6 ms·

I'm not really sure it's bullying per se, to try and stop the mass illegal downloading of your content. It's not like they've got thugs at the door, they're jus

I'm not really sure it's bullying per se, to try and stop the mass illegal downloading of your content. It's not like they've got thugs at the door, they're just trying to shut down a site who's sole purpose is enabling the illegal downloading, and who has no interest in co-operating with even nicely worded, fair requests. I'm not a great fan of the entertainment industry, but if people were doing this to YC startups who focus on IP production, would the level of "support" be the same? I mean, what alternative do people suggest for these companies? That they ignore it, thus tacitly approve it, until everyone uses and doesn't bother with legal avenues? I hear a lot about "Well, find a new business model!", without explaining why a company should be forced to change based on clearly illegal activity. Even accepting the pragmatic argument that "It's going to happen anyway", I'm curious as to what business model people are suggesting?

nitrogen 13y ago
I hear a lot about "Well, find a new business model!", without explaining why a company should be forced to change based on clearly illegal activity. This is begging the question. The activity is illegal in the first place because of lobbying by the recording industry starting in the late 1800s/early 1900s.
- api 13y ago
  So if you start a startup, you're totally fine if I take your code, your logo, your copyrights, and your name and create a copycat site and take your customers? You're okay with that? If so, please send me the details so I can keep an eye on you. Anyone else who's so inclined, reply as well. I'd love to grab a few zero-effort passive income generators.
  - Anderkent 13y ago
    No, I'm not okay with that, but I don't think someone who linked to that copycat site is committing a crime!
    - jbattle 13y ago
      Are you saying it's OK to copy music/movies someone else made, but not software/visual assets you made?
      - Heliosmaster 13y ago
        he's saying that's it's ok to LINK to them (which is what TPB is doing)
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        It is pretty clear that he is not saying that: "No, I'm not okay with that"
  - spiritplumber 13y ago
    I am, actually. Of course my EULA will have some clause to the effect of "If you do this, you implicitly accept to go three rounds with me at a time and place of my choosing, including your house". I'll be sure to bring a ref along, of course.
  - easytiger 13y ago
    how is that the same?
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    Trademarks offer a lot more benefit to the consumer than any other IP. Allowing people to use other people's trademarks is like allowing you to use other people's signatures. Everything else, I'm totally fine with. If you're better at using and marketing my code than I am, fork me over at will. Just don't pretend to be me. edit: also, if you can exploit my code so much better than I can, consider hiring me. I'm cheap, I don't need a lot of space, and I'm extremely familiar with your codebase.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Conflating trademarks and copyrights is not going to help us come to a rational agreement on the appropriate nature of either one. There's also a considerable difference between commercial and personal infringement. I support the use of trademarks to prevent consumer confusion; I don't support the abuse of trademarks (e.g. to attempt to suppress commentary, comparison, or criticism). I also support short-term copyrights for the benefit of authors, performers, and creators. I don't support the current system where copyrights can extend beyond 100 years. Tell you what: if I still have legal control over and working backups of my startup's software 28 years from now, you can contact me and I'll send you a CC0-licensed copy of my most recent release as of this date (Apr. 25, 2013).
    - davidw 13y ago
      I think yours is a fair position (probably because it's close to my own:-). You are not rejecting the idea of IP as a compromise to encourage the production of goods that otherwise might not be created, you're just in favor of reining things in a lot.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        Sometimes I still argue the side of the copyright abolitionists. This is for two reasons: first, it's nice to have extremists to expand the space that is considered "normal", and second, I'd rather have zero copyright than effectively perpetual copyright with outrageous penalties for personal infringement.
- archgrove 13y ago
  Copyright has been around a lot longer than the late 1800's/early 1900's. And many, many people rely on it for their income, not just the recording industry. In fact, the entire software industry, pretty much. Does the recording industry lose protection because they're big?
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Copyright was originally much shorter in duration, and did not cover phonographic recordings. I've lost the link, but I remember reading US senate hearings from the early 1900s in which phonograph producers were arguing against music publishers, basically following the same template you see the record labels using to argue against new technology today. Relevant laws found on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1831 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1831 (added musical compositions to US copyright) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 (added mechanical reproduction (piano rolls, phonographs) and public performances to US copyright)
- pyre 13y ago
  I was under the impression that the 'recording industry' as we understand it today was spawned in the 1960's as a response to the Beatles and their popularity.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Likewise, I was under the impression that Edison was fairly ruthless when it came to wax cylinder production and musicians' rights.
belorn 13y ago
Im going to try to keep it short, but its hard given the many different topic you touched on. Any company that solely depend on government granted monopolies for their businesses model will have a hard time to claim a moral high ground or demand that the sovereign of foreign countries should be violated. The business model I would suggest is one that do not solely depend on government grants. That would likely be to produce a product or rendering a service that others are willing to pay for.
- archgrove 13y ago
  Can you suggest a business not dependent on government grants? As far as I can tell, every business in the world is. Any form of property rights is a government granted monopoly. The only natural law is "If I'm bigger than you, I'll take what I want". No matter what business you're in, you're relying on government protection to stop me just smacking you on the head and taking your stuff, whether it's tangible physical goods or IP. They only difference here is that the internet has rendered the head smacking part obsolete for IP, so people can skip straight to taking the stuff.
  - belorn 13y ago
    I have heard this argument before, but you are making a rather big claim when doing so. If all property rights is government granted monopolies, you are then saying that the government is the owner of all and everyone’s property. That mean you don't own that car. Its the government car that they have given to you under a granted permission to use it. Same goes for your house. All they need to render the third amendment void is taking back their granted permission. Basically we are now describing a capitalistic governed country like the US as if it worked like an communist controlled one. So before I continue down this line, do you really claim that government is the rightful owner of everyones property? If not, then we must separate physical property with government granted permissions.
    - archgrove 13y ago
      The government doesn't own it, but it enforces the right that you own it. Both for physical goods in the obvious way, and IP via the way of copyright.
betterunix 13y ago
Why should a law that has its roots in 17th century censorship continue to be clung to in the 21st century? Times have changed, get over it and develop a business model that is more appropriate for this century.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Why don't you apply this line of thought to the 4th Amendment, and see if it still makes sense to you?
  - betterunix 13y ago
    OK, sure: we have the same problem today that we had back then, which is the tendency of governments to descend into tyranny. The 4th amendment is a protection against that and so it remains relevant. Copyright was began with an effort to simplify tyranny, and later evolved into a way to promote the interests of the publishing industry. Neither of those are relevant to today's world; we do not want the Star Chamber and the publishing industry is no longer necessary to spread information and entertainment. Why, then, should we keep copyright around?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      "the publishing industry is no longer necessary to spread information and entertainment." What's your real problem here? Are you smart but dishonest? Or are you just a complete idiot? Because there's no way an informed person of good will could say something as obviously wrong as that. Seriously, publishers do a hell of a lot more than just "spread" information an entertainment. They actually produce the goddamn stuff. Moreover, they do so by putting billions (with a b) at risk. And thank goodness for that, since producing top-flight media remains an insanely difficult, expensive, and risky thing to do. And that's the reason copyright exists: to ensure when some of the bets these publishers place do turn into giant booming successes, they can actually recover enough of their investment to remain profitably engaged in the production business. An an institution, copyright has problems galore, but as Churchill said of democracy "is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
generalseven 13y ago
Look back at what's happened to the music business since Napster for past lessons on what has and has not worked. To say "a site who's sole purpose is enabling the illegal downloading" is not completely true. File sharing has more legitimate uses than illegal ones. See Dropbox for details.

nitrogen 13y ago

I hear a lot about "Well, find a new business model!", without explaining why a company should be forced to change based on clearly illegal activity. This is begging the question. The activity is illegal in the first place because of lobbying by the recording industry starting in the late 1800s/early 1900s.

api 13y ago
So if you start a startup, you're totally fine if I take your code, your logo, your copyrights, and your name and create a copycat site and take your customers? You're okay with that? If so, please send me the details so I can keep an eye on you. Anyone else who's so inclined, reply as well. I'd love to grab a few zero-effort passive income generators.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  No, I'm not okay with that, but I don't think someone who linked to that copycat site is committing a crime!
  - jbattle 13y ago
    Are you saying it's OK to copy music/movies someone else made, but not software/visual assets you made?
    - Heliosmaster 13y ago
      he's saying that's it's ok to LINK to them (which is what TPB is doing)
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      It is pretty clear that he is not saying that: "No, I'm not okay with that"
- spiritplumber 13y ago
  I am, actually. Of course my EULA will have some clause to the effect of "If you do this, you implicitly accept to go three rounds with me at a time and place of my choosing, including your house". I'll be sure to bring a ref along, of course.
- easytiger 13y ago
  how is that the same?
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Trademarks offer a lot more benefit to the consumer than any other IP. Allowing people to use other people's trademarks is like allowing you to use other people's signatures. Everything else, I'm totally fine with. If you're better at using and marketing my code than I am, fork me over at will. Just don't pretend to be me. edit: also, if you can exploit my code so much better than I can, consider hiring me. I'm cheap, I don't need a lot of space, and I'm extremely familiar with your codebase.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Conflating trademarks and copyrights is not going to help us come to a rational agreement on the appropriate nature of either one. There's also a considerable difference between commercial and personal infringement. I support the use of trademarks to prevent consumer confusion; I don't support the abuse of trademarks (e.g. to attempt to suppress commentary, comparison, or criticism). I also support short-term copyrights for the benefit of authors, performers, and creators. I don't support the current system where copyrights can extend beyond 100 years. Tell you what: if I still have legal control over and working backups of my startup's software 28 years from now, you can contact me and I'll send you a CC0-licensed copy of my most recent release as of this date (Apr. 25, 2013).
  - davidw 13y ago
    I think yours is a fair position (probably because it's close to my own:-). You are not rejecting the idea of IP as a compromise to encourage the production of goods that otherwise might not be created, you're just in favor of reining things in a lot.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      Sometimes I still argue the side of the copyright abolitionists. This is for two reasons: first, it's nice to have extremists to expand the space that is considered "normal", and second, I'd rather have zero copyright than effectively perpetual copyright with outrageous penalties for personal infringement.
archgrove 13y ago
Copyright has been around a lot longer than the late 1800's/early 1900's. And many, many people rely on it for their income, not just the recording industry. In fact, the entire software industry, pretty much. Does the recording industry lose protection because they're big?
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Copyright was originally much shorter in duration, and did not cover phonographic recordings. I've lost the link, but I remember reading US senate hearings from the early 1900s in which phonograph producers were arguing against music publishers, basically following the same template you see the record labels using to argue against new technology today. Relevant laws found on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1831 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1831 (added musical compositions to US copyright) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 (added mechanical reproduction (piano rolls, phonographs) and public performances to US copyright)
pyre 13y ago
I was under the impression that the 'recording industry' as we understand it today was spawned in the 1960's as a response to the Beatles and their popularity.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Likewise, I was under the impression that Edison was fairly ruthless when it came to wax cylinder production and musicians' rights.

belorn 13y ago

Im going to try to keep it short, but its hard given the many different topic you touched on. Any company that solely depend on government granted monopolies for their businesses model will have a hard time to claim a moral high ground or demand that the sovereign of foreign countries should be violated. The business model I would suggest is one that do not solely depend on government grants. That would likely be to produce a product or rendering a service that others are willing to pay for.

archgrove 13y ago
Can you suggest a business not dependent on government grants? As far as I can tell, every business in the world is. Any form of property rights is a government granted monopoly. The only natural law is "If I'm bigger than you, I'll take what I want". No matter what business you're in, you're relying on government protection to stop me just smacking you on the head and taking your stuff, whether it's tangible physical goods or IP. They only difference here is that the internet has rendered the head smacking part obsolete for IP, so people can skip straight to taking the stuff.
- belorn 13y ago
  I have heard this argument before, but you are making a rather big claim when doing so. If all property rights is government granted monopolies, you are then saying that the government is the owner of all and everyone’s property. That mean you don't own that car. Its the government car that they have given to you under a granted permission to use it. Same goes for your house. All they need to render the third amendment void is taking back their granted permission. Basically we are now describing a capitalistic governed country like the US as if it worked like an communist controlled one. So before I continue down this line, do you really claim that government is the rightful owner of everyones property? If not, then we must separate physical property with government granted permissions.
  - archgrove 13y ago
    The government doesn't own it, but it enforces the right that you own it. Both for physical goods in the obvious way, and IP via the way of copyright.

betterunix 13y ago

Why should a law that has its roots in 17th century censorship continue to be clung to in the 21st century? Times have changed, get over it and develop a business model that is more appropriate for this century.

alexqgb 13y ago
Why don't you apply this line of thought to the 4th Amendment, and see if it still makes sense to you?
- betterunix 13y ago
  OK, sure: we have the same problem today that we had back then, which is the tendency of governments to descend into tyranny. The 4th amendment is a protection against that and so it remains relevant. Copyright was began with an effort to simplify tyranny, and later evolved into a way to promote the interests of the publishing industry. Neither of those are relevant to today's world; we do not want the Star Chamber and the publishing industry is no longer necessary to spread information and entertainment. Why, then, should we keep copyright around?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    "the publishing industry is no longer necessary to spread information and entertainment." What's your real problem here? Are you smart but dishonest? Or are you just a complete idiot? Because there's no way an informed person of good will could say something as obviously wrong as that. Seriously, publishers do a hell of a lot more than just "spread" information an entertainment. They actually produce the goddamn stuff. Moreover, they do so by putting billions (with a b) at risk. And thank goodness for that, since producing top-flight media remains an insanely difficult, expensive, and risky thing to do. And that's the reason copyright exists: to ensure when some of the bets these publishers place do turn into giant booming successes, they can actually recover enough of their investment to remain profitably engaged in the production business. An an institution, copyright has problems galore, but as Churchill said of democracy "is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

generalseven 13y ago

Look back at what's happened to the music business since Napster for past lessons on what has and has not worked. To say "a site who's sole purpose is enabling the illegal downloading" is not completely true. File sharing has more legitimate uses than illegal ones. See Dropbox for details.