[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

[snip; wasn't talking about you personally]
Rather, I'm trying to explain what their choices look like from the point of view of the people some of them/you claim to be attempting to influence.

I'm aware of what the world according to looks like; My point wasn't that, my point was that, much like the debate that rages over being (described as) Pro-Life/Death or Pro-Choice/EnforcedChristianValues, discussions go nowhere when people are constantly redescribing the other's position in such a way (there seems to be a trend towards labelling pirates as criminal/"Immoral" individuals and the others as Industry shills) that the "arguments" are always ignored, and the personal labels are what the discussion rages over. And while in/outgroup (re-)definition (and the inherent promise of exclusion) was certainly a good one historically, it's a really trite [sic] and true trick nowadays. That said, "discussion" seems to be doing fairly little to change people's opinions; apparently "lived experience" does that (or perhaps, hopefully, hearing about some 9yo in Brazil).

If your goal is impact on the business world (as in taosaur's second paragraph above), it's important both to see how the business world sees your actions and also to consider the total effect of those actions on their beliefs.

Sure, but it's not as though businesses listen to individual consumers anyway: why else would the RIAA still exist while there is only one online/digital music retailer that counts? Sure, there are a few publishers and the like active on this forum, but (realistically) they're only here because they aren't part of the establishment yet (they still need brand recognition, a.o.t., say, HarperCollins, although they might stay consumer-friendlier than some others, if they aren't punished for it), and textbook/journal publishers certainly aren't interested in lowering prices, as they can do what they want with impunity.

"We're boycotting your products because [fill in the reason]" is a statement the business guys understand and can evaluate. Get a bunch of folks together and you'll have some impact (although the size of that impact is unlikely to exceed your impact on sales numbers).

"We're boycotting your products because [fill in the reason]" combined with "oh yeah, we're also downloading them without authorization or compensation" gets interpreted as "We're not willing to pay for the product at any price, and we're using our 'boycott'-like rhetoric as cover for our file-sharing."

See above. Either take customers seriously or don't reinterpret their statements to support your FUD; While I'm sure it goes over well with stock owners, it doesn't do much beside that (well, convince American Congressmen of the "fact" that further copyright extensions/DMCA stuff is necessary, perhaps, as they seem to do fairly little by way of fact checking, but anyway, I'm not part of that constituency.)

Please note: It doesn't matter whether that interpretation matches your intent or not! That's how it'll come across to folks outside the file-sharing community.

I know; but they only feel that way because they think they have nothing to lose (which is probably realistic, at least for now): as soon as they *start* feeling it, they can either reassess, lower prices, and see if it helps, or they can go under crying (like the RIAA et al., even though they're still making billion dollar profits). In the long term, those people will find jobs at other businesses with different business models, and they will start seeing that as reasonable, or they will retire and go fly-fishing. Life will continue either way (the same applies to me, of course, although I expect I will be around for a while longer)

As for consistency... well... I was trying to point out firstly that not buying is a separate decision from file-sharing/downloading of unauthorized content, and secondly that you can send a clear message either about poor business models and broken systems OR about file-sharing and "information wants to be free"... but NOT about both at once. If you try to have it both ways, the "influence the business folks" part is guaranteed to get lost.

MBAs aren't always the most flexible of people. Anyway, as long as Ted Haggard can be against homosexuality while being a closet gay (although reputedly "cured" now), I can sneakily download stuff while still trying to reason with publishers. Anyway, as I said above, my point wasn't so much that I didn't realise that people complain over pragmatic inconsistencies in behavior, my point is that, much like presidential elections, people frequently lose sight of arguments that aren't focused on behavioral inconsistency. Ad hominems are boring, as they are only infrequently accurate. Sure, I don't have the money to set up the kind of distribution network that I would like to see, so I can't "check" to see if the ideas I have about pricing etc. are viable, but I'm just not willing to pay extortionate amounts of money for course books that aren't worth it; even if I have to buy them, I will be very reluctant to buy any books I might find interesting to read on the side, as I don't want to feel like I'm screwing myself over (which is/should be much more important to everyone than knowing others "respect" you), which will encourage me not to buy from that publisher in the future (and I've got a long memory [read:digital diary])

So no, if the only way I can "talk to"/influence the thinking of businessmen is by speaking only in the most veiled terms about the fact that an alternative to them exists, and otherwise portraying myself to be some perfectly innocent, misunderstood/wronged-feeling person, then my point was mostly that I'm not interested in talking to them; if they really aren't able to look past the face the consumer presents they a. shouldn't be in business, and b. most likely are applying double standards, which is boring. I can't take people that have to be treated as children seriously, nor can I respect them.