4 ms·

Just about the only lick of sense in this discussion. I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures

Just about the only lick of sense in this discussion. I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and where many donate to the unpaid author of widely-pirated shareware [1], would appear to be so laissez-faire on this issue. Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good. I suspect you would have a better sense of perspective if people could create and use "paid" accounts on your shiny web services without paying. Anecdotes of (c) described in the parent are few and far between, and don't justify the instances of (b) or the unintended consequences / moral hazard of (a). (Disclosure: I sell software for a living, and have discovered [and reconciled] piracy of my products by very large organizations in the past. I imagine there are many other instances I'm not aware of.) [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2282875 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2282875

petercooper 16y ago
I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and where many donate to the unpaid author of widely-pirated shareware [1], would appear to be so laissez-faire on this issue. Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good. Did anyone here really say that copyright infringement was good? Saying that it's not "theft" doesn't automatically throw one into the pro-piracy camp. Copyright infringement can certainly be wrong and extremely detrimental to our culture - that's why we have copyright laws in the first place.
- jellicle 16y ago
  Well, no. There's no morality to copyright infringement laws, and if we were to apply a moral component, it would clearly come down on the side of freedom of information. Copyright laws are at best amoral, and at worst immoral. "Why we have copyright laws in the first place" is because corporations lobbied for them - self-interest. There's no moral component.
  - cemerick 16y ago
    That view would seem to have some pretty far-reaching consequences, insofar as many of us produce information of one sort or another and nothing else. Sounds like the only way we should expect to get paid is through generous benefactors and donations.
    - muuh-gnu 16y ago
      > many of us produce information of one sort or another > Sounds like the only way we should expect to get paid is > through generous benefactors and donations. Or stop producing information and start producing something which people voluntarily pay for. What youre doing now is basically legislating prohibition of copying so you can make a living by selling copies. Trying to make a living by producing and selling copies in an age where everybody and their dog can produce copies themselves effortlessly is a ridiculously bad business decision. It is so outworldlishly ridiculous that it is no suprise, that most of those who for some reason chose that path can not come up with a solution to their little problem than crying for protectionism to ban DIY. It is no different than the story of the french button wars: * http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070110/004225.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070110/004225.shtml * http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A23623616 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A23623616
      - cemerick 16y ago
        > something which people voluntarily pay for When was the last time you were forced to pay for something you didn't want? I know that isn't what you meant, but if the producer of a good is not capable of determining the terms under which that good is sold/licensed, then you're still in effect talking about donations. This has nothing to do with buttons: there's no aristocracy attempting to limit your access to that ebook or that piece of software. The creator set a price, and you're saying it should be perfectly fine for anyone to read that book or use that software for free, whether the creator agrees to that or not. "DIY" isn't pulling torrents, it would be producing the content or software you want to consume or use yourself.
        16y ago
- cemerick 16y ago
  No, I said people here "appear to be laissez-faire on this issue". I'd say that's accurate, given that the primary interest appears to be the semantics of "theft" vs. "copyright infringement" while the practical effect in many cases is the same. My experience with the issue includes an incident where an organization with revenues in the multiple billions of dollars used the software I built in a widespread way for free for years without a license or payment. They were provided with technical support when they had problems by indicating that they were evaluating the software (when they had actually routed around the license-verification routines in the distributable). It was only when a new manager there learned what was going on and contacted me did I learn the real story; we've since come to a fair arrangement. I probably could have made a lot more by suing them, but I don't need the distraction or the heartache. As far as I can tell, the countermeasures I could use to prevent the above would make life less pleasant for my paying customers. In the meantime, piracy continues to be viewed as a victimless action, even by those making full use of the copyrighted works in question and with plenty of resources to pay the price set by the creators.
  - henrikschroder 16y ago
    > My experience with the issue includes an incident where an organization with revenues in the multiple billions of dollars used the software I built I'm pretty sure noone here thinks that that specific case is ok. Technically there's no difference between that company pirating your software and someone illegaly downloading a movie off of the internet, the crime is the same, both actions are copyright infringement. But the main arguments of the pirate movement is that there is a difference between the actions and that the law should reflect that. Arguing that private non-commercial infringement should be allowed is different from arguing that commercial for-profit infringement should be allowed. There's a lot of people in this thread arguing the former, but noone arguing the latter.
    - macrael 16y ago
      Doesn't that thinking discourage the creation of consumer software? Just because someone isn't making money off of my software doesn't make it ok for them to have it for free.
yuvadam 16y ago
You do have a point that web services cannot be pirated, and if they could be, the HN community would have a different view on things. I'm not sure that's the case. Let's start with the base assumption that piracy is something that exists, and will forever exist. Just work your way around it, and use it for your advantage. For example, build your product so that the more users it has, even if they are illegal users, the overall experience improves. Don't fight battles you can't win. Use the circumstances to your advantage.
- cemerick 16y ago
  Yes, piracy will always exist, and there are lots of things that can be done to de-incentivize it. I do what I can. That's aside from the question of whether it should be considered normative, legal behaviour.
- mattgreenrocks 16y ago
  This also puts developers in a position where they're told to expect high piracy rates if they have the gall to write desktop applications and charge for them. This is more apparent the more you target the, ahem, 'power' user crowd, who is steeped in piracy.
commieneko 16y ago
If I hear a joke on TV one night, and I repeat it in a meeting at work the next day, I might even attribute it, but technically, I've committed (gasp) some type of infringement. Now we might "hrrumptffff" and try and call that "fair use" but what this really is, is a casual use. Now it's debatable whether or not we could actually function as a society if every little use was tracked, accounted for, and billed; technologically it's probably possible. But realistically, I don't want to live in a society where casual use of intellectual property (a concept that is harder to define than you might imagine) is minutely tracked and logged. We have a name for that kind of society, it's called a Police State. The bad news for Old Media (and commercial software developers) is that digital technology has made "casual use" almost frictionless. I can give my brother a copy of Jon Stewart's latest rant, half a dozen different ways, as easily, or easier, than I can repeat the high points over the phone. It's the _ease_ that defines casual. I write software for a living too. And I've worked in broadcast TV. My TV job, which paid pretty well, thank you, was screwed by the imploding broadcast industry. Boo hoo. The price of progress. If I have to suck it up and re-invent myself, then Old Media can too. The recording industry did it to live performers, the TV industry did it to Radio. The VCR ... well you get the idea. The only way to stop it is a nuclear war or a police state. I'm not trying to minimize this. This is a weather change in the way media works. It is gonna be _hard_. But worrying about old models, and trying to prop up old players, who add little value in the new world, is only going to make it harder.
stcredzero 16y ago
Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good. Wrong or right, good or bad, there are smart ways to get what you want and not so smart ways that don't work. Taking non-corporate pirates head-on often doesn't work, and is often counter-productive. Taking pirates on indirectly is often a better option. (Use direct conflict as a last resort. It tends to be expensive.)

petercooper 16y ago

I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and where many donate to the unpaid author of widely-pirated shareware [1], would appear to be so laissez-faire on this issue. Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good. Did anyone here really say that copyright infringement was good? Saying that it's not "theft" doesn't automatically throw one into the pro-piracy camp. Copyright infringement can certainly be wrong and extremely detrimental to our culture - that's why we have copyright laws in the first place.

jellicle 16y ago
Well, no. There's no morality to copyright infringement laws, and if we were to apply a moral component, it would clearly come down on the side of freedom of information. Copyright laws are at best amoral, and at worst immoral. "Why we have copyright laws in the first place" is because corporations lobbied for them - self-interest. There's no moral component.
- cemerick 16y ago
  That view would seem to have some pretty far-reaching consequences, insofar as many of us produce information of one sort or another and nothing else. Sounds like the only way we should expect to get paid is through generous benefactors and donations.
  - muuh-gnu 16y ago
    > many of us produce information of one sort or another > Sounds like the only way we should expect to get paid is > through generous benefactors and donations. Or stop producing information and start producing something which people voluntarily pay for. What youre doing now is basically legislating prohibition of copying so you can make a living by selling copies. Trying to make a living by producing and selling copies in an age where everybody and their dog can produce copies themselves effortlessly is a ridiculously bad business decision. It is so outworldlishly ridiculous that it is no suprise, that most of those who for some reason chose that path can not come up with a solution to their little problem than crying for protectionism to ban DIY. It is no different than the story of the french button wars: * http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070110/004225.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070110/004225.shtml * http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A23623616 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A23623616
    - cemerick 16y ago
      > something which people voluntarily pay for When was the last time you were forced to pay for something you didn't want? I know that isn't what you meant, but if the producer of a good is not capable of determining the terms under which that good is sold/licensed, then you're still in effect talking about donations. This has nothing to do with buttons: there's no aristocracy attempting to limit your access to that ebook or that piece of software. The creator set a price, and you're saying it should be perfectly fine for anyone to read that book or use that software for free, whether the creator agrees to that or not. "DIY" isn't pulling torrents, it would be producing the content or software you want to consume or use yourself.
      - 16y ago
cemerick 16y ago
No, I said people here "appear to be laissez-faire on this issue". I'd say that's accurate, given that the primary interest appears to be the semantics of "theft" vs. "copyright infringement" while the practical effect in many cases is the same. My experience with the issue includes an incident where an organization with revenues in the multiple billions of dollars used the software I built in a widespread way for free for years without a license or payment. They were provided with technical support when they had problems by indicating that they were evaluating the software (when they had actually routed around the license-verification routines in the distributable). It was only when a new manager there learned what was going on and contacted me did I learn the real story; we've since come to a fair arrangement. I probably could have made a lot more by suing them, but I don't need the distraction or the heartache. As far as I can tell, the countermeasures I could use to prevent the above would make life less pleasant for my paying customers. In the meantime, piracy continues to be viewed as a victimless action, even by those making full use of the copyrighted works in question and with plenty of resources to pay the price set by the creators.
- henrikschroder 16y ago
  > My experience with the issue includes an incident where an organization with revenues in the multiple billions of dollars used the software I built I'm pretty sure noone here thinks that that specific case is ok. Technically there's no difference between that company pirating your software and someone illegaly downloading a movie off of the internet, the crime is the same, both actions are copyright infringement. But the main arguments of the pirate movement is that there is a difference between the actions and that the law should reflect that. Arguing that private non-commercial infringement should be allowed is different from arguing that commercial for-profit infringement should be allowed. There's a lot of people in this thread arguing the former, but noone arguing the latter.
  - macrael 16y ago
    Doesn't that thinking discourage the creation of consumer software? Just because someone isn't making money off of my software doesn't make it ok for them to have it for free.

yuvadam 16y ago

You do have a point that web services cannot be pirated, and if they could be, the HN community would have a different view on things. I'm not sure that's the case. Let's start with the base assumption that piracy is something that exists, and will forever exist. Just work your way around it, and use it for your advantage. For example, build your product so that the more users it has, even if they are illegal users, the overall experience improves. Don't fight battles you can't win. Use the circumstances to your advantage.

cemerick 16y ago
Yes, piracy will always exist, and there are lots of things that can be done to de-incentivize it. I do what I can. That's aside from the question of whether it should be considered normative, legal behaviour.
mattgreenrocks 16y ago
This also puts developers in a position where they're told to expect high piracy rates if they have the gall to write desktop applications and charge for them. This is more apparent the more you target the, ahem, 'power' user crowd, who is steeped in piracy.

commieneko 16y ago

If I hear a joke on TV one night, and I repeat it in a meeting at work the next day, I might even attribute it, but technically, I've committed (gasp) some type of infringement. Now we might "hrrumptffff" and try and call that "fair use" but what this really is, is a casual use. Now it's debatable whether or not we could actually function as a society if every little use was tracked, accounted for, and billed; technologically it's probably possible. But realistically, I don't want to live in a society where casual use of intellectual property (a concept that is harder to define than you might imagine) is minutely tracked and logged. We have a name for that kind of society, it's called a Police State. The bad news for Old Media (and commercial software developers) is that digital technology has made "casual use" almost frictionless. I can give my brother a copy of Jon Stewart's latest rant, half a dozen different ways, as easily, or easier, than I can repeat the high points over the phone. It's the _ease_ that defines casual. I write software for a living too. And I've worked in broadcast TV. My TV job, which paid pretty well, thank you, was screwed by the imploding broadcast industry. Boo hoo. The price of progress. If I have to suck it up and re-invent myself, then Old Media can too. The recording industry did it to live performers, the TV industry did it to Radio. The VCR ... well you get the idea. The only way to stop it is a nuclear war or a police state. I'm not trying to minimize this. This is a weather change in the way media works. It is gonna be _hard_. But worrying about old models, and trying to prop up old players, who add little value in the new world, is only going to make it harder.

stcredzero 16y ago

Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good. Wrong or right, good or bad, there are smart ways to get what you want and not so smart ways that don't work. Taking non-corporate pirates head-on often doesn't work, and is often counter-productive. Taking pirates on indirectly is often a better option. (Use direct conflict as a last resort. It tends to be expensive.)