Prior to CS4, Adobe’s Student/Educational edition prevented users from producing commercial works. Microsoft Office Home and Student CURRENTLY prevents users from producing commercial works [page 21 of 24 in the English EULA]. That is just two quick looks at EULA’s that Ed Bott suggests he reads so that you don’t have to [his quote on his post about the Apple EULA, not my interpretation].

Ed is just plain wrong. For software, I hardly read the EULA. Why? Because I have no negotiating power to edit it, submit it for acceptance and have a meeting of the minds. A VERY important aspect of creating a contract between two parties. Without it, the contract is void. So, in essence, you either accept the EULA and use the software, or don’t and delete it.

Ed said he has read it multiple times, as per his many edits to his blog post [at least he discloses that]. Currently, he has read it 4 times. But misses the point that Adobe charges $450 for the current plain vanilla version of Photoshop for students and educators, but it allows both to create commercial works. The Microsoft Student edition still requires no commercial compensation for works created by the student edition and that costs around $100 depending on where you go to get it.

Again, only two applications, one an application that allows, but costs several hundred, one that does not and costs around a hundred. Apple iBooks Author is free and is a one stop shop for publishing. The only limit is that it has to go through Apple for sales. One of the largest marketing and distribution machines on the planet. It also costs a certain percentage. Less than publishers, more than free.

Apparently, Mr. Bott wants the software to be free, the publishing, distribution and marketing to be free, the work to be produced on that free software for use anywhere on top of that and for icing on the cake, he wants it to be sold for free too because 30% is way too much for doing everything except writing the work.

He also takes exception to the definition of “work” or “Work” which is just odd. Even calling it shoddy lawyering.

It all smacks of bias and link bait marketing around a new product and service that people have wanted for several years. A quick and easy way to get published without having to submit your work (Work) to a hundred publishers, only to get rejected again and again. Ultimately landing on some good spirit who gives a low ball offer, we’ll call it the inverse relationship to the Apple offering, so 70% goes to the publisher and 30% goes to the author. Then you have to wait for checks, go to book stores for signings [not for fun, but because you have to get out there and show your face], and hope that the publisher pulls their own weight.

Apple promotes the hell out of its foundation product(s), the iPad, iPhone and iPod get TV time. How many publishers do the same?

I think Ed Bott is just plain wrong.

Ignoring NDAA which requires only a waiver to make a person disappear without trial while lighting torches and sharpening pitchforks over PIPA and SOPA can be described as…

“You can take my neighbor, but you can’t take my Facebook!”

Anyway, the NDAA is here to stay. Sites like Reddit, Google and many others, have banded together in an effort to raise awareness over the two acts, PIPA and SOPA. Both of which attempt to extend copyright law into a draconian form of criminalizing and bringing down what amounts to the stealing of intellectual property which has gone so far as to eliminate the ability for IP to ever enter the public domain during the lifetime of the creator and his/her offspring. Once media companies tie the Citizens United case of creating a person out of a corporation to the PIPA/SOPA concepts and copyrights will never expire.

The problem everyone has with this is akin to the problem consumers had with protesting gas prices. They didn’t buy gas for a day in some places. Big deal. You still want it, you still need it. You can’t get away from it. I understand that in the sense of gasoline. You can’t get to work without it. Even if you use public transport, they still need gas too. But this is digital copies of music and movies. No one needs it. It’s a want. It isn’t a right. But lets ignore the rights aspect for now. That is a different argument.

So, you want movies and music. They, the media companies, want to maximize profits for shareholders. They are legally bound to do so by their investors contract. So, they lobby to get laws changed to more draconian form. While they are spending money, the same money that you consumers are spending on the products, they are seeking to limit consumer ability to consume how they want. Then they go after “pirates” which, although I agree with stopping piracy, is a moral/ethical dilemma, not a legal one. You can’t stop a person from pirating something with law. It hasn’t stopped murder theft, rape, abduction or anything else.

Nothing will stop it unless it’s committed by an ethically fringe case.

What do I mean by that? It means that the person is ethically sound, but has been jaded to the point where they don’t care about it at the time of the criminal act. Ethics takes time to brew in a person. When a person is young, they don’t know about right and wrong, or care enough about it because of some threshold. Like a balk-rate in economics; the point at which a person will step out of line to avoid the cost of waiting. There is also price apprehension or the rate that makes a person pause to sell or buy.

When I was younger, piracy was a very underground scene. You had to dial into a website on a telephone line and download whatever you wanted at a rate that would require being connected sometimes for days. Now it’s just faster. At that time, the price for a game was $30-50 per title. Now it is about $40-60. 25 years later, the price for distributing has nearly vanished, the consumer base has grown exponentially, and speed has increased at what seems like a record pace, but when compared to foreign countries the US is really slow. There are also MMO [Massively Multiplayer Online] Games which aren’t as threatened by piracy since their content is socialized on what amounts to a central server.

So, piracy is primarily a socio-economic event. If a person makes enough money, they’ll buy it. Even if they pirated a copy previously, they want to play it first to see if they like it and can pass their balk rate. A person will buy an item if the price is below their balk rate. How do I know? iTunes is a perfect example. Economics tell me that as well. Books are priced outrageously for mass consumption, the same with magazines. Outrageously for digital versions. The print versions are fairly cheap even though the cost of production and distribution is phenomenal.  iTunes and Amazon are going to prove that the low cost, mass digital sale and distribution model will be beneficial. What throws a corkscrew into any economic analysis of this, even at this cursory unscientific level, are ethics.

Ethics, simply put, describe moral conduct. Morals are culture based. So a person who grows up thinking that software piracy [or the devaluation of the work of others to the benefit of your own] is okay, it will be okay. Like a train, that thought bias will be difficult to derail. For some, even the lowest of price will not justify paying for an item. But then, they would pirate no matter what.

There is a political aspect to all of this “How to truly stop them” talk. But should it really take millions of people struggling to stop just a small segment of people looking to keep their status quo going? I don’t think so. But if you look at the money that is involved, it will take 80% of the population to speak out against the millions of dollars spent lobbying to get SOPA and PIPA in place.

And that is where my way of stopping PIPA and SOPA [unfortunately it won't stop NDAA expansion from happening]… don’t buy from any company that supports SOPA and PIPA. Not now, not ever. That is the only way to stop from funding the very lobbying that is extending the very limitations you fight against.

You are funding your very own criminalization.

I tried to start writing for NaNoWriMo [National Novel Writing Month] but Max got a nasty little cold and then he gave it to me. Mom didn’t get it though, so that’s good. Max has his own website still at MaxwellHatch.com if you want to stop by and see what he is up to. We almost bought a house. They asked for something that made me pause for a little bit. When I finally got back to them, they sold the lot we wanted.

I almost got a new [used, new cars are great for the warranty but I've never liked paying $30,000+ for something I now only put about 500 miles on each month and gets dinged up by people who don't understand physics] car because the stroller doesn’t fit in my little car so I can’t take Max out without taking JP’s car. First car, the dealer sold before I could tell them to hold it [but no other car in my list moved], then a second car was sold between talking to the guy and me coming in [two days], then the third car I wanted suddenly got sold two days after I told the dealer to bring the car up to the dealership for me to look at and after I told him I had the check ready.

Anyway, back to Max who is demanding my attention.

I’ve felt this way because I think every day should be celebrated as best you can. Again, I don’t go bananas and tell people to smile when they aren’t because today is such a great and beautiful day. But I just think a person shouldn’t get flowers only a certain day. They shouldn’t be reminded of their birth and what a joy it is that they are to have around.. but only on that day. The same goes for Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Christmas, etc. I probably feel this way because I think the world has commercialized the meanings into profit centers instead of their true core moral.

I randomly buy my wife gifts, and we go out for her Birthday. My new son will be able to enjoy birthdays until he decides he doesn’t care about them because I grew up that way. I was pondering this issue of birthdays and celebrations for the sake of the day instead of the meaning behind it because friends, family and events have been coming and going while I have been just living my life.

Then I found someone else who feels the same way. As a lurking Redditor, the submission made me think about it some more:

How many of you Redditors feel no need to celebrate your birthday?

Apparently I’m not alone. I say that a lot as well, but back 25-20 year ago, I started writing a book called just that…”You are not alone.” while I was struggling with life decisions. I had actually placed an ad in a magazine to get people to write stories about what they are going through. The web wasn’t big back then. AOL was king. Bulletin Board Systems existed in the basement of a house somewhere so you had to dial up a computer using your 56k modem. Har har. I’m old. 40 Years Old.

I sometimes forget how old I am. I am reminded by people who care more about my birthday than I do. I got a few cards from family and friends who said “Happy 40th” and then I looked at the thread on Reddit and as a technophile the one that stuck out was from “PumpValve”:

“I HATE my birthday. I wish I could unsubscribe from them (without dying).”

I don’t hate my birthday. But I don’t need reminding that I’m getting older. It reminds me of things that I really don’t care to be reminded of. I’m one of those people who mull things over and try to solve the problem. Some problems can’t be fixed. Just written off. I’m not trying to be a downer, really. I just don’t want gifts, reminders, or annual announcements that someone out there cares enough to write me a card. I’m pretty casual about things. I don’t bother people with emails or phone calls, just to call. It isn’t that I don’t care about them, but why bother someone who is probably doing what I’m doing right now; living life.

If you want to talk, call me, write me, stop by. I’m cool with that. We can go have a beer, or play a game, or whatever [as long as I can bring Max, I do take care of him all day.]. But you can keep the cards, the gifts [send money to your favorite charity in your own name] and the reminders; make those reminders more about letting me know YOUR birthday is coming up if you care that much about birthdays. I’ll get you something and help you celebrate.

In the meantime… I’m unsubscribing from my birthday.

Anyway, the FEC voted 5 to 1 but put a limit on the use of those funds. He can only use advertisements created by the show [that have political tones] within the network. I’ll make a prediction right now. This will start a very powerful discussion on first amendment rights. I can’t say I know of any SuperPAC that is limited in such a way which means there is essentially special treatment and limitations put on the Colbert SuperPAC.

FOX News and MSNBC skirt these political issues by not selling their particular brand of partisanship outside of their network, both of which is expansive. Comedy Central doesn’t have such a grand network and typically draws attention to the absurdity of politics.

Well, as absurd as this is to say, if I run for office, you can rest assured that I will not cheat on my wife, take money for favors, benefit from my position [other than my pay], and I will not tweet pictures of my crotch. Will you vote for me?

Here is some professional journalism regarding the matter, I put this here simply because I’m neither professional on this blog, nor a journalist. Just a guy with an opinion.

For instance, FACEBOOK is valued in the billions but is no different than AOL would have been if AOL would have grown into an Internet company instead of a service that was self-contained. I’ve said this in the past, but wanted to remind people that the difference between AOL and FACEBOOK fall onto the backbone of the Internet. Without the open transfer of information, Facebook would be doomed to the same fate as AOL. AOL had everything that Facebook has, but was a walled garden (arguably a garden). Nonetheless, Facebook.com exists as an element of the Internet and it is quickly oozing into websites with “Like” buttons, just as much as Google is now hoping that they ooze into websites with “+1″ buttons (without the walled garden of AOL or Facebook).

So, we have this inflated value, and venture capitalists love being on the first wave leading up to an IPO because their valuation is capitalized once they can exit after an IPO [or whatever timeframe they designated]. But, an IPO bound company can pay the initial investors with the IPO garnered money. The IPO days of the last Dotcom era led to a reanalysis of just what was being provided. Many companies simply had nothing. They offered nothing. They filled no need.

MobShop.com was a company that was part of this original Dotcom era. It was a group shopping site that consisted of a bunch of people purchasing an item and as the item was purchased, the price dropped. It was a fun site to buy stuff from. But the “reserve price” of this price drop was not known except for a small snippet that showed that with more buyers the price would drop “x” dollars. With Groupon.com, the Reserve Price is known, but in the form of “X” number of sales are required for the offer to be fulfilled. Sort of like KickStarter.com.

An article by LAURIE J. FLYNN in the New York Times from the era contains the quote:

”Consumers just never warmed to the aggregated buy concept,” said Robert Parker, an analyst at AMR Research in Boston. ”What was missing was a better sense of affiliation, like group buying for Harley riders or something like that.”

Now social networks are creating that affiliation that Parker speaks of, but Groupon.com doesn’t do that. The IPO for Groupon.com was cancelled, but, like my theory, the value was around $100 million. The IPO for Groupon.com is estimated currently at $750 Million. I wouldn’t be surprised if it would have landed around $1 Billion if reviews of the books would have been slightly more beneficial to the IPO. But the general public got to review the books through the IPO filing and noticed that Groupon.com was riding the same effect that MobShop.com was riding… irrational exuberance. People who are investors, and capable of spending money on an IPO investment and then get out, will hype the offering. Marc Andreessen was an investor in MobShop as well. Of course Andreessen is saying there is no bubble. Why would he? He wouldn’t be investing in tech companies if he believed it to be a bubble.

Couple this with the massive amount of money circulating in the economy, what I think is a double-dip, and irrational exuberance and you’ve got another bubble. But one that won’t impact anything short of resetting the clock for another 10 years of Internet growth for smaller businesses, hopes and efforts from entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs will now think that billions are the new hundred-millions and those of us without either will wonder how the hell we’ll get to that level.

Too Long; Didn’t Read?

Facebook = AOL; Both Overpriced. Groupon.com = MobShop.com (circa 2001); Both Provided Minimal Benefit. Massive Amount of Currency Circulating in Big Business = Huge Valuations; People lost the concept of a dollars value. Stock Market + Irrational Exuberance = Bubble.