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.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.
Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...
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.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.
Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...
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.
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.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.
Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...
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.
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.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.
Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...
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.
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/)(click to show/hide)
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.
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/)(click to show/hide)
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.
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.
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.
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.(click to show/hide)
People just like to spend on media but we can only spend so much.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.(click to show/hide)
Also, a library, buys a book once then a thousand people read said book for free. Whats the difference?
Also, a library, buys a book once then a thousand people read said book for free. Whats the difference?
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.
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.
Quote from: Callan SAs 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.
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....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?....So, do you think sneaking into performances is okay? Surely nothing is taken if you sneak into a performance?(click to show/hide)
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.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.
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].
Here's an example :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.
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.
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.
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 changeThen 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyways, back to reality, what we've got still is this very simple dichotomy: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.
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.
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....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?....So, do you think sneaking into performances is okay? Surely nothing is taken if you sneak into a performance?(click to show/hide)
You seem to think that just because you equate piracy with theft that I have to agree. I don't.
A physical object like a bike can be taken, and the original owner is now deprived of the use (or sale) of said bike.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.
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.
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.
"You wouldnt download a car"I remember these public announcements with great fondness lol.
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.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.
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.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.QuoteYou 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.QuoteThen 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.QuoteThen 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.QuoteAnyways, back to reality, what we've got still is this very simple dichotomy: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.QuoteAnd 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.
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?
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.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.QuoteI 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'.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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?
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.
I don't think you're getting that we aren't discussing semantics, we are deciding semantics.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.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.QuoteI 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 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>.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Ok so am I morally obligated to compensate someone everytime external stimuli modifies my brain?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.Ahh H, TUC made you ascend into a Mod.... Gone is the guy who just makes mad NG theories.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.