Hacker News Reader

> All of which argue from a base of scarcity which doesn't exist in the venue he's suddenly found himself.

Sure, his analogies fail at some point, just like most analogies. But that doesn't make his point invalid. Or yours valid, for that matter.

The problem still remains that his time is scarce -- no matter how easy it is to copy the media he uses to distribute his work. And that's what copyright is about: Not the scarcity of the media, but the scarcity of the time needed to create the master.

Or can you snap your fingers and have beautifully designed, perfectly written, and bug free software appear on your hard drive?

Wasn't arguing that his time wasn't scarce, that he shouldn't be paid, or that the "teenager" was the one in the right. Just pointing out how their cultures misaligned and that their arguments missed each others minds most cleanly.

Sorry. I've misunderstood you, then.

I wonder what the girl would have said if her boyfriend broke his promise to not publish some private photos of her, and shared these with his friends (and with others on a public website). That's obviously a gift economy but would she have found the argument convincing in such a case?

As I understood his argument, it had nothing to do with ease of duplication. Instead, it was about ownership. His contention that the creators (who are by implication the owners) of intangible things have rights too is not invalidated by technology.

And I agree with his contention. It seems pretty clear cut to me. For the pro-Eleanor folks, I want to break down here what are the elements in my pro-Jason stance, just to be real clear:

1. just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing [this nulls out the whole "b-b-but technology makes this possible now!" argument; for bonus points think of the implications of your stance regarding the availability of nuclear weapons]

2. you don't have a right to other people's work, automatically, by default, for free

3. if they make it available for free and/or say copy all you want -- that's fine, do it

4. ... but if they do not, you should honor their wishes regarding their own creation

5. ... if despite that, you do not, then you are unethical

" you don't have a right to other people's work, automatically, by default, for free"

Much, if not all, of this seems cultural, and inconsistent. Suppose I spend some time dreaming up a fabulous hair style. I plan to earn a living giving people this hair style. I go out and about, people see me with my fabulous hair style, and many like it. So they copy it, giving themselves and their friends the same hair style.

Do I have a supportable claim to ask, and expect, that no one may copy my hair style without my permission, without paying me? I can't imagine too many people would consider this a plausible idea, nor would many people be sympathetic.

For one, most folks would simply say, "Hey, you go out in public and people can see and easily copy your hair style! What did you expect?" "But", you reply, "just because they can doesn't mean they should."

Suppose too that I'm wearing a shirt that clearly says "Do Not Copy My Fabulous Hair Style." Does it change anything? Do my wishes regarding what I've created supersede reasonable expectations of what people are going to do, and what people think they are entitled to do?

People are constantly coming up with new things of varying originality and difficulty of creation. A turn of phrase. Color combinations in their dress or on their Web site. And no one is allowed, by default, to copy these things without prior permission and/or renumeration? That's crazy. Might as well outlaw culture.

Are restrictions on copying to be applied based on some expected financial gain? That's getting pretty circular; the gain is usually based on the expected scarcity. Are restrictions to be based on how hard it was to create something? That's just bizarre.

The arguments for not freely copying things seem based on a) the one who thinks of something gets to make the rules, and b) work should be rewarded. But there are so many instances where these don't apply that I don't see any consistent rationale other than that's just how the culture evolved based on the current technology and expectations of scarcity, plus the dictates of government meant to achieve some particular social or economic ends (as opposed to protecting some natural right).

I tend to think that a lot of the loss of respect that people have to copyright/IP/etc breaks down to:

1. The abuse of these rights by corporations. [e.g. 'patent-mills' that just crank out patents on any idea that pops into the heads of their engineers, even if it's just falls into the formula: "everyday object + {computers,internet} = brand new idea" or "patented idea 1 + {internet,computers} = patented idea 2" ]

2. The egregious way with which Congress/Corporations have extended the duration of IP rights to levels of absurdity that boggle the mind. Do people really believe that NBC would have had no reason to create a radio, and then television network if they were not guaranteed to still have copyrights on all of their content in the year 2010? Do you think that the person that wrote the "Happy Birthday" song, wouldn't have written it if they weren't guaranteed to hold a copyright until the year 2030 (not to mention that they took the melody from an earlier song, probably without licensing it... the horror)? From Wikipedia:

  > The Summy Company registered for copyright in 1935, crediting
  > authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman. In 1990, Warner
  > Chappell purchased the company owning the copyright for U.S. $15
  > million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at U.S. $5
  > million.[5] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims
  > that U.S. copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized
  > public performances of the song are technically illegal unless
  > royalties are paid to it.

This is not an example of creating something of value. They are leeches that are sucking money out of the economy on the back of maybe a weeks worth of work (I hope that you're not going to claim that "Happy Birthday To You" was the result of millions of dollars of investment...) prior to 1935. It's rather an example of someone creating something 'trivial' and expecting to 'hit it big,' never creating something of value again.

> 1. The abuse of these rights by corporations.

> 2. The egregious way with which Congress/Corporations have extended the duration of IP rights to levels of absurdity

I agree, but I've never seen anyone take a stand against that abuse. Eg: TPB steals from everyone, including independent artists, Open Source contributors, and people who support copyright reform.

pyre, your 2 points are good. i agree that those are bad things. i agree that the patent system is being abused, and I agree that it's shady for corporations to push to keep extending copyright well past the point where the original creator is benefiting from it. very good points. however, I don't think the validity of those points somehow overwhelms or justifies what Eleanor and those other people were doing. i don't think it nullifies the thought process I outlined above. One is not justified in doing some unethical act just because other groups of people elsewhere are engaging in what you consider unethical acts. If someone shoots a gun at you it is probably reasonable to think you are justified in shooting back -- both parties are interacting directly, and you're shooting back at the exact person who wronged you. That's not what's happening in the OA, I think.

I agree with (1), (3), and (2). I'm not so sure about (4), and (5) depends on (4) anyway.

I have a problem with having to respect the wishes of an author regarding to a copy of her work that I hold. Especially when the copy is on my computer. The reasons are simple: computers copy things around. They don't move them. Therefore, I can't really give that song I have on my computer. I can only give a copy of it. And maybe delete my copy afterwards.

Now there's the real problem: the author would have me delete my copy, because it simulate the inconveniences of physical supports, which help her sustain her business model. There is a clear conflict between me potentially hurting the revenue stream of the author, and the author wanting me to artificially restrain my behaviour. I don't know how to solve it. But actively deleting my copy of each work I "give" or "lend" can't be the solution.

I also believe it shouldn't.

That argument might work with older people, but it isn't going to fly with the young ones.

Why? Because it is the same song we have been hearing from the record companies for years, and that hasn't changed that many opinions.

And I don't even feel sorry for them - do the world really need another love song? Because if not, we should consider killing copyright.

And I won't drop one tear if Disney goes bankrupt - after all they took all the stories from the public domain.

So if you can find some examples of bad behavior in some group it becomes OK to damn the whole lot of them? Congratulations, you would have been a great asset to the L.A. riots.

Hmm. I should stop using "ease" and especially "duplication" when writing about this particular issue. Its too easy to get stuck on.

You are right. It has nothing at all to do with duplication or how easy it is. One of technology's greatest and most subtle tricks is the elimination of scarcity. Its not that I can take one for myself (no matter how easy or hard it might be), its that when I do, I don't take yours. It up-ends the economic apple cart in a way that is very non-intuitive and difficult for the human mind to grasp via "common sense".

Its easy to comprehend a lower and lower marginal cost per unit but once that cost reaches the zero limit, it seems that the formulas that our current economy depend on become undefined.

Technology doesn't invalidate the rights of owners/creators, it forces us to completely reevaluate what ownership means. How to "pay" the author might not even be a meaningful question in the economy that results.

We are fortunate that we get a long trial run on things as frivolous as music and moving picture stories before rep/raps bulldoze us on their way through to Star Trek replicators.

In my mind, there are two distinct arguments: that copyright is about the moral rights of the owner, and that copyright is economically useful. The moral argument has nothing to do with payment as such; it is all about control.

Agreed, technology has some interesting effects of the notion of ownership: consider sampling and wikipedia to name but two. It affects the economic argument much more than the moral one; technology doesn't so much invalidate the concept of ownership as make certain modes of ownership uninteresting.

edit: spelling

In my mind, there are two distinct arguments: that copyright is about the moral rights of the owner, and that opyright is economically useful. The moral argument has nothing to do with payment as such; it is all about control.

Agreed, technology has some interesting effects of the notion of ownership: consider sampling and wikipedia to name but two. It affects the economic argument much more than the moral one; technology doesn't so much invalidate the concept of ownership as make certain modes of ownership uninteresting.

Could one draw the link between the printing press, the availability of printed Bibles rather than the laboriously hand-written copies, the subsequent larger availability of Bibles in the vernacular, and several Reformation ideals, particularly the German Protestantism notion of a direct connection with God rather than one that had to pass through the Pope?

there's nothing foggy about the distinction between getting paid for your work versus not getting paid. worrying about your ability to pay bills each month has a wonderful de-fogging effect.

There is no fundamental right to being paid for your work. If you want to be paid, you have to do work that people are willing to pay for. Otherwise I could just dig a hole in front of your front door and ask you to pay me for it.

You have the right to exchange in voluntary exchanges for your work. You have the right to make the fruits of your work available for sale to others, and only under your terms. Others are free to choose to buy it, or not, under the sellers conditions. Neither side is compelled to setup the potential for this exchange, nor, to engage in this exchange.

If you dug a hole in front of my house's front door and then demanded to be paid for it that would be unethical. It is true I would not pay you, but it is not because I had not requested you to do that "work" for me. Instead, I would not pay you because you (1) trespassed, (2) damaged my property, (3) caused blockage to my front door, and (4) are now essentially blackmailing into paying you to undo the damage you have done -- ALL of which was against my wishes. Therefore, I would refuse for reasons which are very similar to why I think Jason was right and Eleanor was wrong.

I think you are a bit overexcited about this topic and not thinking things through very clearly. Maybe the discussion can better be continued some other time, with less emotions.

These kind of arguments lead to nowhere. The reason? There are no fundamental rights whatsoever. There is no such thing as a right to life, liberty, happiness, property or any of that bullcrap. All rights are artificially created. (Not that I'm against that.)

You mean a wonderful biasing effect. Once you start worrying about something as important as paying your bills, your opinions will be strongly biased towards a world-model that make it easier for you to do so.

I think they both had bad (and wrong) examples.