Paul Graham has lost the plot • Hacker News Board

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#171

Post by citricsquid » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 7:40 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #157

citricsquid wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

the reason they don't steal cars is consequence Are you saying that 46% of US citizens* would steal a car if it was consequence free? Because I'd like to see some evidence of that. * The number who have said to have committed copyright infringement.

Yes, I am absolutely stating that if you asked the "average American" whether or not they would steal cars if there were no consequences (financial, legal or moral) they would absolutely say "Yes, I would have no problems stealing a car".

Another way to ask the question is to say "What are the consequences of stealing a car from your neighbour?" and I would say the answers would be "Legal (theft), moral (I have taken someone else's car) and financial (I have saved money on a car)". If stealing a car was consequence free then none of these would matter.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#172

Post by notatoad » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 7:42 PM UTC

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.

bringing the discussion back to its original topic, the music industry is subsidized by large players as well. every famous musician makes good income from just the fact that they are a celebrity. product endorsements, festival and tour sponsorships, etc. companies pay musicians to produce music in a way that is totally abstracted from the actual sale of music.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#173

Post by joering2 » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 7:42 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

so basically $10 per CD, everyone CAN AFFORD a wall full of CDs, lets say 10,000 of them, but they choose to steal instead? OK.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#174

Post by sciurus » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 7:43 PM UTC

jes5199 wrote: post #136

jbigelow76 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You implied the 99 cents was a convenience charge, therefore the money goes to the provider of the convenience.

Well, from my perspective as a consumer, yes, it's a convenience charge. I would be happier if some of it went to the artist. I don't actually know how much of it does. I'm not sure it's possible to actually curate a comprehensive MP3 catalog without active cooperation from the musicians, at some level. But, if the Pirate Bay surprised me and made a fast way to search and download music that was as easy as iTunes or…

"i'm not sure it's possible to actually curate a comprehensive MP3 catalog without active cooperation from the musicians, at some level."

It's already being done; it's just not public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oink%27s_Pink_Palace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What.cd

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#175

Post by andylei » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 7:43 PM UTC

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're logical reasoning is incredibly flawed. please stop arguing by way of pleading obviousness ("OMG ARE YOU SERIOUS, MY ARGUMENT IS SO OBVIOUS THAT I WONT EVEN MAKE IT!!!11")

> What would happen if creators couldn’t charge for their creations ... there’d be less of it

the claim here is that if you disallowed charging for software, there would be less software.

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

great, linux exists and is awesome. nobody disputes that. this fact does not contradict the claim in question.

the existent / awesomeness of linux contradicts claims such as: "people who don't get paid will not create things" and "unpaid creators cannot create great things". however, the original claim is none of those statements. the original claim is merely that when you don't let people charge for software, fewer people will write it.

> Do I honestly have to connect the dots here?

i honestly have no idea what you think the connection between the dots is.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#176

Post by angersock » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 7:43 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #151

angersock wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? In a comment starting with such question and attitude you'll very rarely find anything worthwhile... > How many songs/stories/etc. are dreamed up by kids and never published? How many love poems are written and not saved? Content is far, far from scarce. So, songs/stories "dreamed but never published" and poems "not saved" mean that content is ...far from scarce? For one, "not published stor…

Look, the entire debate is/ought/mustbe centered around means of distribution, right?

The person I was replying to was trying to contend that content is scarce. I showed that, no, it indeed is not. Had they put in your caveat that undistributed content might as well not exist, I would've cheerfully argued and perhaps ceded the point. But, their statement, as given? Wrong.

Also, you claim (as does everyone else in this debate, it would seem) that creators must be compensated or less content will result. You cannot prove this, or if you can, you have not shown a reasoning chain that results in it. Use logic.

EDIT: Downvote away, but for chrissakes at least provide your reasoning. What is this, reddit?

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#177

Post by davidw » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 7:44 PM UTC

sophacles wrote: post #161

davidw wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every band I've ever gone to see sells CDs at their shows, and they're mostly the kinds of bands you describe. > keep a day job "Producing less of it" because they can't earn enough to do it full time. There would be more people in that boat if, in my thought experiment, they earned absolutely nothing from their content. I don't think we'd actually ever reach that point, but just think about it as a 'what if'.

When you pay a door fee to see a show, you are paying for the content: a live band performing their songs. Also: some bands sell CDs, some give them away, lately fewer are selling, but instead are giving away passes at download sites. Even those that sell the CDs give away at least half if not more of them, because they would rather people listen to them and come back for the next show, and tell their friends, making…

No, you're not paying for the content itself, you're paying for the band's time, and the limited amount of space in the venue - like you said, the performance; but not the content. Those are both scarce resources, whereas the actual bits are not: you could stream that out on the internet to a virtually infinite number of people.

Now, how about authors?

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#178

Post by aamar » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 7:45 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #103

aamar wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But pg's argument is prescriptive. For example, it includes the question "Should people not be able to charge for content?" and then gives a (conditional) answer. There's nothing wrong with writing a prescriptive essay; it doesn't make it in any sense weaker. But it is prescriptive, and Rob's argument here is specifically with the prescriptive part of the argument--in other words, he argues that music is not so much…

I think it is prescriptive for the distributor and creators, but descriptive for consumers. He is not admonishing consumers to pirate, as it seems many have misunderstood, he just describes what is happening and what will happen with information. But he asks distributors and creators to change and adapt to a new way of doing things. The original blog didn't claim pg was encouraging piracy directly, so my post was a b…

I do agree that pg's essay was not encouraging piracy. Its main thrust was prescriptive with respect to public policy-- that means prescriptive to legislators, voters, and to a degree industry. Rob's essay, as I understand it, disagrees on the policy advice.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#179

Post by angersock » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 7:49 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #165

angersock wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market value is determined by scarcity and demand, right? Scarcity is finished for digital items. Sorry, but that train has left. This very much follows economics. (and stop conflating utility with market value...argh....)

Market value is determined by scarcity and demand, right? Scarcity is finished for digital items. No, just demand. You can simulate scarcity with access provision. Else you don't get to have an economy in the digital age. People talk like this is something new, but it's not. Sun Records made Elvis's singles. Nothing even in that analog era prevented ANY OTHER COMPANY to reproduce and sell the same singles and not giv…

You are dancing around a point, here.

You can't simulate scarcity with access provision. We've solved that. We wouldn't be having this same stupid tired runaround if access provision worked or could be made to work without being repugnant.

As for the Elvis singles, those were physical goods, housed in physical places, with physical companies. This is vastly different from people giving away byte patterns to one another--and the sooner this is accepted, the sooner we can all productively talk about it.

As for your GPL license...

I'm willing to wager that, shock, there are a lot of companies that use in-house tools having modified GPL source without publishing their changes. I'm willing to wager even more that in developing nations there are lots of IP violations of that nature occurring.

Your law means nothing if it cannot be enforced.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#180

Post by barce » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 7:50 PM UTC

wam wrote: post #24

Curiously omitted from both essays (unless I somehow completely overlooked it) is the ending of this apocryphal story. The judge asks the accused infringer to take a coin out of his pocket and drop it on the table, saying "The sound of the coin shall pay for the smell of the food."

Thanks for adding this. This is brilliant on the part of the judge.