117 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

Legitimizing piracy is not the solution to DRM, the RIAA or anything else that concerns digital media. Until there is a clear understanding and determination of just what constitutes value in regards to digital media all arguments on both sides of the fence, IMO, are moot.An MP3 is not the same thing as a CD or a record. An AVI is not the same thing as a DVD or a Blue-Ray Disc. And a digital distribution is not the same thing as a full physical installation package when it comes to a given piece of software.Why?Simply put, something that can be duplicated at no loss of quality, ad infinitum, at no additional cost, does not, IMO, have any inherent value. The very nature of what it is prohibits that from happening. Thus it cannot legitimately be compared to a physical incarnation of the same media regardless of their usage similarities.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

You're not actually responding to my points, just resorting to anger. So I'll go ahead and lay things out, very simply.You're calling her a hypocrite because she advocated against TPB after stating that she uses it. However, what you're doing is something called a False Dichotomy. You're presenting a situation in which she is either fully for, or fully against, TPB, when in fact there are clearly more options available.You have to go by the facts, rather than resorting to emotion, beesaretasty. And the fact is she advocated, specifically, the usage of TPB to obtain otherwise unavailable works, and suggested that she would be fine with people downloaded her out-of-print novel. She is not, however, referring to easily obtainable works of copyright, and this is clearly what she is against with regards to TPB.Again, TPB has very legitimate uses along with their potentially illegitimate ones. One is not required to support only all of TPB, or none of TPB - something you do not seem to understand. You can, obviously, be in favour of using TPB to obtain unavailable works, yet still damn them for their easily obtainable downloads - there is no hypocrisy in that.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"Whether that material is easy or hard to find is relative and, in fact, is irrelevant"Pardon? How is it irrelevant?She made it very relevant by stating that she's fine with people downloading *her own* unavailable works, while she does the same to others. Otherwise, her words, and others that cannot be obtained, won't be read by anyone Seems fair to me.By the way, this is also an example of your cherry picking. You are dismissing this point because you know it invalidates what you're saying. Tsk, tsk - sorry, I simply cannot let that pass."This was not stated anywhere. If you would like to make up facts to support your argument I cannot help you."Did you actually read what I posted? You might recall a very catchy phrase: ignorance is not hypocrisy. It doesn't matter whether she's too stupid to check Amazon, or whether she cannot obtain one in a desired translation (you might also remember my use of the word "Perhaps", meaning I'm elaborating on why Amazon may not be the only barrier to availability) - being ignorant about availability does not make you a hypocrite."You keep repeating the same argument that I never argued against"Since, at this point, your posts meander around various statements that you've thought to string together, feel free to state your argument nice and clearly.Beginning with your one sentence first post, onwards to your imbecilic dictionary quotation - trying to get you to explain yourself thoroughly is akin to pulling teeth.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Whatever. This will be my last post.What I meant was that whether you have to check one store or 50 stores to find something, it is still out there. That is why I state it is irrelevant. This is also why I said it is relative. You chose to ignore that word, but it is very important in this context because the work was obtainable on Amazon.com by your own admission. Don't tsk tsk me. That is what people do to children. If you disagree with my argument you can simply state that. There is no need to be a jackass.I did read what you posted. I understand you were trying to insert a catchy phrase hoping it would solidify your argument. Again, you are stating she may be too stupid to check Amazon. You chose to ignore that I pointed out that a) she is an author and b) she uses facebook. These two things individually might mean that she would know about Amazon.com and ones ability to buy books there, but together, they point to a high probability that she is familiar with the site. This is why I believe she was not ignorant of Amazon.com's existence or her ability to buy books there. Of course it is possible that she is indeed ignorant of it, but the given facts don't point to that at all.I have had to meander to respond to your points and new ideas that you keep bringing up. I would have loved to simply argue against one point, but instead you have inserted something new into each posting which I felt I should respond to so that you didn't say "Aha! I noticed that you chose to ignore that piece of my post because you know it's right".I still don't see how the dictionary quote is imbecilic. I wasn't sure if you just were not familiar with the definition of the word. Apparently you are familiar and have decided that this case does not meet the definition due to your ignorance argument. I disagree for reasons stated above.If you stuck with one argument throughout, perhaps I would have had a chance to elaborate on my points further, but instead of asking me to explain, you name call and give me a new reason each time why I am wrong. Although I like a good debate I am done with this one because we each obviously feel that the other is not making any sense and it is no longer fun. Good day.

• Reply