4 ms·

Piracy Is Progressive Taxation (2002)

39 points by webmaven 5y ago

eyelidlessness 5y ago
> Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy. This instantly conjured memories of my teenage self, distributing my own music on Napster and various similar “piracy” apps. I’d add references in the file names to artists who inspired me, to try to show up in searches (I always made this clear, never tried to deceive). It actually generated some interest! For several years I’d get the occasional contact from someone who found my music that way and wanted to reach out to tell me they liked it. I haven’t recorded much for years, and there are some services that allow for discoverability like that without such a “hack”. But if I were serious about trying to get an audience today I almost certainly would make use of current “piracy” tools as part of that strategy again.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  I suppose it’s also worth mentioning the old irony that Metallica—prominent in the campaign to take down Napster—themselves gained a substantial portion of their early audience from the [mix]tape trading community. What a shame they lost sight of that.
  - wintermutestwin 5y ago
    Thanks for reminding us all of that irony. I was one of those tape traders and I will forever regret being even a tiny bit responsible for Lars' fame.
    - eyelidlessness 5y ago
      On a 1-10 scale of crappy actions by artists I used to respect, it’s about a 3 for me (+/- 1 given how I feel at the moment). If anything it makes me want to download their stuff even though I haven’t had any interest in their last several releases. Just out of idle lazy spite.
- platz 5y ago
  > Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy. Whether or not piracy is in the best interest, produce better outcomes, or higher profits in the long run, of authors and creative artists is irrelevant if it's against their wishes. Ultimately, it's their choice even if it hurts them (also supposedly according to your metric, not theirs, of harm).
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    I mean. It’s relevant. It’s not an inherent justification, but it’s still an important and valid part of the discussion. And being treated as such may sway people to reconsider those wishes. In much the same way some “pay what you want” releases led to many creators reconsidering their approach.
umvi 5y ago
A lot of piracy posts today. I think this is a fairly good take - for people with zero audience/reach piracy is a boon, for people with massive audience/reach piracy is a nuisance. Either way, I think there are certain points where businesses have to protect their assets. If they didn't people would lose the sense of morality that they should pay for products the "legitimate" way if possible. And that sense of morality that most people have is the main thing that makes piracy not that big of a deal.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Piracy made Microsoft Windows the dominant force that it is today, and that happened to many more. Last century shareware authors recognized the force of freely sharing to build up momentum, and it's not a coincidence that the most pirated content is from companies that stubbornly try to exert even more control over their markets.
  - drewcoo 5y ago
    Piracy made Windows effectively free to home users so that put it on par with anything else that was free. On the other hand, Microsoft pushed IP ownership to sue competition. From Bill's "friendly letter" to the Homebrew Computer Club though that little spat with the US gov't, the company was constantly pushing the limits of how companies could profit from IP well beyond social norms of the time. "Piracy" is always, at best, a distraction from the real robbery happening. Cries of "piracy!" today are always a mask for corporate looting of the commons.
trevortheblack 5y ago
This article appears to have been originally written in 2002 and republished in 2016
commandlinefan 5y ago
> Safari Books Online subscription service (safari.oreilly.com) can be had for as little as $9.95 a month It's $499/year for an individual - more than a 4x price increase in just 14 years since this was written.
- AnonHP 5y ago
  O’Reilly also stopped selling individual ebooks some years ago, giving only the choices of subscribing to Safari Books Online (or whatever it’s called now) or buying print books from a retailer or buying some books in bundle sales on other sites. If anything, O’Reilly made a good argument to pirate individual books by this poor business decision.
duxup 5y ago
>Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy. Does it matter? Most authors will remain obscure. The odds of becoming widely known seems as likely piracy or not. I get the gist of the points but I still think "If someone doesn't like their work pirated, that's their call.".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
anoncow 5y ago
The first part of the article comments about the futility of publishing - books, music, movies. Perhaps people who get as far as publishing in these verticals are good enough in their trade to hold a decent job in the trade. What about the others? What are some fields where the not good enough can make a living?
sircastor 5y ago
Adjacent to this discussion, I’ve been contemplating going open source on a hardware project I’ve been working on. It’s nothing so broad or useful that I expect anyone would try to mass produce it, but I have to push back my fears and doubts of getting “robbed” by giving people the tools and knowledge to make a copy of their own. I don’t know if it’s deep ingrained entrepreneurship, or scarcity mindset. What does help me move forward is the idea that someone might find the thing I make and offer back some way to make it better. Something that never occurred to Me.
platz 5y ago
> Piracy is a kind of progressive taxation, which may shave a few percentage points off the sales of well-known artists (...), in exchange for massive benefits to the far greater number for whom exposure may lead to increased revenues. The well-known artists didn't agree to this "exchange", so it's invalid to characterize it as such (an "exchange"). Taxation is a function of a governing body. Absent that, you do not have the appropriate kind of entity that can effect or validate a "tax".
- 88 5y ago
  > The well-known artists didn't agree to this "exchange", so it's invalid to characterize it as such (an "exchange"). Do you agree to the taxes your government imposes on you?
  - platz 5y ago
    yes, this is a function of a government conferred by the rights of being a citizen. I updated my comment to match. I'm not aware of any constitution governing the right of piracy.
    - salawat 5y ago
      >This is a function of a government conferred by the rights of being a citizen. Woah, woah, woah. Hold up. Which jurisdiction? Rights are not contingent on Citizenship in the United States. Rights are fundamentally inalienable. They are recognized to exist a priori to an established Government. This is exactly why the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights the way they did, because this is such a seductive way of thinking these things work, and the Tyrant relies on this failing of reasoning to provide the foundation upon which to build their beachhead. The only citizenship-contingent right, is the right to vote. That's it. You can still be represented and hound a Congressional representative as a non-citizen. You just can't participate in the political cluster we call a voting system run by a bipartisan political machine. Even taxation is not an "exchange" for rights, but rather a concession to the legitimacy of the Government to organize it's affairs so as to be able to successfully do it's job as the Government. Taxes are "voluntary" in the sense that you are the one accepting the onus for being fully compliant. It just happens taxes happen to be an excellent way to strongarm people due to them being coupled to the immediate reality of what we can achieve in life. Now, back to the topic at hand... One other power vested in the Federal Congress is to put in place incentives for the furthering of the Arts and Sciences. It is under these auspices that Patents, Copyright, and other matters of Intellectual Property fall. The controversy around it isn't the legitimacy thing of these things, but rather they've actually in practice incented the advancement of the Arts and Sciences in a world where IP is starting to dwarf actual physical property, and where the analogy to theft completely falls apart. As the world is only enrichened by the sharing of technical know-how, inspired by exposure to the Artist's work. If you look at the state of progress of the Art's... You still have places like Disney milking old IP for all it's worth. The music industry arguably seems to spend more time trying to counter unfettered spread of the Artist's work than anything else. What of the Sciences? The problem there is access, and people being able to build up to the point they can even phrase the question never before asked. The thing that holds them back is the locking away of the fruits of human knowledge behind the facade of costly obstructions in the form of material duplication and the need to maintain "purity" through gatekeeping of the consumer. SciHub has arguably done more for the advancement of increased access of the layman to the best and brightest; all at no cost or detriment to the researchers in question. Point being: government, or being subject to it's devices has very little to do with the essential nature of the problem. When duplication doesn't cost a bloody thing; why do we create and enforce, and incent artificial scarcity? How does that further the Arts and Sciences? Until every man, woman, child, or otherwise is able to deliver novelty to the world without institutional roadblocks, or being harassed into not contributing; we still have an issue, in that our system does exactly that; it discourages innovation because the precondition of being able to deliver and profit is that you have to parse the IP landscape to ensure you aren't stepping on someone else. Patents and such work for businesses where economic might through collectivization dwarf's the individual's ability to realize the implementation or rewards for having made their thing. They also create that perverse artificial scarcity previously mentioned. Throw in a ruinously expensive nature of litigation and the legal system, and the oddities introduced through case law, and honestly? I'm not convinced all the trouble caused pays for itself by boosting innovation above the baseline human drive to create. Anyway... Apologies. Got a bit carried away there.

39 points by webmaven 5y ago

> Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy. This instantly conjured memories of my teenage self, distributing my own music on Napster and various similar “piracy” apps. I’d add references in the file names to artists who inspired me, to try to show up in searches (I always made this clear, never tried to deceive). It actually generated some interest! For several years I’d get the occasional contact from someone who found my music that way and wanted to reach out to tell me they liked it. I haven’t recorded much for years, and there are some services that allow for discoverability like that without such a “hack”. But if I were serious about trying to get an audience today I almost certainly would make use of current “piracy” tools as part of that strategy again.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
I suppose it’s also worth mentioning the old irony that Metallica—prominent in the campaign to take down Napster—themselves gained a substantial portion of their early audience from the [mix]tape trading community. What a shame they lost sight of that.
- wintermutestwin 5y ago
  Thanks for reminding us all of that irony. I was one of those tape traders and I will forever regret being even a tiny bit responsible for Lars' fame.
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    On a 1-10 scale of crappy actions by artists I used to respect, it’s about a 3 for me (+/- 1 given how I feel at the moment). If anything it makes me want to download their stuff even though I haven’t had any interest in their last several releases. Just out of idle lazy spite.
platz 5y ago
> Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy. Whether or not piracy is in the best interest, produce better outcomes, or higher profits in the long run, of authors and creative artists is irrelevant if it's against their wishes. Ultimately, it's their choice even if it hurts them (also supposedly according to your metric, not theirs, of harm).
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  I mean. It’s relevant. It’s not an inherent justification, but it’s still an important and valid part of the discussion. And being treated as such may sway people to reconsider those wishes. In much the same way some “pay what you want” releases led to many creators reconsidering their approach.

umvi 5y ago

A lot of piracy posts today. I think this is a fairly good take - for people with zero audience/reach piracy is a boon, for people with massive audience/reach piracy is a nuisance. Either way, I think there are certain points where businesses have to protect their assets. If they didn't people would lose the sense of morality that they should pay for products the "legitimate" way if possible. And that sense of morality that most people have is the main thing that makes piracy not that big of a deal.

ASalazarMX 5y ago
Piracy made Microsoft Windows the dominant force that it is today, and that happened to many more. Last century shareware authors recognized the force of freely sharing to build up momentum, and it's not a coincidence that the most pirated content is from companies that stubbornly try to exert even more control over their markets.
- drewcoo 5y ago
  Piracy made Windows effectively free to home users so that put it on par with anything else that was free. On the other hand, Microsoft pushed IP ownership to sue competition. From Bill's "friendly letter" to the Homebrew Computer Club though that little spat with the US gov't, the company was constantly pushing the limits of how companies could profit from IP well beyond social norms of the time. "Piracy" is always, at best, a distraction from the real robbery happening. Cries of "piracy!" today are always a mask for corporate looting of the commons.

trevortheblack 5y ago

This article appears to have been originally written in 2002 and republished in 2016

commandlinefan 5y ago

> Safari Books Online subscription service (safari.oreilly.com) can be had for as little as $9.95 a month It's $499/year for an individual - more than a 4x price increase in just 14 years since this was written.

AnonHP 5y ago
O’Reilly also stopped selling individual ebooks some years ago, giving only the choices of subscribing to Safari Books Online (or whatever it’s called now) or buying print books from a retailer or buying some books in bundle sales on other sites. If anything, O’Reilly made a good argument to pirate individual books by this poor business decision.

duxup 5y ago

>Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy. Does it matter? Most authors will remain obscure. The odds of becoming widely known seems as likely piracy or not. I get the gist of the points but I still think "If someone doesn't like their work pirated, that's their call.".

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

anoncow 5y ago

The first part of the article comments about the futility of publishing - books, music, movies. Perhaps people who get as far as publishing in these verticals are good enough in their trade to hold a decent job in the trade. What about the others? What are some fields where the not good enough can make a living?

sircastor 5y ago

Adjacent to this discussion, I’ve been contemplating going open source on a hardware project I’ve been working on. It’s nothing so broad or useful that I expect anyone would try to mass produce it, but I have to push back my fears and doubts of getting “robbed” by giving people the tools and knowledge to make a copy of their own. I don’t know if it’s deep ingrained entrepreneurship, or scarcity mindset. What does help me move forward is the idea that someone might find the thing I make and offer back some way to make it better. Something that never occurred to Me.

platz 5y ago

> Piracy is a kind of progressive taxation, which may shave a few percentage points off the sales of well-known artists (...), in exchange for massive benefits to the far greater number for whom exposure may lead to increased revenues. The well-known artists didn't agree to this "exchange", so it's invalid to characterize it as such (an "exchange"). Taxation is a function of a governing body. Absent that, you do not have the appropriate kind of entity that can effect or validate a "tax".

88 5y ago
> The well-known artists didn't agree to this "exchange", so it's invalid to characterize it as such (an "exchange"). Do you agree to the taxes your government imposes on you?
- platz 5y ago
  yes, this is a function of a government conferred by the rights of being a citizen. I updated my comment to match. I'm not aware of any constitution governing the right of piracy.
  - salawat 5y ago
    >This is a function of a government conferred by the rights of being a citizen. Woah, woah, woah. Hold up. Which jurisdiction? Rights are not contingent on Citizenship in the United States. Rights are fundamentally inalienable. They are recognized to exist a priori to an established Government. This is exactly why the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights the way they did, because this is such a seductive way of thinking these things work, and the Tyrant relies on this failing of reasoning to provide the foundation upon which to build their beachhead. The only citizenship-contingent right, is the right to vote. That's it. You can still be represented and hound a Congressional representative as a non-citizen. You just can't participate in the political cluster we call a voting system run by a bipartisan political machine. Even taxation is not an "exchange" for rights, but rather a concession to the legitimacy of the Government to organize it's affairs so as to be able to successfully do it's job as the Government. Taxes are "voluntary" in the sense that you are the one accepting the onus for being fully compliant. It just happens taxes happen to be an excellent way to strongarm people due to them being coupled to the immediate reality of what we can achieve in life. Now, back to the topic at hand... One other power vested in the Federal Congress is to put in place incentives for the furthering of the Arts and Sciences. It is under these auspices that Patents, Copyright, and other matters of Intellectual Property fall. The controversy around it isn't the legitimacy thing of these things, but rather they've actually in practice incented the advancement of the Arts and Sciences in a world where IP is starting to dwarf actual physical property, and where the analogy to theft completely falls apart. As the world is only enrichened by the sharing of technical know-how, inspired by exposure to the Artist's work. If you look at the state of progress of the Art's... You still have places like Disney milking old IP for all it's worth. The music industry arguably seems to spend more time trying to counter unfettered spread of the Artist's work than anything else. What of the Sciences? The problem there is access, and people being able to build up to the point they can even phrase the question never before asked. The thing that holds them back is the locking away of the fruits of human knowledge behind the facade of costly obstructions in the form of material duplication and the need to maintain "purity" through gatekeeping of the consumer. SciHub has arguably done more for the advancement of increased access of the layman to the best and brightest; all at no cost or detriment to the researchers in question. Point being: government, or being subject to it's devices has very little to do with the essential nature of the problem. When duplication doesn't cost a bloody thing; why do we create and enforce, and incent artificial scarcity? How does that further the Arts and Sciences? Until every man, woman, child, or otherwise is able to deliver novelty to the world without institutional roadblocks, or being harassed into not contributing; we still have an issue, in that our system does exactly that; it discourages innovation because the precondition of being able to deliver and profit is that you have to parse the IP landscape to ensure you aren't stepping on someone else. Patents and such work for businesses where economic might through collectivization dwarf's the individual's ability to realize the implementation or rewards for having made their thing. They also create that perverse artificial scarcity previously mentioned. Throw in a ruinously expensive nature of litigation and the legal system, and the oddities introduced through case law, and honestly? I'm not convinced all the trouble caused pays for itself by boosting innovation above the baseline human drive to create. Anyway... Apologies. Got a bit carried away there.