What media companies don't want us to realize

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

You are right, of course. The "apples vs oranges" problem lies in the strange logic that media companies are trying to force on us. Example: if I don't buy a ticket to a show, but someone who goes to the show leaves a door open and I peer inside and see the show nonetheless, it would be ludicrous if the owner tries to sue me for theft (or copyright violation). Yet, this is exactly what happens if someone gets illegally distributed content.

So you think getting a perfect copy of content via illegal means is the equivalent of getting a debased version of a show by peaking around a door-frame? Well, now I'm convinced.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

So you think getting a perfect copy of content via illegal means is the equivalent of getting a debased version of a show by peaking around a door-frame? Well, now I'm convinced.

No. It was what is currently called "just an example". You can't usually draw perfect analogies between different contexts, you know.
That said, the analogy in this case is pretty close. Illegally distributed content is often lower-quality in comparison to the official version (say, an MP3 -i.e. lossy compressed- version of a CD, or lower-resolution video).

Can we please stick to debating the concepts, or -this is what I was hoping for by setting up this thread- on alternative and better proposals than the one I put forward? Instead of concentrating on minutiae? Thanks.

[Giggleton]

When google created their android market they had a 24 hour refund policy in place, meaning any app you bought could be returned within that window for a refund if you "disliked" the app, this window was later shortened to 15 minutes amidst developer lamentation. The window is probably gone now.

The idea could be improved upon of course. Instead of an artificial real time window, the time you are given to return a digital file could be based on the length of time you actually use the file. For books this is simple, length of book divided by some average reading rate, if you read the book for longer than that, monies are deducted from your account and sent to the creator.

[carld]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

The way I perceive the situation, today we have the technological means to do new things that will benefit all of us (companies and consumers), but are trying to avoid change at all costs.

How does taking a creator's work without paying for it benefit the creator? It only benefits the person taking it.

If that's the change you mean, I'd like to avoid it too.

[BoldlyDubious]

Giggleton, your proposal is interesting. However, it would require some kind of verification of the "play time" on the side of the user. I was thinking of a predefined real-time window starting from the moment of purchase because in this way the content provider can be sure that the user can't circumvent the verification mechanism :-)

Of course, setting a general, fixed, real-time limit of 24 hours creates its own set of problems. For instance, I was forced to introduce an exemption for short-lifespan content (those which are usually played a single time, and have a duration well below 24 hours).
Your idea is certainly more sensible in principle, but I have doubts on its technical feasibility (read: prevention of workarounds).For instance, for movies you could be given a maximum of 15 minutes of playing time to decide if you like it or not; only if you stop playing within that limit, you can switch the movie for another one.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by carld

How does taking a creator's work without paying for it benefit the creator? It only benefits the person taking it.
If that's the change you mean, I'd like to avoid it too.

That's not the change I mean. The change I mean is this: if a mechanism for exchanging content that we find out we don't like (immediately) after purchase were in place, we users would be more adventurous in our purchases of content (knowing that we can't go wrong); we would spend more money over media content; and would be much more satisfied with our media collections than we are now. Media companies, on the other side, would increase their earnings thanks to the increase in purchases. The only problem they will have will be in selling bad-quality content.
As I already wrote, if over my life I were given the possibility to get a sample of *any* book or record of my choice before buying, I would probably live in a warehouse full of them by now!

Moreover, I suppose that some of the illegal downloads of today are due to people who don't want to risk spending their money on something that they don't know if they will like. This portion (I can't really estimate what it's worth) of "piracy" would vanish. I read that the strongest "downloaders" seem to be also strong buyers of media content: if that's true, maybe such portion is not negligible.

Finally: I think that an exchange scheme such as the one I'm proposing would make consumers satisfied, instead of disgruntled, with media companies. The possibility of feeling "cheated" because we have found out that we have purchased content we don't like (an experience that all of us know all too well...) would vanish. And satisfied consumers are much less liable to turn to piracy than disgruntled ones.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

No. It was what is currently called "just an example". You can't usually draw perfect analogies between different contexts, you know.
That said, the analogy in this case is pretty close. Illegally distributed content is often lower-quality in comparison to the official version (say, an MP3 -i.e. lossy compressed- version of a CD, or lower-resolution video).

Can we please stick to debating the concepts, or -this is what I was hoping for by setting up this thread- on alternative and better proposals than the one I put forward? Instead of concentrating on minutiae? Thanks.

To answer your rhetorical question in your 2nd last sentence, no. No I cannot.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by carld

How does taking a creator's work without paying for it benefit the creator? It only benefits the person taking it.
If that's the change you mean, I'd like to avoid it too.

That's not the change I mean. The change I mean is this: if a mechanism for exchanging content that we find out we don't like (immediately) after purchase were in place, we users would be more adventurous in our purchases of content (knowing that we can't go wrong); we would spend more money over media content; and would be much more satisfied with our media collections than we are now. Media companies, on the other side, would increase their earnings thanks to the increase in purchases. The only problem they will have will be in selling bad-quality content.
As I already wrote, if over my life I were given the possibility to get a sample of *any* book or record of my choice before buying, I would probably live in a warehouse full of them by now!

Moreover, I suppose that some of the illegal downloads of today are due to people who don't want to risk spending their money on something that they don't know if they will like. This portion (I can't really estimate what it's worth) of "piracy" would vanish. I read that the strongest "downloaders" seem to be also strong buyers of media content: if that's true, maybe such portion is not negligible.

Finally: I think that an exchange scheme such as the one I'm proposing would make consumers satisfied, instead of disgruntled, with media companies. The possibility of feeling "cheated" because we have found out that we have purchased content we don't like (an experience that all of us know all too well...) would vanish. And satisfied consumers are much less liable to turn to piracy than disgruntled ones.

[elcreative]

Then you have the quality police deciding what is good to read... and my choices are almost certainly not going to be yours...

[BoldlyDubious]

The quality police??? (perplexed)

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Giggleton, your proposal is interesting. However, it would require some kind of verification of the "play time" on the side of the user. I was thinking of a predefined real-time window starting from the moment of purchase because in this way the content provider can be sure that the user can't circumvent the verification mechanism :-)

Yes it would, internet 2.0. All devices connected to the network contain internal video cameras and microphones for tracking purposes.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes it would, internet 2.0. All devices connected to the network contain internal video cameras and microphones for tracking purposes.

Yikes! :-)

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes it would, internet 2.0. All devices connected to the network contain internal video cameras and microphones for tracking purposes.

Until I disconnect them. Your Internet 2.0 idea would never be adopted.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Until I disconnect them. Your Internet 2.0 idea would never be adopted.

If the default is set to TRACK, we can assume that 99% of users will leave it on. We are just about there anyway...

[DiapDealer]

If the default is set to TRACK, we can assume that 99% of users will leave it on. We are just about there anyway...

You know what they say about assuming.