The culture of entitlement and illegal downloads

[Dulin's Books]

i very much enjoyed the musical when my wife and i saw it last year or 2 years ago. I had no idea it was a book before that, i thought it started as a musical.

Im sorry that you or people you know are not able to go see it in a theater and that a dvd version is not available to you yet.

However accusing anyone(read: me) of being mean to a disabled person because I believe you should wait to get a legitimate copy of the move/musical instead of obtaining a pirate version, is just wrong. there are other things to watch of better or worse merit than Wicked.

suggesting that anyone should have to produce one for you on demand is ridiculous. If you asked and they do thats a nice thing. If you ask and they dont, oh well. watch something else

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

if they want to engage in negotiations with the original organization and come to terms with them then yes. if not, no. but then thats the way it is now.

We would eventually come to the beginning of creation yes? Who should we ask for the rights to alter the universe? It is probably simpler to allow everything. Remix/Mashup, everything is a legitimate construction of art.

"Those who ask for greater authority do not deserve to have it."

[QuantumIguana]

People have been complaining about the current generation for thousands of years. Complaining about "entitlement" is just more of the same nonsense. People aren't copying books because of a sense of entitlement, they are copying books because they can, and conversely, the reason people in the past didn't copy books was because they couldn't. It's like complaining about "narcissism".

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. They would have done the same thing in the past if it they had e-books. I suppose someone could mail cash to the author if they copy an e-book that is not available for sale. I'm not advocating piracy, I don't illegally copy books, but it is not do to entitlement.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

However accusing anyone(read: me) of being mean to a disabled person because I believe you should wait to get a legitimate copy of the move/musical instead of obtaining a pirate version, is just wrong. there are other things to watch of better or worse merit than Wicked.

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

And, yes, holding the position that disabled people shouldn't have access to media on the basis of their disability is an attitude of entitlement. I'm not saying you're "mean", but you are being remarkably (but not surprisingly, given the attitudes towards disabled people in our society) callous.

There may well be better things to watch than Wicked. But saying that disabled people shouldn't be allowed to make that choice for themselves is something, that, well, if you're going to feel that way, you should be willing to own that. And a lot of disabled people -- myself included -- aren't going to like you very much. Que sera sera.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

People have been complaining about the current generation for thousands of years. Complaining about "entitlement" is just more of the same nonsense. People aren't copying books because of a sense of entitlement, they are copying books because they can, and conversely, the reason people in the past didn't copy books was because they couldn't. It's like complaining about "narcissism".

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. They would have done the same thing in the past if it they had e-books. I suppose someone could mail cash to the author if they copy an e-book that is not available for sale. I'm not advocating piracy, I don't illegally copy books, but it is not do to entitlement.

Then why are they pirating music that's widely available already digitally from multiple sources?

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

However accusing anyone(read: me) of being mean to a disabled person because I believe you should wait to get a legitimate copy of the move/musical instead of obtaining a pirate version, is just wrong. there are other things to watch of better or worse merit than Wicked.

suggesting that anyone should have to produce one for you on demand is ridiculous. If you asked and they do thats a nice thing. If you ask and they dont, oh well. watch something else

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!"

people can't see the forest for the trees. ok the one specific thing you'll "die" if you don't have right this second is unavailable......but what about the 50 zillion things that ARE available?

over the years there have been hundreds of movies, games, etc that have been unavailable in america or i simply couldn't afford. yea they would have been awesome to have but i shrugged and moved on with my life. i don't care enough about them to go out of my way to pirate them, theres plenty of other stuff available to me.

collectively we need to get a bleeping grip, take a deep breath and realize that we're acting like children over amusements. we're losing our minds over books or movies. if people had 1 iota of this outrage and offense where it counts i.e. the political process, we'd live in a very different world.

in the end i ended up buying this guys book. it was only $3 and he has a free novella available so one can sample his writing and his "universe". he doesn't have to give anything away but he did. his book is also drm free. he couldn't have made it any less painless for his customers.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Where is that stated?

It's not something that is "stated." It's what is evident from the existence of the law itself. (Speaking here of US law.)

In the US, if there were no statutory enactment of copyright, copyright would not exist. Good statement in Wikipedia:

Common law copyright is the legal doctrine which contends that copyright is a natural right and creators are therefore entitled to the same protections anyone would be in regard to tangible and real property. The proponents of this doctrine contended that creators had a perpetual right to control the publication of their work (also see perpetual copyright).

The doctrine was repudiated by the courts in the United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett, 1774) and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834). In both countries, the courts found that copyright is a limited right created by the legislature under statutes and subject to the conditions and terms the legislature sees fit to impose.

So copyright holders in the US own ONLY what the legislature grants.

And there are other statutory enactments that specifically deal with disabilities:

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Title III, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647, 2807 (amending section 121, title 17, United States Code, to further expand authorized reproduction of copyrighted works for the blind or people with other disabilities), enacted December 3, 2004.

Given our increasing concern with the treatment of disabled people in this country, it's pretty evident that it's entirely reasonable to expect copyright holders to address the needs of disabled people. Remember the objections that arose when Amazon wanted to get Kindles into universities, over the text-to-speech capabilities of the Kindle DX? That was premised on the idea that the Kindles weren't being made available to the blind when they lacked those capabilities.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

we're losing our minds over books or movies. if people had 1 iota of this outrage and offense where it counts i.e. the political process, we'd live in a very different world.

If we're going to start slinging around the Fallacy Of More Important Things In Life, that's a nuke button for all sides of this argument.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Heh.

And in other news, all those kids should get off my lawn.

See, if you had a digital lawn, this would not be a problem. You could just download a new one whenever you wanted. Of course, if you get one from a pirate site, it might have crabgrass...

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Then why are they pirating music that's widely available already digitally from multiple sources?

That has nothing to do with anything that I said.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

who satisfies them WHEN the ladies say so. thats the entitlement again. I submit that it's not up to the ladies to decide "when" for all 7 of those. If all seven of those are not met WHEN the ladies feel they should be then the ladies should go read something else.

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

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That has nothing to do with anything that I said.

"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.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Given our increasing concern with the treatment of disabled people in this country, it's pretty evident that it's entirely reasonable to expect copyright holders to address the needs of disabled people. Remember the objections that arose when Amazon wanted to get Kindles into universities, over the text-to-speech capabilities of the Kindle DX? That was premised on the idea that the Kindles weren't being made available to the blind when they lacked those capabilities.

Heck, I'd be grateful if more publishers fitted the DVD versions of their movies with subtitles. It's amazing how many modern movies still aren't. (Or at least LABEL stuff properly. There is at least one TV series out there that is labeled as subtitled, but isn't.)

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.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by sbroome

So if I look at pirated music in America the only things I'll see being pirated are albums and artists that people can't find legally?


http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/top-10-...torrent-today/

Of course not. And the reason is that the music industry did all the things necessary to maximize the likelihood that people would do filesharing to get music.

Notice that Spotify is just legalized Napster.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Harmon

It's not something that is "stated." It's what is evident from the existence of the law itself. (Speaking here of US law.)

In the US, if there were no statutory enactment of copyright, copyright would not exist. Good statement in Wikipedia:



So copyright holders in the US own ONLY what the legislature grants.

And there are other statutory enactments that specifically deal with disabilities:



Given our increasing concern with the treatment of disabled people in this country, it's pretty evident that it's entirely reasonable to expect copyright holders to address the needs of disabled people. Remember the objections that arose when Amazon wanted to get Kindles into universities, over the text-to-speech capabilities of the Kindle DX? That was premised on the idea that the Kindles weren't being made available to the blind when they lacked those capabilities.

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.