5 ms·

You don't fight piracy with laws. You fight piracy with products. Most piracy is more about convenience than price. Thousands of smarter people than me have wr

You don't fight piracy with laws. You fight piracy with products. Most piracy is more about convenience than price. Thousands of smarter people than me have written reams about this. Its like fighting obesity. You don't just take a drug and get a quick fix, it takes a different mindset that causes the patient to live a different kind of life.

DilipJ 15y ago
Convenience doesn't justify anything. It is more convenient for me to take a newspaper off my neighbor's lawn than it would be to contact the newspaper company and order a subscription, but that doesn't mean it's ok.
- Avenger42 15y ago
  Your situation is theft - by taking the newspaper, you're precluding your neighbor from enjoying a product or service that he paid for. That's not the same as infringement - a closer newspaper-related metaphor might be you reading over your neighbor's shoulder on the bus.
- malandrew 15y ago
  That's theft not piracy. The marginal cost of production of that newspaper is non-zero. The marginal cost of production for information goods is zero.
  - DilipJ 15y ago
    Marginal cost shouldn't matter. What matters is consent. If the content creator does not consent for someone to enjoy his/her work without some level of compensation, then it is up to the customer to decide whether or not to purchase the work at the set price. If the customer decides not to purchase it at that price, then his recourse his to purchase either a competing product or wait for the price to come down, not to steal it.
    - malandrew 15y ago
      Good thing there was no concept of intellectual properties rights when fire was discovered or the wheel invented. You are aware that the concept of intellectual property rights didn't even begin with the concept of a creator having monopoly rights over their creations. Instead the concept of government granted monopolies begun during the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1 with the East India Company came first. It wasn't until later that the concept of government granted monopolies was applied to intellectual goods. However, when the concept of government granted monopolies were applied to intellectual goods it was done so with the intention of maximizing the benefit of society by providing only enough incentive to encourage innovation not profits. Intellectual properties rights today have become completely divorced from their original intention of maximizing the commons due to the selfish pursuits of individuals and companies that have distorted the laws. Most of these distortions of the law weren't even introduced by those actually doing the inventing, but by heirs and assigns trying to establish and safeguard a constant source of revenue. That constant source of revenue has permitted many people to sit on their laurels instead of innovating. Intellectual Property rights have been completely distorted from their original intent of encouraging innovation and maximizing benefit for society. Let me tell you who doesn't innovate: heirs and assigns. If anything, intellectual property rights have enabled a lot of people to make a living by not innovating.
      - DilipJ 15y ago
        i agree that heirs don't innovate. But copyright laws expire after a certain number of years after the creator's death, at which point they enter the public domain. My question to you is, for material that is not in the public domain, do you believe that the innovator has a right to determine at what price they should sell their product at? And if not, is that not dissuading innovation? And the 64 million dollar question, if they have a right to sell their product without digital infringement, how can you prevent this, without some bill law SOPA or PIPA?
        noonespecial 15y ago
        But copyright laws expire after a certain number of years after the creator's death I'd argue that this(1) is(2) not(3) true(4). (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1831 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1831 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976 (4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
- noonespecial 15y ago
  I don't think they're trying to decide if its "ok" or not. I think they're trying to stop it. You don't have to care about its morality in order to stop it (or at least sharply curtail it).

DilipJ 15y ago

Convenience doesn't justify anything. It is more convenient for me to take a newspaper off my neighbor's lawn than it would be to contact the newspaper company and order a subscription, but that doesn't mean it's ok.

Avenger42 15y ago
Your situation is theft - by taking the newspaper, you're precluding your neighbor from enjoying a product or service that he paid for. That's not the same as infringement - a closer newspaper-related metaphor might be you reading over your neighbor's shoulder on the bus.
malandrew 15y ago
That's theft not piracy. The marginal cost of production of that newspaper is non-zero. The marginal cost of production for information goods is zero.
- DilipJ 15y ago
  Marginal cost shouldn't matter. What matters is consent. If the content creator does not consent for someone to enjoy his/her work without some level of compensation, then it is up to the customer to decide whether or not to purchase the work at the set price. If the customer decides not to purchase it at that price, then his recourse his to purchase either a competing product or wait for the price to come down, not to steal it.
  - malandrew 15y ago
    Good thing there was no concept of intellectual properties rights when fire was discovered or the wheel invented. You are aware that the concept of intellectual property rights didn't even begin with the concept of a creator having monopoly rights over their creations. Instead the concept of government granted monopolies begun during the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1 with the East India Company came first. It wasn't until later that the concept of government granted monopolies was applied to intellectual goods. However, when the concept of government granted monopolies were applied to intellectual goods it was done so with the intention of maximizing the benefit of society by providing only enough incentive to encourage innovation not profits. Intellectual properties rights today have become completely divorced from their original intention of maximizing the commons due to the selfish pursuits of individuals and companies that have distorted the laws. Most of these distortions of the law weren't even introduced by those actually doing the inventing, but by heirs and assigns trying to establish and safeguard a constant source of revenue. That constant source of revenue has permitted many people to sit on their laurels instead of innovating. Intellectual Property rights have been completely distorted from their original intent of encouraging innovation and maximizing benefit for society. Let me tell you who doesn't innovate: heirs and assigns. If anything, intellectual property rights have enabled a lot of people to make a living by not innovating.
    - DilipJ 15y ago
      i agree that heirs don't innovate. But copyright laws expire after a certain number of years after the creator's death, at which point they enter the public domain. My question to you is, for material that is not in the public domain, do you believe that the innovator has a right to determine at what price they should sell their product at? And if not, is that not dissuading innovation? And the 64 million dollar question, if they have a right to sell their product without digital infringement, how can you prevent this, without some bill law SOPA or PIPA?
      - noonespecial 15y ago
        But copyright laws expire after a certain number of years after the creator's death I'd argue that this(1) is(2) not(3) true(4). (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1831 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1831 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976 (4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
noonespecial 15y ago
I don't think they're trying to decide if its "ok" or not. I think they're trying to stop it. You don't have to care about its morality in order to stop it (or at least sharply curtail it).