Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Natural rights gives a straightforward explanation
"The reason people don't go around killing each other is not because laws exist to stop that sort of thing. It's because there's an unwritten agreement between them that says "you don't kill me, I don't kill you". I believe this agreement is literally written in our DNA. Most of us couldn't take a human life even if we wanted to."
Don't even know where to begin here. Some people may have problems killing one another... and I dare say that some have no such compunction. Law itself doesn't prevent many of the later from doing so. The threat of punishment does.
The "agreement" of which you speak is a societal one, backed by law. It's not "natural". Visit Somalia and tell me how far that "agreement" goes between you and the local warlord. Or if his DNA offers you any protection from harm.
Theft is backed up the same way. Some people may not steal because of "morals". But others don't steal your car, again, not because of some "agreement", but because of the consequences. Stealing a car isn't worth going to jail for 10 years.
Stealing music or movies isn't done because we have no "agreement". It's done because the thief can obtain something of value for free, it's extremely easy to do, and there's little to no risk of getting caught or of ever facing any consequences.
Something for nothing? No downside? Where do I sign up?
The same person would never think of swiping a CD off the shelf. Why? Not because of his or her morals, or because they're worried about the store owner violating some nebulous agreement and coming to his house to steal his CDs, but because getting a $10 CD isn't worth the chance of getting arrested.
There are no "natural" rights, other than one's ability to take what one wants. In nature, what's yours is yours only so long as you can protect it. If you can't, it usually gets eaten.
Human rights are ethical concepts. They're ideas. They exist only because we agree that they do so. In that way, they're no different than any other idea that we can think up and call a "right".
The "right" to bear arms is a legislative concept, granted by the Constitution. Is it a "human" right? Depends on who you ask. My grandfather would say that he has a "right" to protect his family and himself. Someone else, who just lost a kid to a drive-by shooting, might say that right should be abridged. Which one is "ethical"?
You're simply attempting to split hairs in order to benefit your argument, and probably would be better off debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
"It's a war or words, and one side is going for accuracy while the other wants to play mind games."
Actually, BOTH sides are attempting to play mind games and frame the debate. One side uses loaded connotations (steal, theft, pirate) in an attempt to illustrate the damage caused, while the other side deliberately attempts to portray the damage as minimal (infringe, copy, "share").
As has been said, once you accept the other fellow's terms, you've effectively lost the debate.
Smart move. Ikea is giving existing customers a way to sell off their old stuff so that they buy new stuff. And the people who're buying the old stuff probably wouldn't have been able to afford the new stuff at full-boat retail prices anyway.
Sorry, perhaps I should have said, "Forgive me for not having much sympathy, but why should they expect protection in one area of IP and Trademark law while they persist in ENCOURAGING AND FACILITATING the violation all of the others?"
You know and I know that the "not actually serving files" argument is the thinest tissue paper defense possible. They themselves grin and laugh and thumb their noses at the authorities every time they say so.
It's as if I started handing out bats, clubs, and bricks to members of a mob, all while saying, "I'm not telling you to actually use these, you understand..."
And, for what it's worth, I was out the entire weekend, helping a friend's kid move into college for a semester. I'm sorry I was out having a life, and not here defending myself from your personal attacks.
"The folks behind The Pirate Bay have never had any problem with people using their logo or name or anything. What they do have a problem with..."
The Pirate Bay has no problem whatsoever ignoring the wishes of content creators and artists and publishers, nor with ignoring international law. But now someone is doing something that THEY don't like, against their wishes...
(LOL)
Sorry. Forgive me for not having much sympathy, but why should they expect protection in one area of IP and Trademark law while they persist in violating all of the others everywhere else?
"But since Techdirt is more about business models, I'll add that the more people share the strips online, the more value a paper book will have, which I can then sell."
At least, until the iPads and Kindles and Nooks take over, at which point you won't be able to sell the paper book, either.
Your pitch is that all content (infinite goods) must be free due to economic forces and near-zero distribution costs. Hence, if the book is "free", the only way for the author to make money is by selling some sort of scarce good... other than the book.
Here's the thing. I read about 100 books or so a year, with more and more of them being ebooks. As is, I can buy them from Amazon (Kindle) or Apple (iBooks), and the author gets paid. I, in turn, get a book. Value given for value received.
I don't have to buy t-shirts, or attend seminars, make donations, enter into contracts, or go out of my way to purchase some "scarce" good I don't want or need for each and every one of those 100 authors. I just pay for the book... which is all I wanted in the first place.
To me, the convenience of the transaction provides the value. RTB.
I want to read a book. I don't want a t-shirt. I don't want barbecue sauce. I don't want bottled water shipped to me at exorbitant rates via FedEx.
And I don't want to attend an webinar or lecture or book signing for every single solitary author whose book or novel or series I happen to like.
I just want to read books.
Here's an innovative idea: how about my paying ten bucks to the author, or perhaps to some publisher, and they just send me the new Dean Koontz novel that I wanted in the first place? No t-shirts. No sauce.
Get enough of us like-minded readers together, and the author can then afford to eat and thus write more books.
The existing publication model is a relatively efficient micro-payment system, whereby a relatively large group of people each pay a fraction of the production costs. Even better, the author produced the book "on spec", and we get to judge if it has sufficient value (reviews, word of mouth) before we put our money on the table.
Selling "scarce" physical goods that I don't want simply to pay for what I do want is inefficient, wasteful, environmentally unfriendly and -- as far as I'm concerned -- just plain stupid.
"Netflix is charging for a service, not for the content itself. It's an important distinction."
No, it's not. Or it is, but not in the way that you seem to think.
As mentioned below, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Rdio, MOG, Rhapsody, and more are all working paid business models.
People buy from them because they provide music, movies, and more in ways that they want. Quickly. Easily. Conveniently. You can insist that they are only paying for the service or mechanism or store, but a service without content isn't a service at all.
I don't pay Netflix for a "service". I pay Netflix for movies.
In short, all of the services mentioned above are, as you point out, giving consumers a reason to buy content... from them.
And if they're buying, then the "market" really hasn't "decided" that all content must be free, has it?
If the market has decided that there's no "one size fits all" approach, then saying that the "market" has decided that all content wants to be free is inaccurate.
As mentioned above, iTunes is a pay model and it works. Amazon music downloads is a pay model, and it works. Kindle is a pay model, and it works. Netflix streaming is a pay model piggybacked on top of the DVD subscription model, and it works.
Provide music, movies, TV shows, and books at a reasonable price. Make it easy and convenient to find and consume. Make it available in standard, high-quality formats. Make sure it's known that the artist is getting his cut. Make it safe (no embedded malware). Make it current.
All of those things provide value, and people are willing to pay for value.
Above all, make it faster and better than finding some torrent site, hunting for the file you want, and downloading it only to find that it's a crappy, shaky cam-captured version of the film.
Some people trade their time for "free". Other people realize their time is valuable, and prefer to pay for convenience.
And some people also realize that the people who create the things we desire need to eat in order to continue creating them, and in turn pay them to do so. Not everyone is a free rider.
In short, I don't think that the "market" has decided anything at all.
"Just as Ross can look at the market and realize that how things are done today don't make as much sense, even if he hasn't (yet) made a "commercially successful film." "
As has been said, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Yes, someone who has yet to make a commercially successful film can certainly comment on the industry....
But I'm perhaps more interested in the comments and opinions of Cameron or Spielberg or Jackson or Scott or even Whedon. People who have in fact created commercially successful films and in doing so have demonstrated their competence and knowledge of the field.
Which tends to reinforce the validity of their opinions, don't you think?
I could give my advice on how to be a successful football player. But since I've never played, and in fact have only an outsiders view of the industry...
My opinion is pretty much worth what you're paying for it.
"I respect people more when they do those "odd jobs" or "McJobs", those are F. hard working people, those jobs are hard, why do you think nobody like to do those?"
Anyone can do those odd jobs. They require no special skill, training, or education. That's why they're paid accordingly.
Yes, I respect someone who works hard. I have more respect for someone with education. Who put themselves through school. Who created a business or thought up some new invention or who can heal me when I'm sick.
"Even the most hopeless player can sometimes surprise you and make an awesome game."
If you really believe that, let's have a tournament with a hundred "hopeless" players vs. a hundred chess masters. I'll back the masters to the tune of a thousand dollars, you back the hopeless players. If ANY hopeless player wins a game, you win. If not, I win.
Ready to play?
Exceptions prove no rule. I'll take the experienced, informed opinion any time over an uninformed one.
"...where you assign more value to one opinion over another."
Yes, I do assign more value to some opinions than I do to others. Especially when that opinion is backed by training or education or demonstrated competence.
Tell you what. You go ask your auto mechanic his opinion about your next medical problem.
Why should they get preferential treatment? Do you not understand the concept of risk vs. reward?
Besides, I also believe that very, very, very few people can create wonderful characters and engaging stories that resonate with a large number of people. As such, those people have an extremely high value to society.
Any idiot can be a greeter at Walmart, and their compensation is adjusted accordingly.
And if you think that it's such an easy way to make money, why not do it yourself?
The price of a book is a balancing act between its costs (both material and royalties and others) and the amount of money that most people are willing to pay. (The amount of value received.)
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Natural rights gives a straightforward explanation
Don't even know where to begin here. Some people may have problems killing one another... and I dare say that some have no such compunction. Law itself doesn't prevent many of the later from doing so. The threat of punishment does.
The "agreement" of which you speak is a societal one, backed by law. It's not "natural". Visit Somalia and tell me how far that "agreement" goes between you and the local warlord. Or if his DNA offers you any protection from harm.
Theft is backed up the same way. Some people may not steal because of "morals". But others don't steal your car, again, not because of some "agreement", but because of the consequences. Stealing a car isn't worth going to jail for 10 years.
Stealing music or movies isn't done because we have no "agreement". It's done because the thief can obtain something of value for free, it's extremely easy to do, and there's little to no risk of getting caught or of ever facing any consequences.
Something for nothing? No downside? Where do I sign up?
The same person would never think of swiping a CD off the shelf. Why? Not because of his or her morals, or because they're worried about the store owner violating some nebulous agreement and coming to his house to steal his CDs, but because getting a $10 CD isn't worth the chance of getting arrested.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are no "natural" rights, other than one's ability to take what one wants. In nature, what's yours is yours only so long as you can protect it. If you can't, it usually gets eaten.
Human rights are ethical concepts. They're ideas. They exist only because we agree that they do so. In that way, they're no different than any other idea that we can think up and call a "right".
The "right" to bear arms is a legislative concept, granted by the Constitution. Is it a "human" right? Depends on who you ask. My grandfather would say that he has a "right" to protect his family and himself. Someone else, who just lost a kid to a drive-by shooting, might say that right should be abridged. Which one is "ethical"?
You're simply attempting to split hairs in order to benefit your argument, and probably would be better off debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: War of words....
Actually, BOTH sides are attempting to play mind games and frame the debate. One side uses loaded connotations (steal, theft, pirate) in an attempt to illustrate the damage caused, while the other side deliberately attempts to portray the damage as minimal (infringe, copy, "share").
As has been said, once you accept the other fellow's terms, you've effectively lost the debate.
On the post: Rather Than Whine About Used Markets, Why Not Enable Them Yourself?
On the post: Pirate Bay Typo Squatter Applies For US Trademark On Pirate Bay As Well
Re: Re: Re: Outside the law...
You know and I know that the "not actually serving files" argument is the thinest tissue paper defense possible. They themselves grin and laugh and thumb their noses at the authorities every time they say so.
It's as if I started handing out bats, clubs, and bricks to members of a mob, all while saying, "I'm not telling you to actually use these, you understand..."
And, for what it's worth, I was out the entire weekend, helping a friend's kid move into college for a semester. I'm sorry I was out having a life, and not here defending myself from your personal attacks.
On the post: Pirate Bay Typo Squatter Applies For US Trademark On Pirate Bay As Well
Outside the law...
The Pirate Bay has no problem whatsoever ignoring the wishes of content creators and artists and publishers, nor with ignoring international law. But now someone is doing something that THEY don't like, against their wishes...
(LOL)
Sorry. Forgive me for not having much sympathy, but why should they expect protection in one area of IP and Trademark law while they persist in violating all of the others everywhere else?
On the post: Comically Absurd IP
For a while...
At least, until the iPads and Kindles and Nooks take over, at which point you won't be able to sell the paper book, either.
On the post: Court Asks: If Fleeting Expletives Are Okay, How About Fleeting Nudity?
Or, more to the pont, because the moral minority would have a hissy-fit?
On the post: Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?
Re: Re:
Mostly because they're afraid that all of the free riders will capsize the boat.
On the post: Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?
Re: Re:
Then sell me a book. Paid content.
Your pitch is that all content (infinite goods) must be free due to economic forces and near-zero distribution costs. Hence, if the book is "free", the only way for the author to make money is by selling some sort of scarce good... other than the book.
Here's the thing. I read about 100 books or so a year, with more and more of them being ebooks. As is, I can buy them from Amazon (Kindle) or Apple (iBooks), and the author gets paid. I, in turn, get a book. Value given for value received.
I don't have to buy t-shirts, or attend seminars, make donations, enter into contracts, or go out of my way to purchase some "scarce" good I don't want or need for each and every one of those 100 authors. I just pay for the book... which is all I wanted in the first place.
To me, the convenience of the transaction provides the value. RTB.
On the post: Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?
And I don't want to attend an webinar or lecture or book signing for every single solitary author whose book or novel or series I happen to like.
I just want to read books.
Here's an innovative idea: how about my paying ten bucks to the author, or perhaps to some publisher, and they just send me the new Dean Koontz novel that I wanted in the first place? No t-shirts. No sauce.
Get enough of us like-minded readers together, and the author can then afford to eat and thus write more books.
The existing publication model is a relatively efficient micro-payment system, whereby a relatively large group of people each pay a fraction of the production costs. Even better, the author produced the book "on spec", and we get to judge if it has sufficient value (reviews, word of mouth) before we put our money on the table.
Selling "scarce" physical goods that I don't want simply to pay for what I do want is inefficient, wasteful, environmentally unfriendly and -- as far as I'm concerned -- just plain stupid.
On the post: Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free
Re: Re: Re:
No, it's not. Or it is, but not in the way that you seem to think.
As mentioned below, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Rdio, MOG, Rhapsody, and more are all working paid business models.
People buy from them because they provide music, movies, and more in ways that they want. Quickly. Easily. Conveniently. You can insist that they are only paying for the service or mechanism or store, but a service without content isn't a service at all.
I don't pay Netflix for a "service". I pay Netflix for movies.
In short, all of the services mentioned above are, as you point out, giving consumers a reason to buy content... from them.
And if they're buying, then the "market" really hasn't "decided" that all content must be free, has it?
On the post: Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free
Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free
Provide music, movies, TV shows, and books at a reasonable price. Make it easy and convenient to find and consume. Make it available in standard, high-quality formats. Make sure it's known that the artist is getting his cut. Make it safe (no embedded malware). Make it current.
All of those things provide value, and people are willing to pay for value.
Above all, make it faster and better than finding some torrent site, hunting for the file you want, and downloading it only to find that it's a crappy, shaky cam-captured version of the film.
Some people trade their time for "free". Other people realize their time is valuable, and prefer to pay for convenience.
And some people also realize that the people who create the things we desire need to eat in order to continue creating them, and in turn pay them to do so. Not everyone is a free rider.
In short, I don't think that the "market" has decided anything at all.
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Opinions
As has been said, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Yes, someone who has yet to make a commercially successful film can certainly comment on the industry....
But I'm perhaps more interested in the comments and opinions of Cameron or Spielberg or Jackson or Scott or even Whedon. People who have in fact created commercially successful films and in doing so have demonstrated their competence and knowledge of the field.
Which tends to reinforce the validity of their opinions, don't you think?
I could give my advice on how to be a successful football player. But since I've never played, and in fact have only an outsiders view of the industry...
My opinion is pretty much worth what you're paying for it.
Nothing.
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone can do those odd jobs. They require no special skill, training, or education. That's why they're paid accordingly.
Yes, I respect someone who works hard. I have more respect for someone with education. Who put themselves through school. Who created a business or thought up some new invention or who can heal me when I'm sick.
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Re: Re:
If you really believe that, let's have a tournament with a hundred "hopeless" players vs. a hundred chess masters. I'll back the masters to the tune of a thousand dollars, you back the hopeless players. If ANY hopeless player wins a game, you win. If not, I win.
Ready to play?
Exceptions prove no rule. I'll take the experienced, informed opinion any time over an uninformed one.
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I do assign more value to some opinions than I do to others. Especially when that opinion is backed by training or education or demonstrated competence.
Tell you what. You go ask your auto mechanic his opinion about your next medical problem.
Me, I'll stick with my doctor.
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides, I also believe that very, very, very few people can create wonderful characters and engaging stories that resonate with a large number of people. As such, those people have an extremely high value to society.
Any idiot can be a greeter at Walmart, and their compensation is adjusted accordingly.
And if you think that it's such an easy way to make money, why not do it yourself?
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See.... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/business/media/01ebooks.html
The price of a book is a balancing act between its costs (both material and royalties and others) and the amount of money that most people are willing to pay. (The amount of value received.)
Next >>