The truth is, "exposure" is not all you're buying. Billing, distribution, hosting, and bandwidth all come with a cost - both in time and money.
So, you have to get ALL of that, and then buy advertising with the remaining money. And do it all yourself, meaning you spend less and less time developing software and maintaining software, and more time doing administrative nonsense. For an independent developer, 30 cents on the dollar for access to the app store is a bargain.
And can you effectively advertise, distribute, and sell (remember, purchasing systems charge fees too) your $0.99 app yourself, for 30 cents per sale?
I'm guessing that doesn't buy you much exposure, and that 30% cut starts looking pretty okay when you think about the money and time you're saving on "administrative" stuff, rather than focusing on customer support and new features.
Cydia. But even then, that's irrelevant to the point at hand - competition CAN exist in the Android world too - and it largely doesn't, at least not on price. Which means that Apple, and Google, and Amazon, with their large scales of economy and expertise in economical management of large numbers of servers and large distributed applications, are probably just about breaking even on their app stores at that 30% cut, not making "obscene profits."
Remember, their profits are "30% of sales minus their costs to develop, maintain, and administer the billing, distribution, and storefront for the apps, as well as the infrastructure that provides all that functionality."
Given the financial statements from the companies, that 30% cut does not equal "obscene profits" - it equals "a little bit of revenue, enough to about break even."
Apple explicitly blessing third-party sites has no real relevance in the discussion - it's a separate issue, and one which I would probably largely agree with you on. The question of whether a 30% cut to handle all purchasing & international distribution of your application is "reasonable" is separate from whether or not the hardware manufacturer allows competition. Apple charges 30% and doesn't allow competition. Google allows competition, and STILL charges that 30%. Amazon does the same. None of them are making "obscene" profits off their app stores, which suggests that the 30% cut is a fairly reasonable one, given the services they're providing, and given the low cost of many of these apps.
Why not? The original iPhone was sold exactly that way - and people bought it in record numbers.
The bottom line is this: The app store is NOT a significant contributor to Apple's revenues. It's a "nice to have" thing, but it is not directly a major moneymaker for them. They make their money off of hardware sales, not software.
You see all those squiggly black lines AROUND the drawings?
Yeah, those are called "words."
Those "words" do something we call "describing".
So perhaps you can explain why you're only looking at the pretty pictures, when the claim you JUST cited specifically says "substantially as shown and described"?
Yes, Google has explicitly opened themselves up to competitive pressures by allowing externally sourced purchases & downloads. And they STILL charge 30%.
Amazon, too.
That means they either need to charge that just to break even or make a reasonable profit (and this is Amazon, Apple, and Google we're talking about - I think they probably have some pretty good tools for managing server farms), or they're confident nobody else is going to be able to do it significantly cheaper.
My money's on the second one - hosting a data center, providing good uptime, fast payment processing & downloads, worldwide distribution, and a storefront... that all gets expensive. They probably COULD do it a bit cheaper, but why lower your revenues when there's no competitive pressure to do so?
considering how much they earn through 3rd party apps being sold through the app-store
Actually, "how much they earn through 3rd party apps being sold" is very little in their overall revenues. You should check that out sometime - Apple could close up the App Store tomorrow and only notice a small hit in their revenue - they make their money off of hardware sales, by and large -- NOT software sales.
Even if you slugged the entire liter in one instant swallow, and magically managed not to puke it all back up, no, it almost certainly would not KILL you, unless you are a VERY small person.
If you're average size/weight, it would probably get you sick, it would likely get you VERY drunk, and it would probably leave you with a whanging hangover the next day, but unless you are also on some sort of medication that would have an adverse interaction with the alcohol (e.g., downing a liter of vodka with sleeping pills or other sedatives), that's about all it would do.
Sure, or think of the commercial print industry: Everybody can buy a cheap consumer inkjet/laser printer that will print at a decent quality - you could buy and print out PDFs if you wanted to do all of it at home. But you wouldn't necessarily have access to a commercial-grade printing and binding facility that would allow you to crank out a couple thousand professionally bound copies of War and Peace in a few hours.
I don't think printers are a foregone conclusion in the home, but I think you'll see "consumer-grade" printers available for a reasonable price for those who want them - just like you can buy a table saw for your home workshop, or a nailgun today. The DIY-ers will have one, the people who can't be bothered with fixing and building things themselves will rely on commercial services.
Generally speaking, *IF* you're okay to own the weapon, you're okay to build the weapon yourself, though sale of said weapon may be restricted. They can't really prevent it, and practically speaking, most people don't have the machine tools to produce a rifled barrel and other precision parts which are required for an accurate weapon, which means the accuracy of any homemade firearm will be awful beyond about 10 feet.
You're right though: a practical 3D system might also encourage the gov't to pass laws to prevent the use of that system to create gun parts, especially as detailing on those parts get more and more sophisticated.
How about order it online, your order goes to a nearby commercial fabricator who can provide the printing services on demand, and then deliver it to your door that same day, just a few hours after your order is submitted?
Amazon's already trying to build shipping facilities to support "same day delivery" - imagine if they could just fill a warehouse with banks of printers, and plans for printing up a few thousand of their most commonly-sold items, instead of stocking those shipping facilities with pre-manufactured goods. You'd realize the cost benefits of mass production alongside the convenience of rapid home delivery by spreading out the manufacturing that way, and you'd also save a ton of money on dedicated manufacturing facilities, shipping, and storage of pre-made goods.
This is the reason not every home has to have a pizza oven, pasta maker, and sushi chef.
Great..so, now, the group turns into a souless, business only work entity
Only if you have two modes of behavior - a rabid dog with no impulse control, or a robot with zero personality.
Most people are quite capable of keeping their dick in their pants when the situation calls for it, without losing their ability to make jokes, or talk about the latest episode of Breaking Bad or Boardwalk Empire with their co-workers.
This argument that if you enact a "zero tolerance" policy towards sexual harassment, you'll end up with a sterile, soulless workplace is completely bogus, and you know it. I am quite capable of determining that "Hey Sue, did you see the season premiere of Breaking Bad last night? Awesome!" is companionable, friendly conversation, while, "Hey Sue, your tits are looking absolutely fabulous today, and you're totally distracting me with your boner-inducing hotness. If you'll let me grope your tits in the mother's nursing room on the 2nd floor, I'll let you jerk me off under the table in the conference room after 5," has crossed the line.
If you're incapable of determining where that line is, then you probably need the explicit zero tolerance policy more than some of your more mature, civilized peers. Unfortunately, we have to plan for the lowest common denominator, which is the idiot who sees his behavioral options as a binary choice between "borderline date rapist" and "soulless automaton."
Is there some reason to believe that the OP lives in a country with draconian sexual harassment laws? Not everyone lives in a litigationocracy.
Yes, the simple fact that he's asking the question. Do you think the men really worry about sexual harassment in places where there are no laws against it? There'd be no need to "curb" the behavior, because the behavior would simply be "normal, everyday, guy behavior," that would be accepted as such.
Okay, so let's say you spend $2000 building yourself a quality set of home tools - quite reasonable for a good drill, a couple good saws, a router, and a decent assortment of hand tools, and that's probably just the basics of what you'd need. Now let's say you make 12 pieces of furniture with them. You're still spending an average of ~$167 per piece of furniture on the cost of your woodworking tools.
That right there blows your DIY budget - because I guarantee you that you can buy a better-looking piece of furniture for $167 than you can construct as an amateur for the $300 the wood + amortized tool costs will get you. Since you seem to like picking on Ikea, call me when you can construct a pine bookcase (solid pine - the back piece is the only non-solid wood in use, according to the Product Info) for less than $155 - with the finish & build quality at least as good as that bookcase, or significantly better. Hell, the tools *alone* cost more than that, unless you're committing to making 15-20 pieces of furniture for your house - then figure in your time for labor, cost of materials - you couldn't produce a bookshelf that looks like that for that cost, period.
If you want to do it because you enjoy it, then have at it - it's a fun hobby, and over time, your build & finish quality will certainly improve as you get more practice with the techniques. But please, let's stop pretending that any fool with a circular saw and some scrap wood can build "quality" furniture for less than what it would cost to get same-or-better furniture pre-built from Ikea or any other store. If you're doing it at home with the recipe you provided initially, it will be an amateurish piece of work, and *still* cost far more than a bland-but-finished solid pine bookcase from Ikea.
Looks like a recipe for a severely ugly, amateurish bookcase - that sort of construction would be fine in a workshop where rough utility is more important than a quality finish. But in my living room? No, I'd rather have the WalMart kit, because at least it won't have unfinished & rough-cut edges and corners, and look like a 6th grader's wood shop project.
The thing is, I never said it was "hard," to do this - the skills are not rocket science, they just take practice & time. What I said is, it's "costly." And it is.
Using a very basic, rectangular bookshelf sitting in my living room as an example: 4 feet tall, 2.5 feet wide, 9.5 inches deep, all 5 shelves and 2 uprights 3/4" thickness: that's roughly 17 board-feet of lumber. Let's assume 20 board-feet of raw lumber, assuming scrap ends, etc. And that's a pretty generous allowance for an amateur who's never done this before - realistically for an amateur, you're looking at probably 25-30 board feet, because an amateur WILL cut something wrong, or WILL screw up a couple joints and have to re-cut a piece or two.
At typical prices for my area, and depending on the wood, that's easily $100 or more worth of lumber - prices run about $4.75-5 for that 9.5" width in maple and oak, more (~$6-7 / bf) for cherry and walnut. And if you're not going to buy FAS-quality hardwood, then you might as well just go get that WalMart special, because you're no more concerned about "quality" than the person buying the walmart furniture.
A circular saw: at least $50, if you buy the cheapest piece of shit Home Depot sells. If you want something that will last for more than a single use, you're going to spend $150-200 easily.
If you want to cut and route channels for rebate / housed joints (nice for bookshelves to not look like complete shit), dovetails, or anything else to make those edges and joints look more professional, you will spend a lot of time (ever cut a dovetail joint by hand?), generate a lot of waste if you've never done it before, and need additional saws and routers - at least a standard backsaw ($10-20), and a decent hand-held router will run you at least $100, too - and more like $200+ if you want a durable one.
Assuming you don't want to split your boards with the wood screws, you'll also need a drill. Now you can get a crank drill, and do it the real old fashioned way, but that's time consuming. So you're looking at probably $50 for an "okay" electric hand drill, which will come with cheap shit drill bits that you'll no doubt need to replace soon after initial use.
Now add in all the small incidentals - hammer, screwdriver, measuring tape, glue, sandpaper, stain, polyurethane if you want to give it a clearcoat at the end, maybe a rubber mallet for seating the wood in those various joints, nailset, coping saw, wood chisels, a dowel jig if you want to do any dowel joints, maybe a hand plane for some finish and edge work, a square and a level to make sure joints are square, shelves are level, clamps to hold pieces together while you glue, drill, nail, etc.? Hell, what are you going to cut your lumber on with that circular saw - where's your saw horses or workbench? These are all going to add up fast, and if you want to do a proper job of it, some of these are essential. Even just the basics here will run you another $100 or more.
So you've spent at least a good $500 to buy the tools and materials, and as an amateur, your first bookcase will not look anywhere near as good as the master craftsman's 300th $700 bookcase - it will look amateurish, because the fit and finish will be amateurish. It will take you far more time to construct this amateurish bookcase, and it likely won't last as long, functionally speaking, either. So where does the argument for "DIY = quality" come in, exactly?
If you care about "quality," you either spend the time, effort, and money on learning the skills and acquiring the tools and expertise of the professional craftsman (in which case, that bookshelf cost you WAY more tha
The real problem is people who can't appreciate quality.
No, the real problem is that that solid oak furniture with hand-rubbed finish takes: 1) A long time to build; 2) A minimum level of expertise to build a passably "quality" unit - adding to the time required to build it; 3) A minimum set of relatively expensive tools and workspace to build that passable "quality"; 4) A relatively expensive set of materials with which to construct this unit;
If you took any random person, and offered them a choice (totally free, no strings, no fees - whatever they prefer is given to them at no cost to them) between: 1) A hand-crafted, solid-maple bookshelf, that sells for $700-1200 dollars (http://www.pompy.com/configurations/?category=45&product=6319); and 2) A mass-produced MDF-and-veneer monstrosity that sells for $20 dollars (http://www.walmart.com/ip/Mylex-4-Shelf-Bookcase-Black/20836837);
Most people are going to choose the $700 hand-crafted-by-master-crafters bookshelf. So why do people choose the cheap furniture? Because... it's cheap. $700 for a bookshelf is a LOT of money. $20 not so much. So yeah, people will buy the cheap one, because they don't have the extra $680 to spend.
As for building their own, they'd need a whole lot more than $700 to build their own bookshelf. Time, materials, tools, and expertise all cost you something to acquire or develop. Spending hundreds - maybe into the thousand+ range - on tools and materials for a project that you probably will only use once or twice more in your life is a pretty expensive hobby.
Nothing to do with people "preferring" shoddy workmanship and shitty furniture. Everything to do with people making an economic decision.
Note that this is *not* like the old recording industry, where if I have a physical copy of a record, then giving it to you for free deprives me of my physical copy so I am perfectly entitled to keep hold of my copy. But in this situation, surely depriving you of your free copy of my thing is an immoral action?
And once again, we're back to ignoring the process by which you acquired it, and the process by which it was created. SOMEONE acquired the song under conditions that they implicitly agreed to at the time of sale: that they wouldn't redistribute it for free, and that they would pay the modest asking price in return for their copy.
Now, once again: if they agreed to that, then it is immoral to give copies away to other people. Because they are violating the agreement they entered into with the artist who they purchased the track from. If you happen to be the beneficiary of this person's immoral behavior, that does not mean that your copy was acquired in a "moral" fashion, no matter how much "happiness" it brings you. The ethical and moral thing to do, if you discover you've become the recipient of illicitly copied goods, is to either make your copy "legal" by purchasing a copy for yourself, or delete the copy you've made, if you don't believe the value of the track is worth the asking price and conditions attached.
This argument that focuses solely on the per-unit cost of copying dropping to zero is specious, *because* it ignores the complex process of creation and distribution. The "effectiveness" of the business model is irrelevant - you do not have any moral right to force someone to change their business model by taking their product under terms they have not agreed to. Your ONLY "moral" right in this scenario is to do business with people (and support business models) which allow the behavior you find preferable. I am not arguing against the business model, I'm arguing against your assumed "right" to force people into it.
To your point about Penny Arcade: you're pointing to somebody who (presumably) allows copying of their work, and encourages it, and saying, "Therefore it's always moral." The context is very important: to the extent that Penny Arcade allows or encourages that copying, then you're right: it's completely moral - you have done nothing that the PA creators have not agreed to. If they posted it up behind a paywall and said, "No redistribution please," then copying it and sharing those copies with friends *would* be immoral.
One last time: I am not arguing against the validity of a different business model - I believe that the cost of enforcing a "pay per copy / DRM" scheme will eventually become too expensive to make it viable. I believe that kickstarter-style patronage funding (for studio recordings and the like) plus fees for live shows and merchandise will become the way most artists support themselves eventually - and that there will be minimal need for "major labels" and RIAA folks as a result. I DO NOT believe that any of us has the right to FORCE an artists to adopt a business model that they don't wish to adopt. This is where you cross the line from "perfectly moral business proposal" to "immoral use of force." As soon as you say, "I don't care whether or not you WANT me to have a copy, I'm taking it anyway," you have behaved immorally. If the artist doesn't agree with your proposal, then you, as a moral person, do without a copy of that artist's work, and support other artists whose work is offered under terms you find palatable.
I don't have a moral right to torpedo StarKist tuna's fishing boats because I disagree with the sustainability of their fishing practices, but I CERTAINLY have the right to boycott them, and buy a similar product from someone else whose practices are more environmentally sound. I don't have a moral right to firebomb a McDonald's because I don't like the healthiness of their menu, but I do have the right to boycott them, and buy healthier food from an alternative source. I don't have the right to hack into Toyota's factories and reprogram their robots to make mistakes while assembling cars, but I DO have the right to buy a Honda instead.
If I take something that you have not consented to give me, I have used "force" to acquire it - if the trade is not the product of mutual, informed consent, it is the product of the exercise of force.
Nowhere did I say that "copying should result in you being locked up, with the key thrown away." In fact, if you read my responses elsewhere in this topic, you'll see that I've specifically said I believe copyright law as it exists today needs to be reformed. In fact, what I said elsewhere is that something as simple as, "if you have a copy you acquired illicltly, you either pay the fee you would have paid on copying, or delete your copy." More to the point, I said that it was well within a creator's rights to try and shut down someone who is redistributing their work without the creator's consent.
You realize that we have varying degrees of punishment for infractions, right? That not everything results in you being flown to Guantanamo Bay and left to rot without trial?
The common practice of the market, whether you like that or not, whether the creator of content likes that or not, is that musical tracks are freely available for no cost.
No, the common practice of a few individuals in the market is to take things for no cost. MANY people (perhaps MOST, certainly those who are not entitled toddlers) purchase their music through Amazon, Itunes, Google Music, eMusic, BandCamp, direct from the artist, or from a host of other outlets, or listen through services which compensate artists per-play, such as Spotify, Pandora, and other streaming services. This *is* a moral and an ethical question, and trying to say "just because it's available for free, it's MORAL to take it for free" is dodging the fundamental issue at hand.
What you're really saying is "consumers have the right to take anything at any time, provided they can procure it for themselves in some manner." The tl;dr version of: "If it's not bolted down, it's mine, and if I have big enough bolt cutters, it's still mine." The ONLY thing that prevents people from taking shit that they are not entitled to is their sense of morality, and the possible threat of punishment if they're caught. Arguing that "you can get it for free, therefore it's moral to take it for free" is a cheap rationalization for piracy, and one which will win your side of the debate no support.
In this world, with this business model and attitude, suddenly copying and sharing music becomes a good thing, everyone becomes happy, and the world is a better place.
You may be right that it's a "better" business model. BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE A MORAL RIGHT to take whatever you want because you believe that forcing somebody else to adopt a different business model will "make the world a better place." Your use of force - taking something you are not entitled to against someone's wishes - is no better than a musician trying to force you to give him 10 bucks whether or not you want to watch his show. If you wish to support a different business model, support that different business model, and DO WITHOUT a copy of music not sold under a business model you approve of.
One could argue that some people who share files (more specifically those who download the files) weren't likely to have bought the "product" to begin with
Yes, one "could" argue that, if they were completely disingenuous and simply seeking to rationalize immoral behavior.
If you "wouldn't have bought it anyway," why would you keep a copy, other than your immense sense of entitlement? If you wouldn't have bought it, and don't listen to it, then why is it so unreasonable to expect that you'd delete your copy, instead of sharing it for the rest of the world to download, against the wishes of the creator?
You seem to say that it is more or less generally appropriate.
It is entirely appropriate for Alice to claim damages against Bob for redistributing her work against her wishes: he has breached their contract. It is also at least partially appropriate for Alice to seek some redress for the people who benefitted from Bob's breach of contract - I think you can make a very reasonable legal argument that people who took a copy of something Bob had no right to redistribute be presented with an option: 1) Pay the fee and keep your copy; 2) delete the illicitly-acquired copy from your library. Now you're right, there's obviously a lot of cost and hassle associated with Alice trying to go after the people receiving copies - probably far more than the couple bucks per track she'd be entitled to recoup (note that I am specifically stating that Alice does NOT have the right to claim "a billion billion bajillion dollars damages from my lost market opportunity!" I find that punitive element to be vastly abusive, and probably far more effective for Alice to simply try and stop Bob from sharing than it is to delete everybody's copy.)
I also consider private copying to be unlikely to be possible to regulate.
And I agree - if you notice upthread, I also said that I think we're likely to see musicians moving largely to a micro-patronage style of funding, e.g. Kickstarter, coupled with touring and live shows to make a living. But I think it is absolutely Alice's *right* to ask for a fee-per-copy and stipulate as part of that sale that Bob doesn't have the right to redistribute. And I think it's also Bob's absolute *right* to decline to purchase the track, and simply live without a copy of Alice's music. If Bob is in the majority, Alice will either rethink her business model and find a way to support herself, or be relegated to the status of "hobbyist," rather than professional musician. And I have no problem with that - declaring yourself a "professional musician" should not be a guarantee of riches, or even a modest living.
The point here is that if either side is intentionally and willfully doing something against the wishes of the other side, they are behaving immorally. If Alice wants to give away copies of her song and consider it a promotional investment, then redistribute away! But if Alice does not want you doing this... don't do it. If you disagree with her policy, ask her to grant you an exception (written, naturally), or support artists whose ideals align more closely with your own.
There's a singer/songwriter out of the Chicago area, by the name of Joe Pug, who I think is pretty great. From his bio:
In an increasingly fragmented and disorganized music industry, it was harder and harder for a new artist to break through the white noise. With no publicist and no access to radio, Pug decided to recruit his fans to help spread the word. He took his most popular songs, printed up CDs, and offered to send them free of charge to anyone who wanted to share his music with their friends. And share they did. “People requested 2 copies, 5 copies, 10 copies, 20 copies. We’d send them all. We even covered the postage,” he remembers. The impact was immediate and undeniable. “Suddenly we’d be rolling into towns that we’d never been before and there would be crowds there who knew the songs. Our fans essentially became like a radio station for us, and they still are.” While skyrocketing demand eventually forced a switch over to a digital version, the offer remains to this day at joepugmusic.com, and has been downloaded over 30,000 times.
I've redistributed his music to just about any of my friends who'll give him a listen - and at least one of them has purchased one of his albums, and bought tickets for a show when he played here in town. So, I know he's benefitted from it at least a little.
If a musician says "I have created this song, how do I make money from it?" then there are an infinite number of scenarios. Creating an easily-shareable mp3 of the song, and then putting it on the Internet where such things are effectively worthless, and then trying to insist that everyone who copies it owes you $1 seems to me to be one of the least-effective methods of making money from it.
Calling something a 'straw man' doesn't make it one.
Your argument is irrelevant, because I never said that the artist has the right to "force you to pay for a copy." I said, "if you take a copy under terms that the artist has not agreed to, it is immoral." You might want to think about that for a moment. The point is this: no matter how badly you think you NEED Britney Spears' latest single, you are not ENTITLED to a copy of it if she has made that copy available for a price > $0.
If you find that her terms & price are a reasonable exchange for the enjoyment and value you get out of the song, then pay the price, and abide by the agreement stipulating "no redistribution."
If you find that her price is not reasonable... do without a copy of the song, and let her business model fail. Spend your money and attention on other artists whose business models you DO approve of, or whose music you DO get enjoyment out of. Eventually, she will go out of business, or at the very least, she will have no reason to try and get money out of you.
If you REALLY love her song, but disagree with her terms (e.g., you think her asking price is too high, or want to be a redistributor of it in some way), open negotiations with her and her management team, and reach a mutually satisfactory agreement under which you pay the price you feel reasonable under terms you feel are reasonable, and they agree to the terms as well. (And if you can't reach terms that are mutually agreeable, see above: DO WITHOUT IT.)
There is no moral fourth option here, I'm sorry. Taking a copy of something against the wishes of its creator is immoral, and any line of argument that seeks to justify it is also fundamentally immoral. "I don't like the terms you're asking me to agree to" is not a blanket entitlement to take whatever you want.
What he does not have the moral right to do, however, is attempt to make that contract binding on third parties who have not agreed to it.
Perhaps, but he does have every right to prosecute the person who violated the contract, and redistributed his work, for violation of their no-redistribution contract. And since those copies were made against the terms of a valid, binding contract, there is a legal argument that the copies made thusly are therefore illegal, and should be (voluntarily, or forcibly) removed from the libraries of those people who took copies without paying, unless they pay the fee for their copy.
This presents a practical problem with such a business model, but it is a business model problem. Attempting to charge for copies runs up against a hard truth of economics: the price of a good that can be copied at zero cost trends to zero. Artists can either whine about the law of supply and demand, or use better business models.
No, it really won't drive the price to zero. Because it costs very real time, money, materials, and training to be skilled enough to make the original recording in the first place. Distrubtion & copying costs are driven to zero, but those fees - even with traditional "physical copy" (CD/LP/Tape/etc.) recordings - represent only a fraction of the overall time and money required to produce the song. Hours and hours of songwriting, recording, practice, training, purchasing an instrument and recording equipment, marketing and hosting of the song for other people to get at it - all of these have very real and very non-zero costs. Arguing that "low- or no-cost copying" will somehow magically eliminate the need for those other costs is wishful MBA thinking.
However, when I connect up to a torrent, it is in fact a voluntary transaction between my computer and the other computers in the swarm.
If the only way it could be available to you is for somebody to break the law, than what you have done is the digital equivalent of receiving stolen goods - in which case you are very much in the wrong. If somebody offers to sell you a stolen car, you may be able to claim extenuating circumstances in court if you can show that there's no reason to believe you knew it was stolen. Even if you can legitimately claim ignorance of the illegal nature of your transaction, that doesn't mean that you get to just do whatever you want with and keep the goods you acquired through someone else's illegal behavior.
And to be clear: I am not defending 'current copyright law' (which I would say is fairly abusive in terms and duration), or the 'business models of the major labels' - I think we're much more likely to move back to a micro-patronage sort of model, where live shows and kickstarter-style funding is going to be the way a lot of artists make their living and produce music - and I think that's a pretty good thing, as I see very little value provided by the major label system that cannot also be provided by electronic distribution - I think you'll still have managers, producers, recording engineers, etc. - they just won't all be employed by middlemen who control distribution and promotion budgets that are the "only way" a small new band is going to get heard. But if an artist wants to retain control over their work after distribution, the moral thing to do is respect that, and either not pay for it (and not take a copy), and let that artist reconsider his business model if he finds he's not making enough money, or respect his wishes and pay for a copy if you feel that there is enough value to YOU in that artist's sales agreement. He doesn't have the right to force you to buy his music, and you don't have the right to force him to provide entertainment to you for free.
Slashdot Mirror
The truth is, "exposure" is not all you're buying. Billing, distribution, hosting, and bandwidth all come with a cost - both in time and money.
So, you have to get ALL of that, and then buy advertising with the remaining money. And do it all yourself, meaning you spend less and less time developing software and maintaining software, and more time doing administrative nonsense. For an independent developer, 30 cents on the dollar for access to the app store is a bargain.
Awesome - and how much did you pay the creators of those apps?
And can you effectively advertise, distribute, and sell (remember, purchasing systems charge fees too) your $0.99 app yourself, for 30 cents per sale?
I'm guessing that doesn't buy you much exposure, and that 30% cut starts looking pretty okay when you think about the money and time you're saving on "administrative" stuff, rather than focusing on customer support and new features.
Cydia. But even then, that's irrelevant to the point at hand - competition CAN exist in the Android world too - and it largely doesn't, at least not on price. Which means that Apple, and Google, and Amazon, with their large scales of economy and expertise in economical management of large numbers of servers and large distributed applications, are probably just about breaking even on their app stores at that 30% cut, not making "obscene profits."
Remember, their profits are "30% of sales minus their costs to develop, maintain, and administer the billing, distribution, and storefront for the apps, as well as the infrastructure that provides all that functionality."
Given the financial statements from the companies, that 30% cut does not equal "obscene profits" - it equals "a little bit of revenue, enough to about break even."
Apple explicitly blessing third-party sites has no real relevance in the discussion - it's a separate issue, and one which I would probably largely agree with you on. The question of whether a 30% cut to handle all purchasing & international distribution of your application is "reasonable" is separate from whether or not the hardware manufacturer allows competition. Apple charges 30% and doesn't allow competition. Google allows competition, and STILL charges that 30%. Amazon does the same. None of them are making "obscene" profits off their app stores, which suggests that the 30% cut is a fairly reasonable one, given the services they're providing, and given the low cost of many of these apps.
Why not? The original iPhone was sold exactly that way - and people bought it in record numbers.
The bottom line is this: The app store is NOT a significant contributor to Apple's revenues. It's a "nice to have" thing, but it is not directly a major moneymaker for them. They make their money off of hardware sales, not software.
You see all those squiggly black lines AROUND the drawings?
Yeah, those are called "words."
Those "words" do something we call "describing".
So perhaps you can explain why you're only looking at the pretty pictures, when the claim you JUST cited specifically says "substantially as shown and described "?
Yes, Google has explicitly opened themselves up to competitive pressures by allowing externally sourced purchases & downloads. And they STILL charge 30%.
Amazon, too.
That means they either need to charge that just to break even or make a reasonable profit (and this is Amazon, Apple, and Google we're talking about - I think they probably have some pretty good tools for managing server farms), or they're confident nobody else is going to be able to do it significantly cheaper.
My money's on the second one - hosting a data center, providing good uptime, fast payment processing & downloads, worldwide distribution, and a storefront... that all gets expensive. They probably COULD do it a bit cheaper, but why lower your revenues when there's no competitive pressure to do so?
Actually, "how much they earn through 3rd party apps being sold" is very little in their overall revenues. You should check that out sometime - Apple could close up the App Store tomorrow and only notice a small hit in their revenue - they make their money off of hardware sales, by and large -- NOT software sales.
Even if you slugged the entire liter in one instant swallow, and magically managed not to puke it all back up, no, it almost certainly would not KILL you, unless you are a VERY small person.
If you're average size/weight, it would probably get you sick, it would likely get you VERY drunk, and it would probably leave you with a whanging hangover the next day, but unless you are also on some sort of medication that would have an adverse interaction with the alcohol (e.g., downing a liter of vodka with sleeping pills or other sedatives), that's about all it would do.
Sure, or think of the commercial print industry: Everybody can buy a cheap consumer inkjet/laser printer that will print at a decent quality - you could buy and print out PDFs if you wanted to do all of it at home. But you wouldn't necessarily have access to a commercial-grade printing and binding facility that would allow you to crank out a couple thousand professionally bound copies of War and Peace in a few hours.
I don't think printers are a foregone conclusion in the home, but I think you'll see "consumer-grade" printers available for a reasonable price for those who want them - just like you can buy a table saw for your home workshop, or a nailgun today. The DIY-ers will have one, the people who can't be bothered with fixing and building things themselves will rely on commercial services.
Generally speaking, *IF* you're okay to own the weapon, you're okay to build the weapon yourself, though sale of said weapon may be restricted. They can't really prevent it, and practically speaking, most people don't have the machine tools to produce a rifled barrel and other precision parts which are required for an accurate weapon, which means the accuracy of any homemade firearm will be awful beyond about 10 feet.
You're right though: a practical 3D system might also encourage the gov't to pass laws to prevent the use of that system to create gun parts, especially as detailing on those parts get more and more sophisticated.
How about order it online, your order goes to a nearby commercial fabricator who can provide the printing services on demand, and then deliver it to your door that same day, just a few hours after your order is submitted?
Amazon's already trying to build shipping facilities to support "same day delivery" - imagine if they could just fill a warehouse with banks of printers, and plans for printing up a few thousand of their most commonly-sold items, instead of stocking those shipping facilities with pre-manufactured goods. You'd realize the cost benefits of mass production alongside the convenience of rapid home delivery by spreading out the manufacturing that way, and you'd also save a ton of money on dedicated manufacturing facilities, shipping, and storage of pre-made goods.
This is the reason not every home has to have a pizza oven, pasta maker, and sushi chef.
Only if you have two modes of behavior - a rabid dog with no impulse control, or a robot with zero personality.
Most people are quite capable of keeping their dick in their pants when the situation calls for it, without losing their ability to make jokes, or talk about the latest episode of Breaking Bad or Boardwalk Empire with their co-workers.
This argument that if you enact a "zero tolerance" policy towards sexual harassment, you'll end up with a sterile, soulless workplace is completely bogus, and you know it. I am quite capable of determining that "Hey Sue, did you see the season premiere of Breaking Bad last night? Awesome!" is companionable, friendly conversation, while, "Hey Sue, your tits are looking absolutely fabulous today, and you're totally distracting me with your boner-inducing hotness. If you'll let me grope your tits in the mother's nursing room on the 2nd floor, I'll let you jerk me off under the table in the conference room after 5," has crossed the line.
If you're incapable of determining where that line is, then you probably need the explicit zero tolerance policy more than some of your more mature, civilized peers. Unfortunately, we have to plan for the lowest common denominator, which is the idiot who sees his behavioral options as a binary choice between "borderline date rapist" and "soulless automaton."
Yes, the simple fact that he's asking the question. Do you think the men really worry about sexual harassment in places where there are no laws against it? There'd be no need to "curb" the behavior, because the behavior would simply be "normal, everyday, guy behavior," that would be accepted as such.
Okay, so let's say you spend $2000 building yourself a quality set of home tools - quite reasonable for a good drill, a couple good saws, a router, and a decent assortment of hand tools, and that's probably just the basics of what you'd need. Now let's say you make 12 pieces of furniture with them. You're still spending an average of ~$167 per piece of furniture on the cost of your woodworking tools.
That right there blows your DIY budget - because I guarantee you that you can buy a better-looking piece of furniture for $167 than you can construct as an amateur for the $300 the wood + amortized tool costs will get you. Since you seem to like picking on Ikea, call me when you can construct a pine bookcase (solid pine - the back piece is the only non-solid wood in use, according to the Product Info) for less than $155 - with the finish & build quality at least as good as that bookcase, or significantly better. Hell, the tools *alone* cost more than that, unless you're committing to making 15-20 pieces of furniture for your house - then figure in your time for labor, cost of materials - you couldn't produce a bookshelf that looks like that for that cost, period.
If you want to do it because you enjoy it, then have at it - it's a fun hobby, and over time, your build & finish quality will certainly improve as you get more practice with the techniques. But please, let's stop pretending that any fool with a circular saw and some scrap wood can build "quality" furniture for less than what it would cost to get same-or-better furniture pre-built from Ikea or any other store. If you're doing it at home with the recipe you provided initially, it will be an amateurish piece of work, and *still* cost far more than a bland-but-finished solid pine bookcase from Ikea.
Looks like a recipe for a severely ugly, amateurish bookcase - that sort of construction would be fine in a workshop where rough utility is more important than a quality finish. But in my living room? No, I'd rather have the WalMart kit, because at least it won't have unfinished & rough-cut edges and corners, and look like a 6th grader's wood shop project.
The thing is, I never said it was "hard," to do this - the skills are not rocket science, they just take practice & time. What I said is, it's "costly." And it is.
Using a very basic, rectangular bookshelf sitting in my living room as an example: 4 feet tall, 2.5 feet wide, 9.5 inches deep, all 5 shelves and 2 uprights 3/4" thickness: that's roughly 17 board-feet of lumber. Let's assume 20 board-feet of raw lumber, assuming scrap ends, etc. And that's a pretty generous allowance for an amateur who's never done this before - realistically for an amateur, you're looking at probably 25-30 board feet, because an amateur WILL cut something wrong, or WILL screw up a couple joints and have to re-cut a piece or two.
At typical prices for my area, and depending on the wood, that's easily $100 or more worth of lumber - prices run about $4.75-5 for that 9.5" width in maple and oak, more (~$6-7 / bf) for cherry and walnut. And if you're not going to buy FAS-quality hardwood, then you might as well just go get that WalMart special, because you're no more concerned about "quality" than the person buying the walmart furniture.
A circular saw: at least $50, if you buy the cheapest piece of shit Home Depot sells. If you want something that will last for more than a single use, you're going to spend $150-200 easily.
If you want to cut and route channels for rebate / housed joints (nice for bookshelves to not look like complete shit), dovetails, or anything else to make those edges and joints look more professional, you will spend a lot of time (ever cut a dovetail joint by hand?), generate a lot of waste if you've never done it before, and need additional saws and routers - at least a standard backsaw ($10-20), and a decent hand-held router will run you at least $100, too - and more like $200+ if you want a durable one.
Assuming you don't want to split your boards with the wood screws, you'll also need a drill. Now you can get a crank drill, and do it the real old fashioned way, but that's time consuming. So you're looking at probably $50 for an "okay" electric hand drill, which will come with cheap shit drill bits that you'll no doubt need to replace soon after initial use.
Now add in all the small incidentals - hammer, screwdriver, measuring tape, glue, sandpaper, stain, polyurethane if you want to give it a clearcoat at the end, maybe a rubber mallet for seating the wood in those various joints, nailset, coping saw, wood chisels, a dowel jig if you want to do any dowel joints, maybe a hand plane for some finish and edge work, a square and a level to make sure joints are square, shelves are level, clamps to hold pieces together while you glue, drill, nail, etc.? Hell, what are you going to cut your lumber on with that circular saw - where's your saw horses or workbench? These are all going to add up fast, and if you want to do a proper job of it, some of these are essential. Even just the basics here will run you another $100 or more.
So you've spent at least a good $500 to buy the tools and materials, and as an amateur, your first bookcase will not look anywhere near as good as the master craftsman's 300th $700 bookcase - it will look amateurish, because the fit and finish will be amateurish. It will take you far more time to construct this amateurish bookcase, and it likely won't last as long, functionally speaking, either. So where does the argument for "DIY = quality" come in, exactly?
If you care about "quality," you either spend the time, effort, and money on learning the skills and acquiring the tools and expertise of the professional craftsman (in which case, that bookshelf cost you WAY more tha
No, the real problem is that that solid oak furniture with hand-rubbed finish takes:
1) A long time to build;
2) A minimum level of expertise to build a passably "quality" unit - adding to the time required to build it;
3) A minimum set of relatively expensive tools and workspace to build that passable "quality";
4) A relatively expensive set of materials with which to construct this unit;
If you took any random person, and offered them a choice (totally free, no strings, no fees - whatever they prefer is given to them at no cost to them) between:
1) A hand-crafted, solid-maple bookshelf, that sells for $700-1200 dollars (http://www.pompy.com/configurations/?category=45&product=6319);
and
2) A mass-produced MDF-and-veneer monstrosity that sells for $20 dollars (http://www.walmart.com/ip/Mylex-4-Shelf-Bookcase-Black/20836837);
Most people are going to choose the $700 hand-crafted-by-master-crafters bookshelf. So why do people choose the cheap furniture? Because... it's cheap. $700 for a bookshelf is a LOT of money. $20 not so much. So yeah, people will buy the cheap one, because they don't have the extra $680 to spend.
As for building their own, they'd need a whole lot more than $700 to build their own bookshelf. Time, materials, tools, and expertise all cost you something to acquire or develop. Spending hundreds - maybe into the thousand+ range - on tools and materials for a project that you probably will only use once or twice more in your life is a pretty expensive hobby.
Nothing to do with people "preferring" shoddy workmanship and shitty furniture. Everything to do with people making an economic decision.
Yeah, you'd have to have been pretty stupid to post something to Usenet thinking it'd be private.
Come to think of it, the same thing applies to Facebook.
And once again, we're back to ignoring the process by which you acquired it, and the process by which it was created. SOMEONE acquired the song under conditions that they implicitly agreed to at the time of sale: that they wouldn't redistribute it for free, and that they would pay the modest asking price in return for their copy.
Now, once again: if they agreed to that, then it is immoral to give copies away to other people. Because they are violating the agreement they entered into with the artist who they purchased the track from. If you happen to be the beneficiary of this person's immoral behavior, that does not mean that your copy was acquired in a "moral" fashion, no matter how much "happiness" it brings you. The ethical and moral thing to do, if you discover you've become the recipient of illicitly copied goods, is to either make your copy "legal" by purchasing a copy for yourself, or delete the copy you've made, if you don't believe the value of the track is worth the asking price and conditions attached.
This argument that focuses solely on the per-unit cost of copying dropping to zero is specious, *because* it ignores the complex process of creation and distribution. The "effectiveness" of the business model is irrelevant - you do not have any moral right to force someone to change their business model by taking their product under terms they have not agreed to. Your ONLY "moral" right in this scenario is to do business with people (and support business models) which allow the behavior you find preferable. I am not arguing against the business model, I'm arguing against your assumed "right" to force people into it.
To your point about Penny Arcade: you're pointing to somebody who (presumably) allows copying of their work, and encourages it, and saying, "Therefore it's always moral." The context is very important: to the extent that Penny Arcade allows or encourages that copying, then you're right: it's completely moral - you have done nothing that the PA creators have not agreed to. If they posted it up behind a paywall and said, "No redistribution please," then copying it and sharing those copies with friends *would* be immoral.
One last time: I am not arguing against the validity of a different business model - I believe that the cost of enforcing a "pay per copy / DRM" scheme will eventually become too expensive to make it viable. I believe that kickstarter-style patronage funding (for studio recordings and the like) plus fees for live shows and merchandise will become the way most artists support themselves eventually - and that there will be minimal need for "major labels" and RIAA folks as a result. I DO NOT believe that any of us has the right to FORCE an artists to adopt a business model that they don't wish to adopt. This is where you cross the line from "perfectly moral business proposal" to "immoral use of force." As soon as you say, "I don't care whether or not you WANT me to have a copy, I'm taking it anyway," you have behaved immorally. If the artist doesn't agree with your proposal, then you, as a moral person, do without a copy of that artist's work, and support other artists whose work is offered under terms you find palatable.
I don't have a moral right to torpedo StarKist tuna's fishing boats because I disagree with the sustainability of their fishing practices, but I CERTAINLY have the right to boycott them, and buy a similar product from someone else whose practices are more environmentally sound. I don't have a moral right to firebomb a McDonald's because I don't like the healthiness of their menu, but I do have the right to boycott them, and buy healthier food from an alternative source. I don't have the right to hack into Toyota's factories and reprogram their robots to make mistakes while assembling cars, but I DO have the right to buy a Honda instead.
If I take something that you have not consented to give me, I have used "force" to acquire it - if the trade is not the product of mutual, informed consent, it is the product of the exercise of force.
Nowhere did I say that "copying should result in you being locked up, with the key thrown away." In fact, if you read my responses elsewhere in this topic, you'll see that I've specifically said I believe copyright law as it exists today needs to be reformed. In fact, what I said elsewhere is that something as simple as, "if you have a copy you acquired illicltly, you either pay the fee you would have paid on copying, or delete your copy." More to the point, I said that it was well within a creator's rights to try and shut down someone who is redistributing their work without the creator's consent.
You realize that we have varying degrees of punishment for infractions, right? That not everything results in you being flown to Guantanamo Bay and left to rot without trial?
No, the common practice of a few individuals in the market is to take things for no cost. MANY people (perhaps MOST, certainly those who are not entitled toddlers) purchase their music through Amazon, Itunes, Google Music, eMusic, BandCamp, direct from the artist, or from a host of other outlets, or listen through services which compensate artists per-play, such as Spotify, Pandora, and other streaming services. This *is* a moral and an ethical question, and trying to say "just because it's available for free, it's MORAL to take it for free" is dodging the fundamental issue at hand.
What you're really saying is "consumers have the right to take anything at any time, provided they can procure it for themselves in some manner." The tl;dr version of: "If it's not bolted down, it's mine, and if I have big enough bolt cutters, it's still mine." The ONLY thing that prevents people from taking shit that they are not entitled to is their sense of morality, and the possible threat of punishment if they're caught. Arguing that "you can get it for free, therefore it's moral to take it for free" is a cheap rationalization for piracy, and one which will win your side of the debate no support.
You may be right that it's a "better" business model. BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE A MORAL RIGHT to take whatever you want because you believe that forcing somebody else to adopt a different business model will "make the world a better place." Your use of force - taking something you are not entitled to against someone's wishes - is no better than a musician trying to force you to give him 10 bucks whether or not you want to watch his show. If you wish to support a different business model, support that different business model, and DO WITHOUT a copy of music not sold under a business model you approve of.
Yes, one "could" argue that, if they were completely disingenuous and simply seeking to rationalize immoral behavior.
If you "wouldn't have bought it anyway," why would you keep a copy, other than your immense sense of entitlement? If you wouldn't have bought it, and don't listen to it, then why is it so unreasonable to expect that you'd delete your copy, instead of sharing it for the rest of the world to download, against the wishes of the creator?
It is entirely appropriate for Alice to claim damages against Bob for redistributing her work against her wishes: he has breached their contract. It is also at least partially appropriate for Alice to seek some redress for the people who benefitted from Bob's breach of contract - I think you can make a very reasonable legal argument that people who took a copy of something Bob had no right to redistribute be presented with an option: 1) Pay the fee and keep your copy; 2) delete the illicitly-acquired copy from your library. Now you're right, there's obviously a lot of cost and hassle associated with Alice trying to go after the people receiving copies - probably far more than the couple bucks per track she'd be entitled to recoup (note that I am specifically stating that Alice does NOT have the right to claim "a billion billion bajillion dollars damages from my lost market opportunity!" I find that punitive element to be vastly abusive, and probably far more effective for Alice to simply try and stop Bob from sharing than it is to delete everybody's copy.)
And I agree - if you notice upthread, I also said that I think we're likely to see musicians moving largely to a micro-patronage style of funding, e.g. Kickstarter, coupled with touring and live shows to make a living. But I think it is absolutely Alice's *right* to ask for a fee-per-copy and stipulate as part of that sale that Bob doesn't have the right to redistribute. And I think it's also Bob's absolute *right* to decline to purchase the track, and simply live without a copy of Alice's music. If Bob is in the majority, Alice will either rethink her business model and find a way to support herself, or be relegated to the status of "hobbyist," rather than professional musician. And I have no problem with that - declaring yourself a "professional musician" should not be a guarantee of riches, or even a modest living.
The point here is that if either side is intentionally and willfully doing something against the wishes of the other side, they are behaving immorally. If Alice wants to give away copies of her song and consider it a promotional investment, then redistribute away! But if Alice does not want you doing this... don't do it. If you disagree with her policy, ask her to grant you an exception (written, naturally), or support artists whose ideals align more closely with your own.
There's a singer/songwriter out of the Chicago area, by the name of Joe Pug, who I think is pretty great. From his bio:
I've redistributed his music to just about any of my friends who'll give him a listen - and at least one of them has purchased one of his albums, and bought tickets for a show when he played here in town. So, I know he's benefitted from it at least a little.
Calling something a 'straw man' doesn't make it one.
Your argument is irrelevant, because I never said that the artist has the right to "force you to pay for a copy." I said, "if you take a copy under terms that the artist has not agreed to, it is immoral." You might want to think about that for a moment. The point is this: no matter how badly you think you NEED Britney Spears' latest single, you are not ENTITLED to a copy of it if she has made that copy available for a price > $0.
If you find that her terms & price are a reasonable exchange for the enjoyment and value you get out of the song, then pay the price, and abide by the agreement stipulating "no redistribution."
If you find that her price is not reasonable... do without a copy of the song, and let her business model fail. Spend your money and attention on other artists whose business models you DO approve of, or whose music you DO get enjoyment out of. Eventually, she will go out of business, or at the very least, she will have no reason to try and get money out of you.
If you REALLY love her song, but disagree with her terms (e.g., you think her asking price is too high, or want to be a redistributor of it in some way), open negotiations with her and her management team, and reach a mutually satisfactory agreement under which you pay the price you feel reasonable under terms you feel are reasonable, and they agree to the terms as well. (And if you can't reach terms that are mutually agreeable, see above: DO WITHOUT IT.)
There is no moral fourth option here, I'm sorry. Taking a copy of something against the wishes of its creator is immoral, and any line of argument that seeks to justify it is also fundamentally immoral. "I don't like the terms you're asking me to agree to" is not a blanket entitlement to take whatever you want.
Perhaps, but he does have every right to prosecute the person who violated the contract, and redistributed his work, for violation of their no-redistribution contract. And since those copies were made against the terms of a valid, binding contract, there is a legal argument that the copies made thusly are therefore illegal, and should be (voluntarily, or forcibly) removed from the libraries of those people who took copies without paying, unless they pay the fee for their copy.
No, it really won't drive the price to zero. Because it costs very real time, money, materials, and training to be skilled enough to make the original recording in the first place. Distrubtion & copying costs are driven to zero, but those fees - even with traditional "physical copy" (CD/LP/Tape/etc.) recordings - represent only a fraction of the overall time and money required to produce the song. Hours and hours of songwriting, recording, practice, training, purchasing an instrument and recording equipment, marketing and hosting of the song for other people to get at it - all of these have very real and very non-zero costs. Arguing that "low- or no-cost copying" will somehow magically eliminate the need for those other costs is wishful MBA thinking.
If the only way it could be available to you is for somebody to break the law, than what you have done is the digital equivalent of receiving stolen goods - in which case you are very much in the wrong. If somebody offers to sell you a stolen car, you may be able to claim extenuating circumstances in court if you can show that there's no reason to believe you knew it was stolen. Even if you can legitimately claim ignorance of the illegal nature of your transaction, that doesn't mean that you get to just do whatever you want with and keep the goods you acquired through someone else's illegal behavior.
And to be clear: I am not defending 'current copyright law' (which I would say is fairly abusive in terms and duration), or the 'business models of the major labels' - I think we're much more likely to move back to a micro-patronage sort of model, where live shows and kickstarter-style funding is going to be the way a lot of artists make their living and produce music - and I think that's a pretty good thing, as I see very little value provided by the major label system that cannot also be provided by electronic distribution - I think you'll still have managers, producers, recording engineers, etc. - they just won't all be employed by middlemen who control distribution and promotion budgets that are the "only way" a small new band is going to get heard. But if an artist wants to retain control over their work after distribution, the moral thing to do is respect that, and either not pay for it (and not take a copy), and let that artist reconsider his business model if he finds he's not making enough money, or respect his wishes and pay for a copy if you feel that there is enough value to YOU in that artist's sales agreement. He doesn't have the right to force you to buy his music, and you don't have the right to force him to provide entertainment to you for free.