6 ms·

This is interesting as I have had similar problems with hackers/copy catters, and it is true that the majority do come from an asian region, but I think its sti

This is interesting as I have had similar problems with hackers/copy catters, and it is true that the majority do come from an asian region, but I think its still important to note that the majority of the world's population is also in asia. For me, this article seems to concentrate the online IP problem specifically in asia/China, which in my opinion is simply not the case. For instance, are the Samwers really that much different from what the developer in the article just did? I think the real question is how do you respect IP at a global level where governmental laws can differ largely from one country to the next.

franze 14y ago
>For instance, are the Samwers really that much different from what the developer in the article just did? yes, stealing a product and selling a stolen product is quite different from copying, iterating on and subsequent scaling a business model.
- Volpe 14y ago
  It is only 'different' because we have defined/framed copyright in the way we have. Infringing copyright is not that different from copying a business model. (You are still copying something from someone else).
  - franze 14y ago
    with this logic (and if it would have always applied) we would have 1 restaurant chain in the whole world, 1 car maker in the whole world, hey we would have only one merchant in the whole world - and worst of all - only one OS maker in the whole world.
    - Volpe 14y ago
      Reductio ad absurdum. Care to try to explain 'why' for any of those assertions?
      - franze 14y ago
        the business model of a merchant is to buy something cheap and sell it at a more expensive price. if this business model would be copyrightable than nobody else would be allowed (not until he/she licensed it) to buy something cheap and sell it at a more expensive price. the one merchant who invented this concept would then be the only merchant in the world, and as the other guy who invented "licensing" would probably not have "licensed" licensing to the merchant (as the merchant would then have a license on licensing and would have just licensed licensing to other people) the merchant would be forever the only merchant in the world. note: yeah i know this is absurd, but not as absurd as the notion, that business models are copyrightable. (or should not get copied because of .... whatever)
        paulgb 14y ago
        Copyright would never apply to business models, patents would. Both copyrights and patents expire, so the scenario you describe wouldn't happen. I agree that business models should not be protected, though.
      - paulhauggis 14y ago
        It's why we need copyrights and patents. If there were no protections, anyone that had lots of resources could just cherry-pick new technology and ideas (use the companies as almost free R&D) and beat them to the market before any small company even has a chance to get off the ground. The result would be a few huge companies.
        beagle3 14y ago
        It's a nice idea. And yet, in the 1980s and early 1990s, when there was absolutely no patent protection for software, the software industry flourished. And yet, Google, a small upstart, was able to rise well above all the other search engines, despite being (at the beginning) much less funded, and using an algorithm that -- while patented by them in 95 or so -- had been known for 40 years, and even used in exactly the same way with respect to academic references (who have, for all intents and purposes, "links" in the printed paper world). So, even though everyone who had a lot of resources could do that, it doesn't happen in practice - and in fact, the existing patent regime seems to be useless in this regard. Patents and copyrights are a very nice idea, but the existing implementations are so horrible, that it is not clear to me we're better off than without them.
  - codesuela 14y ago
    Carbon copying another persons work without putting in a minuscule amount of effort is different from taking a proven business model and rolling it out in a different market. It's not like the Samwers steal the sourcecode and design put a new name on it and call it a day. There have real offices, real engineers, real designers, real marketers. You might think cloning a business model is despicable but there is a real effort involved in executing it. Not to mention that unlike in the case of this article the Samwers don't go into already preoccupied markets but rather aim to tap new ones.
Volpe 14y ago
> I think the real question is how do you respect IP online and at a global level where governmental laws can differ largely from one country to the next. It's probably a hint that Copyright is a stupid way to sell software, but perhaps that is high jacking this thread.
- grabeh 14y ago
  It is one thing to attack copyright for being used against consumers who wish to use media, however it is a different issue when a third party is copying your platform wholesale and then deriving revenue from that act of copying. I think in this case, copyright still has a role to play i.e. where a third party is monetising your copyright rather than simply using it.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    That's an interesting line to draw. Both breaches of copyright involve a monetary loss. This feels like a hypocritical stance, but I could be misunderstanding you. :\
    - grabeh 14y ago
      With a consumer, the loss is much harder to show as it's difficult to prove that if they hadn't downloaded for free, they would have purchased. But I don't think it's hypocritical to create that divide - after all there are many exceptions already in existence to the right to prevent copying. Private use would just be another addition. It also reflects what should be the reality, i.e. that in many cases, you will want to pursue the party that is making money from your creation, because they will be the ones more likely to have money to pay damages, plus it will be easier to show damage.
krickle 14y ago
The people brazen enough to copy .jars and source code seem to be disproportionately Chinese.
tibbon 14y ago
One of the biggest issues with this stuff in Asia/China in particular is the attitude of governments toward IP there. The problem isn't just that there's a large population there, and that its another country. Maybe its naive of me, but I think if there was something that was blatantly stolen like this in Canada or the UK, I could go through the channels to have it taken down, and a case pursued against them fairly easily.

franze 14y ago

>For instance, are the Samwers really that much different from what the developer in the article just did? yes, stealing a product and selling a stolen product is quite different from copying, iterating on and subsequent scaling a business model.

Volpe 14y ago
It is only 'different' because we have defined/framed copyright in the way we have. Infringing copyright is not that different from copying a business model. (You are still copying something from someone else).
- franze 14y ago
  with this logic (and if it would have always applied) we would have 1 restaurant chain in the whole world, 1 car maker in the whole world, hey we would have only one merchant in the whole world - and worst of all - only one OS maker in the whole world.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    Reductio ad absurdum. Care to try to explain 'why' for any of those assertions?
    - franze 14y ago
      the business model of a merchant is to buy something cheap and sell it at a more expensive price. if this business model would be copyrightable than nobody else would be allowed (not until he/she licensed it) to buy something cheap and sell it at a more expensive price. the one merchant who invented this concept would then be the only merchant in the world, and as the other guy who invented "licensing" would probably not have "licensed" licensing to the merchant (as the merchant would then have a license on licensing and would have just licensed licensing to other people) the merchant would be forever the only merchant in the world. note: yeah i know this is absurd, but not as absurd as the notion, that business models are copyrightable. (or should not get copied because of .... whatever)
      - paulgb 14y ago
        Copyright would never apply to business models, patents would. Both copyrights and patents expire, so the scenario you describe wouldn't happen. I agree that business models should not be protected, though.
    - paulhauggis 14y ago
      It's why we need copyrights and patents. If there were no protections, anyone that had lots of resources could just cherry-pick new technology and ideas (use the companies as almost free R&D) and beat them to the market before any small company even has a chance to get off the ground. The result would be a few huge companies.
      - beagle3 14y ago
        It's a nice idea. And yet, in the 1980s and early 1990s, when there was absolutely no patent protection for software, the software industry flourished. And yet, Google, a small upstart, was able to rise well above all the other search engines, despite being (at the beginning) much less funded, and using an algorithm that -- while patented by them in 95 or so -- had been known for 40 years, and even used in exactly the same way with respect to academic references (who have, for all intents and purposes, "links" in the printed paper world). So, even though everyone who had a lot of resources could do that, it doesn't happen in practice - and in fact, the existing patent regime seems to be useless in this regard. Patents and copyrights are a very nice idea, but the existing implementations are so horrible, that it is not clear to me we're better off than without them.
- codesuela 14y ago
  Carbon copying another persons work without putting in a minuscule amount of effort is different from taking a proven business model and rolling it out in a different market. It's not like the Samwers steal the sourcecode and design put a new name on it and call it a day. There have real offices, real engineers, real designers, real marketers. You might think cloning a business model is despicable but there is a real effort involved in executing it. Not to mention that unlike in the case of this article the Samwers don't go into already preoccupied markets but rather aim to tap new ones.

Volpe 14y ago

> I think the real question is how do you respect IP online and at a global level where governmental laws can differ largely from one country to the next. It's probably a hint that Copyright is a stupid way to sell software, but perhaps that is high jacking this thread.

grabeh 14y ago
It is one thing to attack copyright for being used against consumers who wish to use media, however it is a different issue when a third party is copying your platform wholesale and then deriving revenue from that act of copying. I think in this case, copyright still has a role to play i.e. where a third party is monetising your copyright rather than simply using it.
- Volpe 14y ago
  That's an interesting line to draw. Both breaches of copyright involve a monetary loss. This feels like a hypocritical stance, but I could be misunderstanding you. :\
  - grabeh 14y ago
    With a consumer, the loss is much harder to show as it's difficult to prove that if they hadn't downloaded for free, they would have purchased. But I don't think it's hypocritical to create that divide - after all there are many exceptions already in existence to the right to prevent copying. Private use would just be another addition. It also reflects what should be the reality, i.e. that in many cases, you will want to pursue the party that is making money from your creation, because they will be the ones more likely to have money to pay damages, plus it will be easier to show damage.

krickle 14y ago

The people brazen enough to copy .jars and source code seem to be disproportionately Chinese.

tibbon 14y ago

One of the biggest issues with this stuff in Asia/China in particular is the attitude of governments toward IP there. The problem isn't just that there's a large population there, and that its another country. Maybe its naive of me, but I think if there was something that was blatantly stolen like this in Canada or the UK, I could go through the channels to have it taken down, and a case pursued against them fairly easily.