"Smart business people should always be asking what they can do to get more customers." Or customers to pay more or buy more. (Not criticizing, just expanding.)
Problem is, that's what they think they're doing. They think that they can force customers to spend more money by threatening to beat them up if they don't. They're trying to convert "people who like our stuff but aren't paying for it" into "people who are buying our stuff" by force.
The old business model isn't working any more, but the old businessmen are afraid of change. So they grab the nearest hammer and start playing whack-a-mole on the square pegs to fit them back into round holes.
And thus do I mix metaphors with a runcible spoon.
"When your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a mole." Or something like that.
Forcing? No. But people, like electrons, will take the path of least resistance. Oh, and water. Um, most things, really.
So Hollywood may not have FORCED people to download illegally, but they've stacked the deck so as to strongly encourage it. And from actions come consequences; choose to exploit and alienate your customer base and they will find ways around it.
A friend of mine -- big black guy named Lee -- once (on a dare) walked into a redneck bar and yelled "Who wants a piece of me?" or some such, probably adding racial slurs into the mix.
I know he made it out alive because he told me the story.
But whose fault was it that he was attacked by a mob? You could cite the personal decision of each and every person who threw a punch and claim virtuously "That person was wrong to do that". But Lee walked in there and threw the challenge specifically knowing that he was going to get into a fight, and that the odds were not in his favor. Having chosen his action, he also chose the consequences of that action. Blaming the rednecks does not change the fact that he deliberately placed himself in harm's way.
There's another saying that you can find posted on signs at any zoo: "Don't tease the animals".
The RIAA and MPAA et. al. could turn this into a fortune and make everybody happy. Instead they have chosen to turn this into a fight, harm their customer base and ultimately themselves. Bodies strewn all over the landscape.
I prefer to buy content for all the reasons previously mentioned, many times over the years:
- In the case of music and movies, you get all the liner notes, nice professional case and silkscreened medium, and so on. The medium is likely to last longer, too.
- If it's software I can usually get support.
- The quality of downloads is often compromised in the case of A/V. Compressing the snot out of the files makes the files nice and small, but they're lossy compression techniques. The result looks or sounds crappy.
- Any time you download illegally you take a chance on getting something that doesn't work, that's not what it says on the label, that contains malware. Yes, I realize that's possible buying legitimately, too, but much less likely.
And last but not least:
- If it's worth using, it's worth supporting. If somebody makes something I enjoy I prefer to encourage them to make more. Call it enlightened self-interest.
The lot of you should take a few hours off and watch James Burke's series "Connections". (The first one.) It shows, again and again, how interconnected are some of the most important inventions of our time. He doesn't actually say but I rather doubt most of them were patented. And yet people went ahead and borrowed each others' ideas, synthesized, created, discovered, and invented to their hearts' content.
And always remember: the patent system came out of the practice of inventing things, not the other way 'round. Seems to me that this fact on its own pretty well debunks the myth that patents are necessary for innovation, a cart-before-the-horse problem.
I don't necessarily think that we should eliminate IP protection altogether, but it needs to be set to reasonable terms. Lifetime plus 70 years doesn't benefit the author, it doesn't benefit the author's heirs, it benefits Disney.
@martyinarizona: "Do you want some beaurocrat reviewing your erectile dysfunction? He/she will probably send you a popsicle stick and a roll of duct tape."
Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah! *snerk* Have you looked around lately? Tried to use health insurance? We already HAVE that. Only it's the health insurance company that's doing it, and they're trying to maximize their profits at your expense. It's probably not even a bureaucrat, it's probably a clerk ticking off boxes on a form.
Everybody hates our health insurance system but nobody actually wants to try something different. All you can say is "It's socialism! Ewww, don't get any on me!"
America's motto: "If that doesn't work, try more of the same."
Oh, and I don't have erectile dysfunction, but thanks for your concern. Are you the person sending me all that spam? Anyway, why should I care if some faceless person somewhere knows that somebody he's never met has some medical problem? Or do you imagine your insurance company doesn't know about your erectile dysfunction? Is it OK that they do as long as it's not a government bureaucrat?
"Has there been any trustworthy evidence put forth showing how many people who download copyrighted material will actually go out and purchase it if they cannot get it for free?"
Eric claims that a lot of people buy the products AFTER DOWNLOADING THEM legally and for free. Not just other books by the same author, but the same books they've already downloaded. Others buy the books instead of the online versions even when the latter are given away. And some authors have claimed increased interest in their backlist. Including books with other publishers.
"Because....its TECHNOLOGY! See, talking to a person sitting next to you, someone who can point, nudge, or otherwise distract you in a very literal way, is not NEARLY as HORRIBLE as that devious and evil device...the CELL PHONE."
Don't be ridiculous. It takes a lot more of your focus and concentration to talk on a cell phone than to talk to somebody next to you. And if my passenger starts poking me while I'm driving they can freakin' walk home. I may even stop the car before I let them out, aren't I nice?
"Don't you mean 'the author and his decedents (who had nothing to do with the original works) get the sole right to use the material as they see fit?'"
It's not the author, it's the copyright owner. If they happen to be the same, sure. But who owns the copyrights to Disney movies? Why, the Disney company, of course. The author and his or her descendants won't see a plugged nickle past whatever is in their contract.
...Depends on the movie, of course, but I think you get the idea.
Same with music: the typical contract gives the rights to ASCAP or something. The artist collects money until his contract is up, if he's lucky. But somebody else owns the copyright and gets to collect if the recording keeps selling.
Always keep that in mind, especially when arguing the pros and cons of extended copyright. Who benefits? The copyright owner -- who is NOT necessarily the author or heirs.
"As for the mentioning of a business name; it is similar to slander, you cannot publish that Coca-cola is made with harmful ingredient X when it is not."
But that doesn't prohibit you from merely mentioning a name. If the urinal photos were taken at a particular airport, simply saying they were is merely truthful.
(BTW, your example would be libel, not slander. JTFR.)
First of all, to anybody kvetching about "proof", he didn't say anything proves anything. He said it "disproves". Disproof of one thing isn't the same as proof of another, even an opposite.
Second, I'd like to point out a site that has taken a stance on free IP: http://www.baen.com/library
Plenty of authors have tried it -- and seen their back listings take on new life. Some people even buy some of the books that are available on that site, for free, in several common formats, not encumbered by DRM, registration not required.
To me it's fascinating to read the editorials, especially the last Prime Palaver (#11) by Janis Ian, somebody who is also in the music business. You can also read it at http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html if you'd rather.
Depends on what it's for. If its purpose is to keep people from playing who aren't properly licensed, it's a form of DRM, even if it's not called that. If its purpose is ONLY to prevent cheating at the game, then it's not. No reason it can't be both, though. Valve reserves the right to cancel my account if I'm caught cheating, for example.
But if it accomplishes the former, and you think it's not DRM just because it isn't called DRM, or because it also has other functions, I think you're being naive.
A lot of people don't like Steam, and they have good reasons.
Contrariwise, while I can't comment on your particular situation, I have to say that I've re-installed Steam on several computers over the years and never had any real problems with the licensing. Or the DRM if you prefer.
If I had to guess, I'd guess that you're trying to re-license the current version, unaware that once licensed, you only need your account and password. Throw your old computer into the trash, install Windoze on a new computer, install Steam, give it your old account and password and it will remember who you are and what games you've purchased and will download the content for those games from their server. The only thing you'll lose is your settings. Obviously you can keep those by copying your old files over (assuming you still have them or took care to back them up).
When I bought HL2 on disc it integrated it with my current license (after asking), then the same when I bought The Orange Box (I think I did that online) it did the same, and even knows I have a spare copy of HL2 and will let me give it to somebody else.
No scheme is ever perfect, but Valve has done a lot to make Steam as painless as possible. Personally I think they've done a good job, and while I'd prefer DRM didn't exist at all, Steam is a decent job.
Sorry if your experience was a bad one. Personally I suggest you give it another try; even if you've lost your login information, the original key should let customer service help you recover your account.
MHO, YMMV, not affiliated in any way except as a more-or-less satisfied customer, etc.
... But I notice despite the title of your comment, you propose no rational solution, nor in fact any solution. All you do is rant against the current moral ambiguity.
Which is fine, but you seem to prefer the solution of passing laws and enforcing them. Nice and easy, but it doesn't actually solve any problems, does it? It just puts the government in charge of protecting the IP holders' revenue streams and current business practices while inconveniencing their customers and alienating potential customers. Not to mention throwing more people in jail.
What's that? Fines? No, that's for civil offenses. The gummint prefers to throw you in a cage for criminal offenses, and that's what this becomes if you get them to start passing laws. Obviously stealing music and movies is criminal.
Not to mention that this starts costing tax dollars for prosecuting and jailing all those people.
Hah hah. See what you've done? By not actually proposing a solution of your own, or even a suggestion, you've got me a) making straw-man arguments and b) doing exactly what you did, ranting against one position without proposing an alternate solution.
Of course, being a typical American I blame you rather than taking personal responsibility. Just like the RIAA and MPAA which would rather blame the customers for their failing business model rather than take responsibility and change with the times. Tee hee! Snuck that one in there with an analogy!
My proposal? I don't know, really. It seems to me that there has to be a way to leverage the networking system. And in fact there's plenty of evidence to show that sharing free content actually increases sales. (Read Prime Palaver at http://www.baen.com/library, for example.) So instead of forbidding all copying and trying to either sue, prosecute or both everybody who dares to make an unauthorized copy of something copyrighted.
Guess what? Yes, I'm proposing (as many wiser heads have done before me) that they actually embrace file sharing and use it as a tool.
For one thing, they're not going to stop it. They just AREN'T. The genie is out of the bottle. The only way to re-can a can of worms is to use a bigger can. When people want to do something, they'll do it; the prohibition proved that, the war on drugs is proving that, and we're too stupid to learn from the past or we wouldn't still be proving it.
OK, I'm finished ranting. Let's hear your rational solution. I'm all ears.
"I've been in the cockpit behind the stick of many 727's, 737's, 757's and MD-88's directing that pushback with all the comms active and my cellphone did the same thing to those systems that it does to your PC speakers when it rang."
Of course, the article is about etiquette, not about technical problems, as stated in the last paragraph. But even so, a) the picocell should take care of that and b) as far as I know, most cellphone-wielding passengers are not in the cockpit. Proximity is a factor. (Remember the inverse squared law.)
When I text while walking I always pause at the street corners and check the traffic before I cross.
It's called "awareness of your surroundings." Or maybe it's called "priorities." Or maybe it's "I'm an old fart who didn't get that way by ignoring hurtling hunks of glass and metal."
Or maybe I'm just smart. There's always room for doubt on that last one but hey, I'm still here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
"Smart business people should always be asking what they can do to get more customers." Or customers to pay more or buy more. (Not criticizing, just expanding.)
Problem is, that's what they think they're doing. They think that they can force customers to spend more money by threatening to beat them up if they don't. They're trying to convert "people who like our stuff but aren't paying for it" into "people who are buying our stuff" by force.
The old business model isn't working any more, but the old businessmen are afraid of change. So they grab the nearest hammer and start playing whack-a-mole on the square pegs to fit them back into round holes.
And thus do I mix metaphors with a runcible spoon.
"When your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a mole." Or something like that.
Re: Re: IANAL
We've already seen with the RIAA cases and with the European ACS:Law cases that many innocent users get snared with these letters.
Oh come on, Mike. Get real. That laserjet was guilty and you know it!
Re: Re: Wrong...
Forcing? No. But people, like electrons, will take the path of least resistance. Oh, and water. Um, most things, really.
So Hollywood may not have FORCED people to download illegally, but they've stacked the deck so as to strongly encourage it. And from actions come consequences; choose to exploit and alienate your customer base and they will find ways around it.
A friend of mine -- big black guy named Lee -- once (on a dare) walked into a redneck bar and yelled "Who wants a piece of me?" or some such, probably adding racial slurs into the mix.
I know he made it out alive because he told me the story.
But whose fault was it that he was attacked by a mob? You could cite the personal decision of each and every person who threw a punch and claim virtuously "That person was wrong to do that". But Lee walked in there and threw the challenge specifically knowing that he was going to get into a fight, and that the odds were not in his favor. Having chosen his action, he also chose the consequences of that action. Blaming the rednecks does not change the fact that he deliberately placed himself in harm's way.
There's another saying that you can find posted on signs at any zoo: "Don't tease the animals".
The RIAA and MPAA et. al. could turn this into a fortune and make everybody happy. Instead they have chosen to turn this into a fight, harm their customer base and ultimately themselves. Bodies strewn all over the landscape.
It's testosterone time at the local redneck bar.
Why buy when you can download?
I prefer to buy content for all the reasons previously mentioned, many times over the years:
- In the case of music and movies, you get all the liner notes, nice professional case and silkscreened medium, and so on. The medium is likely to last longer, too.
- If it's software I can usually get support.
- The quality of downloads is often compromised in the case of A/V. Compressing the snot out of the files makes the files nice and small, but they're lossy compression techniques. The result looks or sounds crappy.
- Any time you download illegally you take a chance on getting something that doesn't work, that's not what it says on the label, that contains malware. Yes, I realize that's possible buying legitimately, too, but much less likely.
And last but not least:
- If it's worth using, it's worth supporting. If somebody makes something I enjoy I prefer to encourage them to make more. Call it enlightened self-interest.
IP protection vs. innovation
The lot of you should take a few hours off and watch James Burke's series "Connections". (The first one.) It shows, again and again, how interconnected are some of the most important inventions of our time. He doesn't actually say but I rather doubt most of them were patented. And yet people went ahead and borrowed each others' ideas, synthesized, created, discovered, and invented to their hearts' content.
And always remember: the patent system came out of the practice of inventing things, not the other way 'round. Seems to me that this fact on its own pretty well debunks the myth that patents are necessary for innovation, a cart-before-the-horse problem.
I don't necessarily think that we should eliminate IP protection altogether, but it needs to be set to reasonable terms. Lifetime plus 70 years doesn't benefit the author, it doesn't benefit the author's heirs, it benefits Disney.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Israel
Because Microsoft is a corporation, it is not society, and is more interested in making profits than in benefiting mankind.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
Re: Re: Re: socialist state
@martyinarizona: "Do you want some beaurocrat reviewing your erectile dysfunction? He/she will probably send you a popsicle stick and a roll of duct tape."
Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah! *snerk* Have you looked around lately? Tried to use health insurance? We already HAVE that. Only it's the health insurance company that's doing it, and they're trying to maximize their profits at your expense. It's probably not even a bureaucrat, it's probably a clerk ticking off boxes on a form.
Everybody hates our health insurance system but nobody actually wants to try something different. All you can say is "It's socialism! Ewww, don't get any on me!"
America's motto: "If that doesn't work, try more of the same."
Oh, and I don't have erectile dysfunction, but thanks for your concern. Are you the person sending me all that spam? Anyway, why should I care if some faceless person somewhere knows that somebody he's never met has some medical problem? Or do you imagine your insurance company doesn't know about your erectile dysfunction? Is it OK that they do as long as it's not a government bureaucrat?
Core part of the Internet?
Heck, it's a core part of networking. In fact, I'd have to say that sharing information between computers is what networking is.
Re: Wondering
"Has there been any trustworthy evidence put forth showing how many people who download copyrighted material will actually go out and purchase it if they cannot get it for free?"
I'll do you one better.
Baen Free Library
Eric claims that a lot of people buy the products AFTER DOWNLOADING THEM legally and for free. Not just other books by the same author, but the same books they've already downloaded. Others buy the books instead of the online versions even when the latter are given away. And some authors have claimed increased interest in their backlist. Including books with other publishers.
THE INTERNET DEBACLE - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW
The online versions are professionally prepared, available in several common formats, and totally DRM- and encryption-free.
Re: Obvious, really...
"Because....its TECHNOLOGY! See, talking to a person sitting next to you, someone who can point, nudge, or otherwise distract you in a very literal way, is not NEARLY as HORRIBLE as that devious and evil device...the CELL PHONE."
Don't be ridiculous. It takes a lot more of your focus and concentration to talk on a cell phone than to talk to somebody next to you. And if my passenger starts poking me while I'm driving they can freakin' walk home. I may even stop the car before I let them out, aren't I nice?
Re: Re:
"Don't you mean 'the author and his decedents (who had nothing to do with the original works) get the sole right to use the material as they see fit?'"
It's not the author, it's the copyright owner. If they happen to be the same, sure. But who owns the copyrights to Disney movies? Why, the Disney company, of course. The author and his or her descendants won't see a plugged nickle past whatever is in their contract.
...Depends on the movie, of course, but I think you get the idea.
Same with music: the typical contract gives the rights to ASCAP or something. The artist collects money until his contract is up, if he's lucky. But somebody else owns the copyright and gets to collect if the recording keeps selling.
Always keep that in mind, especially when arguing the pros and cons of extended copyright. Who benefits? The copyright owner -- who is NOT necessarily the author or heirs.
Re: Time to throw a wrench into the works.
You've just contradicted yourself. That's a perfect example of the consumer paying indirectly.
Re: No Subject Given
"As for the mentioning of a business name; it is similar to slander, you cannot publish that Coca-cola is made with harmful ingredient X when it is not."
But that doesn't prohibit you from merely mentioning a name. If the urinal photos were taken at a particular airport, simply saying they were is merely truthful.
(BTW, your example would be libel, not slander. JTFR.)
Bah
First of all, to anybody kvetching about "proof", he didn't say anything proves anything. He said it "disproves". Disproof of one thing isn't the same as proof of another, even an opposite.
Second, I'd like to point out a site that has taken a stance on free IP: http://www.baen.com/library
Plenty of authors have tried it -- and seen their back listings take on new life. Some people even buy some of the books that are available on that site, for free, in several common formats, not encumbered by DRM, registration not required.
To me it's fascinating to read the editorials, especially the last Prime Palaver (#11) by Janis Ian, somebody who is also in the music business. You can also read it at http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html if you'd rather.
Not DRM
Depends on what it's for. If its purpose is to keep people from playing who aren't properly licensed, it's a form of DRM, even if it's not called that. If its purpose is ONLY to prevent cheating at the game, then it's not. No reason it can't be both, though. Valve reserves the right to cancel my account if I'm caught cheating, for example.
But if it accomplishes the former, and you think it's not DRM just because it isn't called DRM, or because it also has other functions, I think you're being naive.
Re: DRM
A lot of people don't like Steam, and they have good reasons.
Contrariwise, while I can't comment on your particular situation, I have to say that I've re-installed Steam on several computers over the years and never had any real problems with the licensing. Or the DRM if you prefer.
If I had to guess, I'd guess that you're trying to re-license the current version, unaware that once licensed, you only need your account and password. Throw your old computer into the trash, install Windoze on a new computer, install Steam, give it your old account and password and it will remember who you are and what games you've purchased and will download the content for those games from their server. The only thing you'll lose is your settings. Obviously you can keep those by copying your old files over (assuming you still have them or took care to back them up).
When I bought HL2 on disc it integrated it with my current license (after asking), then the same when I bought The Orange Box (I think I did that online) it did the same, and even knows I have a spare copy of HL2 and will let me give it to somebody else.
No scheme is ever perfect, but Valve has done a lot to make Steam as painless as possible. Personally I think they've done a good job, and while I'd prefer DRM didn't exist at all, Steam is a decent job.
Sorry if your experience was a bad one. Personally I suggest you give it another try; even if you've lost your login information, the original key should let customer service help you recover your account.
MHO, YMMV, not affiliated in any way except as a more-or-less satisfied customer, etc.
Re: Rational solution......
... But I notice despite the title of your comment, you propose no rational solution, nor in fact any solution. All you do is rant against the current moral ambiguity.
Which is fine, but you seem to prefer the solution of passing laws and enforcing them. Nice and easy, but it doesn't actually solve any problems, does it? It just puts the government in charge of protecting the IP holders' revenue streams and current business practices while inconveniencing their customers and alienating potential customers. Not to mention throwing more people in jail.
What's that? Fines? No, that's for civil offenses. The gummint prefers to throw you in a cage for criminal offenses, and that's what this becomes if you get them to start passing laws. Obviously stealing music and movies is criminal.
Not to mention that this starts costing tax dollars for prosecuting and jailing all those people.
Hah hah. See what you've done? By not actually proposing a solution of your own, or even a suggestion, you've got me a) making straw-man arguments and b) doing exactly what you did, ranting against one position without proposing an alternate solution.
Of course, being a typical American I blame you rather than taking personal responsibility. Just like the RIAA and MPAA which would rather blame the customers for their failing business model rather than take responsibility and change with the times. Tee hee! Snuck that one in there with an analogy!
My proposal? I don't know, really. It seems to me that there has to be a way to leverage the networking system. And in fact there's plenty of evidence to show that sharing free content actually increases sales. (Read Prime Palaver at http://www.baen.com/library, for example.) So instead of forbidding all copying and trying to either sue, prosecute or both everybody who dares to make an unauthorized copy of something copyrighted.
Guess what? Yes, I'm proposing (as many wiser heads have done before me) that they actually embrace file sharing and use it as a tool.
For one thing, they're not going to stop it. They just AREN'T. The genie is out of the bottle. The only way to re-can a can of worms is to use a bigger can. When people want to do something, they'll do it; the prohibition proved that, the war on drugs is proving that, and we're too stupid to learn from the past or we wouldn't still be proving it.
OK, I'm finished ranting. Let's hear your rational solution. I'm all ears.
Re: Re: it could be a problem
"I've been in the cockpit behind the stick of many 727's, 737's, 757's and MD-88's directing that pushback with all the comms active and my cellphone did the same thing to those systems that it does to your PC speakers when it rang." Of course, the article is about etiquette, not about technical problems, as stated in the last paragraph. But even so, a) the picocell should take care of that and b) as far as I know, most cellphone-wielding passengers are not in the cockpit. Proximity is a factor. (Remember the inverse squared law.)
Think of it as evolution in action
When I text while walking I always pause at the street corners and check the traffic before I cross.
It's called "awareness of your surroundings." Or maybe it's called "priorities." Or maybe it's "I'm an old fart who didn't get that way by ignoring hurtling hunks of glass and metal."
Or maybe I'm just smart. There's always room for doubt on that last one but hey, I'm still here.