Should Demonoid Stay Down?

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The fact that a law is difficult to enforce doesn't make it a bad law.

...a law is as much as a consent decree by those governed by it as it is an enforceable mandate, is it not?

Does it not follow that when a measurable majority (granted of course, we haven't reached that on this issue. Yet.) chooses to de facto ignore a law that it is no longer of value to the society in question?

Laws have power not only thru the ability to enforce them, but moreso, in their ability to be effective and influential by NOT having to expend an undo amount of resources to gain compliance by consensus agreement.

The trend is that such laws will be null and void, first de facto, then by legislation, if you look towards those that will be making law in the not-so-distant future.

Better get ready, I say.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

What... e-books should be free for the same reason that Blacks should be free?!? Yeah... I'll have to give that some thought...

I know you can do better than this and will not indulge it in any way whatsoever.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mrkai

That said...if it is nonsensical to assume a book sold in paper, bounded form is of equal value to one that is not because there are not the same thing.

They may not be of equal value... but an e-book still has a value. It is not free, just because it is electrons.

Originally Posted by mrkai

It is the way it is because authors and songwriters and such do not assume the greater risk of producing the product in question. Blame the system or produce yourself to cut out the middleman.

Yeah, thanks, I do.

Originally Posted by mrkai

Do writers have their own publishing houses?

I can think of one right off: Right Brane Publications.

[QUOTE=mrkai;125748]Did you not forget that i create digital content in the form of software? I get paid every day, enough so that I do not have to do it "on the side".

Originally Posted by mrkai

That said...if it is nonsensical to assume a book sold in paper, bounded form is of equal value to one that is not because there are not the same thing.

They may not be of equal value... but an e-book still has a value. It is not free, just because it is electrons.

Originally Posted by mrkai

It is the way it is because authors and songwriters and such do not assume the greater risk of producing the product in question. Blame the system or produce yourself to cut out the middleman.

Yeah, thanks, I do.

Originally Posted by mrkai

Do writers have their own publishing houses?

I can think of one right off: Right Brane ePublications.

Originally Posted by mrkai

Did you not forget that i create digital content in the form of software? I get paid every day, enough so that I do not have to do it "on the side".

That's nice. I have a day job, too, creating digital content in the form of websites. And trust me, e-books aren't even making me lunch money.

Heck with it. I'm done. Rip me off and have a nice day.

[Penforhire]

Mrkai, interesting point about how the iPod added value to what you already owned. But you didn't take it to its logical conclusion. The Kindle (or any other e-reader) adds value in EXACTLY the same way IF I am allowed to download e-book versions of p-books I already own from P2P networks -- the very thing that Steve and I and others are debating here!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Mrkai, interesting point about how the iPod added value to what you already owned. But you didn't take it to its logical conclusion. The Kindle (or any other e-reader) adds value in EXACTLY the same way IF I am allowed to download e-book versions of p-books I already own from P2P networks -- the very thing that Steve and I and others are debating here!

The real issue is not that YOU can download a book, who have bought a paper copy of it previously, but that 9,999 other people can also download it who have NOT bought it. You may be able to convincingly argue that your possession of the book is legitimate, but those other people cannot. That is why, IMHO, eBook uploaders need to be pursued and prosecuted with the full force of the law.

What is required, IMHO, is for book publishers and authors to get together and form an industry association which does work similar to the truly excellent and admirable work carried out by the RIAA which so benefit music industry publishers and help protect the public from criminals.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What is required, IMHO, is for book publishers and authors to get together and form an industry association which does work similar to the truly excellent and admirable work carried out by the RIAA which so benefit music industry publishers and help protect the public from criminals.

My initial reaction was to laugh. But then I realized you might mean it. Do you really think the relentless lawsuits has had the desired effect of reducing the copyright infringement?

This could be an interesting topic to discuss.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

My initial reaction was to laugh. But then I realized you might mean it. Do you really think the relentless lawsuits has had the desired effect of reducing the copyright infringement?

This could be an interesting topic to discuss.

My post was slightly tongue in cheek, but I do think that the publishment meted out to "file sharers" such as "Jammie Thomas" can only have the effect of making other people think twice about following her example. Is sharing files really worth losing your home for? It is a pity that the eBook industry has no such trade association to apply a bit of "muscle" where it might do some good.

[Penforhire]

We need international IP protection laws before something like the RIAA can be effective. Otherwise the major offenders just hide out in China or wherever with zero fear of prosecution. And I agree we need to focus on major offenders, not low hanging fruit like Ms Thomas.

The issues surrounding e-books are no different than they are for music. I expect the laws to match.

[bingle]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Some people, Steve, appear to hold the rather odd view that a lost sale is not "depriving the author of money", since the author never had that money in the first place. The logic of this rather escapes me, but this is an argument that one not infrequently encounters.

Here's the logic:

If we look at a classic supply/demand curve, we can see that as the price goes down, demand goes up. That is, the less something costs, the more people will be willing to buy it. If you price a sandwich at $5, more people will buy it than if you price it at $10. Let's say 20 people are willing to buy it at $5, but only 10 people at $10. If you raise the price to $15, then only one person is willing to buy it. Above that, no one will pay for the sandwich.

Now, if you lower the price to $0, how many people will buy the sandwich? Theoretically, an infinite number. In reality, let's say there are only 100 hungry people nearby. They'll all want one! So, if someone is giving away sandwiches, how many sales have they lost? 100 free sandwiches doesn't equal 100 lost sales of sandwiches. It turns out that 80 of those people didn't want a sandwich for $5. So you've only lost 20 sales if you were going to price your sandwich at $5.

Now, granted, you've lost 20 sales, and 100% of your potential profit. But looking at each person lining up for a free sandwich and equating them with someone who would have paid you some arbitrary amount is ludicrous. We wouldn't have any sympathy for a sandwich maker who was unhappy because he sold all his sandwiches for $5 - if only he'd have charged $1000 each, he says, he would be a rich man.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

We need international IP protection laws before something like the RIAA can be effective. Otherwise the major offenders just hide out in China or wherever with zero fear of prosecution.

Ask and you shall receive. Team America is on the way, complete with secret police and property confiscation.

[mrkai]

After Steve decided to insult me, I kind of walked away from this but as i have been addressed directly, I shall add more commentary.

First off: I am not an advocate of "free content"...I am merely an observer in the reality of the situation.

Harry: The Actions of the RIAA and MPAA have had an effect Zero impact. Really. In fact, many in the US Congress have decided to take a closer look at these actions as they seem to constitute a level of heavyhanded punishment.

The issue of property isn't irrelevant, it just isn't realistic. The only way to have exclusive distribution of digital products is to bring the customer to you in the brick and mortar world...something that has even less appeal.

The notion that someone is getting away with something, too, is wrongheaded thinking. Anyone that acquires counterfeit digital product in my experience is getting a lesser product than the "original" legal counterfeit, er, authorized copy. Games with cracks and hacks, poorly transcribed books, varying quality of cd/dvd rips...whatever.

The fact that these lesser quality products are "good enough" is all that matters to them. The problem is that no one seems to be wise enough to sell them these things for $3.99. They seem to thing 75% of the price of the physical version at (maybe) 20% of the consumer value and 1% of the manufacturing costs is a fair price and a good deal.

The market has demonstrated that they are...mistaken

Part of the "angle" on the ITMS was that it was better than free because it was LESS WORK than free and for a subset, time is worth money to them. This sells.

Producing content digitally is a CHOICE of the producers. Any informed person in this space, at least the ones I know under 40 (I'm almost there at 38) understand the RISKS as WELL AS the rewards of this path.

And those that cannot accept them either come to (like I did) or do something else.

There are guys in the game that are younger than i am that think MY VIEWS are still too rooted in the old ways...the thought of requiring the entry of a serial number seems a bit much after someone has already paid for the product, because doing so treats the customer as a criminal.

There is actually some logic to this. I'm still...studying this personally myself.

A lot of people seem more concerned about people that are not their customers than those that are...and I have been guilty of this myself, no doubt.

The truth is, for me anyway, that I cannot, as a person guilty of speeding for example, think of any fair punishment for anyone caught with a bootleg outside of causing them, the person, to pay for what they have or remove it...and this is totally unenforceable.

I mean I could do a run of discs, pay shipping, blah blah blah and none of these things will stop the problem. As a businessman, my desire is to maximize income AND profits and all I see my doing with a version of the MPAA relevant to me is me paying them fees to protect my interest from the unavoidable. The BSA has been around for ages. See where I am going with this?

There isn't a punishment in the world to change market forces outside of restrictions to uses of computers and personal freedoms I would not wish on my children. I don't WANT to be a part of an Information Cabaal that forces every machine connected to the internet to be registered, that have special chips and magic hardrives on them, connected via monitored pipes that are subject to random clandestine digital searches on the behalf of the Content Clan.

It is the only way to make what is by nature uncontainable constrained, it is totally artificial, it is beyond tempting for abuse and is a greater wrong then some a-hole with an unlicensed copy of something, that they aren't selling to other people.

Anyone that says otherwise is short-sighted at best and evil at worse to me.

All of us that do what we do do it because we chose to. As much as people preach about the "interlopers" needing to have some ethics and personal responsibility, so too do I think should we.

But it doesn't *really matter* what Mr. Kai thinks. What matters is what the people I wish to extract cash from does. Assuming I wish to still do such a thing in the world as it exist now. Since I don't find any alternatives more attractive...

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

And I agree we need to focus on major offenders, not low hanging fruit like Ms Thomas.

The issues surrounding e-books are no different than they are for music. I expect the laws to match.

...because it will lead to the inevitable scenario of a future "Ms. Thomas" being a 20 year-old blogging co-ed "hottie" that hangs herself, leaving a quizzical last blog entry and a weepy suicide note about how the "ruined her life and future" with a $10 bill and a "PS I hope you enjoy it" at the end.

That is to say, at some point, the damage caused will far outweigh the damages to the AA's in the public perception and they will be checked in kind.

When it gets to the point that you have to legislate your business model and sue to keep it relative...you need to...think.

Mark my words. Its going to have a really bad outcome. If you think Jammie Thomas and the ridiculous $220,000 pentalty was a wake-up call for people to curb the behavior, you are sadly misinformed.

The only people that feel smug about this are the misguided in the content space. I assure you that there are people right now working to make sure she is the last of her kind by taking the technology to the next level.

In fact there are already (complex) ways to do this. The person that works out how to make it "Grandma easy" will make a fortune, be a "hero" or both.

There is your arms race.

[Penforhire]

To some extent the benefit of civil prosecution of greivous offenders helps a publisher by getting extra cash to pursue future ventures.

I am thinking of AutoDesk here. They started a campaign some years ago of going after universities and large companies who were illegally using unpaid copies of AutoCad. There were some very high profile settlements (hundreds of thousands of dollars in instances, beyond attorney fees) and I believe that "enforcement income" helped AutoDesk evolve their product. Along the way they also picked up a no-B.S. reputation when it comes to piracy. Can you get pirated/cracked AutoDesk products today? Sure. But you can bet they have more legitimate users than they would have if they did nothing.