Not a "computer" service per se but I subscribe to American Express in a couple of different fashions. I find my contact with them to be much more pleasant, even if the call is related to a problem. Much of that is due to the great level of customer support but I am sure part of that is that I feel a level of status as a "paying customer" ... I can afford to be gracious [but I expect you to recognize that ...]
Equating a computer algorithm to personal interaction doesn't make it for me. And I guess that's the WHOLE POINT here. It's the computer matching up words and, by mathematical correlation, suggesting some completions.
And, of course as you suggest, you can TURN OFF the suggestions easily.
Me? I sometimes use (and frequently am amused by) the Google search suggestions. I recognize that they are just suggestions, nothing more.
Terra, thanks for your post to this thread as a real live author. After all it is your product that we are discussing!
But I must object to your objection.
The contract/arrangement between you and your publisher has nothing at all to do with the arrangement between your publisher and the readers of your books.
Really. That is unless you are providing your books directly to your readers which is an interesting option but probably beyond the scope of his discussion.
Why do you care what your publisher charges for your book? That seems to be their own decision and is unrelated to your compensation for your efforts. If your publisher somehow equates YOUR remuneration to THEIR marketing efforts then I truly believe you need a new publisher.
Let's say I'm mining coal. I have my family working for me so my costs are low. I sell it to the local coal company which delivers it to the local homes and businesses. If I send the coal to the company which, in my mind, compensates me and my family for the effort we expend to mine the coal then what do I care what they charge for the coal?
Not only that, but what if they LOWER the price for the coal? And, by doing that INCREASE the demand for the coal? Wouldn't that be better?
BUT, BUT, you say. If they lower the cost of an INFINITE GOOD (ebooks) it's not the same thing!!!
You made the original agreement to your liking, it benefitted you. And you got the extra exposure which is an unexpected "future good" which cost you nothing.
Not irrelevant. Have you never engaged in a conversation? Where, perhaps, you might repeat back the other person's words? And then you amplify or comment on what they said and inject your own perspective and thoughts. Of course you have.
But your own "perspective and thoughts" are framed by that other side of the conversation and without that frame they are adrift. You are not "stealing" those thoughts but are merely using them to frame your own creation; putting the conversation in context. Otherwise your contribution loses a lot of value, it's just words in the sand. In fact, you are elevating those "other thoughts" to a higher level by highlighting their importance to you, that you recognize them as important.
For some reason this article got me thinking ... always a dangerous proposition ...
If we loosen "fair use" rules, which I take is what this proposal is addressing, Then Sony might be able to incorporate some BMI content (or whomever ... just an example) into their offerings and increase their audience. Naturally that would be reciprocal.
Has anyone explained to the Major Labels that "OOH! We can grab some of YOUR best shit and use it to improve our crappy shit! COOL!" It's called Fair Use!
Depending on who's shit is great or crappy you might get some complaints but, in the end, maybe we'll get better shit?
These days it's like a KIng of the Mountain game where everybody is trying to break the legs of all the competitors rather than actually trying to make it to the top of the mountain!!!!
I agree that this is a positive response and MUCH better than "going after" the pirates but I'm not positive that the "pity the poor developer" tactic will last. Maybe a while, since it is so different from the "shoot first" stance that is so prevalent; and their anti-DRM stance is pretty refreshing (and realistic) I think they need to go a step or two farther. Maybe this is the first step, and in the right direction, but I think they need to stack some creativity on top of that to really be able to sell it.
"They just brush off their own failure to abide by the law as if it's nothing -- and never realize what they're doing to the people they go after."
If there ever was a Double Standard ... but I really believe they they are NOT AWARE of what they are doing. I don't think they are scofflaws, but worse, unable to examine their own actions in the light of the law and reality. This is a terrible thing to be sure.
I've helped sponsor a couple of videos on Kickstarter as well as a couple of other things. Some don't make their funding goal but that's OK. I suppose that falls under the patronage model but usually brings in more also. My name in the credits, or two thing-a-ma-bobs ordered in advance, an autographed copy of the DVD, etc. I don't usually kick in more than 50 bucks and if the funding goal isn't met then it doesn't cost anything at all.
Those half-trillion dollars did NOT just "evaporate" ... as you have pointed out in other posts frequently. They are merely redirected to different places in the economy, such as luxury cars, and skilled gardeners, Hampton vacations, etc. Those dollars go to build the underlying economy, they do not evaporate.
Come on Mike, let's not fall into the same trap you accuse the IP Maximalists of! ;-}