4 ms·

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.

by 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.
    - xlnt 19y ago
      You keep bringing up things I haven't said, and not answering the question directly. The fact is, if I download a movie that I would not have bought or rented if downloading was not available, then the producers do not have a dwindling number of buyers. They have the exact same number of buyers as if I didn't download it. I say this means no one was hurt. You still seem to disagree, but still have not pointed to an actual way anyone would be hurt.
      - deleted 19y ago
        [deleted]
      - tptacek 19y ago
        I don't understand your argument. You seem to be saying that nobody is "hurt" by your download, because the marginal cost to the copyright owner is zero. But that's true of all downloads, not just yours. By your logic, how are producers ever compensated? The answer to your question is, everybody is hurt, because every illicit download robs content creators of the incentive to create, and content producers of the incentive to distribute. It's clear that in your case, when you download a movie you have no intention of buying, the stolen incentive is not great. But it is not zero: your download clearly helps establish the climate that facilitates other downloads (for instance, by drawing ad revenue to torrent search engines, or simply by creating the social proof that enables otherwise honest people to rationalize downloading). In the end, even insults to the market as small as yours can become overwhelming when multiplied by the tens of millions of actors.
        xlnt 19y ago
        Suppose I don't tell anyone I've downloaded. Then it wouldn't create a climate. Let's assume for now, for clarity, that I do nothing to contribute to a climate. I never post to torrent forums, never help people get torrents, I never seed, I never upload, I never encourage anyone else to download, etc... I have not said anything to defend taking actions like those to create a climate that legitimizes downloading. A download only "robs content creators of the incentive to create" if it prevents a purchase (or chance of a purchase). I am not defending all downloading, but I am saying there is a possible way of downloading that doesn't do this. If the condition I specified holds (would not have been bought either way), then the content creator isn't hurt. He gets just the same benefits an incentives as he would have in a world without that kind of downloading. He may be hurt for a different reason, but not for lack of a purchase because, by premise, that purchase wasn't going to happen in any case. What conclusions should be drawn from this is not obvious. Agreeing it is true is an important starting point before drawing conclusions.

by 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.
  - xlnt 19y ago
    You keep bringing up things I haven't said, and not answering the question directly. The fact is, if I download a movie that I would not have bought or rented if downloading was not available, then the producers do not have a dwindling number of buyers. They have the exact same number of buyers as if I didn't download it. I say this means no one was hurt. You still seem to disagree, but still have not pointed to an actual way anyone would be hurt.
    - deleted 19y ago
      [deleted]
    - tptacek 19y ago
      I don't understand your argument. You seem to be saying that nobody is "hurt" by your download, because the marginal cost to the copyright owner is zero. But that's true of all downloads, not just yours. By your logic, how are producers ever compensated? The answer to your question is, everybody is hurt, because every illicit download robs content creators of the incentive to create, and content producers of the incentive to distribute. It's clear that in your case, when you download a movie you have no intention of buying, the stolen incentive is not great. But it is not zero: your download clearly helps establish the climate that facilitates other downloads (for instance, by drawing ad revenue to torrent search engines, or simply by creating the social proof that enables otherwise honest people to rationalize downloading). In the end, even insults to the market as small as yours can become overwhelming when multiplied by the tens of millions of actors.
      - xlnt 19y ago
        Suppose I don't tell anyone I've downloaded. Then it wouldn't create a climate. Let's assume for now, for clarity, that I do nothing to contribute to a climate. I never post to torrent forums, never help people get torrents, I never seed, I never upload, I never encourage anyone else to download, etc... I have not said anything to defend taking actions like those to create a climate that legitimizes downloading. A download only "robs content creators of the incentive to create" if it prevents a purchase (or chance of a purchase). I am not defending all downloading, but I am saying there is a possible way of downloading that doesn't do this. If the condition I specified holds (would not have been bought either way), then the content creator isn't hurt. He gets just the same benefits an incentives as he would have in a world without that kind of downloading. He may be hurt for a different reason, but not for lack of a purchase because, by premise, that purchase wasn't going to happen in any case. What conclusions should be drawn from this is not obvious. Agreeing it is true is an important starting point before drawing conclusions.