6 ms·

It's not my fault your business model sucks.

14 points by apotheon 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago
Who said it was your fault that their business model sucks?
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  The RIAA keeps saying it to everyone.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    I think that's a straw man. The RIAA is saying, "just because you don't like our business model, doesn't mean you get to ignore copyright". And they're right. Listen to something other than Britney.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      The reason we don't "get" to ignore those monopolistic practices is the simple fact that it's a law -- which says nothing at all about whether it's right or wrong.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        So you're advocating simply ignoring the laws you don't approve of? Or of scolding the RIAA for demanding they be enforced? I don't get it. Nobody's saying the RIAA's business model is your fault. You are free to avoid the RIAA: don't use their offerings.
        kiba 17y ago
        Nowhere does apotheon advocate the breaking of laws, just whether a law is right or wrong.
        tptacek 17y ago
        Nowhere does apotheon actually advocate that copyright law is wrong, because that would be boring. Instead, he's set up a passive-aggressive straw man argument. Which is my point.
        apotheon 17y ago
        > Nowhere does apotheon actually advocate that copyright law is wrong Incorrect. Try following links once in a while. Do you expect me to say everything in one place? My god, all my opinions and explanations relevant to them in one place -- it would be a document fit to fill the Library of Congress. > Instead, he's set up a passive-aggressive straw man argument. The fact you are incapable of recognizing the implicit message in advocating for strict enforcement of copyright law is your failing -- not mine.
        randallsquared 17y ago
        So you're advocating simply ignoring the laws you don't approve of? It seems arguable that this is a moral obligation. Going out of your way to comply with laws you disapprove of strengthens those laws you disapprove of -- it's self-contradictory. If you, in the course of going about your normal life, happen to comply because it's what you would do anyway, I don't think this means you have an obligation to break those laws, but ignoring them is probably best, unless it has other consequences you can't afford.
        apotheon 17y ago
        > So you're advocating simply ignoring the laws you don't approve of? Not as such. More to the point, I'm advocating phasing out those laws, regardless of whether anyone follows them while they're still on the books. People are already simply ignoring those laws, in ever-increasing numbers; nobody has to advocate for it. > You are free to avoid the RIAA: don't use their offerings. I don't.
        tptacek 17y ago
        If you don't use RIAA offerings, why aren't you advocating that other people do likewise? That's Stallman's argument. I don't find it compelling, but at least it's intellectually valid. If you think that's the argument you are making, then where do business models come into the picture?
        apotheon 17y ago
        > If you don't use RIAA offerings, why aren't you advocating that other people do likewise? I do advocate that other people do likewise. The fact that I don't do so with every breath -- including the virtual "breaths" used to say what's in a particular piece of writing you happened to stumble across -- doesn't mean that I don't do so in general. > If you think that's the argument you are making, then where do business models come into the picture? Why are you trying to tell me I'm not allowed to have more than one argument?
        tptacek 17y ago
        Because the argument you actually chose to promote here was weak.
        apotheon 17y ago
        Non-sequitur, much?
- apotheon 17y ago
  That's the implicit message in anyone's attempt to legislate the way I use, or dispose of, what I have in my possession the way copyright law does. "My business model sucks, so I'll use the government to ensure you conform to it -- since it won't stand up on its own."
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Now you're writing as if copyright was something designed explicitly to allow the RIAA to sue teenagers, which, independently of whether copyright is a good idea or not, is a ridiculous argument.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      No -- I'm writing as if the current form of copyright law was: 1. roughly inevitable, given continued support and enforcement of copyright 2. inevitably going to result in behavior like suing teenagers Actually, I'm not even writing as if that's the case. You're just correctly guessing that the RIAA suing teenagers is a bad result of copyright law, and assigning that to me as some kind of guess at the original purpose of the law. I'm really writing as if it's the case that copyright law is a violation of individual rights, thus placing the burden of someone else's poor business model on people who have no ethical imperative to bear that burden.
    - kiba 17y ago
      The history of economics is littered with such examples. Perhaps you want to start reading Against Intellectual Monopoly in which you read lawsuits by James Watt against his also somewhat innovative competitors, the lucrative bargain between British authors and American publishers in the era of no foreign copyrights, the extremely innovative porn industry, the patenting of plants toward the end of explosive productivity growth in the agriculture industry and even more.
wwalker3 17y ago
It's a reiteration of a sentiment I've seen a lot recently: "My livelihood doesn't depend on copyright, so I'll feel free to violate yours." Are people really so unconcerned about the livelihood of others? Each of us is already free to give away the fruits of our own labors -- but why insist that others must do the same?
- kiba 17y ago
  It is actually a very capitalist/libertarian mentality. "If you are able to compete in the market, good for you. If you couldn't compete, so what?" It does not however, mean that they support government granted monopolies, subsidy, or other form of crony capitalism. To some libertarians, copyright and patent are a form of crony capitalism.
  - wwalker3 17y ago
    If I know that an author doesn't want me to copy his book, I won't copy it. It's not a matter of law or monopoly, it's just politeness.
    - kiba 17y ago
      I don't think most copyright abolisionists would want to either, simply out of principles or sprites. My comment were mostly in the context of a competition, not customers.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      That's great. Now . . . let's see if we can avoid legislating politeness.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        Clearly we can't, since virtually everything that can be downloaded for free on the Internet is being downloaded for free on the Internet, books very much included.
ismarc 17y ago
I saddened that the intent of copyright has been forgotten so much. As has been pointed out, copyright is a "contract" between the people and the creator. The creator is given a limited time in which they can exclusively profit fro m a work IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE CREATION OF FURTHER WORKS. Copyright does not exist for the creator. It exists for the people. By allowing an avenue for the creator to exclusively profit from a creation for a time, the people can then expect further works from the creator, resulting in a much richer society with great works of art. The perversion of this system by perpetually extending copyrights stifles the creation of further works due to the maintained state of the original copyright. I am a musician, and am overjoyed that I have exclusive control over my original works for a time period. I am a software developer, and I am overjoyed that for a period of time I can be the sole distributor of the works. I am a consumer, and I am disappointed by the lack of progress in created works due to the maintenance of copyrights.

14 points by apotheon 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago

Who said it was your fault that their business model sucks?

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
The RIAA keeps saying it to everyone.
- tptacek 17y ago
  I think that's a straw man. The RIAA is saying, "just because you don't like our business model, doesn't mean you get to ignore copyright". And they're right. Listen to something other than Britney.
  - apotheon 17y ago
    The reason we don't "get" to ignore those monopolistic practices is the simple fact that it's a law -- which says nothing at all about whether it's right or wrong.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      So you're advocating simply ignoring the laws you don't approve of? Or of scolding the RIAA for demanding they be enforced? I don't get it. Nobody's saying the RIAA's business model is your fault. You are free to avoid the RIAA: don't use their offerings.
      - kiba 17y ago
        Nowhere does apotheon advocate the breaking of laws, just whether a law is right or wrong.
        tptacek 17y ago
        Nowhere does apotheon actually advocate that copyright law is wrong, because that would be boring. Instead, he's set up a passive-aggressive straw man argument. Which is my point.
        apotheon 17y ago
        > Nowhere does apotheon actually advocate that copyright law is wrong Incorrect. Try following links once in a while. Do you expect me to say everything in one place? My god, all my opinions and explanations relevant to them in one place -- it would be a document fit to fill the Library of Congress. > Instead, he's set up a passive-aggressive straw man argument. The fact you are incapable of recognizing the implicit message in advocating for strict enforcement of copyright law is your failing -- not mine.
      - randallsquared 17y ago
        So you're advocating simply ignoring the laws you don't approve of? It seems arguable that this is a moral obligation. Going out of your way to comply with laws you disapprove of strengthens those laws you disapprove of -- it's self-contradictory. If you, in the course of going about your normal life, happen to comply because it's what you would do anyway, I don't think this means you have an obligation to break those laws, but ignoring them is probably best, unless it has other consequences you can't afford.
      - apotheon 17y ago
        > So you're advocating simply ignoring the laws you don't approve of? Not as such. More to the point, I'm advocating phasing out those laws, regardless of whether anyone follows them while they're still on the books. People are already simply ignoring those laws, in ever-increasing numbers; nobody has to advocate for it. > You are free to avoid the RIAA: don't use their offerings. I don't.
        tptacek 17y ago
        If you don't use RIAA offerings, why aren't you advocating that other people do likewise? That's Stallman's argument. I don't find it compelling, but at least it's intellectually valid. If you think that's the argument you are making, then where do business models come into the picture?
        apotheon 17y ago
        > If you don't use RIAA offerings, why aren't you advocating that other people do likewise? I do advocate that other people do likewise. The fact that I don't do so with every breath -- including the virtual "breaths" used to say what's in a particular piece of writing you happened to stumble across -- doesn't mean that I don't do so in general. > If you think that's the argument you are making, then where do business models come into the picture? Why are you trying to tell me I'm not allowed to have more than one argument?
        tptacek 17y ago
        Because the argument you actually chose to promote here was weak.
        apotheon 17y ago
        Non-sequitur, much?
apotheon 17y ago
That's the implicit message in anyone's attempt to legislate the way I use, or dispose of, what I have in my possession the way copyright law does. "My business model sucks, so I'll use the government to ensure you conform to it -- since it won't stand up on its own."
- tptacek 17y ago
  Now you're writing as if copyright was something designed explicitly to allow the RIAA to sue teenagers, which, independently of whether copyright is a good idea or not, is a ridiculous argument.
  - apotheon 17y ago
    No -- I'm writing as if the current form of copyright law was: 1. roughly inevitable, given continued support and enforcement of copyright 2. inevitably going to result in behavior like suing teenagers Actually, I'm not even writing as if that's the case. You're just correctly guessing that the RIAA suing teenagers is a bad result of copyright law, and assigning that to me as some kind of guess at the original purpose of the law. I'm really writing as if it's the case that copyright law is a violation of individual rights, thus placing the burden of someone else's poor business model on people who have no ethical imperative to bear that burden.
  - kiba 17y ago
    The history of economics is littered with such examples. Perhaps you want to start reading Against Intellectual Monopoly in which you read lawsuits by James Watt against his also somewhat innovative competitors, the lucrative bargain between British authors and American publishers in the era of no foreign copyrights, the extremely innovative porn industry, the patenting of plants toward the end of explosive productivity growth in the agriculture industry and even more.

wwalker3 17y ago

It's a reiteration of a sentiment I've seen a lot recently: "My livelihood doesn't depend on copyright, so I'll feel free to violate yours." Are people really so unconcerned about the livelihood of others? Each of us is already free to give away the fruits of our own labors -- but why insist that others must do the same?

kiba 17y ago
It is actually a very capitalist/libertarian mentality. "If you are able to compete in the market, good for you. If you couldn't compete, so what?" It does not however, mean that they support government granted monopolies, subsidy, or other form of crony capitalism. To some libertarians, copyright and patent are a form of crony capitalism.
- wwalker3 17y ago
  If I know that an author doesn't want me to copy his book, I won't copy it. It's not a matter of law or monopoly, it's just politeness.
  - kiba 17y ago
    I don't think most copyright abolisionists would want to either, simply out of principles or sprites. My comment were mostly in the context of a competition, not customers.
  - apotheon 17y ago
    That's great. Now . . . let's see if we can avoid legislating politeness.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Clearly we can't, since virtually everything that can be downloaded for free on the Internet is being downloaded for free on the Internet, books very much included.

ismarc 17y ago

I saddened that the intent of copyright has been forgotten so much. As has been pointed out, copyright is a "contract" between the people and the creator. The creator is given a limited time in which they can exclusively profit fro m a work IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE CREATION OF FURTHER WORKS. Copyright does not exist for the creator. It exists for the people. By allowing an avenue for the creator to exclusively profit from a creation for a time, the people can then expect further works from the creator, resulting in a much richer society with great works of art. The perversion of this system by perpetually extending copyrights stifles the creation of further works due to the maintained state of the original copyright. I am a musician, and am overjoyed that I have exclusive control over my original works for a time period. I am a software developer, and I am overjoyed that for a period of time I can be the sole distributor of the works. I am a consumer, and I am disappointed by the lack of progress in created works due to the maintenance of copyrights.