1. No effort on your part? So you're just sitting there, someone walks in and throws it on your computer? In that case, the piracy falls to the person who put it on your computer if they didn't get the product legally. They're the ones it had value to (as a gift for you). If the author later activates some sort of universal-delete on all pirated copies and you lose your software, that's the fault of the person who provided it to you, not the author.
2. No, because of gifts. It's entirely possible to receive something free of charge and of value to you that somebody else sells, and totally legally too, provided that who you get it from got it legally. As for your example, that's service v. product. To set the proper basis for your analogy, the other side would be you download a software product, you think "that's a cool product," so you then sit down and code your own. No piracy there at all. Ideas are free, implementations are not. This applies whether the idea is washing your windows, a software product, or a car. If you're willng to put the work into your own implementation, you too can wash your windows, build a car, or create a software product. If you're not, and the person who has wants money for their work in implementing, you either owe them the money or you don't use their implementation.
So maybe Lucas doesn't want to weaken his trademarks on Star Wars characters.. because once those are gone, get ready to see the unauthorized Jar-Jar Binks Toilet Paper. You know damn well it'd be the best selling toilet paper ever.
The music industry on the other hand.. ahh.. now they lose big time.
After all, now you like some guy that most of us haven't ever heard of. Think of what would happen if, as individuals, we each found different artists that we really liked? How the heck do you market that? You have a fixed budget for marketing, but if you split it up among fifty or a hundred or a thousand artists, you don't have enough for a video for any of them and your television ad airs once or twice instead of thirty times per day. Sure you can try, but people are going to like what they're going to like. If they don't like the crap you're shovelling, *and* they can easily find and get something else, that's what they're going to do.
If control of access to music returns to the people, then control of the marketing and distribution of music becomes meaningless - unfortunately, marketing and distribution are the primary functions of the music industry (as opposed to the artists, whose primary function is to create music)
So how does the music industry lose? Easy, it becomes meaningless, then valueless, then gone.
Of course, music will still be around, probably more music that more people like more, but that doesn't feed anybody who used to work in the industry of music industry; and that's what they're really afraid of.
Ask the IP holder to produce the EULA that you specifically agreed to. Request proof that it was you/your institution that accepted the EULA, and not the OEM, shipper, independant IT person who installed the software, etc..
Not only can they not prove who exactly accepted the EULA, they can't even prove the EULA was presented in the first place.
"No your honour. Nothing that said click to proceed came up on my screen. Could be a bug in this copy of their software I guess, I dunno, I didn't make it."
Weird idea, but what about a blind auction system?
Set minimum bids (5c? 10c?), and a maximum number of downloads per time period (day? 12hrs?). Auction is held and the top bidders in that period up to the maximum downloads get the song at what they bid.
Yeah it's using artificial scarcity to increase value, but with a reasonable time period I'm not sure people would mind. It also makes it very obvious to the record companies what kind of stuff is selling well. Naturally quality and speed of download would have to be top-notch.
In eMusics case, I find that the samples are almost always *worse* than the full track - at least for sound quality. For speed, all that's changed between a demo track and a paid track is the interface you use to get it, it's the same file so speed and quality of the track are the same as any you'd get from a paid subscription.
But speaking of quality the RM 30 second samples are utter pants. The MP3 30 second samples are better but still not quite as good as the full track in my opinion. The songs themselves sound just fine to me, but I'm not a serious audiophile. I've got a couple of cheap-ass harmon/kardon speakers here and comparing between an MP3 from eMusic and the same track from a CD I already own sound the same on them.
but for every used book sold, it has to have been bought once new. If someone is going to buy a cheaper used book, what does it matter if they buy it one month, or ten months, or a decade, after the book is released?
The timetable matters because publishers generally decide whether to give an author a second book deal based on the sales numbers they get from the first one.
I'm like you. I prefer new. I'm worried about those who when they get on the Amazon site see that if they click one link they get it for some price, but if they click the link just below it, they get it for 10-50% cheaper. I tend to feel that a lot of people who aren't as into books as you and I will see that extra savings and think "Why not.. it's not even been out a month, how much damage could have been done to it?"
Now this isn't going to affect established authors one iota. The publishers know they can sell those authors and so have a lot more leeway in what they consider a "failed" book. But for new or niche authors then this could wind up being the difference between them getting a second book or not.
A lot of people say "Well, I buy the first book used, because I don't want to risk the money, but if I like it, I buy the rest new." Which is great! The problem is when you buy that first one used, decide you like it, but then never see another book from that author again because their sales weren't high enough for the publishers.
I'm not saying don't buy used. Bigger audience and all, more exposure. Good things. But buying used when the book is still on the "New Book Rack" at wherever (be it Amazon or the local store) can wind up hurting the authors.
You see, a publisher will only produce a second book from an author if enough copies of the first are sold.
So unless car manufacturers routinely hire and fire car designers based on if a particular model sells particularly well, your analogy fails.
It seems everybody has this idea that my problem with Amazon's actions is that it cuts into the profit of publishers and authors, but that's not the problem at all. The problem is that it cuts into the raw sales numbers, so that good niche authors simply don't get the opportunity to publish a second book.
My problem is that by having day-old used book sales available right next to the new books, we inadvertently end up feeding the mainstream mass market, and hurt the ability of new authors to be able to create and distribute non-mainstream work.
Of course, another alternative is for Amazon to supply used-sales numbers to the publishers as well. I'd be absolutely fine with that - if the publishers took the short-sighted view of not taking those into consideration, then it becomes the publishers fault, not Amazon's.
Seriously, where do they think used books come from? Someone had to buy them new at one time. People who really want a book and can afford to buy it new generally will, and people who want the book, but go for the used book generally wouldn't buy the new book if it was all that was available.
This is the whole point of contention.
Personally, I believe that people are, on the whole, lazy and cheap. So I think that when you get to the Amazon page and there are two prices there, one for the new and one an extra 10-50% off for the used, people will probably go for the used.
However, if there was some minor impediment like a single link saying "Check our used section", than most people wouldn't bother clicking into it to get the discount. Even if that click was the only extra thing between them and the used book purchase.
This all relies on the idea though that people in general are lazy and cheap - unfortunately, there's a lot of evidence for this position.
It seems unlikely that you could increase the sales of used books by a non-trivial amount without having the side effect of increasing the sales of new books.
Yeah. But it also seems unlikely that people would purchase higher priced new books when the lower-priced used book link is right there.
and when the public library has a book published in April 2002 already on the shelf for people to check out or read, that strikes me as hurting the author and the publisher. NOT!
Where do you live that your library gets new books that quickly?
Around here, the book has typically been on store shelves for a good two/three months before our local public library gets its copy. So either your library system is a hell of a lot better than what I'm used to, or you don't actually use your library and are simply talking out of your ass.
Next you'll tell us that people shouldn't be allowed to lend lawnmowers to their neighbors, because that deprives the lawnmower manufacturer of revenue.
Guess what, I never said that used book sales shouldn't be allowed - that's the second part of my post - but because that doesn't fit into your desired vitriol, perhaps you simply ignored it?
All I suggested was maybe Amazon could have the decency to say "Hey.. this book is new.. let's give the publisher/author a chance to make some decent sales numbers out of it before we start trying to pull in the used book trade." I don't see how a separate section would hurt Amazon or the consumer terribly - it'd still be there after all. Those who really want the discount can just go into that section, but those who are on the fence, maybe buy new, maybe buy used, that extra step might be enough to convince them to buy new. Thus increasing the chances of a publisher seeing high enough numbers to justify a second book from the author.
Offering customers a lower-priced option causes them to visit our site more frequently,
I don't doubt it, Jeff.
which in turn leads to higher sales of new books
Does it? Or does it simply lead to higher sales of used books?
while encouraging customers to try authors and genres they may not have otherwise tried.
Absolutely.. too bad used books give no indication to the publishers that these authors and genres deserve a second book contract.
I've got no problem with Amazon selling used books. More power to'em. But when a book published in April 2002 already has a used book link offer up *right beside* the new book.. that strikes me as hurting the author and the publisher.
At least have the courtesy to separate them out for a few months so that publishers can have a more accurate indication of what's selling well and what's not.
He answered that.. The ability to cache a certain URL is given to the editor. They look at the site, decide if it can handle a slashdotting, and if not, enable the Squid-suit.
So what are you saying? If an RIAA company by some miracle got a change of directorship and started putting out decent quality, low cost, unrestricted copies over the internet, we should still be fighting them because they're part of the RIAA? For what?
Support those organizations that are doing it right so that those who are doing it wrong see somewhere else to go.
Considering that most large publishing houses are having difficulties themselves squeaking by (and smaller ones being driven out of existance by Chapters et al), the market for self-published material is ridiculously perilous.
Combine this with the average median income of an author (somewhere slightly below the poverty line) and you're looking at, quite honestly, a dearth of new reading materials by moving to a primarily self-published market.
That being said, the authors guild isn't asking for any money from used book sales, they're just asking Amazon to hold off putting up the "Purchase used for half price!" link right beside the new book for a while - maybe at least until the first sales numbers are in to the publishers.
After all, publishers look at bottom line. They set limits on what kind of minimum sales they want to see before they'll publish another book from the same author. If they've set a limit of 10,000 and the author sells 8,500 first run copies, even if another 2,000 people bought the book through resale (because hey, it was easily available right there on Amazon.. just click the link and you get a discount) and want to see what's next, that author doesn't get a second deal, and everybody - author, publisher, and readers - all lose.
The only one who actually wins is Amazon - because they've taken their cut on brokering the book, and had to pay less than they normally would for associated costs such as storage.
So your argument boils down to this: any actual measurements that show overall improvements are irrelevant since they are always trumped by anecdotal evidence of particular abuses.
Were these abuses isolated incidents, you may have a point. Unfortunately they're not.
How about I phrase this from a more statistical point of view, since that seems to be all you're willing to accept.
When the number of people being enslaved rises due to globalization, when the number of people being degraded rises due to globalization, when the number of people who are suffering from toxin related illness rises due to globalization, when the number of people being harmed, maimed, or killed by companies unwilling to invest in safety practices rises due to globalization, then things are getting worse.
Also, for what it's worth, infant mortality and starvation are not meaures of quality of life. Neither of them change based on how people live - they only change based on how people die.
>"I believe that in the long run increasing the disparity between >rich and poor guarantees that the rich are going to have the power $gt;to reduce the poor to subsistence slavery."
Why would they want to do that? It is certainly not in the best interests of the rich to reduce the standard of living of the poor. The rich get that way by selling stuff. You can't sell much to poor people.
Sorry, your definition of rich is entirely contained by money. Truthfully, those who are rich are that way because they have the power to make other people do things for them. Currently we just measure that by money. The rich man has the power to make a set of workers build him a wonderful house, dry-clean his shoes, cook and serve him his meals, etc. Normally it takes money to do this, but the amount of money it takes drops precipitiously as the average person has to work harder to ensure that they are able to get food put on the table.
Rich men in feudal times were generally not involved in the business of selling, they were involved in the business of ruling. Income disparity pushes us back toward that economic model, and away from an egalitarian model where power must be negotiated because most people (in our society) have surplus money.
>This is comically untrue. Check the "made in" on almost every >common consumer good you own -- clothes, cars, toys, baby >strollers. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand, >Mexico, and of course, the People's Republic of China.
And in which of those places has the standard of living dropped since, say, 1970? In which is there more starvation than there was thirty years ago? Note: I didn't ask "in which of those places are some people suffering."
Well, in Mexico there are now the factories that routinely employ young women, and kill them when they start approaching a seniority level that would require the company provide better wages. I would say that's a serious standard of living drop from.. pretty much anything, to be honest. There's also the issue of the local town wanting to charge a foreign company money for how it has been dumping its waste into their backyard. The company sued under NAFTA, and won. The residents were allowed to take no compensation from this company - and are now dealing with more cases of cancer than has ever been seen. Being sick with cancer is a standard of living drop.
Would you say being forced into prostitution to live rather than working on a farm is a standard of living drop? Welcome to Bangkok, where globalization has allowed companies to come in under relaxed trading laws, purchase public lands that were previously used by the residents to grow food, and place factories or cash-crop farms on them. In order to survive, families are forced to get work at the new factories if there is any, or find other alternative means.
Perhaps you prefer Brazil, where natives who used to hunt and farm for themselves find they no longer have that option as the land has been annexed and sold to private investors/loggers. So in search of money they go to the cocoa farms to harvest the beans we use for chocolate.. except, they find out too late that the "independant contractors" the North American companies use to get the beans are little more than slave camps, including beating people who try to leave. Sounds like a serious drop in the quality of life to me. But hey, they all get fed enough to keep them alive, it must be better than it was before, right?
To try and measure quality of life simply by starvation and infant mortality is to willfully deny a host of other things that influence the quality of a life. What's most frightening is that for some people, they prefer that denial to having to accept that maybe we are just the teensiest bit spoiled over here.
Slashdot Mirror
1. No effort on your part? So you're just sitting there, someone walks in and throws it on your computer? In that case, the piracy falls to the person who put it on your computer if they didn't get the product legally. They're the ones it had value to (as a gift for you). If the author later activates some sort of universal-delete on all pirated copies and you lose your software, that's the fault of the person who provided it to you, not the author.
2. No, because of gifts. It's entirely possible to receive something free of charge and of value to you that somebody else sells, and totally legally too, provided that who you get it from got it legally. As for your example, that's service v. product. To set the proper basis for your analogy, the other side would be you download a software product, you think "that's a cool product," so you then sit down and code your own. No piracy there at all. Ideas are free, implementations are not. This applies whether the idea is washing your windows, a software product, or a car. If you're willng to put the work into your own implementation, you too can wash your windows, build a car, or create a software product. If you're not, and the person who has wants money for their work in implementing, you either owe them the money or you don't use their implementation.
Hah! Found it again..
http://www.netives.com/Games/Wormz/index.njsp
Have fun!
So maybe Lucas doesn't want to weaken his trademarks on Star Wars characters.. because once those are gone, get ready to see the unauthorized Jar-Jar Binks Toilet Paper. You know damn well it'd be the best selling toilet paper ever.
I'd wager you have a better chance of getting Wagner to change than Ellison. :-)
Artists don't lose.
The music industry on the other hand.. ahh.. now they lose big time.
After all, now you like some guy that most of us haven't ever heard of. Think of what would happen if, as individuals, we each found different artists that we really liked? How the heck do you market that? You have a fixed budget for marketing, but if you split it up among fifty or a hundred or a thousand artists, you don't have enough for a video for any of them and your television ad airs once or twice instead of thirty times per day. Sure you can try, but people are going to like what they're going to like. If they don't like the crap you're shovelling, *and* they can easily find and get something else, that's what they're going to do.
If control of access to music returns to the people, then control of the marketing and distribution of music becomes meaningless - unfortunately, marketing and distribution are the primary functions of the music industry (as opposed to the artists, whose primary function is to create music)
So how does the music industry lose? Easy, it becomes meaningless, then valueless, then gone.
Of course, music will still be around, probably more music that more people like more, but that doesn't feed anybody who used to work in the industry of music industry; and that's what they're really afraid of.
Interesting idea for a EULA case..
Ask the IP holder to produce the EULA that you specifically agreed to. Request proof that it was you/your institution that accepted the EULA, and not the OEM, shipper, independant IT person who installed the software, etc..
Not only can they not prove who exactly accepted the EULA, they can't even prove the EULA was presented in the first place.
"No your honour. Nothing that said click to proceed came up on my screen. Could be a bug in this copy of their software I guess, I dunno, I didn't make it."
http://www.liquid.se/pong/pong.html
Weird idea, but what about a blind auction system?
Set minimum bids (5c? 10c?), and a maximum number of downloads per time period (day? 12hrs?). Auction is held and the top bidders in that period up to the maximum downloads get the song at what they bid.
Yeah it's using artificial scarcity to increase value, but with a reasonable time period I'm not sure people would mind. It also makes it very obvious to the record companies what kind of stuff is selling well. Naturally quality and speed of download would have to be top-notch.
In eMusics case, I find that the samples are almost always *worse* than the full track - at least for sound quality. For speed, all that's changed between a demo track and a paid track is the interface you use to get it, it's the same file so speed and quality of the track are the same as any you'd get from a paid subscription.
But speaking of quality the RM 30 second samples are utter pants. The MP3 30 second samples are better but still not quite as good as the full track in my opinion. The songs themselves sound just fine to me, but I'm not a serious audiophile. I've got a couple of cheap-ass harmon/kardon speakers here and comparing between an MP3 from eMusic and the same track from a CD I already own sound the same on them.
Hell.. if the RIAA actually *did* step 1, I'd probably be willing to pay them for music.
Actually he's entirely correct on both points. It's nice to see that even Mr. Larsen is acknowledging their actions are immoral.
How nice. So the tax-payer is now the one responsible for paying for the various overhead that such an "amusement" patent generates.
Coming as this does at tax-time, my "amusement" threshold is rather low.
but for every used book sold, it has to have been bought once new. If someone is going to buy a cheaper used book, what does it matter if they buy it one month, or ten months, or a decade, after the book is released?
The timetable matters because publishers generally decide whether to give an author a second book deal based on the sales numbers they get from the first one.
I'm like you. I prefer new. I'm worried about those who when they get on the Amazon site see that if they click one link they get it for some price, but if they click the link just below it, they get it for 10-50% cheaper. I tend to feel that a lot of people who aren't as into books as you and I will see that extra savings and think "Why not.. it's not even been out a month, how much damage could have been done to it?"
Now this isn't going to affect established authors one iota. The publishers know they can sell those authors and so have a lot more leeway in what they consider a "failed" book. But for new or niche authors then this could wind up being the difference between them getting a second book or not.
A lot of people say "Well, I buy the first book used, because I don't want to risk the money, but if I like it, I buy the rest new." Which is great! The problem is when you buy that first one used, decide you like it, but then never see another book from that author again because their sales weren't high enough for the publishers.
I'm not saying don't buy used. Bigger audience and all, more exposure. Good things. But buying used when the book is still on the "New Book Rack" at wherever (be it Amazon or the local store) can wind up hurting the authors.
You see, a publisher will only produce a second book from an author if enough copies of the first are sold.
So unless car manufacturers routinely hire and fire car designers based on if a particular model sells particularly well, your analogy fails.
It seems everybody has this idea that my problem with Amazon's actions is that it cuts into the profit of publishers and authors, but that's not the problem at all. The problem is that it cuts into the raw sales numbers, so that good niche authors simply don't get the opportunity to publish a second book.
My problem is that by having day-old used book sales available right next to the new books, we inadvertently end up feeding the mainstream mass market, and hurt the ability of new authors to be able to create and distribute non-mainstream work.
Of course, another alternative is for Amazon to supply used-sales numbers to the publishers as well. I'd be absolutely fine with that - if the publishers took the short-sighted view of not taking those into consideration, then it becomes the publishers fault, not Amazon's.
Often it is..
..except I don't buy used.
Seriously, where do they think used books come from? Someone had to buy them new at one time. People who really want a book and can afford to buy it new generally will, and people who want the book, but go for the used book generally wouldn't buy the new book if it was all that was available.
This is the whole point of contention.
Personally, I believe that people are, on the whole, lazy and cheap. So I think that when you get to the Amazon page and there are two prices there, one for the new and one an extra 10-50% off for the used, people will probably go for the used.
However, if there was some minor impediment like a single link saying "Check our used section", than most people wouldn't bother clicking into it to get the discount. Even if that click was the only extra thing between them and the used book purchase.
This all relies on the idea though that people in general are lazy and cheap - unfortunately, there's a lot of evidence for this position.
It seems unlikely that you could increase the sales of used books by a non-trivial amount without having the side effect of increasing the sales of new books.
Yeah. But it also seems unlikely that people would purchase higher priced new books when the lower-priced used book link is right there.
and when the public library has a book published in April 2002 already on the shelf for people to check out or read, that strikes me as hurting the author and the publisher. NOT!
Where do you live that your library gets new books that quickly?
Around here, the book has typically been on store shelves for a good two/three months before our local public library gets its copy. So either your library system is a hell of a lot better than what I'm used to, or you don't actually use your library and are simply talking out of your ass.
Next you'll tell us that people shouldn't be allowed to lend lawnmowers to their neighbors, because that deprives the lawnmower manufacturer of revenue.
Guess what, I never said that used book sales shouldn't be allowed - that's the second part of my post - but because that doesn't fit into your desired vitriol, perhaps you simply ignored it?
All I suggested was maybe Amazon could have the decency to say "Hey.. this book is new.. let's give the publisher/author a chance to make some decent sales numbers out of it before we start trying to pull in the used book trade." I don't see how a separate section would hurt Amazon or the consumer terribly - it'd still be there after all. Those who really want the discount can just go into that section, but those who are on the fence, maybe buy new, maybe buy used, that extra step might be enough to convince them to buy new. Thus increasing the chances of a publisher seeing high enough numbers to justify a second book from the author.
Offering customers a lower-priced option causes them to visit our site more frequently,
I don't doubt it, Jeff.
which in turn leads to higher sales of new books
Does it? Or does it simply lead to higher sales of used books?
while encouraging customers to try
authors and genres they may not have otherwise tried.
Absolutely.. too bad used books give no indication to the publishers that these authors and genres deserve a second book contract.
I've got no problem with Amazon selling used books. More power to'em. But when a book published in April 2002 already has a used book link offer up *right beside* the new book.. that strikes me as hurting the author and the publisher.
At least have the courtesy to separate them out for a few months so that publishers can have a more accurate indication of what's selling well and what's not.
There is a free online version of that game available somewhere. I found it on one of my hunts through the net.
I'll see if I can find it again and post the link up here.
He answered that..
The ability to cache a certain URL is given to the editor. They look at the site, decide if it can handle a slashdotting, and if not, enable the Squid-suit.
So what are you saying? If an RIAA company by some miracle got a change of directorship and started putting out decent quality, low cost, unrestricted copies over the internet, we should still be fighting them because they're part of the RIAA? For what?
Support those organizations that are doing it right so that those who are doing it wrong see somewhere else to go.
Okay. How about it's not anybody's right do download copyrighted material without the copyright owner's permission?
Considering that most large publishing houses are having difficulties themselves squeaking by (and smaller ones being driven out of existance by Chapters et al), the market for self-published material is ridiculously perilous.
Combine this with the average median income of an author (somewhere slightly below the poverty line) and you're looking at, quite honestly, a dearth of new reading materials by moving to a primarily self-published market.
That being said, the authors guild isn't asking for any money from used book sales, they're just asking Amazon to hold off putting up the "Purchase used for half price!" link right beside the new book for a while - maybe at least until the first sales numbers are in to the publishers.
After all, publishers look at bottom line. They set limits on what kind of minimum sales they want to see before they'll publish another book from the same author. If they've set a limit of 10,000 and the author sells 8,500 first run copies, even if another 2,000 people bought the book through resale (because hey, it was easily available right there on Amazon.. just click the link and you get a discount) and want to see what's next, that author doesn't get a second deal, and everybody - author, publisher, and readers - all lose.
The only one who actually wins is Amazon - because they've taken their cut on brokering the book, and had to pay less than they normally would for associated costs such as storage.
So your argument boils down to this: any actual measurements that show overall improvements are irrelevant since they are always trumped by anecdotal evidence of particular abuses.
Were these abuses isolated incidents, you may have a point. Unfortunately they're not.
How about I phrase this from a more statistical point of view, since that seems to be all you're willing to accept.
When the number of people being enslaved rises due to globalization, when the number of people being degraded rises due to globalization, when the number of people who are suffering from toxin related illness rises due to globalization, when the number of people being harmed, maimed, or killed by companies unwilling to invest in safety practices rises due to globalization, then things are getting worse.
Also, for what it's worth, infant mortality and starvation are not meaures of quality of life. Neither of them change based on how people live - they only change based on how people die.
>"I believe that in the long run increasing the disparity between
>rich and poor guarantees that the rich are going to have the power
$gt;to reduce the poor to subsistence slavery."
Why would they want to do that? It is certainly not in the best interests of the rich to reduce the standard of living of the poor. The rich get that way by selling stuff. You can't sell much to poor people.
Sorry, your definition of rich is entirely contained by money. Truthfully, those who are rich are that way because they have the power to make other people do things for them. Currently we just measure that by money. The rich man has the power to make a set of workers build him a wonderful house, dry-clean his shoes, cook and serve him his meals, etc. Normally it takes money to do this, but the amount of money it takes drops precipitiously as the average person has to work harder to ensure that they are able to get food put on the table.
Rich men in feudal times were generally not involved in the business of selling, they were involved in the business of ruling. Income disparity pushes us back toward that economic model, and away from an egalitarian model where power must be negotiated because most people (in our society) have surplus money.
>This is comically untrue. Check the "made in" on almost every
>common consumer good you own -- clothes, cars, toys, baby
>strollers. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand,
>Mexico, and of course, the People's Republic of China.
And in which of those places has the standard of living dropped since, say, 1970? In which is there more starvation than there was thirty years ago? Note: I didn't ask "in which of those places are some people suffering."
Well, in Mexico there are now the factories that routinely employ young women, and kill them when they start approaching a seniority level that would require the company provide better wages. I would say that's a serious standard of living drop from
Would you say being forced into prostitution to live rather than working on a farm is a standard of living drop? Welcome to Bangkok, where globalization has allowed companies to come in under relaxed trading laws, purchase public lands that were previously used by the residents to grow food, and place factories or cash-crop farms on them. In order to survive, families are forced to get work at the new factories if there is any, or find other alternative means.
Perhaps you prefer Brazil, where natives who used to hunt and farm for themselves find they no longer have that option as the land has been annexed and sold to private investors/loggers. So in search of money they go to the cocoa farms to harvest the beans we use for chocolate.. except, they find out too late that the "independant contractors" the North American companies use to get the beans are little more than slave camps, including beating people who try to leave. Sounds like a serious drop in the quality of life to me. But hey, they all get fed enough to keep them alive, it must be better than it was before, right?
To try and measure quality of life simply by starvation and infant mortality is to willfully deny a host of other things that influence the quality of a life. What's most frightening is that for some people, they prefer that denial to having to accept that maybe we are just the teensiest bit spoiled over here.