Ah, see what I get for browsing too high? You were already right on it. Oh well, I suppose it won't hurt the guy to have two people give him the truth.
No, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Statistical evidence is not the same thing as experimental data. Your analogy, therefore, is completely unwarranted.
Say you get a new computer with a decent CPU, but no graphics card for work. You guys remember that thing, right? Work? Spreadsheets and documents and...yeah. That stuff.
Anyway, now you can play Tomb Raider on it. The original one. Sweet.
The used market affects the market for in-print books. If there is enough demand for the book, the used price will rise. If it rises enough, there will likely be another printing of the book, and the author will benefit.
Personally, I don't think that the copyright term should be longer than twenty years, so if the work is older than that, I see no ethical problem with obtaining a copy by any otherwise legal method (so bit torrent is fine, but stealing a library copy isn't).
If the price for a used copy is exceedingly high, and there aren't plans for a new print run, then in my view, freedom of information triumphs, and it is again ethical to obtain your copy via bit torrent. So if the used copies are being sold for $100 each, and the originals were sold for $25, then I again have no ethical problem with using bit torrent.
Of course, legal and ethical are two entirely different things.
The question this raised in my mind is: how much is that effect worth? If I decide that my moral course of action in the case of an out-of-print book is to send the author some money, are we talking pocket change or a few dollars?
It seems like the monetary value for this effect from one copy couldn't possibly exceed the monetary value of said copy in reprinted tree form. Perhaps an equation is in order?
x(value of effect for single copy) = 1/2(to name a multiple. Pick your own based on your moral predilections!) * y(value of reprinted tree copy)
Therefore - in this case - in buying a used book whose reprint value would be $10, one should send the author $5 in order to satisfy one's moral code.
Ooh! ooh! But I can get the gist of lots of those hard ol' books by dead white guys for free on SparkNotes! Oh, AND they explain all the hard stuff! Why should I ever put in the time and energy needed to read the originals? After all, I've got free music to listen to and free games to play!
Creating a new ebook copy reduces the market by one, because the used book seller can now sell it to someone else.
Has the possibility of reducing the market by one. You're assuming the only causal function of creating an ebook copy will be not to buy the used tree copy. Other causal results may create a situation where, say, more people buy the (reprinted) book because you, having read your ebook copy, told them about it and piqued their interest. This is opposed to, say, buying the used tree version and misplacing it or loaning it to someone else.
...yeah sorry. I just got done studying for my monday philosophy class. Always makes me a stickler for details.
Oh, and while I hate to double-post, here's my answer:
Buy the dead-tree version because I like a) having things in a bookshelf and b) being able to still read the damn thing when my (nonexistant) ebook reader gets lost or broken. Then download and send the author a couple bucks.
Isn't it about time we stopped equating legality with morality? One need only look to corporate law to see that one's a slippery slope.
Also, can we get it through our collective skulls that piracy DOES NOT EQUAL theft? Piracy deprives no one physically or monetarily, though I agree it might be argued that it deprives them of the chance for a sale to whoever pirated the product. Nonetheless, the possibility of a sale does not equal a sale.
This is one of those amusing situations where stealing the game online is no different than stealing it in a store. Suppose you'd shoplifted the CD instead of grabbing it from a torrent, would you be saying that it makes a statement that "If you beefed up security here, you'd get more money from me"? Would you be saying it makes the statement that "If you got rid of the rent-a-cops I'd buy the game"?
The only message it sends is that you want the game but for whatever reason are unwilling to pay for it.
No, no, no, no, no. No.
Analogy = fail. And here's why:
a)rent-a-cops don't ruin the product for everyone who legally bought the damn thing.
b)rent-a-cops actually discourage people from piracy (which on another note, is NOT the same thing as stealing; can we drop this stupid fallacy already?). Unlike DRM, which does exactly the opposite: makes piracy, for reason (a), MORE attractive. When bypassing security fixes a product, then that security poses a threat to my purchase of said product.
So, to fix your analogy:
Suppose those people who buy a game are followed home by rent-a-cops and, every time they try to play their game, are interrogated and frisked to determine that they are, in fact, the same person who bought it. Also, if they install the game too many times, the rent-a-cops take it away and leave. And poop in the corners of the house.
Now - with this subtle revision, let's take a look at your quote again:
"If you got rid of the rent-a-cops I'd buy the game"?
Is the purpose of the medium, by and large, to entertain? Would you say the same of painting by and large, or of writing, by and large?
No, you wouldn't. To generalize to that extent is to completely miss the point. Film is a far greater mode of communication than simple entertainment. Take the analogy of writing: there are scientific and medical journals whose purpose is to inform and explore; pulp novels whose purpose is to entertain; poetry, whose purpose may be, among other things, to create beauty and foster creative thought. These stratifications, or similar ones, exist within the realm of film as well: meta-genres like art-house (poetry), documentary (scientific journals), entertainment (pulp, though often mixed with the others), etc.
There are, just as in writing and various other schools of art, films which seem to represent conglomerates of various meta-genres. The work of Darren Aronofsky, for example, might serve as a bridge between entertainment, poetry, and even the scientific/historical. Dune, I think, fits this category as well, in large part because its foundations necessarily - being based in an unbelievably dense and multilayered work (Dune the novel) themselves - cross several of this meta-genre lines.
To suggest, however, that the purpose of a medium of communication is, by and large, a certain meta-genre, is to presuppose the intentions of the intentions of the creators within that medium. You may decide what you mostly take away from the work in said medium, sure, but to say that the very purpose of the majority of the work therein is what you decide it to be is arrogant in the extreme. Purpose can only be drawn from the mind of the artist - in this case, the filmmaker. We can only decide to what degree the artist has or has not succeeded in his purpose.
Mostly right, but saving (in the archaic sense, not in a bank) is the exact opposite of consumption, not investment. Investment at least transfers wealth in some degree. Squirreling your bills under the mattress does not.
But that's really a minor nitpick. Good thing this is an internet discussion.
There's a difference between entertaining and good. Even films that are terrible by film criterion (Plan 9 From Outer Space, for instance - widely considered the worst movie of all time) can be quite entertaining. Sometimes for precisely the same reasons that they are terrible films.
Ooh! ooh! Can we drop these guys and just let David Lynch do Foundation? Nothing like awkward dialogue and unbelievable special effects to make an epic cult classic. And we all know those are the best sort of movies.
I, for one, am majoring in English, taking creative writing courses (with some philosophy courses thrown in for good measure. Hello Bioshock!) and, of course, playing arse-tons of videogames.
*Create DOOM. Distribute shareware on floppies and over the internet.
*Computer-based piracy and, in fact, internet usage in general, is (comparatively) far more difficult then now.
*Video gaming not nearly as mainstream, nor as popular, as now. Also, no central databases or content control over what modders make. Not been sued yet. Vulgar mods acceptable.
2008:
Create game X.
*Piracy has become so easy that every Dick, Jane, and Sally knows how to get your game, not only for free, but before you even release the damn thing.
*Attempt to make this process more difficult.
*Find that Dick, Jane, and Sally still pirate your games, and just as easily - often even easier. Management, not understanding that they can never outstrip the ingenuity of thieves, orders more protection.
*Get sued because some 14 year old decided every female in your game needed to be nude and that the main character needs to be wielding a giant phallus. Crack down on mod community and institute content control and crack legal team.
*Lose money because no one wants to buy the shitty 'new and improved' version of your game (complete with even MORE DRM!)because hey, they can play the 2008 version for less/free on custom servers. Shit!
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, see what I get for browsing too high? You were already right on it. Oh well, I suppose it won't hurt the guy to have two people give him the truth.
No, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Statistical evidence is not the same thing as experimental data. Your analogy, therefore, is completely unwarranted.
Yeah, hence my fixed reply. RTFA, yeah, yeah. :)
Or, you know. Call of Juarez. If you want to get all technical. Flight Simulator X. That sort of thing.
Whatever.
Say you get a new computer with a decent CPU, but no graphics card for work. You guys remember that thing, right? Work? Spreadsheets and documents and...yeah. That stuff.
Anyway, now you can play Tomb Raider on it. The original one. Sweet.
Doesn't the Insecure Uggboots-over-Jeans Union overlap with the Attractive Girls' Union?
I always thought so, anyway.
I always thought of Jubal Harshaw (Stranger in a Strange Land) as the Grandmaster's ideal personification of himself.
Its certainly my ideal personification. Mmmmm secretaries.
I just got this terrible image of Tom Bombadil running around making golf jokes and swearing like a drunken sailor. Yeegh.
The used market affects the market for in-print books. If there is enough demand for the book, the used price will rise. If it rises enough, there will likely be another printing of the book, and the author will benefit.
Personally, I don't think that the copyright term should be longer than twenty years, so if the work is older than that, I see no ethical problem with obtaining a copy by any otherwise legal method (so bit torrent is fine, but stealing a library copy isn't).
If the price for a used copy is exceedingly high, and there aren't plans for a new print run, then in my view, freedom of information triumphs, and it is again ethical to obtain your copy via bit torrent. So if the used copies are being sold for $100 each, and the originals were sold for $25, then I again have no ethical problem with using bit torrent.
Of course, legal and ethical are two entirely different things.
The question this raised in my mind is: how much is that effect worth? If I decide that my moral course of action in the case of an out-of-print book is to send the author some money, are we talking pocket change or a few dollars?
It seems like the monetary value for this effect from one copy couldn't possibly exceed the monetary value of said copy in reprinted tree form. Perhaps an equation is in order?
x(value of effect for single copy) = 1/2(to name a multiple. Pick your own based on your moral predilections!) * y(value of reprinted tree copy)
Therefore - in this case - in buying a used book whose reprint value would be $10, one should send the author $5 in order to satisfy one's moral code.
[/ramble]
Ooh! ooh! But I can get the gist of lots of those hard ol' books by dead white guys for free on SparkNotes! Oh, AND they explain all the hard stuff! Why should I ever put in the time and energy needed to read the originals? After all, I've got free music to listen to and free games to play!
[/sarcasm] (just, you know...in case.)
Amen to that. Can we get a Slashdot story on the ridiculous cost of textbooks these days?
Creating a new ebook copy reduces the market by one, because the used book seller can now sell it to someone else.
Has the possibility of reducing the market by one. You're assuming the only causal function of creating an ebook copy will be not to buy the used tree copy. Other causal results may create a situation where, say, more people buy the (reprinted) book because you, having read your ebook copy, told them about it and piqued their interest. This is opposed to, say, buying the used tree version and misplacing it or loaning it to someone else.
Buy the dead-tree version because I like a) having things in a bookshelf and b) being able to still read the damn thing when my (nonexistant) ebook reader gets lost or broken. Then download and send the author a couple bucks.
Isn't it about time we stopped equating legality with morality? One need only look to corporate law to see that one's a slippery slope.
Also, can we get it through our collective skulls that piracy DOES NOT EQUAL theft? Piracy deprives no one physically or monetarily, though I agree it might be argued that it deprives them of the chance for a sale to whoever pirated the product. Nonetheless, the possibility of a sale does not equal a sale.
This is one of those amusing situations where stealing the game online is no different than stealing it in a store. Suppose you'd shoplifted the CD instead of grabbing it from a torrent, would you be saying that it makes a statement that "If you beefed up security here, you'd get more money from me"? Would you be saying it makes the statement that "If you got rid of the rent-a-cops I'd buy the game"?
The only message it sends is that you want the game but for whatever reason are unwilling to pay for it.
No, no, no, no, no. No.
Analogy = fail. And here's why: a)rent-a-cops don't ruin the product for everyone who legally bought the damn thing. b)rent-a-cops actually discourage people from piracy (which on another note, is NOT the same thing as stealing; can we drop this stupid fallacy already?). Unlike DRM, which does exactly the opposite: makes piracy, for reason (a), MORE attractive. When bypassing security fixes a product, then that security poses a threat to my purchase of said product.
So, to fix your analogy:
Suppose those people who buy a game are followed home by rent-a-cops and, every time they try to play their game, are interrogated and frisked to determine that they are, in fact, the same person who bought it. Also, if they install the game too many times, the rent-a-cops take it away and leave. And poop in the corners of the house.
Now - with this subtle revision, let's take a look at your quote again:
"If you got rid of the rent-a-cops I'd buy the game"?
Yes. Yes I am.
No, you wouldn't. To generalize to that extent is to completely miss the point. Film is a far greater mode of communication than simple entertainment. Take the analogy of writing: there are scientific and medical journals whose purpose is to inform and explore; pulp novels whose purpose is to entertain; poetry, whose purpose may be, among other things, to create beauty and foster creative thought. These stratifications, or similar ones, exist within the realm of film as well: meta-genres like art-house (poetry), documentary (scientific journals), entertainment (pulp, though often mixed with the others), etc.
There are, just as in writing and various other schools of art, films which seem to represent conglomerates of various meta-genres. The work of Darren Aronofsky, for example, might serve as a bridge between entertainment, poetry, and even the scientific/historical. Dune, I think, fits this category as well, in large part because its foundations necessarily - being based in an unbelievably dense and multilayered work (Dune the novel) themselves - cross several of this meta-genre lines.
To suggest, however, that the purpose of a medium of communication is, by and large, a certain meta-genre, is to presuppose the intentions of the intentions of the creators within that medium. You may decide what you mostly take away from the work in said medium, sure, but to say that the very purpose of the majority of the work therein is what you decide it to be is arrogant in the extreme. Purpose can only be drawn from the mind of the artist - in this case, the filmmaker. We can only decide to what degree the artist has or has not succeeded in his purpose.
This man understands.
But that's really a minor nitpick. Good thing this is an internet discussion.
...The little green man, to be precise.
There's a difference between entertaining and good. Even films that are terrible by film criterion (Plan 9 From Outer Space, for instance - widely considered the worst movie of all time) can be quite entertaining. Sometimes for precisely the same reasons that they are terrible films.
Oh yes, because your precious NXE is more important than psychological research. I love my 360 as much as the next guy, but jeez...
Ooh! ooh! Can we drop these guys and just let David Lynch do Foundation? Nothing like awkward dialogue and unbelievable special effects to make an epic cult classic. And we all know those are the best sort of movies.
To...uh...study their scripts, of course. Yeah.
1992:
*Create DOOM. Distribute shareware on floppies and over the internet.
*Computer-based piracy and, in fact, internet usage in general, is (comparatively) far more difficult then now.
*Video gaming not nearly as mainstream, nor as popular, as now. Also, no central databases or content control over what modders make. Not been sued yet. Vulgar mods acceptable.
2008:
Create game X.
*Piracy has become so easy that every Dick, Jane, and Sally knows how to get your game, not only for free, but before you even release the damn thing.
*Attempt to make this process more difficult.
*Find that Dick, Jane, and Sally still pirate your games, and just as easily - often even easier. Management, not understanding that they can never outstrip the ingenuity of thieves, orders more protection.
*Get sued because some 14 year old decided every female in your game needed to be nude and that the main character needs to be wielding a giant phallus. Crack down on mod community and institute content control and crack legal team.
*Lose money because no one wants to buy the shitty 'new and improved' version of your game (complete with even MORE DRM!)because hey, they can play the 2008 version for less/free on custom servers. Shit!