cnar's story was done in TTT and... yeah...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6