7 ms·

And you're misunderstanding economics too. Just because you can get it for free that does not mean there is no market for people paying for it. > Just because

And you're misunderstanding economics too. Just because you can get it for free that does not mean there is no market for people paying for it. > Just because there is a cost to produce something does not mean that it has market value. What shows market value is the desire for that product. The only reason that music is pirated now (when it used to be purchased) is because it's easy and without consequence. Let's say hypothetically in the future stealing a car becomes easy and without consequence (even though it's still illegal) does that mean there is no market value for cars? Of course it doesn't. It shows that people care more about saving money If pirating music was impossible many people would return to paying for music, the only reason they don't now is because stealing it is consequence free. The convenience argument is also (for want of a better phrase) complete and utter bullshit. I can switch to itunes right now, type in a search term, hit purchase and have the song on my hard drive (and iphone and any other device I have connected to my itunes account) within 10 seconds. Hell, I'll open my screen recording program now and record me proving this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA2wzb0-4Pg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA2wzb0-4Pg People pirate music because it's free, consequence free (the reason they don't steal cars is consequence) and everyone spends all day every day justifying it. It's not a matter of convenience, people go to more effort pirating than they would purchasing (except for cases where the music is not available commercially, but those instances are "rare" and not a worthy consideration for the sake of this argument).

angersock 15y ago
And they are welcome to keep paying for it--as the rest of us download free copies. As for convenience, I may find it more convenient to download music from TPB or a college FTP than from iTunes, because I don't want to deal with their installer or give away my billing info. Convenience is an utterly subjective measure. (also, your car analogy is shitty and bad and you should feel shitty and bad)
- omonra 15y ago
  "because I don't want to deal with their installer or give away my billing info" Of course - because once they have your billing info, they can actually bill you and your bank account will decrease by the cost of the CD. So you pretty much proved his point - you just don't want to pay for something you can steal.
- gaius 15y ago
  The word for this is "tragedy of the commons". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
guga31bb 15y ago
> If pirating music was impossible many people would return to paying for music I think you've missed the parent's point. We have left the world where pirating is impossible. The question is how to deal with it. Thinking in unrealistic hypotheticals does little to inform the debate.
- jamesaguilar 15y ago
  It informs the debate in the sense that it confirms music does have value. It's sophistic to claim that music has no value because people can avoid paying for it, which is I think the point your parent was trying to make.
  - angersock 15y ago
    We have to make sure that we do not conflate utility (absolute value) with market value.
    - jamesaguilar 15y ago
      Yes, market value is probably not the term we want to use to make statements about what should be done around copyright law. Anything you can't force people to pay for has no market value. Making a normative statement about whether people should have to pay for something based on market value is begging the question. It's more important to think about utility, because that can help us answer the question of whether the government and laws should be used to create market value where there is none by trying to make a good excludable.
joelhaus 15y ago
So off base. Where to begin... > And you're misunderstanding economics too. Just because you can get it for free that does not mean there is no market for people paying for it. He says the opposite of this. Redthrowaway on free vs. paid content: The formatting was wrong, it was inconvenient, and the metadata was filled with crap from the rippers that meant it would never sort properly. So I bought an ebook from Amazon. > If pirating music was impossible many people would return to paying for music, the only reason they don't now is because stealing it is consequence free. What are you saying? Are you advocating for harsher consequences and more enforcement of existing law or more DRM? It's unusual to see so many luddites on HN. Personally, I'd prefer to see modernization of IP laws.
- citricsquid 15y ago
  > He says the opposite of this. Redthrowaway on free vs. paid content: That's a tired and no longer relevant point. His point is that people will pay for the convenience of acquiring media, and then presents an example of when it was convenient to him (purchasing an ebook when the pirated version was sub par quality). However, as I showed in my video example, iTunes (and many other companies) have already addressed this issue, they have solved the convenience part and people still pirate, which shows (to me at least and I would hope everyone else) the issue is NOT acquisition of content or convenience, it's saving money. Also no I don't think people should be punished more harshly for media piracy, I don't ever want to try and comment on the proper legal approach because I don't understand enough about the law to do it properly, but my basic thoughts on media piracy have been previously outlined here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694764 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694764 Piracy happens in most cases because it's FREE, this is the #1 reason, the fact that Spotify etc. are finding success should be the absolute proof: Spotify is free (or cheaper, if you pay for a subscription) than purchasing music, that's why people use it. Convenience is not a valid or relevant reason for (most) media piracy any more. There are some cases (such as acquiring the entire discography of an artist or group, which can't be done easily through any pre-existing product) which makes piracy more convenient, but the common use case of media acquisition (a single song or an artists latest album) is not part of the convenience.
  - 15y ago
garyrichardson 15y ago
If/when stealing cars becomes easy and without consequence (ie, I can copy yours and have my own), I suspect the auto industry would be in the exact same boat as the record industry is now. I look forward to that day so we can all have awesome hybrid vehicles that run on garbage. I suspect people will also be able to make awesome mashups so I can get an EV Jeep pickup or a 2012 convertible beetle.
- lutorm 15y ago
  The stealing bit is a red herring. Copying is not stealing. I'm pretty sure I can now borrow a car and, if someone was willing to lend me a fully equipped workshop for free, build an exact replica of it without cost (in money). So in that sense, a car and a music file are the same. It's just that it's practical to do it with a music file, and not (yet) with a car.
maratd 15y ago
> People pirate music because it's free, consequence free (the reason they don't steal cars is consequence) and everyone spends all day every day justifying it. Please don't conflate tangible goods with intangible goods. Intangible goods are patterns. You can't steal a pattern, because a pattern can't be "owned" in any sense that a physical object can. Now, you can have rights to a pattern and that right stops others from exploiting that pattern commercially, but you don't own the pattern. Even our current laws recognize this. After all, your right will expire, but if you own a car, you own it forever and without limits. So enough with this "theft" bullshit.
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  Your comment in no way actually addresses what he's saying, which is a hypothesis to the justification for why people do things. In fact, he didn't even conflate the terms as I see it, unless you want to say piracy is only related to theft. And the section you quoted doesn't even have the term "theft" in it (which you also quoted). In short, it's a tired talking point of a technicality that adds almost nothing to the larger discussion. It sounds like you have strong opinions on the topic -- I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement.
  - maratd 15y ago
    > I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement. People don't justify anything. By saying that something needs to be justified, you are suggesting that this is a moral issue? It's wrong for me to copy patterns of bytes? If so, then I've been a sinner since I was 10. Remember those 5 1/4 floppies, BBSes, IRC, etc? Yeah. Copyright law was designed with businesses in mind, not individuals. Fair use should be expanded to encompass all personal use of patented or copyrighted material. Restrictions should only apply to commercial application. Speaking of business ... Did I mention I create digital works every day? That's what I do. I create software. My work can easily be copied ... and if it was, I wouldn't blame anyone but myself. Actually, I wouldn't even blame myself. Because my rampant "piracy" as a kid made me realize something. There is no value in software. There is only value in service. The software I write is merely a tool that I use to render a service and even if you copied it, you would only be left with a tool. I'm the final part of the equation and I can't be copied. That's the right way to do software. What people don't mention is that the software industry was first. Before music, before movies, before books, before any of that ... the software industry was forced to change, more than that, it was born changed, because digital "piracy" was born with the software industry.
icebraining 15y ago
the reason they don't steal cars is consequence Are you saying that 46% of US citizens* would steal a car if it was consequence free? Because I'd like to see some evidence of that. * The number who have said to have committed copyright infringement.
- citricsquid 15y ago
  Yes, I am absolutely stating that if you asked the "average American" whether or not they would steal cars if there were no consequences (financial, legal or moral) they would absolutely say "Yes, I would have no problems stealing a car". Another way to ask the question is to say "What are the consequences of stealing a car from your neighbour?" and I would say the answers would be "Legal (theft), moral (I have taken someone else's car) and financial (I have saved money on a car)". If stealing a car was consequence free then none of these would matter.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Oh, I didn't think you were including moral consequences. Then the questions I have are; why is copyright infringement free from moral consequences while car stealing isn't?
    - raganwald 15y ago
      Because... Mark my words closely... When you steal my car, you deprive me of my car. When you take a picture of my picture of a lamborghini, you deprive me of nothing except for the artificial right to charge you for the right to take a picture of my picture of a car. The moral consequences differ because the consequences differ.
      - earbitscom 15y ago
        If you are in the market of selling pictures of cars and you take a rare (in fact, entirely unique) photograph of a car, then someone else takes a picture of your picture and sets up shop next door to give them away for free, they have deprived you of your ability to earn money from distributing that which you invested in the creation of. Just like diluting your equity in a company, they have not taken your physical property (or shares) but they have taken value from you regardless.
joering2 15y ago
> If pirating music was impossible many people would return to paying for music, the only reason they don't now is because stealing it is consequence free. so basically $10 per CD, everyone CAN AFFORD a wall full of CDs, lets say 10,000 of them, but they choose to steal instead? OK.
imgabe 15y ago
> What shows market value is the desire for that product. I disagree with this completely. There's a tremendous desire for oxygen. Literally every human being needs it nearly every second of their life. However, it has no market value because it's freely available wherever you go. You're basically saying that price should be determined solely by demand, regardless of supply. You're ignoring fully half of economic theory. Yes, there is a huge demand for digital copies of music and video, but there's also an infinite supply of them.
doki_pen 15y ago
The free market is meant to make prices as low as possible, not as high as possible. That is why we have laws against monopolies and encourage competition. The argument that things should cost as much as people will pay for them is a pleasant fallacy of a businessman.
wazoox 15y ago
> People pirate music because it's free, consequence free (the reason they don't steal cars is consequence) and everyone spends all day every day justifying it. This is the utilitarian, simplistic, convenient and completely false view. People are definitely NOT perfectly rational beings working towards their maximal, personal profit. This is why, BTW, libertarianism is a silly, childish pipe dream. Coming back to the subject, people are perfectly aware that taking someone else's physical good may harm this person directly, that's why it's always carefully regulated by many told and untold rules. Even the most small, primitive societies have mechanisms for goods exchange and appropriation. Digital goods aren't goods, they're information; when they're shared, the originator keeps them. Nobody never sold "information", only convenient, easy or practical access to it. People never bought "music" in the form of CDs, they bought CDs as the way to listen to the music they wanted.
vibrunazo 15y ago
> People pirate music because it's free I do think that's incorrect, but there's a broader picture issue that makes this irrelevant: Why does it even matter? You're misunderstanding the original argument. Of course it's possible to make some money for selling something that is free. Specially if you convince people that it's not free, and that you'll go to jail if you do otherwise. But what they mean with "there's no market value", is that it doesn't create any new value to the economy. It's just money changing hands. If you ask me for 5 bucks and I say "yes, of course, no need to pay me back", we didn't just magically create value in the economy because I payed you 5 bucks for nothing. The value in the economy is the same, that's just money changing hands. If I pay money for a copy of a song, that's just money changing hands. It didn't add any new value to the economy. If I didn't pay money for that copy of the song. The song would still be there. No change in value. Unless, of course, if you make the argument that music would cease to exist if we start sharing it for free. Which I would honestly rather not get into.
- citricsquid 15y ago
  So the billions of dollars that exist for developers because of the app store are not value to the economy? huh?
  - vibrunazo 15y ago
    I'm not sure what do you think is related in your analogy. Seems like two completely separate examples. The software industry adapted to depend less on copyright faster than the music industry. You don't see as much valueless copy selling in our industry anymore. Music should be following us, but they're slower to adapt than we are. Which is exactly the whole point of this discussion. What are you trying to say?
  - meow 15y ago
    Piracy is a reality in app stores. But you don't see developers running around to sue people downloading pirated copies. That's because they acknowledged that these people won't pay them and focus their efforts on people who do pay them. Most of the apps even have free versions just so that users can sample they app and judge it for them selves before buying it. All these are adaptations to the environment in which they operate. Content industry on the other hand refuses to adapt.

angersock 15y ago

And they are welcome to keep paying for it--as the rest of us download free copies. As for convenience, I may find it more convenient to download music from TPB or a college FTP than from iTunes, because I don't want to deal with their installer or give away my billing info. Convenience is an utterly subjective measure. (also, your car analogy is shitty and bad and you should feel shitty and bad)

omonra 15y ago
"because I don't want to deal with their installer or give away my billing info" Of course - because once they have your billing info, they can actually bill you and your bank account will decrease by the cost of the CD. So you pretty much proved his point - you just don't want to pay for something you can steal.
gaius 15y ago
The word for this is "tragedy of the commons". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

guga31bb 15y ago

> If pirating music was impossible many people would return to paying for music I think you've missed the parent's point. We have left the world where pirating is impossible. The question is how to deal with it. Thinking in unrealistic hypotheticals does little to inform the debate.

jamesaguilar 15y ago
It informs the debate in the sense that it confirms music does have value. It's sophistic to claim that music has no value because people can avoid paying for it, which is I think the point your parent was trying to make.
- angersock 15y ago
  We have to make sure that we do not conflate utility (absolute value) with market value.
  - jamesaguilar 15y ago
    Yes, market value is probably not the term we want to use to make statements about what should be done around copyright law. Anything you can't force people to pay for has no market value. Making a normative statement about whether people should have to pay for something based on market value is begging the question. It's more important to think about utility, because that can help us answer the question of whether the government and laws should be used to create market value where there is none by trying to make a good excludable.

joelhaus 15y ago

So off base. Where to begin... > And you're misunderstanding economics too. Just because you can get it for free that does not mean there is no market for people paying for it. He says the opposite of this. Redthrowaway on free vs. paid content: The formatting was wrong, it was inconvenient, and the metadata was filled with crap from the rippers that meant it would never sort properly. So I bought an ebook from Amazon. > If pirating music was impossible many people would return to paying for music, the only reason they don't now is because stealing it is consequence free. What are you saying? Are you advocating for harsher consequences and more enforcement of existing law or more DRM? It's unusual to see so many luddites on HN. Personally, I'd prefer to see modernization of IP laws.

citricsquid 15y ago
> He says the opposite of this. Redthrowaway on free vs. paid content: That's a tired and no longer relevant point. His point is that people will pay for the convenience of acquiring media, and then presents an example of when it was convenient to him (purchasing an ebook when the pirated version was sub par quality). However, as I showed in my video example, iTunes (and many other companies) have already addressed this issue, they have solved the convenience part and people still pirate, which shows (to me at least and I would hope everyone else) the issue is NOT acquisition of content or convenience, it's saving money. Also no I don't think people should be punished more harshly for media piracy, I don't ever want to try and comment on the proper legal approach because I don't understand enough about the law to do it properly, but my basic thoughts on media piracy have been previously outlined here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694764 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694764 Piracy happens in most cases because it's FREE, this is the #1 reason, the fact that Spotify etc. are finding success should be the absolute proof: Spotify is free (or cheaper, if you pay for a subscription) than purchasing music, that's why people use it. Convenience is not a valid or relevant reason for (most) media piracy any more. There are some cases (such as acquiring the entire discography of an artist or group, which can't be done easily through any pre-existing product) which makes piracy more convenient, but the common use case of media acquisition (a single song or an artists latest album) is not part of the convenience.
- 15y ago

garyrichardson 15y ago

If/when stealing cars becomes easy and without consequence (ie, I can copy yours and have my own), I suspect the auto industry would be in the exact same boat as the record industry is now. I look forward to that day so we can all have awesome hybrid vehicles that run on garbage. I suspect people will also be able to make awesome mashups so I can get an EV Jeep pickup or a 2012 convertible beetle.

lutorm 15y ago
The stealing bit is a red herring. Copying is not stealing. I'm pretty sure I can now borrow a car and, if someone was willing to lend me a fully equipped workshop for free, build an exact replica of it without cost (in money). So in that sense, a car and a music file are the same. It's just that it's practical to do it with a music file, and not (yet) with a car.

maratd 15y ago

> People pirate music because it's free, consequence free (the reason they don't steal cars is consequence) and everyone spends all day every day justifying it. Please don't conflate tangible goods with intangible goods. Intangible goods are patterns. You can't steal a pattern, because a pattern can't be "owned" in any sense that a physical object can. Now, you can have rights to a pattern and that right stops others from exploiting that pattern commercially, but you don't own the pattern. Even our current laws recognize this. After all, your right will expire, but if you own a car, you own it forever and without limits. So enough with this "theft" bullshit.

nirvdrum 15y ago
Your comment in no way actually addresses what he's saying, which is a hypothesis to the justification for why people do things. In fact, he didn't even conflate the terms as I see it, unless you want to say piracy is only related to theft. And the section you quoted doesn't even have the term "theft" in it (which you also quoted). In short, it's a tired talking point of a technicality that adds almost nothing to the larger discussion. It sounds like you have strong opinions on the topic -- I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement.
- maratd 15y ago
  > I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement. People don't justify anything. By saying that something needs to be justified, you are suggesting that this is a moral issue? It's wrong for me to copy patterns of bytes? If so, then I've been a sinner since I was 10. Remember those 5 1/4 floppies, BBSes, IRC, etc? Yeah. Copyright law was designed with businesses in mind, not individuals. Fair use should be expanded to encompass all personal use of patented or copyrighted material. Restrictions should only apply to commercial application. Speaking of business ... Did I mention I create digital works every day? That's what I do. I create software. My work can easily be copied ... and if it was, I wouldn't blame anyone but myself. Actually, I wouldn't even blame myself. Because my rampant "piracy" as a kid made me realize something. There is no value in software. There is only value in service. The software I write is merely a tool that I use to render a service and even if you copied it, you would only be left with a tool. I'm the final part of the equation and I can't be copied. That's the right way to do software. What people don't mention is that the software industry was first. Before music, before movies, before books, before any of that ... the software industry was forced to change, more than that, it was born changed, because digital "piracy" was born with the software industry.

icebraining 15y ago

the reason they don't steal cars is consequence Are you saying that 46% of US citizens* would steal a car if it was consequence free? Because I'd like to see some evidence of that. * The number who have said to have committed copyright infringement.

citricsquid 15y ago
Yes, I am absolutely stating that if you asked the "average American" whether or not they would steal cars if there were no consequences (financial, legal or moral) they would absolutely say "Yes, I would have no problems stealing a car". Another way to ask the question is to say "What are the consequences of stealing a car from your neighbour?" and I would say the answers would be "Legal (theft), moral (I have taken someone else's car) and financial (I have saved money on a car)". If stealing a car was consequence free then none of these would matter.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Oh, I didn't think you were including moral consequences. Then the questions I have are; why is copyright infringement free from moral consequences while car stealing isn't?
  - raganwald 15y ago
    Because... Mark my words closely... When you steal my car, you deprive me of my car. When you take a picture of my picture of a lamborghini, you deprive me of nothing except for the artificial right to charge you for the right to take a picture of my picture of a car. The moral consequences differ because the consequences differ.
    - earbitscom 15y ago
      If you are in the market of selling pictures of cars and you take a rare (in fact, entirely unique) photograph of a car, then someone else takes a picture of your picture and sets up shop next door to give them away for free, they have deprived you of your ability to earn money from distributing that which you invested in the creation of. Just like diluting your equity in a company, they have not taken your physical property (or shares) but they have taken value from you regardless.

joering2 15y ago

> If pirating music was impossible many people would return to paying for music, the only reason they don't now is because stealing it is consequence free. so basically $10 per CD, everyone CAN AFFORD a wall full of CDs, lets say 10,000 of them, but they choose to steal instead? OK.

imgabe 15y ago

> What shows market value is the desire for that product. I disagree with this completely. There's a tremendous desire for oxygen. Literally every human being needs it nearly every second of their life. However, it has no market value because it's freely available wherever you go. You're basically saying that price should be determined solely by demand, regardless of supply. You're ignoring fully half of economic theory. Yes, there is a huge demand for digital copies of music and video, but there's also an infinite supply of them.

doki_pen 15y ago

The free market is meant to make prices as low as possible, not as high as possible. That is why we have laws against monopolies and encourage competition. The argument that things should cost as much as people will pay for them is a pleasant fallacy of a businessman.

wazoox 15y ago

> People pirate music because it's free, consequence free (the reason they don't steal cars is consequence) and everyone spends all day every day justifying it. This is the utilitarian, simplistic, convenient and completely false view. People are definitely NOT perfectly rational beings working towards their maximal, personal profit. This is why, BTW, libertarianism is a silly, childish pipe dream. Coming back to the subject, people are perfectly aware that taking someone else's physical good may harm this person directly, that's why it's always carefully regulated by many told and untold rules. Even the most small, primitive societies have mechanisms for goods exchange and appropriation. Digital goods aren't goods, they're information; when they're shared, the originator keeps them. Nobody never sold "information", only convenient, easy or practical access to it. People never bought "music" in the form of CDs, they bought CDs as the way to listen to the music they wanted.

vibrunazo 15y ago

> People pirate music because it's free I do think that's incorrect, but there's a broader picture issue that makes this irrelevant: Why does it even matter? You're misunderstanding the original argument. Of course it's possible to make some money for selling something that is free. Specially if you convince people that it's not free, and that you'll go to jail if you do otherwise. But what they mean with "there's no market value", is that it doesn't create any new value to the economy. It's just money changing hands. If you ask me for 5 bucks and I say "yes, of course, no need to pay me back", we didn't just magically create value in the economy because I payed you 5 bucks for nothing. The value in the economy is the same, that's just money changing hands. If I pay money for a copy of a song, that's just money changing hands. It didn't add any new value to the economy. If I didn't pay money for that copy of the song. The song would still be there. No change in value. Unless, of course, if you make the argument that music would cease to exist if we start sharing it for free. Which I would honestly rather not get into.

citricsquid 15y ago
So the billions of dollars that exist for developers because of the app store are not value to the economy? huh?
- vibrunazo 15y ago
  I'm not sure what do you think is related in your analogy. Seems like two completely separate examples. The software industry adapted to depend less on copyright faster than the music industry. You don't see as much valueless copy selling in our industry anymore. Music should be following us, but they're slower to adapt than we are. Which is exactly the whole point of this discussion. What are you trying to say?
- meow 15y ago
  Piracy is a reality in app stores. But you don't see developers running around to sue people downloading pirated copies. That's because they acknowledged that these people won't pay them and focus their efforts on people who do pay them. Most of the apps even have free versions just so that users can sample they app and judge it for them selves before buying it. All these are adaptations to the environment in which they operate. Content industry on the other hand refuses to adapt.