Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Most of you steal your software"

lettersofnote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: "Most of you steal your software"

#111

Post by jacoblyles »

carlob wrote: post #109
jacoblyles wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should tax away Thiel's money so instead of Space X we get... more ethanol subsidies? Or we should tax away Cameron's money so instead of asteroid mining we get higher pensions for government union workers? What kind of world do you live in that allows you this kind of democratic idealism? As our population gets older, the priorities of our democracies will reflect that. More and more government spending will g…

Well first of all Thiel's venture is a company not philantropy… But hell yeah, more pensions, universal healthcare, maybe more spending on education (talking about public school not 40k$/year colleges) are definitely a better way to spend money than radical innovation of eccentric billionaires. Moreover what we're talking about here is not turning billionaires into mere millionaires, but taxing people who can afford…

The United States is one of the biggest spenders in the world on K-12 education. How much more money do you want to spend on a broken system?

The unions get much better pensions than the rest of us. And their political machines own the state capitals. How much higher should they go?

The United States spends far more money per person on health care than other countries. How much more do you want to spend?

This year, the top capital gains tax rate in California went up 52%. That's a substantial bite on innovation to ensure public workers get gold-plated defined-benefit pensions.

America's government may be inefficient, but it is not stingy.

Re: "Most of you steal your software"

#112

Post by carlob »

jacoblyles wrote: post #111
carlob wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well first of all Thiel's venture is a company not philantropy… But hell yeah, more pensions, universal healthcare, maybe more spending on education (talking about public school not 40k$/year colleges) are definitely a better way to spend money than radical innovation of eccentric billionaires. Moreover what we're talking about here is not turning billionaires into mere millionaires, but taxing people who can afford…

The United States is one of the biggest spenders in the world on K-12 education. How much more money do you want to spend on a broken system? The unions get much better pensions than the rest of us. And their political machines own the state capitals. How much higher should they go? The United States spends far more money per person on health care than other countries. How much more do you want to spend? This year, t…

>The United States is one of the biggest spenders in the world on K-12 education. How much more money do you want to spend on a broken system?

Certainly spending less won't fix it.

>The unions get much better pensions than the rest of us. And their political machines own the state capitals. How much higher should they go?

Extend those rights to non unionized workers.

>The United States spends far more money per person on health care than other countries. How much more do you want to spend?

I want to spend less by having universal public healthcare.

>This year, the top capital gains tax rate in California went up 52%. That's a substantial bite on innovation to ensure public workers get gold-plated defined-benefit pensions.

Capital tax gains mostly affect more affluent households. I'm willing to bet that even with this rate, taxation is regressive in the US.

Re: "Most of you steal your software"

#113

Post by Gormo »

jscheel wrote: post #108
Gormo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It IS stealing. I don't care how you sugarcoat it. If you're going to alter the definition of "stealing" to cover things that aren't stealing, then why stop there? Why not call copyright infringement "arson" or "murder" too? Making an unlicensed replica of another person's non-rival good is not the same thing as depriving another person of a rival good in their possession. You can even hold both to be worthy of leg…

The thing is, law is nothing more than codified morality. I do believe, in a court of law, that we should make a distinction between theft and copyright. Several Supreme Court justices agree that this is the case. However, when looking and the very core of the issue, absent legal codification, I'm still taking something that isn't mine, regardless of whether or not it was merely a copy. That is where I am coming from…

The law is significantly divergent from morality, codified or otherwise, and is often itself immoral.

But, that said, when looking at the issue from a purely moral perspective, the difference becomes even more clearly illuminated: again, making a replica of someone else's thing is utterly different from taking their thing away from them. This isn't a hair split in the slightest: the key component of harm that makes theft immoral just isn't present with copying.

Re: "Most of you steal your software"

#114

Post by MattSayar »

Gormo wrote: post #113
jscheel wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, law is nothing more than codified morality. I do believe, in a court of law, that we should make a distinction between theft and copyright. Several Supreme Court justices agree that this is the case. However, when looking and the very core of the issue, absent legal codification, I'm still taking something that isn't mine, regardless of whether or not it was merely a copy. That is where I am coming from…

The law is significantly divergent from morality, codified or otherwise, and is often itself immoral. But, that said, when looking at the issue from a purely moral perspective, the difference becomes even more clearly illuminated: again, making a replica of someone else's thing is utterly different from taking their thing away from them. This isn't a hair split in the slightest: the key component of harm that makes t…

But you're not compensating them for the time they spent making it. They've spent time to make this thing, and you're taking a copy of this thing without spending a dime for their effort. It's a service. A labor. That you're not paying for.

Re: "Most of you steal your software"

#115

Post by Zigurd »

tjr wrote: post #110
Zigurd wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where shall I send it? I'll even inscribe a hard copy for you. That's a $44.99 retail value. More seriously, there is a lot of evidence that promotional copies sell books. You could buy, or ask for a promotional copy of Guy Kawasaki's book about making books. It's about self-publishing, but his experiences with promoting and marketing books apply to any book where the publisher's marketing budget is very limited. The…

I don't disagree at all. I've given away copies of my own work, both in digital and physical formats. I guess my question is, where do you draw the line? You said, there is a lot of evidence that promotional copies sell books. Sure. But if you give them all away, what do you sell? (Assuming that you want to sell any at all.)

"Sure. But if you give them all away, what do you sell?"

The anecdotal evidence Guy Kawasaki bases his advice for self-publishers on is that giving away books is always good. My publishers have signing events at conferences and give away case-loads of my current book at these events. Amazon sales always spike afterward.

In practical terms, that tipping point seems to be very far out there.

Re: "Most of you steal your software"

#116

Post by Gormo »

MattSayar wrote: post #114
Gormo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is significantly divergent from morality, codified or otherwise, and is often itself immoral. But, that said, when looking at the issue from a purely moral perspective, the difference becomes even more clearly illuminated: again, making a replica of someone else's thing is utterly different from taking their thing away from them. This isn't a hair split in the slightest: the key component of harm that makes t…

But you're not compensating them for the time they spent making it. They've spent time to make this thing, and you're taking a copy of this thing without spending a dime for their effort. It's a service. A labor. That you're not paying for.

So? You're not entitled for compensation for the time you spend making anything. Your effort is neither a service nor labor done one anyone else's behalf; it's a speculative capital investment, and your risk to bear. If I spend millions of dollars developing a new type of camera film in 2000, and digital cameras make film cameras obsolete before I earn a penny of revenue, that's too bad, but no one owes me anything. Spent a billion bucks building new houses in 2008? Sorry to hear it, but you don't get to tear down other people's houses to restore the value of yours.

And if you say that copying is different from anything else that might diminish your return because you think you already had some inherent right to control whether other people make their own replicas of your stuff, then you're begging the question; your lack of ROI can't itself be the justification for copyright if you make such an argument.

Re: "Most of you steal your software"

#117

Post by jscheel »

Gormo wrote: post #116
MattSayar wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're not compensating them for the time they spent making it. They've spent time to make this thing, and you're taking a copy of this thing without spending a dime for their effort. It's a service. A labor. That you're not paying for.

So? You're not entitled for compensation for the time you spend making anything. Your effort is neither a service nor labor done one anyone else's behalf; it's a speculative capital investment, and your risk to bear. If I spend millions of dollars developing a new type of camera film in 2000, and digital cameras make film cameras obsolete before I earn a penny of revenue, that's too bad, but no one owes me anything.…

As soon as the straw man steps in, I have to step out. Good conversation, but I think we are not gonna see eye to eye here.

Re: "Most of you steal your software"

#118

Post by [deleted] »

carlob wrote: post #51
zero_intp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great philanthropic era was a result of the robber barons. The idea that we might enter a new era of such figures is only a sign of the grossly disproportionate wealth scales that damage our societies. It is a despotic idea that society must endure the deprivations of these individuals or corporation only to be rewarded with narrow visions of a better future world through the myopic eyes of the DuPont's, Gates',…

Yes! Next time you visit the Frick collection in New York City (you really should) think about the bloody repression of the Homestead strike [0]. I really think that the likes of Gates, Frick, Carnegie, Rockefeller or the more recent Jim Simons. Should have been taxed at a much much steeper rate, just like Buffett proposed [1], instead of waiting for their kindness of heart. By replacing philanthropy with taxation we…

[deleted]

Re: "Most of you steal your software"

#119

Post by qu4z-2 »

jscheel wrote: post #117
Gormo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? You're not entitled for compensation for the time you spend making anything. Your effort is neither a service nor labor done one anyone else's behalf; it's a speculative capital investment, and your risk to bear. If I spend millions of dollars developing a new type of camera film in 2000, and digital cameras make film cameras obsolete before I earn a penny of revenue, that's too bad, but no one owes me anything.…

As soon as the straw man steps in, I have to step out. Good conversation, but I think we are not gonna see eye to eye here.

For those of us following along from home: Care to point out the strawman?

Re: "Most of you steal your software"

#120

Post by qu4z-2 »

TheCapn wrote: post #64
monochromatic wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment, but it's not actually "theft." More like "copyright infringement."

We all understand what is being discussed here. We don't need to argue semantics over what it means to obtain something you didn't pay for (but should have). It seems that the tech community stands adamantly behind the "copyright infringement isn't theft" mantra but in reality the moral crime is taking something you weren't entitled to. Our actions don't really seem to consider the state of the original product makin…

I'm against piracy, but I can none-the-less see a clear distinction between copyright infringement and theft.

> For the developer/distributor/publisher/artist or whomever is expecting a cut from sales the result is the same: they lost a part of their wage.

I take issue with this particular argument. By that logic, not consuming is morally equivalent to theft.

I'm sure some people would love that to be a common belief.

Post reply on HN