6 ms·

So, I'm a musician. What "physical manifestation" are you talking about? Compressed air? Because as soon as I make a record I have to "guard that physical manif

by route66 15y ago

So, I'm a musician. What "physical manifestation" are you talking about? Compressed air? Because as soon as I make a record I have to "guard that physical manifestation" ... how? with SOPA? preventing CD'd from being sold? And in short you deny artists of ownership of anything else than the physical representation (unethical!) But in the next sentence you make the creation "other people's property". If I think of something you did not, this robs me of rights and automatically gives entitlement to you?

eropple 15y ago
Well put. Ditto, say, a game developer. "Find another way" is great and all for games, if you want a bunch of Facebook monstrosities welded into an always-online authentication framework (or equivalent systems). "But you can sell a version with physical stuff that people want" is similarly silly - I'm not a model-maker or a map-maker, I write software and I'm not going to write software if the only way to make a living off of it is to sell tchotchkes. (And, without meaningful copyright, it's easy to duplicate whatever that thing is and sell it as if it were 'official' anyway.) I'm trying very hard to avoid an ad-hominem, but I wonder how many people who espouse this "everything should be free" mindset actually create stuff and hurt themselves with this argument. Even software developers who strictly write software for other people benefit from copyright in a work-for-hire arrangement.
- greiskul 15y ago
  "if you want a bunch of Facebook monstrosities welded into an always-online authentication framework" Is Steam such a system? If so, give me more of that, Steam is awesome, and proof that people will buy stuff if the original is better than the pirated copy.
  - eropple 15y ago
    Steam is awesome, sure. I buy all my PC games on Steam, and if it's not on Steam I won't even consider it. But I was thinking more along the lines of "freemium" or subscription-based software, neither of which I want anything to do with. With Steam, you're still paying a one-time fee to purchase a license to use the software.
burgerbrain 15y ago
Shows. Performances.
- dhimes 15y ago
  In many cases the writer is not the performer. What for them?
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Work for hire can exist without copyright you know.
    - dhimes 15y ago
      What would the business model be in this case?
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        Use your imagination.
        eropple 15y ago
        Spoken like somebody who doesn't have an answer. It's okay to admit that. But given that you generally seem more interested in calling people "insane" and telling people to go fuck themselves[1] than having an honest conversation, I am unsurprised at your behavior. [1] - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3468027 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3468027 - Work-for-hire is a concept that, sure, can work in some cases. It does not solve the problem of the development of significant, large-scale creative works--and making it economically viable to do so. As I've said elsewhere in this comment tree, I find it extremely unlikely that one will fund a Half-Life or a Skyrim through Kickstarter. Can you honestly and with good faith say that you consider it more reasonably feasible for projects to raise multiple millions of dollars on a Kickstarter-esque platform than for private investiture to take the risk of profitability on such a project? You tell us to "use our imagination" to defend your argument for you. I reject this: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and while I don't expect that you have extraordinary evidence, more than handwaving would be nice. How are large-scale creative works made economically feasible to produce in this utopic world without copyright? To the best of my knowledge, even open-source game projects have never managed this. You can bring up a Wesnoth or something, but the coherence of the game experience is poor at best and for the most part these games simply fail to credibly measure up to the focused, designed experiences of the aforementioned commercial titles. The argument of "settle for Wesnoths" doesn't ring true to me. Were I to assume bad faith, as you so regularly seem to do (really, you're among the more abusive regular posters here, I'm kind of surprised you get away with it), I would charge that you lack respect for creatives and seem content for them to subsist off the inconsistently extant angels of consumers' better natures. But instead I would rather assume good faith and expect you to have some sort of insight into this world that you imply would be superior. So, put up or shut up.
wwwtyro 15y ago
> What "physical manifestation" are you talking about? However your creation manifests itself. A live performance or the physical media of a recording, for example. > Because as soon as I make a record I have to "guard that physical manifestation" ... how? The same way you guard your other possessions: with a lock and a door. > you make the creation "other people's property" The physical manifestation. The matter, as it were. > If I think of something you did not this robs me of rights and automatically gives entitlement to you? If you come up with an idea, it is yours to guard. If you communicate this idea, then you cannot ethically use force to prevent others from acting upon it. I do not believe I am robbing you of any right, because I do not believe that information can be property - only the physical manifestation of information (the media) can be property.
- tjr 15y ago
  What do you think about, for example, Creative Commons attribution licenses? Is it just for creators of informational works to allow the public to redistribute them only if they receive attribution for their work? Or is making any demands whatsoever with respect to redistribution not a right that the creator should have?
bluesnowmonkey 15y ago
People have made music for thousands of years. We've only been able to record it for 135. I don't think music would go away if you suddenly had the ability to record it but not to prevent others from copying the recording. As far as I can tell, you can't stop teenagers from forming rock bands. Music will survive. The fundamental point is that I don't think that you have a right to make a living as an artist. If you can find a way to get people to pay you for it, that's great. Just don't take away people's rights in the process. It's the same in software. I'd love to be able to get paid for every little thing I ever wrote, but that's not reality. I only get paid for things that can be packaged into some kind of product, something with a business model where people feel like paying me.

by route66 15y ago

eropple 15y ago

Well put. Ditto, say, a game developer. "Find another way" is great and all for games, if you want a bunch of Facebook monstrosities welded into an always-online authentication framework (or equivalent systems). "But you can sell a version with physical stuff that people want" is similarly silly - I'm not a model-maker or a map-maker, I write software and I'm not going to write software if the only way to make a living off of it is to sell tchotchkes. (And, without meaningful copyright, it's easy to duplicate whatever that thing is and sell it as if it were 'official' anyway.) I'm trying very hard to avoid an ad-hominem, but I wonder how many people who espouse this "everything should be free" mindset actually create stuff and hurt themselves with this argument. Even software developers who strictly write software for other people benefit from copyright in a work-for-hire arrangement.

greiskul 15y ago
"if you want a bunch of Facebook monstrosities welded into an always-online authentication framework" Is Steam such a system? If so, give me more of that, Steam is awesome, and proof that people will buy stuff if the original is better than the pirated copy.
- eropple 15y ago
  Steam is awesome, sure. I buy all my PC games on Steam, and if it's not on Steam I won't even consider it. But I was thinking more along the lines of "freemium" or subscription-based software, neither of which I want anything to do with. With Steam, you're still paying a one-time fee to purchase a license to use the software.

burgerbrain 15y ago

Shows. Performances.

dhimes 15y ago
In many cases the writer is not the performer. What for them?
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Work for hire can exist without copyright you know.
  - dhimes 15y ago
    What would the business model be in this case?
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Use your imagination.
      - eropple 15y ago
        Spoken like somebody who doesn't have an answer. It's okay to admit that. But given that you generally seem more interested in calling people "insane" and telling people to go fuck themselves[1] than having an honest conversation, I am unsurprised at your behavior. [1] - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3468027 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3468027 - Work-for-hire is a concept that, sure, can work in some cases. It does not solve the problem of the development of significant, large-scale creative works--and making it economically viable to do so. As I've said elsewhere in this comment tree, I find it extremely unlikely that one will fund a Half-Life or a Skyrim through Kickstarter. Can you honestly and with good faith say that you consider it more reasonably feasible for projects to raise multiple millions of dollars on a Kickstarter-esque platform than for private investiture to take the risk of profitability on such a project? You tell us to "use our imagination" to defend your argument for you. I reject this: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and while I don't expect that you have extraordinary evidence, more than handwaving would be nice. How are large-scale creative works made economically feasible to produce in this utopic world without copyright? To the best of my knowledge, even open-source game projects have never managed this. You can bring up a Wesnoth or something, but the coherence of the game experience is poor at best and for the most part these games simply fail to credibly measure up to the focused, designed experiences of the aforementioned commercial titles. The argument of "settle for Wesnoths" doesn't ring true to me. Were I to assume bad faith, as you so regularly seem to do (really, you're among the more abusive regular posters here, I'm kind of surprised you get away with it), I would charge that you lack respect for creatives and seem content for them to subsist off the inconsistently extant angels of consumers' better natures. But instead I would rather assume good faith and expect you to have some sort of insight into this world that you imply would be superior. So, put up or shut up.

wwwtyro 15y ago

> What "physical manifestation" are you talking about? However your creation manifests itself. A live performance or the physical media of a recording, for example. > Because as soon as I make a record I have to "guard that physical manifestation" ... how? The same way you guard your other possessions: with a lock and a door. > you make the creation "other people's property" The physical manifestation. The matter, as it were. > If I think of something you did not this robs me of rights and automatically gives entitlement to you? If you come up with an idea, it is yours to guard. If you communicate this idea, then you cannot ethically use force to prevent others from acting upon it. I do not believe I am robbing you of any right, because I do not believe that information can be property - only the physical manifestation of information (the media) can be property.

tjr 15y ago
What do you think about, for example, Creative Commons attribution licenses? Is it just for creators of informational works to allow the public to redistribute them only if they receive attribution for their work? Or is making any demands whatsoever with respect to redistribution not a right that the creator should have?

bluesnowmonkey 15y ago

People have made music for thousands of years. We've only been able to record it for 135. I don't think music would go away if you suddenly had the ability to record it but not to prevent others from copying the recording. As far as I can tell, you can't stop teenagers from forming rock bands. Music will survive. The fundamental point is that I don't think that you have a right to make a living as an artist. If you can find a way to get people to pay you for it, that's great. Just don't take away people's rights in the process. It's the same in software. I'd love to be able to get paid for every little thing I ever wrote, but that's not reality. I only get paid for things that can be packaged into some kind of product, something with a business model where people feel like paying me.