Wesley James announces Mojo!

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.

Postby Guest » 10/31/06 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Jim Maloney:
It is worth noting that the password restriction, at least, is similar to what users currently experience with digital files such as The Phoenix or The Jinx magazine files.
I've had more than a few people tell me publicly and privately that the protections used with those products drive them nuts. I don't think password protected PDFS were good idea for those products (or for most products), so using that as example doesn't make for a particularly compelling argument.

Why should legit subscribers be thrilled to pay for a crippled product, when the pirates will simply remove the protections and actually end up with a superior end user experience? Not that I support that kind of thing, but it seems a bit inequitable to me knowing that the dishonest will likely be able to enjoy the material in a way legit subscribers probably never will.

And why are the full extent of the limitations (no printing, forced p/w access, etc.) not currently posted up on the sales page in full so that potential subscribers can make a truly informed purchasing decision?

I do understand that this may turn some people off, though.
I think limiting the material to being read off a computer screen will turn off more than a few.

It's my view that Wesley is really underestimating the needs of his subscribers in his zeal to protect his material. Which is a shame, as I have no doubt that the material will be interesting.
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/31/06 12:36 PM

Hmmm, let's see.
It's double the price of Genii.
You only get a tiny fraction of the amount of pages you get in Genii.
You can't print it out.
If you want to buy a printed version you have to wait a year and then pay AGAIN.
Sounds like a bust to me.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21089
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 10/31/06 01:10 PM

Richard,
I don't think Mojo is intended to be comparable to Genii. If you think of it more along the lines of something like Antinomy, then you'll see that the price per page is roughly comparable.

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Guest » 10/31/06 01:20 PM

I think he'd have a lot more success if he'd at least forget the no print feature. Not being able to print the file then having to pay again to get a printed copy doesn't seem likely to attract subscribers.
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/31/06 02:06 PM

Yes, Jim, but you're not getting a beautifully printed magazine like Antinomy. When you subscribe to Antinomy you can see where your money goes, not only to print the magazine, but also for the CD-ROM that contains lots of extra features at the end of the year.

Wesley's got the whole thing backwards: you need to print first, then give electronic information later. Wasshuber doesn't understand that, either.

The thing about most small-run trick magazines is that they don't make the publishers much money because of printing and shipping. Cutting out the printing and shipping means the price of a subscription should be very small--but it's not very small here, in fact it's very expensive. Seems hard to justify.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21089
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 10/31/06 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Dave Le Fevre:
Originally posted by Ian Kendall:
[b]I've a feeling refusing to take Paypal will limit their overseas subscribers.
Agreed. But that's only for the initial subscription - once WJ knows who you are and where you are, subsequent subscriptions can be by credit card.

Dave [/b]
Dave,

Paypal's Address Confirmation gives the seller exactly that, my address is verified against my address held at the credit-card company, this would let Wesley know who I am and where I am.

How is this less secure than sending him a money order with a scrap of paper with my address on?

Also with Barclays to get a IMO it would be a cost of 8 almost a third again on top of the $50, I would be prepared to pay the $50 for the material, but not at the extra cost to me of sending him the money, unless you know of a cheaper way to send US funds from the UK?

It is unacceptable in this day and age to try and sell an electronic product touted as being 21st Century without offering even basic e-commerce facilities and then try and excuse it for security purposes, when in fact those very facilities are hundreds of times more secure and reliable than the postal system!
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/31/06 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Cutting out the printing and shipping means the price of a subscription should be very small--but it's not very small here, in fact it's very expensive. Seems hard to justify.
I agree. Wesley has made it pretty clear (over at my forums) that he feels the quality of his offering is such that it's his hope that subscribers will have no problem accepting the restrictions put upon their subscriptions. (no printing, passwords, not taking paypal, etc.)

I don't particularly agree with him.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/31/06 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Yes, Jim, but you're not getting a beautifully printed magazine like Antinomy. When you subscribe to Antinomy you can see where your money goes, not only to print the magazine, but also for the CD-ROM that contains lots of extra features at the end of the year.

Wesley's got the whole thing backwards: you need to print first, then give electronic information later. Wasshuber doesn't understand that, either.

The thing about most small-run trick magazines is that they don't make the publishers much money because of printing and shipping. Cutting out the printing and shipping means the price of a subscription should be very small--but it's not very small here, in fact it's very expensive. Seems hard to justify.
I agree, an electronic publication should be cheaper than a print version only makes sense. Mr. James justification for the higher price seems to be that the content will be of exceptionally high quality. I dont doubt him on that point, but in his ad copy hes not being very precise about what the content will be. He says we but doesnt provide a list of contributors. Will the material be primarily his own?

You mentioned Antinomy, and while Im not a subscriber I have bought a couple of copies and love the look of it. I also found the quality to be very high. So a very well produced quality magic publication I can hold in my hands versus an electronic file I wont be able to print and which I cant order via PayPal or credit card. Seems like a tough sell.
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 10/31/06 03:03 PM

Humble, huh?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21089
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 10/31/06 03:27 PM

Overly protected software is a royal pain in the ass. Overly protected PDF's are in the same category.

We're being asked to send a check or MO for $50.00 to Mr. James and we'll receive --- hopefully --- 6 issues. But he obviously doesn't trust US enough and therefore, he overly complicates the reading of the newsheet.

Or, perhaps he just likes to make people jump through hoops.

Just my pennies worth.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 10/31/06 11:16 PM

I guess my biggest reason to opt out is for the printing. If I want to work through a great effect, in front of the computer is not where I want to be....

Tom
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 12:00 AM

No response from Wesley here yet.

He's already spewed quite a bit of self serving, condescending [censored] over at my forums and also at the cafe.

He's making it quite clear that anyone with any expectation of being able to print out their pricey new PDF (or in any way have any "fair use" of said PDF) is someone who doesn't (in his view) understand "the law" and perhaps holds ethical standards inferior to his own. :rolleyes:
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Chris Aguilar:
No response from Wesley here yet.

He's already spewed quite a bit of self serving, condescending [censored] over at my forums and also at the cafe.

He's making it quite clear that anyone with any expectation of being able to print out their pricey new PDF (or in any way have any "fair use" of said PDF) is someone who doesn't (in his view) understand "the law" and perhaps holds ethical standards inferior to his own. :rolleyes:
What I find troubling about his posts at Conjure Nation is his seeming indifference to the honest concerns expressed by potential subscribers he shows no willingness to compromise at all on the issues raised. Maybe Im old fashioned, but customer service means a lot to me, and if his attitude now is a harbinger of things to come, forget it. I shell out fifty dollars I would expect to at least be treated as an honest subscriber and not a potential thief.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Chris Aguilar:
No response from Wesley here yet.

He's already spewed quite a bit of self serving, condescending [censored] over at my forums and also at the cafe.

He's making it quite clear that anyone with any expectation of being able to print out their pricey new PDF (or in any way have any "fair use" of said PDF) is someone who doesn't (in his view) understand "the law" and perhaps holds ethical standards inferior to his own. :rolleyes:
:sleep: Why don't you remove your password protection from your forum so we can read it?

*holds up a pot and a kettle*
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 02:42 AM

For those interested, a link to some of Mr. James comments.

Some choice bits.

Let's start by implying that those who disagree with our particular (and rather narrow) point of view have an inferior ethical standard.

Wesley James wrote:

It is clear that some of you draw your ethical lines differently and don't seem to much care about IP law.
Or why not assume that the rather modest expectation of being able to print out the pricey pdf one has purchased is somehow unreasonable.

Wesley James wrote:

The problem seems to be that those who object to my protection scheme seem to feel they are entitled to copy the material as many times as they wish and duplicate it in printed form.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 03:21 AM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Wesley's got the whole thing backwards: you need to print first, then give electronic information later. Wasshuber doesn't understand that, either.
Richard, you got that all wrong. Wasshuber thinks you only need electronic information and let customers do the printing themselves if they so desire.

Think about it, desktop printing has made in the past years huge progress in terms of quality and cost. One can get an HP 600dpi laser printer for below $129. Total page costs including paper and toner are below 1 cent per page. Even a laser color page costs only a few dollars and the printer itself less than $300. And even professional grade 1200dpi to 2400dpi color printers are becoming affordable around $1000-$3000. Or if you prefer, take your PDF to Kinkos and let them do the job.

From a pure print quality point of view there is no difference between what a professional printer offers to what a good quality laser or solid ink printer produces. The only remaining difference is binding. It is currently not so easy to produce a well bound book at home. But I would be surprized if there isn't a good and cheap desktop solution being offered a few years down the road. The desktop machines I have seen which can produce completely automated books (printing/binding/trimming) are still in the $30k range. But there is fundamentally no reason why that shouldn't be possible for $3k.

Best,
Chris....
www.lybrary.com
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Rich Morrell:
Originally posted by Dave Le Fevre:
[b]
Originally posted by Ian Kendall:
[b]I've a feeling refusing to take Paypal will limit their overseas subscribers.
Agreed. But that's only for the initial subscription - once WJ knows who you are and where you are, subsequent subscriptions can be by credit card.

Dave [/b]
Dave,

Paypal's Address Confirmation gives the seller exactly that, my address is verified against my address held at the credit-card company, this would let Wesley know who I am and where I am.

How is this less secure than sending him a money order with a scrap of paper with my address on?
[/b]
You're quite right - I hadn't considered that. And maybe when WJ reads your post, he'll consider it too, and will decide accept PayPal and credit cards.

Dave
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Dave Le Fevre:
You're quite right - I hadn't considered that. And maybe when WJ reads your post, he'll consider it too, and will decide accept PayPal and credit cards.

Dave
He has already categorically ruled it out. (Even after reading Rich Morrell's point) And now that he's expounded on ita bit, I see his point.

Basically, it seems he doesn't trust paypal, having been burned by them in the past. I can certainly understand being angry at them for some of their well publicized (and I believe fairly ongoing) customer service failures.

Whatever the reasons though, it doesn't much change the reality that barring paypal, and credit cards in general for first time purchasers is yet another hoop that I suspect many folks will not be eager to jump through.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 05:08 AM

The equation Wes should consider is:

honest_customer_inconvenience * number_of_honest_customers < hurdles_for_pirates * number_of_pirates

My interpretation of this inequality is that it currently does not hold. But that is just my opinion. Wes is a good man and he has his good reasons to do what he proposes to do. It's his material and his effort. So give the man a break and let him do whatever he want's to do.

Best,
Chris....
www.lybrary.com
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Chris Wasshuber:

It's his material and his effort.

So give the man a break and let him do whatever he want's to do.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that Wesley can't do as he pleases. I'm seeing folks trying to express to him that his current plan could cost him subscribers, which is a something else completely.

That being said, I see no reason to abrogate the discussion as there are obviously multiple folks (potential subscribers) with valid questions/concerns that I'm sure they'd be interested in having Wesley address. More detail about this offer can only be good for those wishing to make an informed purchase wouldn't you say?

I do think Wesley has shoveled his fair share of [censored] concerning this subject, and he seems a rather stubborn fellow, not above some rather casual condescension toward those not sharing some of his narrower viewpoints.

But I've not seen anyone here suggest that he was not a "good man", that his material isn't truly the fruit of his efforts or that he couldn't ultimately do as he pleases with it.

Did Wesley request "a break"? And why would we assume he needs one? ;)
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Chris Wasshuber:
honest_customer_inconvenience * number_of_honest_customers < hurdles_for_pirates * number_of_pirates
An excellent summary of how such decisions are arrived at - thanks Chris.

However, there one further factor by which the right-hand side must be multiplied, and that is How_much_the_product_creator_is_personally_affronted_by_the_concept_of_piracy. Many product creators would shrug their shoulders regarding the small amount of piracy, your original equation would balance, and everybody would be relatively happy. However, a product creator who loathes piracy with a burning hatred won't just shrug his shoulders, and so the equation doesn't balance the same way.

I'm not in any way suggesting that that's how WJ decided what to do. I merely observe that it depends on the personal feelings of the product creator.

Dave
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 08:32 AM

Dave, you are certainly correct about this. My main point with the equation was that often even a small inconvenience for honest customers adds up collectively to a big problem which at least in my books does not justify to try to inhibit pirates in this way. Pirates can be dealt with in different ways much more effectively without a burden to honest customers.

Although I disagree philosophically with Wesley on this point, I think the way some keep pounding on him is pretty mean spirited. I am not sure what their motivation is. It is great to make Wesley clearly define his offer. But once he has explained it, and he has done several times in public, it should be enough for everyone to make his decision.

Best,
Chris....
www.lybrary.com
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Chris Wasshuber:
Although I disagree philosophically with Wesley on this point, I think the way some keep pounding on him is pretty mean spirited. I am not sure what their motivation is. It is great to make Wesley clearly define his offer. But once he has explained it, and he has done several times in public, it should be enough for everyone to make his decision.
At this time, Wesley has not posted the particulars of the DRM and so on at his site at all, even though he said he would. It's takes what? A minute or two to copy paste some of the stuff here to the official page?

If you consider the seriously lacking information at his site (which does not cover the full limitations of the product, including the inability to print or access these on multiple computers) enough to make an informed purchase, I can't agree with you.

As far as my "mean spirited" questionable "motives", I suggest you read my posts here and over at my forums. I have reiterated them ad nauseam.
Guest
 

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 11/01/06 09:21 AM

Chris A., you seem to have missed the following line on the Mojo site:

Once you have received your password, you'll send us an acknowledgement and we'll send you the double password protected watermarked file (protected with Adobe's standard options, disabling Save, Cut & Paste and Print).

That has been there at least since I got into work this morning.

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Jim Maloney:
Chris A., you seem to have missed the following line on the Mojo site:

Once you have received your password, you'll send us an acknowledgement and we'll send you the double password protected watermarked file (protected with Adobe's standard options, disabling Save, Cut & Paste and Print).
That's great! And something I definitely felt important in terms of letting people know what they're actually buying.

I cleared my cache and it shows up now.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Kudos to Wesley for adding this very important bit of information.

The DRM still stinks to high heaven in my view (really, is it that crazy to allow personal hard copies knowing that they'll be available that way a year later?), but at least potential subscribers will have no excuse for not knowing that they're buying crippled product.

Wesley could be considerably clearer about any technology locking the pdf to a certain computer though. It's pretty vague on his site and something that could be pretty important to some.

I see the following which isn't that clear to me at all.

Mojo will also only be readable by subscribers. Each issue will be password protected in a number of ways, so that it can't be disseminated to those who haven't subscribed and we'll be watermarking each page with both open and secret marks, so we'll know if someone starts distributing Mojo and we cut off their subscription.
Does it mean it'll only be available for viewing on the computer it's download to? If so, how can one transfer the license to their laptop or extra computer? What happens if the license is lost and Wesley is incapacitated and can't reactivate it?

You might want to tell Wesley that he's misspelled "acknowledgment" on that main page.
Guest
 

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 11/01/06 09:45 AM

From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: acknowledgment
Variant(s): or acknowledgement

So he's good. :)

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Jim Maloney:
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: acknowledgment
Variant(s): or acknowledgement

So he's good. :)

-Jim
Great. I had always been taught it was spelled the other way and figured others might see it as a misspelling also. Never a good thing on a sales page.
Guest
 

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 11/01/06 09:48 AM

I agree that misspellings are bad on a sales page -- bugs the heck out of me. I've seen it both ways, but wanted to look it up to make sure. For what it's worth, Firefox agrees with you. ;)

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 10:19 AM

What's up with hard copies one year later?

I assume that's deliberate -- but why?

Is it the reverse of, say, Antinomy? (Printed copies first, then a CD annual later?)

Or is this a component of the DRM?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Jim Maloney:
That has been there at least since I got into work this morning.
Jim, it has been there at least since yesterday.

Not to Jim, the screamers should check their facts before they start screaming. Why do some assume everything has to happen the moment they complain? Maybe Wes doesn't switch on his computer every day? Thought about that possibility for a second?

Best,
Chris....
www.lybrary.com
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Chris Wasshuber:
Jim, it has been there at least since yesterday.
I don't think so. I was refreshing like mad last night (and I was up most of the night) looking for the update and it never showed. I even saved a copy of the page around 6 PM last night, just checked it and nope, the changes weren't showing yet. Now perhaps my browser cache let me down, but I most certainly checked, multiple times.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your rather blas assumption that I hadn't bothered to check Wesley's page before posting about it.

I suppose you could have, you know, asked me.

But gee, why bother with that when you had that killer "screamers" post to uncork?

Not to Jim, the screamers should check their facts before they start screaming.
Ah, folks who displease your evidently delicate sensitivities are now "Screamers". Classy.

Why do some assume everything has to happen the moment they complain? Maybe Wes doesn't switch on his computer every day? Thought about that possibility for a second?
Why would anyone (and yeah, I'm referring to you here Chris) waste their time coming up with "faux clever" nicknames ("screamers") simply to complain that they feel other folks complain too much? ;)
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 11:50 AM

Chris A., what a wonderful complainer you are. As you write yourself you complain ad nauseam.

Chris....
www.lybrary.com
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Chris Wasshuber:
Chris A., what a wonderful complainer you are. As you write yourself you complain ad nauseam.

Chris....
www.lybrary.com
I knew I could depend on you to continue the cycle. Bravo!

Though I'm quite disappointed that you couldn't somehow work in a proper ad for your site. You know,the joy of e-books or something similar.

Because everyone loves that. ;)

_____________________________________________

Now, back to the actual topic.

Does anyone have any hard information as to whether the Pdfs being sold by WJ will truly be locked to one computer? I've asked this a few times before, but haven't received any sort of clear answer.

And if so what are the particulars? Will one be allowed to use a pdf on both their laptop and home computer. And if not, will there be an easy way to transfer the license if need be?

And how will subscribers renew lost passwords/licenses in the event Wesley becomes incapacitated somehow? Will the DRM system used require periodic access to the web to keep the license alive?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 01:13 PM

You know, just reading this thread shows me that the whole thing is just too much hassle. If I were interested in subscribing, with all of the trouble and restrictions I just wouldn't bother.
I subscribe to a couple of non-magic magazines and the subscription process was, literally, I send in the money and I receive the product. Once a year I send more money to keep receiving product. Why would I bother with anything more complex than that, especially considering I get something solid to hold and keep and use to my hearts content AND that both subscriptions combined do not add up to the amount being asked for these lines on a computer.
Sorry, but count me out.

Gord
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Gord Gardiner:
You know, just reading this thread shows me that the whole thing is just too much hassle. If I were interested in subscribing, with all of the trouble and restrictions I just wouldn't bother.
I subscribe to a couple of non-magic magazines and the subscription process was, literally, I send in the money and I receive the product.

Gord
So what do digital content authors fear these days?

I mean, I suspect most content authors don't even know what "unauthorized sharing" means. Where, exactly, does one share PDFs unauthorizedly and unabashedly these days? (Can authors identify the darkest sources of their fears? Or is it just a general "out there, everywhere, dude -- trust me" sort of response.)

How come authors don't fear the library? There's millions of books being shared in libraries. How come that's not a problem? I check a book out from the library because I do not want to buy the book. That's a genuine sale -- lost. I bring it back two weeks later, then another schmoe checks out the same book -- two sales lost. Multiply that times the thousands of books and the thousands of libraries and thousands of cheap schmoes like me -- and that's a lot of lost sales. (I mean, you don't hear Elmore Leonard railing against libraries. And if anyone's been impacted by libraries, it's someone like Leonard or Stephen King.)

How come they don't fear used book stores?

Why is it that digital distribution turns authors into fraidy cats?

I hope authors aren't thinking that each PDF file on a share is a sale lost. Is that the bottom-line?

I'm not trying to justify "IP theft" or whatever it's called -- I'm just trying to get actual content authors to identify specifically what they, personally, fear.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 02:00 PM

Gentlemen,
I'm truly sorry I started this whole project. My integrity has been attacked, my motives have been challenged and misinterpreted and my desire to share quality material with those who can appreciate it have been impugned. I was quite aware that there would be those who would not agree with my protection scheme. I was also aware that some of those would be vocal about their positions. I did not presume that standing for my legal and ethical right to protect my material would be interpreted as a belief that my ethics are superior to those of others, merely different. I will stand by my subscription offer. I have already gathered and preliminarily prepared enough material to fill six months worth of issues with material I consider exceptional, and diverse. Those who are offended or disappointed by my decision to restrict access, despite my efforts to compensate through slightly above cost purchase of the material in bound form after a year of issues have been published, are welcome to hold that position. Of course, this added form of access would be purchased only by those who wish to have it in that form.

I can't help but think that all the arguments about my protection scheme amount to the same sort of objection one might raise to a musician that won't allow audience members to record their live performance. But that's my view, and those who don't agree are entitled to their opinion. They are not, however, entitled to misconstrue my opinion or my decision.

I respect the material I'll be offering, the subscribers that will trust me to deliver to them quality product and even those who elect not to subscribe because of the problems with Paypal. I'm working on making other arrangements to make subscribing easier for them. I can even respect those who differ with me, so long as they limit their disagreements to the issues without trying to ascribe all manner of negative motives to me. I take no joy in having people jump through hoops. I would much prefer to be able to simply write the material and distribute it without the need to protect it at all. It will cost me far more time, effort and money to protect it than any inconvenience to my subscribers. Nevertheless, the world is the way it is. There are pirates and there are unfair business practices. I'm not attacking Paypal for their practices, despite them being at odds with the laws that govern banks and other financial institutions that process credit cards. I simply can't do business with them. I have no universal solution to the problem of pirating, I'm simply trying to avoid being stolen blind. If I only get one subscriber, I'll deliver the promised material. He or she will get what was paid for, which is more than can be said for many magic publications.

So, each of you will make whatever decision you wish with regard to subscribing. I promise you all that I'll be as fair in my dealings with you as I can be. If you need multiple copies for multiple computers, within reason you shall have them. 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. They don't have to subscribe to Mojo, but neither do they have the right to impugn my motives.

Sincerely,

Wesley James
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 03:20 PM

Wesley Jame wrote:

Chris,
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.

Gotcha.

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.
Well, [censored].

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.
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 11/01/06 04:06 PM

Chris A.,

Could you please cite the source of Wesleys quotes in your posts since they didnt appear on this site?

Thanks,
Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Guest » 11/01/06 04:08 PM

Originally posted by DustinStinett:
Chris A.,

Could you please cite the source of Wesleys quotes in your posts since they didnt appear on this site?

Thanks,
Dustin
He and I have several posts there most of which overlap the ones here in some way or another. Seems like he and I merely wrote much of the stuff once and copy/pasted it.

My last post contains the whole of the post (from my forums) that I'm responding to from Wesley.

If it's easier to read sans my reply, here it is:

Wesley James Wrote:

Chris,

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.

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. 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.

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, 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. 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. 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.

Peace,


Wesley James
Or go ahead and sign up Dustin and you'll be able to verify for yourself. www.conjurenation.com
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 11/01/06 04:25 PM

I think most people will assume that its coming from your site, but since The Magic Caf has been mentioned several times in this thread, I just think it would be prudent to document that the source is definitely your site. Youve done that now and thats all I need.

Thanks!
Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Next

Return to Buzz