We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » Sharing digital purchase? (19 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
andrea.corelli
View Profile
New user
Milano area, Italy
99 Posts

Profile of andrea.corelli
Hi Dana,

I apreciate your straight point. I would slightly disagree and would encourage to read the entire thread to understand the point. As described above it is technically allowed by law. Ethically I don't have the answer as clear as you have. I fear this is a gray area, regardless we like it or not.

Just to clarify: this is only an open (and I think important) exercise. I own books, downloads, DVD's and props for thousands of Euros and I am not intending to share any digital download with anyone.

Cheers!
Andrea
In the avatar... I am the one falling Smile
danaruns
View Profile
Special user
The City of Angels
610 Posts

Profile of danaruns
Quote:
On Jun 28, 2018, andrea.corelli wrote:
Hi Dana,

I apreciate your straight point. I would slightly disagree and would encourage to read the entire thread to understand the point. As described above it is technically allowed by law. Ethically I don't have the answer as clear as you have. I fear this is a gray area, regardless we like it or not.

Just to clarify: this is only an open (and I think important) exercise. I own books, downloads, DVD's and props for thousands of Euros and I am not intending to share any digital download with anyone.

Cheers!
Andrea


I read the whole thread before posting. I think the answer is simple, if we're being completely honest with ourselves. NO. It's not ethical. And I don't concede that it's legal, either (I'm an attorney), which is a separate question.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
andrea.corelli
View Profile
New user
Milano area, Italy
99 Posts

Profile of andrea.corelli
Thanks Dana, your opinion is crystal clear Smile.

Would love to hear some more professionals about it too, if you don't mind Smile.
In the avatar... I am the one falling Smile
PaulPosition
View Profile
New user
34 Posts

Profile of PaulPosition
Dematerialization is a young concept and it's experiencing all sorts of growing pains.

At some point, either the virtual, licensed "material" will get cheaper (more than half the price of the corresponding book or dvd with no manufacturing, no distribution, no shelving? please...) or DRM technology will allow transfer of ownership (yeah, right!) or that dematerialized sh** will go the way of the dodo.
EvilClown
View Profile
New user
Richmond, VA
34 Posts

Profile of EvilClown
This is interesting to me and raises some questions.

People buy and sell physical copyrighted material all day long. I have bought used books. GameStop has built a national retail chain primarily on the resale of physical copies of used video games. No one looks twice at this even though the sales of used intellectual property clearly deny the copyright holder any of the income from the resell of their work. The assumption that allows for this legality is that, in theory, the seller no longer has access to the copyrighted material that he has sold. The book or game is no longer in the original owner's possession, provided they have not made a copy of the material they have sold.

Assuming the above, wouldn't it be legal to sell a download to someone provided that the original owner deleted all copies of the files in their possession? If I take the download, place it on a flashdrive and sell it, and delete and copies I owned, is that any different than reselling a DVD?

But aside from that, can we assume that people who are selling physical media are not making copies? Are we sure that people selling DVDs didn't rip a copy before putting them up for sale? Are we sure they didn't scan the book before reselling it?

My point in all this we make assumptions about the security of copyright when transferring physical media that may not even exist, but will not apply those same standards to digital media. I create a ton of content in my day job and I try to uphold the copyright law for my own protection, but the law is way behind reality at this point. There are tons of magic books waiting for unethical people to download on ScribD right now. You can torrent magic DVDs. People throw stuff on YouTube all day and night. The copyright system is fundamentally incapable of dealing with the realities of the internet and of duplication equipment. Content creators need new and better ways to protect their intellectual property and their incomes. I just do not know what it is other than hoping people will act ethically-something I am not convinced is working.
andrea.corelli
View Profile
New user
Milano area, Italy
99 Posts

Profile of andrea.corelli
Hey Clown,
thanks for taking part in this discussion. You are probably right, there is no real way to protect intellectual property just yet. The only effective way is proven to be to surpass the "a la cart" model in favour of the "all you can eat" model. In this case the user would not buy a digital content, but would rather buy the service of streaming that content (along with many more) for a period of time. But what I would like to stop is on the below sentence:

Quote:
Assuming the above, wouldn't it be legal to sell a download to someone provided that the original owner deleted all copies of the files in their possession? If I take the download, place it on a flashdrive and sell it, and delete and copies I owned, is that any different than reselling a DVD?


This technically violates the copyright as you would not be allowed to change the media you buy a download from. While to me it sounds etichally correct, if you want to be strict about the pure low on the "copyright" concept, the only way to make it work is to download the file DIRECTLY onto that flashdrive, without stepping on your local hard drive before.
In the avatar... I am the one falling Smile
Vater Araignee
View Profile
Regular user
MI
166 Posts

Profile of Vater Araignee
Https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/......tudy.pdf

Conclusion of the above study:
Excepting recently released blockbusters, there isn't evidence supporting the idea of online copyright infringement displacing sales. The result of the study is not unique, it is consistent with previous studies.

I'm not making a legality argument with that, I'm just pointing out "The creator looses money" argument is a bull fart if not BS. People who are going to steal are going to steal and some thieves aren't thieves at all, they are attempting to make an informed purchase.

If it wasn't for a second hand recording of Kill 'Em All I would have never purchased any Metallica considering I never heard them on the radio until 92 (im not saying they weren't played before then) and honestly if Metallicas "Meh, its OK... I guess" album "Metallica" had been my first exposure I never would have given them a dime.
Instead that one pirated copy cause me to buy:
Kill 'Em All, and 2 replacements
Ride the Lightning, and 1 replacement
Master of Puppets, and 7 replacements
...And Justice for All, and 1 replacement
Metallica
Load
The self title and Load caused me to stop buying and I wish I had not purchased Load because it is pure junk.
I heard some of Death Magnetic in the car one day and got excited "METALLICA IS BACK!" after buying it I regretted it. No matter what I play it in, it sounds like the speakers are buried in mud. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not only owed my money back for the album but for the gas money and time wasted listening to the crap.

Knowing all of this I unfortunately haven't convinced myself to preview magic releases (I've learned to spot deceptive advertising better) but if I ever do then Steve Fearson and Robert Smith (just to name a couple) might have a chance at getting me to make another purchase. As it stands they will never see a single red cent from me because I don't like getting burnt.

If I released one of my creations, I would rather 10 people split the cost verses never making the sale at all.
History has shown us people freaking out that X is going to take money out of peoples pockets (more like never put it in) and then people adapt and are the better for it. Maybe it is time for creators to adapt, the tools are out there.
"Good enough never is." - Vater Araignee
Vater Araignee
View Profile
Regular user
MI
166 Posts

Profile of Vater Araignee
Quote:
On Jun 30, 2018, andrea.corelli wrote:
Hey Clown,
thanks for taking part in this discussion. You are probably right, there is no real way to protect intellectual property just yet. The only effective way is proven to be to surpass the "a la cart" model in favour of the "all you can eat" model. In this case the user would not buy a digital content, but would rather buy the service of streaming that content (along with many more) for a period of time. But what I would like to stop is on the below sentence:

Quote:
Assuming the above, wouldn't it be legal to sell a download to someone provided that the original owner deleted all copies of the files in their possession? If I take the download, place it on a flashdrive and sell it, and delete and copies I owned, is that any different than reselling a DVD?


This technically violates the copyright as you would not be allowed to change the media you buy a download from. While to me it sounds etichally correct, if you want to be strict about the pure low on the "copyright" concept, the only way to make it work is to download the file DIRECTLY onto that flashdrive, without stepping on your local hard drive before.


Unfortunately you can not bypass the hard drive, you only appear to bypass it. Just like a single processor computer can not truly multitask it only gives the illusion of multitasking through speed.
"Good enough never is." - Vater Araignee
andrea.corelli
View Profile
New user
Milano area, Italy
99 Posts

Profile of andrea.corelli
Quote:
On Jul 4, 2018, Vater Araignee wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 30, 2018, andrea.corelli wrote:
While to me it sounds etichally correct, if you want to be strict about the pure low on the "copyright" concept, the only way to make it work is to download the file DIRECTLY onto that flashdrive, without stepping on your local hard drive before.


Unfortunately you can not bypass the hard drive, you only appear to bypass it. Just like a single processor computer can not truly multitask it only gives the illusion of multitasking through speed.


This has been used in court a few times in Italy and proven to be completely acceptable on the legal front. You are not changing media. And honestly I see no technical reason why a file you are downloading onto a flashdrive directly shall pass by the HD. bits would travel to the RAM and then land directly on the Flash drive as the Operating system would not see any difference between the your HD or a flash drive or an external HD.
In the avatar... I am the one falling Smile
Vater Araignee
View Profile
Regular user
MI
166 Posts

Profile of Vater Araignee
Quote:
On Jul 4, 2018, andrea.corelli wrote:
This has been used in court a few times in Italy and proven to be completely acceptable on the legal front. You are not changing media. And honestly I see no technical reason why a file you are downloading onto a flashdrive directly shall pass by the HD. bits would travel to the RAM and then land directly on the Flash drive as the Operating system would not see any difference between the your HD or a flash drive or an external HD.


The downloading file always goes to the drive that the operating system resides on first (unless you have manually changed it in the registry or its equivalent) either in whole or in part depending upon size and then is transferred to the designated location from there automatically, giving the illusion that it went directly to the designated location.
Now this illusion my be good enough for a court as it rightly should be, but claiming that is bypassing the drive is false.
It is a standard that hasnt changed because it is tried and true and going from ram to location would see no appreciable gains wile adding to pointlessly paying someone to change the programming.

You would be amazed to find out how much programming still remains from what we would call in computer terms "ancient" versions of operating systems because you should never fix what isn't broken and for some things developers actually don't fix what isn't broken.
"Good enough never is." - Vater Araignee
andrea.corelli
View Profile
New user
Milano area, Italy
99 Posts

Profile of andrea.corelli
Quote:
On Jul 4, 2018, Vater Araignee wrote:
The downloading file always goes to the drive that the operating system resides on first (unless you have manually changed it in the registry or its equivalent) either in whole or in part depending upon size and then is transferred to the designated location from there automatically, giving the illusion that it went directly to the designated location.
Now this illusion my be good enough for a court as it rightly should be, but claiming that is bypassing the drive is false.
It is a standard that hasnt changed because it is tried and true and going from ram to location would see no appreciable gains wile adding to pointlessly paying someone to change the programming.


I am afraid this is, in the best case, very inaccurate. Since 2010 browsers won't use any temp space for downloading (and this is not so low level to involve the operating system) as much as most OS (including OSX if properly tweaked) can run from a read only file system and thus not being able to write any other media than the one(s) you specify. No offence, but I suggest you one good reading on the subject if you want to get deeper into this: Abraham Silberschatz "Operating System Concepts". This is considered the bible of Operating Systems concepts. It's a bit expensive, but it's very complete and I found it a pretty enjoyable reading except for the first dozen of pages which is about very basic notions that anyone approacing science of the information probably masters already.

Anyway, back to the ethical point, without annoying the readers too much about tech stuff Smile. As much as I don't stand by your point that piracy does not displace sales (there are plenty of articles with data that support the exact opposite thesis), I completely agree with your sentence "If I released one of my creations, I would rather 10 people split the cost verses never making the sale at all.". This is what the music industry, for example, has been rapidly adapting to and even though I think magic, as all small nieches, will not fully find its way in this direction, something with all the "all you can eat" subscription based stores is already changing. Time will tell if it's for good or for bad.

In this very moment, though, the question remains: would it be ethically correct to share cost and ownership of a digital download, as much as I strongly feel it is about a physical good?
In the avatar... I am the one falling Smile
Vater Araignee
View Profile
Regular user
MI
166 Posts

Profile of Vater Araignee
Well then something is very wrong with my copy of windows 10 considering my hd usage logs show it bobbing up and down during downloads from the net to my sd cards. Anyway...


If one is going to take issue with sharing the cost of digital media and call it unethical, they should also be calling libraries unethical. They wont because they are use to libraries, even though it is 1 sale with hundreds if not thousands of readers.
What about teams? Do they expect every person involved to buy their own copy of a download, dvd, book etc? 1 purchaser, multiple readers/viewers.


Lets really turn this into a truly ethical discussion.
I'll start by pointing out what ethics are not.

  • Ethics are not feelings. Feelings give information for ethical choices. Some people feel bad when they do something wrong, but many people feel good when they are doing something they know is wrong. Often people feel bad doing the right thing especially if it hurts people they care for.
  • Ethics is not religion. Many are non religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions have high ethical standards but do not address all of the types of ethical problems faced.
  • Ethics is not the law. Good laws incorporate ethical standards, but can deviate from what is ethical. It can become highly corrupt. It can be for power alone and designed to serve the interests of the few wile hurting the many. It can be difficult designing and or enforcing standards, and slow to address new problems.
  • Ethics is not cultural norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, others are corrupt or blind to certain ethical concerns (like slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome..." is not an ethical standard.
  • Ethics is not science. Science doesn't tell us what we should do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like, but not for how humans should act. Just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.

Now that we have fee fees, laws and norms out of the way, what ethical approach/s should be taken?

  1. Utilitarian, most good least harm.
  2. Common Good, serves the whole community not just a minority.
  3. Rights, serves everyone with a stake.
  4. Fairness, treats all equally.
  5. Virtue, leads one to act as the person they want to be.
Did I miss any?

Keeping in mind what ethics isn't and using as many ethical approaches as possible, clearly explain why cost sharing is or is not ethical. Who is the victim if there is one at all?
As a personal exorcise, try to find as many and as few as possible under each type, it can make your final argument stronger because you may spot flaws you need to work out.
"Good enough never is." - Vater Araignee
jimgerrish
View Profile
Inner circle
East Orange, NJ
2696 Posts

Profile of jimgerrish
What libraries have collections of e-Books?
andrea.corelli
View Profile
New user
Milano area, Italy
99 Posts

Profile of andrea.corelli
Quote:
On Jul 5, 2018, jimgerrish wrote:
What libraries have collections of e-Books?


In my area most nowadays.
In the avatar... I am the one falling Smile
Vater Araignee
View Profile
Regular user
MI
166 Posts

Profile of Vater Araignee
Quote:
On Jul 5, 2018, jimgerrish wrote:
What libraries have collections of e-Books?

In the last 5 years I haven't been to a Carnegie library that didn't and my local library network has them also.
"Good enough never is." - Vater Araignee
EvilClown
View Profile
New user
Richmond, VA
34 Posts

Profile of EvilClown
The public library here in Richmond, VA has its own app for allowing residents to access ebooks. Plenty of releases from the past year available to borrow through their app.
Vater Araignee
View Profile
Regular user
MI
166 Posts

Profile of Vater Araignee
I'll also point out that we aren't just limited to ebooks. We have access to movies, tv shows and audio books.

Quote:
On Jul 5, 2018, EvilClown wrote:
The public library here in Richmond, VA has its own app for allowing residents to access ebooks. Plenty of releases from the past year available to borrow through their app.

Does that app behave like ours and after X days you have to "recheckout" the title or you can't access it?
"Good enough never is." - Vater Araignee
andrea.corelli
View Profile
New user
Milano area, Italy
99 Posts

Profile of andrea.corelli
Archive.org also allows US citizen to "borrow" scans of out of print material with non-expired copyrights. Unfortunately we don't have any such thing in Italy (or in Europe to my knowledge), but it's just because the US is ahead of us in terms of technological progress Smile.
In the avatar... I am the one falling Smile
andrea.corelli
View Profile
New user
Milano area, Italy
99 Posts

Profile of andrea.corelli
Quote:
On Jul 5, 2018, Vater Araignee wrote:
Well then something is very wrong with my copy of windows 10 considering my hd usage logs show it bobbing up and down during downloads from the net to my sd cards. Anyway...


There is no connection between your HD activity and your network activity. If you want specs we can continue this in private, I feel like annoying the rest of the readers ;-).

Quote:
On Jul 5, 2018, Vater Araignee wrote:
If one is going to take issue with sharing the cost of digital media and call it unethical, they should also be calling libraries unethical. They wont because they are use to libraries, even though it is 1 sale with hundreds if not thousands of readers.
What about teams? Do they expect every person involved to buy their own copy of a download, dvd, book etc? 1 purchaser, multiple readers/viewers.


Lets really turn this into a truly ethical discussion.
I'll start by pointing out what ethics are not.

  • Ethics are not feelings. Feelings give information for ethical choices. Some people feel bad when they do something wrong, but many people feel good when they are doing something they know is wrong. Often people feel bad doing the right thing especially if it hurts people they care for.
  • Ethics is not religion. Many are non religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions have high ethical standards but do not address all of the types of ethical problems faced.
  • Ethics is not the law. Good laws incorporate ethical standards, but can deviate from what is ethical. It can become highly corrupt. It can be for power alone and designed to serve the interests of the few wile hurting the many. It can be difficult designing and or enforcing standards, and slow to address new problems.
  • Ethics is not cultural norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, others are corrupt or blind to certain ethical concerns (like slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome..." is not an ethical standard.
  • Ethics is not science. Science doesn't tell us what we should do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like, but not for how humans should act. Just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.

Now that we have fee fees, laws and norms out of the way, what ethical approach/s should be taken?

  1. Utilitarian, most good least harm.
  2. Common Good, serves the whole community not just a minority.
  3. Rights, serves everyone with a stake.
  4. Fairness, treats all equally.
  5. Virtue, leads one to act as the person they want to be.
Did I miss any?

Keeping in mind what ethics isn't and using as many ethical approaches as possible, clearly explain why cost sharing is or is not ethical. Who is the victim if there is one at all?
As a personal exorcise, try to find as many and as few as possible under each type, it can make your final argument stronger because you may spot flaws you need to work out.


Now I really like where this discussion is going. Thanks a lot for the deep analysis. Love it!

I would always reply "Utilitarian". Borrowed from echonomics, I try (not always succeed though: emothins are a bad beast sometimes) to use it as in every situation in life. Curious to know what is the rest of the community thinking about it.
In the avatar... I am the one falling Smile
Vater Araignee
View Profile
Regular user
MI
166 Posts

Profile of Vater Araignee
Andrea.corelli,

I just thought of something, maybe not "All you can eat" but something more like a cross between libraries and audible?
Say $10.00 a month.

  • Allows the permanent acquisition of 1 video or ebook per month.
  • An additional $1.00 allows the "rental" of 1 video or ebook for 1 week.
  • A video or ebook can be purchased without a subscription.
  • Subscribers get a discount on permanent purchases.


You could even have a section called Magic TV, the viewer would have zero control over what is playing and it could be advertisement driven say 4, 15 second blocks every 15 minutes unskipable.

edit to add:
For got to say "Additional screens like Netflix or full access account like Amazon"
"Good enough never is." - Vater Araignee
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » Sharing digital purchase? (19 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2018 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.27 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL