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

121–130 of 302 posts

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#121

Post by chernevik »

redthrowaway wrote: post #81

The author, and the content industry in general, are misunderstanding basic economics: Just because there is a cost to produce something does not mean that it has market value . pg was right in pointing out that the content industry is built on the economics of scarcity, and that this scarcity no longer exists. You could charge someone to see a movie in a theatre when doing so was the only way to see the movie. You c…

That abundance of music isn't created by independent effort. We aren't talking about trade in covers of "Sergeant Pepper." The abundance is created by the violation of the legitimate and rational rights of individuals in the product of their own work.

I can make a lot of things abundant, for a time, with similar violations. But that doesn't mean those are right, or an intelligent way to get along with other people. No one but the strongest and sneakiest have an interest in the economy of what you can get away with.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#122

Post by sophacles »

It seems like the author is missing a huge chunk of this analogy: the aroma from the restaurant is not merely a by-product, but also a free advertising channel. Heck, many restaurants strategically vent exhaust from the kitchen to get more people to notice them. They are paying to distribute the smells for free yet not charging for them! (A fact the author asserts would strictly result in a reasonable charge for the aroma).

Similarly, the recording people have regularly paid big bux to radio station to freely distribute the music. The exposure gets a song popular, hence more sales. Yet, instead of looking at an even greater chance for big exposure, the industry is looking to clamp down on it. Granted, it involves changing the product from the recorded music to something else surrounding that. Still, this I felt was the main point of the analogy, rather than "derp music is just air", like the author suggests.

I will be glad to see the "big music" bubble burst and all these companies go out of business. I find myself hoping the execs stay jobless and penniless for long after they do. I'm not worried about the lower echelon people, skilled talent will find a way to earn their living either in a small scene, specialized way, or in a different industry.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#123

Post by davidw »

angersock wrote: post #69
alexgartrell wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

The thing you guys are missing is "that which is not seen":

http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

Just because there is some open source code doesn't mean that there is an "optimal" level of it. In other words, maybe due to the relative lack of funding, there's a lot less open source than there could be if there was a better financial feedback loop between people getting value from the software and those developing it.

This isn't just something I'm making up - I've spent a lot of time around open source, and seen a lot of good people who could have done lots more if they had had more time to dedicate to working on the code, rather than working a "day job".

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#124

Post by joelhaus »

citricsquid wrote: post #92
redthrowaway wrote: post #81

The author, and the content industry in general, are misunderstanding basic economics: Just because there is a cost to produce something does not mean that it has market value . pg was right in pointing out that the content industry is built on the economics of scarcity, and that this scarcity no longer exists. You could charge someone to see a movie in a theatre when doing so was the only way to see the movie. You c…

And you're misunderstanding economics too. Just because you can get it for free that does not mean there is no market for people paying for it. > Just because there is a cost to produce something does not mean that it has market value. What shows market value is the desire for that product. The only reason that music is pirated now (when it used to be purchased) is because it's easy and without consequence. Let's say…

So off base. Where to begin...

> And you're misunderstanding economics too. Just because you can get it for free that does not mean there is no market for people paying for it.

He says the opposite of this. Redthrowaway on free vs. paid content:

  The formatting was wrong, it was inconvenient, and the metadata
  was filled with crap from the rippers that meant it would never
  sort properly. So I bought an ebook from Amazon.
> If pirating music was impossible many people would return to paying for music, the only reason they don't now is because stealing it is consequence free.

What are you saying? Are you advocating for harsher consequences and more enforcement of existing law or more DRM? It's unusual to see so many luddites on HN. Personally, I'd prefer to see modernization of IP laws.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#125

Post by batista »

redthrowaway wrote: post #81

The author, and the content industry in general, are misunderstanding basic economics: Just because there is a cost to produce something does not mean that it has market value . pg was right in pointing out that the content industry is built on the economics of scarcity, and that this scarcity no longer exists. You could charge someone to see a movie in a theatre when doing so was the only way to see the movie. You c…

The author, and the content industry in general, are misunderstanding basic economics: Just because there is a cost to produce something does not mean that it has market value.

And your are misunderstanding even more basic economics: being able to take something (or a copy of it) without paying, doesn't mean it doesn't have value either.

Value is where there are people willing to pay.

And people ARE willing to pay for music and movies.

So, the problem is not that the content has no value, but rather that the payment step can be bypassed very easily.

But bypassing payment easily != the thing has no value.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#126

Post by redthrowaway »

angersock wrote: post #119
davidw wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content is scarce if you think not just about distribution, but creation. As a thought experiment, if no one earned anything off of information goods, at all, then fewer of them would be produced.

What? Are you unable to understand the difference between making a statement with unspecified assumptions, and making a crafted argument with carefully specified axioms and clear logical reasoning--while also noting obvious facts about the real-world implementation of the topic you debate? How many songs/stories/etc. are dreamed up by kids and never published? How many love poems are written and not saved? Content is…

>Are you retarded?

Please try to avoid this.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#127

Post by davidw »

angersock wrote: post #119
davidw wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content is scarce if you think not just about distribution, but creation. As a thought experiment, if no one earned anything off of information goods, at all, then fewer of them would be produced.

What? Are you unable to understand the difference between making a statement with unspecified assumptions, and making a crafted argument with carefully specified axioms and clear logical reasoning--while also noting obvious facts about the real-world implementation of the topic you debate? How many songs/stories/etc. are dreamed up by kids and never published? How many love poems are written and not saved? Content is…

> What? Are you retarded?

No, and that kind of comment is not welcome here, either.

Information goods most certainly are scarce if you look at the effort it takes to make a song, a movie, a complex piece of software. That time and effort is not free. 'Dreamed up' is a lot different from 'sat down and worked hard on it for months'.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#128

Post by jbigelow76 »

angersock wrote: post #113
jbigelow76 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidizing a hobby is not an accurate analogy. Is a doctor practicing medicine for pay subsidizing their hobby or are they trying to derive value from their efforts? Just because somebody may enjoy what they do to produce that value doesn't mean it de facto becomes "free".

Until you make money because people are willing to pay for what you have and will do so even in the presence of cheaper alternatives, yeah, it's a hobby.

Well the labels paid specific artists despite cheaper alternatives immediately taking them out of the "hobby" category.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#129

Post by toddnessa »

To me the article speaks to the frustration of past funding models giving way to new ways of monetizing creative works. The gateways that have been necessary for works to be promoted are changing from an executives sitting in an office somewhere to everyday people who like your work and have the ability to spread word of it throughout their social networks. As the technology is further developed to further empower these everyday people with even greater ability to spread creative content, such as Spotify is doing, this will accelerate even more. It's my feeling that a new way of monetizing creative works is underway. This will be a paradigm change that will allow works to be seen or heard that would have otherwise never been allowed to see the light of day. We all win when we have the greatest number of individuals having more of a say in things rather than just a select few. Authors, musicians & other creators in the future will be more in the driver seat than in the past and will be given new & different options for monetizing their products.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#130

Post by sophacles »

davidw wrote: post #108
redthrowaway wrote: post #81

The author, and the content industry in general, are misunderstanding basic economics: Just because there is a cost to produce something does not mean that it has market value . pg was right in pointing out that the content industry is built on the economics of scarcity, and that this scarcity no longer exists. You could charge someone to see a movie in a theatre when doing so was the only way to see the movie. You c…

Content is scarce if you think not just about distribution, but creation. As a thought experiment, if no one earned anything off of information goods, at all, then fewer of them would be produced.

No, go to any mid-sized town or bigger, there is at least one recording studio, making decent or good recordings for bands that never hit the "*AA lottery", but make decent money (either in the form of door fees and schwag, some even enough to live on) giving away CDs at shows to keep people coming to the next show. Even more that do the same thing, but keep a day job and do music for the love of it.

For every band you've heard of and hated, there are several you've never heard of, but probably would enjoy.

Post reply on HN