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

281–290 of 302 posts

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#281

Post by superuser2 »

gnaritas wrote: post #248
GiraffeNecktie wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And they do, whenever they perform those skills for an audience. " The overwhelming majority of musical work -writing, recording, practicing etc - is done in private with no audience present. Many musicians perform very little in public.

That doesn't mean the market values such effort. They have no right to demand to be paid just because something takes skill. Lots of skilled activities are of no value to the market. And I say this as a musician who's very aware of the effort involved.

>They have no right to demand to be paid just because something takes skill.

But they do have a right to demand to be paid when someone chooses to experience the result of their skill.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#283

Post by gnaritas »

superuser2 wrote: post #281
gnaritas wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean the market values such effort. They have no right to demand to be paid just because something takes skill. Lots of skilled activities are of no value to the market. And I say this as a musician who's very aware of the effort involved.

>They have no right to demand to be paid just because something takes skill. But they do have a right to demand to be paid when someone chooses to experience the result of their skill.

Not necessarily. They can of course charge before demonstrating said skill, but if someone else happens to be witness, or copy the output in some way, it doesn't mean he controls all future uses of the result of said skill.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#284

Post by zasz »

icebraining wrote: post #168
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…

Asking musicians to produce music for nothing more than the sheer joy of it is exploiting them, and impolite Don't fall for their mental trap: questioning copyright doesn't mean that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira... besides. If someone gives you value, you ought to give value back. And people shouldn't be dicks, doesn't mean we should make it a crime. Morality != Law.

That's cool, but some people in this thread are arguing that you shouldn't have to pay for music at all, beyond a small Kickstarter investment. I disagree with that. And apparently, so do the majority of pirates.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#285

Post by zasz »

dsr_ wrote: post #97
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…

Let me offer an argument which I haven't seen, but is probably not novel: people will continue to make music, tell stories and make short films even if there's no likelihood of making much money from it. It's a creative impulse that, happily, has allowed some people in the last few decades to make a living at it -- but that's not the long term history, and it may not continue. We might not get epic movies... or we mi…

I don't think that's really an argument that has anything to do with what I said. If someone does something to benefit you, in this case, writing a song that you enjoy, you should reciprocate somehow, preferably with money. It doesn't matter if they enjoyed doing it or not. I know lots of people who like their jobs, but they would be pretty sad about not getting paid.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#286

Post by barrkel »

drumdance wrote: post #26
barrkel wrote: post #12

As Bruce Waria says in a comment on his own Music Think Tank piece, by Graham’s logic he should force all the companies he invests in to open source the code which he funded, or allow anyone to embed their technology without compensation or conditions attached. This wouldn't actually follow PG's logic. Using code does not necessarily require the end user copying it, especially for web-based software which is mostly r…

If you classify nerve endings as part of the value chain, then the UI of web apps certainly qualifies.

For sure; and that's why most web UIs rely heavily on open source frameworks. I don't think this disproves my point at all; I think it strengthens it.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#287

Post by tptacek »

dionidium wrote: post #215
tptacek wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Everyone does it" is an important consideration, if only because making regular people into criminals erodes general respect for the rule of law. "Everyone does it" won't outweigh every harm, but it surely outweighs some .

That's what people who speed (ie: most people) say. "This is evidence we should raise the speed limit". And so we do, and state after state runs studies showing that the result of doing that is traffic fatalities.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#288

Post by redthrowaway »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #267
icebraining wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh. For the purposes of what I said, these are about the same. That's the thing: I don't believe they are. 46% (70% for young adults) of the US citizens admit to have committed copyright infringement. Almost no one agrees with large fines or with cutting off the connection for infringers. I think there's a big disconnect between the social code and the law.

OK, there may be somewhat of a disconnect. On the other hand, that disconnect is irrelevant to my point. I'm only saying that you can't argue from what is to what should be. Whether it's the social code or the law, pointing out that it's currently in favor of copyright infringement doesn't prove anything about whether it should be in favor of copyright infringement.

The should, however, is derived from the is. Our prescriptive laws are, at least in theory, derived from descriptions of reality. Thus do we claim contraception should be legal. Thus do we claim interracial marriage should be legal. These rights are fought for; granted from first principles, but also from social realities. "All men are created equal" was only taken to include blacks after the Civil War.

So too must the public attitude towards filesharing define our laws surrounding it. The majority of people have, without caveat, expressed through their actions their belief that filesharing is, and should be, a normal and accepted part of society. This may rankle those whose paychecks are predicated upon the status quo, but it doesn't affect our shifting morals. We are a people who accept and embrace "copyright infringement". It is only once this reality is accepted that the content industry may move forwards.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#289

Post by jamesaguilar »

redthrowaway wrote: post #288
jamesaguilar wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, there may be somewhat of a disconnect. On the other hand, that disconnect is irrelevant to my point. I'm only saying that you can't argue from what is to what should be. Whether it's the social code or the law, pointing out that it's currently in favor of copyright infringement doesn't prove anything about whether it should be in favor of copyright infringement.

The should, however, is derived from the is. Our prescriptive laws are, at least in theory, derived from descriptions of reality. Thus do we claim contraception should be legal. Thus do we claim interracial marriage should be legal. These rights are fought for; granted from first principles, but also from social realities. "All men are created equal" was only taken to include blacks after the Civil War. So too must t…

Yes, but not the tautological is. "People should not be sued for their entire worth for pirating songs," isn't derived from, "People like to pirate songs." It's derived from, "punishment should be equitable," "pirating a few songs isn't that big of a deal," and "that's scary." And those are derived from even further beliefs.

The important question is, if you take the root beliefs and walk back up the tree, do all of the beliefs come to an overall support of free copying? Then you do that in aggregate for society, taking into account uncomfortable truths about the economics of music production and advertising where necessary and on a level individuals won't when they derive their inevitable personal free-riding preferences. Going from high level feeling to high level feeling ("I like file sharing" -> "file sharing is right") does not work. Almost everyone says that they would prefer to pay less tax too.

To put it another way, there are plenty of things people would do if they could get away with it. Not paying taxes, driving as fast as they want, tossing cigarette butts wherever, etc. Your exact argumentation could be used to say, "Society's views about these activities need to change," but that's not actually the case. All you are observing is that people will take advantage of situations where they can get away with something, even if it's not ultimately good for society as a whole. In no way do I accept the norms that you're deriving from this. Rather, I should say that I don't accept the way you are deriving them. My personal jury is still out on whether I think filesharing is a problem that needs to be addressed more or less forcefully.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#290

Post by 4ydx »

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…

So the right to pursue an old business model is dead. Good riddance.
Post reply on HN