4 ms·

i see this is a comparison of some kind, but it's not very clear. in the movie downloading case, who is being hurt when they wouldn't have bought it anyway? or

by xlnt 19y ago

i see this is a comparison of some kind, but it's not very clear. in the movie downloading case, who is being hurt when they wouldn't have bought it anyway? or if no one, why is it bad?

tptacek 19y ago
In the GPL case, who is being hurt, when the (a) the GPL violator wouldn't have contributed to the project anyways, and (b) the GPL provider wouldn't have collected any money? It's not a vague comparison; it's a cliche, about copyvio apologists tending to want it both ways.
- xlnt 19y ago
  maybe the competition who followed the law. maybe no one. i'm not sure. regardless of my opinion of who is hurt in the GPL case, i do have one in the movie downloading case. you seem to too, but you still won't say who is being hurt.
  - tptacek 19y ago
    I don't accept your premise that the content downloaded on Torrent networks would otherwise not be paid for. So I'm going to go with, "the producers of content are hurt".
    - xlnt 19y ago
      i said when it wouldn't be paid for anyway, then it doesn't hurt anyone. this is obviously common because people download more stuff than they could afford.
      - tptacek 19y ago
        So your argument is, even though a significant fraction of the market acquires a movie for free (the "vast good" the torrent networks do, in your view), the downloads don't depress the market value of the movie. In other words, when supply goes to "infinite", demand is unaffected. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
        xlnt 19y ago
        Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. you still haven't answered the question and now you're sarcastically insulting me. that's called trolling.
        tptacek 19y ago
        You haven't asked a question since I answered your last specious one [1], but if you do, you can expect a response in the same tone. [1] Specious point: because we cannot pinpoint the parties harmed by our unauthorized use of other people's content, we should assume, until proven otherwise, that any such use is harmless. So, because you can't reason through who is harmed by GPL copyvio (hint: the developer and the community), by your logic, we should stop enforcing the GPL.
        xlnt 19y ago
        the question is, quote: In the movie downloading case, who is being hurt when they wouldn't have bought it anyway? You haven't answered that. Note also that I didn't say any of the stuff you are calling a specious point.
        tptacek 19y ago
        My answer remains as it was before: the producers of content, who sell to a dwindling number of honest buyers as a result of a growing number of dishonest freeloaders who believe content should be priced at its marginal cost. That's an externality of downloading and using content you would not otherwise pay for. But I think this argument is a red herring. Fewer people today buy DVDs, now that they can be easily downloaded. Ten years from now --- barring the success of BD+ --- it will be trivial to download DVDs, and fewer people still will buy them. I don't think reasonable people dispute this fact. The drop in content revenue comes directly out of the hide of the content producers. The issue isn't "the people who wouldn't buy the content anyways". The people who gorge themselves on content they wouldn't otherwise buy don't buy any content. It's ironic that they excuse themselves by taking yet more illicit content.
tptacek 19y ago
The entire point of copyright is to prevent freeloading; see Posner. Without protection, a rational market bids the price of content down to its marginal cost, which is zero. In a market that prices content at zero, no content is created. Freeloaders hurt everyone. The GPL case and the movie case are identical. The same argument can be made for both that a single marginal case of infringement imposes negligable costs.

by xlnt 19y ago

i see this is a comparison of some kind, but it's not very clear. in the movie downloading case, who is being hurt when they wouldn't have bought it anyway? or if no one, why is it bad?

tptacek 19y ago

In the GPL case, who is being hurt, when the (a) the GPL violator wouldn't have contributed to the project anyways, and (b) the GPL provider wouldn't have collected any money? It's not a vague comparison; it's a cliche, about copyvio apologists tending to want it both ways.

xlnt 19y ago
maybe the competition who followed the law. maybe no one. i'm not sure. regardless of my opinion of who is hurt in the GPL case, i do have one in the movie downloading case. you seem to too, but you still won't say who is being hurt.
- tptacek 19y ago
  I don't accept your premise that the content downloaded on Torrent networks would otherwise not be paid for. So I'm going to go with, "the producers of content are hurt".
  - xlnt 19y ago
    i said when it wouldn't be paid for anyway, then it doesn't hurt anyone. this is obviously common because people download more stuff than they could afford.
    - tptacek 19y ago
      So your argument is, even though a significant fraction of the market acquires a movie for free (the "vast good" the torrent networks do, in your view), the downloads don't depress the market value of the movie. In other words, when supply goes to "infinite", demand is unaffected. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
      - xlnt 19y ago
        Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. you still haven't answered the question and now you're sarcastically insulting me. that's called trolling.
        tptacek 19y ago
        You haven't asked a question since I answered your last specious one [1], but if you do, you can expect a response in the same tone. [1] Specious point: because we cannot pinpoint the parties harmed by our unauthorized use of other people's content, we should assume, until proven otherwise, that any such use is harmless. So, because you can't reason through who is harmed by GPL copyvio (hint: the developer and the community), by your logic, we should stop enforcing the GPL.
        xlnt 19y ago
        the question is, quote: In the movie downloading case, who is being hurt when they wouldn't have bought it anyway? You haven't answered that. Note also that I didn't say any of the stuff you are calling a specious point.
        tptacek 19y ago
        My answer remains as it was before: the producers of content, who sell to a dwindling number of honest buyers as a result of a growing number of dishonest freeloaders who believe content should be priced at its marginal cost. That's an externality of downloading and using content you would not otherwise pay for. But I think this argument is a red herring. Fewer people today buy DVDs, now that they can be easily downloaded. Ten years from now --- barring the success of BD+ --- it will be trivial to download DVDs, and fewer people still will buy them. I don't think reasonable people dispute this fact. The drop in content revenue comes directly out of the hide of the content producers. The issue isn't "the people who wouldn't buy the content anyways". The people who gorge themselves on content they wouldn't otherwise buy don't buy any content. It's ironic that they excuse themselves by taking yet more illicit content.

tptacek 19y ago

The entire point of copyright is to prevent freeloading; see Posner. Without protection, a rational market bids the price of content down to its marginal cost, which is zero. In a market that prices content at zero, no content is created. Freeloaders hurt everyone. The GPL case and the movie case are identical. The same argument can be made for both that a single marginal case of infringement imposes negligable costs.