talkingdigital.org

Piled on some of the flat surfaces of my desk, I have a Marie Osmond fashion doll, a Ronald Reagan mask, a visible man model, a box of vintage bow ties, some Ken Struck toys from the 50s, a Canon Rebel xti, an Asus Eee PC, and a cool Homer Simpson Rubic’s cube.

At my house, this is known as my eBay fodder pile.

I save up unique items for several months and then put them up on eBay when I want to buy an item that doesn’t fit on my wife’s list of budget approved suppiles.
This pile has been gathering dust for a long time now. Not because I don’t have anything on that unapproved list, but because I don’t have any outlet to sell these items. Read the rest of this entry →

With all of the great headlines coming from the Pirate Bay trial over the past few weeks, I have really been thinking about how hard it must be for both sides to make their case.

Copying software, music or movies without paying for them is illegal. Anything that is illegal is wrong.

I was at the Goodwill this week and looking through their CD collection this week and it got me to wondering if buying a used CD was technically legal. The artist has collected the royalties from the original sale, but does that make it OK?

Are libraries legal? Every book I read from the library is a book that I will likely never buy. Same goes for magazines. I can go to the library and read any issue of any magazine without having to subscribe. Today most libraries even have music and movies available for checkout.

True, someone has paid for those items, but what about all of the lost sales and royalties from people who borrowed but didn’t buy?

Back to my Goodwill analogy, if I buy a shirt from Goodwill that is still in new or near-new condition, am I stealing royalties from the designer?

If the fact that the library, thrift store or yard sale host has already paid for  these items, doesn’t that weaken case against file sharing and illegal piracy.

If someone pays for a song then gives it to someone else, is that illegal? Yes.

If someone buys a Rolex then lets each of his neighbors wear it on alternating days, is that illegal? No.

If someone buys a fake Rolex, pirated copy of Windows or pirated movie, and they never would have purchased the item otherwise, are royalties lost?

I need to be clear, I am not writing in support of piracy. I am just trying to follow the logic behind the various anti-piracy laws. While it may sound crazy, I also wonder if it will be illegal a few years from now for libraries, thrift stores and yard sales to have certain items for sale.

I am still all worked up about eBay raising its final value fees.

When I first began with eBay their philosophy was to stay out of the transaction as much as possible and allow the community to self regulate. No one really cared that eBay took a small percentage from every sale because it was less than five percent and the listing fees were cheaper than a classified ad.

Over time eBay has raised their fees again and again in order to increase profits. How can they be shocked to see profits and membership declining?

I mentioned in the article above that eBay began as an experiment in capitalism. It is fast becoming an example of how over taxing kills off a society. Rather it is proving that capitalism works by demonstrating what happens to a market when capitalism is removed.

In addition to higher final fees, eBay also announced more restrictive selling policies. The company has resorted to babysitting its users. A complete 180 degree turn from the original hands-off governing policy.

It is sad to see eBay die, but I really hope that someone else sees the open door and starts up an eBay killer. For over a decade, other companies have tried to compete with eBay, hopefully a few brave folks are still out there because this would be the perfect year for eBay to meet its match.

Well, the Mac loyalists are mad at me again.

Last week I wrote a short commentary on our website about how unsportsmanlike it was for Apple to release an update that broke all of the iPhones that weren’t playing by Apple’s rules.

People who simply wanted to get more out of their new $500 device had that device put completely out of commission by the very company they had paid that money to.

Perhaps I should illustrate my point further.

A few years ago several companies began manufacturing a kit which allowed Toyota Prius users to plug their car into an electrical outlet to charge the hybrid engine, thus increasing the already excellent gas mileage.

Now, imagine how those Toyota users would respond if the company issued a mandatory safety recall on all Prius’ and in the process of installing the new safety features they disabled the electrical system on cars that had the added kit. Not because it posed a safety threat but because Toyota simply didn’t like people tinkering with their cars.

Would this be fair?

This is what Apple has done with the iPhone. It’s dirty. The only reason Apple did it was to teach their customers a lesson about trying to go outside of the Apple circle.

I am not criticizing Apple’s technology, their ease of use or their price, they are wonderful products. I am criticizing the ethics of their business practices.

I hope this settles the issue once and for all.