"9 - By what authority do you demand the accused maintain their computer?"
That one puzzled me too, requesting someone keep 'evidence' for up to two years is insane. Effectively, if you took such an 'order' seriously then you would no longer be able to use your existing equipment at all.
"the judge ruled on the john doe motion 48 hours after it was filed and before we had an opportunity to respond"
I'm not a lawyer; is the judge obliged to give you an opportunity to respond? It appears that the judge had already queried you on the issue and heard your arguments.
"All the people that were named can still be sued by CP"
Was anyone suggesting otherwise?
"because one rules for the pirates, people think its the end of these cases"
I think their faith in the prevailence of sanity is a more likely reason.
"The distro methods you guys bring up are strawmen."
Uh, could you be specific please. Otherwise I'm worried that you have no idea what a strawman is.
"None of you ever discuss the cost of production"
You mean, except when we discuss it. Is there a specific point you would like us to address on the subject? I'd offer some examples to get us started, but you've already rejected any I might bring up as "incidental outliers".
"The fact is you don't know what you're talking about. That's why no one listens to you, and your hare-brained ideas about things are ignored."
Come on, you can do better than that with the personal attacks. Perhaps an upgrade to pea-brained, at least.
"If people don't want to buy they book, they don't have to do that."
You ignore the issue of reading the book, which is not exclusive to buying the book, except if artificially restricted (e.g. by law).
"the message you and your lazy, cheap friends keep insisting on delivering is that if you feel like stealing something, the authors should just roll over and let you take it"
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you implying that lending is stealing? Or are you making vague accusations about something off topic? If you're going to redirect the conversation then it helps to be specific.
"Because your choice is what matters, not the authors."
If I'm the one with the money and they want me to give it to them for something which is inherently free then yes, it is my choice that matters. I can choose to read a book at a library rather than buy it, without breaking the law. I can borrow a friend's book, without breaking the law. Other ways to freely access the book may be unlawful, but that's an inconsistency in the law, not my ability to choose.
"You shut down monetary reward and the only people left who can blog are the rich and the vain"
Assuming your point, why would the rich blog if they weren't also vain? It's hard to believe that you've thought things through when you slip in such an obvious tautology.
"use the eff ssl extension (can't remember what it is called) should stop this dead in it's tracks for most sites."
Most sites don't have SSL set up and those that do may require you to manually trust the certificate. Plus, adding sites to the EFF extension involved editing a config file last time I checked.
"I do get both of your points, but I think greed is different from malice. Greed is purely selfish desire, and while it may be implicit in selfishness that other people will have to suffer for your prosperity, the greed is not itself motivated by a desire to harm people but rather by a desire to prosper at any cost. Malice, to me, describes acts that are actually directly motivated by the desire to cause harm."
I agree with the distinction. Ignorant greed would seem to be covered by stupidity, though. Knowing that you're harming someone for purely selfish reasons would still seem to fall under malice.
But the main thing is that I wasn't missing a joke!
"eReaders are popular due to low cost, long battery life, novelty, and quiet operation. However, laptops (netbooks) are now down to $250 and dropping and are far more versatile"
I would be surprised if most people who use an eReader don't also have a laptop already. I think the point of eReaders are that they are more comfortable than a computer for, say, reading in bed. Tablets will hopefully eventually make both eReaders and laptops almost obselete.
"I think many serious authors want to make a living."
More and more authors are making a living while giving away their books.
"The real issue is how to spread out the development costs over all of the readers."
If that were the 'real issue' then many successful publications could have stopped selling and released their books for free on the internet a long time ago. You don't set a price by trying to work out how many readers you're going to have, you work it out by trying to determine what people are willing to pay.
"If you want to have an infinite number of lending events, well, that means that the publishers will only sell a few copies."
If that were true then the same should apply to physical books and libraries. If people can borrow physical books, well, that means that the publishers will only sell a few copies. Unless you're making the argument that the only thing keeping physical books being sold is the limited number of copies available at libraries. If so then evidence for that shouldn't be too hard to find.
"You can't have it both ways. You can't reward authors like Malcolm Gladwell for writing a great book and let each copy circulate everywhere."
Woohoo, I can join the anti-socialist club everyone on TV in America seems to be part of. Forcing people to reward authors isn't really a concept compatible with our capitalist system.
If no one likes his books enough to reward him out of choice then yes, he may want to sell t-shirts. Of course, he may instead want to do any number of other things that Mike has suggested on this site other than selling t-shirts. The point is that it's up to him to work out what he can do that people are willing to pay for, not for other people to feel socially or legally obliged to reward him.
"The dead tree component of a book isn't really the significant part of the retail price."
Don't forget transport and other infrastructure costs such as storage and printing. They may be really cheap, but you're comparing the near to zero as can be cost of an ebook to the direct and indirect costs of a physical book.
I'm willing to be that there is a significant difference between the cost of millions of ebooks (which file sharing has proved can be essentially the price of a computer and an internet connection) and millions of real books, which need a printing facility, transport, factory facilities and any other costs associated with physical goods. The chances are that ebooks will end up subsidising real books, if publishers can get their act together and make them worth using.
"Where did I say "invisible hand"? I said librarians and provided an example of a ongoing librarian boycott."
I think they were referring to your statement that the market will make the adjustments.
"You may think it's all a conspiracy, with active clandestine manipulating of markets with no control from general supply and demand forces."
I think they probably meant that suggesting the market will fix the problem is to put too much faith in the phenomenem of market forces. For one thing, it assumes that such practices won't be used as precedence for legaslation. For another, there is no reason to presume that competitors in the market will make a better choice. The big four record companies have had enough cash to keep the invisible hand of the market at bay for a long time, similar may happen in book publishing.
Maybe we're overly cynical and pessimistic. I hope so.
"Well thinking about it you have to assume that the theater turn the whole $10 directly over to the studio (which I do no believe to be true)."
Funnily, an anonymous coward made that exact point in another thread to argue that big movies rely on home entertainment sales rather than cinema sales. I say funnily, because they seemed to be using it to back an argument that piracy is a problem. I hope it's not the same anonymous coward (a pointed remark about how it can be hard to take anonymous cowards seriously because they lack an individual identity).
On the post: Judge Dumps Yet Another Mass Infringement Suit In Response To Single, Pro Se Motion To Quash
Re: Re: facts please
That one puzzled me too, requesting someone keep 'evidence' for up to two years is insane. Effectively, if you took such an 'order' seriously then you would no longer be able to use your existing equipment at all.
On the post: Judge Dumps Yet Another Mass Infringement Suit In Response To Single, Pro Se Motion To Quash
Re: facts please
I'm not a lawyer; is the judge obliged to give you an opportunity to respond? It appears that the judge had already queried you on the issue and heard your arguments.
"All the people that were named can still be sued by CP"
Was anyone suggesting otherwise?
"because one rules for the pirates, people think its the end of these cases"
I think their faith in the prevailence of sanity is a more likely reason.
On the post: For Every Entertainment Industry Job 'Lost' To Infringement, Could 12 Jobs Be Created Elsewhere?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The hilarious thing is that the satire tends to make more sense than the subjects of the satire.
On the post: For Every Entertainment Industry Job 'Lost' To Infringement, Could 12 Jobs Be Created Elsewhere?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh.
If your comments here are any indication then I would wonder how you would first convince anyone to stop telling you to go away.
On the post: Company Looking To Hire 'Piracy Investigators' Promising $500+ Per Night
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you need to double dare him.
On the post: Senator Franken Defends Censoring The Internet Because He Doesn't Think Hollywood Should Have To Change Biz Models?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, could you be specific please. Otherwise I'm worried that you have no idea what a strawman is.
"None of you ever discuss the cost of production"
You mean, except when we discuss it. Is there a specific point you would like us to address on the subject? I'd offer some examples to get us started, but you've already rejected any I might bring up as "incidental outliers".
"The fact is you don't know what you're talking about. That's why no one listens to you, and your hare-brained ideas about things are ignored."
Come on, you can do better than that with the personal attacks. Perhaps an upgrade to pea-brained, at least.
On the post: Senator Franken Defends Censoring The Internet Because He Doesn't Think Hollywood Should Have To Change Biz Models?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that comparison makes sense because the prisons are full of people who infringed copyright, right?
On the post: HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries
Re: Re: Re: Protect authors?
You ignore the issue of reading the book, which is not exclusive to buying the book, except if artificially restricted (e.g. by law).
"the message you and your lazy, cheap friends keep insisting on delivering is that if you feel like stealing something, the authors should just roll over and let you take it"
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you implying that lending is stealing? Or are you making vague accusations about something off topic? If you're going to redirect the conversation then it helps to be specific.
"Because your choice is what matters, not the authors."
If I'm the one with the money and they want me to give it to them for something which is inherently free then yes, it is my choice that matters. I can choose to read a book at a library rather than buy it, without breaking the law. I can borrow a friend's book, without breaking the law. Other ways to freely access the book may be unlawful, but that's an inconsistency in the law, not my ability to choose.
"You shut down monetary reward and the only people left who can blog are the rich and the vain"
Assuming your point, why would the rich blog if they weren't also vain? It's hard to believe that you've thought things through when you slip in such an obvious tautology.
On the post: Tolkien Estate Says Just Mentioning Tolkien Infringes; Tolkien Censorwear Appears In Response
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 28th, 2011 @ 9:25am
On the post: Mediacom Puts Its Own Ads On Other Websites, Including Google & Apple
Re:
Most sites don't have SSL set up and those that do may require you to manually trust the certificate. Plus, adding sites to the EFF extension involved editing a config file last time I checked.
On the post: Tolkien Estate Says Just Mentioning Tolkien Infringes; Tolkien Censorwear Appears In Response
Re: Just sayin'
Is it Tigger?
On the post: Tolkien Estate Says Just Mentioning Tolkien Infringes; Tolkien Censorwear Appears In Response
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 28th, 2011 @ 9:25am
test
pre
tags
If that came out cascading then pre tags work =)
On the post: Tolkien Estate Says Just Mentioning Tolkien Infringes; Tolkien Censorwear Appears In Response
Re:
Wouldn't that be better expressed as null respect?
On the post: HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries
Re: Re: Re: Insane? Not quite...
I agree with the distinction. Ignorant greed would seem to be covered by stupidity, though. Knowing that you're harming someone for purely selfish reasons would still seem to fall under malice.
But the main thing is that I wasn't missing a joke!
On the post: HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries
Re: eReaders are a Phase - Or Not?
I would be surprised if most people who use an eReader don't also have a laptop already. I think the point of eReaders are that they are more comfortable than a computer for, say, reading in bed. Tablets will hopefully eventually make both eReaders and laptops almost obselete.
On the post: HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries
Re: Protect authors?
More and more authors are making a living while giving away their books.
"The real issue is how to spread out the development costs over all of the readers."
If that were the 'real issue' then many successful publications could have stopped selling and released their books for free on the internet a long time ago. You don't set a price by trying to work out how many readers you're going to have, you work it out by trying to determine what people are willing to pay.
"If you want to have an infinite number of lending events, well, that means that the publishers will only sell a few copies."
If that were true then the same should apply to physical books and libraries. If people can borrow physical books, well, that means that the publishers will only sell a few copies. Unless you're making the argument that the only thing keeping physical books being sold is the limited number of copies available at libraries. If so then evidence for that shouldn't be too hard to find.
"You can't have it both ways. You can't reward authors like Malcolm Gladwell for writing a great book and let each copy circulate everywhere."
Woohoo, I can join the anti-socialist club everyone on TV in America seems to be part of. Forcing people to reward authors isn't really a concept compatible with our capitalist system.
If no one likes his books enough to reward him out of choice then yes, he may want to sell t-shirts. Of course, he may instead want to do any number of other things that Mike has suggested on this site other than selling t-shirts. The point is that it's up to him to work out what he can do that people are willing to pay for, not for other people to feel socially or legally obliged to reward him.
On the post: HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries
Re: Re: Re:
Don't forget transport and other infrastructure costs such as storage and printing. They may be really cheap, but you're comparing the near to zero as can be cost of an ebook to the direct and indirect costs of a physical book.
I'm willing to be that there is a significant difference between the cost of millions of ebooks (which file sharing has proved can be essentially the price of a computer and an internet connection) and millions of real books, which need a printing facility, transport, factory facilities and any other costs associated with physical goods. The chances are that ebooks will end up subsidising real books, if publishers can get their act together and make them worth using.
On the post: HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries
Re: Re: Re: Price?
I think they were referring to your statement that the market will make the adjustments.
"You may think it's all a conspiracy, with active clandestine manipulating of markets with no control from general supply and demand forces."
I think they probably meant that suggesting the market will fix the problem is to put too much faith in the phenomenem of market forces. For one thing, it assumes that such practices won't be used as precedence for legaslation. For another, there is no reason to presume that competitors in the market will make a better choice. The big four record companies have had enough cash to keep the invisible hand of the market at bay for a long time, similar may happen in book publishing.
Maybe we're overly cynical and pessimistic. I hope so.
On the post: HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries
Re: Re: Insane? Not quite...
As Chargone has suggested, I think that would come under malice... It could be that I've missed the point of the joke.
On the post: Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More
Re: Re: Re:
Funnily, an anonymous coward made that exact point in another thread to argue that big movies rely on home entertainment sales rather than cinema sales. I say funnily, because they seemed to be using it to back an argument that piracy is a problem. I hope it's not the same anonymous coward (a pointed remark about how it can be hard to take anonymous cowards seriously because they lack an individual identity).
Next >>