Author Topic: In a Godless society  (Read 8608 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #232 on: April 06, 2012, 01:09:25 PM »
How about this idea. Scrap the existing system and all patents, and implement a law like this:
Hmm...

Quote from: joebbowers
1. You can give away other's people's work for free, but you can not charge for it.
Well, there's already fair useWiki, i.e., you can make use of someone else's copyrighted work without paying for it, depending on several factors (the purpose of using it, the nature of the work being used, the amount of the work being used, and the effect of the use on the value of the work).  For example, if you're trying to stimulate creativity for the general public, that qualifies under fair use, but trying to make money off of it does not.  The problem with this idea is that it has the potential to dramatically affect (specifically, reduce) the value of the work you're giving away.

For example, say I'd purchased a brand-new, never before released game.  I really liked the game, and I wanted other people to play it, so I started making physical copies of the game and giving them away to all comers.  Now, it's true we can't tell how many of those people wouldn't have bought the game, but we can definitely say that some percentage of them would have if I hadn't been giving away free copies.  In other words, I'm directly hurting the sales of the game in my zeal to let people play it (the benefits of increased publicity on sales is negated because of the full and complete product that I'm giving away, meaning they don't have to buy it).  Now, let's say instead that I was able to make a short demo of the game and gave that away to anyone who asked.  Now I'm not hurting the sales of the game, because they aren't getting the whole game for free, just a small portion.  They can try the game out and see if they like it, but they can't just walk away with the game without paying for it.

In other words, I have no problem with making something available for free, provided you aren't giving the whole product away for free with no restrictions (unless the creator is okay with that; some are).

Quote from: joebbowers
2. You can charge for other people's work if you have significantly improved it in an obvious way. This would apply to medicine and technology, not entertainment products.
If you've significantly improved someone else's work, then it isn't entirely their work anymore.  Nonetheless, they laid the groundwork and they should get some of the profit you're making on the improved product, because the improved product wouldn't have existed without the original one having been made.

Quote from: joebbowers
3. You can charge for other people's work if even if you have not modified it if you give a percentage of your profit to the original creator. Something like 25% seems fair.
That's pretty much how it works today, except that you negotiate an agreement with the creator or their publisher in advance and pay them for the right to sell some number of copies, then you make your profit based on that.  So, provided you made a legal agreement with the creator first and negotiated a percentage of your profits that would go back to them, I'd have no real problems with this.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #233 on: April 07, 2012, 02:01:29 AM »
Abandon copyright law completely. The market will sort itself out. If your book isn't good enough that people want to pay for it, and you can't find a way to make money from it any other way, then you will fail.

So you pay for everything you want?   So there are people who will want my book, and will take it without paying for it.  You've already admited YOU don't.  You want Windows more than Linux, but don't pay for it.  So how exactly will the market sort itself out?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #234 on: April 07, 2012, 06:01:03 AM »
So you pay for everything you want?   So there are people who will want my book, and will take it without paying for it.  You've already admited YOU don't.  You want Windows more than Linux, but don't pay for it.  So how exactly will the market sort itself out?

We have piracy today, at unprecendented levels despite being illegal, and yet entertainment companies are making more money than ever. It is sorting itself out quite well I think.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #235 on: April 07, 2012, 06:05:38 AM »
So you pay for everything you want?   So there are people who will want my book, and will take it without paying for it.  You've already admited YOU don't.  You want Windows more than Linux, but don't pay for it.  So how exactly will the market sort itself out?

We have piracy today, at unprecendented levels despite being illegal, and yet entertainment companies are making more money than ever. It is sorting itself out quite well I think.

Then let me be more specific.  You want Windows. but don't pay for it, because you don't have to.  Explain to me why you would pay for my book if you wanted it, but didn't have to pay for it?

I'm just finding it hard to connect why you deciding not to pay for a product makes more money for the creator.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #236 on: April 07, 2012, 06:12:15 AM »
joebbowers, your idea has already been tested and failed.
Apogee (now known by another name that I don't remember) made shareware games. You could get the full versions for free (and note that the games are awesome), but you had to register (pay) to get technical support. Guess what? They had to stop this because it was simply not profitable. They weren't making enough money. IIRC they almost went bankrupt.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12340
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #237 on: April 07, 2012, 04:59:37 PM »
Abandon copyright law completely. The market will sort itself out. If your book isn't good enough that people want to pay for it, and you can't find a way to make money from it any other way, then you will fail.

F minus.

Mark Twain was ripped off horribly ans screwed out of a fortune because another publishing house stole his work and published it before him.  How in the world does The Market protect from that?
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Quartinium

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #238 on: April 08, 2012, 05:51:27 AM »
I'm a little suprised that no one has said that things which increase pleasure and/or decrease pain are good, and that which decreases pleasure and increases pain is evil. Although on the surface this seems to be relative in that the individual decides what pleasure, pain, increase and decrease are, if this applies to everyone doesn't that make it an absolute?

Also I think that good and evil are different than good and bad. When I think of good and evil I think in terms of other people, when I think of good and bad I think in terms of myself. Which are separate still, in my mind, from right and wrong, and further separate legal and illegal. I understand that the above is a little muddled.

To clarify my thoughts, I do not think that hedonism is good because hedonism doesn't always have an outcome that increases pleasure, though it often does in the immediate.

Sadly because we each have different versions of what is pleasureable or painful, whether we consider the pleasure and pain of others to be part of our pleasure and pain or adding to our pleasure or pain, whether the immediate or the long-term pleasure/pain is more important means that morality (good/evil) will always appear to be relative, whether or not it actually, empirically or absolutely, is. There are many variables to consider when deciding whether a thing, an action, an idea, or a concept are good or evil.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #239 on: April 08, 2012, 06:46:12 AM »
Then let me be more specific.  You want Windows. but don't pay for it, because you don't have to.  Explain to me why you would pay for my book if you wanted it, but didn't have to pay for it?

I'm just finding it hard to connect why you deciding not to pay for a product makes more money for the creator.

Windows is overpriced, in my opinion. It's really only slightly better than the competitor Linux, which is free. Windows is worth slightly more than free, but they charge like $499 for their professional edition.

I would pay for it if I liked it and wanted to support you, or if I wanted a hard copy to put on my bookshelf. I've paid for lots of games because I wanted to support the publisher. Also, you're yet again assuming that everyone would pirate if they could, yet by your own admission, you don't, yet you can.

When I still lived in the US, I paid for almost everything. Living in China that's not really possible.

joebbowers, your idea has already been tested and failed.
Apogee (now known by another name that I don't remember) made shareware games. You could get the full versions for free (and note that the games are awesome), but you had to register (pay) to get technical support. Guess what? They had to stop this because it was simply not profitable. They weren't making enough money. IIRC they almost went bankrupt.

And yet plenty of companies offer their products for free and manage to make a profit anyway with tie-ins, ads, etc. One failed where many others succeed. That doesn't sound like my idea is flawed, more like their strategy.

F minus.

Mark Twain was ripped off horribly ans screwed out of a fortune because another publishing house stole his work and published it before him.  How in the world does The Market protect from that?

Yet again, don't blame the technology, blame the inability to adapt to it. Find new ways to monetize your product.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12340
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #240 on: April 08, 2012, 07:52:00 AM »
F minus.

Mark Twain was ripped off horribly ans screwed out of a fortune because another publishing house stole his work and published it before him.  How in the world does The Market protect from that?

Yet again, don't blame the technology, blame the inability to adapt to it. Find new ways to monetize your product.

I didn't blame technology.  I blamed thieves.  Twain had the most technologically up to date way to monetize his book - print it.  The problem was someone stole his manuscript before his publisher printed it.  The thieves printed it and made a ton of money since it came out before his.  Twain did not receive a penny from it.  Your solution to that - if I understand what you are saying - is to abolish copyright laws and let the market take care of it all, whatever that means.  How would that help in Twain's case? 

Or, more recently, the wolverine movie was pirated before it went to theaters.  Why do you think the people who made the movie do not deserve to be the ones to make money from it?  How does The Market magically fix their problem?

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #241 on: April 08, 2012, 09:18:59 AM »
Here are ways that I think we could modify copyright law to make it much more reasonable and workable.

First, the length of copyright needs to be brought way down.  Forget this "life plus seventy years" nonsense (with the possibility of being extended once Mickey gets close to coming out of copyright again); either the lifetime of the creator or 40 years, whichever is longer.  If the creator is not a person[1], then copyright lasts 40 years from the date the product was created.  This is the way copyright law was originally set up.

Second, companies should voluntarily make a library of products, still within copyright, available for free perusal online.  Most products stop being sold within a few years of their initial creation anyway (interest in the product wanes quickly), meaning they aren't making much money for their creators.  Making them available to see or read online for free raises interest because people can see if they like them without spending money (if they don't like it, they might still recommend it to others, whereas if they paid for it and didn't like it, they're likely to have nothing good to say about it), and if they're satisfied with only being able to see it online, then they wouldn't likely have bought it anyway.  Some companies already do this, for example, Baen's free library, and Viz's online streaming of various anime series.  More to the point, they've been doing it for some time, and it clearly isn't hurting their bottom line.  Though, this has to be voluntary and limited, otherwise it doesn't work.  For example, Baen doesn't make free copies of all their books available, and Viz only makes the anime episodes streamed from their website free, and nobody makes either company do this.

Third, free samples from currently-released products.  Game demos, sample chapters, snippets from an upcoming book or movie, all of those work to raise interest in a product and encourage people to buy it, without making them essentially guess whether they'll like it in advance (and naturally getting upset when they don't like something they paid good money for).

Fourth, as Joe suggested, find other ways to get money from a product besides charging up front for it.  That doesn't mean I think copyright law should be abolished, it means that companies should be smart enough to recognize that they can make profit in other ways than by charging a lot of money up front for something that can be easily and cheaply reproduced.
 1. for example, when Nintendo made the game Skyward Sword, they stated that the company was considered the creator as far as copyright went

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #242 on: April 08, 2012, 09:22:55 AM »
And yet plenty of companies offer their products for free and manage to make a profit anyway with tie-ins, ads, etc. One failed where many others succeed. That doesn't sound like my idea is flawed, more like their strategy.

Yes it[1] is. Ads for what? More ads? Your idea would make it so that nobody would have to pay for anything ever again. What would the ads be advertising? "New and improved free products! Get them now and you can get more ads for other new and improved free products which also contain ads for other new and improved free products (...)"
Get the picture?
 1. Your idea.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #243 on: April 08, 2012, 10:21:46 AM »
Or, more recently, the wolverine movie was pirated before it went to theaters.  Why do you think the people who made the movie do not deserve to be the ones to make money from it? How does The Market magically fix their problem?
Never said they don't deserve to make money from it. What I've said, repeatedly and clearly, is that if they want to make money from it, they shouldn't resist the internet, but they should use it to their advantage, and find new ways to monetize their product.

By the way, that was an early workprint that the studio may have intentionally leaked to create buzz. I watched it and still paid to see it in the cinema (twice) because I got excited seeing the unfinished product.

In Mark Twain's case, he could have published his book anyway, and asked the newspapers to print an article informing people of the unauthorized version and asking his loyal fans to buy the official one. You would probably have made less, but at least he would have made something, and it's even possible that the publicity would have led him to sell more copies than he otherwise would have.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12340
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #244 on: April 08, 2012, 05:34:19 PM »
In Mark Twain's case, he could have published his book anyway, and asked the newspapers to print an article informing people of the unauthorized version and asking his loyal fans to buy the official one. You would probably have made less, but at least he would have made something, and it's even possible that the publicity would have led him to sell more copies than he otherwise would have.

He did that, but thieves still made a bundle from his work.  You seem to be okay with that.  Am I misunderstanding?  Why should thieves be able to make money off work that is not their own?
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #245 on: April 08, 2012, 11:34:20 PM »
In Mark Twain's case, he could have published his book anyway, and asked the newspapers to print an article informing people of the unauthorized version and asking his loyal fans to buy the official one.

He did that, but thieves still made a bundle from his work.

Oh? He did print it? Because you said...

Twain did not receive a penny from it.

Did he sell zero copies then? Was that hyperbole or were you simply lying to support your argument? You can understand my confusion.

You seem to be okay with that.  Am I misunderstanding?  Why should thieves be able to make money off work that is not their own?

Hmm.. do I seem to be ok with that? Or did I in fact say this:

How about this idea. Scrap the existing system and all patents, and implement a law like this:

1. You can give away other's people's work for free, but you can not charge for it.
2. You can charge for other people's work if you have significantly improved it in an obvious way. This would apply to medicine and technology, not entertainment products.
3. You can charge for other people's work if even if you have not modified it if you give a percentage of your profit to the original creator. Something like 25% seems fair.

Or did I not say that? And have I not said from the beginning that I am all for the free distribution of information? Which would obviously mean they pirates are not charging for their copies. Otherwise it would seem you've been quite intellectually dishonest here.  I'm so forgetful. It must be my fault.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 11:42:05 PM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #246 on: April 09, 2012, 12:09:51 AM »
Thanks for that Screwtape. Since your lie made me realize I can't take your story at face value I decided to look into it. The manuscript he is referring to is none other than Tom Sawyer. Yes, an early version was stolen, and due to disagreements with the publisher, a pirated edition had already been out on the market for four months by the time the official one was printed[1].

He had already pre-sold 40,000 copies before it was even printed, but the book being too thin for it's high price, it's content too racy, being poorly marketed as a children's book, and yes, the availability cheaper pirated editions all led to lackluster early sales. However when he printed Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in 1885 with the subtitle Tom Sawyer's Comrade, demand for the book began to rise and eventually it became one of his most profitable works.

Twain did not receive a penny from it.

So thanks again Screwtape, I think we all learned something today, didn't we?
 1. The pirated edition was printed in Canada, out of the reach of US copyright laws, and illegally imported on steamers.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #247 on: April 09, 2012, 12:40:26 AM »
It's pretty clear to me that screwtape meant that Twain never made a penny from the pirated edition of his work.  Which he didn't.  And screwtape acknowledged that Twain did eventually make money off of his book.

According to http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/tomsawye/tomcomp.html, the pirated version of Tom Sawyer (published in July, 1876) was so popular that they had already printed a third edition of it by October of that year.  And Twain never saw even so much as a dime of any of that money.  Twain himself estimated that this cost him at least $10,000 - over $200,000 if we put it in 2011 terms, which is anything but negligible.  The fact that it took more than nine years, and a completely different book which was an effective sequel, for him to start making money off of Tom Sawyer aptly illustrates the problem that screwtape mentioned.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #248 on: April 09, 2012, 03:26:56 AM »
Twain himself estimated that this cost him at least $10,000 - over $200,000 if we put it in 2011 terms, which is anything but negligible.

Assuming that the person(?) who stole the book and printed it themselves was selling it for a lower price, that's just BS. If you have the exact same product, but at different prices, you're going for the cheapest one, and that's if you can even afford it.
Removing the cheapest option doesn't mean everyone will come rallying for the second cheapest option, especially when there are only two options and one is much more expensive.

An example:
I found the game "Resistance 3" in my country. I really wanted to play it, since I've played the two previous ones. I grabbed it off the shelf and glanced at the price - 70 euros. No game (nowadays) is worth that much. I went back there a few months later and the price had increased to 72 euros. Sure, it was a small difference, but it made me lose all desire to buy it from that store (which, at the time, was the only one I knew about that had the game). I went to a different store and, much to my surprise, the game was being sold for 30 euros. An acceptable price. I bought it from that store.

I was completely unaware of that other store for months. I didn't even consider the possibility that another store had it for a lower price (the first store I went to usually has the cheapest games). Yet I didn't buy it from the expensive one. I could've easily bought it. Hell, I could've bought 10 of them and still have enough money left over to buy two new computers.[1] But I didn't. Why? Because the price was simply not acceptable.


When people say that piracy is "ruining" them, they assume that the people will actually pay for their stuff (some of which is pure shit) at absurd prices. We won't. Some of us can but aren't stupid enough to do so. Some of us can't and are also not stupid enough to do so even if we could. Others are stupid enough to do it but don't have the money. The fourth group is the one that gives them the most money - "rich" idiots.
 1. And I'm not talking about a cheap computer either.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 03:29:04 AM by Lucifer »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Quartinium

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #249 on: April 09, 2012, 05:34:36 AM »
Someone once told me, though I'm sure it's a basic economic principle, that value is determined by the buyer and not the seller. In that regard, if you can get it for free (steal) people will usually take that route unless there is a compelling (punishment) reason not to. I think the fact that so much piracy occurs is pretty clear evidence to support this.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #250 on: April 09, 2012, 08:11:00 AM »
It's pretty clear to me that screwtape meant that Twain never made a penny from the pirated edition of his work.  Which he didn't.  And screwtape acknowledged that Twain did eventually make money off of his book.

That's how I read it also.

You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #251 on: April 09, 2012, 08:36:12 AM »
Lucifer:  No, it isn't necessarily about sales of the not-so-cheap product in this case, except that Twain would have received royalties from that, whereas he didn't receive any royalties from the sales of the pirated copy.  That is entirely the point.  We aren't talking about the losses of the publisher or about sales that might or might not have happened, we're talking about the losses of the author, specifically the royalties he should have received based on the copies of the book that were sold and he got nothing from.  Now, I'll certainly grant that I don't know how accurate his $10,000 figure is, that's why I said that it was Twain's estimate.  But there is no question whatsoever about the fact that he should have received royalties from the sales of this other publisher, and didn't (because they printed it without his permission and thus kept all the money from the sales for themselves).  Each and every one of those sales should have produced royalties for him.  In other words, each sale robbed him of whatever royalty payment he should have received from it.

Offline kindred

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1116
  • Darwins +10/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #252 on: April 09, 2012, 08:44:44 AM »
There is a lot of misunderstanding and emotion for discussion that amounts to:

point1-Copyright unfair, must change now but I don't have a decent counter argument. Let the market decide, I guess?

point2-You're right, we could do alot better but you haven't shown a better alternative so the orthodoxy prevails
"Keep calm and carry on"

"I trust you are not in too much distress"

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12340
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #253 on: April 10, 2012, 07:55:25 AM »
Oh? He did print it? Because you said...

Twain did not receive a penny from it.

I was less specific than I should have been.  He did not receive any money from the thieves

Did he sell zero copies then? Was that hyperbole or were you simply lying to support your argument?

It was neither.  That was me not being specific enough for you to understand my meaning.

You can understand my confusion.

I can. 

What I cannot understand is your shitty fucking attitude. I've not made this personal and I've asked questions where I've not understood you rather than make assumptions or put words in your mouth.  I've not accused you of anything other than maybe not having all the answers regarding copyright law.  I am not emotionally invested in either side of this and I am just trying to understand how "market solutions" will fix anything.

Conversely, you have accused me of exaggerating, lying and intellectual dishonest, none of which I appreciate or deserve.  You've also not really answered my question and seem to imply that what happened to Twain was fine and dandy, which I have a hard time understanding.


Hmm.. do I seem to be ok with that? Or did I in fact say this:

I'd missed that, Joe. 

You know, I am aware that my awesomeness can lead people to think I am, in fact, perfect.  But I'm not.  I sometimes do not take the time to communicate my thoughts fully.  I sometimes miss parts of posts or whole posts altogether.  Mea culpa.  But what I try very, very hard to not do, Joe, is make an argument personal when there is no need for it.  And I would appreciate it if you did the same. 

And I do not see how what you said would have helped Mr Twain.  He still would have lost revenue due to theft, which, ostensibly, copyright laws should have protected him against.


Otherwise it would seem you've been quite intellectually dishonest here.  I'm so forgetful. It must be my fault.

Oh, Joe, don't be so hard on yourself.  Yes, you've been a twat.  But I willingly accept blame for not doing a good job of communicating what I meant.  And both of us could have avoided this unfortunate exchange.  Had I put forth more effort in my prior posts and had you been less dickish and asked some questions before going all douchey, we wouldn't be where we are now.  But lessons learned on both sides.  At least, I sure hope so.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #254 on: April 11, 2012, 03:55:45 AM »
Quote from: Screwtape
And I do not see how what you said would have helped Mr Twain.  He still would have lost revenue due to theft, which, ostensibly, copyright laws should have protected him against.

You all keep asking me how they will make money without copyright laws and I should have been more clear about this, I don't really care. I do not care if the creators are protected and can make tons of cash. My point from the beginning was that making information available freely to the public is for the greater good.

I do hope that they can make enough money to have a comfortable life, as I have the same hope for any other type of worker. I do not think actors, writers, and singers should be making millions when science teachers make thousands. Considering the incredible gift of free information to the underprivelidged of the world, if Tom Cruise only made $75,000 this year I would have no problem with that. If he decided to quit acting because he couldn't get $40 million per film he can go fuck himself. A thousand talented actors would love to take his place, and would do it for an honest man's salary.

Only the lazy or stupid artists can't find a way to take advantage of new technology and require a law to protect them from innovation. Only the shit artists will stop creating because they can't make money from it. Mark Twain didn't make much from Tom Sawyer from a combination of factors, including piracy, but he didn't bitch out and quit writing did he?

The internet isn't going away. Piracy isn't going away. It's just getting started. If they can't adapt, they will fail. We shouldn't be protecting an archaic, obsolete business model that stifles innovation and competition. The market will sort itself out, the government should only step in to prevent monopolies and price fixing or other anti-competitive practices.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12340
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #255 on: April 11, 2012, 10:53:34 AM »
You all keep asking me how they will make money without copyright laws and I should have been more clear about this, I don't really care. I do not care if the creators are protected and can make tons of cash.

Then where is the Market incentive for people to be creative if anything they make can be stolen and capitalized on by others or be given away for free?  Free Market theory would say, there is none, so no one will bother to be writers, musicians, artists, etc. 

My point from the beginning was that making information available freely to the public is for the greater good.

Information, sure.  Fiction?  Entertainment?  Are we entitled to free entertainment?  This was a problem that was addressed by Gerry Cassale of Devo.  He pointed out that people used to pay for music.  Now, they don't feel like they have to.  So essentially, music, art, film, is worthless to them.  Is that how you feel also?  Do you value music and art?  If you are not willing to pay for it, it will cease to be made. Or, it will become like TV - loaded with commercials and product placements and only that which appeals to the lowest common denominator will be supported.

I do hope that they can make enough money to have a comfortable life, as I have the same hope for any other type of worker.

That is very generous of you.  How do you propose that is going to happen?

I do not think actors, writers, and singers should be making millions when science teachers make thousands.

I don't disagree with that, but that is the market.  We have a couple hundred "entertainers" and tens or hundreds of thousands of science teachers.  That is how The Market works.  You cannot on one hand praise The Market for always being right and on the other hand curse it for outcomes you don't want.  Either The Market is perfect and self regulating, or it is not.  You should decide which you think it is.


Considering the incredible gift of free information to the underprivelidged of the world,

Again, are we talking information - meaning useful, instructional data - or entertainment?

if Tom Cruise only made $75,000 this year I would have no problem with that. If he decided to quit acting because he couldn't get $40 million per film he can go fuck himself. A thousand talented actors would love to take his place, and would do it for an honest man's salary.

This is irrelevant to the point.  It is not about Tom Cruise.  Tom Cruise is not the only or primary artist being protected by copyright law.   For every Tom Cruise there are hundreds of other people who are harmed - writers, editors, cinematographers, studio engineers, gaffers, etc.  They all get paid from the same place.

Only the lazy or stupid artists can't find a way to take advantage of new technology and require a law to protect them from innovation.

I don't understand that leap of logic.  Artists are now required to be businessmen and tech innovators or be deemed lazy and stupid? 

And nobody is talking about being protected from innovation or technology.   

Only the shit artists will stop creating because they can't make money from it. Mark Twain didn't make much from Tom Sawyer from a combination of factors, including piracy, but he didn't bitch out and quit writing did he?

Actually, he bitched about it quite a bit.  He took the pirates to court, to no avail.  He tried to get the Canadian rights to it, to no avail.  And following jaime's link:
Quote
it also seems to have discouraged him as a writer. During the next five years he published only one book.


The internet isn't going away. Piracy isn't going away. It's just getting started. If they can't adapt, they will fail. We shouldn't be protecting an archaic, obsolete business model that stifles innovation and competition.

I'm all for changing the business model.  Take a wrecking ball to the music industry.  I do not think the entertainment industry properly compensates most artists[1].  I think talentless executives take the lion's share of the money from people who work very hard to create something the rest of us like.  But you have not proposed a business model.  You have proposed the complete devaluation of art.

The market will sort itself out...

I don't even know what that means.  It sounds like a punt.  You have no clue how creative people are supposed to earn a living so you punt - "Don't worry.  The Market, the Glorious, All-knowing, Market, will sort Itself out."  The market is people.  People have to sort it out.  And it seems to me abandoning protections for the people who create the art in the first place is not actually sorting anything out. It is giving up.

It looks to me as if you've painted yourself into a corner. You made a statement that you'd not really thought through and now you feel like you have to be committed to that statement, like you have to be consistent.  But here's the thing - you don't.  It is perfectly acceptable - even preferable - to back off of dumb things we've said.  It would be fine for you to say something like, "My emotional reaction is I want stuff free and I've been taking it for years.  So, I'm struggling to justify it.  But I cannot figure out a fair way to make it work."  Because, really, that is probably close to the truth.

And you owe me an apology for calling me a lair.  If you have any integrity, it will be in your next post.

 1. Tom Cruise either, but in the other direction.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #256 on: April 11, 2012, 11:12:49 AM »
I'm fully in agreement with knowledge being available for free.  And, let's be honest, it is, and becoming more so every year.  That's what sites like Wikipedia are all about, making the actual knowledge available for free.  I'm completely okay with that.

What I'm not okay with is entertainment being free.  Nobody "deserves" to get whatever entertainment they want at no cost to themselves (caveat: unless the person making the entertainment is okay with it).  I realize people will, whatever I think about it, but that isn't the same as saying they should.  So the goal should not be to make entertainment free, it should be to make it accessible.  That means, if you don't have a lot of money, you shouldn't be barred from being able to get entertainment.  But you also shouldn't get whatever kind of entertainment you want for free.  You get what you're willing to pay for.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #257 on: April 12, 2012, 04:59:37 AM »
Screwtape that last post was so full of obvious fallacies, I couldn't find anything worth replying to that I haven't already addressed.

I'm fully in agreement with knowledge being available for free.  And, let's be honest, it is, and becoming more so every year.  That's what sites like Wikipedia are all about, making the actual knowledge available for free.  I'm completely okay with that.

Jamie, I just want to clarify this. Would you say that the information needed to reproduce medicines and technology should be free? And patents preventing others from copying manufacturing processes should be thrown out?
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12340
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #258 on: April 12, 2012, 06:16:50 AM »
Screwtape that last post was so full of obvious fallacies, I couldn't find anything worth replying to that I haven't already addressed.

Joe, I take that as a complete concession that your stupid idea is in fact stupid. 

Also, I take your lack of apology to be a complete concession that you lack integrity. 

You have done a wonderful job burning bridges over something so completely irrelevant as music piracy.  I have to say, I am honestly disappointed that you and I could not disagree in such a way that it not become personal.   

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #259 on: April 12, 2012, 09:22:01 AM »
Jamie, I just want to clarify this. Would you say that the information needed to reproduce medicines and technology should be free? And patents preventing others from copying manufacturing processes should be thrown out?
The information, yes.  Knowing the chemical formula for chloramphenicolWiki, for example, and how to make it in general.  Or programming code instructions and code grammar.  Or the principles of how an airplane flies, or how a rocket works.  But if someone writes a how-to book that makes it easier to understand it, or specific instructions on how to make something, then they should be able to get a copyright on that book, because the information is otherwise out there.

As for manufacturing patents, I don't agree that they should all just be arbitrarily thrown out.  If someone comes up with a more efficient way to do something, they should be able to patent it to be able to make money on it - the fact that the general knowledge on how to do it is out there should keep them from being able to push it past the level of ridiculousness.  However, the patent system as it stands needs to be seriously revised, and once that's done, any patents which violate the new rules should be thrown out.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12294
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: In a Godless society
« Reply #260 on: April 12, 2012, 10:09:59 AM »
Screwtape that last post was so full of obvious fallacies, I couldn't find anything worth replying to that I haven't already addressed.

Wow, what a blantantly cowardly cop-out.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.