10 ms·
Pirate Bay founder's new project shows the absurdity of giving value to copies
- MrQuincle 11y agoWould the same feat be bestowed on human copies when we can make them?
- gcb0 11y agoyou mean the proletariat?
- espadrine 11y agoThe same feat is already bestowed on human copies. Every birth is the duplication of genetic material, and the economic system in place is careless when human lives are at stake. Donald Trump's attitude towards refugees is only a symptom of that.
- dave2000 11y agoYes. If everyone could afford a perfect copy of Picasso's Guernica they would. It would affect the art market but not the quality of the art itself.
- oh_sigh 11y agoLot's of modern art(as in temporally, not stylistically) can be pretty much exactly recreated, but no one values those copies anywhere near what they do the original.
- astazangasta 11y agoThis is pretty much exactly what Warhol wanted: meaningless images given value by celebrity. I hate that guy.
- johnchristopher 11y agoDon't shoot the messenger.
- iofj 11y agoThe simpsons already did that project for cats : http://i.imgur.com/XeDNt.gif http://i.imgur.com/XeDNt.gif
- MrQuincle 11y agoBrilliant! Ha ha! :-)
- tibu 11y agoIt is still funny how people want to validate their rights to copy and use free what somebody else created and did not allow to copy.
- Thiz 11y agoIf you take a branch from a tree to kill a deer, can I do the same without asking for permission? We wouldn't be here today if we couldn't.
- TimJYoung 11y agoThis would be completely logical if MP3s from Taylor Swift were found organically in nature everywhere we looked. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this isn't the case, so there are no "natural rights" to be asserted here, as is the case with things like food, water, and shelter.
- stefantalpalaru 11y agoThere is a natural right to freely copy information. Our civilization is based on our ability to tell young people the stories we heard from our elders. And we are part of nature.
- TimJYoung 11y agoSo, in your opinion, someone taking part in commerce is completely justified in simply copying software without paying a dime to the author, and using that software to then, in turn, make money ? Who gets to decide when one person's rights trump another person's rights ?
- stefantalpalaru 11y agoI'm not talking about commerce and making money, I'm talking about using bittorrent to share books, music and movies.
- 11y ago
- ikeboy 11y agoTorrentfreak should stick to direct arguments for why piracy should be allowed, and stop with the analogies. I've seen a bunch of analogies from them, and they all break down given the slightest thought. They may be good for getting shares and views. They aren't good for convincing thinking individuals. (I'm thinking of the recent article https://torrentfreak.com/when-authors-demand-payment-for-every-copy-theyre-advocating-communism-151220/ https://torrentfreak.com/when-authors-demand-payment-for-eve..., which doesn't consider the obvious point that authors make it a condition of sale to not copy it. Almost every direct editorial I've seen from them has similar gaping flaws. This one, for example, completely misses the problem with copies, which is distribution to people who haven't paid.)
- lostcolony 11y agoThey're not making an analogy in this article. They're reporting on someone's satirical art piece, which is itself a commentary on the argument that copyright users have used in the courts (that one copy = one lost sale). Which is exactly in line with TorrentFreak's stated objective, reporting on all things related to file sharing.
- ikeboy 11y agoThe art piece is making an analogy, which is flawed for fairly obvious reasons. And the article clearly supports the message, it's not objectively reporting the news.
- lostcolony 11y agoThe art piece is not -making- an analogy. It is -mocking- a line of reasoning used by the copyright industry. That is, the copyright industry comes up with numbers about how badly file sharing hurts their numbers by counting one download, that is, one copy, as a lost sale. They've extended that analogy, in fact, to try and prevent people from ripping their own music, DVDs, etc (it's still technically illegal to copy your own DVD to your hard drive, for your own viewing). This is an art piece to show how nonsensical that argument is, that a copy does not equate to a lost sale.
- pcunite 11y ago"On the contrary, he believes that piracy positively affects sales ... The economics work differently in a global networked society. But the industries will not change. That’s why we need to take them down ..." Personally, I think there are better ways than this. For example, he would build these products and give them away. Oh wait ... that's work.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago> Personally, I think there are better ways than this. For example, he would build these products and give them away. Oh wait ... that's work. People are already doing that: https://creativecommons.org/music-communities https://creativecommons.org/music-communities
- crimsonalucard 11y agoHere's a crazy thought experiment. Instead of copying some music track, how about copying a dollar bill? What happens to the dollar bill? Instead of sites that distribute torrent files, we'll have sites that distribute blueprints on how to build a printer that can print out perfect copies of dollar bills. Totally not illegal! Of course, in the same way that owning a music track makes me more likely to go out and buy said music track, owning a copied dollar bill makes me more likely to go out and actually work to earn a real dollar bill. So in a sense, the same way copying music helps the music industry, copying dollars helps the economy! The logic makes perfect sense!
- malka 11y agoyeah. Data and physical good are the same thing.
- DougN7 11y agoThe dollar bill's value has nothing to do with its physical properties.
- sokoloff 11y agoWhich is also true for an mp4 file of a movie or mp3 file of a song or a CD of shrinkwrap software.
- DougN7 11y agoExactly. So the person's example seems to hold: duplicating dollars isn't a good idea economically, and would have a negative impact like duplicating mp4 movies - it reduces the value of the thing being duplicated.
- crimsonalucard 11y agoThere's approximately 75 trillion dollars worth of money on this earth. Only 5 trillion of that money is paper dollars. The rest is data! http://gizmodo.com/5995301/how-much-money-is-there-on-earth http://gizmodo.com/5995301/how-much-money-is-there-on-earth
- DougN7 11y agoIf someone that creates a digital good and requires payment for each copy, but people believe they don't have the right to create such a restriction, can't the GPL be ignored on exact same grounds (I should not be restricted or burdened by the GPL's restrictions or requirements)? Anti-copyright = anti-GPL
- J_Darnley 11y agoIf you respect copyright as it currently exists then you are required to follow the GPL for such licensed projects. If you don't then you don't. What's your point? Pirates come in many forms? I for one would gladly give up the GPL's copyleft principles if we also got rid of copyright.
- DougN7 11y agoYes, currently copyright protects the GPL's requirements. And it protects a digital creators goods. But I find many (not necessarily you) in the tech industry want it both ways: copyright to enforce the GPL but break copyright so they can legally have their mp3s, movies, etc.
- belorn 11y agoThere is no more contradiction than those who do not believe in violence, but do accept it if its done in order to protect oneself or someone innocent. Anti-violence is not anti-police or anti-government, who uses force/threats to collect taxes and keep the peace. Copyright law is the application of government violence to apply the will of the author to those who wish to copy, modify or use a copyrighted work. I personally do not like when people use government violence as their business model, through I do not mind if its used to police a agreement to non-violence.
- DougN7 11y ago"Copyright law is the application of government violence to apply the will of the author to those who wish to copy, modify or use a (GPL'd work without releasing their soure code)" No difference.
- chillaxtian 11y agoit is not the number of copies that matters, but the actual value those copies provide. assuming a single purchase good, one person creating n copies once does not steal much value. n persons creating one copy does steal much value.
- TimJYoung 11y agoSpeaking as a (very small) software vendor, the problem I have with the mindset of "every copy has no value" is that it isn't grounded in reality. If the recipient of the copy went out of their way to obtain the copy, and is using/enjoying the benefits of it on even a limited basis, then they are effectively stealing the up-front investment of the producer. A good thought exercise is this: would it be equally valid to say that a producer has no claim against someone making thousands of copies of a digital good and selling them for $1 a piece ? If the answer is no, then what makes the fact that they are giving away the copies any different ? In both instances, the producer has had their right to determine the terms of the sale arbitrarily removed without their consent. In no other areas of our economies do we allow such nonsense to go on. You can't walk into a retail store, fill your cart with items, and then dictate to the cashier that you'll be paying 10 cents on the dollar for the items and walk out of the store. If you don't agree with the terms of the sale, then you find another producer that has more favorable terms or you go without. If you want/need the product that bad, then you'll agree to the terms of the sale. It's that simple. Edit: and yes, I understand that the linked article was about the cost attributed to such copies. It is correct to posit that not all copies equal valid lost sales. The problem with this type of argument is that it is often put forward by those that also promote the idea that sharing of copyrighted digital goods is a consumer's right because such goods are "information", and not a tangible good. It's a ridiculous stance to take because it completely hand-waves away the actual time and money that went into producing the "information".
- crimsonalucard 11y agoThis art project is more of an unintentional argument against piracy. I mean it literally shows how copying something makes it worthless.
- TimJYoung 11y agoAbsolutely. Sales of digital goods, like any other sale, are about me trading a portion of my time/labor for someone else's time/labor. If I don't have to give up any of my time/labor in the deal, then of course I won't mentally assign any value to the good. It's a hell of a feedback loop: obtain something for free, use/copy it freely, and then preach to anyone that will listen about how it has no value, even though lots of people apparently have a significant desire to possess it.
- boyaka 11y agoI would just like to bring up the fact that the accounts TimJYoung and crimsonalucard were both created 1891 days ago and are both intently arguing in favor of copyright protections. I don't really have good arguments against them (although my gut feeling is to disagree), and I'm not really trying to make a point, just found it suspicious. Honestly, I'm not sure what the answer is with copying. But I have a strong belief that everybody should be able to enjoy all information and media, whether or not they have a relatively limitless supply of cash to blow.
- codeismightier 11y agoAnd I have a strong belief that creators should be compensated for their hard work. Tell you what: let's compromise. Creators get a right, let's call it "copyright" or something, whereby for a limited amount of time they get to control how to distribute their work. In order to maximize profits they will rationally not charge too much. After enough time has passed, this right expires and their work goes into the public domain. Sounds good?
- boyaka 11y agoRather than enforce a right, why not just support the creators that you love? Here's how I see it: 1. Abolish copyright law 2. Creators suffer and can't survive 3. People that have money and love the work of these creators see their suffering and give them support This way creators can still be supported and people without money can enjoy all of the beauty of creation.