5 ms·

Nice sense of entitlement you got there. I'd like to rephrase your statement to: People who create things should be compensated if we can figure out a system

by swombat 16y ago

Nice sense of entitlement you got there. I'd like to rephrase your statement to: People who create things should be compensated if we can figure out a system to do so that's not too costly to the general public. "Intellectual property" is a contradictory concept. Claiming that ideas, thoughts, and other non-physical entities "belong" to someone is contradicting the very nature of the universe. Note: I am an independent content creator (though I don't live from my content at the moment).

davidw 16y ago
It all boils down to the public goods problem, and which solution to it that you prefer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
ErrantX 16y ago
> if we can figure out a system to do so that's not too costly to the general public. No, that's not the basis of capitalism in the slightest! The point is to work out the price someone will pay and maximise your returns by offering it to them at that price. It is up to content distributors to set the price they want; and it is up to the public to refuse to purchase if they feel it is too high. You also seem to be claiming that piracy is purely due to high prices; and that if prices come down piracy will end. This seems unlikely. I am certain we would see less piracy - but much less? Free is always better than any price after all :) "Intellectual property" is a contradictory concept. Claiming that ideas, thoughts, and other non-physical entities "belong" to someone is contradicting the very nature of the universe. This is pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo. In a wider sense it is certainly correct but, realistically, the idea of intellectual property is used (call it a hack) to simply identify those who contributed to creating something and therefore can (in the eyes of society) ask for renumeration in return for it. Intellectual property is fucked up (for example; it shouldn't be an easily transferable right, grandchildren - maybe even children - shouldn't get it etc., it is too easy to protect generalities rather than the specific thing you created) but I think the general point has merit. I worked in the games industry for a short while (for an indie developer) and it is pretty disheartening to see your hard work handed out for free without your consent. It feels like someone is sticking their middle finger up at you. :) And that is what is at issue; we are potentially building a culture where people expect stuff for free and businesses are expected to earn revenue in other ways - to the point that people will take it anyway and to hell with what you think. That's an extremely complex model in my mind and possibly counter productive to innovation.
- nailer 16y ago
  > I worked in the games industry for a short while (for an indie developer) and it is pretty disheartening to see your hard work handed out for free without your consent. It feels like someone is sticking their middle finger up at you. :) I'm familiar with this feeling too (as is one other poster). It's not great. I get the feeling that if someone posted 'someone ripped off my app!' on HN everyone would instantly upmod it. Post that somebody's doing something about TPB and suddenly piracy is assumed to only affect large, evil corporations.
edanm 16y ago
""Intellectual property" is a contradictory concept. Claiming that ideas, thoughts, and other non-physical entities "belong" to someone is contradicting the very nature of the universe." I never understood that point. That's like saying preventing murder is contradictory to the nature of humanity. The point of societies is to make laws and enforce them, in a way that leads to everyone being better off. As far as I'm concerned, the argument against copyright should only be about whether it makes society better or not; it has nothing to do with morality, and definitely nothing to do with the nature of the universe.
- swombat 16y ago
  There is an intrinsic cost to murdering someone that's not dependent on human laws. There is no intrinsic cost to reusing an idea, other than that made up by human laws. I agree that the argument about copyright should be practical, not moral - which is why I'm opposed to starting the discussion from the point of view that authors have a moral right to preventing people from copying their creations. They don't.
nailer 16y ago
> Nice sense of entitlement you got there. Sorry, what's wrong with being entitled to the benefit of my own work? What right does anyone else have over something I made, with my work, taking hundreds of hours of my time? I can't believe such a shitty personal attack on someone for daring to say they're entitled to what they create is sitting on HN with +3. How would you feel if someone uploaded all the source for Woobius to TPB?
- _delirium 16y ago
  I don't think anyone has any particular right to profit from their work. You're arguing for some sort of positive freedom to profit from labor, which unsurprisingly no libertarian-leaning person would really endorse. Not only that, you're arguing that state power should be used to create artificial scarcity that would allow you to profit in that manner!
  - nailer 16y ago
    > I don't think anyone has any particular right to profit from their work Then how will you make money from Woobius? How will any of us on HN make money from our work? Not everything can be ad-supported. > You're arguing for some sort of positive freedom to profit from labor, which unsurprisingly no libertarian-leaning person would really endorse. What? Freedom to profit from their own labor is very much something Libertarians hold dear. > Not only that, you're arguing that state power should be used to create artificial scarcity Libertarians want the government to stop interfering in markets. Piracy isn't a market, it's a crime - piracy hurts markets.
    - chrisbennet 16y ago
      Don't feed the troll (_delerium).
    - henrikschroder 16y ago
      Freedom to profit from their own labor is very much something Libertarians hold dear. Libertarians want the government to stop interfering in markets. Yes, but profiting from your labour is typically handled by an exchange of goods, and once the exchange is done, each party has no say over the goods they traded. Not so with copyright, it limits what people can do with goods after they have been exchanged, and it does so through a state-enforced artificial monopoly. It is definitely government interference in the market. If it was completely free, you would lose control over your creations the second you sell them. Piracy isn't a market, it's a crime - piracy hurts markets. It is a market, and it works exactly like any other market. Piracy appears when a large amount of consumers disagree on the pricing of artificially scarce goods, and instead acquire the goods illicitly, by circumventing the artificial scarcity. The easiest way to combat piracy is through the market, simply provide a better product than the pirated product, and provide it at a price most consumers are willing to pay. Most people pirate not because they want everything for free, but because there is a huge discrepancy between the price of something and what they percieve it to be worth. There is a reason that, for example, the Apple Music Store is so incredibly successful even though anyone can pirate music easily. They provide a better product (legal DRM-free files conveniently and quickly delivered is better than illegal DRM-free files that are inconvenient to get) at a better price (1$ per song instead of ~15$ for a bundle you didn't want just to get the song you actually wanted). It is perfectly possible to compete with the pirate market, and doing so can be more profitable than trying the heavy-handed approach and strengthening the monopoly.

by swombat 16y ago

davidw 16y ago

It all boils down to the public goods problem, and which solution to it that you prefer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

ErrantX 16y ago

> if we can figure out a system to do so that's not too costly to the general public. No, that's not the basis of capitalism in the slightest! The point is to work out the price someone will pay and maximise your returns by offering it to them at that price. It is up to content distributors to set the price they want; and it is up to the public to refuse to purchase if they feel it is too high. You also seem to be claiming that piracy is purely due to high prices; and that if prices come down piracy will end. This seems unlikely. I am certain we would see less piracy - but much less? Free is always better than any price after all :) "Intellectual property" is a contradictory concept. Claiming that ideas, thoughts, and other non-physical entities "belong" to someone is contradicting the very nature of the universe. This is pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo. In a wider sense it is certainly correct but, realistically, the idea of intellectual property is used (call it a hack) to simply identify those who contributed to creating something and therefore can (in the eyes of society) ask for renumeration in return for it. Intellectual property is fucked up (for example; it shouldn't be an easily transferable right, grandchildren - maybe even children - shouldn't get it etc., it is too easy to protect generalities rather than the specific thing you created) but I think the general point has merit. I worked in the games industry for a short while (for an indie developer) and it is pretty disheartening to see your hard work handed out for free without your consent. It feels like someone is sticking their middle finger up at you. :) And that is what is at issue; we are potentially building a culture where people expect stuff for free and businesses are expected to earn revenue in other ways - to the point that people will take it anyway and to hell with what you think. That's an extremely complex model in my mind and possibly counter productive to innovation.

nailer 16y ago
> I worked in the games industry for a short while (for an indie developer) and it is pretty disheartening to see your hard work handed out for free without your consent. It feels like someone is sticking their middle finger up at you. :) I'm familiar with this feeling too (as is one other poster). It's not great. I get the feeling that if someone posted 'someone ripped off my app!' on HN everyone would instantly upmod it. Post that somebody's doing something about TPB and suddenly piracy is assumed to only affect large, evil corporations.

edanm 16y ago

""Intellectual property" is a contradictory concept. Claiming that ideas, thoughts, and other non-physical entities "belong" to someone is contradicting the very nature of the universe." I never understood that point. That's like saying preventing murder is contradictory to the nature of humanity. The point of societies is to make laws and enforce them, in a way that leads to everyone being better off. As far as I'm concerned, the argument against copyright should only be about whether it makes society better or not; it has nothing to do with morality, and definitely nothing to do with the nature of the universe.

swombat 16y ago
There is an intrinsic cost to murdering someone that's not dependent on human laws. There is no intrinsic cost to reusing an idea, other than that made up by human laws. I agree that the argument about copyright should be practical, not moral - which is why I'm opposed to starting the discussion from the point of view that authors have a moral right to preventing people from copying their creations. They don't.

nailer 16y ago

> Nice sense of entitlement you got there. Sorry, what's wrong with being entitled to the benefit of my own work? What right does anyone else have over something I made, with my work, taking hundreds of hours of my time? I can't believe such a shitty personal attack on someone for daring to say they're entitled to what they create is sitting on HN with +3. How would you feel if someone uploaded all the source for Woobius to TPB?

_delirium 16y ago
I don't think anyone has any particular right to profit from their work. You're arguing for some sort of positive freedom to profit from labor, which unsurprisingly no libertarian-leaning person would really endorse. Not only that, you're arguing that state power should be used to create artificial scarcity that would allow you to profit in that manner!
- nailer 16y ago
  > I don't think anyone has any particular right to profit from their work Then how will you make money from Woobius? How will any of us on HN make money from our work? Not everything can be ad-supported. > You're arguing for some sort of positive freedom to profit from labor, which unsurprisingly no libertarian-leaning person would really endorse. What? Freedom to profit from their own labor is very much something Libertarians hold dear. > Not only that, you're arguing that state power should be used to create artificial scarcity Libertarians want the government to stop interfering in markets. Piracy isn't a market, it's a crime - piracy hurts markets.
  - chrisbennet 16y ago
    Don't feed the troll (_delerium).
  - henrikschroder 16y ago
    Freedom to profit from their own labor is very much something Libertarians hold dear. Libertarians want the government to stop interfering in markets. Yes, but profiting from your labour is typically handled by an exchange of goods, and once the exchange is done, each party has no say over the goods they traded. Not so with copyright, it limits what people can do with goods after they have been exchanged, and it does so through a state-enforced artificial monopoly. It is definitely government interference in the market. If it was completely free, you would lose control over your creations the second you sell them. Piracy isn't a market, it's a crime - piracy hurts markets. It is a market, and it works exactly like any other market. Piracy appears when a large amount of consumers disagree on the pricing of artificially scarce goods, and instead acquire the goods illicitly, by circumventing the artificial scarcity. The easiest way to combat piracy is through the market, simply provide a better product than the pirated product, and provide it at a price most consumers are willing to pay. Most people pirate not because they want everything for free, but because there is a huge discrepancy between the price of something and what they percieve it to be worth. There is a reason that, for example, the Apple Music Store is so incredibly successful even though anyone can pirate music easily. They provide a better product (legal DRM-free files conveniently and quickly delivered is better than illegal DRM-free files that are inconvenient to get) at a better price (1$ per song instead of ~15$ for a bundle you didn't want just to get the song you actually wanted). It is perfectly possible to compete with the pirate market, and doing so can be more profitable than trying the heavy-handed approach and strengthening the monopoly.