6 ms·

Aside from the legal technicalities here, I mostly ponder the future of IP. I think Napster positively affected the music distribution world in the long run. I

by eggy 10y ago

Aside from the legal technicalities here, I mostly ponder the future of IP. I think Napster positively affected the music distribution world in the long run. I am not very black-and-white on this issue, however, since there are many contradictions by both sides. I read the majority of comments here on HN about dated business models, big corporation dislike, the old executives don't understand the new market, etc..., but then a young indie artist in LA finds out Zara the clothing retailer has obviously copied her designs, and the lynch mobs are out to boycott Zara, send letters and other things to Zara and their attorneys. [1] I have not inquired directly, but I am guessing a number of the indie artist's supporters have downloaded a torrent or two. How do they morally distinguish the two, or how does anybody who is against copyright or property rights of IP? [1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/victoriasanusi/an-independent-artist-has-accused-zara-of-stealing-her-desig?utm_term=.duwxvQBeek#.hr3OM54qqg https://www.buzzfeed.com/victoriasanusi/an-independent-artis...

DanBC 10y ago
Something like: "When I pirate a movie they only lose that single sale, and they wouldn't have had it anyway because I would never have paid to see that movie. But when a commercial company like Zara makes a profit from stealing designs, well, they're scumbags"
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  I'm not a commercial company, who said I should be held at same level of scrutiny?
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Not me. And not international copyright treaties either. When I download a movie it's unlawful, but they can only sue for damages. (US - a tort?) If I make a business out of downloading and selling the copyright material that tips it into criminal law.
blowski 10y ago
I get where you're coming from, and I think you make a good point, so I'll attempt to answer it. -------- Note that the following is an analogy. I have no idea about the facts of the case, but I'm trying to compare it to downloading illegal torrents. -------- Imagine there's one designer for most of the world's t-shirts but she won't sell them to the UK so you can't buy one. Zara attempts to do a licensing deal which is profitable for the designer, but she's greedy and thinks she can get more money without the licensing deal. So Zara simply copies the t-shirts, UK customers get their t-shirts and the designer gets nothing. This is essentially the problem. Disney has an almost complete monopoly over the distribution of kids films, and like all monopolies, they end up over-priced with poor service. The government doesn't seem to care. But torrents allow us to break that monopoly. It's not just about the cost. It's about how the digital distribution industry fails to service customer needs because its monopoly means the status quo is so profitable.
akerro 10y ago
> I have not inquired directly, but I am guessing a number of the indie artist's supporters have downloaded a torrent or two. How do they morally distinguish the two, or how does anybody who is against copyright or property rights of IP? I leach and seed a lot, I send a lot of donations and bug-fixes to opensource projects, indie developers and small music bands, buy indie games on gog and steam. This year I spend on voluntary donation ~£400 (in BTC). Does it count?
olalonde 10y ago
Lots of cognitive dissonance on HN regarding IP rights. Also, see any previous post where a Chinese company is accused of stealing IP or cloning apps.
- Sacho 10y ago
  Is it cognitive dissonance, or simply different people commenting? HN is not a hive mind.
  - olalonde 10y ago
    Can't say for sure, just the feeling I get. HN comments usually seem pre-dominantly pro or anti copyright depending on context (e.g. "big company fails to comply with GPL" would result in mainly pro copyright comments while "bittorrent site gets shut down" would mainly result in anti copyright ones).
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > HN comments usually seem pre-dominantly pro or anti copyright depending on context (e.g. "big company fails to comply with GPL" would result in mainly pro copyright comments while "bittorrent site gets shut down" would mainly result in anti copyright ones). I wouldn't use the GPL as a copyrights poster-boy since it subverts the 'normal' use of copyrights (restriction of distribution by 3rd parties) - the FSF calls it 'copyleft' for that very reason. My feeling is that being pro-GPL and being pro-bittorrent is consistent with the "information wants to be free" mindset - no cognitive dissonance necessary. The day HN becomes pro-Mickey-Mouse laws then you would have an argument.
      - olalonde 10y ago
        I disagree that the GPL subverts the 'normal' use of copyright (though I'm aware it is presented as such by the FSF). Tons of copyrighted works are licensed for distribution by 3rd parties. Software licenses which allowed unrestricted distribution existed before the GPL. What the GPL innovated on was to put light restrictions on distribution to ensure modified source code would be made available along with binary distributions. In a world without copyright, there would still be tons of software without publicly available source code (perhaps more than now, due to the inability to enforce GPL violations). Also, "information wants to be free" is more of a vague idea than anything else. I want information to be free. I'm a big user and proponent of open source software (heck, I wrote a non-trivial feature of Webtorrent). That doesn't necessarily mean I'm against copyright.
ricksplat 10y ago
I would also suggest, that in the case of the clothing, the artist is probably not credited. Zara are claiming it as their own original work so she can't even claim copyright.
- ricksplat 10y ago
  I think the downvoter should review this if they think I am unfairly representing Zara http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/07/21/terribly-zara/ http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/07/21/terribly-zara/
samzub 10y ago
I think the moral difference may lie in the balance of power between the IP holder and IP infringer : In Zara vs indie designer, Zara steal the design and uses its power to distribute and sell it to the whole world. The indie designer cannot compete, or fight. The fact that Zara used her designs will not advertise her own products or make her money (maybe it did after the public outcry, but I guess it will not be the case for every indie designer). In torrent website vs content producers, the torrent website or its user are not more powerful than the producers. They do not put the producers' business at risk. Everyone knows who made the original product, and may buy some genuine products or derivatives : torrenting can act as advertisement. One of the other justifications for torrenting is that the content is not available in your country. Similarly, the indie design was not available in all countries. But the source of the issue is different : a small business may not distribute to the whole wold because of logistics, whereas producers and distributors voluntarily block content from being available when it could be.
- eggy 10y ago
  I think a power analysis is incorrect here. Zara can and most likely will be held accountable for any illegal acts their lawyers committed by trying to intimidate the indie artist. I am holding up the simple concept of property rights whether you are a big, and not necessarily bad, company, or you are a struggling moral artist. If you download torrents for any reason, it is still against the IP laws that protect them, even if you are doing it to make a statement. You are in effect against the concept of IP. Now, if you turn around, and call the big company evil or bad, because one of its 20,000 designers lifted a design off of a web site, how do you justify the apparent contradiction or hypocrisy. I don't say this judgmentally, since I have struggled with this for decades. I buy indie games, donate to worthwhile endeavors when I can, and hope for the same reciprocation. I see the point for change and looking for new ways of doing business that benefit both sides of a deal. After all, the definition of a good bargain or deal is when both parties shake hands after exchanging goods and services, and each feels they received good value in the transaction when walking away. To be honest, rigorously honest, sometimes demands calling ourselves out on our own contradictions and addressing them. I see to much dancing around the truth to justify what is currently stealing.
UVB-76 10y ago
It's the difference between copyright infringement for commercial gain, and for non-commercial, personal use. I doubt many torrent site operators make much money from their operations, and if they do make a profit now, the level of risk (and prospect of bankrupting legal actions in the future) probably don't make it worth it.
tomp 10y ago
The main difference is that Zara uses piracy to earn money, whereas most other pirates don't. That's the general model of copyright that I support - it's legal to copy anything for non-commercial use.
- eggy 10y ago
  Per the arrest of the torrent site runner in today's news, it seems he may have made millions in ad revenue on the torrent site. The copying for non-commercial use is sometimes a moving boundary: For instance, you download a PDF of a technical book that is extremely expensive, or plain not available in your country, but you use it to just study on your own. All the way to you download some video, sound, music, code, or book and incorporate it into your YouTube channel or your site that generates revenue for you. Now it is blurred IMO. If you are parodying something, you may get away with it, but if you are leveraging it to avoid doing the work to generate the content yourself, you are stealing. It is commercial usage in this case, but many disagree it seems, but then point the finger at Zara mainly just because their a company. The actions of their lawyers are definitely illegal and low tactics, but just remember, it was most likely a very low wage designer that lifted the artwork from the indie artist's site. He/She will most likely or was already fired. Zara will be fine.
- CM30 10y ago
  Don't most torrent sites run advertising? Yes some of that likely goes to maintain the server, but I doubt it all does in most cases. A lot of sites distributing content like this are set up as for profit ventures.
  - tomp 10y ago
    I think that's a false dichotomy. If these sites were unambiguously legal, people (like myself) would donate money for the costs of running them. But the problem right now is, that even if a site wasn't making any money (no ads, no nothing), the operators could still be thrown into jail.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    What's the problem with making a profit from the legal provision of information? They're not infringing copyright themselves anymore than Google are - put "torrent $mediaName" (eg https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=torrent+mad+max+hash&oq=torrent+mad+max+hash https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=torrent+mad+max+hash&oq=to...) in to Google and you can get all you need to torrent that film.
belorn 10y ago
Morality often has many sides and exceptions. Take someone who eats meat. I am perfectly fine buying chicken, but would vocally dislike if I saw meat from endangered animals being sold. My objection to have animal extinct does not impact my opinion about buying meat in the general sense. A person who want to support young indie artist will do so through many avenues, some which supporting that artists IP. That doesn't mean that they must be in favor of IP, or must support every form of IP, but simply that their intention is to support the young indie artist. They morally distinguish the two, not on their opinion about IP, but the opinion of the author.

by eggy 10y ago

DanBC 10y ago

Something like: "When I pirate a movie they only lose that single sale, and they wouldn't have had it anyway because I would never have paid to see that movie. But when a commercial company like Zara makes a profit from stealing designs, well, they're scumbags"

guard-of-terra 10y ago
I'm not a commercial company, who said I should be held at same level of scrutiny?
- DanBC 10y ago
  Not me. And not international copyright treaties either. When I download a movie it's unlawful, but they can only sue for damages. (US - a tort?) If I make a business out of downloading and selling the copyright material that tips it into criminal law.

blowski 10y ago

I get where you're coming from, and I think you make a good point, so I'll attempt to answer it. -------- Note that the following is an analogy. I have no idea about the facts of the case, but I'm trying to compare it to downloading illegal torrents. -------- Imagine there's one designer for most of the world's t-shirts but she won't sell them to the UK so you can't buy one. Zara attempts to do a licensing deal which is profitable for the designer, but she's greedy and thinks she can get more money without the licensing deal. So Zara simply copies the t-shirts, UK customers get their t-shirts and the designer gets nothing. This is essentially the problem. Disney has an almost complete monopoly over the distribution of kids films, and like all monopolies, they end up over-priced with poor service. The government doesn't seem to care. But torrents allow us to break that monopoly. It's not just about the cost. It's about how the digital distribution industry fails to service customer needs because its monopoly means the status quo is so profitable.

akerro 10y ago

> I have not inquired directly, but I am guessing a number of the indie artist's supporters have downloaded a torrent or two. How do they morally distinguish the two, or how does anybody who is against copyright or property rights of IP? I leach and seed a lot, I send a lot of donations and bug-fixes to opensource projects, indie developers and small music bands, buy indie games on gog and steam. This year I spend on voluntary donation ~£400 (in BTC). Does it count?

olalonde 10y ago

Lots of cognitive dissonance on HN regarding IP rights. Also, see any previous post where a Chinese company is accused of stealing IP or cloning apps.

Sacho 10y ago
Is it cognitive dissonance, or simply different people commenting? HN is not a hive mind.
- olalonde 10y ago
  Can't say for sure, just the feeling I get. HN comments usually seem pre-dominantly pro or anti copyright depending on context (e.g. "big company fails to comply with GPL" would result in mainly pro copyright comments while "bittorrent site gets shut down" would mainly result in anti copyright ones).
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > HN comments usually seem pre-dominantly pro or anti copyright depending on context (e.g. "big company fails to comply with GPL" would result in mainly pro copyright comments while "bittorrent site gets shut down" would mainly result in anti copyright ones). I wouldn't use the GPL as a copyrights poster-boy since it subverts the 'normal' use of copyrights (restriction of distribution by 3rd parties) - the FSF calls it 'copyleft' for that very reason. My feeling is that being pro-GPL and being pro-bittorrent is consistent with the "information wants to be free" mindset - no cognitive dissonance necessary. The day HN becomes pro-Mickey-Mouse laws then you would have an argument.
    - olalonde 10y ago
      I disagree that the GPL subverts the 'normal' use of copyright (though I'm aware it is presented as such by the FSF). Tons of copyrighted works are licensed for distribution by 3rd parties. Software licenses which allowed unrestricted distribution existed before the GPL. What the GPL innovated on was to put light restrictions on distribution to ensure modified source code would be made available along with binary distributions. In a world without copyright, there would still be tons of software without publicly available source code (perhaps more than now, due to the inability to enforce GPL violations). Also, "information wants to be free" is more of a vague idea than anything else. I want information to be free. I'm a big user and proponent of open source software (heck, I wrote a non-trivial feature of Webtorrent). That doesn't necessarily mean I'm against copyright.

ricksplat 10y ago

I would also suggest, that in the case of the clothing, the artist is probably not credited. Zara are claiming it as their own original work so she can't even claim copyright.

ricksplat 10y ago
I think the downvoter should review this if they think I am unfairly representing Zara http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/07/21/terribly-zara/ http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/07/21/terribly-zara/

samzub 10y ago

I think the moral difference may lie in the balance of power between the IP holder and IP infringer : In Zara vs indie designer, Zara steal the design and uses its power to distribute and sell it to the whole world. The indie designer cannot compete, or fight. The fact that Zara used her designs will not advertise her own products or make her money (maybe it did after the public outcry, but I guess it will not be the case for every indie designer). In torrent website vs content producers, the torrent website or its user are not more powerful than the producers. They do not put the producers' business at risk. Everyone knows who made the original product, and may buy some genuine products or derivatives : torrenting can act as advertisement. One of the other justifications for torrenting is that the content is not available in your country. Similarly, the indie design was not available in all countries. But the source of the issue is different : a small business may not distribute to the whole wold because of logistics, whereas producers and distributors voluntarily block content from being available when it could be.

eggy 10y ago
I think a power analysis is incorrect here. Zara can and most likely will be held accountable for any illegal acts their lawyers committed by trying to intimidate the indie artist. I am holding up the simple concept of property rights whether you are a big, and not necessarily bad, company, or you are a struggling moral artist. If you download torrents for any reason, it is still against the IP laws that protect them, even if you are doing it to make a statement. You are in effect against the concept of IP. Now, if you turn around, and call the big company evil or bad, because one of its 20,000 designers lifted a design off of a web site, how do you justify the apparent contradiction or hypocrisy. I don't say this judgmentally, since I have struggled with this for decades. I buy indie games, donate to worthwhile endeavors when I can, and hope for the same reciprocation. I see the point for change and looking for new ways of doing business that benefit both sides of a deal. After all, the definition of a good bargain or deal is when both parties shake hands after exchanging goods and services, and each feels they received good value in the transaction when walking away. To be honest, rigorously honest, sometimes demands calling ourselves out on our own contradictions and addressing them. I see to much dancing around the truth to justify what is currently stealing.

UVB-76 10y ago

It's the difference between copyright infringement for commercial gain, and for non-commercial, personal use. I doubt many torrent site operators make much money from their operations, and if they do make a profit now, the level of risk (and prospect of bankrupting legal actions in the future) probably don't make it worth it.

tomp 10y ago

The main difference is that Zara uses piracy to earn money, whereas most other pirates don't. That's the general model of copyright that I support - it's legal to copy anything for non-commercial use.

eggy 10y ago
Per the arrest of the torrent site runner in today's news, it seems he may have made millions in ad revenue on the torrent site. The copying for non-commercial use is sometimes a moving boundary: For instance, you download a PDF of a technical book that is extremely expensive, or plain not available in your country, but you use it to just study on your own. All the way to you download some video, sound, music, code, or book and incorporate it into your YouTube channel or your site that generates revenue for you. Now it is blurred IMO. If you are parodying something, you may get away with it, but if you are leveraging it to avoid doing the work to generate the content yourself, you are stealing. It is commercial usage in this case, but many disagree it seems, but then point the finger at Zara mainly just because their a company. The actions of their lawyers are definitely illegal and low tactics, but just remember, it was most likely a very low wage designer that lifted the artwork from the indie artist's site. He/She will most likely or was already fired. Zara will be fine.
CM30 10y ago
Don't most torrent sites run advertising? Yes some of that likely goes to maintain the server, but I doubt it all does in most cases. A lot of sites distributing content like this are set up as for profit ventures.
- tomp 10y ago
  I think that's a false dichotomy. If these sites were unambiguously legal, people (like myself) would donate money for the costs of running them. But the problem right now is, that even if a site wasn't making any money (no ads, no nothing), the operators could still be thrown into jail.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  What's the problem with making a profit from the legal provision of information? They're not infringing copyright themselves anymore than Google are - put "torrent $mediaName" (eg https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=torrent+mad+max+hash&oq=torrent+mad+max+hash https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=torrent+mad+max+hash&oq=to...) in to Google and you can get all you need to torrent that film.

belorn 10y ago

Morality often has many sides and exceptions. Take someone who eats meat. I am perfectly fine buying chicken, but would vocally dislike if I saw meat from endangered animals being sold. My objection to have animal extinct does not impact my opinion about buying meat in the general sense. A person who want to support young indie artist will do so through many avenues, some which supporting that artists IP. That doesn't mean that they must be in favor of IP, or must support every form of IP, but simply that their intention is to support the young indie artist. They morally distinguish the two, not on their opinion about IP, but the opinion of the author.