Should Demonoid Stay Down?

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by jamesdmanley

um actually he did. ive listened to the tapes over and over. mr horn CLEARLY says "move, [and] youre dead," then there is a 3 second pause followed by gunfire.

Interesting, I didn't hear that. So the question seems to be if they were warned and they started to run does it make sense at that point to shoot them dead? Still, the answer for me would have to be no since no one's life was in immediate danger.

[bingle]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

However, in point of fact, it does have a physical form: Electrons. Electrons, in specific collections corralled by your hard drive, essentially make up the e-book, in the same way as a constantly changing collection of atoms makes up your body. Any quantum physicist would tell you that an e-book as a distinct entity is as real as your body. The courts will agree with that assessment, too.

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. When you display the ebook, you're copying it from the hard drive into the RAM, through the registers on the processor, potentially into video RAM (depending on the way in which you're rendering it), and finally it's displayed. As your hard drive ages, pieces of that ebook are copied all over the disk, potentially duplicating it many times. There are so many copies of data made during the normal working of a computer that pointing to one set of electrons as "the book" is similar to pointing at an area of the sky and saying "that's the air I was just breathing".

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. When we beg the genie for a book, we don't think about the financial effect our free copy will have on the author, the publisher, or the retailer. But getting people to see their wishes as wrong is an uphill battle. Here's a test for you: ask people what their wish would be from a genie, and see how many of them think about the moral implications of their wish. You'll see why getting people to stop copying is a hopeless task.

[jamesdmanley]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

Interesting, I didn't hear that. So the question seems to be if they were warned and they started to run does it make sense at that point to shoot them dead? Still, the answer for me would have to be no since no one's life was in immediate danger.

at least one was shot in his yard and from the front. details are sketchy on the other. they had 3 seconds to give up before he fired. these men were young and in good shape, armed with a crow bar and who knows what else, and mr horn is a 60+ overweight man. he would have had no chance against these men and he had no idea if his house was next, as he stated on the phone. this is far from a case of cold blooded murder that many make it out to be.

[Amalthia]

I miss Demoniod, it was a great place for safe torrent downloads. I used it for multiple purposes not all of which was for illegal downloading. The site had downloads for free programs, like open office, for example.

It was also a really good place to find movies you couldn't find anywhere else.

I don't buy movies/tv shows or music without testing them out first and it was a good place to get safe downloads.

So count me in as one of those people that does support her favorite shows by buying DVDs when they come out but won't pay for cable tv/commericals. Also itunes is a real pain in the butt to use and so slow on getting new episodes that torrents really is the best way to go if you want to watch the episode the night it airs and not a day later. (though must say demoniod was kind of the last place I'd go to get episodes as soon as their aired)

I don't feel guilty about this because I buy the shows on dvd once they are released.

basically, I don't think torrents themselves are bad. It's one of the best ways to share rare and hard to find files, some of which are legal to share.

It's useful when things are so much harder to get legally or way OVERPRICED, like Windows XP, um yeah not paying 300 for an operating system. I just want to know why some programs cost 700 dollars? and they expect average users to spend that kind of money?

I think most software companies get their money selling their software to schools and companies. I can't think of anyone else that can afford to buy some of the software I've seen at torrent sites.

As for ebooks. I don't pay for books unless I've read them first or they come from a VERY TRUSTED author so ebook downloads are a great way to find new authors and try new books out. Not all libraries have the books I'm looking for though they are getting better with improving their sci-fi/fantasy selection. Basically, I see downloading ebooks for free the same as checking one out from a library. If the book is any good I'll go and buy a paper version or an electronic version (assuming I can find the electronic version)

[Penforhire]

Software prices are all about what the market will bear. Why do you think your main OS is not worth $300? Only because you are not paying for it. None of your programs work without an OS and if you want legit & cheap then you're talking Linux. You're entitled to use GIMP for free but if you want Photoshop you need to pony up some cash. If you're a student you get massive price breaks from just about everyone.

Your sense of price reflects being raised in today's pirate-world. We used to pay $50,000 and up for leading edge CAD programs that are, today, under $10,000 a seat. I'm sure you'd still consider that highway robbery but that is what the market will bear.

Put it another way, how much do you think it costs to develop a major new piece of software? A lot more than your comments suggest you think it costs.

[Amalthia]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Software prices are all about what the market will bear. Why do you think your main OS is not worth $300? Only because you are not paying for it. None of your programs work without an OS and if you want legit & cheap then you're talking Linux. You're entitled to use GIMP for free but if you want Photoshop you need to pony up some cash. If you're a student you get massive price breaks from just about everyone.

Your sense of price reflects being raised in today's pirate-world. We used to pay $50,000 and up for leading edge CAD programs that are, today, under $10,000 a seat. I'm sure you'd still consider that highway robbery but that is what the market will bear.

Put it another way, how much do you think it costs to develop a major new piece of software? A lot more than your comments suggest you think it costs.

Linux is free. and also for what windows XP gives you it's overpriced and don't even get me started on Vista.

and yes it's possible because I'm still rather young and grew up with the internet that it does impact how I think of the prices for programs. I kind of expect them to cost the same amount as computer games or x-box games. You can't tell me those don't cost money to make either. I think the difference is they are so cheap a lot of people can afford them and so more people buy them and I think that's how game software engineers make their money back. Or maybe if it's the advertisers on their websites that help pay?

There are a lot of ways to make money off software besides charging users an arm and an leg. Individuals don't have deep pockets like universities.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Uh... we were on-topic once?
As far as legal gun ownership curtailing criminal violence, so does video surveillance (ask London and Baltimore). There are ways to cut back on gun violence besides arming the populace.

And let me tell you Steve...you are wrong about the cameras.

There is nothing more disgusting to me, more liberty-crushing, more saddening to my heart as an American than seeing cameras run by the (local) government pointing at the people and armed soldiers at the airport.

It is...surreal. They have these...buses here that they have converted into "moble task force police station" things...they block streets and LITERALLY stop citizens asking for ID as they leave or enter neighborhoods.

"Trek Passes" anyone?

This is not some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory nonsense...I have seen it with my own eyes.

In "high crime neigborhoods" they have Police lights on high poles that flash almost constantly...cameras in these residential neighborhoods.

It is not a model of ANYTHING but insanity.

And yet, daily...someone is murdered. Hmmm.

It pains me to think that people really believe that liberty is such a thing that should so easily be cast aside. What's worse, the least powerful people in the city are the ones subjected to this...indignity.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

While it can be argued that legally copyright infringement is not theft that is the term that matches most of the impact but I think the idea mentioned earlier that this is really forgery captures the idea better.

All those who argue that copyright stealing is ok can use the same exact arguments that stealing someone identity is also ok for the same reasons. Using someones credit card number does not deny them the credit card which they still have. Sometimes we don't have the technically correct words in our language to define some illegal actions but that doesn't make the actions ok.

I can't agree with that. Theft isn't the closest way to define copyright infringement AND there is a completely proper and technical term. I just used it: copyright infringement.

Of course, most people in favor of strong copyright laws know, on some level, that there's no way you can throw anyone up in arms in support of them with the term "copyright infringement". So let's go for much more loaded words. "Theft" is nice, and so is "piracy". That'll get people attention, never mind we're not actually talking about the same thing at all.

As for your analogies, debunking time!
- Stealing someone ID. Although it does sound the same (ID/Idea), it's so different I don't really understand how someone could confuse them. Your id is your own; it's as unique as you are. Furthermore, if somebody does steal your identity, it probably is to do something nefarious which can only be bad news for you.
- The credit card analogy? Another (purposely?) bad one. There can only be two reasons for someone to use your credit card number. The first is for validation, i.e. id verification purposes. In that case, see above.
The second is to pay for something, we're talking about theft (of money). In both cases, the number isn't really what is stolen, simply because that number isn't an idea in any acceptation of the term, it's a medium of exchange.

Finally I'll state, again, one very important point. If you want to keep an idea your property, don't tell it to anyone. The moment you do, it stops being your property to become that of the community (I use that word with the largest possible meaning).

Copyright does not grant you property of the idea you produced!

Nothing can if you want it to spread. And if you intend to make a livelihood out of it (the "idea" in that case being a book, or a song, or whatever) you want it to spread. As much as possible.

The only thing copyright does grant you (under current laws) are the exclusive rights to distribution.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Amothea

...I'm still rather young and grew up with the internet that it does impact how I think of the prices for programs. I kind of expect them to cost the same amount as computer games or x-box games. You can't tell me those don't cost money to make either.

The thing is, i don't think people are listening

In YouthWorld™ aka Your Future Customers, the economics of what a thing is worth is based on a different...way of thinking, most due to availability of information in its many forms.
Asking people under 25 these questions we debate now will get some interesting data, should you choose to use it. Let's look at some:

Video Games: Video Games seem to be the yardstick of price/cost/value that they use to measure. A "Triple A" software title (ok, this is confusing; they mean A++, not Minor League. I know. I KNOW.) on the Most Powerful Hardware Evar!!! costs $40-$60Million USD to make and sells for $40-$60.

By their reasoning, nothing that costs less than this to make should cost more than the price of a game. I've seen, read and heard this MANY MANY times.

Linux: Linux for many has re-defined the value of the sticker price of an OS. Just as Windows was a "good enough" alternative to Mac OS*, so too is Linux the next stage of this process.

You may argue to and fro of the merits of this thinking, but it is the future and if you think its going to swing back in the "old media" direction its a bad bet if you ask me. Its not that I am an "advocate" of this, but it is what it is.

Adapt or die.

*This is not meant to spark a Platform war, but is written as an historical perspective. The lower priced (remember...the price of the Windows OS has risen over time...a curious anomaly indeed with respect to All Things Computing) Windows on commodity hardware was seen as a better deal that the Mac OS on Mac OS hardware, tho not entirely...comparable but certainly "good enough" for the price difference.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mrkai

Video Games: Video Games seem to be the yardstick of price/cost/value that they use to measure. A "Triple A" software title (ok, this is confusing; they mean A++, not Minor League. I know. I KNOW.) on the Most Powerful Hardware Evar!!! costs $40-$60Million USD to make and sells for $40-$60.

By their reasoning, nothing that costs less than this to make should cost more than the price of a game. I've seen, read and heard this MANY MANY times.

They have not considered simple economies of scale.

If you spend $10m developing a video game, and you sell 1 million copies of it, you'll break even selling it for $10 a copy (ignoring distribution costs, etc).

If you spend $10m developing a CAD package, and you know that you're only going to sell 1000 copies of it, you need to sell it for $10k a copy to break even. You couldn't sell it for $10, because there aren't a million people in the world who'd want it. It's doubtful that selling it for $1k rather than $10k would get you 10x more sales.

The point is that software aimed at professionals - CAD packages, video editing suites, PhotoShop-type applications, etc - are generally bought for their functionality rather than their price. If I'm a graphic designer charging clients $1000 a day, it's irrelevent to me whether PhotoShop costs $100 or $1000 - it's a tool I need to do my job and I'll buy it whatever it costs.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They have not considered simple economies of scale.

If you spend $10m developing a video game, and you sell 1 million copies of it, you'll break even selling it for $10 a copy (ignoring distribution costs, etc).

If you spend $10m developing a CAD package, and you know that you're only going to sell 1000 copies of it, you need to sell it for $10k a copy to break even. You couldn't sell it for $10, because there aren't a million people in the world who'd want it. It's doubtful that selling it for $1k rather than $10k would get you 10x more sales.

The point is that software aimed at professionals - CAD packages, video editing suites, PhotoShop-type applications, etc - are generally bought for their functionality rather than their price. If I'm a graphic designer charging clients $1000 a day, it's irrelevent to me whether PhotoShop costs $100 or $1000 - it's a tool I need to do my job and I'll buy it whatever it costs.

...actually acknowledge any of what I said, as opposed to dismissing it?

If what you are selling does not have the value to your intended target, its not going to be paid for. The difference is, that in DigiWorld here...they can get it anyway and I think this is the part that makes everyone all mad.

You want to know how to reach these people? Listen to what they are telling you. If they say "I wouldn't pay more than $3.50 for an eBook" and you want to sell it for $10.50...they aren't going to pay for it. Its not worth $10.50 to them...and there will be more of them than us. Likely sooner than later.

How much of that $10.50 (or whatever) does it cost to digitally duplicate these things?

As I posted before, the risks of digital products are not equivalent to physical ones..even after R&D. Simply producing the product adds more risk because it is an adtional cost far above "digital warehousing"...and again, you are dealing with people that know this, and will find it suspect still.

As much as the collective "you" feel they don't respect your "property rights" (when in fact, they are distribution rights, but...) "they" feel you are "ripping them off" by charging "way more" for your app in say a 5-10 person little company for a thing than a 200-person team on a game title.

Now if you just don't care, or can rationalize it away, or do the "but Daaaaad I want a pooonnnnyyyy" thing and still turn a buck...enjoy it while it lasts

If what you develop, or write or whatever isn't on the same "value scale" (use their criteria) then its just not going to happen.

And sure a shop that charges $1K/day per client isn't going to have a problem with this...assuming thats your target. it still doesn't really change the current and more importantly, *emerging* market valuation for digital products.

The big failing here is that like record companies, a lot of people that (IMNSHO) should know better with regards to digital media are falling into the exact same trap as they did...the old model cannot work, it *will not* work and that is, essentially that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mrkai

If what you are selling does not have the value to your intended target, its not going to be paid for. The difference is, that in DigiWorld here...they can get it anyway and I think this is the part that makes everyone all mad.

I'm afraid that to my mind, the idea that one has some "God-given right" to play/read/hear something without paying for it is a very strange idea that appears to show a complete lack of ethics in the person concerned. Why do such people think that they have some "right" to use the results of other peoples' hard work without paying for it?

It's NOT for them to decide "what it's worth"; it's for me, as a producer, to decide what to sell my product for for, and for them to decide, as a consumer, whether or not it's worth that to them. If it is, they buy it; if it's not, then don't. That is the way that our economy works.

If I want a new car, I might go along to my local Ford dealer, and see a car that I like. That car has a price, say £12000. If it's worth £12000 to me, I'll buy it. I won't turn around to the dealer and say "I think that car's only worth £7000, so I'm going to steal it from you rather than pay £12000 for it."

I see absolutely no legal or moral difference between doing that and taking software or a book or a movie without paying for it.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid that to my mind, the idea that one has some "God-given right" to play/read/hear something without paying for it is just an anathema. It shows a complete lack of ethics in the person concerned. What makes them think that they have some "right" to use my software without paying for it?

*snip*

I see absolutely no legal or moral difference between doing that and taking software or a book or a movie without paying for it.

...because of your vested interest.

What do you want Harry, that is attainable in the Really-for-real world?

And.."taking" software? This is a bit of a misnomer i think, and why without honest debate, the issue will not be resolved.

An unlicensed copy of a digital thing has not taken a dime out of your pocket. It hasn't. You never had the money.

Or, as I put it on Techcrunch:

“Potential revenue” is not revenue earned. No one has stolen money from you. You never had it. On the other hand, the question you must ask yourself is do these acts cost you money you already have?

The answer, is of course, they do not.

Look, no one is saying that people should be able to use and enjoy these things without paying for them…it is morally wrong, probably. It is certainly ethically suspect.

And AGAIN...I sell software for a living...its how my family eats.

I get paid *every day*...I'm not starving or out on the street. If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to do it.

As righteously indignant as we can get (believe me...I've been there and done that) it just does not change the *reality* of the situation and pining for an ideal that I guarantee, will *never* exist...what then?

You feel you get to set what its worth...not the market. OK fair enough. The market, as it is, responds in kind by not paying you what you ask...and they STILL get product anyway.

What would you have..legislation that allows for public flogging or something? You STILL don't get paid. Sue? Your monies are eaten in legal fees...and you STILL have the problem.

It is what it is. When will people start *dealing with it* as it is? Its a it nutty situation if you ask me

Given this reality one would think that the thing to do is to...conform to the market conditions as they exist.

That is the reality...that is the future.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mrkai

...because of your vested interest.

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

What do you want Harry, that is attainable in the Really-for-real world?

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.

An unlicensed copy of a digital thing has not taken a dime out of your pocket. It hasn't. You never had the money.

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

[Sparrow]

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".

So much for the NHS

"Right and wrong" are very tricky things imho. I admire people who've figured them out.

Is it right to make poor people pay more for things than rich people? That's what fixed prices do.

In the end I agree with Shakespeare - "there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so".
The secret is to eschew thinking - then everything's fine.