
Pirate Bay founder's new project shows the absurdity of giving value to copies - panic
https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-builds-the-ultimate-piracy-machine-151219/
======
crimsonalucard
Here's a crazy thought experiment. Instead of copying some music track, how
about copying a dollar bill? What happens to the dollar bill?

Instead of sites that distribute torrent files, we'll have sites that
distribute blueprints on how to build a printer that can print out perfect
copies of dollar bills. Totally not illegal!

Of course, in the same way that owning a music track makes me more likely to
go out and buy said music track, owning a copied dollar bill makes me more
likely to go out and actually work to earn a real dollar bill. So in a sense,
the same way copying music helps the music industry, copying dollars helps the
economy!

The logic makes perfect sense!

~~~
malka
yeah. Data and physical good are the same thing.

~~~
DougN7
The dollar bill's value has nothing to do with its physical properties.

~~~
sokoloff
Which is also true for an mp4 file of a movie or mp3 file of a song or a CD of
shrinkwrap software.

~~~
DougN7
Exactly. So the person's example seems to hold: duplicating dollars isn't a
good idea economically, and would have a negative impact like duplicating mp4
movies - it reduces the value of the thing being duplicated.

------
DougN7
If someone that creates a digital good and requires payment for each copy, but
people believe they don't have the right to create such a restriction, can't
the GPL be ignored on exact same grounds (I should not be restricted or
burdened by the GPL's restrictions or requirements)?

Anti-copyright = anti-GPL

~~~
J_Darnley
If you respect copyright as it currently exists then you are required to
follow the GPL for such licensed projects. If you don't then you don't. What's
your point? Pirates come in many forms?

I for one would gladly give up the GPL's copyleft principles if we also got
rid of copyright.

~~~
DougN7
Yes, currently copyright protects the GPL's requirements. And it protects a
digital creators goods. But I find many (not necessarily you) in the tech
industry want it both ways: copyright to enforce the GPL but break copyright
so they can legally have their mp3s, movies, etc.

~~~
belorn
There is no more contradiction than those who do not believe in violence, but
do accept it if its done in order to protect oneself or someone innocent.
Anti-violence is not anti-police or anti-government, who uses force/threats to
collect taxes and keep the peace.

Copyright _law_ is the application of government violence to apply the will of
the author to those who wish to copy, modify or use a copyrighted work. I
personally do not like when people use government violence as their business
model, through I do not mind if its used to police a agreement to non-
violence.

~~~
DougN7
"Copyright law is the application of government violence to apply the will of
the author to those who wish to copy, modify or use a (GPL'd work without
releasing their soure code)"

No difference.

~~~
belorn
There is no difference for the person who is getting shot if its done by a
criminal or a police officer. There is however a _major_ difference for a
community.

------
TimJYoung
Speaking as a (very small) software vendor, the problem I have with the
mindset of "every copy has no value" is that it isn't grounded in reality. If
the recipient of the copy went out of their way to obtain the copy, and is
using/enjoying the benefits of it on even a limited basis, then they are
effectively stealing the up-front investment of the producer.

A good thought exercise is this: would it be equally valid to say that a
producer has no claim against someone making thousands of copies of a digital
good and _selling_ them for $1 a piece ? If the answer is no, then what makes
the fact that they are giving away the copies any different ? In both
instances, the producer has had their right to determine the terms of the sale
arbitrarily removed without their consent.

In no other areas of our economies do we allow such nonsense to go on. You
can't walk into a retail store, fill your cart with items, and then dictate to
the cashier that you'll be paying 10 cents on the dollar for the items and
walk out of the store. If you don't agree with the terms of the sale, then you
find another producer that has more favorable terms or you go without. If you
want/need the product that bad, then you'll agree to the terms of the sale.
It's that simple.

Edit: and yes, I understand that the linked article was about the cost
attributed to such copies. It is correct to posit that not all copies equal
valid lost sales. The problem with this type of argument is that it is often
put forward by those that also promote the idea that sharing of copyrighted
digital goods is a consumer's right because such goods are "information", and
not a tangible good. It's a ridiculous stance to take because it completely
hand-waves away the actual time and money that went into producing the
"information".

~~~
crimsonalucard
This art project is more of an unintentional argument against piracy. I mean
it literally shows how copying something makes it worthless.

~~~
TimJYoung
Absolutely. Sales of digital goods, like any other sale, are about me trading
a portion of my time/labor for someone else's time/labor. If I don't have to
give up any of my time/labor in the deal, then _of course_ I won't mentally
assign any value to the good. It's a hell of a feedback loop: obtain something
for free, use/copy it freely, and then preach to anyone that will listen about
how it has no value, even though lots of people apparently have a significant
desire to possess it.

~~~
gozo
"Sales of digital goods, like any other sale, are about me trading a portion
of my time/labor for someone else's time/labor."

No it's not. If anything, that is a ridiculous opinion. It has no basis is
society, law or discourse. There's little relation between labor and
copyright. A more apt analogy is something like land rights. But that is still
not talking about the real issue. Chefs puts significant amount of labor into
their creations, they are not covered by copyright.

~~~
TimJYoung
Yes, and chefs are compensated for their time/labor. You can't just walk into
a restaurant, eat a meal, and take off without paying _what the owner of the
restaurant_ has determined is the price of the food you just consumed. How
exactly is a software developer/musician/artist supposed to be compensated for
their time/labor without copyright and the ability to determine the terms of
the sale ? There is significant up-front time and expense involved with any
type of creative work.

~~~
gozo
Chefs are compensated for their time (unless maybe you're the head chef), but
they are also not compensated for their intellectual property, which is the
point. Maybe a better example is copying a dress (if you imagine outsourced
manufacturing).

"How exactly is a software developer/musician/artist supposed to be
compensated for their time/labor without copyright and the ability to
determine the terms of the sale?"

There are plenty of creative people who sell their time, just like chefs. Of
course plenty of companies today don't even sell software, but essentially
services.

"There is significant up-front time and expense involved with any type of
creative work"

Yes, but this is to some extent a different issue than copyright itself. I'm
not even arguing for the removal of copyright (I'm personally for stronger
authors rights with drastic reduction in terms), just that copyright is mainly
rights to artistic, rather than utilitarian or scientific, things i.e. doesn't
have a whole lot to do with labor.

This should be even more apparent today with cloud distribution, where
software can't be resold.

~~~
TimJYoung
Yes, but chefs have absolute control over the ingredients in any "special
recipes" and can restrict access in ways that those that produce works like
literature and software cannot. Unlike digital goods, the resultant dishes
cannot be copied indefinitely at zero cost.

I also do not really care for the super-long copyright terms, and my posts
here should not be confused as a defense of the likes of Disney, etc. Most
software is obsolete within a year. The unauthorized copying of newly-released
software is my primary issue, having been directly affected by it for so long.

------
ikeboy
Torrentfreak should stick to direct arguments for why piracy should be
allowed, and stop with the analogies. I've seen a bunch of analogies from
them, and they all break down given the slightest thought. They may be good
for getting shares and views. They aren't good for convincing thinking
individuals.

(I'm thinking of the recent article [https://torrentfreak.com/when-authors-
demand-payment-for-eve...](https://torrentfreak.com/when-authors-demand-
payment-for-every-copy-theyre-advocating-communism-151220/), which doesn't
consider the obvious point that authors make it a condition of sale to not
copy it. Almost every direct editorial I've seen from them has similar gaping
flaws. This one, for example, completely misses the problem with copies, which
is distribution to people who haven't paid.)

~~~
lostcolony
They're not making an analogy in this article. They're reporting on someone's
satirical art piece, which is itself a commentary on the argument that
copyright users have used in the courts (that one copy = one lost sale). Which
is exactly in line with TorrentFreak's stated objective, reporting on all
things related to file sharing.

~~~
ikeboy
The art piece is making an analogy, which is flawed for fairly obvious
reasons.

And the article clearly supports the message, it's not objectively reporting
the news.

~~~
lostcolony
The art piece is not -making- an analogy. It is -mocking- a line of reasoning
used by the copyright industry.

That is, the copyright industry comes up with numbers about how badly file
sharing hurts their numbers by counting one download, that is, one copy, as a
lost sale. They've extended that analogy, in fact, to try and prevent people
from ripping their own music, DVDs, etc (it's still technically illegal to
copy your own DVD to your hard drive, for your own viewing).

This is an art piece to show how nonsensical that argument is, that a copy
does not equate to a lost sale.

~~~
ikeboy
It's mocking it by making a parody, and there's an analogy between the parody
and the original. As that analogy breaks down,the parody becomes less
meaningful. You could not call it an analogy if you want, it's just semantics.

>They've extended that analogy, in fact, to try and prevent people from
ripping their own music, DVDs, etc

They want to prevent people from being able to upload pirated DVDs. They
couldn't care less whether you rip them for yourselves, afaik, but they want
to ban the tools to do so because they're also used by pirates.

If I'm wrong, do you have an example of when they tried to stop self-copying
for its own sake?

~~~
lostcolony
Yes; it's called the DMCA's anti-copyright circumvention.

You seem to be saying such laws and lobbying is only there to prevent people
from being able to upload pirated DVDs, but the obvious problem there is such
actions -are already illegal-. Their incentive may be to prevent piracy, but
their actions are very clearly to prevent -anyone- from ripping their legally
purchased media. They will not -prosecute- an individual who never uploaded
something, no, but they have -no- problem with making it illegal and going
after anyone who would produce the tools to allow it to happen.

Their actions, and the rationales they use to justify it, are the problem, not
their incentives. I am in complete -agreement- with their incentives; file
sharing is certainly a threat to their business model, and they either need to
change business model or try and stamp it out. But in trying to stamp it out
they are effectively also trying to stamp out things that I should be able to
do (and legally may be both allowed to do, and not allowed to do; I'm legally
allowed to rip my content, but not legally allowed to circumvent DRM to do
it).

But we're digressing. My point was, and still is, simply that there is no
analogy being made by the article, nor Sunde; the analogy (or whatever you
want to call it; it's just semantics) is being made by the copyright industry.

Agreed, in mocking it they're straining it a bit, but the point is that
they're mocking a terrible argument that the copyright industry has made to
make their case in both courts of law and courts of public opinion. Same as
the "You Wouldn't Download A Car!" meme was made to mock their "You Wouldn't
Steal A Car!" ad campaign.

~~~
ikeboy
I'm not sure if there's any relevant point of fact we disagree on now.

The only point I'd make is that the copyright industry hasn't claimed "every
copy is a lost sale", they've claimed that some copies are lost sales. Often,
the question is whether the "main purpose" of a technology is for illegal
purposes, and if the answer was yes, it wouldn't be allowed, even if there
were legitimate uses.

Regardless, "the analogy breaks down here, therefore the analogy isn't valid
anywhere" is not a valid argument. To the extent the parody is doing that,
it's wrong.

~~~
lostcolony
Stretching the analogy to the point of breaking is actually a very useful bit
of rhetoric when one side insists on using an analogy.

That is, when the copyright industry says "sharing these files is hurting us,
we must make it illegal to make copies" (because that is what they lobby for,
anti-DRM circumvention and the like), showing that making copies -is not what
hurts your business model- is a worthwhile goal, in both courts of law and
courts of public opinion.

The initial analogy is not a valid argument; taking it to the breaking point
and by doing so showing that the analogy is too simplistic to be accurate, is
a valid response.

~~~
ikeboy
Again, the original is not an analogy. They never said every copy is a lost
sale. So only a strawman is being attacked here.

The avenue you should be pursuing is getting the LoC to allow DVD ripping as a
DMCA exemption. I don't even think the movie industry would oppose.

------
boyaka
I would just like to bring up the fact that the accounts TimJYoung and
crimsonalucard were both created 1891 days ago and are both intently arguing
in favor of copyright protections. I don't really have good arguments against
them (although my gut feeling is to disagree), and I'm not really trying to
make a point, just found it suspicious.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the answer is with copying. But I have a strong
belief that everybody should be able to enjoy all information and media,
whether or not they have a relatively limitless supply of cash to blow.

~~~
codeismightier
And I have a strong belief that creators should be compensated for their hard
work. Tell you what: let's compromise. Creators get a right, let's call it
"copyright" or something, whereby for a limited amount of time they get to
control how to distribute their work. In order to maximize profits they will
rationally not charge too much. After enough time has passed, this right
expires and their work goes into the public domain. Sounds good?

~~~
boyaka
Rather than enforce a right, why not just support the creators that you love?
Here's how I see it:

1\. Abolish copyright law

2\. Creators suffer and can't survive

3\. People that have money and love the work of these creators see their
suffering and give them support

This way creators can still be supported and people without money can enjoy
all of the beauty of creation.

------
pcunite
"On the contrary, he believes that piracy positively affects sales ... The
economics work differently in a global networked society. But the industries
will not change. That’s why we need to take them down ..."

Personally, I think there are better ways than this. For example, he would
build these products and give them away. Oh wait ... that's work.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
> Personally, I think there are better ways than this. For example, he would
> build these products and give them away. Oh wait ... that's work.

People are already doing that: [https://creativecommons.org/music-
communities](https://creativecommons.org/music-communities)

------
chillaxtian
it is not the number of copies that matters, but the actual value those copies
provide.

assuming a single purchase good, one person creating n copies once does not
steal much value.

n persons creating one copy does steal much value.

------
MrQuincle
Would the same feat be bestowed on human copies when we can make them?

~~~
iofj
The simpsons already did that project for cats :

[http://i.imgur.com/XeDNt.gif](http://i.imgur.com/XeDNt.gif)

~~~
MrQuincle
Brilliant! Ha ha! :-)

------
tibu
It is still funny how people want to validate their rights to copy and use
free what somebody else created and did not allow to copy.

~~~
SeanDav
The point of the project is not to demonstrate if copying is right or wrong,
it is to demonstrate that the value given to copies is blatantly incorrect
because the industry players see every copy as a lost sale, and ask for
compensation on that basis.

~~~
analog31
Perhaps a better approach than trying to figure a market value for the copies
would be to simply assign a presumed value in cases where a market has not
established a value. Say, a buck per copy of a pirated song.

~~~
moogly
What if the copy was never listened to by a human? Pretty sure that happens a
lot.

What if another copy was listened to by one certain individual a thousand
times? Surely the "value" is not the same for both copies.

~~~
analog31
My thought is to sidestep the impossible process of computing a value, by
assigning a presumptive value, e.g., one dollar per copy. That way, everybody
knows the score.

It's my understanding that a per-use presumptive value is how performance
rights for copyrighted songs are handled. If your band plays "Freebird" in a
public venue that does not have a performance license, the liability is a
certain fixed amount regardless of the size of the audience, or how much beer
got sold as a result of your performance.

