The culture of entitlement and illegal downloads

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

In practical terms, which would I choose? A cheese sandwich after a week without food or Wicked?

Well, I dunno. Are you talking Gorgonzola or Cheez Whiz? And if the former, will there be port?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Fewer bears than Shakespeare, though.

Only if you count the offstage bear...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Screw that.

Funny how "some people's expectations have to change" usually means "... in order to not inconvenience the person demanding the change." Somehow, I don't think Steve means "Guy Haley's expectations will need to change to fit in with the digital era."

I don't mind "tech changes, politics change, social expectations change; ergo, people will have to learn new ways of relating to each other and the world around them." I don't agree that it's the consumer who's required to do all the changing, to allow commercial producers to continue making profit at a rate and through methods that are most comfortable to them.

[speakingtohe]

Dammit I thought the offstage bear was dead. No offense to the offstage bear.

Helen

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by sbroome

"When something isn't available as an e-book, people will copy it, so the wise thing to do would be to make the book available as an e-book. "

People pirate even if things are available and they just don't want to pay for them. This "Oliver Twist just wants a bowl of ebooks" nonsense needs to be put to rest.

That people who don't want to pay for books will simply download them may be true, but it still has nothing to do with anything that I said. Oliver Twist is a poor analogy, as I never suggested authors give their books away.

A book is going to be available as an e-book whether or not the author offers it for sale as an e-book. Shake your fist at that fact if you want, but the fact remains unchanged. Not offering a book as an e-book doesn't protect an author from illegal copying. If an e-book is available only as an illegal download, people who would otherwise pay for it often will illegally download it. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to offer the book for sale as an e-book.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

It's not simply a matter of waiting. There is a very good chance there will NEVER be a digital version for sale.

but there are lots of things there are not digital versions of that you will never be able to see. or for that matter that I will not be able to see. there is plenty of other material available.

its not callous to say so. I have disabled friends/acquaintances and relatives. blind, deaf, paralyzed, mental handicaps. I watched a very good friend who was the best baseball, soccer etc player i knew wither and die from the worst case of scoliosis I have ever heard of. I have taught blind people archery and people with down syndrome (kids and adults) to shoot a rifle. why i am taking the time to Justify myself to a person who believes that not having something available is the same as being denied it , i have no idea.

Originally Posted by Harmon

Marshall Field made more money than you ever will...

yes

Originally Posted by anamardoll

There is far too little consideration of disabilities in many a publishers' office, simply because they don't know or don't care.

'Course, I'm just an entitled cry-baby LOL.

exactly

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

see thats what drives me nuts more than anything. not only is there a sense of entitlement but people are simply spoiled. the concept of simply going without is unheard of. its a world of toddlers stomping their feet crying "i want it now because i said so and i'm going to hold my breath until i get it!"

When have people ever gone without when they ability not to go without existed?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

but there are lots of things there are not digital versions of that you will never be able to see. or for that matter that I will not be able to see. there is plenty of other material available.

its not callous to say so. I have disabled friends/acquaintances and relatives. blind, deaf, paralyzed, mental handicaps. I watched a very good friend who was the best baseball, soccer etc player i knew wither and die from the worst case of scoliosis I have ever heard of. I have taught blind people archery and people with down syndrome (kids and adults) to shoot a rifle. why i am taking the time to Justify myself to a person who believes that not having something available is the same as being denied it , i have no idea.

So let me see if I get this straight.

If a digital edition will never exist, you think disabled people shouldn't download the pirate version, even though the pirate version will not hurt the artist because there is no legal legitimate version (in this case a DVD) and the disabled person cannot give money to the artist in the approved way (in this case live shows) because they are disabled?

And you want me to agree that this position doesn't make you calloused because you think life should just be shit for disabled people? I'm not following the logic, I'm sorry.

Oh, but you have disabled FRIENDS, so that's alright.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

So let me see if I get this straight.

If a digital edition will never exist, you think disabled people shouldn't download the pirate version, even though the pirate version will not hurt the artist because there is no legal legitimate version (in this case a DVD) and the disabled person cannot give money to the artist in the approved way (in this case live shows) because they are disabled?

And you want me to agree that this position doesn't make you calloused because you think life should just be shit for disabled people? I'm not following the logic, I'm sorry.

Oh, but you have disabled FRIENDS, so that's alright.

So your argument is that being disabled allows you to commit illegal acts... useful idea, I'll try that argument next time I have a problem... and how does not being able to access a DVD make life (and I quote you here) "shit" for disabled people, what about the able who can't get it, screw them because they aren't disabled or can anyone else commit illegalities because a DVD isn't available...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by sbroome

IOW that's what you want it to mean. But, no. Things being available in movie theaters or only as live performances are not automatically required to be available for people who want to stay at home, no matter what the Supreme Court of wikipedia says.

I did not say anything about "automatically" requiring anything.

I responded to your question of "where it is written" with an answer intended to show you that the intent of copyright law includes a dimension that makes it perfectly reasonable to expect providers to address concerns of disabled people, and I gave you a specific citation to where Congress has done exactly that.

The Congress could, if it wished, require that every live performance be filmed, digitized, and made available for free to the disabled, as a condition of granting copyright protection. It has not, at the present, done so. Whether it ever would is debatable - there are obvious difficulties.

But that it could do so if it wished to seems pretty clear.

[Dulin's Books]

im sorry you dont follow the logic. how is this work not being available making life shit for anyone? If they made it available but said "and to hell with deaf people we will not be putting subtitles in" that would be incorrigible and would be wrong. if they made a digital book but said " the hell with blind people we will not make an audio version" that would suck and should be corrected.

a dvd not being out yet or EVER is just that. it doesnt exclude anyone. just because it was a musical or a movie available in a theater doesnt mean they HAVE to make a version available for viewing at home.

my mom has been in the hospital for most of the last year. there have been allot of movies and plays go through the town that she hasnt been able to see. a few muscial acts as well. not one of those people responsible for those performances OWES my mother a copy to watch at home now because it isnt available to her now that she is feeling better. and its not callous of me to say that to my mom either.

does that help you understand my point better?

[anamardoll]

(Also, speaking as someone who does have scoliosis, I'm now wondering what my Real Life friends are arguing on the Internet on the grounds of knowing me.)

[speakingtohe]

Many people have gone without and many still do. Stealing for entertainment could certainly be justified if the person had no entertainment and no means of acquiring it legitimately. Hard to figure how the would steal it though in these circumstances.

And of course having handicapped friends does not automatically make illlegitimately acquiring things wrong, but I am pretty sure I saw it used as a justification earlier for acquiring media from non legitimate places, and it does not make it right.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

When have people ever gone without when they ability not to go without existed?

people do that all the time. i dont have a game system in the house for the kids to play because its not in our budget. i could steal one but i dont.

i love shrimp. i would eat it every day if I could. sadly shrimp is generally not in our budget. i dont steal shrimp.

i do not have any pirated music or books. i simply buy from whats available when i have the money to do so. I have not yet read the girl who played with fire because i have the first two books in trade paperback and will wait for that version to become available before reading.

people go without all the time. the fact that its easy to steal( or rip copies and share them with a thousand people) makes no difference as to the legality or the morality

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by elcreative

So your argument is that being disabled allows you to commit illegal acts... useful idea, I'll try that argument next time I have a problem... and how does not being able to access a DVD make life (and I quote you here) "shit" for disabled people, what about the able who can't get it, screw them because they aren't disabled or can anyone else commit illegalities because a DVD isn't available...

What is the "illegal act" to which you refer?

It might be illegal to make a bootleg film, or to distribute one someone else made, and I'm sure it's illegal to sell a copy.

But merely acquiring a copy? I don't think so.