Wesley Jame wrote:
You win, I really should have taken your advice once you offered it. The 27 other folks who offered public or private advice ranging from "no protection is useful or necessary" to "offer subscriptions only to people you know personally" might have been ticked off but that doesn't matter. After all, you wouldn't have offered your opinion if you weren't right. I didn't understand that your advice, once offered, was the last word and the only way to go.
How very presumptuous of you Wesley.
Especially as my advice to you was never offered as some sort of "last word" as you rather disingenuously imply above.
I wasn't aware of a contest being held here, so your sarcastic "You win" has little meaning for me.
My expectation was that you'd actually listen to the concerns of your subscribers (and potential subscribers) and answer their questions without snark or unpleasant insinuation. I guess I set the bar unrealistically high in terms of how you'd eventually respond.
You cry out that folks are "impugning" you, "questioning your motives", blah blah, but obviously you've lost the ability to see how folks take it when you suggest to them that their ethics might be lacking or that you feel they're too "confused" to be able to understand you.
Sauce for the goose eh?
We've just about heard it all from you at this point Wesley. The victim card played yet again, not to mention the rather self pitying diatribes leveled at those who have committed the cardinal sin of simply disagreeing with you.
I'm sure there will be no shortage of those eager to embrace the "poor Wesley" meme that you've so carefully cultivated.
I'm also duly chastened about believing that the law, reflecting the current refinement of the thinking of the majority of 535 elected representatives, should be given any weight. I should have known that everyone who would read my post would know the 1996 revisions to copyright law. I should have realized that while I had to have the newest revisions of copyright law explained to me by a trademark and copyright attorney, everyone else would already know the law. Besides, "customer service" trumps the law every time.
Poor Wesley! How can we live with ourselves knowing that we've "chastened" you with our utter disrespect for the law! Shame on us! ;)
I'm sure we're all very impressed
to know that you understand how many elected representatives there are and the ramifications of the copyright extensions of \'96
. Perhaps it's understood that we should bow to your obvious superior knowledge here eh? :rolleyes:
Interestingly enough, I have not seen anyone here argue the terms of the rather blunt(and honestly pretty silly) straw man you've constructed above.
It's amazing to me that you still don't seem to get that the issues you face here do not primarily concern copyright law or ethics.Rather, it's my opinion that the primary issues facing you here (the ones that folks actually seem to care about) are customer service related.
As I've noted before, your bloviations concerning congress, how folks don't properly understand "The Law" as well as you do, the way people get "confused" and can't understand you, etc. only serve to distract from your obvious shortcomings in effectively dealing with potential customers and their sometimes difficult questions.
Isn't it interesting that you chose to present the term customer service "in quotes". ;)
The fact that some of those who expressed opinions would never have been "customers" anyway is irrelevant. The customer is always right, should pay only what s/he thinks a product is worth and should be able to do whatever s/he wants to with it once purchased, even if what s/he has in mind is illegal.
Quite the nice over generalization you've spun there Wesley.
No one has represented that ridiculous claim on these forums, and I have no doubt that the members here will recognize the forest of straw men that you've built.
It's amusing to watch you mangle and misrepresent the words of others to the utmost, while plaintively crying that you're the victim here, (poor Wesley!)
being unfairly impugned, having your motives questioned, being generally misunderstood, blah blah.
Finally, I believe, probably mistakenly by your lights, that actual customers--those who actually put their money where their keyboard is--might be intelligent enough to appreciate my desire to protect the information I'll be offering,
Ewww, there you go questioning the intelligence of those who might not properly appreciate your work or agree with your very narrowly held point of view.
Sure, why not assume that folks (the one's that aren't "confused" by your standards) will put up with piss poor customer service and crippled product simply because the material is so great.
They may be bright enough to understand that one can't invest time, effort and money into an enterprise and feel good about some stealing it while others pay their hard earned money.
Whoa! Condescend much?
In your black and white world, customer service is all, citing the law is condescending and your recommended approach was the only advice I was obligated to take but in my world I had choices to make.
You've been given examples of how others have successfully worked with the confines of the law, successfully offering such product without expecting their paid subscribers to jump through more hoops than Flipper.
It's amusing to me that you claim I live in some "black and white world" when anyone here can see that your lack of flexibility, your inability to engage your subscribers desires in a way amenable to many of them, has made it pretty clear that customer relations might not be your strong suit.
If you wish to discuss "living in a black and white" world, I suggest you acquaint yourself with a nearby mirror.
I made them and will sink of swim based upon them. Your help in spreading your objections across your board and the Magic Cafe' may be just what I needed to find out where others really stand when it comes to putting their money down.
So, thanks for all your help. I understand the rules much better now.
Great, that was exactly my intent and yes, you're welcome.
It's satisfying to see that you now seem to recognize that these issues deserve a proper airing.
Quite right of you address the multiple computer issue, though I wonder why you had to be dragged into doing so.
It will be interesting to see how you handle further public questions.
The below (rather imperious) quote seems quite the blunt example of how you seem to view many of your potential subscribers.
I will not, however, facilitate the broad dissemination of the material because of those who pay lips service to respecting copyright but actually want everything for themselves with little regard for the implications of their wants.
I wonder how folks will continue to react to you if that's the tone you choose to take with them.