[dlss]

> This is inherent in the nature of near zero cost replication

If coca-cola sold their recipe rather than selling cans of soda, then I would agree with your paragraph one.

Remember that coca-cola does not pay royalties to many of the inventors of the ideas the bottler uses to bottle soda. Newton's heirs do not own the world.

As for paragraph two, all I can say is that yes: human markets do work that way. My advice to you is to remember that a rational man adjusts to the world, rather than becoming angry that it isn't the way he wants it to be.

As for paragraph three, you're wrong -- we all donate to charities we like, we all give gifts, we all help each other; we read books by great thinkers and are thankful for their gift. When you really like an artist, learning that they need money to recoup their cost of production is much the same as learning what a friend wants for their birthday: you give it as a token of your affection.

edit: you just added paragraph four. Please reread what you wrote. You're not even pretending to understand the subjects you're commenting on any more :(

[donnyg107]

You need to take some time and think about whether you have the right to impose a system upon musicians. There was a time when people did not believe in free speech. Free speech is an ideology. A widespread ideology, but one nonetheless. You need to consider very seriously whether your right to "free speech" of posting another person's work and creation is more important than an artist's right to their own work. Is it? Can you seriously tell yourself in "net benefit to society" that your ability to distribute stolen content is more important than the security an artist might need to create that content in the first place? And yes, some may produce anyway, even without that right to their own work, but beyond the speculation as to the cultural benevolence of man, can you really say that your "right to distribute" is more important than their right to simply have real ownership over that which they may have work on for months before they created a music product? Is it important that you have that right? or is it maybe selfish?

[dlss]

You are on a forum for technical people. We don't talk about things that are provably impossible to implement. Enforcing copyright law is provably impossible, hence the moral question is moot. We are trying to examine what that will mean for artists and producers.

You on the other hand, are whining about the unfairness of it all. On a forum for technical people.

You are either ignorant of the technology portion of things, or are trolling. Either way, please leave until you have fixed the problem.

[donnyg107]

That is not for you to choose. If the artist wants you to give as a token of your affection, they can, but for now, you have no right to decide that you need not pay for their work until they've earned your affection. This is in no way a solution. And I have every right to be angry at justifications for theft with claims that theft is the baseline, and benevolence is a product of further appreciation. Theft cannot be the baseline.

People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. And if say this magical benevolent system is implemented, are you to guarantee that good will can ensure that the money is actually paid? I can't, and based on the justifications for theft I've seen on this forum, I seriously doubt anyone here will actually pay for the all music they take, especially under the anonymity and "I'm special so it doesn't matter when I do this immoral thing" of the internet.

[bdonlan]

What, exactly, is the 'service' that needs to be paid for? Is it the creation of the work in the first place? I have no problem with artists having the right to stop producing works if they're not paid. Or is it the replication of the work? This is not something the artist does, with digital works. And herein lies the problem.

You are looking at things with the assumption that copyright is a natural system, and any deviation from that system requires a justification. Hence your taking as an axiom that allowing others to copy a work is a service provided by the artist for payment.

I feel that a more rational basis is assuming a system of no laws as a 'default' state. Any deviations from this state require a justification of how they would benefit society as a whole.

To give an exaggerated example, let us consider whether murder should be outlawed. In a 'default state', there would be no prohibition on murder, and anyone could murder anyone else for whatever reason they like. It is clear that murder may benefit the person doing the murdering in some cases; is there a sufficient cost to society as a whole? Naturally there is - the fear of being murdered forces everyone to take security precautions into their own hands (inefficient), and causes needless pain and suffering. So murder should be outlawed.

Now, let's look at theft of material goods. Note that theft of physical goods and copyright infringement (or unauthorized copying) are two entirely different things, and must be treated as such - in particular, theft deprives the original owner of enjoyment of the object in question. So, why is theft of material goods a bad thing? Well, in a capitalistic society, material goods are provided as compensation for doing something of benefit for society (ie, payment). Allowing theft subverts this system; those doing the work don't get paid, and instead thieves get the benefit. The nash equilibrium of such a state is for everyone to engage in at least some level of thievery, which competes for their time - thus reducing the amount of useful work performed. Thus, societal efficiency drops, for no benefit on average. As such, it should be outlawed.

What about copyright? As a first-order effect, it's clear it benefits the artists (although this becomes unclear when you consider the additional advertisement provided by free availability of the works in question). However, what about everyone else? On average, does society as a whole benefit from this deviation from the 'default state' of no copyright law? It's clear there's harm to individuals other than the artist - they must pay, or they are prevented from doing things they would otherwise be able to (ie, replicating the work). So there must be a corresponding benefit to others; the benefit gained by the artist cannot alone offset the harm to society as a whole.

The original conception of copyright aimed to increase the prevalence of artistic works, by providing artists with royalties. This was the benefit to society that made the original equation balance. However, with the Internet, there is no shortage of artistic works being provided completely for free by the author, with no copyright royalties coming to the author. This lessens the benefit to society provided by copyright law.

We must also consider the additional costs of copyright law added in the modern era. 'Mash-ups' are artistic works in their own right; however, copyright is used to force them to be removed from public view. This was a scenario that would have been unheard of back when copyright law was first envisioned, and is a further cost on society as a whole.

But, you might ask, isn't the provision of material goods (ie, royalties), the basis for encouraging work for societal benefit, as in the theft example? I would argue that there are a few important differences:

* It has been demonstrated that there is no shortage of people willing to do artistic work for free. This is not the case for all jobs - eg, there are very few people willing to work in a sewer for free.

* It is still possible for artists to be rewarded for their works even without a system of royalties. Donations, commissioned works, advertisements, hard-to-replicate physical goods (special CD cases, etc), and live performances are good examples of this.

* People sometimes choose to pay for something even when they can have it for free. This is irrational behavior, but it's how human psychology works - just look at the humble indie bundles (http://www.humblebundle.com/) as an example. You could buy the bundle for $0.01, or you could even just snag a copy off bittorrent or something (there's no DRM!), but yet the average payment for bundle #4 is $5.33 - and the current total income is at $1,578,109.48. Even though copyright is not being enforced here, money is still being made.

* Most importantly, unauthorized replication does not actually deprive anyone of enjoyment of the work in question. As such, the very act of copying creates some level of cultural value, by exposing the artistic work in question to more people. Theft of material goods creates no value, as any additional enjoyment in the new owner is offset by the deprivation of the old owner of enjoyment of the object in question.

In short, copyright was a good trade-off between individual rights and societal benefit back when it was first conceived. However, things have changed, and it can be argued that copyright no longer provides such a benefit. Once it loses its reason for being, it should be repealed, or modified to bring a net benefit to society. I certainly cannot support anything that would attempt to simply extend copyright at this point.

[dissident]

The service of creative content production, or intellectual property in general, is an artificial one, not a natural one. We've endowed ourselves with this institution, presumably to promote cultural progress. So established, we can argue against the idea that it is "theft" because we have artificially stimulated that definition in the first place; it is not "theft" naturally, it is theft due to centuries of a model that used to work, but cannot work anymore.

To refuse to reconsider whether it is theft or not is therefore asinine.

That said, I'd like to ask what more than a cynical and baseless speculation you use to support the argument against a patronage model for creative content? You're looking at charity in the wrong way -- a number of individuals who enjoy the benefits of some action are free to provide as much of their own incentive to support those institutions.

Your argument against a patronage (donation based, or public subsidy) model is akin to complaining that a homeless shelter should expect all of the homeless they take care of to pay their share in the service they provide. That is not the point and is clearly not the effective strategy. Enough people who have the cultural motivation and desire can donate to those shelters, or a number of other non-profit institutions who provide different solutions.

There simply is no evidence for you to base the allegation that it is "in no way a solution" because we already see patronage as an effective model for a number of systems that capitalism has failed to address. Once we stop pretending creative content can be owned, we can actually begin progressing as a culture.

The days for copyright are numbered, and the selfish and entitled are not the pirates but the artists who demand that their content be worth something to everybody.

[donnyg107]

Refer to response above.

[icebraining]

People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided.

I agree, but that doesn't justify copyright or any other draconian law. We should do away with them and people will need to decide if they want to pay and ensure their survival or not.

immoral

Oh, I love this. You can't even comprehend the notion that people may actually not find copyright infringement to be immoral, can you? Tip: many don't.

[donnyg107]

I meant stealing from an artist due to sheer I-don't-give-a-fuck-erry. And you have no right to decide for an artist that they simply need to provide their hard work to the "pay if I feel like it" system. Is that your right? Do you think that artists will continue to produce when you rid them of their right to sell their product in the way they choose?

[icebraining]

You should separate "legal" and "moral" right. They're not the same.

Example: Morally (in my moral code, obviously), I don't have the right to e.g. throw racial insults at people, legally, I do (Free Speech and all).

So I believe legally, one should have the right to download anything without censorship like copyright. Whether it's moral is not relevant.

Do you think that artists will continue to produce when you rid them of their right to sell their product in the way they choose?

Uh, that's not what it does. It doesn't take away the right to sell it, just the exclusive right, and I believe lots of people would still buy it and it would still be profitable, so yes, I think they would continue to produce.

But, whether they would or not is irrelevant to my viewpoint that copyright should be abolished.

[donnyg107]

Something tells me you benefit a lot from copyright being abolished, and that in many ways lots of musicians would suffer. Do you think it's possible that you don't value copywrite law nearly as much as an artist would because their music would be effectively free and you wouldn't pay for music or movies anymore? And quite obviously, I mean for you to answer "I'm going to pay for everything because I want to!" so I can understand that there isn't something I'm missing in all this, just a lot of people who want an easier and cheeper way to get music and movies.

[icebraining]

Something tells me you benefit a lot from copyright being abolished

"If you don't agree with me it's because you're corrupt". Frankly, that's just a disgusting personal attack. And if I do, it's just because I'm a member of society and I believe society as a whole benefits a lot from copyright being abolished.

Do you think it's possible that you don't value copywrite law nearly as much as an artist would because their music would be effectively free and you wouldn't pay for music or movies anymore?

Hmm, you should checkout http://www.thepiratebay.org. Music and movies are already effectively free for anyone who doesn't want to pay, and for nerds like me who know how to install and run complex software it'll always be. The elimination of copyright (not copywrite) law doesn't benefit me in that way, no.

And quite obviously, I mean for you to answer "I'm going to pay for everything because I want to!" so I can understand that there isn't something I'm missing in all this, just a lot of people who want an easier and cheeper way to get music and movies.

If I pay, it's already because I want to. Do you really think copyright law stops a person with the average knowledge that HN users have from getting free stuff?

Yes, I pay for stuff I can get for free.

[barrkel]

Every word you write here is stolen. Every last one of them was created by someone, and you stole them, according to your own mental model, the way you keep using the word "theft". But has that stopped them from being invented? Or has the use of English, it being shared amongst so many peoples of the world, actually increased the number of words?

You have no basis for asserting that culture "services" stop being provided when they are not individually exchanged for cash for every use and reuse. In fact, the vast majority of human history stands as testament to the opposite: works are commissioned by patrons, or financed by performance, or even simply as acts of self-expression.

[donnyg107]

I'm glad you're willing to risk the income of musicians everywhere on this theory of yours. And you know what, I really don't support SOPA, and I know that the system is broken, but it astounds me that so many people on HN will openly claim that it just doesn't make sense to pay for music because "copywrite law is crazy and everything is stolen." You can steal. I don't care if you steal. But know that you're stealing from a person who provided you with their work under the expectation that you would buy it. Frank Ocean released a great mixtape, go download it. But don't act like every artist should just know that their content is effectively free. Think about what you want the internet to be when you stomp all over sale of goods over the internet. This kind of assumption, that information cannot be sold, destroys the internet as much as any piece of legislation would, because it perpetuates the mentality that information is nothing. Don't destroy the internet, and acknowledge that the information is valuable, you just didn't want to pay for it. And if you can't acknowledge that, imagine you're staring you're favorite artist in the face and telling him/her why it doesn't make sense that they expect you to pay for their art.

[barrkel]

It's hard for me to take you seriously when you continue to misuse the words "theft" and "stolen". Intellectual "property" has few of the attributes of property; concepts rooted in exclusive use of something don't work well for things that are intrinsically not limited to single users.

What you really seem to have a problem with, though, is your inability to separate mechanisms from goals. The goal of copyright is to incentivize production. The mechanism is government-enforced monopolies over intangible things which, for legal purposes, are treated as property.

The main problem is that the mechanism is breaking down because citizens are becoming more powerful. They have access to technology that permits copying and distribution. This makes cultural IP less property-like, and more language-like.

The correct response to this is not to make the mechanism more powerful, especially not a response that actively increases the (necessary) tyranny of government over citizenry. The correct response is to create a different mechanism for incentivizing creative work, one that is robust in the face of increasing citizen sovereignty.

I mentioned in another comment here a tax redistributed based on popularity, as measured by fingerprinting playback. That's just one idea.

But when you say that I, or people like me, support theft or stealing, or suggest that artists shouldn't get paid, you're simply wrong; worse, you're deeply misguided in what you're attacking. You are defending the mechanism. You should try standing up for the goal, with the rest of us.