3 ms·

I regularly hear things like that. "Piracy is inevitable." "Data wants to be free." These seem like pointless platitudes, said only to rationalize behavior.

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.
  - serichsen 15y ago
    As a software developer, my work is worth somewhere in the magnitude of about 30 euro per hour. If I write an "app" over the weekend, investing perhaps 20 hours in it, that makes 600 euro investment. Imagine that I would want to make as much profit as that investment; I would need to get 1200 euro from "sales". At 1 euro per download, that means 1200 people paying for a download. If only 1200 people have downloaded that from you, what do you imagine would be easier: paying 1 euro to download from your known and central website, or investing some time to search for it on some peer-to-peer network? Keep in mind that only a small percentage of those 1200 would invest the time to seed it on peer-to-peer networks. Here is a way to get paid: make it as easy as possible to pay for a download of your fully functional "product". Wouldn't it be much easier to know beforehand that you will get the money? That's the way contract work works: someone has a problem, and he would like to get someone to solve it. You set your hours, haggle for a price, then go to work, deliver the solution, get paid. This is another way to get paid: find someone to make a contract with. I believe that it is the most important way for professional work. This actually also works for "apps" and other self-initiated projects, through crowdfunding (e.g. through Indiegogo or Kickstarter). However, even completely unfunded work needs not be financial waste, as you build a portfolio with which to gain contracts.
- jwatte 15y ago
  That's because, during the Renaissance, "copying" something (like a painting) took (almost) as much labor as creating it, so you might as well create new things. What if "copying" a movie cost $100M?
  - Natsu 15y ago
    > What if "copying" a movie cost $100M? Then they'd be worth nothing, because you couldn't distribute them to a large enough audience to recoup your costs.
njharman 15y ago
>> Some portion of the population will always end doing harm to other parts. Does this mean we accept it and allow it to flourish? Fuck no and you get it! The only problem is you haven't realized the portion of the population doing harm to the other parts is the copyright lobby. Destroying our Public Domain, forcing us to pay for our culture, putting our rights into the hands of a few, hindering innovation and creativity, etc.

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.
- serichsen 15y ago
  As a software developer, my work is worth somewhere in the magnitude of about 30 euro per hour. If I write an "app" over the weekend, investing perhaps 20 hours in it, that makes 600 euro investment. Imagine that I would want to make as much profit as that investment; I would need to get 1200 euro from "sales". At 1 euro per download, that means 1200 people paying for a download. If only 1200 people have downloaded that from you, what do you imagine would be easier: paying 1 euro to download from your known and central website, or investing some time to search for it on some peer-to-peer network? Keep in mind that only a small percentage of those 1200 would invest the time to seed it on peer-to-peer networks. Here is a way to get paid: make it as easy as possible to pay for a download of your fully functional "product". Wouldn't it be much easier to know beforehand that you will get the money? That's the way contract work works: someone has a problem, and he would like to get someone to solve it. You set your hours, haggle for a price, then go to work, deliver the solution, get paid. This is another way to get paid: find someone to make a contract with. I believe that it is the most important way for professional work. This actually also works for "apps" and other self-initiated projects, through crowdfunding (e.g. through Indiegogo or Kickstarter). However, even completely unfunded work needs not be financial waste, as you build a portfolio with which to gain contracts.
jwatte 15y ago
That's because, during the Renaissance, "copying" something (like a painting) took (almost) as much labor as creating it, so you might as well create new things. What if "copying" a movie cost $100M?
- Natsu 15y ago
  > What if "copying" a movie cost $100M? Then they'd be worth nothing, because you couldn't distribute them to a large enough audience to recoup your costs.

njharman 15y ago

>> Some portion of the population will always end doing harm to other parts. Does this mean we accept it and allow it to flourish? Fuck no and you get it! The only problem is you haven't realized the portion of the population doing harm to the other parts is the copyright lobby. Destroying our Public Domain, forcing us to pay for our culture, putting our rights into the hands of a few, hindering innovation and creativity, etc.