I have a bad feeling about this • Hacker News Board

Re: I have a bad feeling about this

#121

Post by brianprogrammer » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 1:54 PM UTC

tatsuke95 wrote: post #106

jlangenauer wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing use-value (the intrinsic value of something) with exchange-value (what the thing can be exchanged for - aka price). Much of mainstream economics reduces the broad philosophical concept of value to the narrow economic concept of exchange-value or price. And it's not warm and fuzzy: what's the "value" of an unpolluted atmosphere? What's the value of good health? These things generally defy attempts to…

In no way is the value of an unpolluted atmosphere or good health some abstract concept. They have a value. The point of putting a dollar figure on it is for comparison purposes. You may disagree with the value placed on these things, or perhaps value them differently than "the average", but don't assume that their value can't be calculated.

Economists and policy makers don't know how to calculate the monetary value of a clean atmosphere, nor do they know who should pay for it or how. So when making decisions they quietly assume the value is zero. We would be better off if they assumed the value was infinite.

Re: I have a bad feeling about this

#122

Post by edanm » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 2:15 PM UTC

HolyHaddock wrote: post #118

edanm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an excellent point. My point was "less money goes into book in general -> we'll have less books". You're right that there are other factors at play here, which are all intermingled. For example: * It's easier to produce content now, bringing down costs. * It's easier to reach a wide audience. Both because of the internet, and because people have more time to spend on content. * Technological changes may make m…

"Less money into books -> less books" seems like "demand goes down -> supply goes down" and fits my unsophisticated understanding of economics. It's not necessarily clear that reduced copyright -> less money into books. Authors have managed to produce novels while holding down demanding full time jobs (or in at least one bestsellers case, still in full time education) at the same time. It is not necessarily the case…

Lots of great points.

One minor nitpick: "Reducing the duration from "Year of Authors death + 70 years" down to, just "Authors death", for example, clearly couldn't lead to any given author producing fewer books."

You can't know that. Lots of make money specifically to leave to children, and for many others it plays a significant role.

I agree about all the other points - there is a lot of unknown in this field. I'm just not crazy about people saying "let's scrap this at least partially working system, and replace it with something I just made up". I'm especially not crazy if they don't even demonstrate a basic understanding of the issues.

Re: I have a bad feeling about this

#123

Post by acuozzo » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 2:53 PM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #94

On a tangential note, I'm wary of relying on the job creation argument to validate new technology. The reason being that new technology can kill jobs. Particularly as programmers, one of our main goals is to automate things that previously required warm bodies. I don't feel guilty about this because I would never want to do those jobs, but on the same token, not everyone wants to be a programmer. And in the long term…

> And in the long term if we ever achieve AI then we're on the path to making programmers obsolete as well ... At a societal level this is not necessarily good or bad, it's just the direction we are currently moving in.

I agree and I'd like to provoke further discussion on a related matter. (Please note that I haven't yet decided whether or not I agree with the following two statements.)

1. Jobs don't matter as much in a GMI[1] system.

2. Working doesn't have to be the focus of one's life.

I'd appreciate it if someone were to play devil's advocate.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

Re: I have a bad feeling about this

#124

Post by regularfry » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:10 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #69

redstripe wrote: post #24

The BBC commissioned a study [1] that claims the Charles Dicken's brand brings in about £280m/year to the UK's economy. This from a public domain "brand". Meanwhile companies like Disney lobby for perpetual copyright to protect their own interest at the cost of all the lost opportunities that will never exist. I don't understand how politicians in the free enterprise countries, especially American republicans with th…

Your mistake is thinking about brands like Charles Dickens and Disney. Of course they make money, and of course they would continue producing work if copyright was only 20 years. What you have to think about is the author who is not famous, but who makes his living off of selling books. Not the millionaires, the ones with a regular salary. They often sell old stories to short-story collections, for example, for a few…

Maybe the answer is that we should have fewer authors who can survive on their back-catalogue. Sure, some great authors would never be discovered, but by the same argument we'd get back those mediocre authors who would otherwise have been brilliant engineers or doctors if they hadn't been able to satisfice themselves into a career which neither truly benefits them nor society.

Re: I have a bad feeling about this

#125

Post by regularfry » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:23 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #122

HolyHaddock wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Less money into books -> less books" seems like "demand goes down -> supply goes down" and fits my unsophisticated understanding of economics. It's not necessarily clear that reduced copyright -> less money into books. Authors have managed to produce novels while holding down demanding full time jobs (or in at least one bestsellers case, still in full time education) at the same time. It is not necessarily the case…

Lots of great points. One minor nitpick: "Reducing the duration from "Year of Authors death + 70 years" down to, just "Authors death", for example, clearly couldn't lead to any given author producing fewer books." You can't know that. Lots of make money specifically to leave to children, and for many others it plays a significant role. I agree about all the other points - there is a lot of unknown in this field. I'm…

This is precisely the argument I had with a musician friend of mine: he was arguing that he wanted to leave an income to his kids in the form of his catalogue. My argument was that it was his responsibility to convert the catalogue into cash during his lifetime, so that he didn't have to rely on the current copyright scheme being enforced in perpetuity. He could then leave that cash to them as part of his estate in the usual fashion.

He was slightly more swayed by the moral argument: his children had done no work for this income, so why should they be preferred over the rest of society in benefiting from his creative output?

Re: I have a bad feeling about this

#126

Post by regularfry » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:27 PM UTC

FourSquareToo wrote: post #9

Don't worry. Once China and India have a sufficient manufacturing, services and consumer base, I fully expect them to formally declare IP to be a nonsense and an impediment to growth.

That was precisely the US's stance a while back. Funny how things change.

Re: I have a bad feeling about this

#127

Post by HolyHaddock » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:32 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #122

HolyHaddock wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Less money into books -> less books" seems like "demand goes down -> supply goes down" and fits my unsophisticated understanding of economics. It's not necessarily clear that reduced copyright -> less money into books. Authors have managed to produce novels while holding down demanding full time jobs (or in at least one bestsellers case, still in full time education) at the same time. It is not necessarily the case…

Lots of great points. One minor nitpick: "Reducing the duration from "Year of Authors death + 70 years" down to, just "Authors death", for example, clearly couldn't lead to any given author producing fewer books." You can't know that. Lots of make money specifically to leave to children, and for many others it plays a significant role. I agree about all the other points - there is a lot of unknown in this field. I'm…

You're too kind, missing the drive to provide for the next generation is more than a minor nit.

A tempting response is "So something like min(20years, authors remaining lifespan)" but that could leave early work (often less commercially successful) with an expectation of a longer copyright duration than later work.

A fixed period risks letting copyright lapse in an authors lifetime, which is certainly offputting to anyone who, for example, dislikes fan-fiction. So we move towards "authors remaining lifespan + rough average lifespan" as a compromise.

Seems reasonable, although I find one way to increase my understanding of any issue is exactly this kind of discussion.

Re: I have a bad feeling about this

#128

Post by shoham » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:36 PM UTC

But the focus is rarely on the inventors themselves. This is the hardest job of all! Consumers tend to get what they want, and eat what they're given. If we're not supporting "starving artists" what's the point in having a more open copyright regime?

Re: I have a bad feeling about this

#129

Post by shoham » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:41 PM UTC

moonchrome wrote: post #37

redstripe wrote: post #24

The BBC commissioned a study [1] that claims the Charles Dicken's brand brings in about £280m/year to the UK's economy. This from a public domain "brand". Meanwhile companies like Disney lobby for perpetual copyright to protect their own interest at the cost of all the lost opportunities that will never exist. I don't understand how politicians in the free enterprise countries, especially American republicans with th…

>The BBC commissioned a study that claims the Charles Dicken's brand brings in about £280m/year to the UK's economy. But who cares how much it "brings in" ? Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide - take linux for eg. which is used in pretty much every aspect of computing these days - from cell phones to super computers - how much value has it provided to the consumers and allo…

"Screw the producers" With all respect to you as a person, fuck that. I'm an independent artist and I don't want to be screwed. Consumers tend to get what they want and eat what they're told to. It's small, independent businesses and artists who shape, have shaped, and will always shape the world that you live. you're welcome.

Re: I have a bad feeling about this

#130

Post by shoham » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:43 PM UTC

jlarocco wrote: post #51

moonchrome wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The BBC commissioned a study that claims the Charles Dicken's brand brings in about £280m/year to the UK's economy. But who cares how much it "brings in" ? Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide - take linux for eg. which is used in pretty much every aspect of computing these days - from cell phones to super computers - how much value has it provided to the consumers and allo…

"Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide - take linux for eg. which is used in pretty much every aspect of computing these days - from cell phones to super computers - how much value has it provided to the consumers and allowed developers/researchers/manufacturers to produce ?" What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money? "Apply that to every major op…

"Government should never protect the producer."

At least we agree on something...

What is this madness??? I'm no Supply sider, but government does should and always will support producers. The question to me is only whether or not they'll just support monopolistic ones, or small ones and startups as well...