Paul Graham has lost the plot • Hacker News Board

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#291

Post by davidw » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 9:10 AM UTC

sophacles wrote: post #276

davidw wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Actually, you are paying for the content too. The content is the driver for the scarce space in a venue. Ever been to a concert bar on nights without a show? They are dead, there is no reason to be there without the music. Similarly, most people don't say "will there be a band there tonight?", they say "which band will be there tonight?", implying the music is at least as important as the fact there is a band and a b…

> As for authors, I wasn't talking about them, and I'm not going to play strawman games with you.

Authors are producers of 'information goods' too, and I hardly think such a large category of people constitutes a 'strawman'. It's an issue that to them is very real - musicians can sort of fall back on performances, but authors can't.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#292

Post by davidw » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 9:16 AM UTC

sophacles wrote: post #277

davidw wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's supposed to be a tradeoff, exactly. The reason why you want producers to get money is so that they can keep producing stuff you like.

So it is only a tradeoff when they get all the money they possibly can by making the stuff less useful to us? Sorry, that is absurd. No one is saying they shouldn't be paid, just paid with a different model, that the tech has changed, and the model should change with it. Preserving the status quo, against the changes wrought by technical progress (a useful art resulting from scientific progress) is sort of the opposi…

Ok, fine, which model(s)? There's way too much dancing around this from many advocates of eliminating IP laws completely. I am not an advocate of keeping things completely as-is - the producers have too much clout - but think there would be a risk of tossing the baby out with the bathwater were there ever a serious consideration of radically curtailing IP laws. And by radically, I don't just mean shortening the terms, I would consider that quite sensible.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#293

Post by DanielStraight » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 12:34 PM UTC

4ydx wrote: post #290

DanielStraight wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is the new business model?

Is it just pay-what-you-want? Because I'm not sure that's any more "alive".

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#294

Post by dkersten » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 1:35 PM UTC

andylei wrote: post #280

dkersten wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of free apps and a lot of the nonfree apps dont make any money, but people still make new apps.

again, what you are saying is true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the argument no one thinks that not being able to charge money = no apps. the argument is over whether not being able to charge money = less apps.

Well sure, I imagine there would be less apps produced (certainly less me too and shovelware apps where the author is trying to make a quick buck). My point is simply that apps will continue to be produced, regardless.

Besides, even if its perfectly legal to copy apps (or music or movies) and distribute them however you like, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't monetize them. It doesn't even mean that you have to completely give up the pay-for-app model either - people will still be willing to pay for something they really like (I bought a CD online direct off a musician a few months back despite already having the mp3's and I've never even opened the CD!), but obviously a lot fewer people than now. Perhaps a pay what you want model would work. This can be offset in other ways - paid support, physical merchandise (printed documentation perhaps) and kickstarter-style "I'll finish the app for $X" are just a few ideas.

I'm not saying that this would definitely be sustainable, because I don't know, but I do see some potential there and either way, people will still make apps, music and movies regardless (though it will be less[1]).

I wonder is B2B sustainable on support contracts and custom work?

[1] Maybe hobbies of the future will revolve more around the production of (free) content and less about the consumption of (free or otherwise) content? Evolution and adaptation of human behavior?

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#295

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 1:56 PM UTC

psb217 wrote: post #263

snowwrestler wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water is free but it is still illegal to shoplift bottled water from the 7/11. Just like it is illegal to infringe copyright by redistributing songs without permission. And for the same reason.

This is exactly the same flawed analogy, in slightly different dress, used in the "you wouldn't download a car" argument.

I don't think so, and here's why: we are post-scarcity when it comes to bottled water. You don't deprive any other 7/11 customer of bottled water when you shoplift, because 7/11 carries a lot of bottled water and has developed processes that ensure they never run out.

You could probably shoplift all the bottled water you can carry, every day, and you still would not deprive another customer. 7/11 would simply keep shipping in more water so they would have product to sell. (Of course they would also get some cops in there to try and stop you!)

Eventually, if they're not making enough money due to all the shoplifting, they might stop carrying bottled water. But that won't be because they ran out of supply; it will be because it's no longer profitable to do so. This is analogous to a movie studio deciding not to make or distribute certain kinds of movies anymore because it is no longer profitable for them.

What about the store? Surely you're depriving them of the bottle of water, right? Again, not really. The store does not actually want to possess so many bottles of water--what they want is to make money by selling bottles of water. And if you look at the economics of the transaction, that's primarily what you're depriving them of. Let's say a bottle of water is priced at $1.50. 7/11, who buys in bulk and then marks up, probably paid $0.50 or less for that same bottle. Thus when you steal it, 66% of the harm is in foregone revenue! Only 33% of the harm is loss of property value. Again, this is analogous to copyright infringement, where the primary harm is foregone revenue, not deprivation of property.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#296

Post by batista » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:44 PM UTC

jbigelow76 wrote: post #184

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....)

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

That's use value.

We're talking about monetary value -- i.e the ability of the item to generate money.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#297

Post by sophacles » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 2:47 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #292

sophacles wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it is only a tradeoff when they get all the money they possibly can by making the stuff less useful to us? Sorry, that is absurd. No one is saying they shouldn't be paid, just paid with a different model, that the tech has changed, and the model should change with it. Preserving the status quo, against the changes wrought by technical progress (a useful art resulting from scientific progress) is sort of the opposi…

Ok, fine, which model(s)? There's way too much dancing around this from many advocates of eliminating IP laws completely. I am not an advocate of keeping things completely as-is - the producers have too much clout - but think there would be a risk of tossing the baby out with the bathwater were there ever a serious consideration of radically curtailing IP laws. And by radically, I don't just mean shortening the terms…

Well, First of all, I am not advocating completely getting rid of copyright. I am arguing for a change to it, and that there are business models that don't require draconian bullshit and law buying. But keep fighting that strawman if you want.

I would like to see copyright shortened to 2-5 years for exclusive distribution rights. I would like to see attribution requirements extended to say, 100 years. If you want to use the work, fine, but make sure you mention your work's pedigree. (altho at some point, its going to be either so known and part of the cultural zeitgeist that you don't need it and attribution requirements become a burden, or it won't matter, hence the 100 years). I would like to see unauthorized distribution fines go down to something reasonable, say 200% of the nominal cost at time of distribution + any profits made, and a reasonable fine on top of it (say $100). Since most people distribute for free, we should treat file sharing the same as a speeding ticket not a life changer - the fine system keeps the worst of the offenders relatively at bay. (it is bullshit position to think we should stop every last one of them every last time)

As for business models that work: Why do we need to know up front? Seriously, this here is a disingenuous argument. Instead, do like the tech industry does: stop propping up a bad business model with laws, and let the giants fade as better models come along and take their place. As the big companies decline or innovate, new ones will come along and mostly fail, but at some point, one will figure it out. I once heard someone say "silicon valley is just a big monte carlo simulation of business models". So lets just do that.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#298

Post by Orlowski » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 3:44 PM UTC

>>Spotted the massive, gaping flaw in the argument yet?

Yes, in your analogy

it's

air:internet smell:music

NOT

air:music smell:???

also, from above...

Water is free, but bottled water has essentially added 'smell', or, the convenience of having it in a bottle and across the street, refrigerated.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#299

Post by GiraffeNecktie » Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 1:22 PM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #111

GiraffeNecktie wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of studio rental is irrelevant. What musicians want to be compensated for is the lifetime of study, dedication to a craft, years of poverty and uncertainty, risk of repetitive stress injuries, etc.

And they do, whenever they perform those skills for an audience. The market doesn't pay for effort, it pays for things people want.

"The market doesn't pay for effort, it pays for things people want."

The problem is that people still want the the product as much as they ever did, but they've discovered that they can always get it without paying a penny. The producer produces and the consumer consumes but the producer is not compensated. That's not a market.

Re: Paul Graham has lost the plot

#300

Post by sophacles » Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 2:37 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #255

sophacles wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 CD…

I guess it's possible, but extremely unlikely, that I am just so cool that they want to give me a free copy to share with people, but I have legitimately never paid for local band's music. By this I mean a band member or representative will give me CDs or Download links all the time. Usually I stop by the table to grab a couple band stickers or a tshirt, and they ask if I want a CD (usually I don't, my live music preferences are much different than my recorded preferences but I still want to encourage their performing). When I decline, they just hand me one anyway and say here take it anyway. If I point out that I wouldn't listen to it, I prefer this music live, they say "give it to a friend".

Basically my point is, they won't decline the money, but they still want their name out there bad enough to make the trade-off. Particularly when it's download coupons rather than CDs (which have an up-front cost). Similarly all the recoding studios in my town are booked up solid, and the better dozen or so sound engineers are never hurting for work. (And this is a pretty small town, 200K pop in the greater metro area).