Hacker News Reader

Comment by ShawnBird | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com