The culture of entitlement and illegal downloads

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I think that most ladies feel entitled - i.e. expect - to have any digital product available:

(1) immediately
(2) at a reasonable price
(3) with a minimum of hassle
(4) in a format which works on her device
(5) for a one time payment
(6) in manner which does not impede sharing the product with friends

These (and some of the responses following) are debatable; IE, while some are certainly reasonable, others may be expectations or habits from the past that don't necessarily translate to the present.

For instance, the sharing item is something that was done with printed books, but that does not have to be a component of ebooks, being that ebooks aren't physical products.

Other items listed are too open to interpretation to be useful parameters (How much is "reasonable" to you? How much "hassle" is too much for you?).

These qualities cannot be listed as some kind of "minimum requirement" to avoid piracy, since too many of the points are too nebulous, and essentially leave anyone open to declare a right to piracy if any one of these items doesn't satisfy them sufficiently ("the book was fifty cents too much... I'm stealing it").

The list of elements that satisfy the majority of the public must be more concrete, and the rest of the public should be made to understand that this applies to everyone. If extra dispensations can't be made for an individual, that's great; but it shouldn't be considered a requirement to doing business, nor to avoid being stolen from.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Doesn't expecting a product to be available immediately qualify as the sense of entitlement mentioned at the jump?

Yeah, it can be framed that way. To me, the term "entitlement" carries a connotation of the consumer feeling that he or she has done something requiring someone else to behave in a particular way.

My point is that there's another way to frame it, which is that it is not the consumer's sense of entitlement that gives rise the expectation that the product be available immediately. It is that "immediate availablity" is inherent in the nature of the digital environment. You turn on your computer or phone and the internet is immediately available. You want an answer to a question, and the internet makes it immediately available. Etc & etc.

We all know that if a book or movie or cd is created these days, there's a digital version. And most of the time, that digital version is or could be made available right away. So to the digital consumer, that's a normal and reasonable expectation of the way the digital marketplace functions, not a "sense of entitlement."

To the digital consumer, failing to sell a downloadable version of a movie when it's released to the theatres is an attempt by the producers to keep doing things the way they used to be done. It goes against the nature of the digital environment.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Harmon

To the digital consumer, failing to sell a downloadable version of a movie when it's released to the theatres is an attempt by the producers to keep doing things the way they used to be done. It goes against the nature of the digital environment.

Is waiting too much to ask for? Sounds like very little to demand of consumers.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Is waiting too much to ask for? Sounds like very little to demand of consumers.

Sure, why not? The disabled people can just sit at the back of the bus like good, quiet little children while those privileged with able bodies can continue to get everything whenever they want.

Not that I'm bitter that several wonderful people in my life will essentially never be able to watch "Wicked" or anything.

(Or possibly you're not the best judge of what is and is not "very little to demand" of everyone on earth. No offense. )

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Yeah, it can be framed that way. To me, the term "entitlement" carries a connotation of the consumer feeling that he or she has done something requiring someone else to behave in a particular way.

My point is that there's another way to frame it, which is that it is not the consumer's sense of entitlement that gives rise the expectation that the product be available immediately. It is that "immediate availablity" is inherent in the nature of the digital environment. You turn on your computer or phone and the internet is immediately available. You want an answer to a question, and the internet makes it immediately available. Etc & etc.

We all know that if a book or movie or cd is created these days, there's a digital version. And most of the time, that digital version is or could be made available right away. So to the digital consumer, that's a normal and reasonable expectation of the way the digital marketplace functions, not a "sense of entitlement."

To the digital consumer, failing to sell a downloadable version of a movie when it's released to the theatres is an attempt by the producers to keep doing things the way they used to be done. It goes against the nature of the digital environment.

I mostly agree with this. If the digital version is not available at the same time as the non-digital version it is usually an indication that someone is trying to pull a fast-one. I perceive it as a money-grab. They are releasing the various products bit-by-bit in order to maximize their profits, and therefore take money out of our pockets. If they release the paperback version but wait on the ebook version for 6-months it is not "entitlement" to seek the ebook version right away. It is the consumers right to read the book on paper or on glass as they see fit, not the publishers/authors.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Sure, why not? The disabled people can just sit at the back of the bus like good, quiet little children while those privileged with able bodies can continue to get everything whenever they want.

Not that I'm bitter that several wonderful people in my life will essentially never be able to watch "Wicked" or anything.

(Or possibly you're not the best judge of what is and is not "very little to demand" of everyone on earth. No offense. )

You're not owed entertainment. And if you're waiting for everything in life to cater to you you'll find it very disappointing.

[Harmon]

[QUOTE=Steven Lyle Jordan;1946447]

For instance, the sharing item is something that was done with printed books, but that does not have to be a component of ebooks, being that ebooks aren't physical products.

That's certainly logical, but it doesn't seem to be the way people think about ebooks. The notion of "passing the book along" seems to still exist in the ebook world - the only new thing being, perhaps, time compression, to the point where several people are reading the "same" ebook at the same time.

I think that this does result, to some extent, from the legacy of paperbook reading, but I also think that it is somehow related to the way several people can use the same copy of a computer program at the same time.

Other items listed are too open to interpretation to be useful parameters (How much is "reasonable" to you? How much "hassle" is too much for you?).

That goes off on the wrong tangent. The questions are legitimate, but irrelevant to the point that people do make judgments involving reasonableness and the degree of hassle, and these judgements impact their behavior. The easier the legitimate market is to use, and the lower the prices, the less the black market will be used.

These qualities cannot be listed as some kind of "minimum requirement" to avoid piracy, since too many of the points are too nebulous, and essentially leave anyone open to declare a right to piracy if any one of these items doesn't satisfy them sufficiently ("the book was fifty cents too much... I'm stealing it").

I think that this has more to do with approaching the issue from different viewpoints. Sort of like the difference between "descriptivists" and "prescriptionists" in using language.

I'm merely saying that publishers who fail to consider and react to these expectations will find that the extent of piracy of their books is greater than it otherwise would be.

The list of elements that satisfy the majority of the public must be more concrete, and the rest of the public should be made to understand that this applies to everyone. If extra dispensations can't be made for an individual, that's great; but it shouldn't be considered a requirement to doing business, nor to avoid being stolen from.

It is the business of people who are selling things to understand what makes people buy the things they are selling. Trying to fence out people's alternatives, rather than making what you sell desireable to the consumer, does not seem to me to be a viable business strategy in the long run.

The entire game plan of most large organizations dealing with copyrightable products seems to be be centered on preserving the way things used to be done, rather than adapting to the inevitable changes to the old ways that result from the corrossive and disruptive effects of the digital world.

[Crusader]

Great discussion going on here. What stood out for me in the original blog post (and which I found sobering) was that I had never thought about the fact that sales figures are used to decide whether an author is signed for additional books. It's something so simple, yet it never crossed my mind.

I also think that "the sense of entitlement" he refers to is the fact that people feel the right to grab that pirated copy since it's their due for some reason. I've seen the same attitude from people demanding you give them something simply because they want it and view it as their "right" to get what they want.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by sbroome

You're not owed entertainment. And if you're waiting for everything in life to cater to you you'll find it very disappointing.

Yes, as a person with a disability, I definitely sit around waiting for everything in life to cater to me. LOL.

You asked why a consumer wouldn't be willing to wait. I told you why that's not fair for a huge segment to the populace. If your position is that disabled people should just suck it, then YOU are the one with the entitlement complex, not I.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Yes, as a person with a disability, I definitely sit around waiting for everything in life to cater to me. LOL.

You asked why a consumer wouldn't be willing to wait. I told you why that's not fair for a huge segment to the populace. If your position is that disabled people should just suck it, then YOU are the one with the entitlement complex, not I.

If you're not the primary target for an establishment or product then whining about it not catering to your group doesn't really make any sense.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by sbroome

If you're not the primary target for an establishment or product then whining about it not catering to your group doesn't really make any sense.

Wow, did you really just say that?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by sbroome

If you're not the primary target for an establishment or product then whining about it not catering to your group doesn't really make any sense.

No? I would buy a dozen copies of the official Wicked DVD tomorrow if it existed, but the people who own the property are steadfast in their refusal to make a digital edition.

Almost like those publishers who don't want to release ebooks. Which is what we were talking about: the pirating of property where an official digital version can't be had for any money.

You seem to be approaching the conversation from the opinion that a digital version is always available! As long as people wait a month or two! No longer than that, surely! I'm telling you that (a) that isn't true and (b) even if it is true, it unfairly discriminates against those to whom the digital edition is the ONLY approachable source.

It's okay for you to hold the position that people with disabilities should always be the last to sample books after the publishers have milked the hardcover version for all its worth, but don't tell me that a disabled person wanting to keep up with society the only way they can is "entitled" or uppity.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Wow, did you really just say that?

Thanks. I'd give you karma but apparently I'm out for the day.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

No? I would buy a dozen copies of the official Wicked DVD tomorrow if it existed, but the people who own the property are steadfast in their refusal to make a digital edition.

Almost like those publishers who don't want to release ebooks. Which is what we were talking about: the pirating of property where an official digital version can't be had for any money.

You seem to be approaching the conversation from the opinion that a digital version is always available! As long as people wait a month or two! No longer than that, surely! I'm telling you that (a) that isn't true and (b) even if it is true, it unfairly discriminates against those to whom the digital edition is the ONLY approachable source.

And you seem to be approaching the conversation from the perspective that being denied an official Wicked DVD has some kind of significant impact on your life. If it does, it shouldn't. As I've said repeatedly if you own it in another format I don't consider it piracy to make a digital version on your own. And what was being discussed was the demand for "immediacy".

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by sbroome

And you seem to be approaching the conversation from the perspective that being denied an official Wicked DVD has some kind of significant impact on your life. If it does, it shouldn't. As I've said repeatedly if you own it in another format I don't consider it piracy to make a digital version on your own. And what was being discussed was the demand for "immediacy".

Well, for one, it's impossible to legitimately own a visual performance of Wicked in ANY format. The bootleg recordings are the only versions. Hence the relevance to the discussion. This isn't about format-shifting.

And, yes, I do consider the denial of that service to be a significant impact on people's lives. It's a beautiful and moving piece of work that has had tremendous impact on many people. We cannot simultaneously claim on this board that art is so meaningful that authors MUST be cultivated (and to do otherwise would detriment society) and so meaningless that when an edition is denied to the disabled then they have lost nothing.

Art is either valuable or valueless. We cannot simultaneously hold that it is both.