Piracy in the Go industry.

[cata]

As a professional programmer, it would thrill me to no end if I was out of a career tomorrow (unrealistic, but let's suppose) because copyrights and patents on software were abolished. That would be such a tremendous boon to the world that I would be a jackass to complain about it.

Just my 2c.

[daal]

As a professional programmer, it would thrill me to no end if I was out of a career tomorrow (unrealistic, but let's suppose) because copyrights and patents on software were abolished. That would be such a tremendous boon to the world that I would be a jackass to complain about it.

Just my 2c.

Just out of curiosity, what would this boon be? Would the out of work programmers have enough energy to keep innovating after washing dishes all day?

[uPWarrior]

As a professional programmer, it would thrill me to no end if I was out of a career tomorrow (unrealistic, but let's suppose) because copyrights and patents on software were abolished. That would be such a tremendous boon to the world that I would be a jackass to complain about it.

Just my 2c.

Just out of curiosity, what would this boon be? Would the out of work programmers have enough energy to keep innovating after washing dishes all day?

As long as that number of energetic people is bigger than one (the patent owner), then we are fine.

PS: I'm a programmer myself.

[judicata]

Regarding programs, there is a big difference between patents and copyright. The movement against software patents has quite a bit of support (while many such supporters--probably the vast majority--would still support copyright).

[badukJr]

While legal doesn't mean moral, most people believe it is immoral to pirate. Therefore laws have been written to try to prevent it. Of course it's impossible to completely stop, but arguing that piracy is moral is ridiculous to me.

I doubt most people believe so. There is a whole industry devoted to it in Asia the most populated area on earth. Many of my university books are from there, 2 or 3 dollars each.

Yeah, there was nothing illegal about those fake Apple stores the government closed down.

That's because Apple has a large influence in China.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12 ... erest.html

Hmm, we know that Proview definitely sold something called 'iPad' first, but it would just be too tough for the country to respect that!

http://www.latimes.com/business/technol ... ?track=rss

Oh... ok!

The greatest factor in these laws are corporations with lobbyists or other influencing parties... not what is actually correct or logical. I read that Robert knew who was distributing his books. Did he go after them? I would doubt it... the money needed for such a thing would far outpace what he earns anyway. Its set up that way on purpose.

[FlyingAxe]

While legal doesn't mean moral, most people believe it is immoral to pirate. Therefore laws have been written to try to prevent it. Of course it's impossible to completely stop, but arguing that piracy is moral is ridiculous to me.

Well, as I said before, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is immoral, since the laws that you mention restrict other people's use of their property.

Once upon a time, if a Northern abolitionist would speak to a Southern slave-owner, the latter would also get upset. He would say that he didn't care about a bunch of philosophical ideas and some wigheads in their ivory tower talking about liberty and equality; for him, the bottom line was that his property that he'd paid to acquire (and that someone else had worked hard to bring to the US) escaped or was helped to escape. And the people who helped it to escape were villains.

When I buy a book from you, I don't just buy a bunch of paper and ink. I buy the information on the book as well (I may also pay a little extra for the particular medium/carrier of information, for instance, hardback vs. softback vs. epub, but most of my money goes to the purchase of information). After I have bought it, I should be free to use it as I see fit. Otherwise, it's like arguing that after I bought a cookie-cutter from you, I only paid for the metal, not for the shape. And when I produced a bunch of cookies of that shape for free (or for pay) and distributed them among my friends, I have violated your rights to the shape.

The "pirates" merely create public libraries of the created work... after they have bought it from the original seller. Those people who want to buy the original seller's work to support him (or because they want a hard copy) are certainly free to do so.

Furthermore, as I have mentioned before, information is non-scarce. Property rights exist for the purpose or eliminating conflict (by that I mean not the physical argument, but conflicting claims) over property. They assign ownership to property based on the validity of claim, usually through homesteading.

But in the case when there is no scarcity, there is no conflict. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, if I light my taper from yours, you have not lost anything. So, what's the justification to use force to prevent me from lighting my taper? In fact, copyright creates scarcity when there was none to begin with, and that is another reason why it is immoral.

There is a much more detailed discussion about all of this (including a discussion of pro-IP arguments) in this monograph by Stephen Kinsella: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

[illluck]

It seems to me that the key question is whether or not piracy reduces the incentive to produce material. My personal opinion is that it does, so it's beneficial to restrict it.

However, even if it doesn't, I think the rights of the creators should be respected - if they don't want their work to be distributed for free, it seems just to allow them the option rather than to force them to choose not publishing at all or having no control afterwards.

[FlyingAxe]

It seems to me that the key question is whether or not piracy reduces the incentive to produce material.

That's not at all the key question. This is a version of utilitarian pro-IP argument. To quote Stephen Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" (http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf ),

Advocates of IP often justify it on utilitarian grounds. Utilitar­ians hold that the “end” of encouraging more innovation and creativ­ity justifies the seemingly immoral “means” of restricting the free­dom of individuals to use their physical property as they see fit. But there are three fundamental problems with justifying any right or law on strictly utilitarian grounds.

First, let us suppose that wealth or utility could be maximized by adopting certain legal rules; the “size of the pie” is increased. Even then, this does not show that these rules are justified. For example, one could argue that net utility is enhanced by redistribut­ing half of the wealth of society’s richest one percent to its poorest ten percent. But even if stealing some of A’s property and giving it to B increases B’s welfare “more” than it diminishes A’s (if such a comparison could, somehow, be made), this does not establish that the theft of A’s property is justified. Wealth maximization is not the goal of law; rather, the goal is justice—giving each man his due.

Even if overall wealth is increased due to IP laws, it does not follow that this allegedly desirable result justifies the unethical violation of some individuals’ rights to use their own property as they see fit.

Actually, if you read the monograph, Stephen Kinsella continues to show that it is not at all evident that IP increases wealth of the society. There are numerous transaction costs (whole legal departments devoted to copyright attack and defense), etc., which produce an enormous drain on the society. Then there is the fact that IP reduces creativity output by restricting people from using other's copyrighted ideas. Then there is the argument that writers who know they will continue to benefit from one-time sale of their book for the next 70 years are going to be less inclined to write more. In the times when music and art were not copyrighted, there were more works produced in these two areas than ever. Bach knew that he would get a one-time payment for each fugue he produced. Mozart knew that he would get paid for each concert of his work that he personally oversaw, but after a while, his profit would dwindle, requiring him to produce more works.

[illluck]

The goal is justice? What is just? Not allowing creators control over how their work is distributed? I think it's just for the creator (if desired) to get some profit whenever his/her works are enjoyed or used.

Ideas usually cannot be copyrighted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright# ... r_doctrine), and in the case of piracy there is no issue with using the ideas - I'm don't see why you are using that as an argument for piracy. The possible stopper effect on progress is certainly very interesting and complex (I'm not well-informed enough to have a solid stance on it yet), but I don't think it's relevant here.

The point you brought up regarding music and art is certainly interesting (though a giant "citation needed" for the claim that more works were produced - I'm inclined to just call BS). Piracy would likely still be detrimental even in the case of one-time payments because there would be less incentive to pay the same amount.

[cata]

As a professional programmer, it would thrill me to no end if I was out of a career tomorrow (unrealistic, but let's suppose) because copyrights and patents on software were abolished. That would be such a tremendous boon to the world that I would be a jackass to complain about it.

Just my 2c.

Just out of curiosity, what would this boon be? Would the out of work programmers have enough energy to keep innovating after washing dishes all day?

Absolutely; working 8+ hours a day programming consumes a kind of mental programming stamina that other kinds of labor do not. I know that when I was a student or working other jobs, all I wanted to do was get home and program, whereas nowadays, I hardly have any side projects anymore. So I know I would be producing vastly more free work if I weren't doing it for money. This is also the feeling of other programmers I know, although of course many of them work on more side projects than me regardless. I have always sort of figured other creative professionals have a similar experience, although I don't know whether or not that's the case.

Regarding programs, there is a big difference between patents and copyright. The movement against software patents has quite a bit of support (while many such supporters--probably the vast majority--would still support copyright).

That's certainly true. I happen to be fairly well against both, but a majority definitely favor some kind of software copyrights (maybe not a vast majority; the FSF is certainly popular enough.) In any case, copyright is more pertinent to the discussion.

[FlyingAxe]

The goal is justice? What is just? Not allowing creators control over how their work is distributed? I think it's just for the creator (if desired) to get some profit whenever his/her works are enjoyed or used.

Not once they sold it to someone for profit. After you sold me a pair of shoes, I can do whatever I want with them. I should be able to wear them, give them to someone as a present, or make copies of them and distribute the copies for free, even if that will diminish your future shoe sales. The shoes you sold me are mine. Saying that you sold me the shoes but not their shape, color, smell, texture (and taste?) is ridiculous. What did you sell me then -- a bunch of property-less cow skin?

So, if I am allowed to take a picture of the shoes you sold me and distribute it, why shouldn't I be allowed to take a picture of the book you gave me and distribute it? If you sold me a DVD with a song, and I memorized the song, do you now own the circuits in my brain where this song is stored?

Justice is protecting people's rights. I own something that I have bought from you. Unless you subscribe to the concept of property that Harry Potter's goblins seemed to have -- that any sale is really only rent.

Ideas usually cannot be copyrighted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright# ... r_doctrine), and in the case of piracy there is no issue with using the ideas - I'm don't see why you are using that as an argument for piracy.

First of all, organizations like Tolkien estate go with vengeance against someone who uses without their permission the world that Tolkien has created. Second, if you don't own the idea in the copy of the book that I bought from you and you don't own the paper and ink, what's the justification for stopping me from doing what I want with the book?

The point you brought up regarding music and art is certainly interesting (though a giant "citation needed" for the claim that more works were produced - I'm inclined to just call BS). Piracy would likely still be detrimental even in the case of one-time payments because there would be less incentive to pay the same amount.

See here: http://mises.org/daily/4008

Also here:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intelle ... gainst.htm
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201110 ... main.shtml

The burden of proving that piracy would be detrimental in reality is on you. There is no difference between making a one-time sale of an idea and one-time sale of anything else.

Not that it matters.

[illluck]

As someone seeking to change the status quo, I believe the onus is on you. The links you provided seem to be "I believe this is true, and here are some observations that may support my point" - I fail to see how these are any more trustworthy than my own observations (primarily with Chinese online novels piracy).

Prices would be much much higher if you expect to purchase the right to a work - creators are paid more than just the selling price of one copy :p

[Javaness2]

is intellectual property different to physical property?

[badukJr]

is intellectual property different to physical property?

Yes, absolutely. It is like apples and oranges really.

Physical item, you create it, it is yours. In your possession.

Intellectual property is a lot more complicated. If somebody has developed an idea, but they tell you, if you file before them there is a good chance you will become owner of that idea. It is more complicated than that of course. It is viciously complicated. It is complicated because companies lives are staked on it. Not just small companies, but ones that pull many billions in profits each year. A very long time ago it used to be about protecting individuals. Each time Disney's IP is about to lapse, the length of protection on the copy right law is extended. It used to be about protecting an individuals idea for a few years so he had exclusive rights, but the Disney lawyers are very powerful.

I am not an IP lawyer, but I do work closely with them... I file many IPs with the gov't per year. There are a lot of shenanigans.

There are companies that exist that make no product. They go to technical conferences and submit IP based on the talks given there. Then they contact the author of the talks with an ultimatum: license idea from us or we sue. It is all to common.

[hyperpape]

is intellectual property different to physical property?

If I build a house, my children can live in it, pass it to their children, and on forever. Unless it is sold, my descendants will retain the exclusive right to its use for eternity. With few exceptions (including Mark Twain, I believe), no one thinks that intellectual property should work that way.

In that sense, we can reply to Mlund that we're all the beneficiaries of legally sanctioned piracy, and we're quite smug about it.