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

181–190 of 302 posts

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#181

Post by batista »

jes5199 wrote: post #163
batista wrote: post #115

Graham draws a comparison between the ridiculous situation of a shop owner wanting to charge passers-by for smelling the delicious cooking smells coming from restaurant, and record companies going after people who’ve illegally downloaded music or movies. The supposed point of comparison is that ‘information is like air’ and can be freely transmitted, so it can’t be treated as the property of one party. If PG is makin…

even up to the acquisition, ViaWeb's source code wasn't that valuable. What was really valuable is the knowledge of the code that its developers have, and the relationships with the customers, the minds of the leaders who made the company successful, and the brand. Plenty of companies get their source code leaked, and yet they keep on selling the software. The code itself is treated like a curiosity - some people pla…

even up to the acquisition, ViaWeb's source code wasn't that valuable. What was really valuable is the knowledge of the code that its developers have, and the relationships with the customers, the minds of the leaders who made the company successful, and the brand.

So, if a guy more connected than PG in the Valley at the time stole the code, and had some top notch Lisp guys study it and expand it, and had $$$ to spend for marketing, it would still be OK to take ViaWeb's code?

It's not that any or all of those things are an impossible secret sauce. For example, they guy could be an ex-employer, familiar with the source code AND with relations to existing customers.

I've never heard of anyone building and selling a closed-source project once they obtained the source for it

That's mostly because they would be sued to oblivion in a case like we describe. But in other cases, where they legally obtained the code to a project used by some business (e.g if it was open sourced) people HAVE built competing businesses. From MariaDB to Slashdot clones to OpenStack, to competing Unices, etc.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#182

Post by tptacek »

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.

Absolutely they would. Similarly, an even greater majority of American drivers will disobey road safety laws (most commonly the speed limit) which are statistically shown to mitigate traffic fatalities. In other words, they will buy a ticket to a lottery of potentially killing other human beings solely to increase the perception that they're getting to their destination faster. And why? Mostly, because it's easy and there's rarely consequences.

And then, after they do that, they will spend countless hours writing message board posts on fora all over the Internet about how their speeding tickets are elaborate scams set by the government to raise revenue. Their justifications are almost as elaborate and refined as those of music pirates.

(I'm not on a high-horse here; I speed too.)

"Everyone does it, so it shouldn't be illegal" is --- and this is so obvious I don't even have to provide the most vivid examples --- historically a very dumb argument.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#183

Post by jamesaguilar »

angersock wrote: post #159
jamesaguilar wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It informs the debate in the sense that it confirms music does have value. It's sophistic to claim that music has no value because people can avoid paying for it, which is I think the point your parent was trying to make.

We have to make sure that we do not conflate utility (absolute value) with market value.

Yes, market value is probably not the term we want to use to make statements about what should be done around copyright law. Anything you can't force people to pay for has no market value. Making a normative statement about whether people should have to pay for something based on market value is begging the question.

It's more important to think about utility, because that can help us answer the question of whether the government and laws should be used to create market value where there is none by trying to make a good excludable.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#184

Post by jbigelow76 »

angersock wrote: post #137
batista wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

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....)

If you can't have value without scarcity why would something be pirated? Value can be intrinsic without scarcity.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#185

Post by qdog »

DanielStraight wrote: post #139
qdog wrote: post #21

I don't know why this is upvoted so much. PG's article seems pretty clear. The problem I have with this article is the association of investment with a 'right' to recoup that investment. There is no inherent right to recoup investment money of this type. NONE! It doesn't matter how hard something is to produce, there is no inherent right to make a profit based on that effort. People paint, write, sing and act all the…

The question is not whether there is a right to make a profit but whether there is a right to pursue a profit. Free, instantaneous distribution of all music as soon as it is produced (an exaggeration of torrents, but not by much) seems to take away the right to pursue a profit, at least profit by distribution of recordings. Or perhaps there is no right to pursue profit by distribution. Perhaps there is only a right t…

I'm saying it's not a 'right' to expect profit from something. The right to pursue a profit exists as long as the law of the land allows it.

Markets already provide a "pay-what-you-want" model, it just happens that not everyone is willing to accept what you want to pay.

Selling capital goods is very different than selling digital copies of something. There is a limited amount of corn in the world, you can purchase it at the going rate generally set by the supply and demand. In digital goods, the supply is unlimited, there are no natural market forces.

Apple heavily protects its products with patents and copyright where it can. You cannot take an ipad design and improve upon that design without cutting a deal with Apple. I think that strongly supports the case that the few (Apple) benefit from the current system while the many (anyone who thinks they could enhance the design of ipad) do not.

There are, however, a few open and free items of software, Linux, MySQL, Apache, Firefox to name a few. Arguably, depending on what you want to do, there isn't even a better closed alternative (yes, yes, substitute whatever SQL package you prefer for MySQL).

I personally have a cable provider (so I pay for the minimal tv package to get internet), a netflix account, Amazon Prime, see the occasional movie in the theater, etc.

When people talk about copyright though, I generally see some stuffed suit making a bonus, not a bunch of creative people.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#186

Post by nirvdrum »

maratd wrote: post #145
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…

> People pirate music because it's free, consequence free (the reason they don't steal cars is consequence) and everyone spends all day every day justifying it. Please don't conflate tangible goods with intangible goods. Intangible goods are patterns. You can't steal a pattern, because a pattern can't be "owned" in any sense that a physical object can. Now, you can have rights to a pattern and that right stops others…

Your comment in no way actually addresses what he's saying, which is a hypothesis to the justification for why people do things. In fact, he didn't even conflate the terms as I see it, unless you want to say piracy is only related to theft. And the section you quoted doesn't even have the term "theft" in it (which you also quoted). In short, it's a tired talking point of a technicality that adds almost nothing to the larger discussion.

It sounds like you have strong opinions on the topic -- I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#187

Post by haberman »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #95
zasz wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP said that there would be less of it, not that it would be nonexistent. Linux is probably an exception, and not the rule, and it is such an exception that large companies are willing to subsidize it. I've been looking for some good sound editing software, and the only solution I could find that was good at altering tempo without creating weird artifacts was closed-source and proprietary. I've also rarely played any…

Apache, Wordpress, nginx, node.js, coffeescript, ruby, rails, python, django, chromium, firefox, webkit, drupal, varnish, memcached, 7zip, postgresql, mongodb, php, clang, wine, dosbox, vlc, virtualbox, truecrypt, calibre, audacity, openoffice, cygwin, flac, ogg, perl, synergy ...

Video games alone are a 16 billion dollar per year industry. It employs over 22,000 software developers. (http://www.theesa.com/games-improving-what-matters/economy.a...) Are you seriously suggesting that this industry would produce just as much software if their work wasn't copyrighted, or that listing 35 open-source projects says anything about what would happen to the industry overall?

You're focusing on one very small part of the software industry and ignoring the rest.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#188

Post by batista »

angersock wrote: post #176
batista wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thi…

>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.

It would be better if you spend some time to understand what they MEANT with by "content" in their statement, instead of attacking their statement "as given", i.e with only considering the more basic meaning of the word content.

Also: it's not just that "undistributed content might as well not exist", it's also that content not done to a level the public wants "might as well not exist". Even if you distribute (say, online, on YouTube) your "movie" made with a camcorder, it doesn't mean it will replace an actual, budgeted movie, for the majority of people.

>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.

Why don't YOU use logic? I don't have to "prove" anything, it's obvious.

1) People produce content for two reasons: for free and because they are paid to do so.

If they are not paid, the second reason ceases to exist. (If you don't believe that some of the professional content creators would not produce stuff if there were no money involved, talk to some of them). A lot of content is not produced "out of passion" at all, but solely for money. Justin Bieber songs, hollywood blockbuster, etc.

2) Content creation costs money. If content is not paid, expensive content will not be produced by anyone, even those that do it out of passion. A money, which can get to $100 million budget easily, is expensive content.

3) Content creation takes time. If professional creators cannot do it as a full time job, they will work some other full time job, and if they still feel the urge to do it out of passion, they would do it on their spare time. Again, volume will drop.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#189

Post by jamesaguilar »

maratd wrote: post #145
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…

> People pirate music because it's free, consequence free (the reason they don't steal cars is consequence) and everyone spends all day every day justifying it. Please don't conflate tangible goods with intangible goods. Intangible goods are patterns. You can't steal a pattern, because a pattern can't be "owned" in any sense that a physical object can. Now, you can have rights to a pattern and that right stops others…

> you own it forever and without limits.

The only reason this is true is that the laws say it is. Same as with those patterns of yours -- the laws could easily be changed so that you own the pattern always and forever. It's quite pointless to argue about the shoulds of the situation based on current law.

When we're talking about incentives for production and utility, it actually makes quite a bit of sense to conflate cars and music. They have many similar properties. On the consumption side, you do have to consider the added utility of making the music free, though, because some people will be able to consume it who otherwise wouldn't have paid.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#190

Post by gcp »

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.)

Quite a few people get paid to work on GCC. Mozilla has paid staff. Rails work was paid for by 37signals, etc. Mono has paid developers, etc...

Just because you're not paying for these products directly, doesn't mean someone else isn't.

Post reply on HN