20 ms·

No, how about we not end either? Can anyone demonstrate to me that Piracy is actually such a huge problem? These media corporations are making record profits,

by p0ss 15y ago

No, how about we not end either? Can anyone demonstrate to me that Piracy is actually such a huge problem? These media corporations are making record profits, piracy is not killing them, they are just being greedy.

the-cakeboss 15y ago
How is wanting to protect your IP ( whether or not you agree with the very notion of IP ) being greedy?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- gojomo 15y ago
  At the founding of the US, copyright was for 14 years, with optional extension to 28. Lobbying since then has extended it, in many cases, to over 100 years, and via repeated extension, potentially to a de facto infinite term. That was kind of greedy. Every copyright holder has a mini-monopoly in the production (aka reproduction) of their own content. It is a well-established result in economics that a monopolist provides a price/quantity combination which maximizes their own profits, but not the total welfare of both the producer and consumer. (With competitive providers, under usual and fairly reasonable assumptions, the price/quantity of a good traded trends towards a level maximizing overall welfare.) So the very idea of "intellectual property" as little monopolies-on-reproduction is in service of rightsholder greed, maximizing their profits at the expense of others, often beyond necessary creative costs or incentives. Granting such monopolies may have been a necessary compromise when copying and distribution was costly. A better system that maximizes returns for a larger group should be possible today.
  - dexy 15y ago
    Unfortunately, I've yet to hear a convincing alternative incentive scheme to that of copyrights and patents. The necessity of copyright and patent law varies widely from industry to industry, and the limited expertise (and interest) of legislators keeps them from taking any bold steps adjust the law to better fit the intricate needs of the people (ie, short/no patents in industries that move quickly and communally, like software, and longer patents for industries like pharmaceutical development, that are immensely costly and provide limited network effects to the first mover (a drug's prices decline by 90% in the US when it goes off patent). People view copyright as less essential than patents, but the truth of the matter is that without copyright laws, there would be a significant decline in the production of movies, music, games, and many other costly mediums. Without copyright, I could legally create a competitor to netflix that paid studios nothing and played every movie ever made on any device for close to nothing. I could create a competitor to steam that distributed games and was every bit as useful and integrated, and I'd pay nothing to developers. Even if you think online piracy isn't as big of a problem as studios claim it is (and you'd be very right), the laws that keep it illegal are all that stand between today and a collapse of the content development ecosystem. Even if copyright doesn't maximize for society's benefit because of the monopoly it creates, every copyrighted work sold is a net plus to both the consumer and the producer. Without any copyright framework, there's a significant chance that the producer could never afford to make that beneficial product in the first place. Even if you only eliminate prosecution of people/entities that don't make any money from what they're doing and allow non-profits like wikipedia to host full movies, you still irreparably break the incentive system that exists today. Maybe we don't need new movies and games, but people want them and as long as that's the case they'll want to keep protecting them with copyright. Maybe someday, systems more like kickstarter could replace copyright, but I highly doubt it. They don't do nearly as good of a job. That said, I'm all for much shorter terms for copyrights and the elimination of software patents.
    - literalusername 15y ago
      …without copyright laws, there would be a significant decline in the production of movies, music, games, and many other costly mediums. I disagree. What were talking about here is art, and mankind has been producing art since long before government-guarded IP. It isn't because IP laws provide an incentive that we create things; we do it because it's human nature. The ability to freely copy other people's work lowers the barrier to entry, so eliminating IP laws would spur a creative renaissance. The only downside is those big media companies would be forced to innovate.
      - tzs 15y ago
        > The ability to freely copy other people's work lowers the barrier to entry, so eliminating IP laws would spur a creative renaissance You lost me. What would being able to freely copy lower the barrier to entry of? How would it spur a creative renaissance?
        njs12345 15y ago
        Mashup artists, for example, would be able to use a much greater variety of samples if IP laws were less restrictive.
        literalusername 15y ago
        To use software as an example, it's much easier to improve upon someone else's work when their work is open source. You fork it and improve it -- much easier than building it from scratch. This process also aids in learning how to write good software, by becoming familiar with other people's techniques. On the other hand, if you're afraid that using someone else's work can result in a huge fine, then you're less likely to do the project at all. If you choose to do it anyway, you'll have a lot more work to do. There is a higher barrier to entry.
        tzs 15y ago
        Software doesn't really make your point, because eliminating copyright would not make all software open source. In fact, it would most likely cause a shift toward closed source as companies could take open source and use it in closed products without having to release their modified source.
  - tzs 15y ago
    > Granting such monopolies may have been a necessary compromise when copying and distribution was costly. A better system that maximizes returns for a larger group should be possible today That's actually backwards. The more costly copying and distribution are, the LESS you need any kind of copyright protection, because the original author/publisher can capture almost all of the market value before the copiers can get their copies produced. There was a famous article on this by Stephen Breyer, before he was a Supreme Court Justice: Stephen Breyer (1970). "The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs". Harvard Law Review 84 (2): 281–355 I tried to find an online copy of this, but failed.
    - gojomo 15y ago
      That's interesting; I'll have to think about that. However, I'm not sure it holds except to the extent that the copying is slow and the buyers impatient. Then, the first batch captures enough of the market to incent the author. But if most of the market is patient enough to await the arrival of slow-copycats, the initial investment in the 'first batch' (by not just the creator but the publisher/wholesaler/retailer is in danger, and thus deterred without copyright. In fact, large losses could be incurred being stuck with an inventory that's later undercut. Fears of such losses could cut off a gradual build to popularity before it starts. Digital reproduction/dissemination eliminates the need for most of that 'first batch' investment and all the downside risk of production/inventory; only the creation itself must be incentivized. All the other once-necessary costs no longer need a legal hack (statutory monopoly) as a sort of subsidy. I'll have to look at the Breyer reasoning to know what factors dominate under which assumptions.
- randomdata 15y ago
  Protecting IP is how we got into this mess. If the music industry, all those years ago, would have recognized music licences instead of music media, a plethora of iTunes-like services would have sprung up as soon as the technology was ready, there to fill the demands of consumers. There never would have been a Napster to let the genie out of the bottle because most people would have been more than happy to pay $0.99 for a song. While there will always be a small underground of sharing "mix tapes," Napster only rose to fame because there was no other choice for consumers. For copyright to be successful, it requires respect from both parties. Dictating exactly how media must be consumed is not showing respect. In turn, the consumers lose their respect to spend their money. I have my own copyrighted work that is pirated more than it is paid for. While it would be nice to paid paid for each transaction, I recognize it is not the consumer's fault. Those who put a death grip on their works before me have ruined it for the rest of us.

by p0ss 15y ago

the-cakeboss 15y ago

How is wanting to protect your IP ( whether or not you agree with the very notion of IP ) being greedy?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
gojomo 15y ago
At the founding of the US, copyright was for 14 years, with optional extension to 28. Lobbying since then has extended it, in many cases, to over 100 years, and via repeated extension, potentially to a de facto infinite term. That was kind of greedy. Every copyright holder has a mini-monopoly in the production (aka reproduction) of their own content. It is a well-established result in economics that a monopolist provides a price/quantity combination which maximizes their own profits, but not the total welfare of both the producer and consumer. (With competitive providers, under usual and fairly reasonable assumptions, the price/quantity of a good traded trends towards a level maximizing overall welfare.) So the very idea of "intellectual property" as little monopolies-on-reproduction is in service of rightsholder greed, maximizing their profits at the expense of others, often beyond necessary creative costs or incentives. Granting such monopolies may have been a necessary compromise when copying and distribution was costly. A better system that maximizes returns for a larger group should be possible today.
- dexy 15y ago
  Unfortunately, I've yet to hear a convincing alternative incentive scheme to that of copyrights and patents. The necessity of copyright and patent law varies widely from industry to industry, and the limited expertise (and interest) of legislators keeps them from taking any bold steps adjust the law to better fit the intricate needs of the people (ie, short/no patents in industries that move quickly and communally, like software, and longer patents for industries like pharmaceutical development, that are immensely costly and provide limited network effects to the first mover (a drug's prices decline by 90% in the US when it goes off patent). People view copyright as less essential than patents, but the truth of the matter is that without copyright laws, there would be a significant decline in the production of movies, music, games, and many other costly mediums. Without copyright, I could legally create a competitor to netflix that paid studios nothing and played every movie ever made on any device for close to nothing. I could create a competitor to steam that distributed games and was every bit as useful and integrated, and I'd pay nothing to developers. Even if you think online piracy isn't as big of a problem as studios claim it is (and you'd be very right), the laws that keep it illegal are all that stand between today and a collapse of the content development ecosystem. Even if copyright doesn't maximize for society's benefit because of the monopoly it creates, every copyrighted work sold is a net plus to both the consumer and the producer. Without any copyright framework, there's a significant chance that the producer could never afford to make that beneficial product in the first place. Even if you only eliminate prosecution of people/entities that don't make any money from what they're doing and allow non-profits like wikipedia to host full movies, you still irreparably break the incentive system that exists today. Maybe we don't need new movies and games, but people want them and as long as that's the case they'll want to keep protecting them with copyright. Maybe someday, systems more like kickstarter could replace copyright, but I highly doubt it. They don't do nearly as good of a job. That said, I'm all for much shorter terms for copyrights and the elimination of software patents.
  - literalusername 15y ago
    …without copyright laws, there would be a significant decline in the production of movies, music, games, and many other costly mediums. I disagree. What were talking about here is art, and mankind has been producing art since long before government-guarded IP. It isn't because IP laws provide an incentive that we create things; we do it because it's human nature. The ability to freely copy other people's work lowers the barrier to entry, so eliminating IP laws would spur a creative renaissance. The only downside is those big media companies would be forced to innovate.
    - tzs 15y ago
      > The ability to freely copy other people's work lowers the barrier to entry, so eliminating IP laws would spur a creative renaissance You lost me. What would being able to freely copy lower the barrier to entry of? How would it spur a creative renaissance?
      - njs12345 15y ago
        Mashup artists, for example, would be able to use a much greater variety of samples if IP laws were less restrictive.
      - literalusername 15y ago
        To use software as an example, it's much easier to improve upon someone else's work when their work is open source. You fork it and improve it -- much easier than building it from scratch. This process also aids in learning how to write good software, by becoming familiar with other people's techniques. On the other hand, if you're afraid that using someone else's work can result in a huge fine, then you're less likely to do the project at all. If you choose to do it anyway, you'll have a lot more work to do. There is a higher barrier to entry.
        tzs 15y ago
        Software doesn't really make your point, because eliminating copyright would not make all software open source. In fact, it would most likely cause a shift toward closed source as companies could take open source and use it in closed products without having to release their modified source.
- tzs 15y ago
  > Granting such monopolies may have been a necessary compromise when copying and distribution was costly. A better system that maximizes returns for a larger group should be possible today That's actually backwards. The more costly copying and distribution are, the LESS you need any kind of copyright protection, because the original author/publisher can capture almost all of the market value before the copiers can get their copies produced. There was a famous article on this by Stephen Breyer, before he was a Supreme Court Justice: Stephen Breyer (1970). "The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs". Harvard Law Review 84 (2): 281–355 I tried to find an online copy of this, but failed.
  - gojomo 15y ago
    That's interesting; I'll have to think about that. However, I'm not sure it holds except to the extent that the copying is slow and the buyers impatient. Then, the first batch captures enough of the market to incent the author. But if most of the market is patient enough to await the arrival of slow-copycats, the initial investment in the 'first batch' (by not just the creator but the publisher/wholesaler/retailer is in danger, and thus deterred without copyright. In fact, large losses could be incurred being stuck with an inventory that's later undercut. Fears of such losses could cut off a gradual build to popularity before it starts. Digital reproduction/dissemination eliminates the need for most of that 'first batch' investment and all the downside risk of production/inventory; only the creation itself must be incentivized. All the other once-necessary costs no longer need a legal hack (statutory monopoly) as a sort of subsidy. I'll have to look at the Breyer reasoning to know what factors dominate under which assumptions.
randomdata 15y ago
Protecting IP is how we got into this mess. If the music industry, all those years ago, would have recognized music licences instead of music media, a plethora of iTunes-like services would have sprung up as soon as the technology was ready, there to fill the demands of consumers. There never would have been a Napster to let the genie out of the bottle because most people would have been more than happy to pay $0.99 for a song. While there will always be a small underground of sharing "mix tapes," Napster only rose to fame because there was no other choice for consumers. For copyright to be successful, it requires respect from both parties. Dictating exactly how media must be consumed is not showing respect. In turn, the consumers lose their respect to spend their money. I have my own copyrighted work that is pirated more than it is paid for. While it would be nice to paid paid for each transaction, I recognize it is not the consumer's fault. Those who put a death grip on their works before me have ruined it for the rest of us.