5 ms·

Just because work you do benefits another does not entitle you to that value. Yes pirates cannot pirate what does not exist. That just means the market needs to

by indrax 16y ago

Just because work you do benefits another does not entitle you to that value. Yes pirates cannot pirate what does not exist. That just means the market needs to find a way to pay content creation, instead of content copying.

jules 16y ago
If I create software I am entitled to sell it. People are not entitled to get it for free if I want them to pay me for it. Yes, it costs me nothing if they pirate it. But can I steal a car from a factory if I pay them the marginal cost of producing it? Of course not. Paying for content creation is a fantasy in software. Name any big consumer application that could have been developed that way with developers getting paid about the same as they would by selling it (i.e. about the same as the value they provide).
- _delirium 16y ago
  > But can I steal a car from a factory if I pay them the marginal cost of producing it? If you can find a way to do so without entering the factory, or removing any of the factory's contents, then sure. The traditional law of theft is a purely negative right to not have your property removed from your possession, not any sort of positive right.
  - jules 16y ago
    There are two issues here: 1. The law-technical issue. I suppose we agree that piracy is illegal. That there are different laws for the two things is not very interesting in my opinion. 2. The ethical issue. Do you agree that the end results for the factory and for the developer, namely reduced income, are the same?
    - _delirium 16y ago
      On the 2nd one, reduced income isn't very interesting to me, since I don't believe there's any ethical right to make income from things in the first place. Traditional views on theft I think are justified by a negative right to not have the security of one's person and possessions violated, e.g. to be free from assault, burglary, etc. So with traditional theft, I don't see the wrong being that the thief got something for free, but that the thief removed from me something that I rightfully ought to still have. That doesn't necessarily mean copyright isn't justified: one can argue for a positive right to control distribution and reproductions of one's intellectual productions. But I think it has to be argued for on completely different ethical grounds from the traditional ones used to justify theft being banned, because someone copying a book in their own home, on their own photocopier, isn't a violation of security of one's person/property in the same sense that assault or theft are. The main reasonable grounds I can think of are a good-of-society kind of argument: that the government creating a new positive right, the "copy right", is good for society, because it encourages the production of things that society wishes to encourage the production of, by providing a mechanism to reward creators with income.
      - jules 16y ago
        I agree, but I don't see as big of a difference between theft and piracy. As a software developer people pirating it sure does feel like theft. It evokes exactly the same kind of feeling as when somebody stole something physical from me. And the actual results for me are the same too: it costs me time and money. Moreover, the grounds for making theft illegal are good-of-society arguments too. Of course there are some differences too. Positive vs negative rights is just an artificial distinction. It doesn't make a difference to me as a software developer. About as interesting would be classifying things according to the letter they start with (T for theft and P for piracy). You can phrase copyright as a positive or a negative right, it's just a difference in the wording not an actual difference: "Copyright is the right to stop other people copying your work." "Copyright is that you're not allowed to copy the work of people who don't want that." Note how this is exactly the same as with property rights.
        _delirium 16y ago
        The positive v. negative rights distinction to me is that it involves trying to control how people behave in their own homes, versus how people interact with you. Theft fundamentally is bad because it is an unwanted intrusion: you're on that person's land, or in their house, or rummaging around their shed. But I can copy something without ever intruding anywhere. If I buy a Honda, and then carefully build a replica in my shed, with my own tools and materials, this isn't a violation of Honda's property in the same way that breaking into their factory and taking one of their cars would be. It isn't even a violation in the same way that breaking into their factory at night and building my own car using their assembly line would be--- I'm building it 100% with my own materials, on my own assembly line. It is still a violation of their design copyright, but that seems much different to me.
        jules 16y ago
        That's not what positive/negative right means, but OK. I doubt that many people would agree that theft is bad because someone is on your land. Theft is bad because someone is taking something away from you, and you'd otherwise be able to use the thing, and now you have to buy or make a new one. If I dropped my bag on the street and somebody takes it that's still theft, and the reason why it's bad is because I want to have that bag, not because I don't like it when somebody touches my bag. If you put a crack of my software online I effectively don't own that software anymore, because I can't use it anymore in the way I was (selling it). So perhaps it's more similar to destruction of property. You could say that I shouldn't have expected to be able to sell the software in the first place, but that's not true because copyright law gives me that right. Whether you think that copyright law should be removed/changed or not, while the law is still in place making a crack is effectively the same as destroying my property.
- indrax 16y ago
  >People are not entitled to get it for free if I want them to pay me for it. People are entitled, no, people have a right to reproduce information they have. You do not own it. If you think commercial programmers are getting paid for the value they provide, you don't understand the market or economics. (Hint: if software cost that much, no one would buy it.)
  - jules 16y ago
    I do own it. By law. And they cannot legally copy and distribute it. Read up on copyright law. > If you think commercial programmers are getting paid for the value they provide, you don't understand the market or economics. (Hint: if software cost that much, no one would buy it.) So are you saying that nobody is buying software? Software does cost "that much" and people are buying it.
    - indrax 16y ago
      >I do own it. By law. And they cannot legally copy and distribute it. Read up on copyright law. This discussion is on whether deprivation of income is sufficient to qualify as an ethical violation. You claimed that people are not entitled to get something for free "if I want them to pay me for it". (Really?) I asserted a general right to copy information. This right does not need to come from law, though law ought to recognize it. I understand the law, what is the justification of the law? >So are you saying that nobody is buying software? Software does cost "that much" and people are buying it. No, you said: >Name any big consumer application that could have been developed that way with developers getting paid about the same as they would by selling it (i.e. about the same as the value they provide). Virtually nothing is sold at the price of the value it provides. It it were, the buyer would get no gains from trade. In truth, commercial software is frequently sold way below the price of the value it provides. This is why people buy it. (though the provided value will vary from buyer to buyer.) Some will make their whole income with visual studio or photo shop, but only pay a tiny fraction of that. I realize you see an injustice in rampant copying, but I don't think you're thinking through your arguments, or not wording them well. Because these are coming out very obviously flawed.

by indrax 16y ago

jules 16y ago

If I create software I am entitled to sell it. People are not entitled to get it for free if I want them to pay me for it. Yes, it costs me nothing if they pirate it. But can I steal a car from a factory if I pay them the marginal cost of producing it? Of course not. Paying for content creation is a fantasy in software. Name any big consumer application that could have been developed that way with developers getting paid about the same as they would by selling it (i.e. about the same as the value they provide).

_delirium 16y ago
> But can I steal a car from a factory if I pay them the marginal cost of producing it? If you can find a way to do so without entering the factory, or removing any of the factory's contents, then sure. The traditional law of theft is a purely negative right to not have your property removed from your possession, not any sort of positive right.
- jules 16y ago
  There are two issues here: 1. The law-technical issue. I suppose we agree that piracy is illegal. That there are different laws for the two things is not very interesting in my opinion. 2. The ethical issue. Do you agree that the end results for the factory and for the developer, namely reduced income, are the same?
  - _delirium 16y ago
    On the 2nd one, reduced income isn't very interesting to me, since I don't believe there's any ethical right to make income from things in the first place. Traditional views on theft I think are justified by a negative right to not have the security of one's person and possessions violated, e.g. to be free from assault, burglary, etc. So with traditional theft, I don't see the wrong being that the thief got something for free, but that the thief removed from me something that I rightfully ought to still have. That doesn't necessarily mean copyright isn't justified: one can argue for a positive right to control distribution and reproductions of one's intellectual productions. But I think it has to be argued for on completely different ethical grounds from the traditional ones used to justify theft being banned, because someone copying a book in their own home, on their own photocopier, isn't a violation of security of one's person/property in the same sense that assault or theft are. The main reasonable grounds I can think of are a good-of-society kind of argument: that the government creating a new positive right, the "copy right", is good for society, because it encourages the production of things that society wishes to encourage the production of, by providing a mechanism to reward creators with income.
    - jules 16y ago
      I agree, but I don't see as big of a difference between theft and piracy. As a software developer people pirating it sure does feel like theft. It evokes exactly the same kind of feeling as when somebody stole something physical from me. And the actual results for me are the same too: it costs me time and money. Moreover, the grounds for making theft illegal are good-of-society arguments too. Of course there are some differences too. Positive vs negative rights is just an artificial distinction. It doesn't make a difference to me as a software developer. About as interesting would be classifying things according to the letter they start with (T for theft and P for piracy). You can phrase copyright as a positive or a negative right, it's just a difference in the wording not an actual difference: "Copyright is the right to stop other people copying your work." "Copyright is that you're not allowed to copy the work of people who don't want that." Note how this is exactly the same as with property rights.
      - _delirium 16y ago
        The positive v. negative rights distinction to me is that it involves trying to control how people behave in their own homes, versus how people interact with you. Theft fundamentally is bad because it is an unwanted intrusion: you're on that person's land, or in their house, or rummaging around their shed. But I can copy something without ever intruding anywhere. If I buy a Honda, and then carefully build a replica in my shed, with my own tools and materials, this isn't a violation of Honda's property in the same way that breaking into their factory and taking one of their cars would be. It isn't even a violation in the same way that breaking into their factory at night and building my own car using their assembly line would be--- I'm building it 100% with my own materials, on my own assembly line. It is still a violation of their design copyright, but that seems much different to me.
        jules 16y ago
        That's not what positive/negative right means, but OK. I doubt that many people would agree that theft is bad because someone is on your land. Theft is bad because someone is taking something away from you, and you'd otherwise be able to use the thing, and now you have to buy or make a new one. If I dropped my bag on the street and somebody takes it that's still theft, and the reason why it's bad is because I want to have that bag, not because I don't like it when somebody touches my bag. If you put a crack of my software online I effectively don't own that software anymore, because I can't use it anymore in the way I was (selling it). So perhaps it's more similar to destruction of property. You could say that I shouldn't have expected to be able to sell the software in the first place, but that's not true because copyright law gives me that right. Whether you think that copyright law should be removed/changed or not, while the law is still in place making a crack is effectively the same as destroying my property.
indrax 16y ago
>People are not entitled to get it for free if I want them to pay me for it. People are entitled, no, people have a right to reproduce information they have. You do not own it. If you think commercial programmers are getting paid for the value they provide, you don't understand the market or economics. (Hint: if software cost that much, no one would buy it.)
- jules 16y ago
  I do own it. By law. And they cannot legally copy and distribute it. Read up on copyright law. > If you think commercial programmers are getting paid for the value they provide, you don't understand the market or economics. (Hint: if software cost that much, no one would buy it.) So are you saying that nobody is buying software? Software does cost "that much" and people are buying it.
  - indrax 16y ago
    >I do own it. By law. And they cannot legally copy and distribute it. Read up on copyright law. This discussion is on whether deprivation of income is sufficient to qualify as an ethical violation. You claimed that people are not entitled to get something for free "if I want them to pay me for it". (Really?) I asserted a general right to copy information. This right does not need to come from law, though law ought to recognize it. I understand the law, what is the justification of the law? >So are you saying that nobody is buying software? Software does cost "that much" and people are buying it. No, you said: >Name any big consumer application that could have been developed that way with developers getting paid about the same as they would by selling it (i.e. about the same as the value they provide). Virtually nothing is sold at the price of the value it provides. It it were, the buyer would get no gains from trade. In truth, commercial software is frequently sold way below the price of the value it provides. This is why people buy it. (though the provided value will vary from buyer to buyer.) Some will make their whole income with visual studio or photo shop, but only pay a tiny fraction of that. I realize you see an injustice in rampant copying, but I don't think you're thinking through your arguments, or not wording them well. Because these are coming out very obviously flawed.