6 ms·

Do you think Youtube's founders are thinking "we should adhered to copyright material more closely", or "we should have deleted all those emails"? Both sides h

by Splines 17y ago

Do you think Youtube's founders are thinking "we should adhered to copyright material more closely", or "we should have deleted all those emails"? Both sides have a point here (content creators deserve to be compensated, or at least not not-compensated, vs. youtube helped expose media to people who would never have seen/heard some content before). IMHO, I'd like to think that youtube made reasonable decisions in the past (take down full movies, tv shows). I certainly don't have the data, but I would hope that youtube helped popularized and spread videos that would never have done so otherwise (e.g., numa numa, rickroll).

kiba 17y ago
(content creators deserve to be compensated, or at least not not-compensated, vs. youtube helped expose media to people who would never have seen/heard some content before). People should only have the right to earn one's profits in voluntary exchange. The reason for this is very pragmatic. The free market will not work without artists starving on the street, or taking a part time job to support their art career. Failure in enterprises and dreams is critical to the free market's ability to allocate resource. The failure of firms quite often become signal to the rest of the market on what not to do. With every failure of a speculation, a business idea, a poor execution, lead further to correct information about consumer's preference and perhaps, the future. However, the future is very uncertain. Consumers' preference are fickle. Sometime unforeseeable natural events happen. For that reason, speculation, and thus entrepreneurship is a constant activity. Our economic system is a dynamic one, and thus, cannot have an equilibrium that is so often at heart of economic models. For the reason of satisfying consumer preferences, we must ignore people who insists and demand compensation for their work without giving people a reason to buy. If that mean breaking the law and ignoring copyright, so be it. If it means that the music industry shrink to 10% of its former size, so be it. If that mean more musicians working at restaurants, so be it. Why should they make people fork money over something that they would not buy without copyright and government intervention?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- Splines 17y ago
  Maybe you understood me, but what I meant to say was that if you were to watch something on youtube in lieu of going to the movie theater or watching it on TV, you would be not compensating an artist because of youtube's existence. It's a very optimistic view that people would compensate artists if it was a purely optional choice (not saying that it doesn't happen, but it requires a certain mix of artistic work, artist, and audience to make it happen). That said, it's not entirely the fault of the audience that they are now receiving works of "art" for free. The fact that technology has progressed to the point where duplication of content has become trivial cannot be ignored (whether or not it's right doesn't really change things). It's partially up to the content creators to seek compensation from the audience in new ways. Youtube, I think, is trying to enable this path, whether or not it's successful has yet to be seen. By no means do I think that people deserve compensation, but I do think that piracy has had an impact on content creators' livelihood.
  - kiba 17y ago
    By no means do I think that people deserve compensation, but I do think that piracy has had an impact on content creators' livelihood. I would argue that pirates are market failure caused by government policies and intervention. They fill in the missing void of the distribution system. In a world without copyright law, publishing houses would learn very quick on how to starve these legal pirates very quick. This is exactly what happens to American publishers selling British books in the 19th century, as there were no copyright treaty with Britain back then. They would flood the market with cheap books, destroying much of the profit potential that could be garnered by legally pirating the books. This is good for Americans, because they can raise their literacy rate with the help of cheap books. The British authors also make money, sometime more than they do in their own country. Their business models consist of auctioning or selling the manuscript to the highest bidder. Even now, Americans publishers can make quite a bit money selling public domain books, often government book like the 9/11 commission report. Even so, I don't really care either way if a copyright-free world cause less books to appear, or more books to appears. If I want more books, I either download them or buy them. I see no reason to fret over what is ultimately a business model or entrepreneurship problem.
- seertaak 17y ago
  > People should only have the right to earn one's profits in voluntary exchange. > The free market will not work without artists starving on the street, or taking a part time job to support their art career. It's almost comical that you wax poetic about the capitalist system, and then in the next sentence blithely assert that art must necessarily exist outside of it! Especially given that the two have fruitfully coexisted for some four hundred years. Oh, but I guess the interweb changes everything, doesn't it? > Our economic system is a dynamic one, and thus, cannot have an equilibrium that is so often at heart of economic models. Our economic system is a dynamic one? Well done, Sherlock! To say that dynamic systems can't lead to equilibria ('so often at heart of economic models' -- I chuckled when I read that little pearl of wisdom) is patently wrong and frankly asinine. > For the reason of satisfying consumer preferences, we must ignore people who insists and demand compensation for their work without giving people a reason to buy. And I think we should ignore people whose prose and logic are reminiscent of Manuel from Faulty Towers. Remember that the 'reason to buy' -- as opposed to stealing -- in the physical domain is the fear of being locked up. Getting stuff for free, in case you haven't noticed, will usually 'satisfy consumer preferences'! > Why should they make people fork money over something that they would not buy without copyright and government intervention? Because a) it's unethical not too, and b) if people don't do it (i.e. if property rights aren't respected) then markets cease to function. Do you not agree would be unethical to steal a purse from a stall in Portobello Market? Do you not also agree that policemen, the agents which 'give [you] a reason to buy', as opposed to just grabbing the stuff and running, are a form of 'government intervention'? You assume a pro-market, libertarian mantle, but the truth is that you are a fraud who uses such lofty talk in much the same way that New Agers use quantum physics to make vacuous points about the inter-connectedness of everyone and everything. Markets rely on the respect of property. That is no less true in the physical domain than in the intellectual one.
  - kiba 17y ago
    It's almost comical that you wax poetic about the capitalist system, and then in the next sentence blithely assert that art must necessarily exist outside of it! Especially given that the two have fruitfully coexisted for some four hundred years. Oh, but I guess the interweb changes everything, doesn't it? Non-sequitur. Our economic system is a dynamic one? Well done, Sherlock! To say that dynamic systems can't lead to equilibria ('so often at heart of economic models' -- I chuckled when I read that little pearl of wisdom) is patently wrong and frankly asinine. Prove it instead of saying it is. And I think we should ignore people whose prose and logic are reminiscent of Manuel from Faulty Towers. Remember that the 'reason to buy' -- as opposed to stealing -- in the physical domain is the fear of being locked up. Getting stuff for free, in case you haven't noticed, will usually 'satisfy consumer preferences'! Is copying stealing? Is depriving someone of potential profits stealing? Because a) it's unethical not too, and b) if people don't do it (i.e. if property rights aren't respected) then markets cease to function. Do you not agree would be unethical to steal a purse from a stall in Portobello Market? Do you not also agree that policemen, the agents which 'give [you] a reason to buy', as opposed to just grabbing the stuff and running, are a form of 'government intervention'? Unethical on what ground? I am not stealing anything. I am duplicating content. I am not depriving anyone of anything, except their potential profits. You assume a pro-market, libertarian mantle, but the truth is that you are a fraud who uses such lofty talk in much the same way that New Agers use quantum physics to make vacuous points about the inter-connectedness of everyone and everything. Markets rely on the respect of property. That is no less true in the physical domain than in the intellectual one. Yes, we must imagine that copyright are really property rights, and the consumers can go to hell for attempting to make use of their actual property rights. We must also imagine that copyright laws and patents laws are not really a form of economic intervention with abritary rules. And yes, we must resort to name calling, copying IS stealing fallacy, and non-sequiturs to make our argument. I don't even care if artists starve to death on the street. Why don't you make your ethical argument to someone who actually care and actually be tricked by your copying is stealing fallacy? Do you even know who you're talking to? You're talking to a die-hard anarcho-capitalist who love and respect property right. You know how many anarcho-capitalists who hate copyright and patents? Do you want my friends over at the mises.org forum and the #mises channel at freenode to come over to show you how many hard-core libertarians despise these kind of laws? You want me to show you anti-IP articles written by libertarians? You want to call me a fraud who really disrespect property right in the disguise of libertarianism? You know, maybe I really do think copyright and patent are not property right.

by Splines 17y ago

kiba 17y ago

(content creators deserve to be compensated, or at least not not-compensated, vs. youtube helped expose media to people who would never have seen/heard some content before). People should only have the right to earn one's profits in voluntary exchange. The reason for this is very pragmatic. The free market will not work without artists starving on the street, or taking a part time job to support their art career. Failure in enterprises and dreams is critical to the free market's ability to allocate resource. The failure of firms quite often become signal to the rest of the market on what not to do. With every failure of a speculation, a business idea, a poor execution, lead further to correct information about consumer's preference and perhaps, the future. However, the future is very uncertain. Consumers' preference are fickle. Sometime unforeseeable natural events happen. For that reason, speculation, and thus entrepreneurship is a constant activity. Our economic system is a dynamic one, and thus, cannot have an equilibrium that is so often at heart of economic models. For the reason of satisfying consumer preferences, we must ignore people who insists and demand compensation for their work without giving people a reason to buy. If that mean breaking the law and ignoring copyright, so be it. If it means that the music industry shrink to 10% of its former size, so be it. If that mean more musicians working at restaurants, so be it. Why should they make people fork money over something that they would not buy without copyright and government intervention?

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Splines 17y ago
Maybe you understood me, but what I meant to say was that if you were to watch something on youtube in lieu of going to the movie theater or watching it on TV, you would be not compensating an artist because of youtube's existence. It's a very optimistic view that people would compensate artists if it was a purely optional choice (not saying that it doesn't happen, but it requires a certain mix of artistic work, artist, and audience to make it happen). That said, it's not entirely the fault of the audience that they are now receiving works of "art" for free. The fact that technology has progressed to the point where duplication of content has become trivial cannot be ignored (whether or not it's right doesn't really change things). It's partially up to the content creators to seek compensation from the audience in new ways. Youtube, I think, is trying to enable this path, whether or not it's successful has yet to be seen. By no means do I think that people deserve compensation, but I do think that piracy has had an impact on content creators' livelihood.
- kiba 17y ago
  By no means do I think that people deserve compensation, but I do think that piracy has had an impact on content creators' livelihood. I would argue that pirates are market failure caused by government policies and intervention. They fill in the missing void of the distribution system. In a world without copyright law, publishing houses would learn very quick on how to starve these legal pirates very quick. This is exactly what happens to American publishers selling British books in the 19th century, as there were no copyright treaty with Britain back then. They would flood the market with cheap books, destroying much of the profit potential that could be garnered by legally pirating the books. This is good for Americans, because they can raise their literacy rate with the help of cheap books. The British authors also make money, sometime more than they do in their own country. Their business models consist of auctioning or selling the manuscript to the highest bidder. Even now, Americans publishers can make quite a bit money selling public domain books, often government book like the 9/11 commission report. Even so, I don't really care either way if a copyright-free world cause less books to appear, or more books to appears. If I want more books, I either download them or buy them. I see no reason to fret over what is ultimately a business model or entrepreneurship problem.
seertaak 17y ago
> People should only have the right to earn one's profits in voluntary exchange. > The free market will not work without artists starving on the street, or taking a part time job to support their art career. It's almost comical that you wax poetic about the capitalist system, and then in the next sentence blithely assert that art must necessarily exist outside of it! Especially given that the two have fruitfully coexisted for some four hundred years. Oh, but I guess the interweb changes everything, doesn't it? > Our economic system is a dynamic one, and thus, cannot have an equilibrium that is so often at heart of economic models. Our economic system is a dynamic one? Well done, Sherlock! To say that dynamic systems can't lead to equilibria ('so often at heart of economic models' -- I chuckled when I read that little pearl of wisdom) is patently wrong and frankly asinine. > For the reason of satisfying consumer preferences, we must ignore people who insists and demand compensation for their work without giving people a reason to buy. And I think we should ignore people whose prose and logic are reminiscent of Manuel from Faulty Towers. Remember that the 'reason to buy' -- as opposed to stealing -- in the physical domain is the fear of being locked up. Getting stuff for free, in case you haven't noticed, will usually 'satisfy consumer preferences'! > Why should they make people fork money over something that they would not buy without copyright and government intervention? Because a) it's unethical not too, and b) if people don't do it (i.e. if property rights aren't respected) then markets cease to function. Do you not agree would be unethical to steal a purse from a stall in Portobello Market? Do you not also agree that policemen, the agents which 'give [you] a reason to buy', as opposed to just grabbing the stuff and running, are a form of 'government intervention'? You assume a pro-market, libertarian mantle, but the truth is that you are a fraud who uses such lofty talk in much the same way that New Agers use quantum physics to make vacuous points about the inter-connectedness of everyone and everything. Markets rely on the respect of property. That is no less true in the physical domain than in the intellectual one.
- kiba 17y ago
  It's almost comical that you wax poetic about the capitalist system, and then in the next sentence blithely assert that art must necessarily exist outside of it! Especially given that the two have fruitfully coexisted for some four hundred years. Oh, but I guess the interweb changes everything, doesn't it? Non-sequitur. Our economic system is a dynamic one? Well done, Sherlock! To say that dynamic systems can't lead to equilibria ('so often at heart of economic models' -- I chuckled when I read that little pearl of wisdom) is patently wrong and frankly asinine. Prove it instead of saying it is. And I think we should ignore people whose prose and logic are reminiscent of Manuel from Faulty Towers. Remember that the 'reason to buy' -- as opposed to stealing -- in the physical domain is the fear of being locked up. Getting stuff for free, in case you haven't noticed, will usually 'satisfy consumer preferences'! Is copying stealing? Is depriving someone of potential profits stealing? Because a) it's unethical not too, and b) if people don't do it (i.e. if property rights aren't respected) then markets cease to function. Do you not agree would be unethical to steal a purse from a stall in Portobello Market? Do you not also agree that policemen, the agents which 'give [you] a reason to buy', as opposed to just grabbing the stuff and running, are a form of 'government intervention'? Unethical on what ground? I am not stealing anything. I am duplicating content. I am not depriving anyone of anything, except their potential profits. You assume a pro-market, libertarian mantle, but the truth is that you are a fraud who uses such lofty talk in much the same way that New Agers use quantum physics to make vacuous points about the inter-connectedness of everyone and everything. Markets rely on the respect of property. That is no less true in the physical domain than in the intellectual one. Yes, we must imagine that copyright are really property rights, and the consumers can go to hell for attempting to make use of their actual property rights. We must also imagine that copyright laws and patents laws are not really a form of economic intervention with abritary rules. And yes, we must resort to name calling, copying IS stealing fallacy, and non-sequiturs to make our argument. I don't even care if artists starve to death on the street. Why don't you make your ethical argument to someone who actually care and actually be tricked by your copying is stealing fallacy? Do you even know who you're talking to? You're talking to a die-hard anarcho-capitalist who love and respect property right. You know how many anarcho-capitalists who hate copyright and patents? Do you want my friends over at the mises.org forum and the #mises channel at freenode to come over to show you how many hard-core libertarians despise these kind of laws? You want me to show you anti-IP articles written by libertarians? You want to call me a fraud who really disrespect property right in the disguise of libertarianism? You know, maybe I really do think copyright and patent are not property right.