4 ms·

Piracy isn't stealing, that's intellectual property lobbyist propaganda. I would happily download a car: zero cost reproduction of useful things makes society

by cwkoss 7y ago

Piracy isn't stealing, that's intellectual property lobbyist propaganda. I would happily download a car: zero cost reproduction of useful things makes society as a whole richer. The content industry needs to figure out a new business model to adapt to the information age, and the longer people pay for digital content the more funds these outdated relics will have for legislating a moat around their "property". I'd much prefer a kickstarter or patreon-like model where superfans could fund and watch and participate in development.

edoceo 7y ago
I agree with the philosophy. But look: MS, ORACLE, Disney all produce easily replicatable product. And currently, laws and licensing they sell under say, effectively, pay us. If you take the thing they want to legally charge for then that is theft. And if what you want is a new model in a brave New world then one must take the effort. Be the change you want to see. Not by simply stealing from those you disagree with, philosophically, but by disregarding them completely. And then rewarding those that also participate in your same perspective. It's hard. But I can't justify theft just caused they're assholes. Eventually everyone's the asshole.
planetzero 7y ago
"Piracy isn't stealing, that's intellectual property lobbyist propaganda." You're correct, but it's worse than theft. When you steal a car, just that car is stolen. Piracy devalues the original product...something theft can't really ever do. "I would happily download a car: zero cost reproduction of useful things makes society as a whole richer." But how much did it cost to produce the first car? and do you actually think anyone would put that much time and effort into the first car if they didn't a way to make a profit or at least their money back? In your world, technology will only go so far..which is a disservice to humanity. "The content industry needs to figure out a new business model to adapt to the information age" They have: streaming services. Your mentality is why we will only have services that we pay for in the future and won't be able to install software or get a Blue ray. "I'd much prefer a kickstarter or patreon-like model where superfans could fund and watch and participate in development." Which wouldn't even get close to the amount of money needed to develop this kind of content. You aren't being rebellious. You are just giving excuses as to why you would rather just download something for free instead of paying for it. I remember in the 90s the excuse du jour for music piracy was that it would help independent artists. It's only made it so most independent artists can't really make a living anymore and pushed everything to large corporations.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  Culture is public. By arguing that it should be privately owned, you are effectively saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to participate. Disney's business model has been destroying the potential of thousands of great artists who failed to reach cultural relevancy because their parents were barely making ends meet and couldn't afford to buy in, and the cultural language is now locked behind a gate with a toll (if it can be licensed at all). Why are the greedy profit motivations of a giant multinational corporation more important to you than poor children's cultural participation? You aren't being a rational realist, you are just being selfish and classist. Disney built their business on the back of the public domain. Every single great movie they made builds off the work of others. Now they are trying to silo these once-free properties behind IP laws to shut the door behind themselves. Can you name single great work of art created by Disney that isn't mostly derivative? Reflect on why you can't: they are monetizers of existing culture, not creators of originality.
  - wolco 7y ago
    Any personal photos you and your family take are part of culture. Should they be public or do you get to decide? Much of culture is private. Poor people not participating in Disney content doesn't take into account the content on public tv or libruaries that will loan dvds either. The price of a month of Disney+ will make things cheaper as well.
    - takeda 7y ago
      That's not how it works, copyright doesn't protect privacy, those are two separate things. Disney is a company that took folk stories that lived in public domain, packaged it and released as their own. That's ok, the works were public domain anyway. The problem is that after that, they continue to lobby in a way that no future works will ever enter public domain. Our constitution says that copyright needs to expire, there is a loophole though, because it doesn't say when it should expire, so every time Mickey Mouse copyright is about to expire they lobby the congress to extend it further. The copyright originally lasted 10 years, now it's 120 years after author's death.
  - 7y ago
julienb_sea 7y ago
Patreon and kickstarter models function based on closed-off perks for the supporters, not just superfans ready to give money for no reason. This is reliant on some protection for those perks, otherwise there is no reason for that model. The idea that piracy isn't stealing is nonsense. Why don't you try creating something, then having someone rip it off against your will, plaster it all over their ad-supported platform and flip you the bird when you ask for a share of proceeds.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  Early access seems to be a pretty common model, which I think is pretty effective. I like that as a minimally-coercive incentive: everyone gets access, but you can pay to access it a week sooner. This is the most common model used by Youtubers AFAICT. I have had my content "stolen". Someone in China likely made more off the game I wrote than I did: good for them, I would have never been able to reach that market. I was focused on making a quality web-game and they iframed it with ads. Didn't hurt me a bit - even helped a bit because I continued getting analytics from these new users. My inability to create a self-perpetuating monetization strategy for my game does not mean that I'm owed anything: if people donated more I would have worked on it longer, but they didn't so I didn't. Fond memories for everyone involved. I view the idea that "nobody should be able to make money from the fruits of my labor" rooted in pettiness and insecurity. If you can consistently create good things at a good pace, people will support you. I didn't meet that bar, got a 'real' job, and that's fine. The idea that a single work of creation should be able to support someone for years (or even the rest of their lives) is a fantasy that only entered the public zeitgeist in the past few decades: I suspect largely as the result of IP trolls like Disney, MPAA and RIAA.
- NoodleIncident 7y ago
  Big kickstarters often send out physical goods as rewards. In general, the rewards on both platforms are only interesting to superfans in the first place, whether they're physical or digital. It would be impossible to measure, but I can't imagine it's that common for those exclusive rewards to be pirated, or for someone to decide not to give money because they can get the restricted content for free. If your argument is that both theft and piracy make the "owner" of the "property" feel bad, then I don't think that really proves they're the same thing. Neither does the fact that in both cases, someone who did not create the product is profiting from it; it's not a zero-sum game, their profit isn't equal to your loss.

by cwkoss 7y ago

edoceo 7y ago

I agree with the philosophy. But look: MS, ORACLE, Disney all produce easily replicatable product. And currently, laws and licensing they sell under say, effectively, pay us. If you take the thing they want to legally charge for then that is theft. And if what you want is a new model in a brave New world then one must take the effort. Be the change you want to see. Not by simply stealing from those you disagree with, philosophically, but by disregarding them completely. And then rewarding those that also participate in your same perspective. It's hard. But I can't justify theft just caused they're assholes. Eventually everyone's the asshole.

planetzero 7y ago

"Piracy isn't stealing, that's intellectual property lobbyist propaganda." You're correct, but it's worse than theft. When you steal a car, just that car is stolen. Piracy devalues the original product...something theft can't really ever do. "I would happily download a car: zero cost reproduction of useful things makes society as a whole richer." But how much did it cost to produce the first car? and do you actually think anyone would put that much time and effort into the first car if they didn't a way to make a profit or at least their money back? In your world, technology will only go so far..which is a disservice to humanity. "The content industry needs to figure out a new business model to adapt to the information age" They have: streaming services. Your mentality is why we will only have services that we pay for in the future and won't be able to install software or get a Blue ray. "I'd much prefer a kickstarter or patreon-like model where superfans could fund and watch and participate in development." Which wouldn't even get close to the amount of money needed to develop this kind of content. You aren't being rebellious. You are just giving excuses as to why you would rather just download something for free instead of paying for it. I remember in the 90s the excuse du jour for music piracy was that it would help independent artists. It's only made it so most independent artists can't really make a living anymore and pushed everything to large corporations.

cwkoss 7y ago
Culture is public. By arguing that it should be privately owned, you are effectively saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed to participate. Disney's business model has been destroying the potential of thousands of great artists who failed to reach cultural relevancy because their parents were barely making ends meet and couldn't afford to buy in, and the cultural language is now locked behind a gate with a toll (if it can be licensed at all). Why are the greedy profit motivations of a giant multinational corporation more important to you than poor children's cultural participation? You aren't being a rational realist, you are just being selfish and classist. Disney built their business on the back of the public domain. Every single great movie they made builds off the work of others. Now they are trying to silo these once-free properties behind IP laws to shut the door behind themselves. Can you name single great work of art created by Disney that isn't mostly derivative? Reflect on why you can't: they are monetizers of existing culture, not creators of originality.
- wolco 7y ago
  Any personal photos you and your family take are part of culture. Should they be public or do you get to decide? Much of culture is private. Poor people not participating in Disney content doesn't take into account the content on public tv or libruaries that will loan dvds either. The price of a month of Disney+ will make things cheaper as well.
  - takeda 7y ago
    That's not how it works, copyright doesn't protect privacy, those are two separate things. Disney is a company that took folk stories that lived in public domain, packaged it and released as their own. That's ok, the works were public domain anyway. The problem is that after that, they continue to lobby in a way that no future works will ever enter public domain. Our constitution says that copyright needs to expire, there is a loophole though, because it doesn't say when it should expire, so every time Mickey Mouse copyright is about to expire they lobby the congress to extend it further. The copyright originally lasted 10 years, now it's 120 years after author's death.
- 7y ago

julienb_sea 7y ago

Patreon and kickstarter models function based on closed-off perks for the supporters, not just superfans ready to give money for no reason. This is reliant on some protection for those perks, otherwise there is no reason for that model. The idea that piracy isn't stealing is nonsense. Why don't you try creating something, then having someone rip it off against your will, plaster it all over their ad-supported platform and flip you the bird when you ask for a share of proceeds.

cwkoss 7y ago
Early access seems to be a pretty common model, which I think is pretty effective. I like that as a minimally-coercive incentive: everyone gets access, but you can pay to access it a week sooner. This is the most common model used by Youtubers AFAICT. I have had my content "stolen". Someone in China likely made more off the game I wrote than I did: good for them, I would have never been able to reach that market. I was focused on making a quality web-game and they iframed it with ads. Didn't hurt me a bit - even helped a bit because I continued getting analytics from these new users. My inability to create a self-perpetuating monetization strategy for my game does not mean that I'm owed anything: if people donated more I would have worked on it longer, but they didn't so I didn't. Fond memories for everyone involved. I view the idea that "nobody should be able to make money from the fruits of my labor" rooted in pettiness and insecurity. If you can consistently create good things at a good pace, people will support you. I didn't meet that bar, got a 'real' job, and that's fine. The idea that a single work of creation should be able to support someone for years (or even the rest of their lives) is a fantasy that only entered the public zeitgeist in the past few decades: I suspect largely as the result of IP trolls like Disney, MPAA and RIAA.
NoodleIncident 7y ago
Big kickstarters often send out physical goods as rewards. In general, the rewards on both platforms are only interesting to superfans in the first place, whether they're physical or digital. It would be impossible to measure, but I can't imagine it's that common for those exclusive rewards to be pirated, or for someone to decide not to give money because they can get the restricted content for free. If your argument is that both theft and piracy make the "owner" of the "property" feel bad, then I don't think that really proves they're the same thing. Neither does the fact that in both cases, someone who did not create the product is profiting from it; it's not a zero-sum game, their profit isn't equal to your loss.