Good point, what can be done about content producers? Where do you draw the line? I wouldn't out it past the knuckle heads in Washington to pass a bill that puts out of business the very people they are interested in protecting.
I wrote this letter to Orin Hatch in response to the The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act. I plan to print it and send it off on Monday. What do you folks think of it? Any constructive feedback would be appreciated for improving the letter.
Dear Senator Orin Hatch,
As a citizen of the state of Utah I am concerned about The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act you introduced last month. I feel strongly against the measures specified in the act and feel its passing would not be in the best interest of our country. Innovation in technology related fields, especially with regards to personal computing is fundamental to our economy.
Over the last few decades the United States has transitioned from an economy supported by manufacturing to one based more on services. American companies are innovating in new and exciting ways and this innovation is possible because of technology. Empowered by technology pharmaceutical companies are discovering new drugs by using automated systems to combine existing drugs with the hope of finding good combinations. While automobile manufacturers are designing more fuel-efficient vehicles which produce lower emissions. For everyday people the technology available today has empowered us to communicate better, to learn more, and to be more active in our world.
While the protection of copyrights is important to ensure the prosperity of our entertainment industries, it is my opinion that The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act will do more harm then good. This act will discourage technological innovation, something fundamental to the prosperity and stability of the American economy. Furthermore, limiting individual rights of fair-use is not the solution to the issues of piracy and copyright infringement. I understand and support the need to take action against copyright infringement. But I strongly and sincerely believe The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act is not the solution.
Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. I look forward to and would appreciate your personal response.
What I'd like to know is that a threat Bono, or a promise? The last thing I'm interested in hearing is a new U2 album. Ugh! No offense to the fans, but its my kind of muzak.
Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief
1 a: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
For this discussion the second definition is the most relevant, that is, "an unlawful taking of property." Theft as defined in this manner would aptly apply to piracy, be it software, music, or video games. By downloading pirated software or by copying a CD you are unlawfully taking property which doesn't belong to you. But what is property and how can it be defined?
Main Entry: property
Pronunciation: 'prä-p&r-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English proprete, from Middle French propreté, from Latin proprietat-, proprietas, from proprius own
1 a: a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b: an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c: VIRTUE 3 d: an attribute common to all members of a class
2 a: something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b: the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP c: something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) under contract whose work is especially valuable
The second definition, including a, b and c fits our discussion. Software is "something owned [and] possessed" by the respective creator or company. Furthermore, software is "something to which... business[es] [have] a legal title."
By these definitions by using pirated software, whether it be downloaded from the Internet or copied from a friend, is theft of property. Whether defined as legal or illegal, software piracy is theft and by committing piracy you are depriving the rightful owner of their property. While stealing software is categorically different from stealing say, automobiles, it is theft nonetheless.
Honestly, I think that copyright should be tremendously relaxed in the case of items that cost more than $100 which are copied for non-commercial use.
So in the cases were businesses have the most to lose you advocate the most relaxed restrictions? That doesn't make any sense.
On the other hand, I doubt that the market for AutoCAD is distrurbed at all if people can download it for non-commercial use.
As we would both agree, non-commercial use of pirated software really isn't the issue. The problem lies with commercial use of pirated software. Companies which use pirated software for business and engage in commercial for-profit interests are more of a problem then people using the same software for non-commercial interests. But in both situations the respective owner of the software is being deprived of their property and whatever monetary value associated with it.
However, when the majority of the population thinks a law is unjust, maybe it is time to change the law...
I think you are gravely mistaken if you are suggesting that a majority believe copyright protection of software is unjust. What is unjust about producing a product and offering it for sale to the market? Capitalism is based on this basic concept and our economy is driven by these markets. While it would be nice if I could go to the store and pick-up whatever food I needed at no cost that just isn't how things work.
Dictionary definitions from Merriam-Webster Online dictionary.
http://www.m-w.com/
Even in the stone age, people would try to copy the neightbours spear.
Just how do you explain knowing that? You must be older then you let on to be...
Everyone has been taught to share from they were in kindergarten.
That is a good point, especially with regards to music and movies. It seems natural for me to give a copy of a CD to a friend who I think might enjoy the music. If an album really touches me, gets me rocking or has me applauding at the end, I want to share that with others. Most of us are generous people with regards to sharing and every time I give someone a copy of a CD I don't feel like I am stealing from the artists pockets. Rather I feel hopeful that I am creating a new fan who will love the music as much as I do.
When it comes to shareware, they just don't offer enough for the money.
Someone once famously said that 95% of everything is crap. There are a lot of poorly written, horribly designed and just plain bad shareware programs out there. But amidst the pleurae of bad software there are some real gems. When I used to work on a Mac I regularly used several shareware programs. Now using a PC I don't use quite as many, but I still use a few.
Shareware just like open-source software provides an important alternative to commercial offerings. Shareware programs aren't usually designed to be full-featured or offering every bell and whistle. Often the program came about pragmatically because the author needed to do something that other software couldn't do or didn't do well. Shareware just like open-source software shouldn't be discounted.
You're kidding, right? The submitter is either purposely acting ignorant or really has had their head under a rock for the past five years. Software piracy is "far-fetched?"
Well said, the submitter is obviously oblivious to BitTorrent, eMule/eDonkey, Hotline, KDX, and the old school resources of IRC and newsgroups. While some of these services wouldn't necessarily be called P2P, they fit the general mold.
However, I feel no guilt on this. I am making no money off of their product. And they have not "lost" a sale, as I would not have bought it in the first place.
You are justifying theft. Despite that you aren't making money and wouldn't have purchased the software to begin with, you are still benefiting from pirating software. When asked why I personally use pirated software I have responded in much the same way you did. It is easy to justify piracy by stating the things you said. But regardless of how you want to express it, we are still stealing. As someone who has never shoplifted anything, or ever would, I don't know how I feel about this sort of theft. In a way it sort of bothers me, but like you I usually don't feel guilty.
He suddenly got a clue and said yes, the auto reverse is a very nice feature indeed. The manager came over and I told him this was the only model with the features of his broken unit. The customer got the $249 unit and left very happy...
Best Buy's policy is replacing the broken unit with a comparable unit of equal or lesser value. So if the customer paid $200 for something they have the option of any unit under $200 or they can pay the difference and get something more expensive. I am surprised your company so readily lost money by replacing the broken unit with a more expensive one. Quite asinine.
It's funny - when I first started working there (92?), they had a policy that warranties were explained and offered once, and we were trained to not be pushy.
Best Buy's current policy is to plant a seed for the service plan during your sales presentation, offer the service plan later in the sale and explain some of its benefits and try to overcome any objections customers might have. If you read the literature Best Buy has on selling performance service plans it makes it clearly says not to be pushy or force service plans on customers. But what you'd find is that despite what that Best Buy salespeople are pressured by their managers and supervisors to sell service plans. There is a lot of undue pressure and it makes some people very pushy and aggressive. From the standpoint of customers that is very unwelcome.
With regards to accessories, they are as much a focus as service plans at Best Buy. For example, on a big screen TV the service plan costs $250. But if you can also sell the customer a $200 Monster PowerBar, $70 Monster Component Video Cables for their DVD player, $40 Monster Audio Cables for their DVD player, and whatever else they might need you can make a lot more money on accessories then on service plans. On a big screen TV you are suspossed to have a basket attachment of over $400.
When I want to buy something I find the place that has it for the lowest price and I buy it. I do my research online, make a telephone call or two, go to the store, get the product, pay and leave. I rarely ask for help and I rarely need to talk to any salespeople. So if my product I want is at Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA or a local shop it doesn't matter. That is me anyway.
While I agree with most of what you said I think it is important to recognize that customers aren't always right. Too often customers think they deserve more then they really do and demand services or discounts they have no right to. Customer service isn't about kissing ass but doing the appropriate thing. I think it is important to take care of customers and make things right. But I think it is not all right to bend over backwards for demanding, ungrateful or rude people.
Selling PRPs is typically the job of the operations team, that is customer service and the cashiers. Salespeople are suspossed to mention the PRPs but usually don't sell them.
The salespeople at the local Best Buys in my town aren't real pushy. They wander up and ask if I need help and when I say "No" they leave. While I think Product Replacement Plans aren't a bad deal on some items I wouldn't like being offered them so many times. I think you did the right thing to complain and then cancel your purchase. No place deserves your business if they are going to act like that.
According to what I've been told they are only making about 50% profit on their Performance Service Plans. While that is good margin, most accessories have the same market-up.
In the defense of best buy employees, it's caused by a corporate structure that demands it as well as a large part of employees salaries being based on commission.
Best Buy employees haven't been paid any sort of sales commissions for years. That has nothing to do with getting the sale because whether they get the sale or not they still make the same money.
While Wired can still be interesting (I read it since I started getting a free subscription somehow) it has steadily turned into the "shiny things"
I've been a subscriber to Wired since 1995 and read back issues before then. I think Wired is one of the more interesting magazines on the market and I disagree it has turned into a place to feature "shiny things". While Wired does highlight new technology, cool gadgets and other "shiny" stuff, the real content is in the articles about science, computers, the enviroment and politics. There are some great writers woring for Wired and some excellent contributors. Shiny things aside I like Wired now more then I ever have.
On another note it is interesting to note that Best Buy considers their three main competitors Dell Computers, eBay, and Wal-Mart. In their mind Circuit City, Ultimate Electronics, Tweet and whoever else are relics of the past. I am intrigued to see what Best Buy will do to compete against these companies. Personally I doubt they have any chance against the number one computer retailer, the world's garage sale and the largest retailer in the world, period. Should be an interesting battle.
You could just tell the sales people you are, "OK." I think they will understand.
Or, you could engage them in a conversation about how they like selling [ fill in the blank ]. That could be interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, what can be done about content producers? Where do you draw the line? I wouldn't out it past the knuckle heads in Washington to pass a bill that puts out of business the very people they are interested in protecting.
I wrote this letter to Orin Hatch in response to the The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act. I plan to print it and send it off on Monday. What do you folks think of it? Any constructive feedback would be appreciated for improving the letter.
Dear Senator Orin Hatch,
As a citizen of the state of Utah I am concerned about The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act you introduced last month. I feel strongly against the measures specified in the act and feel its passing would not be in the best interest of our country. Innovation in technology related fields, especially with regards to personal computing is fundamental to our economy.
Over the last few decades the United States has transitioned from an economy supported by manufacturing to one based more on services. American companies are innovating in new and exciting ways and this innovation is possible because of technology. Empowered by technology pharmaceutical companies are discovering new drugs by using automated systems to combine existing drugs with the hope of finding good combinations. While automobile manufacturers are designing more fuel-efficient vehicles which produce lower emissions. For everyday people the technology available today has empowered us to communicate better, to learn more, and to be more active in our world.
While the protection of copyrights is important to ensure the prosperity of our entertainment industries, it is my opinion that The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act will do more harm then good. This act will discourage technological innovation, something fundamental to the prosperity and stability of the American economy. Furthermore, limiting individual rights of fair-use is not the solution to the issues of piracy and copyright infringement. I understand and support the need to take action against copyright infringement. But I strongly and sincerely believe The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act is not the solution.
Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. I look forward to and would appreciate your personal response.
What I'd like to know is that a threat Bono, or a promise? The last thing I'm interested in hearing is a new U2 album. Ugh! No offense to the fans, but its my kind of muzak.
Main Entry: theft Pronunciation: 'theft Function: noun Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
: a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c : VIRTUE 3 d : an attribute common to all members of a class
2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) under contract whose work is especially valuable
... business[es] [have] a legal title."
For this discussion the second definition is the most relevant, that is, "an unlawful taking of property." Theft as defined in this manner would aptly apply to piracy, be it software, music, or video games. By downloading pirated software or by copying a CD you are unlawfully taking property which doesn't belong to you. But what is property and how can it be defined?
Main Entry: property Pronunciation: 'prä-p&r-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Etymology: Middle English proprete, from Middle French propreté, from Latin proprietat-, proprietas, from proprius own 1 a
The second definition, including a, b and c fits our discussion. Software is "something owned [and] possessed" by the respective creator or company. Furthermore, software is "something to which
By these definitions by using pirated software, whether it be downloaded from the Internet or copied from a friend, is theft of property. Whether defined as legal or illegal, software piracy is theft and by committing piracy you are depriving the rightful owner of their property. While stealing software is categorically different from stealing say, automobiles, it is theft nonetheless.
Honestly, I think that copyright should be tremendously relaxed in the case of items that cost more than $100 which are copied for non-commercial use.
So in the cases were businesses have the most to lose you advocate the most relaxed restrictions? That doesn't make any sense.
On the other hand, I doubt that the market for AutoCAD is distrurbed at all if people can download it for non-commercial use.
As we would both agree, non-commercial use of pirated software really isn't the issue. The problem lies with commercial use of pirated software. Companies which use pirated software for business and engage in commercial for-profit interests are more of a problem then people using the same software for non-commercial interests. But in both situations the respective owner of the software is being deprived of their property and whatever monetary value associated with it.
However, when the majority of the population thinks a law is unjust, maybe it is time to change the law...
I think you are gravely mistaken if you are suggesting that a majority believe copyright protection of software is unjust. What is unjust about producing a product and offering it for sale to the market? Capitalism is based on this basic concept and our economy is driven by these markets. While it would be nice if I could go to the store and pick-up whatever food I needed at no cost that just isn't how things work.
Dictionary definitions from Merriam-Webster Online dictionary. http://www.m-w.com/
My broadband, 4.0Mbps/384Kbps cable line is paid for by the company.
Even in the stone age, people would try to copy the neightbours spear.
Just how do you explain knowing that? You must be older then you let on to be...
Everyone has been taught to share from they were in kindergarten.
That is a good point, especially with regards to music and movies. It seems natural for me to give a copy of a CD to a friend who I think might enjoy the music. If an album really touches me, gets me rocking or has me applauding at the end, I want to share that with others. Most of us are generous people with regards to sharing and every time I give someone a copy of a CD I don't feel like I am stealing from the artists pockets. Rather I feel hopeful that I am creating a new fan who will love the music as much as I do.
When it comes to shareware, they just don't offer enough for the money.
Someone once famously said that 95% of everything is crap. There are a lot of poorly written, horribly designed and just plain bad shareware programs out there. But amidst the pleurae of bad software there are some real gems. When I used to work on a Mac I regularly used several shareware programs. Now using a PC I don't use quite as many, but I still use a few.
Shareware just like open-source software provides an important alternative to commercial offerings. Shareware programs aren't usually designed to be full-featured or offering every bell and whistle. Often the program came about pragmatically because the author needed to do something that other software couldn't do or didn't do well. Shareware just like open-source software shouldn't be discounted.
You're kidding, right? The submitter is either purposely acting ignorant or really has had their head under a rock for the past five years. Software piracy is "far-fetched?"
Well said, the submitter is obviously oblivious to BitTorrent, eMule/eDonkey, Hotline, KDX, and the old school resources of IRC and newsgroups. While some of these services wouldn't necessarily be called P2P, they fit the general mold.
However, I feel no guilt on this. I am making no money off of their product. And they have not "lost" a sale, as I would not have bought it in the first place.
You are justifying theft. Despite that you aren't making money and wouldn't have purchased the software to begin with, you are still benefiting from pirating software. When asked why I personally use pirated software I have responded in much the same way you did. It is easy to justify piracy by stating the things you said. But regardless of how you want to express it, we are still stealing. As someone who has never shoplifted anything, or ever would, I don't know how I feel about this sort of theft. In a way it sort of bothers me, but like you I usually don't feel guilty.
I forgot about those situations. You are right, often items do have multiple rebates like you said and only ask for a photocopy of the UPC.
He suddenly got a clue and said yes, the auto reverse is a very nice feature indeed. The manager came over and I told him this was the only model with the features of his broken unit. The customer got the $249 unit and left very happy...
Best Buy's policy is replacing the broken unit with a comparable unit of equal or lesser value. So if the customer paid $200 for something they have the option of any unit under $200 or they can pay the difference and get something more expensive. I am surprised your company so readily lost money by replacing the broken unit with a more expensive one. Quite asinine.
It's funny - when I first started working there (92?), they had a policy that warranties were explained and offered once, and we were trained to not be pushy.
Best Buy's current policy is to plant a seed for the service plan during your sales presentation, offer the service plan later in the sale and explain some of its benefits and try to overcome any objections customers might have. If you read the literature Best Buy has on selling performance service plans it makes it clearly says not to be pushy or force service plans on customers. But what you'd find is that despite what that Best Buy salespeople are pressured by their managers and supervisors to sell service plans. There is a lot of undue pressure and it makes some people very pushy and aggressive. From the standpoint of customers that is very unwelcome.
With regards to accessories, they are as much a focus as service plans at Best Buy. For example, on a big screen TV the service plan costs $250. But if you can also sell the customer a $200 Monster PowerBar, $70 Monster Component Video Cables for their DVD player, $40 Monster Audio Cables for their DVD player, and whatever else they might need you can make a lot more money on accessories then on service plans. On a big screen TV you are suspossed to have a basket attachment of over $400.
Perhaps the salesperson was so ignorant about computers that he really believed it was a "special" cable. That really wouldn't suprise me.
When I want to buy something I find the place that has it for the lowest price and I buy it. I do my research online, make a telephone call or two, go to the store, get the product, pay and leave. I rarely ask for help and I rarely need to talk to any salespeople. So if my product I want is at Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA or a local shop it doesn't matter. That is me anyway.
While I agree with most of what you said I think it is important to recognize that customers aren't always right. Too often customers think they deserve more then they really do and demand services or discounts they have no right to. Customer service isn't about kissing ass but doing the appropriate thing. I think it is important to take care of customers and make things right. But I think it is not all right to bend over backwards for demanding, ungrateful or rude people.
Selling PRPs is typically the job of the operations team, that is customer service and the cashiers. Salespeople are suspossed to mention the PRPs but usually don't sell them.
The salespeople at the local Best Buys in my town aren't real pushy. They wander up and ask if I need help and when I say "No" they leave. While I think Product Replacement Plans aren't a bad deal on some items I wouldn't like being offered them so many times. I think you did the right thing to complain and then cancel your purchase. No place deserves your business if they are going to act like that.
Warranties have a very large profit margin.
According to what I've been told they are only making about 50% profit on their Performance Service Plans. While that is good margin, most accessories have the same market-up.
In the defense of best buy employees, it's caused by a corporate structure that demands it as well as a large part of employees salaries being based on commission. Best Buy employees haven't been paid any sort of sales commissions for years. That has nothing to do with getting the sale because whether they get the sale or not they still make the same money.
Not very often will you be able to return something that doesn't have the UPC code intact. No UPC, no return at the majority of stores.
The problem is a broken sense customer ethics.
While Wired can still be interesting (I read it since I started getting a free subscription somehow) it has steadily turned into the "shiny things" I've been a subscriber to Wired since 1995 and read back issues before then. I think Wired is one of the more interesting magazines on the market and I disagree it has turned into a place to feature "shiny things". While Wired does highlight new technology, cool gadgets and other "shiny" stuff, the real content is in the articles about science, computers, the enviroment and politics. There are some great writers woring for Wired and some excellent contributors. Shiny things aside I like Wired now more then I ever have.
On another note it is interesting to note that Best Buy considers their three main competitors Dell Computers, eBay, and Wal-Mart. In their mind Circuit City, Ultimate Electronics, Tweet and whoever else are relics of the past. I am intrigued to see what Best Buy will do to compete against these companies. Personally I doubt they have any chance against the number one computer retailer, the world's garage sale and the largest retailer in the world, period. Should be an interesting battle.
You could just tell the sales people you are, "OK." I think they will understand. Or, you could engage them in a conversation about how they like selling [ fill in the blank ]. That could be interesting.
Yes of course, I meant to mention accessories but forgot. ;) 50% profit margins on accessories are good.