My journey into the darknet

[Format C:]

There's no hope.
Until that nonsense "pay per copy" model will be definitely abandoned, the dark side, in a way or the other, will rule.

The future is either a "per content" fee, where I pay the author to access the content unlimited times and in infinite copies, or the same old model, where new ways to "share" content will rise and fall like waves in the ocean. And the smart ones will have everything for free.

[Desertway]

Originally Posted by Logseman

1) All of this surprisingly verbose response refers, by the way, to the goods subject to the so-called "intellectual property". For goods made of physical matter, things are different, and I'm quite sure we're all in complete agreement for those.

What's the difference?

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by Logseman

I only pay for something if I have to...The companies do have their goal very clear, which is winning money. I have my goal clear as well: spend the least money and time possible.

Same here. Though these days I actually tend to stick more to CC/GFDL works or public domain works and the like, just because my university's ban on torrents makes piracy troublesome.

Then again, I shouldn't be torrenting on uni even if it was allowed. Colleges are a favorite target of the RIAA/MPAA.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Desertway

What's the difference?

Physical property becomes unusable by someone else when it's stolen/used without permission.

Intellectual property doesn't stop being usable by other people when someone makes an unauthorized copy/uses it without permission (in the case of patents and trademarks).

If I take your car, you can't drive it while I've got it. If I take a picture of your car and make a copy of your custom paint job, it may affect the resale value (because yours is no longer unique), but it doesn't keep you from using or showing off your car.

[Logseman]

Ditto to Elfwreck, and generalising his assert, what is meant is that physical property's deprivation implies a net loss, which means losing something that you had before it was stolen. Intellectual property's deprivation implies that you lose potential gains which haven't been realised, but not anything that you had before the "stealing" took place.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

It seems to me that there is still a (rapidly closing) window of opportunity for the publishers to get this right. If they standardised on matching the paper price for a properly proofed non-DRM book without geo restrictions, I think that the market would take off, and especially with the addition of their back-catalogues, they could make more money. I suspect that they won't do this, and that many are doomed as a result.

Rubbish! I can't agree with this. The whole ebooks fiasco is an attempt by the Bourgeoisie to exclude the proletariat from reading by creating a highly-priced entry point to be able to read at all. Thank goodness that the publishing industry is supporting the people against the rising technocracy by undermining the ebook at every opportunity. Prices are rightly being set by adding together the price of the available paper versions, factoring in the cost of ebook conversion, and then making up a number. Proof-reading is being reserved for paper copies so as to benefit the workers rather than the few, bourgois "e-readers" who are quite capable of proof-reading themselves - otherwise, how would they see any errors? DRM and goegraphic restrictions are being applied to limit the spread of any infection.

Publishers who stick with paper will be the true victors, with those who waste resources on the doomed "e" format in danger of losing the means of production of real books.

[kennyc]

Psycho!

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Rubbish! I can't agree with this. The whole ebooks fiasco is an attempt by the Bourgeoisie to exclude the proletariat from reading by creating a highly-priced entry point to be able to read at all. Thank goodness that the publishing industry is supporting the people against the rising technocracy by undermining the ebook at every opportunity. Prices are rightly being set by adding together the price of the available paper versions, factoring in the cost of ebook conversion, and then making up a number. Proof-reading is being reserved for paper copies so as to benefit the workers rather than the few, bourgois "e-readers" who are quite capable of proof-reading themselves - otherwise, how would they see any errors? DRM and goegraphic restrictions are being applied to limit the spread of any infection.

Publishers who stick with paper will be the true victors, with those who waste resources on the doomed "e" format in danger of losing the means of production of real books.

Yay Karl Marx!

Derek

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Rubbish! I can't agree with this. The whole ebooks fiasco is an attempt by the Bourgeoisie to exclude the proletariat from reading by creating a highly-priced entry point to be able to read at all. Thank goodness that the publishing industry is supporting the people against the rising technocracy by undermining the ebook at every opportunity. Prices are rightly being set by adding together the price of the available paper versions, factoring in the cost of ebook conversion, and then making up a number. Proof-reading is being reserved for paper copies so as to benefit the workers rather than the few, bourgois "e-readers" who are quite capable of proof-reading themselves - otherwise, how would they see any errors? DRM and goegraphic restrictions are being applied to limit the spread of any infection.

Publishers who stick with paper will be the true victors, with those who waste resources on the doomed "e" format in danger of losing the means of production of real books.

Too late Ben - you've already got kennyc in your corner and you're not going to shake him off by feigning some kind of reasonable politically conscious analysis of the situation

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

Too late Ben - you've already got kennyc in your corner and you're not going to shake him off by feigning some kind of reasonable politically conscious analysis of the situation

Exactly! We're bros!

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by TGS

Too late Ben - you've already got kennyc in your corner and you're not going to shake him off by feigning some kind of reasonable politically conscious analysis of the situation

If I argue in a circle, then I won't have any corners - so how could he be in mine? Anyway, he's called me a psycho, so we're back on name-calling terms again (or him calling me names, at any rate)

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Exactly! We're bros!

You can be Luke - I'll be Matt.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

If I argue in a circle, then I won't have any corners - so how could he be in mine? Anyway, he's called me a psycho, so we're back on name-calling terms again (or him calling me names, at any rate)

Dude! That was just a random "Psycho!" Dontchaknow...

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Dude! That was just a random "Psycho!" Dontchaknow...

The kind of insult that's really a term of endearment that you often find traded between real pard'ners!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

The kind of insult that's really a term of endearment that you often find traded between real pard'ners!

eggzactly!