Yes, for some reason many people think freedom of speech means they--and those they identify with--should be able to speak free of social consequence. I don't really know what leads a person to think that. Maybe they just said stuff for so long without being challenged, that they start to think they are entitled to never being challenged?
Mailing lists, in my experience, can feature incredible discussion. I participated on one centered around a somewhat obscure literary topic for some years. You almost develop a sense of kinship.
However, mailing lists seem to be going extinct. Even back then it had a quaint, ancient feel to it.
Reddit could censor all instances of discussion featuring the phrase "hackers news" tomorrow, and it's not as if they would be brought up on freedom-of-speech charges.
Personally I find the predominant brand of humor at Reddit to be annoying too. An interesting conversation devolves into five trailing one-liners circling around a pop culture reference ... ugh.
We can also criticize Reddit for that choice. Freedom of speech, and all. It sounds like you're upset that we choose to criticize Reddit for this.
The difference between what a business allows and what a state allows are so different as to not really be illuminative here.
I could decide that no one watches animated cartoons in my house, and no one is really harmed by that in any significant way. A state that declares that no one shall watch animated cartoons, however, is quite a different thing.
If the reporting is accurate, then he really got screwed. Your money is taken despite your never being convicted of anything, and then the IRS taxes you for that money that was taken. What a joke.
When have consumers ever cared if a firm makes such a costly product that it can't be profitable? Consumers will never care about that. Appeals to make them care about "manufacturing costs" are pointless.
I think it's a little disingenuous to keep calling it "stealing." It's copyright infringement, and in my experience people have never felt as badly about doing it as compared to stealing. For instance, think back before digital books became popular: if you had a truly epic book of poems and you had several friends who wanted to read it and copies of the actual book were unusually difficult to procure, I think it used to be that many people would just run a large chunk of the book through a xerox machine without thinking twice. Similarly, I know people who used to get very into making custom mixed CDs as gifts for people. Copying an artwork has never been considered a crime on the level of stealing someone else's possession.
+1. The point about stealing is really good. It is really annoying tactic of trying to frame the issue as something other than it is.
Other than that, in many countries (for example in Finland) you are allowed to copy movies and music for your own use (though according to the latest law you aren't allowed to circumvent copy protection). You can even let other people do the copying for you. This used to be really common for example in local university library where the librarians copied latest journal articles for whole bunch of people.
Well, I find myself in a funny position, as I'm not much of a corporate/big industry apologist, so I don't really have a motive to be disingenuous. These questions are earnest head-scratchers for me.
To answer your first question, consumers care about manufacturing costs every time they agree to pay the producer of a good the producer's asking price. But, this is not so much about caring about manufacturing costs as it is about respecting ownership rights.
In any case, it's really splitting hairs to say that it's copyright infringement vs. stealing. In fact, I believe that making that distinction is what is disingenuous. To the extent that a copyright has value, it's because people respect that it represents ownership of a thing and, thus, the right to capture any value that the thing produces. When we don't respect that, then we have effectively taken any value from the creator for his/her creation. Meanwhile, we enjoy value from the creation, whether we use it for ourselves, re-sell it, or otherwise. How is that not stealing?
I do get that people have always made a distinction between copyright infringement and stealing, but my question is why is that so? Actually, my original question extends further than that to ask, why is it that people additionally feel entitled to do so?
Sorry I'm like a week late here, I don't check HN very frequently.
It's not just "people" that distinguish between copyright infringement and stealing; the law does as well. I find it extremely odd that you're asking why people feel "entitled" to make a perfectly lawful distinction.
It's my personal opinion that traditional ownership of property and the intellectual property afforded by copyright are such different concepts that all debate tends to collapse into incoherence once the concepts are taken to be the same.
For things that I personally own, there is no idea of a "public domain," and my belongings are not temporarily granted exclusively to me for the good of the public. My macbook is my macbook, full-stop. Copyright, on the other hand, is a temporary monopoly on the distribution of a creation because, at some point in time, the state deemed it beneficial to the public to incentivize artists/creators/inventors with this kind of financial benefit.
Why do we have any concept of a public domain if copyright and traditional ownership are perfectly interchangeable as ideas? Why is there no concept of "fair use" for my macbook or my car, but there is such a thing as "fair use" for any novel I might write?
My personal take: there isn't really any analogous concept of "ownership" for most things that could be considered artworks or intellectual creations. I can be credited as the original creator, and I can attempt to control the distribution of physical manifestations of my artifact, but in what sense do I actually "own," say, the dirty limerick that I wrote? The only way I can truly own it is to simply never show it to a soul. But that's not very satisfying, is it? And yet it's perfectly satisfying to keep my macbook solely to myself ...
>It's not just "people" that distinguish between copyright infringement and stealing; the law does as well. I find it extremely odd that you're asking why people feel "entitled" to make a perfectly lawful distinction...
I don't mean technically or literally. I mean in spirit. The legal distinctions you're making are obvious statements of fact. There's no need to debate them. It's your conclusion that the distinction should rightly lead to people making a moral distinction when violating one law vs. the other that's odd here.
For instance, you make a distinction between owning your macbook and copyright ownership, as if the latter is only conferred by the state, whereas the former is some sort of natural right. Maybe your failure to acknowledge the sameness of the two is the problem here. That is, the protections you enjoy around ownership of anything is a societal contract that is upheld by the state. Of course, this explains why, in some cultures, there is no notion of private property ownership at all.
I just find these discussions to be intellectually dishonest and loaded with rationalizations that skirt the moral issue. All of this talk of ownership really hangs on economic questions. And, if you want to be able to own your macbook without someone making some abstract argument that, say, the origins of the source material are free products of the planet and thus your macbook belongs to everyone, then it seems you also have to acknowledge the economic value of copyrights.
I think you've latched onto the wrong thing here. Clearly both things are conferred by the state. I was not arguing that one was more worthy because it somehow wasn't granted by the state, but rather that they are granted for clearly different reasons, because the two types of "ownership" are so vastly different that they required different laws.
The fact that both of these concepts are enforced by the state doesn't change the fact that there is still no real possibility of my macbook entering the public domain after an arbitrary numbers of years. That one form of property does do this, and another doesn't, would suggest that we're talking about two extremely different things, no?
If there were a fundamental "sameness of the two", then making an exact replica of my macbook would be the same thing as stealing it from me. Clearly that's not the case though. Copyright deals with who has the permission to make legal copies of a thing. Generally it's a much stickier question than the question of who owns a physical item. Sometimes I can legally copy a thing without being the copyright holder, though rarely, I'd say, can I legally steal something.
I don't think I'm arguing that people should make a moral distinction. I've argued that largely they already do. People have never cared about copyright infringement like they do theft.
Here's something I wonder about: have people ever gone significantly out of their way to respect copyright? or have they only do so when respecting copyright was also the most convenient way?
I'm not sure the answer means too much either way ...
---
FWIW, I either get my media legally or I don't bother getting it at all(1). I'm watching Game of Thrones currently through physical video store rentals. I'm not sure this is necessary but sometimes I feel like it's worth putting out there.
1 - The only exception was some long out-of-print books I wanted to read, which I downloaded illegal pdfs of since they were not available new, or in the libraries I searched, or in the used book markets I searched. So, that's the one notable time I violated copyright.
I think the key is that you're stating that fundamentally, copyright should have value. This is not a given. I can certainly imagine a society where copyright infringement is allowed and no value is given to copyright at all. I'm not saying I would want to live in that world, but it's definitely not the same as a world that allows stealing.
Calling it stealing is wrong. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item when someone _copies_ it, compared to e.g. stealing somebody's car.
At most, you could argue that the producer loses an opportunity for a sale, but I think you would have a difficult time proving that. It is far more likely that the potential consumer would just refrain from procuring the item if it were not available for free (as a copy).
>Calling it stealing is wrong. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item when someone _copies_ it, compared to e.g. stealing somebody's car.
That really is a horrible rationalization. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item? No, she simply loses all value that would have otherwise accrued to her, if not for people deciding that her right to be compensated for her creation was trumped by their right to enjoy her creation at no cost or inconvenience to themselves.
So she loses the right to capture value from the thing she owns/created, while others derive value from it (whether for personal use or resale). Please tell me again. How is that not stealing? And, from where does the consumer derive that entitlement?
It is not stealing because theres is nothing that the original owner had and now does not have.
you could try to say that the person who downloaded something represents a potential sale lost, but i think its a bigger assumption than you are recognizing that the person would have ever paid for the property.
the producer has in no way lost all the value of the property, they have simply lost 1 single potential purchase.
I fail to see a material loss. Would you file an insurance claim if I broke into your house and made a copy of a dvd you owned? [if you think this is a bad example because of ip rights, change it to a picture you drew]
by your logic, reselling an item you own is also theft, since that represents a potential lost sale to the original producer - do you agree with this or do you have some way to reconcile this?
by your logic, reselling an item you own is also theft, since that represents a potential lost sale to the original producer - do you agree with this or do you have some way to reconcile this?
No it isn't. I'm selling a used item, and after I sell it will be gone. If I decide that I shouldn't have sold it later all (which has happened me a couple of times with musical instruments) then I'll have to go buy another one.
This is important because economic value is a function of scarcity. That's why you pay nothing for the air you breathe but if you go scuba diving you will buy or rent the oxygen tanks - breathable air is dangerously scarce under water.Now, do the economic interests of creators and publishers depend upon an artificial scarcity? Of course they do. But that artificial scarcity is supported by law because it is the flip side of the (usually) significant amount of time and money that goes into creating the original work. If you can't exercise any control over the distribution then it's very hard to make your money back and eventually producers exit the market, leading to a reduction in consumer choice.
I keep waiting for this "reduction in consumer choice" to happen, but it never seems to materialize. I have more entertainment choices than ever. Maybe that's part of your problem?
The other thing that never seems to materialize is declining revenues for the industries that are supposedly being victimized. You've mentioned several times how difficult things are for those working on lower-budget productions, and intimated that piracy and consumer "entitlement" is to blame, but when's the last time you took a look at the film industry's financials? Some people are making more money in the poor, victimized film industry than ever before. Just not you.
Irrespective of your rationalizations, the fact remains that for any producer to make money, a considerable number of consumers have to play by the rules and pull out their wallets.
That's the salient point. Everything else is just noise and strawmen.
So, your "more entertainment options than ever" are being subsidized by others, if you are not pulling out your wallet.
You've still denied the original producer a potential sale. the person you sold your phone to might have bought one directly from apple instead.
So by the other commenters line of reasoning, you have stolen "value"
The fact that the phone is physical has nothing to do with the line of reasoning being presented.
I am not arguing that piracy should be totally fine and theres nothing being done wrong, I'm simply disagreeing that copyright infringement is the equivalent of theft
I love these "theft" arguments. Can you imagine the shitstorm that we'd see if the concept of the public library was only just now being proposed? Librarians would be branded as rapists, or something equally ridiculous.
>It is not stealing because theres is nothing that the original owner had and now does not have
This completely ignores my point about depriving the owner of the value of the thing. If you create something and offer it for sale, yet every single person simply pirated it vs. buying it from you, then haven't they removed the value of this thing that you still own? Owning it becomes worthless to the creator, yet millions of others who did not create or pay for it are now obtaining value from it.
The argument that the creator still owns it is pedantic and facile. It's just a rationalization that ignores the real question of value. You knowingly deprive the producer of all value of owning a thing, then say "But, it's OK. We left you with the thing".
>you could try to say that the person who downloaded something represents a potential sale lost, but i think its a bigger assumption than you are recognizing that the person would have ever paid for the property.
It's not an assumption that there is demand for the product if people are willing to download it. And, economics (as well as common sense) tells us that there is some price above zero that people are willing to pay for that which they demand. Isn't that all we really need to know?
>the producer has in no way lost all the value of the property, they have simply lost 1 single potential purchase
And if no one pays and the producer thus loses all of the value of "all" of the potential purchases, then will you say the producer has been harmed? Because you really must conclude that if you carry this line of reasoning forward. So, now, at what point along the continuum of one pirated copy to all pirated copies has the producer experienced an actual theft, and how is it the consumer's right to make that determination? Also, are you saying that as long as some people are willing to pay, then others have the right not to pay? Because that's another conclusion to which your logic leads. So, those who are willing to pay should subsidize those who are not?
These arguments for piracy really run out of logic oxygen quickly and collapse on themselves.
>Would you file an insurance claim if I broke into your house and made a copy of a dvd you owned? [if you think this is a bad example because of ip rights, change it to a picture you drew]
Or, "here's a really bad example that does nothing to refute your argument. Please help me by coming up with a better example to refute your own argument".
No thanks. That's a pretty lazy "argument-style", don't you think?
>by your logic, reselling an item you own is also theft, since that represents a potential lost sale to the original producer
That's not my logic. What's so difficult to understand about compensating the producer of something you wish to consume?
Look for clues in your own question. You used the word "own". Think about that.
>If you create something and offer it for sale, yet every single person simply pirated it vs. buying it from you, then haven't they removed the value of this thing that you still own?
I think this is where the misunderstanding occurs. You feel that the creator owns all potential value immediately when the thing is created.
I dont believe that this is true, the owner owns only that value which they are able to realize, if they are unable to realize the value they expected then that is not theft.
It is however copyright infringement to make and distribute copies. I am not trying to defend piracy as a whole, i am simply saying a person downloading a piece of media is not committing theft; they are only taking part in copyright infringement, you are trying to make the argument that it is the same thing as theft.
>It's not an assumption that there is demand for the product if people are willing to download it.
Correct.
>And, economics (as well as common sense) tells us that there is some price above zero that people are willing to pay for that which they demand. Isn't that all we really need to know?
where did this come from? demand of an infinitely reproducible product does not necessitate "some price above zero" it can be exactly zero dollars that people are willing to pay.
There are any number of things at any given moment that I would like to have but would not pay for, if i were able to get those things for free, i would.
People will take free things they dont even want simply because they are free (free tshirts at sporting events), does that mean each of those tshirts represents a lost sale because all of those people clearly demanded a t shirt and would pay "some price above zero" for it?
> So, now, at what point along the continuum of one pirated copy to all pirated copies has the producer experienced an actual theft, and how is it the consumer's choice to make that determination?
Theft is never experienced, that is my point. There is a crime committed when the content is unlawfully distributed, that is copyright infringement.
>No thanks. That's a pretty lazy "argument-style", don't you think?
You missed the point i was making. Is it theft if i break into your house and copy a picture that you have drawn?
Is it theft if i distribute it?
The answer is no, it is copyright infringement and clearly not that same thing as if i had STOLEN the drawing.
>That's not my logic. What's so difficult to understand about compensating the producer of something you wish to consume?
Again you totally missed the point. By your logic, which is that the producer of a good should be compensated for every procurement of the good by an end customer.
By selling something used, lets say an iPhone, you are stealing (by your definition) from Apple. Not only are you stealing from them but you are directly profiting from that theft. You have removed Apple from the sale of the good that they produced, denying them a potential sale.
Even if you GAVE your old iPhone to a friend, by your definition, this is theft since Apple was denied a potential sale.
I think it is clear that neither of those things is actually theft, nothing was stolen.
>You feel that the creator owns all potential value immediately when the thing is created.
That is a bit simplified, but yes, it's essentially what I believe. In your estimation, who else should own that value?
>I dont believe that this is true, the owner owns only that value which they are able to realize, if they are unable to realize the value they expected then that is not theft.
That logic seems so completely and obviously circular that I'm thinking that my interpretation can't be what you actually meant. Here's what I read. Please correct where I've misunderstood you:
The owner provides a means for realizing the value of a creation (i.e. attaches a means of distribution and a price). People side-step that distribution and opt for a means not authorized by the owner, which does not compensate the owner. Then, the conclusion is, "well, the owner wasn't able to capture the value, so it's not theft".
Seems to me that the theft is the reason the owner was not able to realize the value.
>where did this come from? demand of an infinitely reproducible product does not necessitate "some price above zero" it can be exactly zero dollars that people are willing to pay.
Basic economics. Generally, the reproducibility of a product does not dictate the demand for it, only the supply. Accordingly, reproducibility may affect the price, but not the demand. People don't want something more because there are more of them, although oversupply may lower the price to one that more people are willing to pay.
The bigger point is that you are confusing demand with price elasticity. When consumers want a product (demand), there is some price that some number of those consumers will pay for it. If you couldn't download a movie for free, but could get it for $0.01 vs. $100.00, you may well choose $0.01. But, you'd pay something that represents how much you value it. You are an exception to this only if you never buy anything. Other than that, this applies to you as well, no matter how much you seem to suggest that you never pay for things you want, but stock up on free stuff you don't want.
I don't know. I can't determine why such a simple concept becomes so tedious, with all of the circular logic and red-herrings about breaking-and-entering to copy drawings, re-selling used iPhones and such.
Through all of the posts here, no one has clearly elucidated why people have a right to the value created by someone else's labor, other than by paying the price that person has set.
Pharmaceuticals: one product that's also costly to research and manufacture, and the firm that gets the magic compound first gets a couple of decades of monopoly. Plebs like us can't yet synthesize a copy of the medical product easily, so the pharmaceutical company has far fewer chokeholds to deal with to make sure no copies get out. Alas for media companies, copies are harder to manage.
As for not calling it "stealing", but "copyright infringement" instead ... no! "Copyright infringement" would be distributing the media (in whole, part, or integrated into other product) to others as if you had the rights to do so. That's not what consumers of illicitly downloaded materials are doing. They're "stealing".
If that is stealing, then stealing is a good thing. If everyone started stealing food, cars, electricity and fresh air in the same manner, all the world's food problems would be solved overnight. We'd have a practically infinite supply of everything.
Now, that is an interesting response that takes the discussion in an entirely different direction.
What you are advocating is a wholly different game with a new set of rules. I actually question the current economic system, the outsized wealth it produces for some, and artificial scarcity it creates for others, etc.
But, I think there's something between anarchy and a soulless brand of capitalism.
This is awesome. Reading about his work and the subsequent work on FHE in general was one of my favorite "holy shit this is the future" moments. (And I don't have those moments hardly at all ... kind of silly. But I was giddy, and it was amazing, and so I was silly.)
It was also one of my foremost "I will never ever in my life be as smart as these guys" moments. Alas.
The author William Vollmann comically wrote about doing this at a San Francisco (I think?) software shop when he was young and writing his first novel. Living off of vendor-machine candy bars, dodging the janitor, etc ... Probably my favorite parts were how he confessed having no bloody clue what he was doing when faced with the thing he was being paid to do: write code ...
As with any fiction author, the details are probably exaggerated, and he particularly tends toward a certain kind of luxuriant self-deprecation, so, pinch of salt and all ...
I believe the dueling meta-narrators of his first book, You Bright and Risen Angels, were also programmers, or something like that. It's been a long time since I read it, but I remember Electric Emily's origin story and the parts where the programmer-narrators fucked with the "source code" of the narrative being my favorite parts.
