Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I know you think you have all the answers, Steve, but it takes all types. I think we were on point - a point that you brought up.

I mentioned it as an aside; I had no intention of shifting our focus from metaphors to document security.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Doesn't it work in exactly tho opposite way for books: the more copies there are, the more valuable it is?

Not really: what matters to the owner of the IP in the end is SALES of the books. The more more free copies there are in circulation, the fewer SALES will be likely.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

While I do think that the search for better mataphors is kind of a mug's game, pursued by people who want to get away from the theft label, I'll offer one: dilution.

Wouldn't work. You need something that puts a negtive image in people's minds but isn't so far removed from reality that it ends up being parodied on Youtube (like "theft" is). Dilution doesn't give a negative image, depending on what they imagine being diluted. Lots of things are improved by being diluted.

"Violation" instead of "infringement" might be better:

You wouldn't violate his home.
You wouldn't violate him sexually.
Don't violate his copyright.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Not really: what matters to the owner of the IP in the end is SALES of the books. The more more free copies there are in circulation, the fewer SALES will be likely.

There's no shortage of free copies of this on the internet, including right here, but that doesn't seem to hurt its sales at all.

The Complete Sherlock Holmes Collection

#98 Paid in Kindle Store
#1 in Kindle Store > Books > Fiction > Crime, Thrillers & Mystery > Mystery > British Detectives
#1 in Books > Crime, Thrillers & Mystery > British Detectives
#1 in Kindle Store > Books > Fiction > Fiction Classics

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You wouldn't violate his home.
You wouldn't violate him sexually.
Don't violate his copyright.

Narrator: You wouldn't steal a handbag. You wouldn't steal a car. You wouldn't steal a baby. You wouldn't shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet. You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet. And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow. And then steal it again! Downloading films is stealing. If you do it, you will face the consequences. [SWAT team member bursts in behind the girl downloading the film and shoots her; cut to a pool of blood on the keyboard]

Roy: [sitting with Moss in a dark room] Man, these anti-piracy ads are getting really mean.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

There's no shortage of free copies of this on the internet, including right here, but that doesn't seem to hurt its sales at all.

The Complete Sherlock Holmes Collection

#98 Paid in Kindle Store
#1 in Kindle Store > Books > Fiction > Crime, Thrillers & Mystery > Mystery > British Detectives
#1 in Books > Crime, Thrillers & Mystery > British Detectives
#1 in Kindle Store > Books > Fiction > Fiction Classics

Are you seriously comparing the situation of a current, recently published novel to that of a beloved classic in the public domain? There may be just a wee bit of difference between the two situations, starting with the fact that Mr. Doyle is no longer dependent on the sales of his book for the livelihood of himself and his dependents.
BTW, do you work for a living? Are you OK with your income being arbitrarily reduced by the activities of someone on the Internet? Didn't think so.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Not really: what matters to the owner of the IP in the end is SALES of the books. The more more free copies there are in circulation, the fewer SALES will be likely.

That is a pretty tenuous argument to make. Avatar made multi billions of dollars at the box office and in home DVD/blu-ray sales, yet it is one of the most downloaded movies ever.

Originally Posted by stonetools

Are you OK with your income being arbitrarily reduced by the activities of someone on the Internet? Didn't think so.

I expected you would spruik the line that every downloaded ebook, music track, TV show or movie was a lost sale. That is certainly perpetuating the lie.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Are you seriously comparing the situation of a current, recently published novel to that of a beloved classic in the public domain? There may be just a wee bit of difference between the two situations, starting with the fact that Mr. Doyle is no longer dependent on the sales of his book for the livelihood of himself and his dependents.

In a word, NO. None difference whatsoever. I, the consumer , the person who buys the product, can and will read only so much. So what I choose to spend my time and money on, is pulling one product from a plethora of choices. I don't give a dead rat's patootie whether or not the writer is alive, dead, or a zombie. Is it what I want to read? That's my only criteria. I'm not donating to charity as my primary purpose. (Some of the dead author's work do go to foundations, I pay no attention, one way or the other). And for every book I read, there are 10,000 other ones I will never read.

Originally Posted by stonetools

BTW, do you work for a living? Are you OK with your income being arbitrarily reduced by the activities of someone on the Internet? Didn't think so.

It gets reduced by arbitrary taxation, I've learned to live with it. Maybe we ought to start taxing copyrights. Not the earned income, the rights themselves. After all, we tax real estate, whether or not you make any money off of it....

[carld]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

It gets reduced by arbitrary taxation, I've learned to live with it. Maybe we ought to start taxing copyrights. Not the earned income, the rights themselves. After all, we tax real estate, whether or not you make any money off of it....

We also put people in jail for stealing Real Estate.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Wow, this thread is still going on, and still rational, even.

While I do think that the search for better mataphors is kind of a mug's game, pursued by people who want to get away from the theft label, I'll offer one: dilution.

Piracy dilutes the value of a content creator's intellectual property right in their creation , making it of less value than it would have been without piracy ( or unauthorised copying, if you want to use that euphemism.) The more copies of an artrist's creation that are made and distributed without the author's permission, the less valuable the the original work becomes. ,
You can compare it to gold, or a rich dye, or paper money, or a drug, or maybe watering down liquor. Its not exactly like any of those things, but the principle is the same.

So does the public domain.....where would Hollywood be if they had actually been forced to live under the rules they originally agreed to? 56 years for any movie before 1977....

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by carld

We also put people in jail for stealing Real Estate.

But you can't just make a copy of it.....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

"Violation" instead of "infringement" might be better:

You wouldn't violate his home.
You wouldn't violate him sexually.
Don't violate his copyright.

Actually, that might be a bit much; equating CI with any physical act has historically proven to be a No Sale with consumers.

I believe the connections to cable TV service are better. Unfortunately, no one has sympathy for cable companies, and the main thing keeping people from "stealing" cable signals is the threat of losing one's cable service... ironically, as much as people complain about the cable company, none of them are willing to risk the service they already have. Web access is about the same, though there are free web access points, so the threat isn't as severe.

So, if ebook creators/providers could be presented as a sympathetic entity that no one would want to steal from, you might be getting somewhere. You'd probably have to divorce them from the major publishers, which, being big corporations, won't be getting sympathy from anyone.

(I'm picturing a commercial, set in Victorian England, where we see a Bob Cratchit-type character working over his tiny desk, alternately rubbing his fingerless-gloved hands for warmth. At the end of the day, he trudges home, worry on his face. He pulls at his pockets, which are tellingly empty.

He arrives home, looking grim; work isn't good. Then his wife and kids greet him encouragingly and his wife brings him over to an alcove--let's say a NOOK--where a modern computer sits. He logs on, checks his account, and sees that he's made a few-score ebook sales today. He looks at his wife and kids and says, "Thank God... we eat tonight!"

The voiceover says: "Don't be stingy... let a guy earn a living. Don't take ebooks without paying for them.")

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Actually, that might be a bit much; equating CI with any physical act has historically proven to be a No Sale with consumers.

I believe the connections to cable TV service are better. Unfortunately, no one has sympathy for cable companies, and the main thing keeping people from "stealing" cable signals is the threat of losing one's cable service... ironically, as much as people complain about the cable company, none of them are willing to risk the service they already have. Web access is about the same, though there are free web access points, so the threat isn't as severe.

So, if ebook creators/providers could be presented as a sympathetic entity that no one would want to steal from, you might be getting somewhere. You'd probably have to divorce them from the major publishers, which, being big corporations, won't be getting sympathy from anyone.

(I'm picturing a commercial, set in Victorian England, where we see a Bob Cratchit-type character working over his tiny desk, alternately rubbing his fingerless-gloved hands for warmth. At the end of the day, he trudges home, worry on his face. He pulls at his pockets, which are tellingly empty.

He arrives home, looking grim; work isn't good. Then his wife and kids greet him encouragingly and his wife brings him over to an alcove--let's say a NOOK--where a modern computer sits. He logs on, checks his account, and sees that he's made a few-score ebook sales today. He looks at his wife and kids and says, "Thank God... we eat tonight!"

The voiceover says: "Don't be stingy... let a guy earn a living. Don't take ebooks without paying for them.")

I can live with that.

[Freeshadow]

yadda yadda theft, yadda yadda
say stonetools ain't you done with your own copyright infrigement of "Groundhog Day" yet? i.e. repeating the same st over and over again ad nauseam?

Hint 1: repeating it doesn't make it true - it didn't work with "the earth is a disc!" either.
Hint 2: said movie features some funny suicidal sequences.

[Freeshadow]

@sabrerdog take into consideration that the BD encryption of "Avatar"actually prevents that loads of legal buyers can view the movie on their devices due to absence of a firmware update...