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

251–260 of 302 posts

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#251

Post by vibrunazo »

haberman wrote: post #221
InclinedPlane wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

It's not a matter of being open source or not. I think his argument is that you can make money without copyright. Regardless if you open source your software or not. And not only you "can", but it's also the most profitable choice of today. You pointed to the gaming industry, which is an interesting example because our industry is moving toward free to play exactly because copyright haven't been paying off recently. Although I'd argue companies are doing this extremely slow because of their own bureaucracy and incompetence.

So my answer to your question of "do you think they would be making as much money without copyright" is that they would be making much more without copyright.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#252

Post by maratd »

nirvdrum wrote: post #234
maratd wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 individua…

If you build good software that does what it's supposed to, there's no need for service. There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service. But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it. I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphat…

You are a fine demagogue. You recognize exactly what I meant.

> There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service.

And then assume I meant something else.

> But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it.

Shame on you, sir.

> I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphatic use of italics.

I think this is very much the wrong way to have a civilized discussion, despite your wit.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#253

Post by qdog »

DanielStraight wrote: post #217
qdog wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except Apple is a bunch of creative people. So is Kurzweil and O'Reilly and, heck, even Starbucks. Markets are not pay-what-you-want, because pay-what-you-want implies $0 is an acceptable price. At least that's how I was using the term. Apple will not accept $0 for an iPad. If you don't accept their price, you don't get the iPad. That's why people buy it. Copying media lets you get it even if you don't accept the pri…

It did happen quite often in the past. See much of the research done over the last hundred or so years in public universities.

I didn't say we should arbitrarily limit the amount of profit one can make by investing capital, but the current copyright law and patent law is very stifling to innovation.

Apple employs some people, sure. Monopolies (not implying apple is a monopoly to be hit by anti-trust laws, btw, but copyright and patent are monopoly powers) are very, very profitable for the few people that hold them.

I don't have my copy of Wealth of Nations in front of me (out of copyright, but I purchased the penguin classics paperback anyways, go figure), but Adam Smith made a very compelling argument that things like entertainment are not acretive to the capital of a country. At the time of publication (1776), Smith noted actors and musicians expected no more compensation than what they received for peformances. They produced no lasting product that could be added to the 'capital' of the company. Recordings you might say add this value because of copyright, but if you cannot sell your copy that would mean it's not a capital good.

So, yes, creative works existed before the current distribution model.

I'm not arguing people cannot profit from their works, far be it. I'm arguing that the current model for profit favors a very few at the expense of very many, and does not meet the needs of either creators or consumers as well as it does the distributors!

Movies are perhaps the most dependent on the current model, as yes, it takes significant capital to make most movies. However, is it truly more creative to see the 3D version of Star Wars Episode I? Or would it be better to see "Star Wars Episode I: As written By Kickstarter Member XYZ". I'm fairly certain Option B would be more creative at this point. Lucas and everyone involved with Star Wars has already made plenty of money, but you can't expand on those works just because you have a great idea, you'd need Lucas' permission.

Anyways, copyright/patents are a very complex thing right now. I can't tell you exactly how the Ipad came to be (although it wasn't the first tablet), so I can't really say if Apple had the best idea, or just the right polish at the right time. All the patent infringement lawsuits surrounding the ipad seem to support my view that they stifle innovation more than they support the "It required this closed model" argument, if you ask me. Apple is almost assuredly infringing a lot of patents (which many may be invalid), and I would argue they are really so successful because they have deep enough pockets to fight all those legal wars.

I could write a lot and end up saying very little, it is very hard for me to boil down all my thoughts on copyright and patents into a HN comment.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#254

Post by kevinpacheco »

nirvdrum wrote: post #234
maratd wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 individua…

If you build good software that does what it's supposed to, there's no need for service. There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service. But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it. I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphat…

Maybe you don't, but others do. That's why Red Hat is a billion-dollar-a-year company.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#255

Post by snowwrestler »

sophacles wrote: post #130
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.

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 y…

Try stopping into to some of those recording studios and having an in-depth conversation about how they're being impacted by online copyright infringement. I have, and while most accept it as a fact of life now, they will also explain how it is hurting their business and ability to make music professionally.

> giving away CDs at shows to keep people coming to the next show

No band in the world does this. They SELL CDs at shows, because it's one of the few ways they can generate enough cash flow to buy gas and food.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#256

Post by seertaak »

jes5199 wrote: post #101
GiraffeNecktie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Well, all of the music available on iTunes, Amazon, and the Pirate Bay has already been produced, it just needs to be distributed." Just because it has already been produced, doesn't mean that it has already been paid for. The studio and the session musicians have probably been paid, but the artist should be compensated on a scale commensurate with the popularity of the work and that needs to be measured across what…

As a consumer, I don't actually have much power over who does and doesn't get paid for various things.

As a citizen, you have virtually no power to set tax rates. Does that mean you shouldn't pay your taxes?

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#257

Post by nirvdrum »

kevinpacheco wrote: post #254
nirvdrum wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you build good software that does what it's supposed to, there's no need for service. There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service. But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it. I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphat…

Maybe you don't, but others do. That's why Red Hat is a billion-dollar-a-year company.

Oh, absolutely. JBoss was long held up as the only viable model for being successful with open source and the inevitable model everyone would fall into. Give away the software, charge for support. The problem is support just isn't very scalable. There's room for both: different strokes for different folks.

But I still think the ideal in software should be for a tool that just works and is intuitive enough to not require training. There are a lot of tricky problem domains where that's unlikely to ever happen. Such is often the case with ideals.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#258

Post by snowwrestler »

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.

For those wondering how this translates to the music industry, there are a few analogies.

- Independent bands who sign corporate contracts--see The Roots. - Major labels who create teen brands like Justin Bieber or Selena Gomez. They don't care if you steal the music as long as you buy the t-shirt, buy the book, see the movie, come to the show, etc. - Sync licenses. More and more mid-level bands are depending on getting their songs into movies, commercials, tv shows, etc. to bring in revenue. This is another form of corporate funding.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#259

Post by citricsquid »

vibrunazo wrote: post #245
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 I do think that's incorrect, but there's a broader picture issue that makes this irrelevant: Why does it even matter? You're misunderstanding the original argument. Of course it's possible to make some money for selling something that is free. Specially if you convince people that it's not free, and that you'll go to jail if you do otherwise. But what they mean with "there's no…

So the billions of dollars that exist for developers because of the app store are not value to the economy? huh?

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#260

Post by beambot »

VMG wrote: post #240
beambot wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So people are not satisfied with reddit and youtube and want commercial entertainment?

Wait, are those two mutually exclusive? Certainly not for me...
Post reply on HN