3 ms·

Why?

• rms 19y ago
  There is always an economic incentive for violating the law. It takes a certain amount of bravery or lack of risk aversion to skirt the edge of legality. Someone has to push the political agenda of the Pirate Party and the more money they have, the more they can change the world. This artificial scarcity of media doesn't make any sense. Why should something that I can get for free cost money?
  • dfens 19y ago
    "Why should something that I can get for free cost money?" Are you for real?
    • rms 19y ago
      Oil is something that is truly scarce... there is only so much oil to go around. Same with food and water. Our economy is based on the scarcity of energy. An MP3 only has artificial scarcity. The energy it costs to copy an MP3 is infinitesimal. The point of the artificial scarcity is to allow the artist to make money by selling his information. In an economy with no scarcity, this doesn't work. The artist needs to make money by selling something that is scarce, like a live performance.
      • dfens 19y ago
        So when you're done making your web app everyone can have a copy of the code ... right?
        • rms 19y ago
          I don't think it's a very good comparison. Everyone can "view source" and see the html code used to display the site. They can't get the actual code that creates the app's functionality, in the same way that you can't decompile an MP3 and get the instrumental tracks that make it up.
          • dfens 19y ago
            I was referring to all your code, not just the HTML. Which, of course, you wouldn't want people copying no matter how easy or hard it is to do. After all, your app will be the result of months of your hard work and effort. The same is true of music.
            • randallsquared 19y ago
              There's a difference: I own the code that's on my server, but the artist does not own the music that's on my desktop; I do (logically, if not legally). If I sell software to someone, and then they want to sell copies, that's their right. I use licenses which explicitly recognize that right, but even if I didn't it should still be up to them, except where contractually barred. If the artist wants to keep people from selling music they've produced, they're free to do so, by not selling it or giving it away. When they've sold something, however, it's not up to them to control another's actions indefinitely. Obviously this is heavily at odds with current law where I live, but fortunately it's easy to get around said law by using licenses which give legal weight to rights a person should have with respect to easily copied materials.
              • aquateen 19y ago
                The artist (or record company) /does/ own the copyrights to the music on your desktop. When you purchased their music, you most likely entered an agreement not to reproduce/distribute it.
                • randallsquared 19y ago
                  I don't think most people enter into any such agreement. Usually nothing is said about that before the sale, and any contract presented after the sale cannot be valid. That doesn't mean US courts won't enforce it anyway, of course. :( Eventually that will change, I expect.
          • Jd 19y ago
            Well, they couldn't get mp3s from CDs until new technology made this possible. So if I had some technology which allowed me to get your source it would be okay for me to copy and use it, right?
  • palish 19y ago
    Listen, I agree with you in spirit, but it's not practical. Here's what I have no problem with: Let's say foo is 15 and he wants to download Super Expensive Program 9000. He spends all day looking for a torrent. Then, once he's downloaded it, the next day it takes him another full day to figure out how to install it and get the various cracks working and everything configured. Right, that's fine. Here's the problem: Time passes, foo's grown up. He's 25, and a software engineer, making $75k a year. He goes to thepiratebay.org and finds Super Expensive Program 9000 immediately. He downloads it in about an hour. It installs immediately with no requirement to apply a crack or any other technical detail. It just installs and works. Okay, I have a problem with the second one, because once piracy becomes a one-click solution it starts to hurt those that make the program. The first isn't a problem because 15 year olds don't buy programs anyway, but they might buy it when they grow up (Like I did with Visual Assist). If there's a way to make it artificially hard to get something for free, I say let them get it, because only the committed will be able to. If it's easy (Napster, ThePirateBay, etc) it needs to be made harder. Also, making money by giving away people's work for free in a one-click solution is just evil. If you're going to give it away for free, make it hard, and don't make any money from it.
    • byrneseyeview 19y ago
      You've talked about the consequence (programmers make less money), but you haven't defended your status quo. Another way to phrase your statement is "Barring market manipulation, Super Expensive Program 9000 isn't worth writing." Which should explain everything.
      • palish 19y ago
        Er.. What? The developer can price it at whatever he wants. If no competition exists, that price can be very high. That's not manipulation, that's capitalism.
        • randallsquared 19y ago
          The Pirate Bay is competition, once he's given away or sold the first copy.