"If free and open access to all of human knowledge at the push of a button truly prevents our society’s beloved artists, authors, thinkers, and other creative people from putting food on their tables, then maybe it’s time to rethink how to put food on their tables."
This itself nails half of the core of the issue. The other half is getting rid of the middle men, who are now just struggling to justify their existence. Their time will come.
That's a nice noble reframing of humanities innate desire to have access to Game of Thrones season 2 without paying for cable.
Can I speak as one of the creative people that, you know, actually works to produce the content so many people seem to feel righteously entitled to? If you're going to pirate/copyright infringe, do so, but please stop trying to rebrand it as a freedom of speech issue. It's embarrassing.
As I see it, there are four types of people who generally don't pirate content:
- The technically illiterate.
- People who have made a conscious decision to support the producer of the content.
- People who fear enforcement of copyright law.
- People who have no interest in the content available.
The whole piracy political movement is manifestly obviously just rationalisation, with the goal of striking back at shadowy 'middle men' being particularly ridiculous.
>People who have made a concious decision to support the producer of the content.
Pirates are those that proportional spends more money to support artists and producers, than those that do not pirate. Many make very conscious decisions in regard to independent labels, so that money gets funneled to those that need them mostly.
As for your comment as a whole, rationalization to explain political motives is as old as politics itself. Worker movement = people who just want more wages and work less. Social reforms = people who want free money. Medical reforms = people who want free medical care. Tax abolition = people want to spend less money on taxes. Green movement = ...
Sorry, the argument of rationalization to explain political motives are a horrible bad argument.
I'm interested in the idea that those who pirate tend also to be those who spend the most.
Right now we know that's true and I'd surmise it's because those who pirate are those who are most interested in the medium therefore consume it most in all it's forms.
But most people now are those who've grown up with some understanding that music or movies or games are things you might / should pay for.
My question is will it continue to be the case that the largest consumers of media continue to be those who actually pay most once you have a generation who've been bought up with torrenting as their primary method of consumption?
Essentially are we in an interim space where it sort of works because the core consumer group have an expectation and a behaviour pattern which is a hangover from a previous time but which won't be replicated in the future?
> My question is will it continue to be the case that the largest consumers of media continue to be those who actually pay most once you have a generation who've been bought up with torrenting as their primary method of consumption?
This is a very important question to keep in mind. Forget about when the economy is bad, like the last couple of years. Even in the best of times, children have a very limited amount of money when it comes to purchasing media, and conversely have a relatively large amount of time. Torrents completely obviate the need for children to spend their allowance or money they worked for on content, and are easy for them to figure out with some time. Why spend that precious money on music or movies when you can spend it on a physical object instead?
The real problem is that once the torrenting habit is established, it's very difficult to break it. I'm talking about people under the age of 20 here - people who started torrenting at 12 or 13, when torrents first took off in the early 2000s. Contrary to what many people on this site suggest, torrenting is not that hard once you've learned how to do it when you have the free time (as a teenager), and viruses are not rampant, particularly if you're downloading only media (and not software). The only thing it's missing is live streaming, but with fast connections these days (which will only get faster over time), you can still get an HD movie in under half an hour.
It's an important question, but I don't know why we need to bunch together childrens purchasing habits, and adults. They are after all quite different markets.
I don't think we can ever get back where childrens money, saved over months and months of having a paper route, goes back to pay for culture, art and useful information (programs). There is also a question if its morally right to deny children of culture, art and useful information, on the basis if they can pay for it. Currently, schools are the primary actor in bridging the gap between rich children, and poor ones, but its not a long term solution.
For adults, its a complete different question, one which usually ends up on the question of convenience, price and opportunity. Afterall, Wallmart will always sell DVD's and games, even if copyright would go away. They also sell bottled water, and in some places, air.
Torrenting and wallmart dvd's do not directly compete for the same market group. In same way, streaming provide a convenience that torrenting do not. Add channels with preselected entertainment, and we are talking about quite different experience between streaming and torrenting.
If you are a person who careful select what you want to view before hand, and got time to prepare downloads, and do not impulsive buy DVD's at stands, then yes you might be a person who would rather torrent than buy (and thus get a superior product without drm). On other hand, that kind of person is much more likely to spend money on independent movies, on cinemas and expensive collector boxes with additional items like props and books.
> It's an important question, but I don't know why we need to bunch together childrens purchasing habits, and adults. They are after all quite different markets.
Because children eventually become adults. So the purchasing habits of those who are children now will become the purchasing habits of adults in the future.
> In same way, streaming provide a convenience that torrenting do not. Add channels with preselected entertainment, and we are talking about quite different experience between streaming and torrenting.
This is exactly the kind of misconception that I'm talking about. Most HNers grew up before torrents became hugely popular, and thus don't really understand their convenience. For those born after ~1995, services like Netflix are not that convenient compared to torrents. Not only does the service require a credit card to sign up for (requiring parental approval), torrents are just not that hard once you're used to them. Learning how to use torrents is a one-time investment of time, after which you're good to go forever.
> If you are a person who careful select what you want to view before hand, and got time to prepare downloads
And I already explained this. You can get the equivalent content from torrents in <30 minutes. 30 minutes is not that big of a wait (or if you get it in SD, like much of the stuff on Netflix, <10 minutes). Moreover, once you get used to it, it's not a big deal.
> Because children eventually become adults. So the purchasing habits of those who are children now will become the purchasing habits of adults in the future.
No, as an adult I have a lot more money than time, so buying a game I want over Steam is much more preferable than torrenting it and finding a working crack. I know how to pirate games, it's just that I don't want to spend the time and I have the money.
So I don't think it's habit-forming, unless you're a compulsive hoarder that just downloads ALL THE WAREZ because you can, but then you have other problems...
Like I said before, there's a distinction between software and other forms of content, such as media. Games have a significantly greater value when purchased through Steam instead of pirated. Not only do you get multiplayer/community features, but the install process is much easier (than with a disc as well), and you get automatic updates. I would consider Steam the exception, not the rule, when it comes to gaming. And I also don't think this applies nearly as much to other media.
True, but that is mainly because steam has better usability.
If pirate sites weren't so dispersed and worried about being shut down all the time someone would have probably developed a system that searches a game database, downloads a torrent and auto installs it with the crack in a single click.
It's lucky I guess that pirates don't seem to care about usability that much.
Legit games on Steam also have the advantage that the multiplayer is more likely than a pirate game where the crack breaks as soon as an update is put out and the game dev actively tries to lock pirates out.
Maybe with games but for movies, books and music there's little knowledge required to pirate them, almost no delay compared to purchasing (in both cases you have to search and download) and when downloaded they're utterly indistinguishable from the "legitimate" version.
A colleague this morning was talking about streaming sites where for him one of the benefits is that he can be watching the movie faster than if he owned the DVD. You can make your legitimate purchase as fast as you like but when streaming and downloading is that quick and easy, you're not going to get it to the point that the legitimate mechanisms offers a significant convenience advantage and is anyone really going to hand over cash for be watching in 20 seconds instead of 60 seconds?
For anything mainstream where it's widely available the cash rich time poor argument really doesn't hold up.
Lets put ourself in the shoes of a adult worker. S/he just have worked a whole day, drove 30-45m, picked up a pizza, and just now sat down in the couch to see "something".
Now lets force that person to decide what they would like to see, and then wait 30m. Even if it was 10m, the question of what to see is as much of an issue as the wait.
I'm 22 (close enough to under 21), and my opinion on buying things depends on the type of media.
I buy plenty of games on Steam (usually during sales) & the Humble Bundles. They are a cheap, legitimate way for me to play a large array of games, and I'm more than happy to support the developers.
For books, I have a Kindle and tend to pirate ebook copies of books I own already in physical form. I'll also pirate audiobooks & ebooks on occasion if I can. Not a a big fan of audible & amazon DRM.
For music, I have a Spotify Premium account and listen to the vast majority of my music from there. I have a big back-catalog of pirated music from before I got my Spotify account. I have a handful of CDs that I bought as a child, but mostly just pirated since the dawn of broadband internet.
For TV Shows, I have a Netflix Account & Amazon Prime account. I also pay for Verizon FiOS cable, and get HBO/Showtime. I use HBO Go and whatever the Showtime app is called to watch those shows. I sometimes pirate episodes of shows I watch if I happen to miss watching them, can't see them on Hulu, or didn't record for whatever reason.
For movies, I buy Blu-Rays only on occasions where I want the HD experience. Think concert Blu-Rays and things like Planet Earth or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Like I said, Netflix/Amazon Prime/HBO/Showtime get me through a lot of movies. If I can't find them there, I'll pirate them.
The reason I subscribe to these things and still pirate is basically a lack of $$. The services I pay for are a relatively cheap way to see a lot of content, and I would probably not go out and buy more DVDs/CDs/games if I couldn't subscribe to these or get great deals on Steam.
I do, however, intend to purchase far more content when my bills aren't so overwhelming. I also cannot forsee myself encouraging my kids someday to pirate material. I feel like I'd be instilling a value into them that I'm not particularly proud of, and without a doubt if they can say "but dad does it!" it'll be hard to explain to them why they should not.
This echoes my usage patterns as well, and I'm 37; the only difference is I had a reasonable CD collection (~250 discs) before I met Napster and AudioGalaxy back in the late 90s.
I only ever rented VHS/DVDs and I buy blu-ray used and only if I want to own a re-watchable experience (Dark Knight, The 300, Pulp Fiction, etc.) First-run blu-ray movies are RedBoxed or downloaded in 720p x264 from usenet (RIP NZBmatrix) and deleted after viewing.
Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and Pandora/Spotify round out content. I watch more stuff now that I don't have cable (around 2hrs/day) than when I did (30min. or less/day).
I am 22. Back when I was a kid I torrented everything. Now I don’t pirate much at all. A previous poster hit the nail on the head, it’s all about time and money. When I was a kid I had no money and tons of time. Any money I was able to scrape together from part time jobs went to buying hardware and other things (bikes, musical instruments, etc.). Anything that wasn’t physical I just considered free for the taking. Not because I made up some moral crutch, I just couldn’t afford it and I wanted it. I don’t have a ton of money now, but I have a lot less time than I used. Two things spring up from this. Firstly, I desire a lot less content. I simply don’t have the time to play all of the games I used to play and watch all of the TV shows/movies that I watched as a kid. Secondly I don’t mind paying because now I have some spare money and there is a lot less content that I will be paying for. I think people underestimate the amount of children/jobless people who are using torrents.
People who have the money will pay for content if it’s presented to them in an attractive way at a reasonable price. I never pirate movies, because why bother? I can rent them from Amazon/Google for a few dollars or get them from a redbox that is a couple hundred feet from my apartment. I wait for TV shows to be on Netflix/Hulu, even though I might be behind a season or so but who cares? Same with movies, I don’t care anymore if I have to wait a year for a movie to go on amazon/Netflix/google. If I have to wait awhile or I forget about a movie and never see it then oh well the world still turns.
I do have to admit that I never pay for music though. I prefer to pay for live shows. To me music has always been free simply because of the radio. I know technically, it’s not because of advertisements, but that’s how it feels to me. That being said if I would be much more apt to buy music if I could buy it directly from the artist at a reasonable price (ie 5-10 dollars for an album), especially if the quality was high (320kbps mp3 or flac). That’s part of the reason why I don’t like mp3 services like amazon and itunes, the bitrate just isn’t high enough for me. I didn’t spend hundreds of dollars for nice headphones to listen to poorly encoded music, and I don’t live in the 90’s anymore so I’m not going to buy a cd.
In regards to ebooks, I think the belief that books are free has already been ingrained in culture due to librarys. Until I was an adult I never bought a book. Even now the only books I really buy are technical books. I rent everything else from the library. I don’t like ebooks, but if I did I would likely rent them as well.
Some people may be able to afford to spend $50 (say) on stuff a month and then download everything they want they can't afford. Take away downloading and the still only spend $50 - they can't afford more and just put up with having less (by afford here I also include choose to spend $50 - essentially people who for one reason or another will cap their spending around a certain amount then after that make do).
In this case you're potentially damaging the artist by stopping them copying as there's no money to be had BUT they might get exposure to an artist through piracy and become a legitimate consumer of their work later.
In a similar vein they might be being given copies stuff by friends who like an artist and will then go on to buy other material by that artist actually increasing the total spend (I'm guessing I'm not the only person who has been given a mix tape / CD and gone on to love something off it and make a legitimate purchase).
Or they might be downloading on a "try before you buy" basis in which case they might just seek out other ways to sample stuff before they buy it and their spend doesn't go up.
They might be downloading stuff that you can't buy legitimately (I've done that) in which case the amount they spend doesn't go up because there is no legitimate alternative.
Reality is that the amount spent per person on average would probably go up some but not as much as the assorted industries being "wronged" by piracy make out and it's a fair bit more complex than they make out.
True, but then if you buy your first $50 worth of media every month and then pirate the rest. Those unlucky enough to be in the second group get kinda screwed.
Maybe you the stuff you pirated is better than the stuff you paid for? In which case since you probably can't get a refund on that you should really buy the stuff you pirated next month instead. How often that happens in practise is uncertain.
> "True, but then if you buy your first $50 worth of media every month and then pirate the rest. Those unlucky enough to be in the second group get kinda screwed."
His original argument was that those in the second group receive increased exposure of their work, which if you think about it, is almost just as valuable as cash itself.
That's because he makes all of his music money from touring. Almost all music acts can't do that because they don't have the exposure - pirating or not.
10 years ago touring was purely a means to promote record sales and there were maybe a dozen acts who made money doing it (Madonna, the Rolling Stones and the like). Now it's flipping and touring is profitable for a lot more acts than it used to be.
> That's a nice noble reframing of humanities innate desire to have access to Game of Thrones season 2 without paying for cable.
Thank you for that. The rhetoric on this issue is really over the top. While all content I think is entitled to certain protections as art, let's not pretend that the content in question is high art. It's entertainment, largely produced by people for the sole purpose of making a lot of money.
I wouldn't be so quick to consider the anti-IP position as one of simple rationalization. I once held your position, and now consider it to have been a narrow-minded mistake (that was directed at my past self, not you).
Give me a moment to explain my philosophical transformation by way of example:
Suppose you walk out into some unclaimed forest and gather some wood. Per John Locke, you have mixed your labor (gathering) with a natural resource (wood) and now own the gathered wood.
And what is ownership? Ownership is the right to do with your property whatever you'd like, provided what you do does not affect or threaten the property of others (including the property they have in their own persons). This is understood intuitively in the scope of the example here that it would be wrong for someone to, by force and against your will, take the wood that you gathered.
To continue the example: your friend Bob approaches you and shows you an invention of his - a wooden seat, exquisitely crafted and very comfortable to sit upon. It's a fantastic idea, and you're really quite taken with it. Instead of purchasing the seat, however, you decide to produce some of your own, using the wood you own, for your own use and to sell to others. You do so.
Bob comes to you, quite upset. You've stolen his idea, he says, and profited with it against his will. And here the internal conflict introduced by the concept of "intellectual" property is highlighted. You used your own property as you pleased and in a way that did not harm or threaten to harm anyone else's property, and yet according to Bob, you've violated his "intellectual" property rights. In fact, the only way to not violate Bob's "intellectual" property is to not do with your property as you please, even though that use is entirely nonviolent. Bob's exercise of his "intellectual" property right is a violation of your property right!
I hope I have sufficiently demonstrated here that IP cannot be a right at all, because it destroys the internal consistency of property rights in general.
The response to this is usually utilitarian: "But how are artists going to get paid without IP?" I offer a riposte here not because I have to (the ends do not justify the means) but because some people need firm ground to stand upon before they can move into a brave new world sans copyright. The threshold pledge system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system) is a means of providing compensation to artists for their work that does not depend upon IP law.
This doesn't really refute my statement at all. I was merely claiming that piracy is often framed as a political statement, when it really isn't at all. It's about people choosing to spend their money on something else, relying on others to pay for the actual production of entertainment.
As for your point about there being no inherent right to protection of IP, I would have said that was obvious. However the legal system doesn't exist to just enshrine and enforce basic rights. It's also used to shape societies in ways we (or our representatives) feel are beneficial.
Currently we as a society choose to enforce IP law. If that changes, then sure, I'll find another job. Good luck waiting for that Game of Thrones season 3 though.
> Currently we as a society choose to enforce IP law. If that changes, then sure, I'll find another job. Good luck waiting for that Game of Thrones season 3 though.
There are other solutions to the free rider problem. Take your pick from the examples on Wikipedia (i.e. assurance contracts, which are remarkably similar to the way Kickstarter works). The information revolution has changed the economics of your job, but I believe as a society we will ultimately find a better way to incentivize your work.
Are you saying that selling plastic by the sword is better for society than a strong public domain? Or do you just think that a system where content can be produced without artificial scarcity is idealistic?
I guess what I am asking is this: Do you think that 'public ownership' of IP is impossible, impractical or immoral?
As a content creator do you have an objection to public content on principle? Or do you dislike it because you don't see it being possible?
I am asking this out of pure curiosity. I am just kind of surprised to see someone on hacker news of all places saying that information should not be free. I can understand saying that now is not the time or that models are not yet ready but it seems ridiculous to think that we should ignore the power of the internet for content distribution forever because it doesn't pay the bills now.
I am surprised to see someone on hacker news saying that information should not be free.
Using the word "information" in this context is rather disingenuous. We don't play music on our information players, we don't buy books at the local information store, and we don't see movies at the information theater. If we are going to have a good discussion, let's call things what they are.
It seems ridiculous that we should ignore the power of the internet for content distribution forever because it doesn't pay the bills now.
Fiat money is ridiculous in exactly the same way. Would you say that it seems ridiculous to ignore the power of Xerox because it doesn't pay the bills for sellers of physical goods?
Well what do you use to view information? You don't look at it on an information screen and you don't store in on an information drive. You are just arguing Symantec. If you have a book the physical object is the book and what is written on the pages is information. Information is different from an object in that it is intangible, it is the part that gets copied when people torrent something.
Fiat money is ridiculous in exactly the same way. Would you say that it seems ridiculous to ignore the power of Xerox because it doesn't pay the bills for sellers of physical goods?
That makes no sense. I don't see what you mean. Right now the internet could deliver content to more people more efficiently than a retail store but it is being restricted by laws that have been put in place to guarantee a paycheck for the content creators. I don't think that this is bad but I do think that we are in a state of transition and that in the not so distant future you will not go to a store to get music movies or books (except possibly as a novelty)
Kind of like a hotel is a physical object but your stay in it is intangible so once you forge the key you are entitled in staying for free? Or kind of like McDonald's brand name is intangible so anyone can open a shack and call it McDonalds without paying a franchise fee?
Seriously, you can make up esoteric arguments ad infinitum and ad absurdum but the fact is, an arbitrary distinction - digital vs. printed - does not a theft unmake. Information wants to be free but books, movies and songs want to sell, or we wouldn't be having this argument.
One last interesting thing for you to ponder: the entire fiction genre is, by definition, misinformation.
I said that information is intangible, not that all intangible things are information.
You are being absurd. A physical book and a digital representation of the information are completely different. The only thing that they have in common is that once used you get the same information. If you steal a book, that is theft. If you copy a book that is copyright infringement. The difference is that the person who had the book stolen from then is deprived of property in one example and in the other they are not.
This is not a simple matter. Making a copy is not theft. There are not clear lines here.
I'm not sure what you mean - are you arguing that all information should be put into the public domain as a matter of course? If so, I wouldn't agree with that, no.
I'm curious as to why you think people posting on Hacker News should wish for information to be free. The vast majority of start ups benefit from withholding information from competitors, for example their source code or client list. In general, I would say most people like to be given the opportunity to choose which information is free and which is not.
Just because the internet makes that difficult to enforce doesn't fundamentally change this in my view. As long as we still have a concept of wealth, at least.
The ability to withholding something from the public is privacy.
IP is use of law to prevent others from using something that is public.
Note: I don't think copyright is that evil, just current term lengths, enforcement laws, and infringement damages. Patent as it exists now is pretty screwed up and in order to not be evil would have to be pretty radically different from what it is now.
I was speaking generally. I obviously don't think that there should be no privacy but I do think that free and limitless access to public information is an ideal of the hacker community. I consider books, music and movies as a kind of information.
Taken to extreme, your argument is also one against trademarks as they are a form of intellectual property. Do you think anyone should be allowed to build a laptop and stamp the Apple logo on it? If your answer to that question is "no", you should consider approaching the problem with a more pragmatic/consequentialist standpoint.
What you are saying makes no sense. I am not talking about manufacturing or brands or trademarks. I am talking about the data. Trademarks are already public, you don't have to pay to look at a logo. How is my argument even tangentially related to trademarks?
I am saying that digital content will one day be freely available (or available on a subscription) because it costs nothing to copy. Never before has content been restricted when it could be copied freely. Radio is free television is free and websites are free. I think that is the natural end point of intangible goods it is just a matter of figuring out how to pay the content creators.
> You've stolen his idea, he says, and profited with it against his will. And here the internal conflict introduced by the concept of "intellectual" property is highlighted. You used your own property as you pleased and in a way that did not harm or threaten to harm anyone else's property, and yet according to Bob, you've violated his "intellectual" property rights. In fact, the only way to not violate Bob's "intellectual" property is to not do with your property as you please, even though that use is entirely nonviolent. Bob's exercise of his "intellectual" property right is a violation of your property right!
Intellectual property is an umbrella term that encompasses copyright, trademarks, patents, etc. Using someone else's trademarks also does "not harm or threaten to harm anyone else's property". I know that you don't mean that, but in that case, you should offer more practical arguments against IP instead of getting all philosophical.
I didn't make that comment so I can't answer for it.
What I can say is that the area that the term covers is arbitrary and that you can discuss one facet of it without involving the others.
There is no reason that trademarks need to be discussed when talking about content distribution systems just like there is no need to talk about expiration dates when shipping plastic lawn chairs.
The funny thing is that you didn't make any genuine arguments in the prior post to refute, just several non-arguments and vague complaints like "manifestly obviously just rationalisation".
>However the legal system doesn't exist to just enshrine and enforce basic rights. It's also used to shape societies in ways we (or our representatives) feel are beneficial.
There is no benefit in IP except to the holder of the state-granted monopoly, and perhaps the politicians who get MAFIAA money. You enjoy the copyright system and feel entitled to more than you would have earned without it.
There are slews of studies showing that patents hamper innovation. I challenge you to find one showing it aids it. You are repeating a falsehood, something people "feel is beneficial" but really isn't.
The funny thing is that you didn't make any genuine arguments in the prior post to refute, just several non-arguments and vague complaints like "manifestly obviously just rationalisation".
followed by:
There is no benefit in IP except to the holder of the state-granted monopoly, and perhaps the politicians who get MAFIAA money.
Do you seriously consider this to be an argument? Because I would classify it as tired cliché.
You enjoy the copyright system and feel entitled to more than you would have earned without it.
What absolute tosh. You know absolutely nothing about me and make such ridiculous statements.
I am struggling to find any actual facts to back up the common falsehood you are repeating. Want to point out something?
[pg. 11] "International companies would only invest in research in locations with sufficiently strong IP."
Yeah, I would prefer to put my investment where I have government helping me strongarm people into paying me more money too. Somehow your paper failed to mention other possible factors like being able to get away with testing sexual dysfunction drugs on children and only getting fined $97: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16381458
[pg. 15] "Most policymakers reported that the IP system was an asset to encouraging domestic innovative activity. Changes in the IP system in Brazil was seen as significant in setting the foundation for innovative activity."
This is just bare assertion from policymakers.
[pg. 37] "A common measure of the output of innovation used in the literature is the number of registered patents in the country. In particular, it is common to see analysis based on the number of international patents (defined as the number of patents granted to
inventors from a particular country)."
[pg. 43] "There has been a clear increase in innovation in terms of patents. Leaving aside South Korea, this again shows the dramatic performance of China, but also gradual progress in a number of other markets."
This is ludicrous to measure innovation by the number of patents. The "dramatic performance of China" is an increase in patents due to strengthened IP laws in recent years, that's it. If the mechanisms for enforcement of an IP regime are strengthened, then sure you will see more people using it. More companies are willing to disclose trade secrets because they have patent protection. That's all this shows, not that innovation is occurring because of IP law.
I don't really see much more that needs to be addressed in this paper, certainly no supporting evidence for your claim that IP is beneficial besides to the monopoly holders and monopoly givers. It's your claim, so you need to do better than just link an article. There is a more meaty section in your paper, but you would have to actually read your own source to find it and then I can proceed to demolish it.
The problem is how much the law is being corrupted, how much it is far way from the interests of the society. Each time the law extends copyright period, it is MY RIGHT of accessing public information being pruned.
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." --Thomas Jefferson
But I think the crux of why your argument is incorrect is your overly narrow definition of ownership. Everything else is daisy chained from that.
> Ownership is the right to do with your property whatever you'd like, provided what you do does not affect or threaten the property of others (including the property they have in their own persons)
Ownership doesn't intrinsically preclude you harming others. Ownership is about exerting exlusive control over property. If you own a gun, you can do whatever you want with it because you exert control over it and it's in your possession.
The part that precludes us from harming others is part of a separate legal framework. You also can't use your wood to build a fence around the forest, or a barracade to impede other people's movement. There is a lot more you aren't allowed to do with property then "affect or threaten the property of others "
So the fundamental issue is that you're conflating the two into a more narrow definition of ownership and then you're claiming IP "destroys the internal consistency of property rights in general"
_____________________________
As for "threshold pledge system"... The problem is it's a non-capitalistic mechanism that relies on the altruism of the wider population. Altruistic systems don't scale (see communism). Not to mention it rewords free-riders. If a bunch of people fund a movie, and then I come in and pirate it at the end, then I end up being better off than them (b/c I too get to see the movie and I also get to keep my money). This will probably lead to disenchantment.
I just can't believe that you think like a big budget movie like say the latest James Bond could be funded through a threshold pledge system and then distributed for free. It seems rather naiive
>>>Altruistic systems don't scale (see communism).
Altruistic systems don't necessarily scale. GNU, Linux, and Apache would like to tell you that it absolutely can scale.
>>I just can't believe that you think that big budget software like say an operating system could be funded through a threshold pledge system and then distributed for free. It seems rather naive
I completely agree with you that it seems naive. I wouldn't believe it myself if I wasn't using it to send you this comment.
okay. you're missing the point. I think it was implied that I meant they don't necessarily scale. It's quite obvious that sometimes you have large altruistic projects that are successful.
Kickstarter has funded plenty of large projects.
The point is that the threshold-pledge-system isn't a viable substitute for ALL funding. Therefore getting rid of the copyright system would destroy the potential for a lot of project (like my James Bond example) because they wouldn't be able to be funded through altruistic schemes.
The burden of proof - that it is viable to substitute to the copyright with the threshold pledge system - is on its supporters
"Ownership doesn't intrinsically preclude you harming others."
How can I have property rights (ownership) if you can simply damage my property through your "property rights"? Property rights can not exist in this case.
It is intrinsically implied that people can not use their property to damage the property of others.
You did not actually offer a counter argument. All you did was explain how "intellectual" property is not the same as "material" property. I think most of us will agree with you that the two are different and that the same rules don't apply. Now, we still need to figure out if intellectual property is a good thing for society.
IMO, copyright laws are a good thing as it leaves the choice to the content producers themselves whether or not they want to make their work freely available. However, as those laws are close to impossible to enforce effectively (on the Internet), there might be an argument for discarding them completely, stop fighting a lost battle and moving on.
You summarized very well exactly how I feel about IP!
Before our century the word for IP was "Monopoly Privileges". It is funny and scary how a simple change in wording: adding "property", is slowly brainwashing people in a very unnatural way of thinking.
In your example, Bob should have first asked you to agree that you wouldn't share his idea, or use his idea in a way which would harm Bob's ability to benefit from his idea.
In reality, this is what happens. Aside from the utilitarian argument, there is a moral argument to be had here. You agreed to not make use of Bob's idea, and then you did. You broke your word, and are responsible for the pain you caused Bob.
You might argue that there are scenarios in which you never actually talk to Bob - Bob shows his idea to Tom, and Tom is the one who breaks his word. You're merely getting the idea from Tom, and are as such free from any moral obligation.
However, I would offer you this rhetorical in response: If you are offered goods in such a way that you reasonably know these goods to be gained through deceit or other immoral acts, is your acceptance of those goods (and therefore benefit of the immoral act) a moral act itself?
What about me? I bought Assassins Creed 3 on steam last week and ordered an xbox360 controller for PC from Amazon. I had the game downloaded and everything ready to go to have a relaxing day of gaming this Saturday. The problem came when I was required to create a UPlay account in order to open my game. Ubisoft's servers were down and I was not able to create an account or play the game. I spent a couple precious hours of my Saturday dealing with their incompetence and then gave up and decided to pirate the game.
I was not very pleased at this point and walked in to my office where we have a 1Gbit connection. I proceeded to torrent the game and grabbed Farcry 3 as well because, fuck em. This took about 45 minutes of downloading. I walked home and was playing 15 minutes later. Ubisoft is forever on my To-Pirate list for brazenly wasting my time on their pointless DRM.
I don't think I fit in your narrow categories.
PS: I spend about 200$/month on paid iTunes Content.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a completely unreasonable response? You purchased the game, whether or not you should be allowed to download another (slightly modified) copy is a legal gray area - but one I would morally support.
Downloading other products from the same company, just because they ticked you off? You've just escalated the situation from what is likely an unfortunately operational issue (no malice) to some form of revenge.
If you want relief from the harm done to you (which, I would argue getting the pirated copy of AC3 was), allow a court to determine the reward. In this situation, it's likely overkill.
Besides the fact that you were blocked of playing YOUR game because of the problem in THEIR Ubi-thing, there another major issue:
You need to install a program that according to their license can basically spy on you.
Some people will say nobody forced you to buy the game, but imagine: if all companies selling cars decided to add a bug to record your talks claiming they can this way offer a better service, how reasonable would it be?
That is a minor category made possible by the major ones. The torrent you used was not seeded and distributed just for those who had paid for the game.
I myself prefer to pirate ISOs rather than find reinstallation media in my closet (a rare need), and it is just as irrelevant given most people seeding and peering also want the serial crack/gen file as well.
While I sympathise with your issues with Ubisoft's ridiculously hamfisted DRM, I simply don't believe this is a significant driving force behind piracy. I'm not claiming it doesn't exist though, or endorsing horrible DRM.
"That's a nice noble reframing of humanities innate desire to have access to Game of Thrones season 2 without paying for cable."
But doesn't that speak to the exact issue you're responding to? I'd more than happily pay for Game of Thrones season 2 if it were available for me to pay for on its own or with other things I want. The problem is that in order to get it I have to subscribe to cable, which is a hefty tax to pay for a single show.
I'm not begrudging HBO for deciding that's the best way for them to make money. But I gladly reward artists and companies that are thinking outside the box and doing direct-to-consumer or generally breaking away from the middle man.
"But doesn't that speak to the exact issue you're responding to? I'd more than happily pay for Game of Thrones season 2 if it were available for me to pay for on its own or with other things I want. The problem is that in order to get it I have to subscribe to cable, which is a hefty tax to pay for a single show."
The only feature I wanted in my washing machine was regular wash cotton. I should've stolen it I suppose.
That analogy is misleading and you know it. It's more like being unable to buy a washing machine without also buying a dryer, snow blower, quad garage door opener, freezer, golf cart, and thresher attachment. Oh and you can't resell the extra stuff. Oh and you can't loan it out either. You're practically burning money.
Come back when someone invents a washing machine that does only cotton and costs 95% less than a normal washing machine, then patents it and won't let anyone build them. Maybe then you'll see the problem.
"The problem" is that you can't see Game of Thrones. Really? REALLY?? Oh the humanity!
I don't know how people ever did anything before Game of Thrones. It would be absolute chaos if people couldn't steal it.... how else would they survive?
Stop getting all indignant. A forced bundle with products made by other companies that boosts the price twenty-fold is a market failure. It doesn't matter if it's petty entertainment.
Oh. You don't like their business model, so you should steal your 'petty entertainment?'
It does matter if it's petty entertainment. I might agree with you if you were having trouble eating over this. But you can't watch Game of Thrones without buying HBO and so you have to steal Game of Thrones? You don't have to steal anything. You can simply not watch their show if you don't agree with their business model.
People don't agree with chick-fil-a giving money to homophobic groups, and they don't eat at chick-fil-a. They don't go out and steal chicken sandwiches because they want them that badly. You have that option as well.
I think you missed the part where these people want to buy HBO. In fact if the first sale doctrine applied to broadcasts then the problem would solve itself, with people selling off their HBO copies at a fair and unbundled price.
The problem with citing Louis CK or Radiohead when discussing this issue is that they are outliers. They are individual artists, working in mediums with little to no overhead who have established reputations.
But film, tv, games, software - some of these projects take thousands of people working full time for years, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce.
It's true that some types of film, tv, games, and software made with huge budgets and teams. However, all of these things are still produced by individuals and small groups of people, even without the change of major financial success. The rise of things like kickstarter, bandcamp, youtube, etc. are all evidence of people looking to and actually creating something.
Indeed, but the public's appetite for alternative and crowd funded entertainment is relatively insignificant, as evidenced by a glance at your average torrent tracker. That's why it's described as alternative.
The public want slick, expensively produced mass market entertainment. They just don't want to pay for it if they can avoid it.
Very true, also people like Radiohead and Louis CK probably have particular audiences that are more likely to get behind new ideas of distributing content because they care deeply about the content and the artist themselves.
Any producer has the right to determine the terms by which the purchase will be made. What you're saying is that if you don't give me what I want in the way I want, then I will get it for free. Well, you have another option: just don't buy it.
In any other industry, when you have one guy who deals his wares to thousands of other vendors and enforces an exclusivity relationship such as in Hollywood, allowing no other sources to produce similar work, demanding the price remain artificially high, and what do you call it?
Price fixing! Racketeering! A cartel!
Mr. Producer, do you want to support a whole cartel? How much of the product of your work is siphoned into the pockets of these middlemen that you claim are so shadowy? Is it because you don't want to pay them that you downplay their role?
Why are they entitled to a share of what you earn, when distribution models that scale and support themselves in a feedback loop like BitTorrent are available, and the people who are consuming your content will foot the bill to the cartels for these distribution contracts?
What justification is there for price fixing, where regions that have larger collections of wealth amassed into smaller groups that can afford to pay more are gouged? What basis have you to charge more in the US or Australia than in India and Africa, where digital broadcast entertainment might be more or less pervasive?
I am obviously very angry, I don't know what you make, but the reality seems to be that you are claiming ownership of an arrangement of bits. It's in my nature when discovering interesting configurations of bits to show them to others, or to keep them to myself (to maximize my benefit from them), and it's wrong for you to play on both sides of the fence like this.
I am obviously very angry, I don't know what you make, but the reality seems to be that you are claiming ownership of an arrangement of bits. It's in my nature when discovering interesting configurations of bits to show them to others, or to keep them to myself (to maximize my benefit from them), and it's wrong for you to play on both sides of the fence like this.
What specifically are you angry about? Is it my claim that piracy is more about convenience and personal gain than free speech? Would you disagree with that sentiment? Could you explain why?
I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your post but I think you have quite a narrow view of the film industry. I can assure you that vast, vast majority of people you might meet who work in film spend their time thinking about making films, not price fixing.
>>>I can assure you that vast, vast majority of people you might meet who work in film spend their time thinking about making films, not price fixing.
I believe you. The people who create the content, with jobs like editing, directing, writing, acting, camera work, special effects, logistics, costuming, set design, and even the runners and gofers are all hardworking people who "spend their time thinking about making films".
The result of the hard work done by these laborers is a film. This film's "copyrights" are "owned" by the people who financed the venture, also known as "capitalists". These are people who do "spend their time thinking about ... price fixing". Under law, they have monopoly rights regarding certain elements of copyright. Armed with these rights, they employ accountants in an attempt to make as much money as possible. The most blatant and greedy of these attempts are lumped together with the phrase "Hollywood Accounting".
There is a great contingent of consumers that would like to give more of their money to the workers, and less of their money to the financiers. Please refer to indiegogo, kickstarter, and the ancient concept of patronage for well established ways of legally doing this.
Someone who will not be named replied with the following comment, then deleted it. The commenter wasn't wrong, and it wasn't a bad comment.
>> Kickstarter ain't gonna raise enough money to fund the next Hobbit trilogy. Sorry but huge blockbusters aren't ever going to be able to find enough people willing to put down enough money via Kickstarter. Small indies yeah, hundreds of millions of dollar type summer blockbusters no.
I agree that Kickstarter is unlikely to raise 300 million dollars for the next Hobbit trilogy. I disagree that a huge blockbuster will never be crowdfunded. Transformers, Harry Potter, and Avatar all cost less than 300 million dollars. 30 million people pre-paying 10 dollars is not ridiculous, when you look at how many people use Google, and how many users Facebook claims to have.
Surprisingly, movie studios don't necessarily fund the projects that they profit from. Since you mentioned LotR universe:
"New Line made enough pre-sales in foreign markets, and there were enough subsidies to pretty much cover their costs. New Zealand was not the only subsidy. There was also the British Commonwealth subsidy and the German tax subsidy in those days. New Line didn't have to put up any cash to make that movie."
Also movie studios consistently claim to not make profits from their movies.
"However, New Line later produced accounts showing that instead of making a profit, the movies made "horrendous losses". According to Hubbard: "We found it surprising because it was one of the biggest box office success of all time.""
Other funding options: a company could start making short films and then transition into making larger, more expensive ones once it gains the trust of its audience. The films could be broken into "episodes" to reduce the amount of money that each chunk would cost. This all ignores patronage, another alternative funding mode.
Lastly, most movies aren't blockbusters. Even if everything I just said is a lie, the vast majority of movies will be just fine, because their budgets are laughably small. District 9 was shot for 30 million dollars. Primer was shot for 7000 dollars. When Harry Met Sally cost 16 million dollars. Citizen Kane cost 15 million. Pretty Woman cost 14 million. The government funded BBC has produced such things like The Office, Monty Python, and Billy Elliot on less than 5 million each.
"Piracy" or more broadly unauthorized copying, which are hard to distinguish from each other using hard facts... are about convenience as well as free speech; I know I buy large expensive tools for storing data, and I see a lot of pictures of shelves stuffed with cheap plastic discs on reddit, discs that are easy to lose and yet each cost $35 for a variety of reasons, and one of those reasons is so that you can get paid for bringing me quality content.
Obviously it's not a short path from point A to point B.
I also know that as a computer enthusiast, I spent a lot of time learning to copy things that your camp would prefer I didn't copy, so that I don't have to keep collections of cheap (disposable) plastic discs. That's a huge investment too, and if the effort is duplicated... well, in the free software community especially we don't like duplicated effort. Can't someone else do it?
Then I pay for these pipes (again from my perspective: your camp) and it's really a lot simpler downloading from the cloud than making a large investment in plastic discs and time and labor spent on copying. Furthermore, according to the DMCA, if I did buy the media and try to consolidate it in accordance with fair use, long accepted as a measure in place for free speech, I am still breaking the law because of the anti-copying measures that I need to break in order to do it, which is directly illegal today. So why not just download?
... you won't get paid. That's why.
I want you to get paid, but I don't want you to dictate my viewing schedule or media organization, and I also don't want to pay for thousands of channels I won't watch just to get three or four I care about, once or twice a week... hope that you can see how your side are not really making it any easier for me to enjoy your work in relative comfort and with the benefit of modern technology.
Quite sure this can be somehow solved by using bitcoins...
Not sure what plastic discs have to do with anything when you can leagally buy tons of content from Hulu, Lovefilm, Amazon, iTunes, Netflix and tons of other places digitally with ease.
Congratulations, friend... you have managed to take away the one concern that actually confers a benefit, and replaced it with a bill payable directly to telecom.
You should be a patent attorney.. on the Internet!
I don't know about Lovefilm, but the rest of the solutions you proposed all require an ongoing commitment to pay every month, they don't provide any copy, and they are useless without an additional recurring payment to a third party that was not involved in producing content. You misunderstood my comments about the plastic discs. I hate them because they take up space, but I love them because they can be copied!
Why are there ads in Hulu Plus?
Again, a thousand channels I will never use, and I don't get a copy of the merchandise to keep for myself. What happens when I move out to the boonies and I can't get good internet? Oh yeah, I cancel all of my web-based subscriptions and I can never watch any of my favorite shows again. How about my favorite content providers? Sure, the partners will be paid, 70% of Hulu's revenue goes to... the advertising partners.
OK, I wasn't able to find any hard numbers on how much MrScruff gets for his contribution. But you know, I don't care, if I lose my access when I cancel my credit card and internet subscription. Tell me what ongoing benefit the ISPs provide! New content? No... they just provide peering, and hopefully reliable access, and then they also mail a bill every month. And guess what... it's more than Hulu is charging.
But you're right. They earned that money. The telecom lobbyists and the streaming advertisement providers made sure that I can't legally obtain a copy of anything new for myself, and now I'll have to go on needing them forever, no matter how much favorite content I've amassed into my collection. My archives will never be complete, at least not until I've received next month's internet bill.
edit: well played, I see you can delete your own comment on HN for a limited time. Was responding to a comment about how this kind of thinking will be illegal for some time. Not sure we're at thought police, but I can't remember all of what you said. Thanks for thought-provoking.
I'm guessing from 'Unfortunately' that you're on the side of keeping the information free/available and not the side of selling the same shows to the same customers over and over again as many times as you can.
Sure, you can download them, but you want to keep them when your computer shits the bed? Good luck with that, I hope you had the foresight to de-authorize your machine so your license could be transferred to another one, some time before it crapped out and took your files down with it.
Our fair use rights flew out the window long ago. I liked those. I don't remember the last time I wanted to rent a movie.
How come there's not anyone selling magnet links to their content? It's not like they are any easier to copy than the movies themselves. You could even include a nonce in the files so you can trace back to the people who are sharing illegally.
What if there's something harmful or illegal in your content? Wouldn't it suck if I couldn't share it with my lawyer so he can help me sue you into the ground?
(that's the Royal you... like I said, I still think you're on my side in all of this. played Ingress, res0nat0r?)
I thought about it, and realized how fucked up the idea of including a nonce in a torrent is.
First of all, it would break how torrents currently work. It's not a cloud if everyone is sharing a slightly different file. I don't think you can trick the people and their computers into also sharing the part that allows their influence to be tracked, and still enjoy the benefit of the torrent protocol.
Maybe you could. I don't want to go there.
Second problem with this idea, it would not enjoy the same DMCA protections that CSS offers. (Would it?) It's a federal crime to remove a copyright control. So you put the nonce into the file to identify the buyer, and you sue him when he's caught sharing... no wait, on second thought, you pay him a referral fee, a percent of the revenue that you collect from when you sue the folks who shared under him without paying. I am trying to put a name on it, something that sounds less like a slur than what I'm actually thinking. New breed of Hollywood Jew. There, I said it.
Anyone sharing without a valid nonce could be thrown in jail then, if you can prove that they removed it (in order to share and not be tracked.) I love slippery slopes.
I think the argument is valid. Even some libraries have movies and video games. I fail to see how downloading media has a fundamental different effect than merely borrowing it.
Even arguing that borrowing is temporary seems a poor argument at best. Most people only play games or watch movies a small number of times and then rarely pick them up again. And, even so, there is nothing stopping borrowing again.
If the library paradigm is okay, why is the downloading content paradigm not okay?
Because library shelves don't consist 90% of pop movies, video games, and music. Pirating the latest Halo game is not the same as borrowing a copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Torrents don't consist 90% of those things either. The largest audio torrent on http://thepiratebay.se/browse/100/0/5 is a sample library for use in creating your own songs. The largest video torrent on http://thepiratebay.se/browse/200/0/5 is a collection of the X-Files TV show; #2 is a collection of 50 classic movies (A Clockwork Orange, American Beauty, Annie Hall, Apocalypse Now, and so on) --- the movie equivalent of Nineteen Eighty-Four. The largest software torrents on http://thepiratebay.se/browse/300/0/5 are chess tablebases --- used for research into the game of chess --- Microsoft Windows 7, and auto repair software called Alldata. The top "other" torrent on http://thepiratebay.se/browse/600/0/5 is a preservation copy of GeoCities, which contained the full weirdness of the late-90s web in miniature, and after a duplicate of the same torrent, #2 is an archive of chemical journals.
I think what you're probably thinking of is not library shelves but library checkouts. And I think that you'll find that library checkouts did consist 90% of trashy paperbacks, the text equivalent of pop movies, back when people got that kind of stuff from libraries instead of online.
If you were to judge the contents of a library by the size of the largest items on the shelves (exactly as you have done with torrents), you would come away with the mistaken impression that they consisted primarily of dictionaries and boxed sets of language learning CDs. In fact, these items represent a very small portion of the items in the catalog.
I agree that it's a crude measure, but I don't think the situation is quite as bad as you make out; your intuition about paper libraries is misleading you.
What's being counted as a single item here is not a single bound volume of a chemistry journal, nor the entire archive of Bioconjugate Chemistry, but rather the entire chemistry-journals wing of the library: 539 gibibytes, including 226 different journals. By comparison, the latest five items on http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://... are 3.7MiB, 11.7MiB, 350MiB, 730MiB, and 260MiB; the chemistry-journals library is some 2000 times the size of the median of these and 120 000 times the size of the smallest, which happens to be a two-volume book called "Great Moments in Mathematics".
It turns out that when you have a power-law distribution crossing five orders of magnitude, like the one that characterizes file sizes, rather than the much narrower distribution that characterizes book sizes, you actually can get a useful approximation of the makeup of the total by looking at the makeup of only the largest items. It's surely not an unbiased estimator, but it's still a useful one.
Feel free to invest the work to do a better approximation.
We do not agree. I am not saying it's a crude measure, I'm saying you're measuring the wrong thing. File size is the wrong thing to measure. It doesn't matter what estimate of file sizes you can come up with, because file size is the wrong thing to measure.
Unless one is loading a moving van or trying to estimate the number of shelves required to store it, one characterizes the contents of a library by the items in the catalog and their subject matter, not by the volume they consume. You don't go in and ask for "a cubic foot of books" any more than you torrent "a megabyte of music".
Often, the initial distributor of a torrent has purchased it as well. At least one person downloading or uploading a media file has usually paid for it. Your first point seems to not condemn pirating wholesale.
The latter is more interesting: does one need to be capable of suffering a loss of an object in order to share it? Does access have to have a bandwidth limit for sharing to be reasonable? An interesting example are ebooks at libraries. My university offers a number of these. They are not able to be stolen like regular books and they have no limit on simultaneous borrowers. Even if there were some artificially imposed limit, what purpose would it serve? Do extra restrictions on use make a product more valuable? Does it create more profit for content creators?
Often, the initial distributor of a torrent has purchased it as well.
Is this really the case. Based on my, admittedly very limited, outsider view of the scene most distributors get their copy via review copies sent to the press or it's an inside job by someone working for one of the companies in the production chain. Having a pirate copy up before something is available in the store is a big deal in the pirate scene and that rather precludes buying a copy.
What about the fact that infringing copyright is only going to get easier as technology improves while every conceivable method of policing the internet for copyright necessarily involves complete surveillance of all communication by citizens?
It's not being "rebranded" as a freedom of speech issue, it has become one by the nature of the only possible ways to enforce copyright laws on the internet.
I agree that a "right to share 3rd party artistic works" isn't freedom of speech, but protecting the ability of people to secretly transfer bits is abso-fucking-lutely the freedom of speech issue of our time.
It's the difference between a stance based on what you think "should be" and one based on the practical limitations inherent in designing legal constraints around online sharing.
We can give enormous surveillance powers to some central group to police copyright and destroy freedom of speech, we can have no way to stop copyright infringement except for cultural norms or we can reevaluate how we, as a society, compensate artists.
This has been reevaluated many times in the last thousand years and it looks like another one has been thrust upon us, since I'm not sure we can stop people from sharing files just by shaming them. Pirates spend more money buying artistic works than non-pirates so I can't blame people who feel that the honesty system will work, but I don't really think it will work. I'm too cynical perhaps.
Great comment. It seems interesting how people don't see the contradiction of having everything for free. Why do people think we are entitled to have Disney content, or Harry Potter books for free? Why Google and related companies seem to believe they have the right to display newspapers' content for free? Just because everything is nowadays in digital format doesn't mean that we are entitled to have a copy of it.
Every property law is unnatural. Who says that I can't own the land across my backyard?... Yes, some stupid law that was passed to invalidate my natural right of conquering that land with a club in hand. The civilized society was created by imposing these laws, and copyright laws allowed the establishment of an industry for creative works.
Second, personal property and real property are different categories. Real estate is somewhat artificial, but the ownership of personal items that you can carry around is a very natural right. It comes naturally from possession and autonomy, and does not need laws to exist.
But somehow every other "artificial" right, like real estate, looks OK for you other than copyright... This is what I call bending the argument for particular gain.
I was just countering the idea that all property is artificial. And when did I say I was fully behind real estate? Maybe it's not a good idea for someone to own ten thousand acres they aren't using in any way...
Also I am actively against software patents. Poor time to make assumptions.
I can assure you, those people can and do pirate content just fine, in many cases being easier to copy it from torrents than it is to purchase it ;-)
> People who have made a conscious decision to support the producer of the content
There are 2 problems with these kind of people: as such purchases are all about giving-back, they are easily pissed off by DRM schemes and they are a minority, because we are talking about an economy based on artificial scarcity here.
> People who fear enforcement of copyright law
Also a minority, especially because the probability of being prosecuted as an individual for copyright infringement is smaller than being hit by a car tomorrow.
> The whole piracy political movement is manifestly obviously just rationalisation
For ever 1000$ sold in the music industry, the artist gets 20$. I don't see how you see the "middle men" portion ridiculous.
The music scene would be optimized for musicians if there was a 100% piracy/distribution rate and artists sold their own tickets/merch/ringtones/etc online.
I'm not him, but I believe I can: the fact that you make some work doesn't mean that you're entitled to be paid for it. Enforcement is not free in any sense.
You have a problem: people doesn't want to use the content in a way that's easy to monetize. You don't like the solution of changing your business model.
So the answer is draconian IP laws, privacy invasions and public resources devoted to ensure private profits. Resources paid by every tax payer, that can be used to prosecute most of them.
The entitlement is forgetting that copyright (or property at large for the matter) is just a means to an end, not an absolute concept.
For me, if the price of privacy and freedom is that professional contents producing disappears, so be it. Now what? Would you consider changing the business model or would you rather see the business dying? For the people in the industry (the proverbial "middle-man") the answer is clear: they don't think it's gonna die before they cash, so they're happy taking the hard line and stretching the rope.
the fact that you make some work doesn't mean that you're entitled to be paid for it
This is true, but I'm not sure it then follows that because you want to enjoy some work, you are entitled to not pay for it. The creator is entitled to charge for it and receive nothing and you are entitled to pay nothing and enjoy nothing.
the fact that you make some work doesn't mean that you're entitled to be paid for it.
You've constructed a straw man, I haven't once argued for draconian IP law. I simply stated that those that engage in piracy should be honest to themselves about their own motivations. I'm not even judging them, it's just the political affectations I find preposterous.
Most laws have developed from a consensus of what benefits society as a whole. This is no different. Nobody is claiming entitlement to be paid for anything. They're asking for the ability to choose on which basis people consume their product. We already have laws for this, the currently difficulty is in how to enforce them. I don't claim to have an answer to that question.
I simply stated that those that engage in piracy should be honest to themselves about their own motivations.
No You didn't. You said, among other things:
The whole piracy political movement is manifestly obviously just rationalisation
These are two very different statements. A pirate can be both honest with himself and part of the political movement for reasons other than rationalization. You were the one who established the strawman.
...it's just the political affectations I find preposterous
You're choosing to ignore that the draconian laws are actually in place and for the stated reason to prevent piracy.
They're asking for the ability to choose on which basis people consume their product.
They can't on their own, so they demand the government to apply an unreasonable amount of force. There's no consensus for the actual situation, just political inertia and propaganda.
There are many methods to do this. Copyright itself is a privilege granted by the state, and as with any system involving the government, it could be refined to produce better results with less costs.
If we want to keep having a system dependent on the state, as which copyright itself is today, we could follow a system of taxes and support artist through grants. It would then follow the same system as with medical research, as tax payers are already paying for that. The majority of medical research are today supported by taxes, and the drug companies would the last people wanting to go pure capitalist system, as that would be billions of less dollars in free R&D.
Or we could go with no state involvement at all, in which case music for hire and concerts would become a primary method for artist to put food on the table. You would likely to see more live music, but also less healthy life style (see Troubadour lifestyle). Likely, systems like Flattr and other similar ideas would go large scale to support artist, somewhat like donations to medical research do today.
Its how medical research money is handled today. Billions of dollars, and it hasn't gone horrible horrible wrong yet has it?
There has been several suggested methods on how to measure things like popularity with music, methods that remove any judgment call by some bureaucratic agent by the state. One is to measure a small sample (like with pre-voting polls), an other is to measure repositories, while a third is to only measure current places like radios.
All this method need to do is to be better than a state supported monopoly that has managed to give less than 1% of the revenue of copyrighted works. How hard can it possible be to beat that?
You can only measure repositories if you have "official" repositories which everybody goes to in order to get content. This would require strong IP laws to enforce.
What happens if a lot of stuff gets distributed P2P or via an independent repo who don't want to hand their server logs to the gov?
Also medical research still has contentious issues like Stem Cell research etc. And it is easier to justify objectively like "will help X thousand cancer patients".
Creative works are more difficult, for example what if somebody wants to make a film that might be perceived to promote racist views? There are certainly people who would not want their tax money spent on that.
There would also be people who would see it as an affront to free speech for such a film to not have a fair chance of being made.
- People gaming the system to inflate "downloads" or whatever metric is used to determine payouts.
- Politicians pushing their views on others reaches a whole new level when they decide which media should be produced.
- For technology products like software, government has generally proven to be inept in the face of change. So entire industries would be held back due to bureaucratic "management".
- The entire export value would be ruined when products are released at no charge. US GDP declines.
This just sounds like a recipe for waste, cronyism, and job loss.
> The other half is getting rid of the middle men, who are now just struggling to justify their existence
I may be misinterpreting the quote, but it seems like the middle men are entirely the "issue," not the artists and creative people. Artists like Louis CK and Smashing Pumpkins have already proved they can make money without the middle man.
Louis CK is able to make it on his own because he's already a big name. He can do without middle men who control the marketing channels. Smaller artists can't - not so easily, anyway.
Justin Bieber was a nobody until he put his videos on Youtube. Kendrick Lamar was discovered this way too. It's easier to gain recognition now than ever. If the world enjoys what you produce you don't have to worry as much about a distribution channel like you did 10+ years ago.
Justin Bieber had just 70k YT views [1] before he was discovered by Scooter Braun. He didn't make it big until he was signed with Braun and Usher. 70k views in 2008 wasn't nothing, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume he would have grown to his current 3+ bn views, becoming an international A-lister, and a household name without signing with a major label.
YouTube and online help nobodies become somebodies. Labels help somebodies become megastars. The bottom end is rising, and the top end is compressing, but I don't believe we'll ever see them equalize.
>70k views in 2008 wasn't nothing, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume he would have grown to his current 3+ bn views without a major label.
You just proved my point that if the world likes what you're doing (70k+ views), you're bound to get a lot of attention more easily. It's also easier to get an initial presence too. Prior to "web 2.0" the chances of him being discovered would be practically non-existent considering he was just a kid doing covers of his favorite songs. Back to the original point; the middle man isn't as crucial as he used to be.
I agree with the direction of your points, but not the magnitudes. Justin Bieber, Kendrick Lamar, Smashing Pumpkins, and Louis CK are already big stars who made it largely through the use of labels, and are thus bad examples. Independent artists who have made their success entirely through unsigned online distribution are much smaller in terms of popularity and monetary success.
Also, it's unfair to simply assume that labels are middle men and are gatekeepers to success. They're essentially venture capitalists who reap licensing deals in exchange for large marketing investments, while providing production direction (with or without the artist on board). Compare to hands-on tech VCs who invest a lot of capital, own the majority of the equity, and provide product guidance, with or without the founders on board, who might be soundly fired. A solo artist can't really be fired, but band members have been replaced.
Labels are indeed becoming less important, but they're far from dead. I don't see them ever completely dying off -- we'll just have more of them (like Google/YT itself), each with smaller wallets. Sorta like larger seed/angel rounds. Any predictions on a Series A crunch ... in music? Maybe it's already happening.
> Justin Bieber, Kendrick Lamar, Smashing Pumpkins, and Louis CK are already big stars who made it largely through the use of labels, and are thus bad examples.
I agree that Smashing Pumpkins and Louis CK were already big stars, and you're right, they don't fit into that category. However, my point was that the initial successes of Justin Bieber and Kendrick Lamar were founded from YouTube videos and without them, they probably wouldn't have been discovered by record labels. Bo Burnham (comedian for those of you who don't know) found success the same way.
> "However, my point was that the initial successes of Justin Bieber and Kendrick Lamar were founded from YouTube videos and without them, they probably wouldn't have been discovered by record labels."
He's not disputing this point. His point is that YouTube, in an of itself, would not have made either of those people the dramatic successes they are today. His statement is that the labels, like it or not, are a crucial part of the ecosystem, instead of purely vampiric like they are being portrayed by many people in this thread.
People are citing Louis CK as a reason why labels and agencies are entirely predatory and unnecessary, even though without them he would would only be moderately successful - and certainly unable to command nation-wide independent attention like he is able to now.
>He's not disputing this point. His point is that YouTube, in an of itself, would not have made either of those people the dramatic successes they are today
>His statement is that the labels, like it or not, are a crucial part of the ecosystem
I agree, but that's not my point. The only reason why they were discovered by labels is because of YouTube. He's absolutely right, they wouldn't be on world tours solely from YouTube, but they also wouldn't be going on them if it weren't for YouTube in the first place.
OK, so if the "middle man" is why they are on world tours, then why doesn't the middle man deserve money? Why should the internet nature of the discovery matter?
>Why should the internet nature of the discovery matter?
My initial point was discovery is easier because it no longer requires a middle man: the middle man will simply be able to take you further. Traction can be easily gained via Soundcloud, Youtube and a whole bunch of other sites. No longer do the 3 guys playing in a bar have to peddle their CDs to radio DJs and hope to get some air time. If they are "that" good, everyone will know shortly thanks to YouTube.
tl;dr It's easier for talented musicians/artists to get noticed.
And then we have artists like DJ Kariu (http://www.youtube.com/user/Kariu) who have been producing content for years, have ~30k views on their big songs, produce consistently, and are still surviving with a separate shift job because they didn't get picked up. Even if you're noticed, it's still these labels that are creating a majority of the jobs.
Enough with the ad homenim attacks. I never once claimed that all good artists will be huge stars. I simply stated it's easier to gain recognition, not guaranteed recognition. I also never said the middle man shouldn't exist, most just aren't willing to adapt to modern distribution channels. How many years did it take to get the Beatles on iTunes? AC/DC's stuff was held off for a long time too.
>Even if you're noticed, it's still these labels that are creating a majority of the jobs.
Really? It's the record labels? You don't think it's concert venue's employees or employees of the companies that create the software to distribute the music and videos?
I think you're looking for "straw man" as I didn't attack you personally but you think that I'm attacking a point you didn't make. I brought up one counter-example, but I have seen many more out there.
I'll go back to the top again.
>Justin Bieber was a nobody until he put his videos on Youtube. Kendrick Lamar was discovered this way too. It's easier to gain recognition now than ever. If the world enjoys what you produce you don't have to worry as much about a distribution channel like you did 10+ years ago.
Yes, they get more recognition, but for what? They can convert this Youtube recognition into a small portion of money through Youtube ad monetization (a brand and a distribution channel, though I guess not a label). These examples ended up with a major distribution channel (a major record label) that will bring in enough revenue to survive on or to become a star (something Youtube ad monetization can only do for a very small few). Youtube was just the equivalent of that buddy you have in the industry that can pass on your sample tape with a kind word to get them to look at you. That one buddy probably means more to people in the labels than 100k views.
To continue with your direct response, music labels were promoting artists before iTunes. "[E]mployees of the companies that create the software to distribute the music and videos" most likely include employees of the label itself or contracted companies to write the software. Promoters have been around since the town crier, and their value has kept the job existing (and now unfortunately they take the lion's share of the revenue).
I make no comment on the middle man's ability to adapt to modern distribution channels. I don't think it's relevant to them picking up artists.
Concert venues and software contractors do create jobs, but they very rarely spawn into the giant companies we see represented by the RIAA. If they did, why would this power imbalance exist?
"If free and open access to all of human knowledge at the push of a button truly prevents our society’s beloved artists, authors, thinkers, and other creative people from putting food on their tables, then maybe it’s time to rethink how to put food on their tables."
What's more like to full communism, saying contents producers to find a market-friendly method to get paid, or putting a policeman over the shoulder of everybody to watch for draconian IP laws compliance?
I don't understand? "IP laws" are totally incompatible with communism because property itself is totally incompatible with communism. I'm not sure what you mean by "market-friendly" but it sounds like some sort of euphemism?
Well, the latter actually strikes me as more fascistic/authoritarian. In a strict sense it isn't like communism at all. In fact, neither one of these are really communist. Misuse of that word bums me out.
Yeah PG wrote an essay about this, he compared the RIAA and MPAA to a restaurant owner trying to charge for smells. Recommended read:
http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html
Copyright itself appears to be a rethinking of monetizing creativity. The threshold pledge system managed to monetize creativity with no concept of "intellectual property": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system
I especially agree with comment 18 on that blog post, http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/07/11/the-teleporter-libra.... It argues that the only reason we find public libraries morally okay in the first place was because we couldn’t copy their work. So perhaps if hard drives were invented before physical books, public libraries would have radically different restrictions, or not exist at all.
I agree copying is a difference, but for >90% of my own usage, at least for books and films, it's not one that makes a practical difference. I don't typically watch a movie hundreds of times: I watch it once, maybe twice. So really I only need to loan it, whether from a library or TPB. In theory TPB would let me not only "loan" it, but actually keep a permanent copy for myself, which the library doesn't. But I have no desire to archive hundreds of gigabytes of films I've already watched, so I typically delete them.
Another approach I sometimes take is to buy a used copy and then resell it. This ends up costing the price of shipping + Amazon/eBay/etc. transaction costs. It doesn't really benefit the artist/studio/etc. any more than torrenting it, though, since they don't get a cut of used sales.
With music it's a bit different because I do actually listen to the same album multiple times over an extended period of time, so prefer a permanent copy of music I like.
It may benefit them a bit.
In order to get that used copy there had to be an original sale at some point.
So if there is a big market for people to temporarily buy and resell something then there will need be be a fair number of original sales unless people are prepared to wait a long time to get their "turn".
With TBP in theory you can give the entire planet parallel access to something by seeding only one original sale.
If the ability to sell the content on the second hand market makes the original purchaser more likely to buy the content first hand, then it may be said to help the rights holder.
On the other hand, by selling on the second hand market the original purchaser may make others less likely to buy the content first hand, harming the rights holder.
The latter effect is almost certainly more significant than the former, so the net result is negative as far as the rights holders are concerned.
True, but it's still miles better (for the rights holder) than torrents.
There's also times when I've bought a game or something with the intention of playing it and then re-selling it, but I just never got around to the reselling part.
By what measure is second is miles better than torrents for the rights holder? It's been shown, at least in some cases, that having a free download of something increases the sales of that thing. It can be good publicity. The myth that free distribution is always harmful to sells is one of the things we need to kill if we want to have a reasonable argument of what's the best way to get content from creators to consumers.
Well my argument was based more on the basis of an individual transaction. For example, I want this game should I buy it new , used or pirate it? In such a situation it is clear the order in which they will directly benefit the rights owner.
Of course there may be other indirect benefits, like pirating a game and then recommending it to a friend who buys it at full price and alternative business models.
When you say free distribution it is not quite clear whether you mean piracy or the IP owner providing some free content as a kind of "loss leader".
I have always had a feeling that piracy benefits certain types of goods more than others. For example an obscure indie band with fans exchanging mixtapes or torrents reducing their obscuring somewhat.
OTOH something huge and mainstream being pirated by people who just didn't want to pay for it is probably more harmful.
I see, I misunderstood what you meant then. Obviously if you are going to get the product by some means, it's best for the producer if you pay for it.
However, it's important to note that a lot of the content that is consumed for free wouldn't be consumed otherwise. Just because you are not going to pirate something, it doesn't mean you are going to pay for it. And from the producer's side, it's better if his product is consumed than if it isn't, if the distribution and duplication is free.
As far as free distribution goes, I don't think it makes a large difference whether or not it's through official or illegal means (though it certainly merits studying and testing). Having your product for free on your website and having it on a torrent site probably both make you a sort of "loss leader" in a very similar way. You may have different costs and the visibility to some demographics may vary, but I doubt it matters much.
I just think the benefits of free distribution need to be better weighted. We just have no idea how much companies are losing or winning by having their content pirated.
It is certainly true that some content that has been pirated would not have been bought anyway.
Although I do feel that this might insentivise draconian DRM.
If you are going to buy $50 worth of content per month and then pirate everything else you are probably going to pirate the stuff that is most easy to pirate.
For example I know people who pirate just about every PC game because it is as simple as downloading the torrent, installing and sometimes cracking. OTOH they don't pirate iOS games because they don't want to jailbreak their iPhones.
The result is that iOS game developers get more money from them not because they like iOS games more but because iOS is the more locked down platform.
If you're downloading the movies with an internet connection, there isn't really a good reason to delete them any more, unless you're more worried about copyright police raids than archival preservation; http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2010-October... shows that the cost to buy a new disk was only 20% of the cost of paying for the bandwidth. Now it's probably more like 8%, and that's here in Argentina.
I don't pay for bandwidth, I pay for an Internet connection, and since disks can't replace most of its functionality (like reading HN every day), I'll still pay it regardless of whether I download the movie or not. Therefore, downloading a file is effectively free as far as bandwidth costs are concerned.
This would be different if bandwidth was metered, of course, but at least here in Portugal it isn't.
Sure, downloading a file is effectively free; there's no marginal cost. But buying a new disk instead of deleting the file is almost free. If you stored every byte that came down the pipe on a disk forever, it would only increase the cost of your internet connection slightly.
Libraries are still beholden to the laws of scarcity. If you go to the library wanting to pick up the hot new release, there's a strong chance you'll be put on a several months waiting list.
I'm not only morally okay with the concept of all human knowledge being accessible by all humans freely, I'm morally not okay with restricting access to any human knowledge. It comes down to the arguments of privilege, class, race, and regional issues. But at the end of the day, no one will ever convince me that they have ownership of an idea, it's simply an abstraction gone too far.
The article overlooks the fact that the demand for an item like a book varies over time. Typically, there is an initial high demand period shortly after publication, and then a very long tail of low demand.
Libraries generally don't significantly undercut sales because the bulk of sales occur during the early high demand period, when the library's limited number of copies force waiting lists so that those who want the item sooner rather than later buy it.
This was the basis of an interesting law review article published by Justice Breyer back in his academic days, called "The Uneasy Case for Copyright", where he argued that because such a high fraction of the profits from a work occurred from sales shortly after publication, before copiers had time to typeset and get into print unauthorized copies, there might not be a need for copyright law.
Since then, copying technology has gotten much better, and so Breyer's argument is no longer plausible.
Because when companies sell books to poor people in developing countries at steep discounts, rich people in the US buy them at the discount rate and "import" them back into the US.
Book authors are generally thinking more about which second job they're going to get to pay their rent, because apart from some notable outliers, it's extraordinarily difficult to make a living as an author. But, by all means, let's make their work product even less marketable!
So, you're saving that if copyright length was reduced to thirty years, that would have an effect on the ability of an author to make a living, and that this marginal reduction in a book's marketability outweighs giving the poor free access to them.
I'm arguing that it wouldn't affect authors, because except for the extremely small number of books that become classics, essentially all profit comes soon after release. And if you're book became a classic, you're probably no longer poor, even if copyright term is only 30 years.
And, again, the poor in developing countries shouldn't have to pay outrageous prices for ancient eBooks/books that are in the classical canon.
TLDR: If you believe that additional compensation for authors on books that are still selling after 30 years outweighs letting them enter the public domain and allowing the poor free access, I'm really interested to hear the reasoning.
I think you missed the point. @jivatmanx wasn't complaning about having to pay $10, he was complaining about having to pay it for a 90-year-old item. The author is probably dead by now, and even his children might be dead, so whether or not the author could make a living is irrelevant now.
That's a fun comparison. That's discrimination right there, innit? Artists and authors aren't going after the library for copyright concerns the same way they go after torrent sites.
Does the library have some type of licensing agreement with the media it purchases? The article indicates that it isn't the case, but if there was, could that be the reason why libraries aren't attacked but torrent sites are? Though libraries have a lot less traffic and loss in potential sales compared to a torrent tracker.
This type of discrimination happens with website scraping too. Websites don't go after big search indexers like Google and Bing but will and can sue local scrapers who never entered some type of agreement with the website.
> Does the library have some type of licensing agreement with the media it purchases?
IANAL but I think it's called the first-sale doctrine. Once you buy a book, you can do whatever you want with it as long as you don't try to copy and sell it.
Of course, publishers don't like it any more than the MAFIAA likes Torrent users. As more libraries now stock digital items, publishers have taken the opportunity to put restrictions on libraries' right to lend [1].
To this point, content companies hate libraries, but they can't do anything about it because of the doctrine of first sale.
But that's why there were huge public media campaigns decrying any kind of recordable media. Libraries could acquire all this content, and anybody could go to the library, check out a piece of content, and make a copy.
This is also why in the world of objects that only exist digitally, libraries are having such a hard time with digital lending. Content companies don't have to play ball when they own the devices on which lending takes place.
> Artists and authors aren't going after the library for copyright concerns the same way they go after torrent sites.
Actually, the American Association of Publishers, which represents exactly the people you might think it does, has repeatedly and publicly attacked the existence of libraries. They've kind of backed away from it in the last few years since it seems like a poor argument from a public relations point of view, but that's clearly the view they hold: all libraries should be eliminated.
In Sweden (The context of which the author talks about this), there are no such licensing agreement but rather praxis. Libraries are for the common good, and as such, they get treated as such. There's one exception, as there is a law requiring a copy to be sent to the main library in Sweden if a book gets published.
As for artists and authors, normally they don't go after anyone, be that libraries or the pirate bay. Copyright and publishing organizations however, do go after the pirate bay. They also go after libraries, but through the lobbying route. Audio books has come and gone, drm'ed, limits and so on. Many libraries has totally given up on audio-books, as its a loot of trouble for rather small gain.
In Sweden libraries have to pay a small sum to the publisher each time a book is borrowed. The exact details vary slightly depending on a bunch of factors, but it's normally around $0.10-0.15.
In a comment by Rick Falkvinge in the comment field, he explains this point. Basically, only Swedish authors and translators receive any money at all. Its also not a licensing deal between the copyright owner and the library, but rather a money distribution method, using the statistics of book lending gather by the library to grant money to Swedish authors.
I've seen it asserted (I think by Falkvinge himself) that the model of paying a bit per view would be heavily abused on the internet, which I don't doubt. It would be interesting to see how many Swedish authors routinely borrow their own book or books authored by friends and family from the library.
At 10 cents per borrow (no idea if that number is right or not but it seems reasonable enough)...only the authors that don't value their time very much.
The average book will have at most 2-3 copies but even if we assume 10 for arguments sake you'd earn yourself 1$ per library that you visit.
Given that you have to get to the library, spend time checking the books out and returning them and only get a cut of X% of that one dollar to boot it seems like a pretty futile exercise :D
The tricky thing with digital lending is that anything online that is capable of abuse via scale will be subjected to it. If the fee for one borrow is $X and the cost of buying one borrow on Mechanical Turk is $Y, if $X > $Y then someone will arbitrage.
I think the point is that if such a system were adapted online, it would be prone to abuse. It's easier to "check out" content digitally then it is through a traditional library.
The solution they've adopted in Sweden is that each library card is only allowed to make n digital checkouts a month for some low value of n.
Although the problem they where trying to solve wasn't so much abuse as the fact that the service was far more popular than they'd anticipated and legitimate use was high enough to seriously risk their budget.
"Artists and authors aren't going after the library for copyright concerns the same way they go after torrent sites."
> They might if the library would share everything digitally, which would directly compete with the artist's own marketing efforts
"Websites don't go after big search indexers like Google and Bing but will and can sue local scrapers who never entered some type of agreement with the website."
> They don't go after Google because they (supposedly) make something out of getting scraped
I swear I've heard libraries rent out books for e-readers. I might be way off in my memory though as I don't keep up with those types of things (or libraries).
Isn't getting scraped by Google voluntary with the robots.txt?
Also a question for anyone who knows the answer: does Google/Bing/etc use the same amount of resources as someone using whatever to scrape a website (bandwidth, whatever else websites might be concerned with)? Genuinely curious as I don't have much experience scraping and even less dealing with crawlers.
I swear I've heard libraries rent out books for e-readers
At least in Sweden, e-books are licensed to libraries under an entirely different set of rules, and as such it costs the library a lot more when you 'borrow' and e-book than when you borrow an actual book. The result of this is that libraries have been forced to limit the number of e-books people can borrow pr. month.
Any scraper will use essentially the same bandwidth (varying slightly on how much content they actually download). Their can be issues with server load depending on how fast you are getting indexed and how much content your site has, but Google takes care to detect this and you can also manually reduce the speed / schedule via Webmaster Tools.
Extreme hyperbole. The local library here in Malmö have a much better IT-infrastructure than TPB.
The TPB website is built like something I made at 15 years old in PHP. It's in fact a terrible product by todays standards. And that's with noscript+adblock. I wouldn't want to see it without.
Infrastructure doesn't matter, quality doesn't matter. What matters is how many people use it, and how often. And there TPB wins by several orders of magnitude.
Yes of course, Rick is trying to say that regardless of technology it feels like a big library where you can find whatever it is you're looking for.
At the core I'm for piracy, hell I was raised a pirate and I will forever be a pirate. I'd much rather donate my money to indie-artists and software projects.
"If all knowing, all culture, all art, all useful information can be costlessly given to everyone at the same price that it is given to anyone; if everyone can have everything, anywhere, all the time, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone?" - Eben moglen
There are two different activities that can both be described as consuming intellectual property without paying the creator: sharing and piracy. In the past the limitations of having intellectual property tied to individual physical copies made it much easier to separate these activities which made it easy to promote one and punish the other. Also, long traditions of dealing with these different behaviors showed us the relative risks and benefits of them and allowed us to be comfortable with the idea of libraries, for example.
Today, technology has erased those limitations and now the difference between sharing and piracy is much harder to determine, and the mechanisms for ensuring that sharing does not devolve into piracy are either much more technologically different or unproven.
We know from history that there are many, many benefits to sharing and other means of IP consumption without direct monetary compensation. We have a high reverence for libraries, for example, and museums, and art galleries. Logically, there has been a great value to the world in having an enormously expanded volume of music, film, books, etc. available to the world through online file sharing. The question is whether or not this has made it more difficult for IP creators to make a living and if so what the appropriate solution to the problem is.
Those who are extraordinarily naive and extraordinarily shallow minded imagine that there is no benefit to the world due to "piracy" and imagine that if we could just put a stop to it everything would go back to the way it was and we could stop worrying about it. That's not going to work though because we cannot go back. Things are going to change and the equation of how you make money on IP goods is going to be different in the future, that can't be avoided.
And the only way to prohibit reckless driving is to kill freedom of travel, and the only way to prevent murder is to kill freedom of association, right?
You are thinking in binary. Binary models underfit the real world.
The important thing is not that piracy is good, but that the "war against piracy" is a bad thing.
Just like in US drugs aren't "good" (at least they're no better than alcohol and cigarettes) but "the war on drugs" has a pretty devastating effect on the american society without addressing any drug problem.
This is the same with piracy: to fight it movie and video games studio are adding DRM that affects paying customers without preventing piracy, and to censor piracy websites (like the Pirate Bay) the government passes laws that can later be used to silence an opposant (= restrict freedom of speech).
If the freedom to communicate without fear of arbitrary interferance is a good thing (via the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights) and "piracy" cannot be realistically stopped without compromising that freedom (for example, by requiring ISPs to support large-scale surveillance, or by undemocratically influencing the government to adopt positions that are in conflict with social norms) then "piracy" is a good thing in at least the sense that the freedom to participate in "piracy" is a pre-requisite for that other good thing.
I think privacy easily trumps non-commercial copyright so even when I'm feeling sympathetic to the pro-copyright arguement I am not willing to budge if it means things like more surveillance or increasing the fear that your are being watched by your government or some copyright enforcement company.
I think that's a common enough feeling to explain why "Pirate" political parties have any success (despite many political systems being dominated by a small number of established parties, and the popular sentiment being that voting for anything else is throwing your vote away).
As you have observed, that is quite a different arguement from the other possibility presented in the main article - that "piracy" (what everyone used to simply call sharing) is a good thing - which I am also receptive to. I mean, why bother having the Internet if not for the potential to distribute everything everywhere without saying "Please sir, I want some more"?
I got a torrent for some of the Coursera classes because I hated using their crap website. But those were offered for free in the first place so I don't feel very bad about it.
Since game of thrones got mentioned a couple of times, and quick and easy download/wait times and SD files with 720p resolution, etc...etc... in some of the comments
"It begs the question why every author, filmmaker, and musician isn’t up in arms about the New York Public Library’s rampant sharing"
It should be noted there IS a somewhat large group of book authors who protest that library's are just government sanctioned piracy. Which I think is a fair enough stance to take.
Then those authors are idiots. Libraries pay for their books, they don't seize them for free through some kind of literary eminent domain.
If their argument is that it should be illegal for anyone to share a book that they've paid for with someone else, that would be a radical redefinition of what it means to "own" a book.
My mom borrowing my book is qualitatively different than a public institution set up for the mass renting of media. The law makes that distinction all the time; for example, the CRA prohibits discrimination in a restaurant, but not at my potluck.
Back during the 90s, video rental stores would have to pay a higher price (around $100 IIRC) for a copy of a movie they were licensed to rent. If you believe that media should be licensable, then it follows naturally that more permissive licenses should cost more.
The main reason that libraries are morally acceptable, by the way, is that they are viewed as institutions of learning and betterment that service students, the unemployed, and the less fortunate. If libraries were focused on entertainment instead, they would not be so highly regarded and their copyright issues would come to the fore.
The comparison is bogus because a specific copy is passed around. With file sharing a new copy is made each time. What this means is that with a library only one person can use the media at one time. That person gives the copy back, no so in file sharing.
Shame 'cos it was a nice point for a while!!! Thing is, file sharing isnt sharing. If I "file share" I still have my copy to use. A second person wanting to borrow doesn't have to wait for my copy to be returned to me. They can make a new copy.
So.... can such an arrangement work in place of current "file sharing"? Can a file be borrowed and sent beck for re-borrowing after use? Since my local library in the UK does films and box-sets, can government or local government implement such a system?
There was never a requirement in the definition of "sharing" that the sharer was deprived of the thing being shared. When it comes to non-scarce things - like ideas, knowledge or experiences - we've always used the word 'share' without implying rivalry.
Interesting comparison but failed at making a substantial argument.
- Library has limited copies. If the library has only 10 copies, only 10 people have access to it. On Pirate Bay, 1 million people can instantly download and have access to it.
- Time period to access an item. Even when 10 people have access to it, they will probably borrow it for 2 weeks. This limits circulation.
However, it does bring up an interesting thought experiment. What if the library has 1 million copies of an item, and 1 million people can instantly borrow it? Essentially, what happens when a library is very effective?
This comes down to whats the mission of the library. For NY library: "The mission of The New York Public Library is to inspire lifelong learning, advance knowledge, and strengthen our communities."
Maybe one difference is that libraries don't operate for profit, while pirate sites display ads and (as far as I know) don't redistribute any profits to the content creators?
Although I would gladly pay $X/month to TPB if it did give some of it back to the artists.
It would be very interesting to see what happened if TPB were to start distributing their revenue to the rights-holders without asking for their permission though. Maybe it could work in a similar vein to flattr, where the recipients have to claim their money?
Perhaps the future of torrents is a Spotify-like model where anyone can upload anything, and if you can prove that you are the owner of something you get your share of the revenue?
I'd guess they would if they legally could. But if they could, everybody else also could, and then the cash cow of "selling copies" would finally die in an era where everybody can produce copies themselves. Therefore they cant, because the current stakeholders have too much power in legislation.
"The Pirate Bay, on the other hand, requires you to type in a search term, click on a download button, and wait a little while"
This is basically how it works at my local library, I search on their website, click "Request to my local branch", wait a while, and then it's there for me to pickup. I can't imagine the NY Public library is much worse.
This is all a very nice philosophical discussion. People argue that libraries do pay rightholders - whatever amount, it seems to be less than $1, and that's nice. BUT, why can't we just agree then that we pay a couple of dollars straight to the rightsholder and in exchange we get to download it with one click and use it as we like? Is it really that difficult?
Why stop the hyperbole at public libraries? TPB is the world's most efficient Walmart too because Walmart has per-item and per-person overhead that will never compete with "click this link".
It's the most efficient two way mission to Mars as well when you really think about it: no rockets, no loss of life, and all the latest movies!
Who is being hyperbolic now? It's easy to see that TPB accomplishes few things that Walmart does (such as distributing groceries) and almost none that a Mars mission does (other than serve as entertainment). It's also easy to see that TPB does accomplish many of the things that a public library does, such as offering access to copyrighted works and helping in finding the work you're looking for by maintaining an index. Did you really not see this or were you being disingeneous to make a point?
This itself nails half of the core of the issue. The other half is getting rid of the middle men, who are now just struggling to justify their existence. Their time will come.