Why I'm a Pirate • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#271

Post by cschwarm » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 4:49 PM UTC

Spoom wrote: post #240

wwwtyro wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When people propose that copyright be abolished, they are saying, if effect, that anybody who produces a creative work immediately forfeits any right to control it and that any random person can come along and freely enjoy the benefits of that work and also freely reproduce and distribute that work. I could not disagree more. If someone creates a work of art, they only own the physical manifestation of that creatio…

While I realize that it can't happen any time soon due to the current businesses that rely on copyright protection, there have been alternatives proposed that work without it, like The Digital Art Auction ( http://tdaa.digitalproductions.co.uk/history/essay.htm ) and Street Performer Protocol ( http://www.schneier.com/paper-street-performer.html , blacked out due to SOPA as of writing). Vastly simplified, they descri…

Although I'm not the OP, let me comment on these auction models: From an economic point of view, they suffer under high transaction costs.

Transaction costs include legal stuff, distribution, and advertising. The later is probably the largest block. There's only a very small minority who likes to engage in the creation of works. The majority just wants to be entertained. For this, they need signals of quality, and the perceivable amount of advertising is such a signal.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#272

Post by angersock » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 4:50 PM UTC

wwwtyro wrote: post #252

Spoom wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I realize that it can't happen any time soon due to the current businesses that rely on copyright protection, there have been alternatives proposed that work without it, like The Digital Art Auction ( http://tdaa.digitalproductions.co.uk/history/essay.htm ) and Street Performer Protocol ( http://www.schneier.com/paper-street-performer.html , blacked out due to SOPA as of writing). Vastly simplified, they descri…

I strongly approve, and I think they are probably part of the way things will be done in the future. Kickstarter is already making great forays into this field. It's serendipitous that you bring this up, as I am currently working on a startup that uses this very method!

Doing something similar.

Hit me back at the address in my profile, if you would.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#273

Post by billpatrianakos » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 4:52 PM UTC

hxa7241 wrote: post #234

grellas wrote: post #212

Creative effort - or at at least any that is truly worthy of the name - takes tears, and sweat, and blood. We can marvel at the output of an artist, or a writer, or a composer, or a film maker and yet fail to focus on the years of toil that often preceded that work. And I am not here speaking of some isolated genius. I still remember the days when I was so dissatisfied with my lack of writing skills that I decided to…

> The point is that this is my decision. Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? > In that case, anybody can use it, replicate it, seek to profit from it, claim it as his own, or whatever, all without my having any say whatever in that process. This is a common approach, bu…

> Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do?

Then the alternative is that all creators keep their output to themselves and people with this entitled attitude never get to make use of their work. Or maybe they don't make something at all. Or maybe they don't even try to learn to make something and get a "real" job because anything they would create is no longer able to buy them lunch. There are people who want to give works away free and for them that's great but what gives any of us the rights to something someone else has made? It's one thing to come across a piece of work legitimately and then be able to do as you please with it.

The music industry is an easy target and even I have a hard time defending them. What about software though? A lot of us here make our living partly due to the protections of copyright. It's one thing to circumvent Apple or Microsoft and pirate some software but what about the indie developer? That guy can't make up the costs with live performances like other types of creators. You either pay for a copy or you don't. If one copy gets bought and 500 get pirated then that guy just got royally screwed. Not all software lends itself to free downloads with paid support. Not all software can be SaaS. So what then? Even open source developers have day jobs. You can't live on PayPal donations and Flattrs.

This whole anti-copyright argument sounds wonderful but the world isn't ready yet. Maybe in another 20 years. The answer isn't to get rid of copyright, the answer is to scale it back to a point where it's more sane.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#274

Post by sequoia » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 4:53 PM UTC

hxa7241 wrote: post #234

grellas wrote: post #212

Creative effort - or at at least any that is truly worthy of the name - takes tears, and sweat, and blood. We can marvel at the output of an artist, or a writer, or a composer, or a film maker and yet fail to focus on the years of toil that often preceded that work. And I am not here speaking of some isolated genius. I still remember the days when I was so dissatisfied with my lack of writing skills that I decided to…

> The point is that this is my decision. Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? > In that case, anybody can use it, replicate it, seek to profit from it, claim it as his own, or whatever, all without my having any say whatever in that process. This is a common approach, bu…

Let me first state that I'm in basically total agreement with OP and mostly agree with parent, but one point sticks in my craw:

>> The point is that this is my decision.

>Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do?

http://thegatheringplacehome.myfastforum.org/archive/life-le...

"Granting the hen the right to distribute (or not) the bread takes that right away from everyone else. How is this justified?" asked the cow.

Um, because the hen made the fucking bread, and the cow didn't. I think that our copyright system is bad, and I personally take similar stance to OP vis-a-vis Big Media, but you'll notice that OPs arguments are pragmatic. "You don't provide a good product" "You hurt me with the fees I pay" "The UX of pirating is better." He's attacking the lazy industry for litigating rather than innovating, attacking the middlemen who are McDucking in swimming pools of cash, and attacking their specious arguments about how you're "hurting the artist" (Funny coming from them: record companies aren't generally known for their generous behavior towards artists). Nowhere does he say "no one should have control over their own works."

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#275

Post by scott_s » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 4:57 PM UTC

billswift wrote: post #245

wglb wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your conclusion is correct, isn't it other later case law that permitted Fair Use? I don't think that is actually in the constitution.

Actually, it is the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment that gives fair use rights, as interpreted by the courts. It could even be argued by a future court that the First Amendment invalidates copyright altogether; it wouldn't be the first time a court had changed direction like that. That is a less extreme change than that from Plessy vs Ferguson to Brown vs the Board of Education, for example. And a goo…

A week or two ago, someone referenced this article by David McGowan, a Law Professor at the University of Minnesota titled "Why The First Amendment Cannot Dictate Copyright Policy": http://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/issues/65/65.2/McGowan.pdf

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#276

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 4:58 PM UTC

route66 wrote: post #177

ThomPete wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the artists don't have a god given right to produce it once and sell it many times.

I see that you are the maker of FinalTouch. Where do you offer the free downloads?

Why should i? People pay for it. Did I ever say that you shouldn't be allowed to make money? Of corse not. I said its not a right but an opportunity.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#277

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:00 PM UTC

adharmad wrote: post #270

hxa7241 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is that this is my decision. Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? > In that case, anybody can use it, replicate it, seek to profit from it, claim it as his own, or whatever, all without my having any say whatever in that process. This is a common approach, bu…

> > The point is that this is my decision. > Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? Because, the creative work would not exist if not for the creator. If you take away the creator's right (and I am not arguing that it should be infinite and indefinite), you take away the i…

This is not true. Artist will always make art and always have.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#278

Post by Spoom » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:03 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #272

wwwtyro wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly approve, and I think they are probably part of the way things will be done in the future. Kickstarter is already making great forays into this field. It's serendipitous that you bring this up, as I am currently working on a startup that uses this very method!

Doing something similar. Hit me back at the address in my profile, if you would.

I'd also like to hear about this; just updated my profile with my email. Thanks!

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#279

Post by angersock » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:04 PM UTC

grellas wrote: post #212

Creative effort - or at at least any that is truly worthy of the name - takes tears, and sweat, and blood. We can marvel at the output of an artist, or a writer, or a composer, or a film maker and yet fail to focus on the years of toil that often preceded that work. And I am not here speaking of some isolated genius. I still remember the days when I was so dissatisfied with my lack of writing skills that I decided to…

Under a society in which copyright is protected, I can freely choose to do that if I like. I can place my work in the public domain and relinquish any right to compensation for it.

As you can do in a society without copyright--that is your personal decision. Copyright is not required for you to do what you will with your stuff.

Or I can let others use it freely but only on if they meet some condition that I impose on it, such as giving me attribution. The point is that this is my decision.

It isn't, though, as we've shown empirically by this point. You cannot stop--physically, legally, or morally--others from doing with your work as they will, provided it exists in a digital form. That genie, as they say, is long since out of the bottle.

If copyright does not exist, though, I have no such rights and I have no such control.

You already have next to no control! Your "rights" are anything but!

In that case, anybody can use it, replicate it, seek to profit from it, claim it as his own, or whatever, all without my having any say whatever in that process.

Why do you need a say? If it's information, it can be duplicated on their dime, and that is their decision. Why need you be involved?

Moreover, why does it matter if it is claimed as their own? It will eventually be found out and publicized if it really matters--or maybe you and your work aren't important enough to merit society's collective memory.

In such a system, anything created by anybody is simply common property. People can use it for good or for bad but I have no say in it.

Yep, that's about the size of it.

I may be the creator but that is beside the point. People like the author of this piece can simply saunter by and take it for whatever use the like.

And isn't that a wonderful thing? That people can build on and reuse the work of those that came before them? That they can do so without fear of reprisal and instead devote that energy to innovation?

Why are you afraid of such a communal future?

Why are you afraid of the removing artificial scarcity?

EDIT: Removed potentially inflammatory leader.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#280

Post by gavinballard » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:07 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #159

gavinballard wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my comment above re: pedantic arguments about the definition of "stealing". grellas made an excellent post the other day about the nature of physical property rights vs intangible property rights [1]. The general gist is that declaring one "fundamental" and the other "not-fundametal" is sophistry; both are considered important to society and both are and will continue to be protected by law. In my opinion, the ex…

This is indeed a good post, thanks for the link. Grellas is right to point out that current laws turn a range of intellectual goods into property. We shouldn't forget however how they do this: by enforcing scarcity when the default was abundance. By the way, you can get abundance back by breaking the law. I reject the terms "property" and "theft" when talking about ideas and recordings because they are abundant by de…

On further reflection, I think you're right that I was wrong to use the word "stealing". It does frame and bias the discussion. I don't think I'll be able to shake the habit of using the word "property" to refer to copyrights, patents, trademarks and designs (perhaps as a habit of specialising in IP during university) - I think that the point grellas makes is such to sufficiently argue that all property is essentially a legal construct and we can mould and shape its boundaries as we see fit.

I understand your point about artificial scarcity and appreciate that you find copyrights and patents a net detriment rather than a net benefit. In the current scheme of things, I would have to agree with you on that point in some instances (especially with respect to software patents, many pharmaceutical patents, and the length of copyright). Overall, however, I believe that the idea of intellectual property is a sound one that's been distorted over the course of legal history thanks to the influence of powerful rights holders and a lack of ability to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances.