Hacker News Reader

Comment by falcolas | Hacker News Reader

> There is no evidence that intellectual property is necessary for innovation or creative endeavors.

Just ask yourself if Avengers - if the entire franchise of Marvel movies - would have been made if not for IP protections that allowed the costs of making those movies to be recouped; that allowed those movies to be profitable for the investors.

Ask yourself if we would have all the books we currently have from Steven King (or George R.R. Martin, or Stan Lee, or any other commercially popular author) if copyright (a form of IP protection) did not exist.

The answer is "No".

There are a few options for people to put their work up for free online, but if you've read or watched those, you realize that the quality is nowhere near a professionally written and edited novel or a movie with millions of post-production work budget.

View on HN

You're saying that as if Marvel movies are some kind of pinnacle of creativity and quality.

In fact, an argument could be made using those same movies as an example, that these excessive IP laws have the exact opposite effect and actually end up stunting creativity and originality as the big corporations aim to milk every last penny from decades old franchises and ideas, instead of seeking new and original concepts, because the former is a far more profitable endeavor. I mean, look at the state of Hollywood right now - when was the last time you saw a truly novel and noteworthy movie, not based on an already established franchise/idea/series?

What's better - high quality and enjoyable, but derivative entertainment, or a substantial drop in the amount of available entertainment?

Have no doubt, even truly creative works would suffer, since there's no incentive for investors to invest even in truly creative work, since there's no monetary return on investment - just a movie which they can't monetize.

Imagine if George RR Martin had to hold a day job in addition to writing - how many books would he have actually written by this point?

I'd say that the abundance of (arguably) high quality derivative content is the worse option. Mostly because the alternative to that is not necessarily a lack of choice.

In my experience, in recent years I've found to enjoy lot more independently produced content (which either happens to be free or very cheaply available) as opposed to big budget titles produced by big corporations. Not because I actively seek such content, but because I genuinely find it to be more worthwhile and enjoyable than the other option.

Now I can't really speak for motion pictures, because I don't watch tv shows and movies anymore - but I can definitely say this is very true for the music and video game industries - big investment and quality are not correlated.

Isn't it wonderful that both options are available today? You remove IP, you remove an option. Perhaps that doesn't hurt you, but there are quite a few people who appreciate that they can get the output from commercial creators at low prices.

Shakespeare, Gilgamesh, The Iliad, Romance of the 3 Kingdoms, Journey to the West... there's an absolutely endless treasure trove of content created without IP laws.

They were largely purchased by nobility, or by large theaters (in turn supported by nobility). Copying a book or play was also effectively impossible (months to years of painstaking manual work) in those periods of time, granting strong exclusivity to the purchasers.

It wasn't until later, sometimes centuries later, that these became broadly available to everyone.

So I guess, how much of an advance are you willing to give Steven King (or your favorite author) to write a novel for the world?

There's a contradiction here. Above you're saying that if it wasn't paid for by mass media, it wouldn't be made.

Then you're saying stuff was paid for by a rich patron.

Are you suggesting that patrons would not have stuff made if weren't exclusive?

It's worth remembering that exactly that is what happened. Rich guy paid for a thing, everyone got use of it. Some of the top works of history were created like this, and it bears consideration whether the corporations who make things for profit are as good at creating such works.

It's not mass media who's paying for it, it's investors who are expecting a return on their monetary investment. Or, put another way, the people paying to have these movies and books made today have zero interest in the books and movies themselves, only the money to be made from their sale.

A patron, in comparison, is a single entity who is interested in the book, and who is capable of shelling out the $50,000 (a nice round number representing the salary for a good, but not great, writer and editor for the duration of getting the book produced) to have that book made. I'm not capable of doing that; I am guessing most people are not.

> it bears consideration whether the corporations who make things for profit are as good at creating such works

That's up to each person to decide. Is GRRM's Game of Thrones such a work? The Dark Tower series? Avengers Infinity War and Endgame?

Honestly, I think that yes, in many ways they are on par with or superior to books such as the Illiad and the Odyssey. They are absolutely better than Moby Dick.

But doesn't one mode of creation exclude the other? How many patrons will pay to have something made in the current world, knowing they could just recoup their money? I think you could even argue that patrons would care more, because who wants to be the guy who creates crap? Versus the current "if they think it's good enough, I guess everyone's happy" attitude.

It seems to me that content will get created regardless. Whether it's better is as you say a matter of taste, but both worlds have existed.

You can't be serious that Avengers is on par with the epics.

IMO, the epics are epics because of when they were written, not because of the content. Avengers: Endgame moved me to tears by killing off a character I had grown to love. The Odyssey? No tears. No attachment to the characters. Less entertainment.

> How many patrons will pay to have something made in the current world, knowing they could just recoup their money?

How could they recoup their money, if there's no exclusivity? There's nothing to sell.

> It seems to me that content will get created regardless.

I guess ultimately, there is absolutely nothing stopping people in today's from creating the best content they possibly could, except for having to cover their cost of living. Today's IP protections allow them to cover their cost of living by creating content. A lack of IP protections means that creation will always be a second or lower priority to a vast majority of creators (those not sponsored by a patron)

To me, that means that a world that lets them create as a method of covering their cost of living is a better world for those creators.

Your Avengers example is terrible. Those movies made all of their money from theater ticket sales, not Blu-Rays after the fact.

Consumers spent money on the theater experience because it was the best way to see the movie when they wanted to see it.

Timed releases for content are fine, but if I buy a disk after the fact, I want to be able to copy it freely without DRM and jumping through stupid hurdles.

Why spend money to watch it in the theater, if you can legally get a copy of it online? Without IP protections, any theater employee could legally create a copy of the film (not to mention the audience) and distribute it.

There's no audience participation in Avengers, and with today's home AV setups, there's little benefit to the theater environment; there's no incentive to pay to watch something that will be freely and legally available in a day or two (at most).

> Why spend money to watch it in the theater, if you can legally get a copy of it online? Without IP protections, any theater employee could legally create a copy of the film (not to mention the audience) and distribute it.

That already happens with a lot of movies where the movie is leaked (even sometimes before it lands in the cinema) and it does not seem to change anything to the theater results.

Because capturing and viewing those is not legal, and not simple. Have no doubt that the legality matters, since it incentivizes making the viewing simpler (imagine popcorn time having devs who could openly work on it without fear of being legally prosecuted).

>The answer is "No".

As the statement you quoted said, there is no evidence that this is the case.

Those movies made back their investment despite piracy, why would the removal of those IP protections change that? Many authors have not become commercially popular for much of their career but still wrote. How can you claim those books only exist because of copyright?

Only because the illegality of piracy increased the friction of viewing the illegal copies (not to mention a history of legal action against parties who view said copies). Make copying legal and the friction would all but vanish (think popcorn time with many more active devs and no legal push to get it taken down), making it easier to watch at home than to watch at the theater.

The theater offers very few practical enhancements to the viewing of a movie that aren't available in your average home theater system.

>Only because the illegality of piracy increased the friction of viewing the illegal copies

Evidence of this extremely bold claim?

Your idea of the "average home theatre" may be a bit exaggerated, particularly out of the Western market.

How exactly are these popcorn time variants acquiring high quality copies of the film in a quick time frame?

If IP laws didn't exist, you wouldn't have to make due with the unimaginative pandering garbage Disney deigns to think up. You would be able to tell, share, and transform, movies. That is a vastly better world.

Nor world it cost so much to make movies, because the best way to do that, including the best software and hardware design, would belong to everyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com