Living digitally very inexpensive

[anomie]

seriously -

I am really entranced with the idea of digitizing material possessions, and downsizing as much as possible. In my case, my SO will translate this into an ability to travel and tour.

the progress of technology, power of a good laptop; proliferation of ebooks; cloud drives; all provide for a lifestyle I guess I identify with that is better termed digital nomadism

re: games literally as inexpensive escapism -- I do still remember the absolute wonder 13 years ago of playing the xbox's Elder Scrolls Morrowind . It took my breath, and an entire winter of my time, totally away. So I can relate at least in memory to this idea.


less seriously -

you can also now count romantic relationships in the able-to-be- digitized category:: Just date Rinko of LovePlus

[BRUTE]

in effect, the tamagotchi did this in the 90s.. and there are "girlfriend simulators" for the original super nintendo, too. brute is not sure any of them made it to western markets.

brute verily enjoys the freedom gained from digitizing his movie collection, books-to-read stack, and the miniaturization of his personal computing device. but brute does not experience less travel due to this, but more. much easier to hop on planes with only a bag, not shelves of books and cartons of DVDs and computer parts.

[bryan]

Forskaren is completely right that digital goods are extremely inexpensive. this is because there is no scarcity in the digital world. brute can copy Forskaren's mp3 song, and Forskaren will still have it. this is why the idea of "stealing music" online is absurd - it is just copied. for stealing to occur, something must be missing.

I have some bitcoins, can you copy those with both of us being happy and becoming rich? no. if you copy the private keys, your can then access the bitcoins and transfer them in exchange for goods or services, effectively stealing from me (if I didn't consent to you spending them).

It's just that an mp3 is self contained with no concept of property. What if that mp3 was a recording of a newly discovered industrial process? Should we go around copying those bits? Once someone makes a move on the encoded information, the mp3 becomes mostly worthless.

The goal with IP is to compensate creativity using the same model as physical property. Without compensation, many creative people would stop creating and eventually there would be less creation as we would only have the kind of creations that people would/could do for free. This is why things like copyright and patents were introduced in the first place.

no. copyrights and patents were introduced as tools of censorship by monarchs. good book on this topic: Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine.

brute isn't against creativity and rewarding creators. brute is just convinced the actual IP laws have exactly zero to do with helping creatives and creators, and are actually doing a disservice to them and society as a whole.

if there was an honest interest in supporting new creations, brute would be all for it - patronage, kickstarters, subscriptions services, whatever. but using the completely unrelated term of "property" is just conscious misdirection. US courts have even decided that copying copyrighted material is not "stealing" and usage of the term is unfounded.

as it currently stands, both copyright and patents are so broken that brute would rather see the system abolished and the supposed goals of protecting/encouraging creatives be reached some other way.

same as with the war on drugs. the proponents had decades to show any positive effects at all, they failed, abolish it.

so brute, do you agree that a technical solution is preferable to a legal solution? real digital property rights? probably via DRM.

I've found all but the most AnCaps of people who are against our current IP/copyright system are also against any enforcement of digital property rights.

I'm mostly with Brute on IP. P is for property. However in the digital world, you don't buy any property as a consumer. For example with a kindle book, you "buy" the right to view a book as long as you have an amazon account. With a real book you buy the book. Additionally IP allows you to "own" things exclusively you discovered by research. Compare that to owning all oil fields because you discovered the first.
I think there's nothing wrong with compensating creators, and probably there are better systems than the IP system in use now.

I think that's just how things are now. similar to how you don't really own your smartphone (since the OEM owns the software signing keys; bootloader unlock is for the most part good enough to consider you actually own the device).

In a more digitalcentric world, I imagine content creators will have more control (and options) over how they release the content.

So do you have your own answers to questions I proposed above to brute?


And back to the original post, I think living digitally will be cheaper and inevitable. See Snow Crash, Ready Player One, Neuromancer, and similar sci-fi. However, the same power laws will be evident in the digital realm. I do think it is the most likely form of Anarchy manifesting, assuming people can act more freely in cyberspace than in meatspace.

[steveo73]

in effect, the tamagotchi did this in the 90s.. and there are "girlfriend simulators" for the original super nintendo, too. brute is not sure any of them made it to western markets.

brute verily enjoys the freedom gained from digitizing his movie collection, books-to-read stack, and the miniaturization of his personal computing device. but brute does not experience less travel due to this, but more. much easier to hop on planes with only a bag, not shelves of books and cartons of DVDs and computer parts.

We don't travel but this is a good point. All my books & movies are digitised. It creates a lot less clutter and it's more easily moved. On the flip side I use a desktop at home and we have furniture and a big TV etc. I like the stuff that I have though including the house.

[Scott 2]

This sounds like the movie wall-e to me

I'm actually surprised we don't see threads on here about how to ERE by getting on disability or welfare. I mean if you've paid into social security and earned your work credits, use the program, right? If you're smart enough to qualify for SSDI and can afford to live on it...

IMO infringing on other people's IP rights to save a buck is the same mentality.

[theanimal]

In his 2052 Global Forecast, this is more or less the future Jorgen Randers (one of the original Limits to Growth authors) forecasts. He ran the model again a few years ago and there would be a flight to the city (everybody would mostly be living in cities); nature would mainly be experienced in the form of parks; and travel would be too expensive for mass consumption (so most people would get their kicks online).

Hence, the future in the OP is likely the most realistic outcome for most people 30 years from now.

How is this different then what it is now? People can't go without their smartphones and netflix (regardless whether or not they are travelling). Most people live in cities and the idea of going to nature is driving to a national park and looking at the interpretive signs just off the road.

I'm really struggling to understand how some find this appealing. Like Scott 2 said, this sounds like a set of Wall-E. There are endless things to do in the offline world that are much more rewarding.

[FBeyer]

This sounds like the movie wall-e to me

I'm actually surprised we don't see threads on here about how to ERE by getting on disability or welfare...

I reckon because most people who 'adhere to ERE' are the kind of driven and independent people who like to know/feel that they can manage without outside help. Living solely off of subsidies would completely turn all control over your own life to the whims of government (more than mere taxation of investments already do).

[steveo73]

This sounds like the movie wall-e to me

I'm actually surprised we don't see threads on here about how to ERE by getting on disability or welfare. I mean if you've paid into social security and earned your work credits, use the program, right? If you're smart enough to qualify for SSDI and can afford to live on it...

IMO infringing on other people's IP rights to save a buck is the same mentality.

I'm sorry but I don't see this at all.

One one side (social security) I see taking money from everyone and sponging off the government. As FBeyer states as well there is a feeling of working the system and being dependent on the government.

When I watch or read or listen to something for free in my opinion it's me simply being a good consumer and not paying ridiculous money to people who predominantly have a lot of money anyway and are overcharging because the majority of people are stupid.

If you want to put paying full price on a pedestal be my guest but I'm not going along with that line of thought.

[steveo73]

There are endless things to do in the offline world that are much more rewarding.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition though does it.

For instance I love jiu-jitsu. I ride my bike to the gym and then I wrestle. It's physically tough but it feels great. I can then come home and read a book or watch a TV show with my wife.

[Freedom_2018]

Sometimes I wonder if folks think that minimizing cost of living is always proportional to increasing quality of life.

Beyond a certain point of cost minimization the equation is inversely proportional.

So get off your lazy digital asses and get out there! Spaces we have in nature won't last forever.

[Scott 2]

Sponging off the government is asking tax payers to carry part of your cost of living. I'm not comfortable with it either.

Infringing IP rights is asking the same of the corporations or individuals that own them. Dig into a corporate entity, and it consists of people. From the shareholders to the janitor - they depend on selling that IP. If it is over priced through channels they've agreed to sell through, that's their choice. As a consumer, we should either pay or choose something else. I did not always think this way, but watching my wife work at a publishing company changed my perspective. Making quality IP is expensive.

IMO if the current IP model is broken, the answer is to support those producers that opt into a better alternative. This isn't binary. A self published book like ERE cuts out a lot of overhead, but still relies on some of the traditional model. I am a big fan of direct to author relationships like this. I think it's one of the best parts of the shift to digital.

[luxagraf]

Making quality IP is expensive.

Naw, all you need to do is wave your hands a lot and talk about the wisdom of the crowds and the long tail and bullshit like that.

IMO if the current IP model is broken, the answer is to support those producers that opt into a better alternative. This isn't binary. A self published book like ERE cuts out a lot of overhead, but still relies on some of the traditional model. I am a big fan of direct to author relationships like this. I think it's one of the best parts of the shift to digital.

+1

[BRUTE]

I have some bitcoins, can you copy those with both of us being happy and becoming rich? no. if you copy the private keys, your can then access the bitcoins and transfer them in exchange for goods or services, effectively stealing from me (if I didn't consent to you spending them).

bryan is confusing two things. brute makes a copy of bryan's private keys. nothing bad has happened to bryan. bryan can still access the private keys and use the bitcoins. the copying is not theft. now brute uses the private keys to move the bitcoins. bryan therefore loses control of the bitcoins. bryan is at a loss.

brute is not planning on moving any private keys to anybody's mp3s. therefore no loss happens when brute copies mp3s.

like jacob before, bryan is strawmanning brute. brute does claim it is impossible to harm people when physical atoms or bits are moved. brute is arguing that if there is no victim, there is no crime. if bryan finds some case where duplicating information somehow actually hurt somebody, brute might not be against outlawing it. but there is no harm being done by copying movies and mp3s, so there is no crime.

so brute, do you agree that a technical solution is preferable to a legal solution? real digital property rights? probably via DRM.

no. brute would prefer that no artificial scarcity would be enforced where it is unnecessary. DRMs are a silly idea and usually punish customers more than copiers. brute would prefer if solutions were created that do not try to wall off things that can be copied with zero marginal cost, but instead incentivize creators to create and be rewarded for it. brute has listed several such suggestions already.

[BRUTE]

Sponging off the government is asking tax payers to carry part of your cost of living. I'm not comfortable with it either.

Infringing IP rights is asking the same of the corporations or individuals that own them.

brute disagrees.

publishing company creates IP for 1 million. customers buy 900k worth. brute copies a huge amount of it and doesn't spend a single dime. company loses 100k.

the analogy is not "sponging off the government", but refusing to pay into the government system.

government spends 1 billion on social security. tax payers pay 900 million worth. brute decides to live off the land, and doesn't pay anything. government loses 100 million.

"denying earnings" is not the same as stealing. every time burger king opens a restaurant, mcdonalds loses earnings. that doesn't mean burger king is stealing from mcdonalds.

IMO if the current IP model is broken, the answer is to support those producers that opt into a better alternative. This isn't binary. A self published book like ERE cuts out a lot of overhead, but still relies on some of the traditional model. I am a big fan of direct to author relationships like this. I think it's one of the best parts of the shift to digital.

brute agrees.

[jacob]

Brute seems to deliberately ignore secondary consequences or somehow to be presuming/arguing that content generators don't need to be paid because content can be copied freely. This is zero-cost copying argument completely misses the point that the first copy was far from free to generate. It shouldn't be overly hard to understand that pirating reduces the incentive to create for those who work for a living/for the income. Pirating only works as long as there are enough paying customers to support the content generators.

In particular, brute's argument about there not being a loss from copying is not fooling the people who create the content. They certainly perceive a loss. Let me put this in real practical terms/consequences... the fact that one can readily google "early retirement extreme pdf" means that I am less likely to write another book, so there you go! Consequences of TANSTAAFL.

I don't really care so much about the philosophical or legal discussion. I'm just pointing out that piracy has consequences. It doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Kindle has taken the natural consequence and so you're no longer buying a copy of IP. You're buying a license to read. Similar to how buying a movie theatre ticket gives you access to watching the movie ... even if it wouldn't remove any of the experience for the others if you simply snuck in w/o paying for a ticket---which is kinda what pirating is. If enough people sneak in instead of paying the theatre eventually shuts down.

Also see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

In any case, if brute wants content that's not just intended to serve an ad or get brute to buy something, brute has to find some way to pay for that. If everybody decides they want 100% free content, ultimately all you'll be getting are infomercials. You become the product.

[bryan]

bryan is confusing two things. brute makes a copy of bryan's private keys. nothing bad has happened to bryan.

Just knowing that the information has been read (copied) is very stressful to me, in that case. I must now take some action to transfer the bitcoins to a new address. I must now review my opsec, did BRUTE just get lucky and I was careless or is it something far worse? I must now worry about BRUTE's capability to not leak the information until I the transfer is complete. I must now worry about privacy concerns (where did those bitcoins come from initially anyway?)

Hardly victimless, and I'm pretty sure it is legally theft, at least in this day and age (unless for some reason I was willingly sharing my private keys, but somehow with an expectation that no one should use them?? like, here have this mp3, but don't you dare try to make pressure waves with it.)

brute is not planning on moving any private keys to anybody's mp3s. therefore no loss happens when brute copies mp3s.

So you just copy/share information for the heck of it? There is some idealogical belief perhaps, that you want all information to be free (even private keys)?

Maybe there is some belief that a certain combination of pressure waves should not be locked away by the creator of the sound? Or that a certain sequence of numbers can not be had as exclusive property to a creator?

if bryan finds some case where duplicating information somehow actually hurt somebody, brute might not be against outlawing it. but there is no harm being done by copying movies and mp3s, so there is no crime.

That's an incredibly bold statement. I'm curious to hear what extreme examples others will give you.. We live in an information economy*! Some folks even quip "information is power". Anyway, certainly passwords, private keys being disclosed would turn the world on it's head.

How do you feel about the idea of "secrets"? Property?

[*] I do find it rather perplexing that Google is not worth at least an order magnitude of more money, though.

[anomie]

Pirating only works as long as there are enough paying customers to support the content generators.

Perhaps helpful to conversation -->

I am not aware of any forum members other than Jacob deriving profits from their contributions to this forum.

Yet this forum exists. yes? Forum content is created. Value to others - ideas exchanged, developed. shoud forum members be compensated for their effort? ..

hmm...

( I do not claim to have the capacity to mount a sustained argument / discussion on this topic. I do have strong opinions on it, though. And... it is OFF-TOPIC!! We should fork thread, if that capacity exists; this is fascinating topic, but not OP's topic...)

[anomie]

... an entire mega-corporation who is set against the existing status quo of monopolistic control of information:

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

(I added the bold)
source: https://www.google.com/about/company/

The time's they are a changing.
Good luck clinging to old modes of thought.

(FWIW, I bought 3 copies of Jacob's book AND pirated it for good measure. To have all bases covered.

[bryan]

Yet this forum exists. yes? Forum content is created. Value to others - ideas exchanged, developed. shoud forum members be compensated for their effort? ..

hmm...

I have this one neat trick/hack I've been using in my accumulation phase that I haven't heard anyone online really mention. It should result in a significantly faster FIRE (I would estimate it to be pretty close to the factor of maxing out 401k with some company match). I haven't shared it publicly because it would be a good MMM/madFientist type post with all that sweet, sweet ad revenue or karma or social capital.

If someone compensates me, I'll share my one neat trick to the world, or allow you to get first action on it.

( I do not claim to have the capacity to mount a sustained argument / discussion on this topic. I do have strong opinions on it, though. And... it is OFF-TOPIC!! We should fork thread, if that capacity exists; this is fascinating topic, but not OP's topic...)

True.. I guess digital property rights were the thing that got me side-tracked.. something pretty key if we live in a digitalcentric world ala Snow Crash, Ready Player One, Neuromancer, etc.

[BRUTE]

Brute seems to deliberately ignore secondary consequences or somehow to be presuming/arguing that content generators don't need to be paid because content can be copied freely. This is zero-cost copying argument completely misses the point that the first copy was far from free to generate. It shouldn't be overly hard to understand that pirating reduces the incentive to create for those who work for a living/for the income. Pirating only works as long as there are enough paying customers to support the content generators.

In particular, brute's argument about there not being a loss from copying is not fooling the people who create the content. They certainly perceive a loss. Let me put this in real practical terms/consequences... the fact that one can readily google "early retirement extreme pdf" means that I am less likely to write another book, so there you go! Consequences of TANSTAAFL.

I don't really care so much about the philosophical or legal discussion. I'm just pointing out that piracy has consequences. It doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Kindle has taken the natural consequence and so you're no longer buying a copy of IP. You're buying a license to read. Similar to how buying a movie theatre ticket gives you access to watching the movie ... even if it wouldn't remove any of the experience for the others if you simply snuck in w/o paying for a ticket---which is kinda what pirating is. If enough people sneak in instead of paying the theatre eventually shuts down.

Also see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

In any case, if brute wants content that's not just intended to serve an ad or get brute to buy something, brute has to find some way to pay for that. If everybody decides they want 100% free content, ultimately all you'll be getting are infomercials. You become the product.

mayhaps brute has not been explaining properly. brute is not necessarily in favor of everything being 100% free. brute has paid for many books, including ERE. brute has even handed creators physical bills after pirating their work, because he liked it so much. brute believes free rider problems can exist and are often worth being solved. brute just believes that IP is a terrible way of solving it, adding more to the problem than helping.

just because there exists a problem "creators don't always create if they're not being compensated" does not mean the status quo is the optimal solution.