[krig]

He is close to arriving to the conclusion I generally have reached when thinking about piracy issues when he says this:

> People have been violating copyright and pirating and plagiarizing since long before the modern era. There's just something, deep down, that makes people believe that these sorts of ethereal products, or knowledge, can't or shouldn't be protected.

To me, the real issue is this: No one spontaneously thinks that sharing something freely sharable with friends and family and fellow humans is inherently wrong. "Intellectual property" is an unnatural and learned concept. If I had an infinite supply of food, I would not think twice about handing it out to others. I didn't use to, but now I do think that the problem is largely one of future shock and legislation: we simply have to come to grips with the reality that digital information will be copied, and that someone possessing a piece of digital information will expect it to be copyable.

So where does that leave him? I don't know. Maybe there is no decent business model for selling games like AI War in this age. Just like other business models have disappeared or, for that matter, appeared with the digital age.

I don't think the problem is that people in general view piracy as a victimless crime. I think the "problem" is that, deep down, people don't think it's a crime at all.

[jcl]

Well, it's not quite that black-and-white. DRM and copy protection has always been broken and copyright laws have always been hard to enforce, so people have always been able to get what they want for less than the asking price. Every IP-based enterprise's business model has been broken for years; Bill Gates' Open Letter to Hobbyists shows his company's model was broken even before it started.

If people had no internal motivation to pay for something freely sharable, all these companies should be begging on streetcorners. And yet Microsoft, Disney, and Warner Bros. are far from charity cases.

I think that while people are aware that copying is not the same as stealing a physical object, they are also somewhat aware that it deprives the creator. In this sense, it's not unlike how people guiltily shuffle off as a street performer passes the hat around: they are aware of the expectation of payment, of the social obligation to reciprocate when someone gives you something of value, even if that thing is intangible and cost little to produce. This social obligation is enough to cause some people to pay.

Software benefits from other unwritten social rules as well. For example, it is less socially acceptable to pirate software that you use to make money. Likewise, it's less acceptable to give pirated software as a gift. I think the strength of these social rules varies among cultures, which would explain why piracy is more popular in some countries than others, even when the goods are affordable.

And software further benefits from the unknowable costs associated with piracy. If a pirated product doesn't run, has a bug, or installs malware, you have no recompense. And, of course, there's the fact that piracy is illegal... If someone can prove you pirated software, it will cost you (it's admittedly hard to prove for individuals, but easy for corporations with disgruntled employees).

So the software business model is tenuous in that it relies mostly on social norms, but it is viable.

[krig]

I agree with your point, but let me clarify what I mean: I don't mean to say that people are averse to paying for content they want. On the contrary, I do think most people are happy to pay what they feel is a reasonable price for things.

The thing though, is this: Once I've bought something I wanted and I have it, and it's infinitely sharable - why not share it with my friends, or even just anyone who might want it? That's where I think the real issue lies. I don't think most people see anything wrong with sharing something when it costs them nothing to do it. To the contrary, I think people in general are social and caring, and even desire sharing with others when possible.

Also, I think people are happy to pay someone for creating or providing goods they want. I don't think many people want to pay for copies of digital content, because single digital copies truly are worth nothing.

[bad_user]

> If I had an infinite supply of food, I would not think twice about handing it out to others.

I don't know why people keep making this analogy, but it's a poor one imho.

Here's a better view:

* you have to work hard to produce that infinite supply of food, and when you're done people are not going to instantly buy your food ... it takes some time before your expenses are covered

* as time passes people will grow tired / bored of eating your food, and sales will drop as other infinite supplies of food from your competitors become available ... food that will keep them entertained

* for that not to happen, you immediately start working on a better version of your food supply ... and because expectations have been raised, you now have to work harder ... and it can take months, even years in some cases to produce a successful sequel

* you're also not going to abandon your existing customers ... if the food tastes bad sometimes, you've got to fix it. You have to write documentation and provide support, otherwise your customers won't know how to eat your food. And customers can also give valuable feedback that you must process.

* for you to keep on working, who's going to cover your expenses, who's going to pay the bills?

* and you also have to work a hell of a lot harder than the owner of a gas station that sits on his ass all day watching his employees, and that probably makes more money than you do

Really ... you don't see anything wrong with this analogy? Do you think software just pops out of the ground?

Intellectual property is as real as it can be. The only problem are the laws that guard it ... which have been turned against consumers for the benefit of large corporations (not content creators).

[randallsquared]

> > If I had an infinite supply of food, I would not think twice about handing it out to others.

> I don't know why people keep making this analogy, but it's a poor one imho.

You missed his point. It's the customers that suddenly find themselves with an infinite supply of food, for practical purposes, so why should their friends have to pay for food?