4 ms·

I think munificent gives a good justification for IP here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27716935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27716935 > I do n

by notJim 5y ago

I think munificent gives a good justification for IP here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27716935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27716935 > I do not derive consumer value from the IP itself (evidence: it's easy to pirate music, why would I when I have access everywhere to a huge catalog for $10 a month from Netflix) It's imperfect and in need of reform, but IP exists to ensure that some of that $10 gets funneled back to the people who created that work. I'm a photographer, and people steal photographs and use them for profit constantly. IP enables me to force them to pay me for creating that work. Yes distributing a JPEG has essentially zero marginal cost, but producing it required me to wake up at 3 AM and hike off into the woods. Aside from my time, I had costs like acquiring equipment and gas to drive out there. I don't work with models, but if I did, they would deserve to be paid for their labor as well.

version_five 5y ago
Thanks for responding (and I meant spotify in the excerpt from my post obviously). I dont presume to know your business, but the way I look at it, there's no inherent rule of natural justice that says you deserve to be compensated for creating (and having the government enforce) artificial barriers to accessing your work. I agree you have real costs, but you have options, for example photographing on a commission from a client that needs a new photo of something. Or if a stock photo service, that has paying clients because derive value from having quality photos aggregated, the service itself paying photographers because they find it convenient to get photos this way, then it all works out. But the concept of intellectual property is not necessary for it to do so. There may be other business models (like I say, I dont know that business) but I don't see how trying to create an artificial barrier around something is sustainable, and I dont see value in the IP itself, only in the convenience of getting it. Again concrete example, I subscribe to the Noun Project for icons, because they are all in one place, and it makes it hassle free and low cost to get icons for my job. Like Netflix, its about the catalog and convenience, and I pay them even though it's technically voluntary because I see a tangible value in it. Again, IP doesn't need to come into it, it's about compensation for a service or convenience, not inherently about the right to perpetual royalties from a piece of work.
- notJim 5y ago
  I think you have a massive free-rider problem with your proposal though. The Noun Project requires that you pay them or put attributions on the work. They would not be able to do this without IP protections, so most companies would use the free version. Not only that, but other companies would take their icons and use them to build their own catalogues. This would leave no one to pay for the creation of the icons. > I don't see how trying to create an artificial barrier around something is sustainable A world where no one can be paid to create work is not sustainable. IP is the backbone that makes all of this possible, due to the free rider problem. > photographing on a commission from a client that needs a new photo of something This does happen, but then the client gets exclusive rights to the photos they paid for. But under your world, this is impossible. Their competitors can just take the material without paying for it. This applies not just to photography of course, but to everything they create.
  - version_five 5y ago
    I don't entirely agree with you (obviously :) ), but I do admit you have a good point re what you call the free rider problem. If someone could e.g. just scrape the noun project and undecut them by providing the same thing (without having to put in the effort of assembling the collection), I don't see that being a desirable outcome, because presumably the Noun Project wouldn't have done all that work in the first place. Likewise for Netflix, et al. I'm not convinced the reason this hadn't actually happened is because of IP laws though, but I definitely take your point.

by notJim 5y ago

version_five 5y ago

Thanks for responding (and I meant spotify in the excerpt from my post obviously). I dont presume to know your business, but the way I look at it, there's no inherent rule of natural justice that says you deserve to be compensated for creating (and having the government enforce) artificial barriers to accessing your work. I agree you have real costs, but you have options, for example photographing on a commission from a client that needs a new photo of something. Or if a stock photo service, that has paying clients because derive value from having quality photos aggregated, the service itself paying photographers because they find it convenient to get photos this way, then it all works out. But the concept of intellectual property is not necessary for it to do so. There may be other business models (like I say, I dont know that business) but I don't see how trying to create an artificial barrier around something is sustainable, and I dont see value in the IP itself, only in the convenience of getting it. Again concrete example, I subscribe to the Noun Project for icons, because they are all in one place, and it makes it hassle free and low cost to get icons for my job. Like Netflix, its about the catalog and convenience, and I pay them even though it's technically voluntary because I see a tangible value in it. Again, IP doesn't need to come into it, it's about compensation for a service or convenience, not inherently about the right to perpetual royalties from a piece of work.

notJim 5y ago
I think you have a massive free-rider problem with your proposal though. The Noun Project requires that you pay them or put attributions on the work. They would not be able to do this without IP protections, so most companies would use the free version. Not only that, but other companies would take their icons and use them to build their own catalogues. This would leave no one to pay for the creation of the icons. > I don't see how trying to create an artificial barrier around something is sustainable A world where no one can be paid to create work is not sustainable. IP is the backbone that makes all of this possible, due to the free rider problem. > photographing on a commission from a client that needs a new photo of something This does happen, but then the client gets exclusive rights to the photos they paid for. But under your world, this is impossible. Their competitors can just take the material without paying for it. This applies not just to photography of course, but to everything they create.
- version_five 5y ago
  I don't entirely agree with you (obviously :) ), but I do admit you have a good point re what you call the free rider problem. If someone could e.g. just scrape the noun project and undecut them by providing the same thing (without having to put in the effort of assembling the collection), I don't see that being a desirable outcome, because presumably the Noun Project wouldn't have done all that work in the first place. Likewise for Netflix, et al. I'm not convinced the reason this hadn't actually happened is because of IP laws though, but I definitely take your point.