Re: The challenge of serving *EVERYONE* (was RE: Mozilla blog: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users)

On 2014-05-16 12:09 John Foliot wrote:
> cobaco wrote:
> > first:
> > 
> > Copying is NOT theft, if you steal something the other person doesn't
> > have it anymore, if you copy it you now both have one.
> > That's a fundamentally and totally different dynamic.
 
> If you copy something of mine with my permission, then you now have a copy;
> I shared it with you. (My stuff, my choice)
> 
> If you copy something of mine without my permission, then I have not shared
> it with you freely, you have taken it - that's stealing. (My stuff, your
> choice)

I'd not have taken it, 

I'd have copied it, i.e. I'd have recreated it from my own resources

(technology lets me do that without much skill on my part now, oh brave new 
world)

not . the . same . thing

> If I go to your house, and you offer me a steak dinner, then you have shared
> your food with me. (Your stuff, your choice)
> 
> If I go to your house and take steaks from your freezer without your
> permission, is that sharing? No, it is theft. (Your stuff, my choice)

true, but the second paragraph does not describe copying...

copying would be If after having shared food with me you go home and recreate 
that steak dinner with stuff from your own larder, you haven't stolen a thing, 
I haven't lost a thing.

*that* is what copying does

> > second, there's no need for imagination to explain that 'sense of
> > entitlement'
> > as you call it, let me walk you through it:
> > 
> > everyone with basic computer and internet knowledge *knows* that the
> > delayed release by region is pure idiocy from a technical perspective
> > (that's the vast majority of people on the planet at this point)

> First, that is *NOT* the vast majority of people on the planet. You need to
> get out of the basement more often.

Please, enlighten me: 

Which large groups of people are unfamiliar with how easy it is to share 
things globally through the internet? 

Which groups am I Ignoring? Even the third world now has rudimentary internet 
access, and so likely has that knowledge from either personal experience or 
secondhand accounts.

> Second: Perhaps this appears illogical from a technical perspective, but
> what about from a business perspective?

Business models are restricted by technical limitations,  the other way around 
doesn't fly, never has, never will.
 
At best, given enough legal might, the existing business perspectives will 
drive the new technology underground (hey look, that's where DRM-free digital 
access is now)

> How dare you or anyone else tell me or any other company how to conduct
> my/their business.  Frankly, go to H*ll. It doesn't really matter whether
> you like how I run my business, you have two choices: don't do business with
> me, or suck it up and do it on my terms.
> 
> There are no other options. PERIOD.
> 
> Presuming that there are is simply a manifestation of that entitlement I
> mentioned. Who died and made you dictator of the world? Seriously.

the technology to circumvent your lock-in model is here, 
if you don't give people what they want, that technology will be used

that's not an ethical judgment, and it's not an attack on you as an 
individual, it's simply an acknowledgment of reality

More generally:

Gatekeeper tolls and requirements only work if people can't go around the 
gatekeeper.
The more onerous those tolls and requirements the more likely people will try 
to circumvent the gatekeeper,
The easier going around the gatekeeper is the less people will put up with 
before they do try to go around

When it comes to digital goods the verdict is in, people *can* go around the 
gatekeeper (what is it now? 20 years of one broken DRM scheme after another?).

What's more as soon as one person manages to circumvent the digital gatekeeper 
(i.e. the applicable DRM scheme) the nature of digital goods make it trivial 
for everybody else to follow that first persons footsteps .

Lesson to learn from that: keep your tolls and requirements low, or people 
will move around you.

> > when you make some people jump to arbitrary hoops for no good reason -
> > making them wait for a digital good in this case- then you are treating
> > them as a member of a lower class
> 
> Then don't do business with them. Period. Nobody is forcing you to do
> anything with any single business.

*I* don't, but most people aren't willing to isolate themselves socially just 
to make a point, 
that's a hard choice and the piracy alternative is comparatively easy street,

see the section on ingroup vs outgroup below

> > People seriously resent being treated as second class (nothing
> > remarkable or new about that emotional response)
> 
> The thing is... most people who are legally streaming their copy-protected
> content now (to Flash or Silverlight) don't feel like they are being treated
> like second class citizens. They are happy with the fact they can watch
> movies on their iPads; it keeps the kids quiet on the back seat of their
> minivan.
>
> Your immediate circle of friends and acquaintances does not constitute nor
> reflect the diversity of people who use the internet today, and believing
> otherwise is yet again that entitlement problem.

You're forgetting that I started from the experience *you* related to the list 
when you said:

"I've had more than one person tell me directly to my face that their 
justification for pirating Game of Thrones was because they didn't want to have 
to wait until HBO released it in their country"

obviously your own circle of acquaintances contains plenty of people feeling 
the same way, or so your story indicates. 

My own experiences duplicates that experience, 
Hey! Now we have 2 datapoints saying it's so, and none countering

Is there anybody on the list who knows nobody who feels that way? 
Who knows nobody who has pirated *whatever* it was they wanted and couldn't 
otherwise get? 

If so, speak up! 

No takers? Then we now have a whole bunch of datapoints validating that 
particular reality, and none counter.
 
> > That resentment goes double for people in social groups that cross
> > release zones. Because they now run into the social difficulty of not
> > just being able to discuss last nights episode with their
> > friends/colleagues/acquaintances , they first have to embargo their
> > knowledge to avoid spoiling their friends'
> > experience, and it turns out people are generally bad at that.
> 
> Wow, I am so sorry for you. Really, this is the most important thing in your
> life right now? The ability to chat about Game of Thrones the next morning
> without appearing stupid or tipping of your friends?  Keep typing, you are
> doing a wonderful job.

*I* don't follow Game of Thrones (if I was interested in the story I'd go read 
the books)

However as a particularly independent minded introvert who has on several 
occasions moved consciously and completely outside his comfort zone, 
*I* have had plenty of firsthand experience with being in the outgroup, and 
have consequently learned to deal with that just fine. That makes me an unusual 
person 
(and before you get started on that: let me point out explicitly that I am NOT 
implying that unusual equals better)

However...

ingroup/outgroup divisions and the negative social consequences that can 
result from being outgroup are not something I've just made up, there's plenty 
of psychological research on the subject. 
You might want to start your exploration of the subject at [1], you want to 
pay particular attention to the concepts of 'ingroup favoritism' and 'outgroup 
derogation'

The results of those studies are clear: most people are really, really 
uncomfortable with being in the outgroup, and will go to great lengths to 
avoid it. 

If that means taking the easy way out by pirating an episode so they can join 
the discussion then most people will do exactly that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups

> > (That group of people who regularly interact with people socially
> > across release zones includes pretty much everyone who uses the
> > internet as intended, i.e. as a world-wide-web, that's kind of the
> > point of the whole thing)
> 
> Yes, I'm sure that when TBL was inventing the internet, his big picture idea
> was to allow you to chat about pirated video content in real time.

the big picture was to allow any 2 people to interchange information about any 
subject they're both interested in, however unpopular or unknown that subject 
may be with anybody else

and gosh, it turns out that yesterdays Game of Throne episode* is a common 
subject of discussion around the watercooler and it's digital equivalents

(*or whatever the current popular show happens to be amongst the groups you 
hang out with)

> > When you put the above together with the easy option of pirating which:
> > * gets the end-user what they want
> > * gives them get the additional satisfaction of pulling one over on the
> > power- that-be that tried to treat them as a member of a lower class
> > (from their emotional perspective)
> > * is likely more convenient then jumping through the hoops anyway
> > * is just an act of sharing, something people rightly see as positive
> > to begin with
> > 
> > Guess what most people will do? The answer should not be a surprise,
> > and is definately not 'beyond imagination', it is just basic human
> > psychology.
> 
> ...and, voila. A classic diatribe highlighting that sense of entitlement.

I simply explained the psychological background of that particular course of 
action as I understand it. 

It's a simple fact that a *lot* of people do seem to see it that way

Understanding that  reality and their motivation does not require you to agree 
with it, let along that you judge it Good (you might even judge it Evil 
instead)

> Summary: Stealing is good "..'cause it's sticking it to the man".

And back to the top, it's not stealing, it' s copying, different thing 
altogether

> I feel very, very sorry for you.

why thank you, help me out then:
 
go read the part about the difference between stealing and copying again, 
you're still not grasping the difference in concepts, 
you're letting your emotions as a content producer get in the way (or so it 
seems to me)

it's not like I made up that difference, theft and copyright infringement are 
covered by entirely different areas of law for a reason, 

that reason is "they're different concepts"
so don't use your intuitions of one for the other that will just lead you 
completely astray
-- 
Cheers

Received on Friday, 16 May 2014 21:21:26 UTC