It honestly perplexes me how you can in the same breath admit that someone has done hard work and imply that you owe them nothing for using it.
I realize this is not the mainstream HN view. Accepted wisdom says if you can copy something, than you may copy it. But I just don't get it. If you value someone's work, I think you owe them some form of compensation.
There's a line I read on 1001 Rules For My Unborn Son, "If a street performer makes you stop walking, you owe him a buck." I tend to agree with this, both literally and metaphorically.
I agree that good ideas shouldn't be trapped or left to wither in isolation when they could benefit society at large. I just think this has to be tempered with some form of compensation to the person who introduced the idea.
But I'm open to being convinced otherwise if anyone has a good argument to the contrary.
> It honestly perplexes me how you can in the same breath admit that someone has done hard work and imply that you owe them nothing for using it.
I am quoting this example for the second time. MS made Office common place. It doesn't mean OpenOffice.org owed MS anything, other than "hey neat". As long as it's not infringement recognized by law, no body owes anyone anything.
> if you can copy something, than you may copy it.
"can copy" is hard, may be a little less hard than the first implementation, but it's still hard work. You don't get exclusivity by getting there first. In the cases in which you do get it viz. software patents, it creates more problems than it solves. So yes, I am pretty much in line with "if you can copy it, you may".
> If you value someone's work, I think you owe them some form of compensation.
It's entirely possible to value someone's work, but not agree with his exclusivity requirements.
> I agree that good ideas shouldn't be trapped or left to wither in isolation when they could benefit society at large. I just think this has to be tempered with some form of compensation to the person who introduced the idea.
And I think "I was here first so you all are prosecuting me by not going somewhere else and trying to get here" is a prefect way to let good ideas wither and die. More importantly, this sense of exclusivity and entitlement is misplaced.
It's not being first that I think conveys some right to recompense but being original.
If something is inevitable or trivial (slide to unlock, one-click checkout), I don't think there should be any protection at all.
But the more original something is, the more the creator has actually added to society by creating it. And yes, copying it can add to society as well by making it universal, but I think some kind of monetary incentive is a great way to get people to work on original ideas.
Would Apple be so creative if they weren't so profitable? Isn't it their profitability which gives them the ability to spend time and money on R&D? If you take away the profit, don't you take away the opportunity to do R&D?
I think this is why patents were introduced in the first place. I don't think patents work for software, but I think the idea is the same. For the greatest good for society, we want lots and lots of universally applied creative ideas. But there's a trade-off between encouraging new ideas and encouraging mass distribution of ideas. "IP" laws encourage new ideas but discourage sharing. "Piracy" encourages sharing but discourages new ideas.
I just think that there needs to be a balance, and that "thanks for doing the hard work, I'll take it from here" isn't it.
EDIT: I would appreciate an explanation of why people feel I am not contributing.
> Would Apple be so creative if they weren't so profitable? Isn't it their profitability which gives them the ability to spend time and money on R&D? If you take away the profit, don't you take away the opportunity to do R&D?
If Apple's profit equates to Android not doing what they are doing, Apple going bankrupt will be a fair trade in my book. If Apple comes up with something original, which Android re-implements, it doesn't owe Apple anything, even if it affects Apple's profits. Apple working on original things and being in business is good, but not so much that others' ability to re-implement things be taken away.
I see what you're saying. But Android doesn't copy Apple nearly as thoroughly as other examples of copying.
Android has different hardware, a different OS, a different programming language for development, etc.
At the most precise level, copying music creates and absolutely perfect copy. There is literally no difference between the original file and the new one.
Would it be fair for someone to make an exact copy of an iPhone, running an exact copy of iOS and then distribute it?
I think the precision of the copy has a great deal to do with whether it's OK or not, which I think is what Dustin was getting at when he said it's OK to steal his ideas but not his implementation.
Maybe he doesn't get to draw the line wherever he likes, but it seems there ought to be a line somewhere.
I realize this is not the mainstream HN view. Accepted wisdom says if you can copy something, than you may copy it. But I just don't get it. If you value someone's work, I think you owe them some form of compensation.
There's a line I read on 1001 Rules For My Unborn Son, "If a street performer makes you stop walking, you owe him a buck." I tend to agree with this, both literally and metaphorically.
I agree that good ideas shouldn't be trapped or left to wither in isolation when they could benefit society at large. I just think this has to be tempered with some form of compensation to the person who introduced the idea.
But I'm open to being convinced otherwise if anyone has a good argument to the contrary.