[MrScruff]

This doesn't really refute my statement at all. I was merely claiming that piracy is often framed as a political statement, when it really isn't at all. It's about people choosing to spend their money on something else, relying on others to pay for the actual production of entertainment.

As for your point about there being no inherent right to protection of IP, I would have said that was obvious. However the legal system doesn't exist to just enshrine and enforce basic rights. It's also used to shape societies in ways we (or our representatives) feel are beneficial.

Currently we as a society choose to enforce IP law. If that changes, then sure, I'll find another job. Good luck waiting for that Game of Thrones season 3 though.

[AnIrishDuck]

> It's about people choosing to spend their money on something else, relying on others to pay for the actual production of entertainment.

This is the free rider problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem. It is exacerbated by the fact that piracy is easier than obtaining content through legitimate channels.

> Currently we as a society choose to enforce IP law. If that changes, then sure, I'll find another job. Good luck waiting for that Game of Thrones season 3 though.

There are other solutions to the free rider problem. Take your pick from the examples on Wikipedia (i.e. assurance contracts, which are remarkably similar to the way Kickstarter works). The information revolution has changed the economics of your job, but I believe as a society we will ultimately find a better way to incentivize your work.

[ShawnBird]

Are you saying that selling plastic by the sword is better for society than a strong public domain? Or do you just think that a system where content can be produced without artificial scarcity is idealistic?

I guess what I am asking is this: Do you think that 'public ownership' of IP is impossible, impractical or immoral?

As a content creator do you have an objection to public content on principle? Or do you dislike it because you don't see it being possible?

I am asking this out of pure curiosity. I am just kind of surprised to see someone on hacker news of all places saying that information should not be free. I can understand saying that now is not the time or that models are not yet ready but it seems ridiculous to think that we should ignore the power of the internet for content distribution forever because it doesn't pay the bills now.

[rada]

I am surprised to see someone on hacker news saying that information should not be free.

Using the word "information" in this context is rather disingenuous. We don't play music on our information players, we don't buy books at the local information store, and we don't see movies at the information theater. If we are going to have a good discussion, let's call things what they are.

It seems ridiculous that we should ignore the power of the internet for content distribution forever because it doesn't pay the bills now.

Fiat money is ridiculous in exactly the same way. Would you say that it seems ridiculous to ignore the power of Xerox because it doesn't pay the bills for sellers of physical goods?

[ShawnBird]

Well what do you use to view information? You don't look at it on an information screen and you don't store in on an information drive. You are just arguing Symantec. If you have a book the physical object is the book and what is written on the pages is information. Information is different from an object in that it is intangible, it is the part that gets copied when people torrent something.

Fiat money is ridiculous in exactly the same way. Would you say that it seems ridiculous to ignore the power of Xerox because it doesn't pay the bills for sellers of physical goods?

That makes no sense. I don't see what you mean. Right now the internet could deliver content to more people more efficiently than a retail store but it is being restricted by laws that have been put in place to guarantee a paycheck for the content creators. I don't think that this is bad but I do think that we are in a state of transition and that in the not so distant future you will not go to a store to get music movies or books (except possibly as a novelty)

[rada]

Kind of like a hotel is a physical object but your stay in it is intangible so once you forge the key you are entitled in staying for free? Or kind of like McDonald's brand name is intangible so anyone can open a shack and call it McDonalds without paying a franchise fee?

Seriously, you can make up esoteric arguments ad infinitum and ad absurdum but the fact is, an arbitrary distinction - digital vs. printed - does not a theft unmake. Information wants to be free but books, movies and songs want to sell, or we wouldn't be having this argument.

One last interesting thing for you to ponder: the entire fiction genre is, by definition, misinformation.

[ShawnBird]

I said that information is intangible, not that all intangible things are information.

You are being absurd. A physical book and a digital representation of the information are completely different. The only thing that they have in common is that once used you get the same information. If you steal a book, that is theft. If you copy a book that is copyright infringement. The difference is that the person who had the book stolen from then is deprived of property in one example and in the other they are not.

This is not a simple matter. Making a copy is not theft. There are not clear lines here.

[MrScruff]

I'm not sure what you mean - are you arguing that all information should be put into the public domain as a matter of course? If so, I wouldn't agree with that, no.

I'm curious as to why you think people posting on Hacker News should wish for information to be free. The vast majority of start ups benefit from withholding information from competitors, for example their source code or client list. In general, I would say most people like to be given the opportunity to choose which information is free and which is not.

Just because the internet makes that difficult to enforce doesn't fundamentally change this in my view. As long as we still have a concept of wealth, at least.

[jivatmanx]

The ability to withholding something from the public is privacy.

IP is use of law to prevent others from using something that is public.

Note: I don't think copyright is that evil, just current term lengths, enforcement laws, and infringement damages. Patent as it exists now is pretty screwed up and in order to not be evil would have to be pretty radically different from what it is now.

[ShawnBird]

I was speaking generally. I obviously don't think that there should be no privacy but I do think that free and limitless access to public information is an ideal of the hacker community. I consider books, music and movies as a kind of information.

[olalonde]

Taken to extreme, your argument is also one against trademarks as they are a form of intellectual property. Do you think anyone should be allowed to build a laptop and stamp the Apple logo on it? If your answer to that question is "no", you should consider approaching the problem with a more pragmatic/consequentialist standpoint.

[ShawnBird]

What you are saying makes no sense. I am not talking about manufacturing or brands or trademarks. I am talking about the data. Trademarks are already public, you don't have to pay to look at a logo. How is my argument even tangentially related to trademarks?

I am saying that digital content will one day be freely available (or available on a subscription) because it costs nothing to copy. Never before has content been restricted when it could be copied freely. Radio is free television is free and websites are free. I think that is the natural end point of intangible goods it is just a matter of figuring out how to pay the content creators.

[olalonde]

> You've stolen his idea, he says, and profited with it against his will. And here the internal conflict introduced by the concept of "intellectual" property is highlighted. You used your own property as you pleased and in a way that did not harm or threaten to harm anyone else's property, and yet according to Bob, you've violated his "intellectual" property rights. In fact, the only way to not violate Bob's "intellectual" property is to not do with your property as you please, even though that use is entirely nonviolent. Bob's exercise of his "intellectual" property right is a violation of your property right!

Intellectual property is an umbrella term that encompasses copyright, trademarks, patents, etc. Using someone else's trademarks also does "not harm or threaten to harm anyone else's property". I know that you don't mean that, but in that case, you should offer more practical arguments against IP instead of getting all philosophical.

[ShawnBird]

I didn't make that comment so I can't answer for it.

What I can say is that the area that the term covers is arbitrary and that you can discuss one facet of it without involving the others.

There is no reason that trademarks need to be discussed when talking about content distribution systems just like there is no need to talk about expiration dates when shipping plastic lawn chairs.

[praxeologist]

The funny thing is that you didn't make any genuine arguments in the prior post to refute, just several non-arguments and vague complaints like "manifestly obviously just rationalisation".

>However the legal system doesn't exist to just enshrine and enforce basic rights. It's also used to shape societies in ways we (or our representatives) feel are beneficial.

There is no benefit in IP except to the holder of the state-granted monopoly, and perhaps the politicians who get MAFIAA money. You enjoy the copyright system and feel entitled to more than you would have earned without it.

There are slews of studies showing that patents hamper innovation. I challenge you to find one showing it aids it. You are repeating a falsehood, something people "feel is beneficial" but really isn't.

[MrScruff]

The funny thing is that you didn't make any genuine arguments in the prior post to refute, just several non-arguments and vague complaints like "manifestly obviously just rationalisation".

followed by:

There is no benefit in IP except to the holder of the state-granted monopoly, and perhaps the politicians who get MAFIAA money.

Do you seriously consider this to be an argument? Because I would classify it as tired cliché.

You enjoy the copyright system and feel entitled to more than you would have earned without it.

What absolute tosh. You know absolutely nothing about me and make such ridiculous statements.

I challenge you to find one showing it aids it.

Ok, after 5 seconds of google:

http://allafrica.com/stories/201211290581.html

I'll hazard a guess that you'll dismiss the report authors as copyright loving MAFIAA apologists though.

[praxeologist]

I am struggling to find any actual facts to back up the common falsehood you are repeating. Want to point out something?

[pg. 11] "International companies would only invest in research in locations with sufficiently strong IP."

Yeah, I would prefer to put my investment where I have government helping me strongarm people into paying me more money too. Somehow your paper failed to mention other possible factors like being able to get away with testing sexual dysfunction drugs on children and only getting fined $97: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16381458

[pg. 15] "Most policymakers reported that the IP system was an asset to encouraging domestic innovative activity. Changes in the IP system in Brazil was seen as significant in setting the foundation for innovative activity."

This is just bare assertion from policymakers.

[pg. 37] "A common measure of the output of innovation used in the literature is the number of registered patents in the country. In particular, it is common to see analysis based on the number of international patents (defined as the number of patents granted to inventors from a particular country)."

[pg. 43] "There has been a clear increase in innovation in terms of patents. Leaving aside South Korea, this again shows the dramatic performance of China, but also gradual progress in a number of other markets."

This is ludicrous to measure innovation by the number of patents. The "dramatic performance of China" is an increase in patents due to strengthened IP laws in recent years, that's it. If the mechanisms for enforcement of an IP regime are strengthened, then sure you will see more people using it. More companies are willing to disclose trade secrets because they have patent protection. That's all this shows, not that innovation is occurring because of IP law.

I don't really see much more that needs to be addressed in this paper, certainly no supporting evidence for your claim that IP is beneficial besides to the monopoly holders and monopoly givers. It's your claim, so you need to do better than just link an article. There is a more meaty section in your paper, but you would have to actually read your own source to find it and then I can proceed to demolish it.

[joseflavio]

The problem is how much the law is being corrupted, how much it is far way from the interests of the society. Each time the law extends copyright period, it is MY RIGHT of accessing public information being pruned.

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." --Thomas Jefferson

"An unjust law is no law at all." --Augustine