4 ms·

There are counter-arguments, of course: * Those who download pirated charts would never had paid for them anyway * Having seen a pirated chart, the downloader

There are counter-arguments, of course: * Those who download pirated charts would never had paid for them anyway * Having seen a pirated chart, the downloader has effectively had the designer "advertised" to them, making it more likely they will buy from them in the future etc. The parallels with software (and music) are clear, but there are differences too. It's not clear to me that anything can be done, and the current trend in the field is that small designers are giving up and not making their work public at all. The entire field is losing variety, and just the mainstream, made for the lowest common factor designs are seeing the light of day. That can't be good for a creative industry.

nailer 16y ago
> * Having seen a pirated chart, the downloader has effectively had the designer "advertised" to them, making it more likely they will buy from them in the future The creator of a work has a right to determine who they distribute it too. Most people on HN wouldn't like it if somebody ripped the source to their web app as a form of 'advertising'. This is no different.
- robryan 16y ago
  I made this argument for music on here a while back, that even if it is not the most economical outcome that a content creator should be able to choose who they distribute to. Wasn't a popular one.
  - nailer 16y ago
    Indeed. AFAICT there's are two groups: * People who get that creative output is creative output, and that as creators at HN we should support creation and our ability to determine who gets to copy what we make. * There's another part who says 'digital is special' and because we use computers, anything that uses computers is somehow good and should not be stopped.
    - cabalamat 16y ago
      > anything that uses computers is somehow good and should not be stopped Whether copying on the internet should be stopped is irrelevant. The whole point of the net is to copy vast amounts of data across the world cheaply and effortlessly. You couldn't stop this without shutting down the net. Which is impossible.
      - nailer 16y ago
        > Whether copying on the internet should be stopped is irrelevant..you couldn't stop this You can't stop any human behaviour completely. This is irrelevant to whether you should try.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  You seem to have completely missed the tenor of my point. These are arguments I've already heard, and which I consider hackneyed. They are quite specifically not arguments I agree with. My apologies for not making that clearer. ADDED IN EDIT: Having said that, the general consensus seems to be that the artist does not in fact have that right. The "modern" consensus seems to be that those who produce anything easily copied can only expect it to be copied, and it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution.
  - nailer 16y ago
    Indeed it wasn't clear that you disagreed with those points. I'm glad you don't support them. > The "modern" consensus seems to be that ... it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution. That's not the consensus in my circles - then again, I know a lot of people who make things - whether code, lingerie, or sculpture. They know they can't stop everyone stealing their work, but they also know they can can reduce it by trying - they certainly don't feel stupid for doing so.
  - ynniv 16y ago
    These are arguments I've already heard, and which I consider hackneyed. One problem with dismissing the argument that downloaders would not have been purchasers is that a download count doesn't accurately reflect usage of the item. Producers cry in horror that their "content" was downloaded 100,000 times, but each user may have inadvertently been double or triple counted based on multiple computers, failed saves, forgotten file locations, or mistaken download methods (eg, view image versus save to disk). On top of this, hoarding behavior causes people to collect things for which the perceived value (something) is greater than the cost (free / time to download). Hoarders will likely never use the item, but will show up as a download (or two or three) anyway. Lastly, I doubt this to be the case in this situation, but artificially increasing a download count for the purpose of inflating possible damages is blindingly simple. In short, I agree with your addendum, that anything which can be copied will be copied, and copies have nothing to do with sales unless you collect money at the point of copy. The more time spent complaining about loss, the less of a business and more of a funded hobby you are (and wouldn't we all like to have funded hobbies).
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > The creator of a work has a right to determine who they distribute it too. They might have a moral right, or even a legal right. But in the age of the internet, they have no practical right, since you can't in practice stop copying. Anyone who produces an informational work today knows that if it gets popular it will be copied on the internet without their permission. If they don't like that, they are free not to create the work in the first place. But since they know what will happen (or would know, if they had any intelligence at all), it seems silly of them to complain when it does.

nailer 16y ago

> * Having seen a pirated chart, the downloader has effectively had the designer "advertised" to them, making it more likely they will buy from them in the future The creator of a work has a right to determine who they distribute it too. Most people on HN wouldn't like it if somebody ripped the source to their web app as a form of 'advertising'. This is no different.

robryan 16y ago
I made this argument for music on here a while back, that even if it is not the most economical outcome that a content creator should be able to choose who they distribute to. Wasn't a popular one.
- nailer 16y ago
  Indeed. AFAICT there's are two groups: * People who get that creative output is creative output, and that as creators at HN we should support creation and our ability to determine who gets to copy what we make. * There's another part who says 'digital is special' and because we use computers, anything that uses computers is somehow good and should not be stopped.
  - cabalamat 16y ago
    > anything that uses computers is somehow good and should not be stopped Whether copying on the internet should be stopped is irrelevant. The whole point of the net is to copy vast amounts of data across the world cheaply and effortlessly. You couldn't stop this without shutting down the net. Which is impossible.
    - nailer 16y ago
      > Whether copying on the internet should be stopped is irrelevant..you couldn't stop this You can't stop any human behaviour completely. This is irrelevant to whether you should try.
RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
You seem to have completely missed the tenor of my point. These are arguments I've already heard, and which I consider hackneyed. They are quite specifically not arguments I agree with. My apologies for not making that clearer. ADDED IN EDIT: Having said that, the general consensus seems to be that the artist does not in fact have that right. The "modern" consensus seems to be that those who produce anything easily copied can only expect it to be copied, and it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution.
- nailer 16y ago
  Indeed it wasn't clear that you disagreed with those points. I'm glad you don't support them. > The "modern" consensus seems to be that ... it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution. That's not the consensus in my circles - then again, I know a lot of people who make things - whether code, lingerie, or sculpture. They know they can't stop everyone stealing their work, but they also know they can can reduce it by trying - they certainly don't feel stupid for doing so.
- ynniv 16y ago
  These are arguments I've already heard, and which I consider hackneyed. One problem with dismissing the argument that downloaders would not have been purchasers is that a download count doesn't accurately reflect usage of the item. Producers cry in horror that their "content" was downloaded 100,000 times, but each user may have inadvertently been double or triple counted based on multiple computers, failed saves, forgotten file locations, or mistaken download methods (eg, view image versus save to disk). On top of this, hoarding behavior causes people to collect things for which the perceived value (something) is greater than the cost (free / time to download). Hoarders will likely never use the item, but will show up as a download (or two or three) anyway. Lastly, I doubt this to be the case in this situation, but artificially increasing a download count for the purpose of inflating possible damages is blindingly simple. In short, I agree with your addendum, that anything which can be copied will be copied, and copies have nothing to do with sales unless you collect money at the point of copy. The more time spent complaining about loss, the less of a business and more of a funded hobby you are (and wouldn't we all like to have funded hobbies).
cabalamat 16y ago
> The creator of a work has a right to determine who they distribute it too. They might have a moral right, or even a legal right. But in the age of the internet, they have no practical right, since you can't in practice stop copying. Anyone who produces an informational work today knows that if it gets popular it will be copied on the internet without their permission. If they don't like that, they are free not to create the work in the first place. But since they know what will happen (or would know, if they had any intelligence at all), it seems silly of them to complain when it does.