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

221–230 of 302 posts

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#221

Post by haberman »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #197
haberman wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ver…

It's funny you trot out that example just as so many games are switching to "free to play" models. I'm focusing on a "very small part of the software industry" which creates the software which runs the vast majority of web servers. Oh, and every android phone too. All I'm saying is that if you can't accept that there is "another way" of making stuff, even hugely important stuff, then you simply have not been paying a…

> All I'm saying is that if you can't accept that there is "another way" of making stuff, even hugely important stuff, then you simply have not been paying attention.

I have done open source development for over 10 years (I was developer #3 on one of the open-source projects you mentioned), have used Linux for about 15 years, and use it every day at my job working at the company that develops the Android code that you mention. That you would question my open source credential is... amusing.

I believe in open source too (and have spent a significant portion of my life developing it). That doesn't mean that I'm naive enough to think that you can take away the licensing-based revenue from the for-pay software industry and continue to get just as much software.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#222

Post by maratd »

nirvdrum wrote: post #186
maratd wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement.

People don't justify anything. By saying that something needs to be justified, you are suggesting that this is a moral issue? It's wrong for me to copy patterns of bytes? If so, then I've been a sinner since I was 10. Remember those 5 1/4 floppies, BBSes, IRC, etc? Yeah.

Copyright law was designed with businesses in mind, not individuals. Fair use should be expanded to encompass all personal use of patented or copyrighted material. Restrictions should only apply to commercial application.

Speaking of business ...

Did I mention I create digital works every day? That's what I do. I create software. My work can easily be copied ... and if it was, I wouldn't blame anyone but myself. Actually, I wouldn't even blame myself. Because my rampant "piracy" as a kid made me realize something. There is no value in software. There is only value in service. The software I write is merely a tool that I use to render a service and even if you copied it, you would only be left with a tool. I'm the final part of the equation and I can't be copied. That's the right way to do software.

What people don't mention is that the software industry was first. Before music, before movies, before books, before any of that ... the software industry was forced to change, more than that, it was born changed, because digital "piracy" was born with the software industry.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#223

Post by chc »

tptacek wrote: post #182
icebraining wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is just a matter of it being hard for us to weigh the relative values of probabilities. I mean, just getting in a car creates a measurable likelihood that you'll kill someone, but it doesn't bring it to a level that most people would consider worryingly high. Ditto for, say, ironing clothes — you increase the chance that somebody around you will die (e.g. from a fire), but not by enough to ping anyone's conscience. Most people view speeding the same way.

This is not at all the same thing as being willing to steal somebody else's car just because you know you won't get caught. In that case, you know that you are creating immediate harm to that person. People weigh that differently from a vague chance of killing an abstract person.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#224

Post by beambot »

VMG wrote: post #194
angersock wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, the number of views we get on places like Youtube and 4chan and YTMND seem to present a convincing counterargument.

Then why do we need The Pirate Bay?

Distribution, feature set, and lack of DRM?

We recently gave up casual TV and movies cold-turkey. Frankly, the studios and networks just couldn't figure out how to target us properly. I'm not going to pay $120 / mo. to get my favorite channels (eg. Science and NatGeo) just because ESPN has Comcast by the balls. Similar arguments for movies.

FWIW, I don't use TPB either. But I can imagine the appeal of choice, freedom, and having archival copies of the bits locally.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#225

Post by kreek »

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.

I would say it's because of consequence and anonymity, people do it because they won't be fined or arrested and no one knows about it.

People will do all sorts of crazy things if the system allows them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#226

Post by marshray »

cturner wrote: post #132
pemulis wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. I covered that music innovation happens without requiring us to relinquish our rights in my original post. But let's expand, because I can raise Jade Ewen now. The only musicians who benefit from copyright in a significant way are a few that get hand-picked as front-men by the gansters who run…

Don't leave out where, in the end, Ms Ewen ends up owing money to the record labels.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#227

Post by pemulis »

cturner wrote: post #132
pemulis wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. I covered that music innovation happens without requiring us to relinquish our rights in my original post. But let's expand, because I can raise Jade Ewen now. The only musicians who benefit from copyright in a significant way are a few that get hand-picked as front-men by the gansters who run…

The claim in the article isn't that nobody would write and perform music without copyright, but that there would be less of it, and that it would be of lower quality. My claim is that labels, publishers, and music producers will exploit artists if copyright does not exist. I'm not trying to defend the business model of big music labels, so the example of Jade Ewen is neither here nor there. I'm defending the idea of limited intellectual property rights, because without them artists would be at an even greater disadvantage.

It's easier to see the problem in publishing or the game industry than in music, since musicians can make money from performances. Taking your example of Mendelssohn, he made his money from holding concerts and getting stipends from German monarchs. Authors and game designers can't hold performances, so the only way they can make money is by actually selling copies of their work, which requires intellectual property rights, or by hoping to attract a rich sponsor. If Amazon could sell books without having to give any royalties to the copyright holders, they would.

The idea that copyright only benefits the select few in the music industry isn't true, either. Labels often get caught plagiarizing songs that were written by small artists and handing them to big-name artists that they have under contract. With copyright, the smaller artists have an uphill battle. Without copyright, they have no weapons whatsoever.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#228

Post by raganwald »

icebraining wrote: post #211
citricsquid wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh, I didn't think you were including moral consequences. Then the questions I have are; why is copyright infringement free from moral consequences while car stealing isn't?

Because... Mark my words closely... When you steal my car, you deprive me of my car. When you take a picture of my picture of a lamborghini, you deprive me of nothing except for the artificial right to charge you for the right to take a picture of my picture of a car.

The moral consequences differ because the consequences differ.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#229

Post by omonra »

angersock wrote: post #118
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…

And they are welcome to keep paying for it--as the rest of us download free copies. As for convenience, I may find it more convenient to download music from TPB or a college FTP than from iTunes, because I don't want to deal with their installer or give away my billing info. Convenience is an utterly subjective measure. (also, your car analogy is shitty and bad and you should feel shitty and bad)

"because I don't want to deal with their installer or give away my billing info"

Of course - because once they have your billing info, they can actually bill you and your bank account will decrease by the cost of the CD.

So you pretty much proved his point - you just don't want to pay for something you can steal.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#230

Post by lutorm »

garyrichardson wrote: post #143
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…

If/when stealing cars becomes easy and without consequence (ie, I can copy yours and have my own), I suspect the auto industry would be in the exact same boat as the record industry is now. I look forward to that day so we can all have awesome hybrid vehicles that run on garbage. I suspect people will also be able to make awesome mashups so I can get an EV Jeep pickup or a 2012 convertible beetle.

The stealing bit is a red herring. Copying is not stealing. I'm pretty sure I can now borrow a car and, if someone was willing to lend me a fully equipped workshop for free, build an exact replica of it without cost (in money). So in that sense, a car and a music file are the same. It's just that it's practical to do it with a music file, and not (yet) with a car.
Post reply on HN