4 ms·

Piracy is inevitable. Even if you crack down on file-sharing networks, people will find ways to get what they want for free from people they know, and in this d

Piracy is inevitable. Even if you crack down on file-sharing networks, people will find ways to get what they want for free from people they know, and in this day and age, it won't take long for the content to spread either way. The key to beating piracy is to provide services that can't be pirated or are significantly better than the pirated alternative in some tangible way.

petegrif 15y ago
Piracy is not inevitable. There are products - like google search - that can be successfully managed as a trade secret. Search is a server side functionality and it can be closely held so in that case and others like it, it works. Your solution for 'beating piracy' for those cases where copying is inevitable makes perfect sense - IF a) you restrict innovation to 'services that can't be pirated' - but is that in society's interest? and b) your innovation can't be improved upon by someone who has the benefit of studying your product, has no technical debt and has incurred no R&D cost in getting to the point you took the product. That is a pretty demanding standard. (btw - like your handle - inspired by W Gibson unless I am much mistaken)
- w1ntermute 15y ago
  > There are products - like google search - that can be successfully managed as a trade secret. Search is a server side functionality and it can be closely held so in that case and others like it, it works. Google Search is product that falls into the "can't be pirated" category that I previously mentioned.
georgieporgie 15y ago
I regularly hear things like that. "Piracy is inevitable." "Data wants to be free." These seem like pointless platitudes, said only to rationalize behavior. Traffic accidents are inevitable. Murder is inevitable. Some portion of the population will always end doing harm to other parts. Does this mean we accept it and allow it to flourish? Or do we decide to instill in people the desire and ability to minimize behaviors which lead to suffering and economic loss?
- Natsu 15y ago
  Many people believe that the harm is vastly overstated. Comparison infringement to things that kill people don't help you, even if that wasn't the main point. We had the Renaissance without copyright laws. There are other ways to help artists, putting an end to Hollywood accounting, for example.
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    Many people believe that the harm is vastly overstated. I agree that, specifically, music and movie estimates are ridiculously overstated. However, we have no means of measuring the total, fundamental economic losses due to a culture which no longer values intangible things. Assuming you're a software engineer, do you want to proceed into a world where people shell out thousands of dollars for an iPhone, but scoff at paying $1 for software you've worked hard on? Current (and presumably future) attitudes toward (intangible) IP are dangerous to the economy we're developing. Comparison infringement to things that kill people don't help you, even if that wasn't the main point. Okay, substitute something non-lethal. People send their kids to school even when the kids are sick. This is bad for everyone. Do we just accept it, or do we remind people to keep their kids at home when they're sick? If you want more analogies, I'm sure I can come up with them, but I would prefer to simply have the question answered with regards to giving up on IP enforcement.
    - Natsu 15y ago
      I believe that the best way to maximize the societal value of software is for it to be FOSS, actually, and release what I can accordingly. Finding ways to make money off of that is another matter. There are many things one can do: charge for support/customization, find patrons/sponsors who benefit from your work to fund it, etc. I don't believe that copyright laws are a good way to fund innovation. And I believe there are a lot of alternate business models that remain unexplored. Every law has a cost to enforce it. Many worry that the costs (both monetary costs and reduced freedoms) are ever-increasing while the benefit is static, and mostly going to middle-men. After all, I don't believe that the RIAA shares the proceeds of the infringement lawsuits with the artists (feel free to correct me if you can prove that belief wrong). Rather than trying to make this law work, I think we should look to successful businessman/artists for the way forward. Web comic authors in particular have done rather well for themselves, in spite of giving pretty much everything away for free. For example, if you want the website of one particularly business-savvy author (who has a lot of good advice for anyone trying this), look no further than here: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ He's done very clever crowd-sourcing (he gets fans to help him ship books), has partnered with fans who make cool merchandise to sell it (rather than shutting them down over trademarks), and does a lot of other things to make his products more compelling than the piracy option. Howard was a business manager before starting that webcomic and I've learned more by watching what he does than I've found in most articles.

petegrif 15y ago

Piracy is not inevitable. There are products - like google search - that can be successfully managed as a trade secret. Search is a server side functionality and it can be closely held so in that case and others like it, it works. Your solution for 'beating piracy' for those cases where copying is inevitable makes perfect sense - IF a) you restrict innovation to 'services that can't be pirated' - but is that in society's interest? and b) your innovation can't be improved upon by someone who has the benefit of studying your product, has no technical debt and has incurred no R&D cost in getting to the point you took the product. That is a pretty demanding standard. (btw - like your handle - inspired by W Gibson unless I am much mistaken)

w1ntermute 15y ago
> There are products - like google search - that can be successfully managed as a trade secret. Search is a server side functionality and it can be closely held so in that case and others like it, it works. Google Search is product that falls into the "can't be pirated" category that I previously mentioned.

georgieporgie 15y ago

I regularly hear things like that. "Piracy is inevitable." "Data wants to be free." These seem like pointless platitudes, said only to rationalize behavior. Traffic accidents are inevitable. Murder is inevitable. Some portion of the population will always end doing harm to other parts. Does this mean we accept it and allow it to flourish? Or do we decide to instill in people the desire and ability to minimize behaviors which lead to suffering and economic loss?

Natsu 15y ago
Many people believe that the harm is vastly overstated. Comparison infringement to things that kill people don't help you, even if that wasn't the main point. We had the Renaissance without copyright laws. There are other ways to help artists, putting an end to Hollywood accounting, for example.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  Many people believe that the harm is vastly overstated. I agree that, specifically, music and movie estimates are ridiculously overstated. However, we have no means of measuring the total, fundamental economic losses due to a culture which no longer values intangible things. Assuming you're a software engineer, do you want to proceed into a world where people shell out thousands of dollars for an iPhone, but scoff at paying $1 for software you've worked hard on? Current (and presumably future) attitudes toward (intangible) IP are dangerous to the economy we're developing. Comparison infringement to things that kill people don't help you, even if that wasn't the main point. Okay, substitute something non-lethal. People send their kids to school even when the kids are sick. This is bad for everyone. Do we just accept it, or do we remind people to keep their kids at home when they're sick? If you want more analogies, I'm sure I can come up with them, but I would prefer to simply have the question answered with regards to giving up on IP enforcement.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    I believe that the best way to maximize the societal value of software is for it to be FOSS, actually, and release what I can accordingly. Finding ways to make money off of that is another matter. There are many things one can do: charge for support/customization, find patrons/sponsors who benefit from your work to fund it, etc. I don't believe that copyright laws are a good way to fund innovation. And I believe there are a lot of alternate business models that remain unexplored. Every law has a cost to enforce it. Many worry that the costs (both monetary costs and reduced freedoms) are ever-increasing while the benefit is static, and mostly going to middle-men. After all, I don't believe that the RIAA shares the proceeds of the infringement lawsuits with the artists (feel free to correct me if you can prove that belief wrong). Rather than trying to make this law work, I think we should look to successful businessman/artists for the way forward. Web comic authors in particular have done rather well for themselves, in spite of giving pretty much everything away for free. For example, if you want the website of one particularly business-savvy author (who has a lot of good advice for anyone trying this), look no further than here: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ He's done very clever crowd-sourcing (he gets fans to help him ship books), has partnered with fans who make cool merchandise to sell it (rather than shutting them down over trademarks), and does a lot of other things to make his products more compelling than the piracy option. Howard was a business manager before starting that webcomic and I've learned more by watching what he does than I've found in most articles.