Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If piracy was stopping writers from making any money JA Konrath wouldn't be making any money because his books are literally everywhere (including the one that came out a couple of days ago).

One case doesn't describe every writer.

At any rate, if this discussion is just going to devolve into another piracy argument, it's clearly run its course.

[xg4bx]

i'm still a believer in catching more flies with honey than vinegar. instead of treating everyone like common scum who is only looking to screw your company over, give them a reason to purchase a legitimate copy other than "because we said so".

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Sorry, but that didn't really translate over.

i was answering to

Originally Posted by you, with my emphasis inside

I realize that anonymity is useful to protect those rightly in fear of persecution.

What you said I understand as "people shall only have right to hide data about them when it is proven, that the data gatherer in question has malvolent intent in doing so."

This is IMO wrong as it basically neglects the right for privacy. therefrom my reference to the creation of a transparent citizen.

I see it the other way around: just as innocent until proven guilty
left in peace/darkness/hideout until proven dangerous and not!
right to hide when in danger.

So pardon me if I misunderstand you, but as I see it it's this way:

I claim the right to demand from every person (including officials) just to get lost and leave me alone, unless they can confront me with damn good arguments (wich would be next to impossible for non-officials) why I don't deserve this peace.

where you in contrary advocate the best possible surveillance just in case.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

where you in contrary advocate the best possible surveillance just in case.

HA!

Another person who believes Big Brother is under every rock and behind every tree, watching every citizen in the world via ultra-telescopic satellites, and that the tiniest bit of personal information given up to the tiniest store clerk will bring the Gestapo one step closer to breaking down their doors and throwing them in the hole for having freckles or reading Joyce.

God, save me from paranoids and Big Brother nonsense.

And in the meantime, can we get back on topic and discuss the metaphors that drive the war on online sharing?

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

i'm still a believer in catching more flies with honey than vinegar. instead of treating everyone like common scum who is only looking to screw your company over, give them a reason to purchase a legitimate copy other than "because we said so".

Absolutely

Have some karma

The classic saying certainly applies "clean up your own house first before demanding it of others."

On TV locally here AFACT are running the usual copyright propaganda they normally run in the movies where you are a captive audience. It ends with white writing on a black screen...

"Stop movie theft"

A classic lie. In Australia, copyright infringement is not theft and is not a crime
(unless profited on monetarily).

There is a metaphor spun by publishers as well. They spend billions annually attempting to change the system to suit their anachronistic business models while never making a change for the better.

I wonder if the Dodo needed to hire a good lawyer before they became extinct? After all it would have been easier to do that than evolving common bloody sense.

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

HA!
Another person who believes Big Brother is under every rock and behind every tree, watching every citizen in the world via ultra-telescopic satellites, and that the tiniest bit of personal information given up to the tiniest store clerk will bring the Gestapo one step closer to breaking down their doors and throwing them in the hole for having freckles or reading Joyce.

God, save me from paranoids and Big Brother nonsense.

• Principiis obsta. and "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  
• It doesn't need to be the collector (or creator of something) who abuses it. See: The Physicists by Dürenmatt.
  
• Your approach would give far too much power in the hands of companies which are interested in their own survival. And unlike goverments are not legally bound the same way the ones you elected to trust them.

So I was rather thinking of Big_Businessman.com, than Big_Brother.gov, but...

Neither the gov Trojans, nor the Secret Police Forces of Soviet satellite-countries (just to keep this list shorter) are fairytales

Especially the last ones have always had a keen eye on artists and their fans - feel free to check historical data - I'll gladly help out if you dig up something in Polish... and then you might to change your mind...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I knew there was no God.

[Freeshadow]

apart from that Steven, my main point was not Big brother style but rather:

It's no companies friggin business to know what I do when why and under wich condition!
They sell, I buy, farewell, goodbye.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

You (and everyone else who feels that way) are missing the point.

Heightened ebook security is not about someone putting your favorite dessert into a database. It's about making sure you pay for a product you were supposed to pay for. That's what this discussion is about... Not paranoia.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

You (and everyone else who feels that way) are missing the point.

Heightened ebook security is not about someone putting your favorite dessert into a database. It's about making sure you pay for a product you were supposed to pay for. That's what this discussion is about... Not paranoia.

You are missing the point as well. It takes TWO to tango. There needs to be change from publishers, the music industry and entertainment industry if there is hope to slow down the amount of piracy occurring.

Bribing US senators and judges alongside teams of copyright troll lawyers does not solve anything, merely encourages more to "look elsewhere" simply to stick it to the man.

Simply remove geo restrictions and DRM and a good deal of casual piracy will disappear. It is that simple.

Failure to evolve means extinction.

[Freeshadow]

putting your favorite dessert into a database

I get exactly that clear, fear not. I simply don't see why (too keep your analogy) every candyshop and his cousin, the barber shall have the right to log me.

and maybe somebody else (let us keep the example running), by combining logs find out that I let's say, always go gettin drunk with chockolade-icecream on advocaat, when my next former SO leaves, because I order them regularely en masse only when I stop ordering condoms?

All this person d' have to do would be drawing conclusions from checking 2! databases only. what could somebody do checking 2 scores of them?
I'm not keen to find that out... but harvesting e.g. facebook (which I avoid like plague) would look like a toy compared to that - and no I just don't sign in option

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by sabredog

You are missing the point as well. It takes TWO to tango. There needs to be change from publishers, the music industry and entertainment industry if there is hope to slow down the amount of piracy occurring.

Bribing US senators and judges alongside teams of copyright troll lawyers does not solve anything, merely encourages more to "look elsewhere" simply to stick it to the man.

Simply remove geo restrictions and DRM and a good deal of casual piracy will disappear. It is that simple.

Failure to evolve means extinction.

another key component: lower prices.

make it not worth the while of casual pirates or "file sharers" to just download something. why on god's green earth are ebooks $19 and $20 bleeping dollars? its really not worth my while to pirate 99 cent-$8 ebooks. but a $19 stephen king or ayn rand book? "those sites" look faaaar more tempting.

publishers have done NOTHING for consumers. hell, they can't even put out decent formatted books half the time. yet they continue and continue to put burdens on consumers while giving literally nothing in return.

enough with the take, take, take. how about we get some respect or worthwhile products for a change? publishers have done everything under the sun to discourage legitimate sales.

i hate to sound like a robin hood or something but christ, i think we've been bent over a barrel long enough. when businesses have an anti-consumer culture, expect said consumers to engage in anti-business practices.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In the UK, at least, the courts have ruled that trademark conflicts can't prevent someone from using their own name on a business. There was a case in Scotland not so long ago where Macdonald's tried to force a local business called something like "Macdonald's Cafe" (I forget the details) to change their name; they lost on the grounds that, as the cafe was run by a Mrs Macdonald, she was perfectly entitled to use that name in her business.

WOW< common sense in the law. What a concept.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

I get exactly that clear, fear not. I simply don't see why (too keep your analogy) every candyshop and his cousin, the barber shall have the right to log me.

and maybe somebody else (let us keep the example running), by combining logs find out that I let's say, always go gettin drunk with chockolade-icecream on advocaat, when my next former SO leaves, because I order them regularely en masse only when I stop ordering condoms?

All this person d' have to do would be drawing conclusions from checking 2! databases only. what could somebody do checking 2 scores of them?
I'm not keen to find that out... but harvesting e.g. facebook (which I avoid like plague) would look like a toy compared to that - and no I just don't sign in option

Fine, let's run this example.

You don't live in the U.S., I gather. So you're not living in a country where all the stores already share information, whether you ask them to or not, whether you tell them not to or not. You're not living in a country where those stores already pore through those databases on a regular basis, and by now know all the products I buy, where I buy them, and can make educated guesses about how I use them. (And anyone making those guesses is surely laughing his @$$ off at how pathetic a human being I am.)

Then they take all that information and target me, whereas they try to send me a catalog. Most are foiled by my being signed up through Catalog Choice to remove me from their mailing lists. So they try to call me. Most are foiled by my being signed up through the DoNotCall registry to remove me from their phone lists. So they send me emails. Which I delete.

So, I'm already in a world that is "attacking me" in the same way you fear they would attack you. The only response I have to mount is to hit my delete button... problem solved.

And am I worried about other entities? My government, for instance? They can't tie their own showlaces without busting the federal budget; they sure as hell don't have the resources to spy on me. That's the reality of the situation. And I'll bet it's the reality in your country, too.

Your concerns about commercial spying on individuals are unrealistic, overblown and paranoid. Fear of these overblown and paranoid concerns are being used as an excuse to block legitimate businesspeople like myself from doing effective business and protecting myself from loss through theft and infringement. And it's doing more damage to independent businesspeople than to major publishers.

So, speaking for the independent authors out there: Thanks loads.

Should we try another example? Or can we get back on topic?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

That really doesn't address the dilemma of writers who could make a living writing but cannot because of piracy (unless your answer really is "If you want to make money, write pop crap").

There are no such writers, so there is no dilemma. The number of people pirating a book is much smaller than the number of people that buy the book. I book that nobody would read for free is a book that nobody wants to read.

Does anyone else find it strange that the anti-piracy slogans/posters/videos are less imaginative than the anti-anti-piracy slogans/posters/videos?