Should Demonoid Stay Down?

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, because I was brought up in the 1960s to believe in "right and wrong", and using something without paying for it falls into the category of "wrong".

I was born in the (late) 60s and I do not think there is a particular moral imperative based on decade. Some not-too-nice things were going on in the world during those times that one could argue are far more "wrong" than the current topic at hand..but I digress

I'd feel the same way whether or not I had vested interests. When I was a kid, all my friends and I used to spend a significant portion of our pocket money on "45" records.

Buying music is not unique to your generation...or mine. Or even the current one. I see stores stocked with CDs and Amazon seems to do a good bit of business in this regard as well...

Today's teenagers just seem to think that they can download whatever they want, for free.

Ah..the classic "these kids today" thing. You don't think...adults are buying the crap that passes for music these days...do you?!

I have a teenage son BTW and he absolutely does not believe he can download "whatever he wants, for free."

He knows he can. There is no...guesswork involved. He also knows that it is a punishable legal offense and is not acceptable to me.

I can only think that the parents are to blame; many young people today simply don't seem to understand the idea that it's just plain WRONG to take someone else work without paying for it.

Many young people have felt this thru out time, Harry. Really. This is not a new phenomenon.

Simply for people to have respect for other peoples' rights, and to obey the law. I honestly don't think that's asking too much.

That is again, not really addressing the reality of the situation. This is why one content industry after another fails...time and time again.

Its time for Plan B.

If a person who would otherwise have bought it has instead downloaded it, that is lost income for the author.

And what is the...measure...for determining if they *would have bought it* exactly? Its not a matter of if or not they would have bought it...its a matter of if or not they have it.

Again *Potential revenue* is not revenue lost. Its fiat economics, and unless you are a government, that kind of accounting puts you in a prison somewhere

How do we get the money? have you (and I mean you personally this time as opposed to the collective "you") actually ever given any thought to solving *that* problem?

-K

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, because I was brought up in the 1960s to believe in "right and wrong", and using something without paying for it

...that you are adjusting your language to be more...in line with what the situation requires for honest debate.

I admire this. Its a rare thing on the 'net.

So let me ask you this: is using a book in a library...or listening to a cd...or having someone sing a song to you...

AH! But don't jump in yet

When someone snags a download of a copy of something off the web...are they *really* getting the same thing someone bought is?

Like with the software we do...if you have a problem...you are on your own. Don't write. Don't call. Good Luck and God Bless. You let me know how that works out.

If they install a crack that sends their machine to Valhalla...*tee-hee*

Believe me...what you create...especially in a pure artistic sense...a bit less so in the Art and Science of Coding...is worth FAR MORE to you than it is to anyone else.

In the digital realm, it is our version, really, when you look at it for what it is, objectively and unemotionally, our version of "the cost of doing business".

Everyone has to deal with these loses in one way or another. For folks that are all digital, the benefits of reduced production and manufacturing generally make it still a net sum game.

Or it certainly seems that way as I pat my full belly, lick my lips after enjoying a nice Gran Marnier while typing this back to you, reading it on my gorgeous Cinema Display HD

Ok, so, I don't have a manservant to actually *bring* the Gran *to* me...but I'm alright nonetheless.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mrkai

I have a teenage son BTW and he absolutely does not believe he can download "whatever he wants, for free."

He knows he can. There is no...guesswork involved. He also knows that it is a punishable legal offense and is not acceptable to me.

That just proves my point. You are obviously a caring parent and have brought your son up to know the difference between right and wrong. Unfortunately, many parents appear not to have done so. Perhaps, though, it's more a case of the parents simply not knowing what their teenage children are getting up to? That is, I must admit, hardly a new phenomenon .

[HarryT]

To return to the original question: "Should Demonoid Stay Down".

I notice that a number of posters have said what a useful site it was for downloading legitimate content - OpenOffice, etc. Presumably one solution would be to bring it back up, and for the site owners to ensure that it is only used to distribute legitimate material, and that users of the system are made aware that posting illegal material on it is not permitted. I understand that a number of other legitimate P2P systems operate in this way.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...When I was a kid, all my friends and I used to spend a significant portion of our pocket money on "45" records. Today's teenagers just seem to think that they can download whatever they want, for free. ...

Didn't you ever tape songs off the radio onto cassette?
I don't know anyone who didn't; maybe the 'loads-a-pocketmoneys' didn't, but there weren't any of them round my way.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Didn't you ever tape songs off the radio onto cassette?

I don't think so. I don't remember doing so, at least. That way, however, 30-odd years ago .

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by bingle

However, I hope you realize that computers are constantly making copies of the ebook - whether you ask them to or not. When you download an ebook, the copy resides on the server, then in the memory of various routers across the internet, then into your own RAM, then onto the hard drive...

All of that leads to great philosophical discussion... but it is immaterial to the issue. The issue is whether those copies are obtained by someone else who did not pay for them. And if you supplied them, intentionally or not, you are guilty of copyright infringement (or forgery, or theft... hey, maybe we need a separate thread and poll on this distinction?).

Originally Posted by bingle

To bring in an analogy from another thread - society has got a genie that will give us any piece of content we ask for, for free.

Okay, we are not in a world of genies giving us stuff for free. This is the real world, and like it or not, we have to look at this issue from a real-world perspective.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Didn't you ever tape songs off the radio onto cassette?

Lots of us did. However, those copies were not comparable in quality to the original, due to the losses between radio and cassette recording. So they wouldn't be considered equal in worth to the originals.

Nor would the vast majority of us repackage those songs on copies of that cassette, and sell or give them away in public. Why? Because it is considered to be illegal.

Remember, the reason this is an issue is a matter of scale. In the past, if I made a copy of a song (or even an album), I was not likely to give that copy to more than 1-2 people, if any, and the record companies let it ride. But those who made dozens to hundreds of copies and tried to sell them on the street were arrested and fined or locked up.

Today, I can make a copy of a song, and it can be available worldwide to millions, if not billions, of people. Just like the street bootleggers, that is unacceptable to the music industry, because they stand to potentially lose millions, and so they understandably attack.

[Penforhire]

I hate to imagine the script-kiddie economy of the future. But it will not come to pass. We already have enough recent history to show that you either get with the program (value for services rendered) or you end up flipping burgers for a living. And it seems most people make this conversion from sheltered thinking to the real world as they transition into having to earn their own way. The remainder? Slackers, and we ALL poke fun at them.

Go ahead, keep believing you have some right to the sweat of others at your arbitrary price. Your attitude will change when the sweat is yours. Until then nothing we say will sway you. Doesn't mean we "old folks" won't rise and argue these issues though.

[Patricia]

On a slightly different note, one undesirable side-effect of people believing that it is ok to download illegitimate content without payment is that it may reduce their appreciation of gifts.

HarryT, for example must have spent many days transcribing and preparing his excellent versions of Conan Doyle, Rider Haggard, which he has made freely available.

It would be a pity if such generosity were to go unrecognised by those who (incorrectly) believe that they are freely entitled to others' work.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by mrkai

Its time for Plan B.

Quote:
If a person who would otherwise have bought it has instead downloaded it, that is lost income for the author.
And what is the...measure...for determining if they *would have bought it* exactly? Its not a matter of if or not they would have bought it...its a matter of if or not they have it.

Again *Potential revenue* is not revenue lost. Its fiat economics, and unless you are a government, that kind of accounting puts you in a prison somewhere

How do we get the money? have you (and I mean you personally this time as opposed to the collective "you") actually ever given any thought to solving *that* problem?

There is no "plan B." Either the creator has rights or he doesn't. There is no compromise. No matter what business model is devised, it will devolve into an arms race between rights holders and rights violators--between those who create and those who want the benefits of that creation without paying for it (good grief, I'm sounding all Objectivist, here).

Hell, I gave people free access to a novel and still had the copyright violated. Why was it violated? Because reading on the Web just wasn't convenient enough for some folks.

[HarryT]

You're very kind, Patricia, but I do that for my own pleasure; if others gain from it too, that's merely a "bonus" .

As the "upload queen" yourself, you have brought reading pleasure to far more than my humble efforts have, I'm certain!

[strangeseraph]

what about libraries? should we only be allowed to buy books and not borrow them from libraries? Thats a potantial revenue loss.

Here's a potential situation: JKR will not let her books be published in ebook format because of potential piracy. I own all her books, and have longed to have ebook versions. If I did go online and find text file versions of the books, thats going against what JKR wants. But these things are available anyways, and people are pirating them because there -isn't- any legal way to get an HP Ebook other then hand retyping every single book oneself. So would it be wrong to download the text versions of the books? or is it wrong not to offer them at all? A lot of books are not offered as text versions yet on the internet for sale either. What if you owned those books, but wanted copies for your ebook reader, which is easier to bringon the bus then a big bound copy of Lord of the Rings, lol.

Just guess that tells you my view. Yes people should pay for them, but these sorts of purchases should be made easier, and authors should allow purchasing of them. Simply put, sometimes the industry can contribute as much piracy as much as personal bad morals of certain individuals.

I like the Creative Commons community, especially the music site jamendo. You can download legally these creative works, and potentially support the artist with donations or buying hard disc versions of their music, or the like. The world would be a better place if these sorts of authors and musicians were better supported for their work. Rather than expecting them to participate in the normal standar book publishing models.

Okay off the rant now.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by strangeseraph

what about libraries? should we only be allowed to buy books and not borrow them from libraries? Thats a potantial revenue loss.

Actually, libraries pay more for books than you and I do, specifically to cover the potential revenue loss. That example doesn't really fly.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

Actually, libraries pay more for books than you and I do, specifically to cover the potential revenue loss. That example doesn't really fly.

Also in some countries such as the UK (but not, I believe, the US) there's a central "pot" of money that the library system shares out to authors each year on the basis of the number of loans of that author's books in that year. It's not a fortune, but popular authors make a few thousand $ a year from it.

[bingle]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Okay, we are not in a world of genies giving us stuff for free. This is the real world, and like it or not, we have to look at this issue from a real-world perspective.

But that's my point. We are in a world of genies giving us stuff for free. The genie's name was Demonoid. You asked it for a copy of a CD, movie, or software, and it gave it to you. And everyone else on earth still had their copies of it, too!

This obviously isn't a literal genie with magic smoke and a lantern, but I think the analogy holds perfectly. And I think that this analogy lends us a good viewpoint to discuss why people don't strongly feel that downloading is wrong.

But if you can see a hole in the analogy, please point it out.