Just about the only lick of sense in this discussion.
I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and where many donate to the unpaid author of widely-pirated shareware [1], would appear to be so laissez-faire on this issue. Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good.
I suspect you would have a better sense of perspective if people could create and use "paid" accounts on your shiny web services without paying.
Anecdotes of (c) described in the parent are few and far between, and don't justify the instances of (b) or the unintended consequences / moral hazard of (a).
(Disclosure: I sell software for a living, and have discovered [and reconciled] piracy of my products by very large organizations in the past. I imagine there are many other instances I'm not aware of.)
If I hear a joke on TV one night, and I repeat it in a meeting at work the next day, I might even attribute it, but technically, I've committed (gasp) some type of infringement. Now we might "hrrumptffff" and try and call that "fair use" but what this really is, is a casual use.
Now it's debatable whether or not we could actually function as a society if every little use was tracked, accounted for, and billed; technologically it's probably possible. But realistically, I don't want to live in a society where casual use of intellectual property (a concept that is harder to define than you might imagine) is minutely tracked and logged.
We have a name for that kind of society, it's called a Police State.
The bad news for Old Media (and commercial software developers) is that digital technology has made "casual use" almost frictionless. I can give my brother a copy of Jon Stewart's latest rant, half a dozen different ways, as easily, or easier, than I can repeat the high points over the phone. It's the _ease_ that defines casual.
I write software for a living too. And I've worked in broadcast TV. My TV job, which paid pretty well, thank you, was screwed by the imploding broadcast industry. Boo hoo. The price of progress. If I have to suck it up and re-invent myself, then Old Media can too.
The recording industry did it to live performers, the TV industry did it to Radio. The VCR ... well you get the idea. The only way to stop it is a nuclear war or a police state.
I'm not trying to minimize this. This is a weather change in the way media works. It is gonna be _hard_. But worrying about old models, and trying to prop up old players, who add little value in the new world, is only going to make it harder.
I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and where many donate to the unpaid author of widely-pirated shareware [1], would appear to be so laissez-faire on this issue. Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good.
Did anyone here really say that copyright infringement was good? Saying that it's not "theft" doesn't automatically throw one into the pro-piracy camp. Copyright infringement can certainly be wrong and extremely detrimental to our culture - that's why we have copyright laws in the first place.
Well, no. There's no morality to copyright infringement laws, and if we were to apply a moral component, it would clearly come down on the side of freedom of information. Copyright laws are at best amoral, and at worst immoral.
"Why we have copyright laws in the first place" is because corporations lobbied for them - self-interest. There's no moral component.
First, I do not think morality would come down entirely on the side of freedom of information (I do think our current system is skewed and it should shift closer to freedom of information, but that is a topic filled with subtlties.) Copyright is a means to ensure authors continue to write.
While it is true publishers did lobby for the original Statute of Anne, it was providing incentives for authors tht motivated Parliment and in the American Constitution Congress' ability to grant copyright for a limited time was expressly to encourage authorship.
Morally, I think there ought to be a balancing between the public and the authors. Our current copyright has some balancing in it with fair use exceptions, though I would think that the balance needs some readjusting.
For a good history of copyright see http://www.thepublicdomain.org/ by James Boyle. The entire book is available as free PDF.
That view would seem to have some pretty far-reaching consequences, insofar as many of us produce information of one sort or another and nothing else. Sounds like the only way we should expect to get paid is through generous benefactors and donations.
> many of us produce information of one sort or another
> Sounds like the only way we should expect to get paid is
> through generous benefactors and donations.
Or stop producing information and start producing something which people voluntarily pay for. What youre doing now is basically legislating prohibition of copying so you can make a living by selling copies. Trying to make a living by producing and selling copies in an age where everybody and their dog can produce copies themselves effortlessly is a ridiculously bad business decision. It is so outworldlishly ridiculous that it is no suprise, that most of those who for some reason chose that path can not come up with a solution to their little problem than crying for protectionism to ban DIY.
It is no different than the story of the french button wars:
When was the last time you were forced to pay for something you didn't want?
I know that isn't what you meant, but if the producer of a good is not capable of determining the terms under which that good is sold/licensed, then you're still in effect talking about donations.
This has nothing to do with buttons: there's no aristocracy attempting to limit your access to that ebook or that piece of software. The creator set a price, and you're saying it should be perfectly fine for anyone to read that book or use that software for free, whether the creator agrees to that or not. "DIY" isn't pulling torrents, it would be producing the content or software you want to consume or use yourself.
> then you're still in effect talking about donations.
No. Donations would imply that you do not have a business model at all. Just set up a business in a way that you do not care about people copying information bits.
> but if the producer of a good is not capable of
> determining the terms under which that good is sold
He is determining the price of his copies and selling copies. But he knows that if everybody else is _also_ allowed to produce copies, nobody will buy his copies. So instead of solving _his_ problem of a obsolete business model (manufacturing and selling copies), he solves it by downgrading everybody else's rights to freely exchange information with eachother.
> This has nothing to do with buttons
It has absolutely _everything_ to do with buttons. Its the same "prohibit DIY-X so we can keep selling X"-principle.
> there's no aristocracy attempting to limit your access
They are limiting what kind of information I and my neighbour may exchange for the sole purpose of making their copy-selling business thrive. The button guild criminalized ordinary people for making DIY cloth buttons in order to make them buy their originals.
> it should be perfectly fine for anyone to read that book
> whether the creator agrees to that or not.
This is not what I am saying, but a consequence. What I am saying is that neither the author nor anybody else should have absolutely any say whatsoever about who is "allowed" to copy what bit of information. Allowing copies only when somebody "agrees" (usually for money) is protectionism and for-profit censorship, pure and simple, and I am against it.
> "DIY" isn't pulling torrents, it would be producing the
> content or software you want to consume or use yourself.
No, the author created the work once, and is afterwards selling copies. This worked 50 years ago, when ordinary people couldnt produce copies, so his copies had value. Today they dont any more, since everybody can produce them effortlessly themselves. My grandmother can copy Avatar as easily as 20th Century Fox can. 50 years ago she couldnt. So today the business of manufacturing and selling copies is gone like the button business. The only way to sustain it is to scare people into not DIY-copying in order to make authors copies "valuable" again, so the author can continue making a living by "allowing" copies like he did in the 50s by selling real-value copies.
It sounds like we're down to services and live performances. I think you just eliminated most of the classes of content that you likely consume in a recorded form. And in the software world, some would say hosted services should be freely available as well (viz. AGPL), thereby driving absolutely everyone to commodity pricing.
> Allowing copies only when somebody "agrees" (usually for money) is protectionism and for-profit censorship, pure and simple, and I am against it.
Crazy town. I only now noticed your "*-gnu" handle, but things make more sense now.
Just out of curiosity, what do you have in mind for a suitable business model?
No, I said people here "appear to be laissez-faire on this issue". I'd say that's accurate, given that the primary interest appears to be the semantics of "theft" vs. "copyright infringement" while the practical effect in many cases is the same.
My experience with the issue includes an incident where an organization with revenues in the multiple billions of dollars used the software I built in a widespread way for free for years without a license or payment. They were provided with technical support when they had problems by indicating that they were evaluating the software (when they had actually routed around the license-verification routines in the distributable). It was only when a new manager there learned what was going on and contacted me did I learn the real story; we've since come to a fair arrangement. I probably could have made a lot more by suing them, but I don't need the distraction or the heartache.
As far as I can tell, the countermeasures I could use to prevent the above would make life less pleasant for my paying customers. In the meantime, piracy continues to be viewed as a victimless action, even by those making full use of the copyrighted works in question and with plenty of resources to pay the price set by the creators.
> My experience with the issue includes an incident where an organization with revenues in the multiple billions of dollars used the software I built
I'm pretty sure noone here thinks that that specific case is ok.
Technically there's no difference between that company pirating your software and someone illegaly downloading a movie off of the internet, the crime is the same, both actions are copyright infringement.
But the main arguments of the pirate movement is that there is a difference between the actions and that the law should reflect that. Arguing that private non-commercial infringement should be allowed is different from arguing that commercial for-profit infringement should be allowed. There's a lot of people in this thread arguing the former, but noone arguing the latter.
Doesn't that thinking discourage the creation of consumer software? Just because someone isn't making money off of my software doesn't make it ok for them to have it for free.
That's absurd. The law is the law, and people that produce content, software, whatever for non-commercial/personal/consumer consumption have the same standing as I do as a commercial vendor, and should have the same standing.
Infringement is infringement. Arguing otherwise smacks of opportunism to me; people just like getting shit for free.
> people that produce content, software, whatever for non-commercial/personal/consumer consumption have the same standing as I do as a commercial vendor, and should have the same standing.
I agree, I don't think there should be differentiation based on how or why something copyrighted was produced.
However, I don't agree that all infringement is equal, there's a huge difference between some kid downloading a movie off of the internet, and a corporation using a piece of software without a license. I think it's absurd to use the resources of our justice system and law enforcement to pursue the former, but I think it's a great use to pursue the latter.
We're largely in agreement, then. Repercussions should vary with the magnitude of the infringement. Various industry groups managing to get individuals fined for out-sized sums, jail time for parents of downloaders, etc., are out of bounds. I see no problem with things being ratcheted up for big seeders and such though.
I think the law is going to be behind the times for a long time on this topic; in part because of the tech, and in part because we are, broadly speaking, divided on what a better direction would be. In any case, I'd hate to see a day come when it's generally agreed that authors of content and software fundamentally don't have the right – if they so choose – to demand payment in exchange for their creations being used, consumed, and distributed.
You do have a point that web services cannot be pirated, and if they could be, the HN community would have a different view on things.
I'm not sure that's the case.
Let's start with the base assumption that piracy is something that exists, and will forever exist. Just work your way around it, and use it for your advantage.
For example, build your product so that the more users it has, even if they are illegal users, the overall experience improves.
Don't fight battles you can't win. Use the circumstances to your advantage.
This also puts developers in a position where they're told to expect high piracy rates if they have the gall to write desktop applications and charge for them. This is more apparent the more you target the, ahem, 'power' user crowd, who is steeped in piracy.
Yes, piracy will always exist, and there are lots of things that can be done to de-incentivize it. I do what I can. That's aside from the question of whether it should be considered normative, legal behaviour.
Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good.
Wrong or right, good or bad, there are smart ways to get what you want and not so smart ways that don't work.
Taking non-corporate pirates head-on often doesn't work, and is often counter-productive. Taking pirates on indirectly is often a better option. (Use direct conflict as a last resort. It tends to be expensive.)
I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and where many donate to the unpaid author of widely-pirated shareware [1], would appear to be so laissez-faire on this issue. Whether you call it theft or breach of contract, piracy is wrong and not good.
I suspect you would have a better sense of perspective if people could create and use "paid" accounts on your shiny web services without paying.
Anecdotes of (c) described in the parent are few and far between, and don't justify the instances of (b) or the unintended consequences / moral hazard of (a).
(Disclosure: I sell software for a living, and have discovered [and reconciled] piracy of my products by very large organizations in the past. I imagine there are many other instances I'm not aware of.)
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2282875