tszyn

I agree the "or portion thereof" part is unclear and could be interpreted as enabling courts to DNS-block a domain on which any amount of infringement is going on. For example ISPs will be required to "prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving". What the hell does "domain name of a portion of a site" mean?

Regarding the "facilitating" part, notice it is just one of three items in a definition. ALL of these items have to be satisfied. Let's not spread FUD here.

"US websites that contain content describing how to get around the blocks, or US websites that decline to take down links to blocked websites are liable"

Could you cite the parts of SOPA that led you to this conclusion? I looked here: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261: (there's a colon at the end of the URL) and found only provisions that apply to search engines, ISPs, payment processors and ad networks, not generally "US websites". With regard to anti-circumvention, I found only references to "product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention". I don't think that encompasses "content describing how to get around the blocks".

I think you misunderstood this. Let me rephrase the above definition to make it easier to parse:

"A foreign infringing site is a FOREIGN SITE for which it is true that (1)... (2)... (3)..."

FOREIGN SITE is defined in section 101 as "an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site".

DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE = "an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address". It is open to interpretation whether a site with a US and non-US domain is a domestic site.

In my version of Windows 7 (International English?), it says "Documents", "Pictures", "Music", etc. There is no "My" prefix.

Sure, let me know if you're ever in Wroclaw, Poland. :)

"Because you're starting from the premise that these contributions have an inherent value."

Yes, things have value. You're not going to ruin everything by arguing that there is not such thing as value (other than market value) and that without market value we are in no position to say whether a cure for cancer is more valuable than the Holocaust, are you?

"But the premise of capitalism is that the best way to determine something's value is how much others are willing to pay for it."

And why would anyone accept that premise? It's absurd. I see people paying tons of money for things that have little value. If value were definitionally equal to market price or revenue, then it would be meaningless to say that someone wasted their money on something. In this worldview (which I would call "market fundamentalism"), if Patsy paid $10000 for a rubber chicken, then the rubber chicken is by definition worth $10000. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of how markets work knows that they are prone to groupthink, panic, irrational exuberance and other anomalies.

Another example: if you accept this "no value but market value" nonsense, you have to conclude that giving medicine to sick people in Africa has no value, since these people are not paying for the medicine (they have no money).

Value is ultimately a moral category. The goal of the economic system is to make sure valuable contributions are rewarded with appropriate economic value. At least it's one of the possible goals.

"In the absence of any restriction, these creators haven't created anything of value because it's easily reproducible."

It may be easily reproducible, but for someone to reproduce it, it must be created in the first place. The creating is the hard part, not copying bits.

"If you place the arbitrary restriction of 'copyright' on these works, then, yes, they become valuable through artificial scarcity. But that's true of anything that has very little value."

Yes, I see your point. You can inflate the economic value of anything through regulations. That doesn't mean, however, that all such regulations are wrong. To say otherwise would be to say "the market is always right".

You are okay with making money on SaaS because it happens "without arbitrary legal restriction". But the reason why a SaaS company can maintain the secrecy of their source code is rooted in arbitrary legal restrictions. One such restriction is that I cannot break into the 37signals HQ and copy their codebase. Why not? I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to enter a particular building and have a look around, as long as I don't break anything (and even if I do, I can reimburse 37signals for broken locks, smashed windowpanes, etc.). So in a way, you can make money on SaaS because of an arbitrary legal restriction.

Just as we have laws that prohibit people from entering corporate buildings, we can have laws that prohibit copying of content unless authorized by the creator. Unless I'm making some kind of mistake in reasoning (I'm kind of sleepy right now), I'm not sure one of these is more arbitrary than the other.

"In this world, how do you decide how much to pay them? In other words, how do you determine the value of their contribution?"

The government sets the restrictions (e.g. the copyright term, fair use, penalties); the rest is determined by the market. The restrictions themselves are somewhat arbitrary, but any human-made formal system is somewhat arbitrary. For example, the government sets an arbitrary requirement that you should have your car checked every year. This creates a market for vehicle inspection services. The price for this service is determined by the market and depends on many things, including the supply of specialists. Similarly, environmental laws create artificial demand for recycling services, green technology, etc.

Why is this done? Because we believe road safety and a clean environment have more value than the free market assigns to them. It is a matter of public policy.

First of all, thanks for sticking to the point and keeping this discussion civil. Would be nice to have a little debate over a couple beers.

"copyright is an artificial restriction that doesn't do what it's supposed to, which is to encourage artistic works"

I'm not sure copyright doesn't encourage artistic works, but I would actually dispute that this is the only goal of copyright. I would say that the goal of copyright is for a creator of reproducible works to be rewarded proportionally to the value they contributed to society.

Consider this thought experiment: Suppose we had absolute proof that doctors would still heal people exactly as much as they do now if we stopped paying them. They would live in poverty, but they would practice medicine out of their passion for the field, desire to do good, whatever. Would it then be right to institute a system of "free medicine"?

I am inclined to think it wouldn't be right. Contributions should be rewarded, even (or perhaps especially?) if the contributor is not doing it because of the reward.

re IP: I think you support more restrictions than just correct attribution. Can I take someone's song and perform it for money without paying them, provided I credit them? Can I burn the song on CDs and sell them in a store without paying them? Can I record a concert in HD and sell streaming access to it? Can I take Microsoft Windows, crack the copy protection, and legally sell the cracked software in an online store? If not, can I distribute it freely on a website on which I sell advertising?

Notice also that a policy of free copying would introduce an arbitrary distinction. If you host a word processor on your server ("software as a service") and sell access to it, you can make money. If you sell a word processor that runs on your customer's computer, you cannot make money, because then customers will be able to legally copy the software among each other. This is arbitrary -- in both cases the value provided to society is the same, it's just that in the first case, you obscure your code from your customers to prevent copying.

Apart from the arbitrariness and, well, unfairness of this system, it would encourage centralized software provision and draconian DRM schemes (for example, people would write desktop apps in which crucial parts of the code run on some central server, so that the customer's computer never "sees" the code). This is bad for the customer -- you have to be online to use the app, it eliminates privacy, it encourages obscurity which is bad for security, etc. We'd be telling software developers: "You can make money only if nobody ever gets their hands on your code. So you'd better hide it really well".

I realize we already have some bad DRM schemes (esp. in games), but it would be worse if copying was legal. Right now copyright restrictions stop many people from using pirated software. Not so much individuals, but think about businesses. The only way for Microsoft, Adobe, etc. to make money would be to run large parts of Windows/Office/Photoshop on some central server. That wouldn't be good.

Of course software makers would still be better off than songwriters and authors -- they cannot hide their work from the world.

"if you don't think anyone changes their minds from online discussion, why are you engaging in this one"

I'm not sure. Two answers come to mind: 1. I can't stop myself when someone who appears smart writes things I consider to be false on a subject I consider important. 2. I believe (as I've previously suggested and you have confirmed) that sometimes people change their mind after the discussion is over, even if they won't budge during the actual discussion.

You made a logical mistake of confusing these two statements:

1. "Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron" 2. "Copyright WAS MEANT to make it possible for an artists to make a living without having a wealthy patron"

You seem to think that by disproving (2) you also disprove (1), which is false. (1) is true. (2) may well be false, it doesn't matter.

Your comments about a haircut being a service, not a product, have no bearing on my point that we are approaching a situation in which a hairdresser is rewarded by society for his work, but a songwriter is not. I'm sorry, but pointing out mistakes like this (and if you'd applied the principle of charity you would've seen that it is not quite a mistake) only distracts from the actual discussion.

I'm glad you agree we should find ways to reward the creation of art. I am open to possibilities other than copyright. But so far all I've seen is a lot of handwaving and no workable model.

I said you have to reward for the value that is provided to society. That's the ideal system. For a recording musician or independent software developer, value is demonstrated when people use their work. That's why the reward must be tied to the use of the product.

If you proposed another system in which a recording (not performing!) artist or software publisher gets rewarded proportionally to the value people place on their work, then I might be convinced that copyright should go away.

Kickstarter is interesting and if it worked, it might be able to fulfill this need, but I am not optimistic because it encourages free-riding. If I'm a fan of Stephen King, it does not make sense for me to fund his next book on Kickstarter. The optimal strategy is to wait for others to bear the cost, then consume the work for free (since there's no copyright). I'm not absolutely certain that Kickstarter won't work, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I am not okay with saying "if you're a musician with a family, then you'd better find another job". A recording musician with a family can produce valuable works of art. In an ideal world, he would produce these works and society would reward him. For me the only question is, how to bring about that ideal world? Copyright is closer to that world than free copying.

re: economics: I'm not sure why you're bringing up that economic rule. We are talking about what SHOULD HAPPEN, not what HAPPENS in a free-market economy. I don't think either of us believes the free market equilibrium is always optimal for society. Arguing whether that rule really holds (and BTW I don't think it does in the real world) would serve no purpose here.

re intellectual property: Notice that if there were no IP laws at all, then I could take someone's song and claim I wrote it. Then I could make money by performing it. I mean, once we accept that intellectual property doesn't exist and that the original creator doesn't own his creation in any way, what's to stop me? I think you actually support a middle-ground system, where I am allowed to make a copy of anything and give it to anyone, but I am NOT allowed to profit from it -- only the creator gets to do that. If so, then you support IP to some degree. (Just an observation. No real argument here.)

re changing your mind: Did you change your mind in an Internet discussion or after reading some article? The latter seems much more likely to me. In a public discussion, people never say "Your arguments convinced me and now I believe the opposite of what I said in the beginning." Doing so would mean conceding the other party's intellectual superiority and would make one appear inconsistent. The best you'll get is something like "Okay, there's some merit in what you're saying, but...". Translation: "Alright, you won this one, but don't think you're such a smartass".

The desire to be consistent means the more times you publicly state your point of view, the more invested you become in it. So each subsequent exchange between you and me actually decreases the probability that one of us will change his mind. If either of us changes his mind, it will be long after this public exchange is over. This makes convincing strangers on the Internet a very unrewarding activity, as I will probably never find out if you changed your mind eventually (and vice versa).

You may want to check out this talk by Jaron Lanier. He was not the one who convinced me of the value of copyright, but his book ("You Are Not A Gadget") provides some nice examples and arguments.

http://zocalopublicsquare.org/full_video.php?event_id=359...

A bartender is allowed to make a living, but a songwriter or independent software publisher is not. Interesting perspective.

I guess we could exclude other professions as well -- why not doctors? Medicine should be practiced only by those who are passionate enough to do it for free, don't you think?

I haven't seen a single workable model (other than copyright) that rewards creative work rather than "added services" like performing concerts. What if you're a writer or an independent software developer? What if you are a 40-year-old musician with a family, and cannot be on tour for the better part of the year? What if you are terrible live, but a great composer?

I think the best approach is to reward the actual creative activity, not "added services". It's a basic management principle: reward for what is actually valuable. For example, if you ask programmers to provide their software for free and charge for support services (which is often proposed as a substitute for per-copy charges), you are incentivizing them to design hard-to-use software. Similarly, if musicians are only able to make money on concerts, this will incentivize the creation of music that sounds good live (not all good music does) and caters to the concert-going demographic (usu. young people with no families).

Kickstarter is nice, but I don't see it as a real source of income. How many people are going to pay for the promise of a product vs. for the actual product? I don't know what Amanda Palmer is doing. From what I can tell from her site, it's the "live shows + t-shirts" model I've already discussed.

I don't know what abuse of copyright you have in mind, but I am the first to argue that copyright law should be reformed. I would shorten the copyright term, for example.

Finally, I would like to address something you've brought up repeatedly in this thread: the issue of zero marginal cost. There is no rule that says that the cost of something should be equal to its marginal cost. Do you believe the cost of a book should be the cost of the paper + distribution? Or that if there are free seats at a movie screening, I should be legally allowed to watch that movie for free (since the marginal cost of another viewer is zero)?

Time to wrap up. Thanks for the discussion. I would like to change somebody's mind on the Internet just once. So far it hasn't happened (I've been on the Web for 16 years). Maybe next year will be the year.

If you agree that people should be rewarded for their contributions, then you should support a system which does that. The system of paying for zero-marginal-cost copies at least attempts to reward people proportionally to the perceived value of their work. Surely that's better than no system at all.

Creating a system that rewards desirable behavior is the job of regulators. I don't see why we should succumb to defeatist claims like "It's all over. Just accept that your work is now worthless". No, we should do something about it, just like we are tackling pollution, crime, etc.

One crucial step would be to make it easy for a creator to sell their work over the Web with a one-click interface, like buying an iPhone app.

(BTW, I agree with the "less badly" assessment. Capitalism has been known to reward total crap.)

Your reply conflates two things: copyright and big labels. The control of artistic expression landed in the hands of big corporations because only big corporations could handle three expensive things: 1) production, 2) distribution and 3) promotion. All three of these things have recently become way cheaper thanks to digital tech. Big labels are becoming less powerful every minute. It is now perfectly possible for an unsigned band to produce their own recordings in a home studio, sell them on the Web and promote them on the Web as well. If copyright is abolished, this will no longer be possible because the band will no longer have any right to profit from the use of their songs. Even if a million people love their song and listen to it every day, they get zilch.

In short, I see the big label problem, but the problem was never copyright. The problem was expensive production/distribution/promotion.

"They don't have a natural right to be compensated for the work they want to do."

Copyright does not give people the right to get compensated for what they want to do. It compensates people if they make something that other people want to use.

I don't want to talk about "natural rights". I find the notion fuzzy and suspect. I think it only complicates the issue at hand.

I would like to live in a world where people get rewarded when they contribute to society. (Someone who writes a song or book or software program that a lot of people like is a contributor to society.) Either you find that vision desirable or not.

I'd like to live in a world in which people are rewarded for their contributions to society, how about you?

It is true that artistic expression predates copyright. But isn't it the case that, before copyright, full-time artists either had wealthy patrons (Roman Catholic Church, the nobility) or lived in poverty? Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron.

I don't think we want to go back to a world where artists are funded by rich people because in that world, the rich decide what works get created.

Copyright is the only proven way of producing an abundance of art CREATED FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, not for the Church or some nobleman. Just look at how many books and songs we got in the 20. century. Thousands of consumers each paying a small amount is a fundamentally democratic idea.

I think it should be possible for a writer, musician or developer to make money from ACTUAL creative work -- not from concerts, book signings or t-shirts. I don't see why so many people seem to wish for a world in which a hairdresser gets paid for his work, but a composer or software developer gets nothing. Do we really want a system which rewards the creation of tangible products like tables and haircuts, but not the creation of ideas? In the 21. century? Seriously?

To those who ask "why create artificial scarcity?": For the same reason we have environmental regulations. Environmental regulations also create artificial scarcity. We make it artificially expensive to release CO2 into the air or to fish cod out of the sea above a certain limit. Why? Because this is necessary to ensure continued abundance.

Unless someone proposes a better model which enables people to make a living by creating reproducible works, I will remain a (critical) supporter of copyright. In general, I think we should strive to create a system which rewards contributions to our society.

Frictionless (micro)payments. Paying for access to premium content on the Web should be as easy as buying a song on iTunes. People will pay for stuff if it's super-easy.

It could save newspapers. It could change the Web from an advertiser-oriented medium (like TV) to a user-oriented medium (like iPod/iPad apps).

Thanks. Reading from LCD screens gives me eye strain, so I was thinking of reading blogs, news and software docs on the Kindle. Do you think that might work?

Do you have an opinion about what size Kindle (e-ink) is best for Web browsing? You'd think the DX would be better, but what about the weight?

The law says you break the law when you lend a book to the public. That phrasing could imply you can still lend it to people you know personally. (That's how it works in Poland.)

You know immediately what "I can haz cheezburger" and "All your base are belong to us" mean. Does it mean they're valid English?

If when = "at what time", then you can't say "Let me know when works for you" because you can't say "Let me know at what time works for you". By saying "when works for you", you're trying to use "when" as a noun phrase. But "when" is not a noun, "time" is.

Would you also use "how" in this way? "Let me know how works for you" instead of "Let me know what way works for you"?

Yes, it works and it's completely free. Here's an example Custom Search Engine I set up:

http://www.antimoon.com/ce/

It includes only sites which are known to use (mostly) good English. It's designed for English learners/teachers who want to find correct usage examples without risking exposure to Yahoo-Answers-style English.

According to the PayPal agreement for the Netherlands "To obtain Verified status you must complete the following steps: 1) Set up Direct Debit and complete the Random Deposit Process (available to applicable customers); or 2) add a credit card and complete the Expanded Use Programme." So it seems you don't have to give PayPal direct debit authorization to lift the receiving limits. Am I right?

I find it disappointing that your clearly written argument was met with downvotes and ad hominem attacks. I expected more of HN.

I listen to music a lot. I might even be described as an audiophile. But I recognize music for what it is: a source of pleasure, relaxation and comfort, and a social glue. I don't feel the need to make pretentious claims -- that by listening to music, I'm learning about the history of humanity, human nature, mathematics, etc. Someone on a carousel might as well claim to be studying physics.

I would never in a million years claim that music is as valuable as philosophy or science. Music simply conveys no truths, except the most trivial truths: about itself, the composer, or (in a limited way) the times he lived in. Whatever Einstein might have said, Mozart is not his equal.

It's all good and well if you use music as a tool for achieving certain beneficial mental states, akin to wine or physical exercise. But spending a large chunk of your time studying classical works, composers, etc. is a horrendous waste of time, unless you are a composer yourself. It's like studying 17-century Russian iconography or the cuisine of medieval France. Pure intellectual masturbation. There are so many unsolved problems in this world that spending your mental energy on things with no practical significance is a criminal waste of intellectual resources.

No obvious information on what platform your software is for. The only hint that it's Mac-only is that you got that MacUser award.

I think the psychological problem isn't as big as it's made out to be. Every time you turn on the lights or plug in your mobile phone charger, you're making a micropayment to your power supplier. Yet you use electrical appliances every day without giving it a second thought. Why? Because you know, more or less, what your typical usage ends up costing you and you mentally accept that expense in advance.

It's great that they used definitions from the Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary (http://www.antimoon.com/how/cobuild-review.htm). Collins was the pioneer of corpus-based full-sentence definitions back in the 90s. Nowadays, there are better choices for an English learner (e.g. the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English), but COBUILD is still miles ahead of open projects like Wiktionary.

Overall, good news for English learners in the short term, but not so much in the long run (who's going to make dictionaries if you can no longer sell them for money?).

I signed up with RimuHosting a few months ago, since everyone was raving about their competent and responsive support. So far it has been a mixed bag for me. They offered to set up some services for me when I was signing up (a monitoring service and a pop3 server). Whoever was setting these up did a horrible job; I'm talking about basic mistakes in the config files that prevented these services from even working. So I would not trust RimuHosting to set up anything on my server.

On the other hand, when I experienced weird routing problems between my machine and my home, Rimu eventually offered to move me to a more expensive London VPS at the same price, even though the dropped packets were not their fault. So they are willing to go out of their way to make a customer happy.

As I said, a mixed bag. I'm not planning on changing hosts anytime soon.