71–80 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am lampooning a widespread bias that exists on HN against 'soft' sciences.
bias implies people are unfairly disparaging the soft sciences. most of what I see seems pretty fair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The disincentive is having to pay for the thing you pirated. Not to mention attorney fees if you decide to fight the charge.
Case 1: you decide not to pirate. You pay retail price. Case 2: you decide to pirate. You pay 0 with above a 99% chance. If you do get caught, you can pay the minimal retail price over the last year. What exactly do you see as a disincentive for choosing #2, since case 2 beats case 1 in all cases?
I think that making it harder to come by the infringing content by going after the people who produce it is a better way to fight this problem than going after everyone who wants to use it.
Oh come on, where are there so many copyright apologists here? Even if you're a capitalist the concept of intellectual property doesn't make any sense.
Don't be blinded by the abuse of copyright by megacorps. The idea that if someone works hard on something, they ought to have some commercial control over it is sound. Imagine you wrote a 1000-page novel. Isn't it reasonable for the government to grant you exclusive publishing rights for 14 years? It certainly seems like a sensible incentive for you as a creator. It's hard to make the case that you deserve nothing si…
If you release a digital copy of your novel online, it's quite likely that at least a few people will copy it. However, there's also a pretty good chance it will attract more future customers.
Err, I wonder what percent of people think parking tickets should be under $5. Not sure that means it's a good policy.
Let's figure out what the fine should be with math! :D (10+0)/2*0.32 + (100+11)/2*0.43 + (1000+101)/2*0.14 + (5000 + 1001)/2 * 0.03 + (100000+5001)/2*0.01 + (250000+100001)/2*0.01 = $2467.56
I mention that not to quibble with your formula, but because people seem to be seeing that chart and missing that part of the explanation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, it does indicate a problem with the copyright system when such a large number of people (+50%, per Free Culture) are 'felons' under US law and liable for hundreds of thousands in damages. Second, wouldn't it be reasonable for the bank robbers to request that they're not sentenced to death for robbing banks? Can't they argue the punishment doesn't match the crime?
I disagree. +50% of people probably think their taxes should be much lower. Does that necessarily indicate our taxes are way too high?
- Taxes are too high
- Government service is too poor
- The government is not doing an adequate job of informing people how much benefit they get from paying taxes (Europe seems to do much better in this regard, based on reading HN comments from Europeans).
- The government is not transparent enough in how taxes are allocated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking of P2P file sharing, where regular people are the ones making the infringing copies. In P2P I think downloaders should have some responsibility since they request that copies be made. But it goes without saying that professional infringers should also be punished.
I would argue that distributing is a different issue from producing. In the p2P case you used, I see the producer as the person who prepares the data and/or originally seeds it. Everyone else is just a distributor. "In P2P I think downloaders should have some responsibility since they request that copies be made." why do you just limit it to P2P? Are people who buy pirated movies or pirated books guilty of the same c…
I think it's important to remember that non-commercial distribution is a civil matter, _not_ criminal. That is no small distinction as it determines who will bare the cost of enforcing these rights. Criminal matters are funded by the tax payer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, it does indicate a problem with the copyright system when such a large number of people (+50%, per Free Culture) are 'felons' under US law and liable for hundreds of thousands in damages. Second, wouldn't it be reasonable for the bank robbers to request that they're not sentenced to death for robbing banks? Can't they argue the punishment doesn't match the crime?
First, it does indicate a problem with the copyright system when such a large number of people (+50%, per Free Culture) are 'felons' under US law and liable for hundreds of thousands in damages. While I agree with your conclusions, the logic here is flawed. If everyone started shoplifting, for example, it wouldn't indicate a problem with the laws that people are now criminals. (Sidenote: Only a small number of people…
If I could copy a car for basiclly nothing I probebly would too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, it does indicate a problem with the copyright system when such a large number of people (+50%, per Free Culture) are 'felons' under US law and liable for hundreds of thousands in damages. While I agree with your conclusions, the logic here is flawed. If everyone started shoplifting, for example, it wouldn't indicate a problem with the laws that people are now criminals. (Sidenote: Only a small number of people…
Shoplifting is something diffrent because you cant copy something in a store. You dont take anything away from somebody when you copy (exept an abstract right). If I could copy a car for basiclly nothing I probebly would too.
Oh come on, where are there so many copyright apologists here? Even if you're a capitalist the concept of intellectual property doesn't make any sense.
Don't be blinded by the abuse of copyright by megacorps. The idea that if someone works hard on something, they ought to have some commercial control over it is sound. Imagine you wrote a 1000-page novel. Isn't it reasonable for the government to grant you exclusive publishing rights for 14 years? It certainly seems like a sensible incentive for you as a creator. It's hard to make the case that you deserve nothing si…
Doesn't pass my personal "plumber test": the plumber works hard on plumbing an office, should he have commercial control on those tubes for 14+ years?