6 ms·

This art project is more of an unintentional argument against piracy. I mean it literally shows how copying something makes it worthless.

TimJYoung 11y ago
Absolutely. 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.
- gozo 11y ago
  "Sales of digital goods, like any other sale, are about me trading a portion of my time/labor for someone else's time/labor." No it's not. If anything, that is a ridiculous opinion. It has no basis is society, law or discourse. There's little relation between labor and copyright. A more apt analogy is something like land rights. But that is still not talking about the real issue. Chefs puts significant amount of labor into their creations, they are not covered by copyright.
  - TimJYoung 11y ago
    Yes, and chefs are compensated for their time/labor. You can't just walk into a restaurant, eat a meal, and take off without paying what the owner of the restaurant has determined is the price of the food you just consumed. How exactly is a software developer/musician/artist supposed to be compensated for their time/labor without copyright and the ability to determine the terms of the sale ? There is significant up-front time and expense involved with any type of creative work.
    - gozo 11y ago
      Chefs are compensated for their time (unless maybe you're the head chef), but they are also not compensated for their intellectual property, which is the point. Maybe a better example is copying a dress (if you imagine outsourced manufacturing). "How exactly is a software developer/musician/artist supposed to be compensated for their time/labor without copyright and the ability to determine the terms of the sale?" There are plenty of creative people who sell their time, just like chefs. Of course plenty of companies today don't even sell software, but essentially services. "There is significant up-front time and expense involved with any type of creative work" Yes, but this is to some extent a different issue than copyright itself. I'm not even arguing for the removal of copyright (I'm personally for stronger authors rights with drastic reduction in terms), just that copyright is mainly rights to artistic, rather than utilitarian or scientific, things i.e. doesn't have a whole lot to do with labor. This should be even more apparent today with cloud distribution, where software can't be resold.
      - TimJYoung 11y ago
        Yes, but chefs have absolute control over the ingredients in any "special recipes" and can restrict access in ways that those that produce works like literature and software cannot. Unlike digital goods, the resultant dishes cannot be copied indefinitely at zero cost. I also do not really care for the super-long copyright terms, and my posts here should not be confused as a defense of the likes of Disney, etc. Most software is obsolete within a year. The unauthorized copying of newly-released software is my primary issue, having been directly affected by it for so long.
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
> I mean it literally shows how copying something makes it worthless. How's that? If the same copies were legally bought they would have had value, but now that they are illegally created they are worthless? Is it the law that gives them value, instead of something intrinsic? Is value the same thing as cost?
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  It's an intrinsic property. There's a academic field called economics which describes this property. The property is famously known as the law of supply and demand. If you take a product and increase the demand the price goes up. If you increase the supply the price goes down. If you make a billion copies of the product the price would go down to near zero.
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    How can it be intrinsic if it's determined by external factors like supply and demand? And if value is determined by cost, how come people still want it when it's free?
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      >How can it be intrinsic if it's determined by external factors like supply and demand? Well it depends on how you interpret the word intrinsic. You were inquiring about how written law could influence value, I was responding by saying value isn't determined by some made up law written by humans, it's determined by laws intrinsic to economics: The law of supply and demand. >And if value is determined by cost, When did I say value is determined by cost? Cost is only an indirect contributor. Value itself is determined by supply and demand. >how come people still want it when it's free? If something is free, it doesn't change how much people want the product. Value does not influence Demand. It is the otherway around: Supply and demand influence value. Thus whether I charge a billion dollars or zero dollars for the oxygen you breath, you'll still want it as much as you did before regardless of the value.

TimJYoung 11y ago

Absolutely. 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.

gozo 11y ago
"Sales of digital goods, like any other sale, are about me trading a portion of my time/labor for someone else's time/labor." No it's not. If anything, that is a ridiculous opinion. It has no basis is society, law or discourse. There's little relation between labor and copyright. A more apt analogy is something like land rights. But that is still not talking about the real issue. Chefs puts significant amount of labor into their creations, they are not covered by copyright.
- TimJYoung 11y ago
  Yes, and chefs are compensated for their time/labor. You can't just walk into a restaurant, eat a meal, and take off without paying what the owner of the restaurant has determined is the price of the food you just consumed. How exactly is a software developer/musician/artist supposed to be compensated for their time/labor without copyright and the ability to determine the terms of the sale ? There is significant up-front time and expense involved with any type of creative work.
  - gozo 11y ago
    Chefs are compensated for their time (unless maybe you're the head chef), but they are also not compensated for their intellectual property, which is the point. Maybe a better example is copying a dress (if you imagine outsourced manufacturing). "How exactly is a software developer/musician/artist supposed to be compensated for their time/labor without copyright and the ability to determine the terms of the sale?" There are plenty of creative people who sell their time, just like chefs. Of course plenty of companies today don't even sell software, but essentially services. "There is significant up-front time and expense involved with any type of creative work" Yes, but this is to some extent a different issue than copyright itself. I'm not even arguing for the removal of copyright (I'm personally for stronger authors rights with drastic reduction in terms), just that copyright is mainly rights to artistic, rather than utilitarian or scientific, things i.e. doesn't have a whole lot to do with labor. This should be even more apparent today with cloud distribution, where software can't be resold.
    - TimJYoung 11y ago
      Yes, but chefs have absolute control over the ingredients in any "special recipes" and can restrict access in ways that those that produce works like literature and software cannot. Unlike digital goods, the resultant dishes cannot be copied indefinitely at zero cost. I also do not really care for the super-long copyright terms, and my posts here should not be confused as a defense of the likes of Disney, etc. Most software is obsolete within a year. The unauthorized copying of newly-released software is my primary issue, having been directly affected by it for so long.

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

> I mean it literally shows how copying something makes it worthless. How's that? If the same copies were legally bought they would have had value, but now that they are illegally created they are worthless? Is it the law that gives them value, instead of something intrinsic? Is value the same thing as cost?

crimsonalucard 11y ago
It's an intrinsic property. There's a academic field called economics which describes this property. The property is famously known as the law of supply and demand. If you take a product and increase the demand the price goes up. If you increase the supply the price goes down. If you make a billion copies of the product the price would go down to near zero.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  How can it be intrinsic if it's determined by external factors like supply and demand? And if value is determined by cost, how come people still want it when it's free?
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    >How can it be intrinsic if it's determined by external factors like supply and demand? Well it depends on how you interpret the word intrinsic. You were inquiring about how written law could influence value, I was responding by saying value isn't determined by some made up law written by humans, it's determined by laws intrinsic to economics: The law of supply and demand. >And if value is determined by cost, When did I say value is determined by cost? Cost is only an indirect contributor. Value itself is determined by supply and demand. >how come people still want it when it's free? If something is free, it doesn't change how much people want the product. Value does not influence Demand. It is the otherway around: Supply and demand influence value. Thus whether I charge a billion dollars or zero dollars for the oxygen you breath, you'll still want it as much as you did before regardless of the value.