3 ms·

"Copyright laws exist to restrict people's rights to free speech and freedom of communication. And in the age of the internet, business models based on scarcity

by rick888 16y ago

"Copyright laws exist to restrict people's rights to free speech and freedom of communication. And in the age of the internet, business models based on scarcity of copies are obsolete; they cannot be propped up except by restricting the utility of the internet." Businesses were never based on scarcity of copies, but scarcity of creation. The latest version of Photoshop can't be created with once click of a button. It takes many programmers and designers thousands of hours. Copying the bits is the easy part. When anybody can create (not copy) photoshop in their homes, I will agree with you. "The copyright cartels (RIAA, MPAA, etc) want every computer to be a DRM-crippled locked down device like the iPad, and for themselves to have the power to kick anyone off the internet by merely accusing them of copyright infringement. If you don't want that future, it's time to support the Pirate Party." There was an app designer awhile back that posted his sales numbers on reddit. He had 80% more sales on the iPhone. The reason? Android made it very easy for people to download his app and share it (and not pay) (he had the ability to see the people that pirated his app). I wonder what would happen if I came out with the piratebay2 and claimed I was thepiraebay.com. If I made it look like the piratebay owned the site and I hurt their reputation in some way through disparaging comments. Would they (thepiratebay) come after me? After all, I'm not "stealing" anything. It should be fine, right? My problem is that it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Thepiratebay supporters want the ability to freely download commercial applications with no repercussions. I don't agree with this. If you don't want to buy a commercial application, that's fine (it's your right). But you shouldn't be able to download it for free without the owner's permission. I also don't think many people realize what a world with no copyright would be like. Once a company got big enough, they would easily be able to take ideas from smaller companies just starting out. The smaller companies would have little legal recourse or enough resources to defend themselves.

dkberktas 16y ago
Maybe your app developer should seek other ways of getting money out of his app. Not for this specific case but "in app purchase" and ads in apps are two great ways of earning money.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Maybe your app developer should seek other ways of getting money out of his app. Not for this specific case but "in app purchase" and ads in apps are two great ways of earning money." So instead of dealing with the actual problem (people pirating). He should just give it away for free with ads?
  - dkberktas 16y ago
    Well, i don't see it as a problem. All I say is try to adapt to the current situation, don't try to impose rules on people so that your way of seeing things continue. If people prefer to watch movies at their home w/out paying for it, what the movie industry should do is to find other ways of making money, becuase bannign things is not going to work.
    - rick888 16y ago
      "Well, i don't see it as a problem. All I say is try to adapt to the current situation, don't try to impose rules on people so that your way of seeing things continue. If people prefer to watch movies at their home w/out paying for it, what the movie industry should do is to find other ways of making money, becuase bannign things is not going to work." By adapting, they are showing people that it's okay. It's not. Rules are imposed by most stores/companies. When you go to a store and take something off the shelf, you are required to checkout and pay for it. If everyone in a particular store felt that they could just leave without paying, should the store just work this into their business model? Your line of thinking is a growing entitlement problem. People (especially younger than 30) feel entitled to software, music, and movies on the Internet. One of the main arguments is that it's not stealing because revenue is not lost (like a physical item). My argument has always been that over time, the perceived value of the items would go down (because more and more people would expect to get it for free). Many of the posts in this thread are proving my point.
      - _delirium 16y ago
        > One of the main arguments is that it's not stealing because revenue is not lost (like a physical item). My argument has always been that over time, the perceived value of the items would go down (because more and more people would expect to get it for free). I can see that, but I suppose I see the first one as a natural sort of property right, and the second one not. The right not to have someone come into your house and physically remove things from it seems like something reasonable for the government to protect. But the right not to have those things lose value? If someone can make items in my home worthless without actually entering my home and taking them, e.g. by finding a way to make cheap copies of them easily, then I don't see that as a property-rights issue. I do think encouraging innovation and creation is a worthwhile social goal, but it's different from the idea of protecting property imo. It might be done via quasi-property sorts of temporary monopolies (like patents and copyright), or through government subsidy of the arts and sciences, or both, but it's basically social engineering either way, and which mixture of approaches we take should be based on some analysis of what benefits we get out of each.

by rick888 16y ago

dkberktas 16y ago

Maybe your app developer should seek other ways of getting money out of his app. Not for this specific case but "in app purchase" and ads in apps are two great ways of earning money.

rick888 16y ago
"Maybe your app developer should seek other ways of getting money out of his app. Not for this specific case but "in app purchase" and ads in apps are two great ways of earning money." So instead of dealing with the actual problem (people pirating). He should just give it away for free with ads?
- dkberktas 16y ago
  Well, i don't see it as a problem. All I say is try to adapt to the current situation, don't try to impose rules on people so that your way of seeing things continue. If people prefer to watch movies at their home w/out paying for it, what the movie industry should do is to find other ways of making money, becuase bannign things is not going to work.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "Well, i don't see it as a problem. All I say is try to adapt to the current situation, don't try to impose rules on people so that your way of seeing things continue. If people prefer to watch movies at their home w/out paying for it, what the movie industry should do is to find other ways of making money, becuase bannign things is not going to work." By adapting, they are showing people that it's okay. It's not. Rules are imposed by most stores/companies. When you go to a store and take something off the shelf, you are required to checkout and pay for it. If everyone in a particular store felt that they could just leave without paying, should the store just work this into their business model? Your line of thinking is a growing entitlement problem. People (especially younger than 30) feel entitled to software, music, and movies on the Internet. One of the main arguments is that it's not stealing because revenue is not lost (like a physical item). My argument has always been that over time, the perceived value of the items would go down (because more and more people would expect to get it for free). Many of the posts in this thread are proving my point.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      > One of the main arguments is that it's not stealing because revenue is not lost (like a physical item). My argument has always been that over time, the perceived value of the items would go down (because more and more people would expect to get it for free). I can see that, but I suppose I see the first one as a natural sort of property right, and the second one not. The right not to have someone come into your house and physically remove things from it seems like something reasonable for the government to protect. But the right not to have those things lose value? If someone can make items in my home worthless without actually entering my home and taking them, e.g. by finding a way to make cheap copies of them easily, then I don't see that as a property-rights issue. I do think encouraging innovation and creation is a worthwhile social goal, but it's different from the idea of protecting property imo. It might be done via quasi-property sorts of temporary monopolies (like patents and copyright), or through government subsidy of the arts and sciences, or both, but it's basically social engineering either way, and which mixture of approaches we take should be based on some analysis of what benefits we get out of each.