Living digitally very inexpensive

[BRUTE]

...

brute is too lazy to quote-unquote each of the subquotes in bryan's response. suffice to say, none of the things bryan seems to have read brute meant to say. in short:

- in the bitcoin example, the damage is hardly done by brute copying the private key. this action (or the revelation thereof) merely pointed out existing flaws in bryan's security, unless brute did "breaking and entering"-type things to get them. if the analogy with copying mp3s is to be maintained, those private keys would be lying around on public servers on the internet for brute to copy - hardly a security measure.

- brute copies mp3s because he likes listening to music. but brute does not use private keys to blockchain-mp3s to deny others access to the original mp3s -> analogy to bitcoin is flawed.

- brute does NOT think "all information must be free". the paragraph quoted was meant by brute to express the exact opposite. brute does NOT want to copy bryan's passwords or private keys, because those could cause harm to bryan.

- brute thinks "property" is a great concept that can solve distribution of resources in many cases of scarcity. brute is not in favor of using this hammer to make everything into a nail. things that are not scarce don't need to be property. what is and isn't scarce is often up to debate. this is the debate humans are having with brute right now.

- brute desperately wants to learn that one neat trick so he can FIRE on $400k/year from scamming people into clicking on his affiliate links errr being badasstachian

[steveo73]

I think the topic of pirating is a fascinating one as well. Where does free TV or the library fit into the discussion. I also think a good point has been touched on within this thread. There are so many people out there offering content and trying to get paid for it and so many of them do get paid for it. The problem is that the content is complete and utter crap. It's bordering on a scam. I also get a lot out of posting on some forums. I add to those forums as do other people. Should we all be getting paid ?

I honestly think it's a complicated topic but I know I would need a lot better arguments than what I have seen on this thread in order to stop utilising free sources of information and entertainment.

[bryan]

@BRUTE alright, fair enough, the private keys was not a great analogy in that case if you want to maintain similarities to "file-sharing" since information like private keys are not meant for distribution, at all, and if they do get distributed the first person to act on them usually extracts most of the value. However, there are plenty of other instances that "file-sharing" hurts someone else. Consider sex tapes or revenge porn or newly released media (videogames, music, videos), communication history of someone online (supposedly in restricted forms). Sure you can argue that on the net it might do more good for society, but it certainly does hurt someone on the other end. Plenty of people respond to the "You wouldn't download a car" message that "Heck yeah I would!"

[BRUTE]

so if brute makes a revenge porn tape and sells it with DRM, that's ok? good talk.

[bryan]

so if brute makes a revenge porn tape and sells it with DRM, that's ok? good talk.

I was actually supposing you would be file-sharing some 3rd parties tape.

I suppose both parties should have the property rights and drm keys initially. so it can only be published (with or without drm at that point) if both parties signed off, or maybe if they are using a nonp2p app (line Snapchat) then there would also be an escrow party. This is not so far-fetched. Of course it doesn't stop you from drm wrapping another unprotected format and sharing/putting that out. Note that this is a future world where DRM is actually integrated properly end-to-end in devices (only a few devices today you could say such a thing).

[Forskaren]

I think the legal and moral aspects of copyright, DRM, closed vs open, paid vs piracy etc. can be a great debate.

My original idea was to live inexpensive within the law, by using inexpensive digital software and services. My opinion is that it is stupid to be fanatic about never paying, since you often can legally get a superior experience by paying a minor amount. In university I have seen plenty of presentations, documents and Figures that look like pure crap, partly because the user imagined that they had to use only “Free software”. To be said, they had access to already present paid software, but refused to use it. If you are working for an employer, often spending time to look for free alternatives will cost more than just using the capabilities of already present software.

If we are talking about piracy, that can cause problems with both the law and the security of your computer. Many piracy sites seem to be sponsored by malware and scam organizations. When I noticed how a “normal” user clicks around, I am sure that they would click and download the malware. I have seen co-workers enter their username and password for their work e-mail on the first Google search hit, even if that was not the site hosting our system.

For personal use I think it is convenient to use subscription services for what you are using the most, for examples TV-series, music and gaming. It is also a time consuming mess to sort a lot of files on your personal hard drives and make local backups. If files are not critical, I am happy to outsource all the storage to Microsoft or Google and have it available anywhere.

[jacob]

Speaking of living digitally, Oculus Rift launches tomorrow. Has anyone tried it? Is it a game changer in the sense that we're so much closer that people would spend all day in tiny apartment doing VR work and entertainment?

[George the original one]

IMHO, consumer-grade VR is still in its infancy as far as equipment goes. Resolution is still not as good as HDTV (& nowhere near 4k) and, because it requires two screens for stereo effect, the level of graphics processor required to increase the resolution is more than most people are willing to pay. There is not yet a game console that supports current VR tech; it's all still PC-based. Figure 2-3 years before that tech is in place.

There are plenty of early adopters willing to shell out $600+ to use VR in its current state. I think early adoption will be more successful than 3D TV. The uses of VR were mapped out in the '80s and no one has proposed new applications since then, so whether it can overcome the hurdle to widespread adoption that 3D TV didn't manage is yet to be decided.

One of the hurdles for widespread adoption of VR is creating user interfaces suitable for an environment where you can't see what you're physically touching. One of the models (not Oculus Rift) incorporates a camera that allows you to overlay physical devices. Oculus Rift approach is to use simpler devices (e.g. gamepad) that you can easily find/use by touch. Third approach is to wear more tech gear (gloves) or use remote sensors (for gestures). Which approach wins out will be interesting as the camera overlay method is more open-ended, but will possibly require tedious setup by the end user and gesture sensors require more programming for the application.

We also don't know the longterm effects of VR life. Some users complain of nausea & disorientation (naturally enough) and there will always be people who get headaches from optical devices (just like with 3D glasses). What we don't know, however, are what happens when someone is using VR for 500-1000 hours per year many years in a row. Balance & motor skills? Visual acuity? Outgassing exposure from the goggles? Skin abnormalities? Radiation cancers? There will certainly be claims...

On the practical side, wearing a VR headset renders you "unavailable". People cannot simply wave their arms to get your attention and sounds may not penetrate your perception if you're also wearing earbuds or earphones. We will undergo etiquette lessons again once universal processes are worked out.

[Forskaren]

The real game changer would be something like Star Trek holodeck. WR will not be really good until it is difficult to know if you are in the real world or in WR.

[jennypenny]

review of OR http://time.com/4272506/oculus-rift-review/

I think I would like it for skyping.

[vezkor]

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.

I agree with this sentiment exactly. The status quo is severely flawed, and the free-rider problem affects different creators to different degrees.

As an aside, for those that have played StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm (or Heroes of the Storm... I suppose): I read every BRUTE post in Abathur's voice and syntax. It makes the forums much more entertaining than they otherwise would be.

[BRUTE]

let all those who oppose the overmind feel the wrath of the swarm.

[Riggerjack]

Rights must be defended.

A patent is a recognition of a registration of a right. When the patent office grants you a patent, you don't get exclusive right to production of your idea. You pay for the right to defend your right to exclusive production. The patent office collects the fee records your patent, and moves on to collect the next fee.

When the wright brothers patented flight controls, they didn't get rich they fought until broke, and held back American flight until WWI. Boeing got rich, Orville didn't.

Mining claims are another intellectual property right. You first found that mineral,in that place, and want exclusive use of that 10'x10' piece of earth. Again, register your claim, pay your fee, and defend your claim.

The reason we talk about piracy in moral terms, is because claim jumping became easier. In fact, it got so easy,it threatened an entire industry. An industry full of lawyers and public relations experts...

On the other side of that coin, the same tech that made piracy easier, made self publishing easier. Now, with dropping reproduction and distribution costs, creators can self publish. This brings in a whole new group of aggrieved authors whose claims may have been jumped. Case in point, Jacob talks about there being no ERE II, but never mentions that without these advances, there likely would have been no ERE at all.

We have heard a great deal from those 2 groups (displaced management and amateur authors) about the evils of piracy. Rarely, do we hear about whether these tech advances should belong to the creators. The "displaced rights".

Having a mining claim trumps the claim of the hiker who would rather enjoy the tree that used to occupy that space. The system was developed before diesel engines. It had to adapt, before bulldozers leveled the Rockies.

IP tech has changed. The idea that all of the advantage of this change belongs to the original benefactors of the old tech is unsupported. The idea that this is the best solution is silly.

[BRUTE]

brute would like to make riggerjack's last paragraphs more explicit:

rights are context and culture dependent. context and culture change. and just because rights exist doesn't mean they're morally right.

there are plenty of examples in history where humans were granted rights that "had to be defended" which we now consider despicable. brute finds it unnecessary to list them to this educated forum.

the sentence "rights must be defended" is also somewhat self-fulfilling. what are rights if not things that are defended, or at least ideas of what should be defended?

[steveo73]

I find it interesting that people question my morals or ethics because I utilise free sources of information and entertainment. I think there is such a huge grey area in this topic.

I don't think it's been mentioned as well but I remember hiring videos from anywhere from $5 to maybe even $10. I now notice that you can do this from a vending machine for $1-$2. Have my actions (and others) resulted in better outcomes for society as a whole ?

[BRUTE]

I find it interesting that people question my morals or ethics because I utilise free sources of information and entertainment. I think there is such a huge grey area in this topic.

brute also finds this fascinating. in this case it seems that humans who think of "intellectual property" as very similar to physical property draw the conclusion that it's literal theft, even though it's clearly not LITERALLY theft, because nothing is missing. it is ostensibly a reduction in income that someone morally deserves.

for others, like brute, there is a fundamental difference between "intellectual" property" and physical property, so to even say the word "stealing" about copying mp3s is already offensive to brute.

there are a few topics where humans have these seemingly over the top emotional responses. e.g. "jesus guys, it's just a bunch of guns, why do you care" vs. "this is our most fundamental right to protect ourselves".

somehow the different perspective on the same topic creates a communication gap, where just the language used by the other party to describe the situation is already an offense to humans.

it happens with PC, too. some humans would claim that stating "the perpetrator was a black male" is a fact, whereas others perceive the same exact sentence as racist. maybe a sign that facts about a subjectively perceived cannot be stated by humans in objective ways.

I don't think it's been mentioned as well but I remember hiring videos from anywhere from $5 to maybe even $10. I now notice that you can do this from a vending machine for $1-$2. Have my actions (and others) resulted in better outcomes for society as a whole ?

this might just be automation. a vending machine costs a lot less than a blockbuster store full of employees. you can just put a vending machine in a supermarket and pay them $500 a month or a small cut of revenue.

[steveo73]

brute also finds this fascinating. in this case it seems that humans who think of "intellectual property" as very similar to physical property draw the conclusion that it's literal theft, even though it's clearly not LITERALLY theft, because nothing is missing. it is ostensibly a reduction in income that someone morally deserves.

I also question the moral right for someone to receive that income. What if I buy something and I don't believe it is worth what I paid for it ? Morally do I deserve to receive money back ?

I don't go around stealing stuff and I quite simply wouldn't and haven't ever done that.

for others, like brute, there is a fundamental difference between "intellectual" property" and physical property, so to even say the word "stealing" about copying mp3s is already offensive to brute.

I feel the same way but I'm not offended. Anyone stating something like that though to me has their own problems to deal with. Their problem isn't though my problem.

somehow the different perspective on the same topic creates a communication gap, where just the language used by the other party to describe the situation is already an offense to humans.

This is again interesting. I notice that my wife sometimes attacks me via using language that is designed to get a response. The other day she stated "it's because you never learn". My response is you are just using language to try and start a fight or get your way. I do my best to never react to these types of comments.

this might just be automation. a vending machine costs a lot less than a blockbuster store full of employees. you can just put a vending machine in a supermarket and pay them $500 a month or a small cut of revenue.

I don't think that this is the case. I think part of the economic system is people will charge as much as they can get away with. Once people started sharing stuff on-line the people selling certain stuff have had to charge less to entice consumers to purchase their products.

[jacob]

There's no need to cast it into moral terms. You don't even have to use words like theft or property to describe the consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

In economics, the free rider problem occurs when those who benefit from resources, goods, or services do not pay for them, which results in an under-provision of those goods or services.[...] If too many people start to free ride, a system or service will eventually not have enough money to operate.

... or the system or service will find other ways to get compensated, such as, for example, advertising, licensing, subscriptions, farticle writing, or targeted writing meant for private consumption rather than public distribution, such as reports and briefings.

This is not a morality argument. It is simple economics.

Conversely, if providers overcharge for resources, goods, ... they will also go out of business as other providers offer cheaper solutions. This dynamic is called competitive capitalism which over time leads to lower prices for goods and services such as the evolution from scribes hand-copying manuscripts to today's print-on-demand publishing.

[bryan]

VR pinball (replacing reality): https://youtu.be/18EcIxywXHg?t=9m18s

[steveo73]

There's no need to cast it into moral terms. You don't even have to use words like theft or property to describe the consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

In economics, the free rider problem occurs when those who benefit from resources, goods, or services do not pay for them, which results in an under-provision of those goods or services.[...] If too many people start to free ride, a system or service will eventually not have enough money to operate.

... or the system or service will find other ways to get compensated, such as, for example, advertising, licensing, subscriptions, farticle writing, or targeted writing meant for private consumption rather than public distribution, such as reports and briefings.

This is not a morality argument. It is simple economics.

Conversely, if providers overcharge for resources, goods, ... they will also go out of business as other providers offer cheaper solutions. This dynamic is called competitive capitalism which over time leads to lower prices for goods and services such as the evolution from scribes hand-copying manuscripts to today's print-on-demand publishing.

Interesting points here. I studied economics at uni and I remember the free rider problem. Here is an interesting point. The free rider problem at the moment is not a problem because there are plenty of goods being produced. So there is no way it's at a critical mass yet when it becomes a problem.

Like I said earlier as well I think utilising free information may have had significant benefits for the rest of society that actually pay for the same goods as well.