Piracy isn't cool: Another "industry" under threat.
blog.virtuosewadventures.co.uk
blog.virtuosewadventures.co.uk
That doesn't necessarily invalidate your entire argument, but it does seem to be something you haven't addressed.
These designs are unusually easy to copy. Unlike, say, a watercolour, it is simple to create an exactly identical copy (lossless copying) with Roman-era technology and limited skill. The "intellectual property" can be represented by an 80x80 bitmap (in the case of the design which is discussed in the linked article), with perhaps a few additional bits to provide some hints on different stitches or sequence.
Only in the past few years have people begun selling simple frozen data representations of these designs (without any physical product) long after the internet, mass production, modern copyright law and discussion - in fact largely after people begun freely sharing other commercial digital representations such as music and film. How someone can invest such a business while being totally oblivious to the fundamentals of it is beyond me. It would be like starting a taxi company before discovering there were private cars on the road or something. In fact, the major of these shops were started by hobbyists, who were previously artists who would create, evolve and freely share their designs - and were probably much happier that way. The creation of this artifical industry by modern copyright law simply adds inefficiency to the system - there is demonstrably no shortage prior to the laws, and with modern technology, there is a greater supply of both copyrighted and free design than at any time in history. The argument for copyright at all seems weak and the argument for our current infinite copyright system weaker still. Ditch the lot, have the artists go back to designing and sewing instead of spending their time scouring the web looking for their "intellectual property", and everyone will be happier and more creative.
> Ditch the lot, have the artists go back to designing ...
Currently designs are produced, then the work is stitched, photographed, and a kit made up. Sometimes the chart is sold alone (fronted by the photo of the finished work) and sometimes with the material and thread included. There is a market for these designs, thin though the margins be.
But now people buy a design, scan both the design and the photo, and make them freely available. People then download them with no compensation to the original designer.
I know this is how the world currently is. I know this is what happens. I know it's not going to change.
But I lament the loss of the craftsperson who can no longer make a living.
If there were no copying then I could go to a shop and purchase a high-quality design at a reasonable price, with the designer making money on volume. But there is copying, and many of the best designers are now turning to other means of making money, often completely unrelated, and less beloved of themselves and others. I can't afford to commission work, so now I have no high-quality designs at all.
Tell me how this is a good thing. Tell me how gifted and skilled designers can make money in the face of wholesale copying. Tell me how I can benefit at a reasonable cost from the hard-won skills of these talented people.
I don't think I can, and now that's my loss.
(In truth, this isn't my thing, but I know someone who is hurting badly because of the situation, and I speak for them as best I can.)
Frankly, I'm kind of on the fence about this. It seems like a nice idea, that one can build a business on selling ideas on the internet, and kind of callous that people no longer sufficently value it.
But then I suppose no-one worries how a verbal storyteller is to make a living in this age of cheap newspapers, or war painters in the age of digital photography. Sewing instruction salesmen seem destined to go the same way.
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...
Apprently copyright law doesn't apply to fashion designs because clothing is considered "utilitarian".
I'm most familiar with Australia, so one case: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898914955.h... . I understand there's been a few others with Bettina Liano jeans (which are known for a particular cut that fits wide hipped girls).
This particular design, Summer Blackwork, retails for $9. Of course I have production costs, wholesale discounts, distributor fees, etc. so I don’t actually make $9 when I sell one. (wouldn’t that be nice?!)
That to me suggests the industry is ripe for disruption. For production costs I assume that means software (Photoshop? I actually don't know) which could, potentially, be made cheaper. For distributor fees, well that's something the internet is good at for digital goods like designs. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown in the other costs she alluded to.
Another thing to look at: Etsy lists some designs: http://www.etsy.com/search_results.php?search_query=machine+...
Some of them are download only and it would be good to see how these designers handle sharing.
It has always been very difficult to make a good living from stitching supplies, including designs, it's one of those weird disconnects where people have always seemed to resent paying for them. Kits always sold better than designs alone and I don't think many people paid out too often if they could help it, and this was 10 years ago.
My mother had design software back then, so I imagine it is still available today, and if people can do it themselves, or get a techy relative (lol) to whip up what they want, why pay for it?
I also doubt that this "piracy" trend is new, the designs back then were just printed in black and white on paper with number references for the thread colour, people could just photocopy them or simply hand them around. I imagine that this kind of behaviour is what is going on now, I mean I think it's similar to the cry of "everyone should buy their own CDs", stitching is one of those things where people share deigns.
I mean you take a look at the Etsy listings someone posted, these are discrete seperate peices, one alphabet letter is $4, all of them are very simple, and unlikely to be used alone, so you get back to designs being stupidly expensive. Want to write a name with your Disney character design? It'll all add up, and then the stitcher needs the threads and equipment on top of the design, so people share designs, I know Wendy has an A, I could get an L and so and so has a I and so on.
10 years ago, the large designs were being sold as high as a few hundred £s each, and people baulked at the price, they baulked at £25, they baulked at £10 or less sometimes, lol, everything was too expensive, and it's hard to justify spending a large amount of money on a hobby with little return apart from as a nice gift.
One interesting thing would be to see who the demographic is these days, because piracy tends to be associated with the young, but stitching tends to be the refrain of middle aged and older women, I'd be interested to know, if it is still the 45+ demographic and if they even realise they ARE "pirating" designs.
* Those who download pirated charts would never had paid for them anyway
* Having seen a pirated chart, the downloader has effectively had the designer "advertised" to them, making it more likely they will buy from them in the future
etc.
The parallels with software (and music) are clear, but there are differences too. It's not clear to me that anything can be done, and the current trend in the field is that small designers are giving up and not making their work public at all. The entire field is losing variety, and just the mainstream, made for the lowest common factor designs are seeing the light of day.
That can't be good for a creative industry.
The creator of a work has a right to determine who they distribute it too. Most people on HN wouldn't like it if somebody ripped the source to their web app as a form of 'advertising'. This is no different.
* People who get that creative output is creative output, and that as creators at HN we should support creation and our ability to determine who gets to copy what we make.
* There's another part who says 'digital is special' and because we use computers, anything that uses computers is somehow good and should not be stopped.
Whether copying on the internet should be stopped is irrelevant. The whole point of the net is to copy vast amounts of data across the world cheaply and effortlessly. You couldn't stop this without shutting down the net. Which is impossible.
You can't stop any human behaviour completely. This is irrelevant to whether you should try.
My apologies for not making that clearer.
ADDED IN EDIT:
Having said that, the general consensus seems to be that the artist does not in fact have that right. The "modern" consensus seems to be that those who produce anything easily copied can only expect it to be copied, and it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution.
> The "modern" consensus seems to be that ... it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution.
That's not the consensus in my circles - then again, I know a lot of people who make things - whether code, lingerie, or sculpture. They know they can't stop everyone stealing their work, but they also know they can can reduce it by trying - they certainly don't feel stupid for doing so.
One problem with dismissing the argument that downloaders would not have been purchasers is that a download count doesn't accurately reflect usage of the item. Producers cry in horror that their "content" was downloaded 100,000 times, but each user may have inadvertently been double or triple counted based on multiple computers, failed saves, forgotten file locations, or mistaken download methods (eg, view image versus save to disk).
On top of this, hoarding behavior causes people to collect things for which the perceived value (something) is greater than the cost (free / time to download). Hoarders will likely never use the item, but will show up as a download (or two or three) anyway.
Lastly, I doubt this to be the case in this situation, but artificially increasing a download count for the purpose of inflating possible damages is blindingly simple.
In short, I agree with your addendum, that anything which can be copied will be copied, and copies have nothing to do with sales unless you collect money at the point of copy. The more time spent complaining about loss, the less of a business and more of a funded hobby you are (and wouldn't we all like to have funded hobbies).
They might have a moral right, or even a legal right. But in the age of the internet, they have no practical right, since you can't in practice stop copying.
Anyone who produces an informational work today knows that if it gets popular it will be copied on the internet without their permission. If they don't like that, they are free not to create the work in the first place. But since they know what will happen (or would know, if they had any intelligence at all), it seems silly of them to complain when it does.
From a macro economic perspective, can the economy of a society be improved once everything that can be shared for free (or negligible cost) is done so? Could, would or should open-source gamers create Starcraft 2?
A viable strategy seems to be to open the program, but keep the assets (like graphics and music and so on) proprietary.
Who cares if there are no live musicians, we have plenty of recordings. Who cares if there are no sculptors, we have 3D printing machines that can scan existing objects and reproduce them perfectly.
And for the love of God don't tell me on the freaking HACKER news network that technology needs to be restricted "for the good of art".
3D printing machines will scan existing objects and reproduce them perfectly, and this is a problem why? If you have all the free bowls and plates and shoes you need, well, maybe you'll have more free time to sculpt.
On the other hand, who cares if the middlemen get paid to distribute frozen copies of art, even if such distribution is to cheap to measure?
Yes there was a lot of music before copyright, but copying was less efficient back then, so your arguments don't really make the watertight case you seem to think they do.
I know some brilliant musicians who have turned to other means to live, and who no longer use their gifts, talents and skills in music. Instead there's vast amounts of crap floating around, with the occasional gem that's hard to find.
I'm not saying copyright made it better, because there were the toads and slimey bastards in the middle, taking their excessive cut and squeezing the artists. What I'd really like to see is the best artists (not just musicians) being fairly compensated, just as I'd like to see the best programmers getting the recognition they deserve.
It doesn't happen, it probably won't happen. Certainly it never has happened.
But instead of technology just making the copying easier, wouldn't it be nice if it also made the proper compensation of artists possible.
Won't happen. The very people who could make it happen are the ones who claim it doesn't matter.
I could not live in a world where MPAA gets their will and be perfectly happy.
http://creativecommons.org/about/
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
Movies, software and games that are non-distributable have significant signs or precautions in place advertising that. The only thing that doesn't is music.
Who said anyone forgot? The article doesn't. It clearly says the author of the content found their work being shared without consent.
The real problem is someone is ripping off someone else's work.
Leaving aside the never ending discussion on piracy, I don't get what your point is.
"not merely because designs are being “shared” (read “pirated”), but because people are downloading free charts rather than paying for a designer’s work."
At least, that's how I read it.