7 ms·

> Only the original copy must be paid for. We are only paying for the original copy, but distributing that payment over many people and over time so it doesn't

> Only the original copy must be paid for. We are only paying for the original copy, but distributing that payment over many people and over time so it doesn't hurt as much - which single person is going to pay $10K or $1M or $50M for a song or movie?

matheusmoreira 6y ago
> which single person is going to pay $1M or $50 million for a song or movie? Why not crowdfund those amounts instead? That way, all creators get paid before the work even starts and the result can be safely released into the public domain. We need to develop alternative business models like this in order to replace copyright. Cultural works must be treated like an investment.
- abakker 6y ago
  that might be a great idea, except this thread started with the blanket statement that we should all just steal it, not invest at all. Maybe cultural investment can be coordinated, but until then, I think the solution should be for the distributed act of paying for what you want will be preferable. The less-than-optimal implementation of copyright doesn't justify theft.
  - sjy 6y ago
    If you agree that copyright is less-than-optimal, but you don’t think that civil disobedience of copyright laws is helpful or ethical, then what suggestion do you have for reforming the system? To my mind, “less-than-optimal” is an understatement of the problems with the copyright model, particularly as applied to libraries and academic research.
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    > this thread started with the blanket statement that we should all just steal it No, I said that the choice to "pirate" was always available and that the way the copyright industry was trying to remove that choice was problematic. > The less-than-optimal implementation of copyright doesn't justify theft. Copyright infringement is not theft. Prevention of copyright infringement doesn't justify abusive and invasive DRM technologies either. The copyright industry should not gain full control over what software is allowed to run on people's computers just because they're losing money.
    - Silhouette 6y ago
      Copyright infringement is not theft. That's just a legal technicality. Either the viewer got to enjoy the work and the rightsholder got the corresponding money in their bank account, or they didn't. Whether a work was ripped before any payment was made, or the work was legally acquired but then the payment was stolen back from the bank account, the end result is functionally the same.
      - account42 6y ago
        By that logic you should be able to sue people for lost sales because they were not interested in your product at all.
      - DanBC 6y ago
        > That's just a legal technicality. No, it really isn't. The vast majority of copyright infringement isn't even a criminal offence. It becomes a criminal offence if you do it as part of business, or if you distort trade to a significant amount.
- thinkloop 6y ago
  > Why not crowdfund those amounts instead? That way, all creators get paid before the work even starts and the result can be safely released into the public domain. Then shouldn't every business have to follow the same rules? Making a "copy" of an iPhone costs $20 or $30, should Apple have to crowdsource their factory and IP then sell iPhones by weight or value of raw material? Why do content creators get screwed because physics doesn't let them attach an atom to their creation? The vast majortiy of what you pay for in any product is the creation, not the material.
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    > Then shouldn't every business have to follow the same rules? No. Physical goods are actually scarce. Making copies costs lots of money and finite resources. Making copies of data is as easy as copy paste. Copying data actually does cost money due to electricity, storage and bandwidth costs but this is so widely distributed over the general population it might as well be zero. > Making a "copy" of an iPhone costs $20 or $30 I thought electronics factories cost billions of dollars to set up and operate. > Should Apple have to crowdsource their factory and IP then sell iPhones by weight or value of raw material? Not at all. > Why do content creators get screwed because physics doesn't let them attach an atom to their creation? Because data is really just a number. Like all numbers, all creations already exist. The creator just happened to somehow find the exact sequence of bits that represents the picture or music being imagined. All intellectual work boils down to this. Even programming. Trying to sell data is like trying to sell numbers. It just makes no sense. > The vast majortiy of what you pay for in any product is the creation, not the material. Yes, but physical products actually lend themselves well to being sold in a free market since they're actually scarce. This allows companies to recoup the costs associated with intellectual work. This model breaks down when people want to do nothing but intellectual work and sell the resulting data as if it were a physical good. That's when people start coming up with insane ideas such as intellectual property, copyright, patents and god knows what else. It actually worked well for centuries... Until people invented computers, a technology that trivialized the copying and worldwide distribution of data. We have computers in our pockets and homes which can copy and distribute data worldwide with zero effort and cost on our part. Data simply isn't scarce. Maybe one day we'll invent Star Trek replicators and making physical copies of iPhones will be similarly trivial.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  We need to develop alternative business models like this in order to replace copyright. Indeed. So where is the evidence that any of the alternatives anyone has tried so far can reliably come even close (within an order of magnitude, say) to funding the same quality and quantity of creative work as we support today through copyright?
  - denkmoon 6y ago
    Bandcamp, Patreon works well. No idea if it would work for something like Taylor Swift, but it absolutely works for smaller artists. Even the most technologically lay person can "pirate" music. Most people I know just listen to music on youtube. Rarely if ever do profits from listening to small artists on youtube actually reach them. So, in effect, the product is easily acquired for free and there is no practical incentive to buy the product. Yet indie artists still sustain themselves through sites like bandcamp, where devoted users can pay what they think the song/album is worth. I do so in the hope that they will create more works that I enjoy. That's the business model.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> which single person is going to pay $1M or $50 million for a song or movie? Why not crowdfund those amounts instead? That way, all creators get paid before the work even starts and the result can be safely released into the public domain. We need to develop alternative business models like this in order to replace copyright. Cultural works must be treated like an investment.

abakker 6y ago
that might be a great idea, except this thread started with the blanket statement that we should all just steal it, not invest at all. Maybe cultural investment can be coordinated, but until then, I think the solution should be for the distributed act of paying for what you want will be preferable. The less-than-optimal implementation of copyright doesn't justify theft.
- sjy 6y ago
  If you agree that copyright is less-than-optimal, but you don’t think that civil disobedience of copyright laws is helpful or ethical, then what suggestion do you have for reforming the system? To my mind, “less-than-optimal” is an understatement of the problems with the copyright model, particularly as applied to libraries and academic research.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  > this thread started with the blanket statement that we should all just steal it No, I said that the choice to "pirate" was always available and that the way the copyright industry was trying to remove that choice was problematic. > The less-than-optimal implementation of copyright doesn't justify theft. Copyright infringement is not theft. Prevention of copyright infringement doesn't justify abusive and invasive DRM technologies either. The copyright industry should not gain full control over what software is allowed to run on people's computers just because they're losing money.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    Copyright infringement is not theft. That's just a legal technicality. Either the viewer got to enjoy the work and the rightsholder got the corresponding money in their bank account, or they didn't. Whether a work was ripped before any payment was made, or the work was legally acquired but then the payment was stolen back from the bank account, the end result is functionally the same.
    - account42 6y ago
      By that logic you should be able to sue people for lost sales because they were not interested in your product at all.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      > That's just a legal technicality. No, it really isn't. The vast majority of copyright infringement isn't even a criminal offence. It becomes a criminal offence if you do it as part of business, or if you distort trade to a significant amount.
thinkloop 6y ago
> Why not crowdfund those amounts instead? That way, all creators get paid before the work even starts and the result can be safely released into the public domain. Then shouldn't every business have to follow the same rules? Making a "copy" of an iPhone costs $20 or $30, should Apple have to crowdsource their factory and IP then sell iPhones by weight or value of raw material? Why do content creators get screwed because physics doesn't let them attach an atom to their creation? The vast majortiy of what you pay for in any product is the creation, not the material.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  > Then shouldn't every business have to follow the same rules? No. Physical goods are actually scarce. Making copies costs lots of money and finite resources. Making copies of data is as easy as copy paste. Copying data actually does cost money due to electricity, storage and bandwidth costs but this is so widely distributed over the general population it might as well be zero. > Making a "copy" of an iPhone costs $20 or $30 I thought electronics factories cost billions of dollars to set up and operate. > Should Apple have to crowdsource their factory and IP then sell iPhones by weight or value of raw material? Not at all. > Why do content creators get screwed because physics doesn't let them attach an atom to their creation? Because data is really just a number. Like all numbers, all creations already exist. The creator just happened to somehow find the exact sequence of bits that represents the picture or music being imagined. All intellectual work boils down to this. Even programming. Trying to sell data is like trying to sell numbers. It just makes no sense. > The vast majortiy of what you pay for in any product is the creation, not the material. Yes, but physical products actually lend themselves well to being sold in a free market since they're actually scarce. This allows companies to recoup the costs associated with intellectual work. This model breaks down when people want to do nothing but intellectual work and sell the resulting data as if it were a physical good. That's when people start coming up with insane ideas such as intellectual property, copyright, patents and god knows what else. It actually worked well for centuries... Until people invented computers, a technology that trivialized the copying and worldwide distribution of data. We have computers in our pockets and homes which can copy and distribute data worldwide with zero effort and cost on our part. Data simply isn't scarce. Maybe one day we'll invent Star Trek replicators and making physical copies of iPhones will be similarly trivial.
Silhouette 6y ago
We need to develop alternative business models like this in order to replace copyright. Indeed. So where is the evidence that any of the alternatives anyone has tried so far can reliably come even close (within an order of magnitude, say) to funding the same quality and quantity of creative work as we support today through copyright?
- denkmoon 6y ago
  Bandcamp, Patreon works well. No idea if it would work for something like Taylor Swift, but it absolutely works for smaller artists. Even the most technologically lay person can "pirate" music. Most people I know just listen to music on youtube. Rarely if ever do profits from listening to small artists on youtube actually reach them. So, in effect, the product is easily acquired for free and there is no practical incentive to buy the product. Yet indie artists still sustain themselves through sites like bandcamp, where devoted users can pay what they think the song/album is worth. I do so in the hope that they will create more works that I enjoy. That's the business model.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]