Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham has lost the plot

mishandrob.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 302 posts

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#61

Post by guard-of-terra »

tadfisher wrote: post #45
InclinedPlane wrote: post #27

I'll just cherry pick this gem here: "What would happen if creators couldn’t charge for their creations? The same as if you couldn’t charge for lines of computer code: there’d be less of it." Spotted the massive, gaping flaw in the argument yet? It's 2012, if you make this argument then I am done with you. Linux is how old? How much of the internet runs on it? Done. Edit: Wow, really? Why is this still a necessary ar…

That the majority of Linux contributions are made by employees of companies that sell Linux nullifies your argument. Take that away, and Linux would not be near the state it is in today.

Because they needed that code in the kernel.

Now, there would always be people who want to have that music recorded, so it would still flow.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#62

Post by [deleted] »

alexgartrell wrote: post #48
InclinedPlane wrote: post #27

I'll just cherry pick this gem here: "What would happen if creators couldn’t charge for their creations? The same as if you couldn’t charge for lines of computer code: there’d be less of it." Spotted the massive, gaping flaw in the argument yet? It's 2012, if you make this argument then I am done with you. Linux is how old? How much of the internet runs on it? Done. Edit: Wow, really? Why is this still a necessary ar…

Linux is subsidized by large players who need an open platform on which to provide other services. This includes companies like Google who provide advertising based upon things that run on linux and companies like IBM who sell proprietary software that runs on Linux and support contracts for those products. There are very few viable, large-scale open source projects that are run on developer free time alone.

[deleted]

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#63

Post by haberman »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #27

I'll just cherry pick this gem here: "What would happen if creators couldn’t charge for their creations? The same as if you couldn’t charge for lines of computer code: there’d be less of it." Spotted the massive, gaping flaw in the argument yet? It's 2012, if you make this argument then I am done with you. Linux is how old? How much of the internet runs on it? Done. Edit: Wow, really? Why is this still a necessary ar…

> Linux is how old? How much of the internet runs on it? Done.

The argument is that there would be less computer code, not no computer code. Saying that one specific project would still exist is not a counterexample.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#64

Post by [deleted] »

sheraz wrote: post #52
InclinedPlane wrote: post #27

I'll just cherry pick this gem here: "What would happen if creators couldn’t charge for their creations? The same as if you couldn’t charge for lines of computer code: there’d be less of it." Spotted the massive, gaping flaw in the argument yet? It's 2012, if you make this argument then I am done with you. Linux is how old? How much of the internet runs on it? Done. Edit: Wow, really? Why is this still a necessary ar…

You cannot simply substitute software for music, literature, or film. It does not work that way.

[deleted]

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#65

Post by VMG »

babarock wrote: post #29

"What would happen if creators couldn’t charge for their creations? The same as if you couldn’t charge for lines of computer code: there’d be less of it." This sums up why I disagree with the author. People have been playing and composing music way before "selling records" was the way to make money. Just like people don't contribute to open source "for the joy of it". Very serious business is being done around open s…

The difference is that nobody stops you from making "Open-Source" films and music, and many people do.

The masses however seem to prefer commercial films, music and software.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#66

Post by guard-of-terra »

notJim wrote: post #53
InclinedPlane wrote: post #27

I'll just cherry pick this gem here: "What would happen if creators couldn’t charge for their creations? The same as if you couldn’t charge for lines of computer code: there’d be less of it." Spotted the massive, gaping flaw in the argument yet? It's 2012, if you make this argument then I am done with you. Linux is how old? How much of the internet runs on it? Done. Edit: Wow, really? Why is this still a necessary ar…

> How much of the internet runs on it? How many of the sites on the internet are open source though? A quick glance through the top 100 according to Alexa gives me 2 or 3 (wordpress and wikipedia, and really wordpress is more about the content, which is not open source, generally speaking.)

Site on the internet is something like a live performance.

You can't have copies of it because of its transient nature. Sometimes you do have a bootleg but your mileage may vary still.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#67

Post by pemulis »

cturner wrote: post #42

Although there was some to disagree with in Graham's essay, he had some interesting insight. The restaurant smells analogy is the least bad I've heard so far. This response was flimsy. > This is a flawed analogy. Cooking smells are a > positive externality – they’re generated as a > by-product of providing a service to paying patrons. > But commercially released music is produced > specifically for the purpose of bei…

Would you have a problem with it if Steam started serving games without paying the developers? Also, when he talks about the cost of producing music, he isn't referring to the cost of setting up a microphone, which is miniscule. What he's talking about is the fact that it might take an artist over a month to create a two-and-a-half-minute song.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#68

Post by notJim »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #66
notJim wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much of the internet runs on it? How many of the sites on the internet are open source though? A quick glance through the top 100 according to Alexa gives me 2 or 3 (wordpress and wikipedia, and really wordpress is more about the content, which is not open source, generally speaking.)

Site on the internet is something like a live performance. You can't have copies of it because of its transient nature. Sometimes you do have a bootleg but your mileage may vary still.

I mean the code. The argument was “there would be less code if you didn't have the right to own code”, and I'm saying that although the internet runs on open source software, the vast majority of popular internet sites run closed-source software.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#69

Post by angersock »

alexgartrell wrote: post #48
InclinedPlane wrote: post #27

I'll just cherry pick this gem here: "What would happen if creators couldn’t charge for their creations? The same as if you couldn’t charge for lines of computer code: there’d be less of it." Spotted the massive, gaping flaw in the argument yet? It's 2012, if you make this argument then I am done with you. Linux is how old? How much of the internet runs on it? Done. Edit: Wow, really? Why is this still a necessary ar…

Linux is subsidized by large players who need an open platform on which to provide other services. This includes companies like Google who provide advertising based upon things that run on linux and companies like IBM who sell proprietary software that runs on Linux and support contracts for those products. There are very few viable, large-scale open source projects that are run on developer free time alone.

Tell that to the GCC folks, GIMP developers, Blender developers, Tremulous developers, Firefox developers, Mono developers, Rails developers, Python developers...

(we all know GTK is a labor of love, 'cause you couldn't expect people to pay for it.)

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#70

Post by jbigelow76 »

Why does YCombinator deserve equity (value) from successes of the YC program, these are internet companies, aren't msot of the company's benefits intangible "smells" much like music?

Wait. Let me guess... because they invested, so they deserve to profit right?

So somebody please explain to me why the media industries are different. If anybody thinks music is free please go price out studio time before replying.

Post reply on HN