MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

acidzebra · 08-13-2008, 03:02 AM

What, write a book and give away the fruits of my labor for free? Nevah! /sarcasm

I doubt I could add much to the discussion which smarter men (not to mention native English speakers) have not already said. If you are interested, read the work of Lawrence Lessig, especially Free Culture, Code, and the Future of Ideas (all under a CC license).

Here are some ideas I've been noodling around with:

For 90-95% of all content creators the problem is not piracy, it is obscurity. For the remaining 5-10%, the problem is obviously not piracy since they are getting paid, and paid well.

I'm pulling those figures out of my, well, you know - but I think I may even be lowballing it. And I do not think this is a new phenomenon. The unit of culture/story/idea that does not get transferred and replicated in some way is lost.

Here's another thought: The current generation has grown up with the implicit notion and constant reminders that their attention by itself is worth something. And no wonder - the content and marketing industry have been vying for their attention since they were born. Most of the ad/content models on the internet reflect this - you give us your attention, we give you this or that content.

And a final thought - Harry and Steve have consistently argued that the proper response to a perceived unjust content management/distribution system is abstinence - i.e. do not consume the materials offered. In the world of physical objects, that makes sense, because if you take a book without paying, you are depriving someone else of the opportunity to read that same book and the content owners of their income (whether or not you agree that the content owners are the ones that should be paid).

However, we have observed time and time again that digital media are not the same as physical objects in several ways - one of the core things is you can take a copy without depriving someone else of that same copy. And thus I argue - if you are not going to support the content owners because you think their price is too high or they are strangling the content creators or whatever, you might as well consume the 'pirated' version. In both cases (abstinence/piracy) the content owner is not going to get paid, but in the case of piracy the total amount of happiness and knowledge does increase - and you are sending out a message. Although I also think both the content owners and the moral absolutists will misinterpret the message.

08-13-2008, 03:02 AM	#522
acidzebra Liseuse Lover Posts: 869 Karma: 1035404 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Netherlands Device: PRS-505	What, write a book and give away the fruits of my labor for free? Nevah! /sarcasm I doubt I could add much to the discussion which smarter men (not to mention native English speakers) have not already said. If you are interested, read the work of Lawrence Lessig, especially Free Culture, Code, and the Future of Ideas (all under a CC license). Here are some ideas I've been noodling around with: For 90-95% of all content creators the problem is not piracy, it is obscurity. For the remaining 5-10%, the problem is obviously not piracy since they are getting paid, and paid well. I'm pulling those figures out of my, well, you know - but I think I may even be lowballing it. And I do not think this is a new phenomenon. The unit of culture/story/idea that does not get transferred and replicated in some way is lost. Here's another thought: The current generation has grown up with the implicit notion and constant reminders that their attention by itself is worth something. And no wonder - the content and marketing industry have been vying for their attention since they were born. Most of the ad/content models on the internet reflect this - you give us your attention, we give you this or that content. And a final thought - Harry and Steve have consistently argued that the proper response to a perceived unjust content management/distribution system is abstinence - i.e. do not consume the materials offered. In the world of physical objects, that makes sense, because if you take a book without paying, you are depriving someone else of the opportunity to read that same book and the content owners of their income (whether or not you agree that the content owners are the ones that should be paid). However, we have observed time and time again that digital media are not the same as physical objects in several ways - one of the core things is you can take a copy without depriving someone else of that same copy. And thus I argue - if you are not going to support the content owners because you think their price is too high or they are strangling the content creators or whatever, you might as well consume the 'pirated' version. In both cases (abstinence/piracy) the content owner is not going to get paid, but in the case of piracy the total amount of happiness and knowledge does increase - and you are sending out a message. Although I also think both the content owners and the moral absolutists will misinterpret the message. Last edited by acidzebra; 08-13-2008 at 05:51 AM.