New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Do you think that customers with gray sites should pay more?
superpilesos
Member
Do you think that customers with gray sites should pay more?
For example, online pharmacy affiliate sites, warez linking, etc.
Do you make such customers pay more than others?
Comments
No, you should either accept such customers (and make it publicly known, so other people who don't want such neighbors can stay away from you), or you shouldn't accept such customers at all.
It is racist to judge websites by color.
Online pharmacies are illegal unless truly properly licensed. Meaning they aren't gray.
Warez linking? That's a play around the law game. End result is illegal.
Should those sites pay more? Certainly. They incur hordes of problems for hosting, inquiries that need answered, potential for being radied, etc.
Low end doesn't have the income to deal with such clients.
What about high CPU/IO usage? I'm curious, because I'm not a VPS provider and don't intend to be.
What prompted me to start this thread was finding a US-based VPS host who seems to have two brands at different prices, one providing legitimate services and one hosting mostly gray sites.
High resource usage is a reason to charge more.
Lowend model is mostly an idle server resource. So anyone eating CPU, IOPS or bandwidth at hearty clip isn't compatible.
They are already on spam blacklists. You can probably guess who I talk about, US-based, multiple brands, ssh bruteforcing and gray sites all day..:)
A "The Wire" quote i recall fits here:
"It will be some Biblical shit that happens to you"
Hi,I think what you talk includes two different things,althrough there are really someting bewteen them.I am not vps user or dedi user.But I knew you are selling your products,while you had service terms,so all can be OK.
could be that the "grey" hosting requires a lot more time dealing with complaints and/or traffic filtering and/or more resources
could of course just be that people who want services for that kind of hosting dont have as many choices or provider and so will pay more
@superpilesos reputation among some other important metrics is increasingly more important..
There are people here in these forums who won't like to hear it. But at the end of the day the big *arez amounts to stolen. Period. Ya know, you steal from some one in this world some thing bad might happen to you, Right? And the affiliations often equate to Multi level marketing which often equate to Pyramid which perpetuates a majority over a minority for no real good reason at all Other than their ability to perpetuate over the minority.
Lots of folks, IMHO ultimately don't want to hear this because it is more immoral than the indignity and discrimination they so claim to be victim of.
Steal \Steal\ (st[=e]l), v. t. [imp. {Stole} (st[=o]l); p. p. {Stolen} (st[=o]"l'n); p. pr. & vb. n. {Stealing}.] [OE. stelen, AS. stelan; akin to OFries. stela, D. stelen, OHG. stelan, G. stehlen, Icel. stela, SW. stj[aum]la, Dan. stiaele, Goth. stilan.] 1. To take, and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another. [1913 Webster] Maugre thy heed, thou must for indigence Or steal, or beg, or borrow, thy dispense. --Chaucer. [1913 Webster] The man who stole a goose and gave away the giblets in alms. --G. Eliot. [1913 Webster]Seriously, stop saying piracy is "stealing". It's not. It's fine to disagree with it in a moral sense, but that does not mean you get to redefine a word.
And really, if your moral case is as strong as you think it is, you don't need to classify it under something it isn't, to be able to prove it.
Controrary to this belief, there seems to be many "gray" service provider around
Well piracy is a category of stealing per se. Truly an English language bastardization.
Think piracy covered thereunder definition wise.
But truly, nothing is being stolen. Copies just aren't being paid for.
Know many pirates and in the past have done my share including cracking software a long time ago.
Most of "us" oddly collect the stuff but aren't truly consuming the booty. Even if watched, read, used, etc. I'd say the freemium service of piracy serves are advertising.
Plenty of software I've used that later I recommended to buying customers and bought myself. Absent the free use to learn I would have found other solution and downstream that company wouldn't have had X sales originating from my recommendations.
It isn't.
And that's why.
A further reference.
But in all fairness @joepie91, there are a gazillion people downloading the latest crappy fad musicians works without paying even though "fans".
Software has a big learning curve so requires hands on long exposure. Music doesn't. A movie doesn't. A book aside from reference doesn't.
It's clearly not morally right to pirate or do a lot of other new economy games to deprive others of prior existing rights over their "property".
Guess I am mixed on the issue. It being a legal magnet equals bad news for a provider and others on the same hardware possibly.
I take issue with this for several reasons:
EDIT:
This of course has nothing to do with the moral aspect, and is purely a legal issue.
Good discussion @joepie91.
Making a copy --- what that does is operate your own printing press. Certainly in the past the original piracy was copying someones book or audio and selling it for money. Would you view that as theft since there is the money component there - profiteering? I would.
But since piracy today lacks the direct obvious financial component (i.e. income related to the content by usually originates from longer armed transactions around the content --- advertising) it is alright? Sort of a moral tripping hazard. Minus the content and interest therein, advertising wouldn't have any content to lure the users.
monopolization --- without such controls, many businesses wouldn't exist. I detest controls to that extent of any market. However, many books and music productions today are single artists. The monopoly at best is their label, which has become fewer and going wayside. So now, piracy deprives more direct end makers of things. Mind you the monopoly over distribution for eons ate all the money and paid creative crumbs. So, long term deprivation model has existed and neither encourages more creativity. If someone creates something, they should have the right to declare when and where they want it to be "re-used" to have "like image" usage. Dictate distribution, set pricing, etc.
clearly' not morally right. Fair point too. Weigh that statement with this post
I believe if it wasn't for piracy Windows wouldn't have been so popular on the worldwide market today.
This is just one example.
The societal event piracy should be viewed from more standpoints, to get a better understanding of it.