4 ms·

To my mind, this isn't something to celebrate. I said "sufficient", hardly a celebration. it utterly eclipsed everything that came before, in terms of output

by ynniv 14y ago

To my mind, this isn't something to celebrate. I said "sufficient", hardly a celebration. it utterly eclipsed everything that came before, in terms of output Making 1000 times as much art isn't 1000 times as valuable. There is limited time for it to be enjoyed, and limited cultural source for it to be based on, so greatly increased output results in a lot of work that no one cares about. It also finds some "diamonds in the rough", but it's mostly smoke and no fire. it sounds a lot like telling suburbanites that they need to "go back" to sharecropping I'm not sure what makes this topic so prone to analogy, but their use rarely helps the conversation. Here's the root of the problem: copyright is no longer enforceable. You can throw a tantrum, tell us all how unhappy we will be, sue six year olds for hundreds of thousands of dollars, make complicated software that pretends to manage your digital rights, but ultimately it will be of no use. The only thing that will be of use is finding a new business model that doesn't rely on copyright enforcement.

reinhardt 14y ago
Here's the root of the problem: copyright is no longer enforceable. You can throw a tantrum, tell us all how unhappy we will be, sue six year olds for hundreds of thousands of dollars, make complicated software that pretends to manage your digital rights, but ultimately it will be of no use. IOW, the answer to "why do we pirate" is "because we can with little risk of being caught". I would respect more piracy proponents if they just said so instead of trying to come up with moral rationalizations like "it's ok because you are not denying anybody else the copy".
- ynniv 14y ago
  I think that people say denying anybody else the copy when copying is equated to property theft. I'm pretty sure that "no one can honestly stop us" has been the basis of piracy since Bill Gates first called copiers "pirates". [ http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_01/gatesletter.html http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_... ]
  - reinhardt 14y ago
    It's not property theft, it's akin to labor and resource theft; content creation does not come for free.
alexqgb 14y ago
Here's the problem with telling creators and publishers that they - and they alone - need to be the ones to "find another business model". There is only one business model to find, which is this: Offer something people want. If they decide to take it without paying for it, fuck them up. And that's it. Everything else is charity. Obviously, a well-run state divides this labor. A person stealing from a grocer doesn't usually get damaged by the grocer personally. The grocer just call the cops, who take care of all the nasty work involving guns and jails and heavy fines, etc. On a higher level, contracts get disputed in court, and people who default suffer a different range of penalties. But make no mistake. They suffer palpable harm. That's the whole point. In the real world, among actual humans, the decision to buy is based on TWO factors: Do I want this? And must I pay? If the answers are yes and yes and the person has money, you've got business. But if they can simply take what they want for free, then a sizable percentage will. Not all, but enough to drive you out of business when word gets out. The whole reason we have laws courts and cops is to counter this. But somehow, only artists are expected to do business without being able to take their protection for granted. Now you may be right in saying the copyright - as it stands - is no longer a viable means for inflicting the pain which backstops commerce of every kind. But what "finding a new business model" really means is finding a new vector for punishing those who'd destroy a business by taking instead of paying. And obviously, in a civilized country, punishment is the domain of the state, and they take a justifiably dim view of "private enforcement" (e.g. the Mafia). That's why "finding a new business model" really isn't up to creators and creators alone. Under a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, It's up to the people to take some responsibility as well. And that means deciding what enforcement mechanisms that can live with, making sure they're funded properly, and accommodating them to the extent necessary to be suitably effective. What they don't do is say "Fuck you, you're on your own - figure it out or die," unless they're insanely short-sighted or they truly want the target of their rage to die.
- ynniv 14y ago
  If they decide to take it without paying for it, fuck them up. That's a pretty base understanding of business. You are correct, but it assumes that anyone who knows this is okay with the way you operate. In general, people are okay with prosecuting those who have taken physical property of value, but when the girl scouts get sued for singing songs at the campfire, people aren't so sure. And really, the last half century of copyright enforcement has looked a lot more like the mafia than the government. VHS had an angry looking FBI warning, while people were trading mix tapes with their friends. It has been "private" enforcement in an attempt to prop up the business model, with only tolerance from the rest of society. What they don't do is say "Fuck you, you're on your own - figure it out or die," unless they're insanely short-sighted or they truly want the target of their rage to die. I'm not sure that I care whether "Hollywood" lives or dies. They make some nice stories, but there are a lot of bigger issues in life. It is not a "target of [my] rage", so much as it is the good looking, arrogant bully that's popular but sometimes hurts people. I don't even care that they want too much compensation for their goods, which I pay though cinemas, iTunes music and video, and NetFlix. What I care is that now that the natural means of enforcing copyright (limited means of production) is gone, they are arguing to turn our society into a surveillance state to ensure that they get their due. This is absolutely, positively, undeniably, not okay. Even if they succeed in doing this to the United States, other countries will go to war with us to prevent this from happening to them. Find a business plan that works without copyright or admit defeat.
alexqgb 14y ago
The point is not sheer volume. It's that the market for which this volume was produced has tastes and interests vastly more diverse than the narrow spectrum of interest to the aristocracy. Also, within this arrangement, the artist himself has vastly more liberty, since the patron (i.e. the publisher) is far less interested in controlling the work itself, and far more interested in what sells. Audiences, in turn, trust the taste and inspiration of the artist, which puts the creative ball squarely in his court. Put these factors together and you'll find that creation itself encompasses a far greater range, and with that, the sum of human culture and knowledge grows exponentially.
rayiner 14y ago
Copyright is totally enforceable, and it's enforced just fine right now. Your big blind spot here is that you're thinking of copyright infringement as just downloading. Both when looking at whether it's right or wrong ("what's the harm if someone in Saudi downloads Pirates of the Caribbean?") and now from the enforcement standpoint. The real value of copyright, to content creators, is to keep a Google or Apple from coming along, digitizing every movie and song, and selling them for a nominal price to drive Android/iOS device sales.
- ynniv 14y ago
  Copyright is totally enforceable, and it's enforced just fine right now. Seriously? If you believe this, there isn't much more I can say.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  Dude, you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. I actually work in production. I know all about the role that copyright plays in keeping media companies honest (more or less) in their dealings with each other because I deal with that system every day. I promise you, this is not a "blind spot".
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I wasn't replying to you... I quite agree with the points you made in this thread.

by ynniv 14y ago

reinhardt 14y ago

Here's the root of the problem: copyright is no longer enforceable. You can throw a tantrum, tell us all how unhappy we will be, sue six year olds for hundreds of thousands of dollars, make complicated software that pretends to manage your digital rights, but ultimately it will be of no use. IOW, the answer to "why do we pirate" is "because we can with little risk of being caught". I would respect more piracy proponents if they just said so instead of trying to come up with moral rationalizations like "it's ok because you are not denying anybody else the copy".

ynniv 14y ago
I think that people say denying anybody else the copy when copying is equated to property theft. I'm pretty sure that "no one can honestly stop us" has been the basis of piracy since Bill Gates first called copiers "pirates". [ http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_01/gatesletter.html http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_... ]
- reinhardt 14y ago
  It's not property theft, it's akin to labor and resource theft; content creation does not come for free.

alexqgb 14y ago

Here's the problem with telling creators and publishers that they - and they alone - need to be the ones to "find another business model". There is only one business model to find, which is this: Offer something people want. If they decide to take it without paying for it, fuck them up. And that's it. Everything else is charity. Obviously, a well-run state divides this labor. A person stealing from a grocer doesn't usually get damaged by the grocer personally. The grocer just call the cops, who take care of all the nasty work involving guns and jails and heavy fines, etc. On a higher level, contracts get disputed in court, and people who default suffer a different range of penalties. But make no mistake. They suffer palpable harm. That's the whole point. In the real world, among actual humans, the decision to buy is based on TWO factors: Do I want this? And must I pay? If the answers are yes and yes and the person has money, you've got business. But if they can simply take what they want for free, then a sizable percentage will. Not all, but enough to drive you out of business when word gets out. The whole reason we have laws courts and cops is to counter this. But somehow, only artists are expected to do business without being able to take their protection for granted. Now you may be right in saying the copyright - as it stands - is no longer a viable means for inflicting the pain which backstops commerce of every kind. But what "finding a new business model" really means is finding a new vector for punishing those who'd destroy a business by taking instead of paying. And obviously, in a civilized country, punishment is the domain of the state, and they take a justifiably dim view of "private enforcement" (e.g. the Mafia). That's why "finding a new business model" really isn't up to creators and creators alone. Under a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, It's up to the people to take some responsibility as well. And that means deciding what enforcement mechanisms that can live with, making sure they're funded properly, and accommodating them to the extent necessary to be suitably effective. What they don't do is say "Fuck you, you're on your own - figure it out or die," unless they're insanely short-sighted or they truly want the target of their rage to die.

ynniv 14y ago
If they decide to take it without paying for it, fuck them up. That's a pretty base understanding of business. You are correct, but it assumes that anyone who knows this is okay with the way you operate. In general, people are okay with prosecuting those who have taken physical property of value, but when the girl scouts get sued for singing songs at the campfire, people aren't so sure. And really, the last half century of copyright enforcement has looked a lot more like the mafia than the government. VHS had an angry looking FBI warning, while people were trading mix tapes with their friends. It has been "private" enforcement in an attempt to prop up the business model, with only tolerance from the rest of society. What they don't do is say "Fuck you, you're on your own - figure it out or die," unless they're insanely short-sighted or they truly want the target of their rage to die. I'm not sure that I care whether "Hollywood" lives or dies. They make some nice stories, but there are a lot of bigger issues in life. It is not a "target of [my] rage", so much as it is the good looking, arrogant bully that's popular but sometimes hurts people. I don't even care that they want too much compensation for their goods, which I pay though cinemas, iTunes music and video, and NetFlix. What I care is that now that the natural means of enforcing copyright (limited means of production) is gone, they are arguing to turn our society into a surveillance state to ensure that they get their due. This is absolutely, positively, undeniably, not okay. Even if they succeed in doing this to the United States, other countries will go to war with us to prevent this from happening to them. Find a business plan that works without copyright or admit defeat.

alexqgb 14y ago

The point is not sheer volume. It's that the market for which this volume was produced has tastes and interests vastly more diverse than the narrow spectrum of interest to the aristocracy. Also, within this arrangement, the artist himself has vastly more liberty, since the patron (i.e. the publisher) is far less interested in controlling the work itself, and far more interested in what sells. Audiences, in turn, trust the taste and inspiration of the artist, which puts the creative ball squarely in his court. Put these factors together and you'll find that creation itself encompasses a far greater range, and with that, the sum of human culture and knowledge grows exponentially.

rayiner 14y ago

Copyright is totally enforceable, and it's enforced just fine right now. Your big blind spot here is that you're thinking of copyright infringement as just downloading. Both when looking at whether it's right or wrong ("what's the harm if someone in Saudi downloads Pirates of the Caribbean?") and now from the enforcement standpoint. The real value of copyright, to content creators, is to keep a Google or Apple from coming along, digitizing every movie and song, and selling them for a nominal price to drive Android/iOS device sales.

ynniv 14y ago
Copyright is totally enforceable, and it's enforced just fine right now. Seriously? If you believe this, there isn't much more I can say.
alexqgb 14y ago
Dude, you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. I actually work in production. I know all about the role that copyright plays in keeping media companies honest (more or less) in their dealings with each other because I deal with that system every day. I promise you, this is not a "blind spot".
- rayiner 14y ago
  I wasn't replying to you... I quite agree with the points you made in this thread.