
Right versus pragmatic - zdw
http://www.marco.org/2012/02/25/right-vs-pragmatic
======
philwelch
There are lots of examples of this. Moralistic thinking simply isn't
productive in this context. If you build an economic system that depends on
everyone voluntarily cooperating rather than acting self-interestedly, self-
interested people will ruin it; if your public health strategy for HIV is to
discourage people from extramarital sex, lots of people will have extramarital
sex and get HIV; if your strategy to compete with BitTorrent is to try and
make people feel guilty about using BitTorrent, people will tune you out and
use BitTorrent.

Of course, if you used _those_ examples instead of a silly example about
designing an office restroom, the HN thread gets derailed by people talking
about economics or HIV. One could criticize the HN community for that kind of
bikeshedding, but it's more pragmatic to just use a boring, contrived example
to sell the point. Certainly, a HN thread won't end up filled with a side
discussion about office restroom design.

~~~
ChuckMcM
This is one of the weird things about the information economy. So if you make
a gizmo in the goods economy, and price it outside of the demand line, they
sit on the shelf and you go broke.

Of course in the goods economy you had a cost of making the item, sure there
was R&D and advertising Etc. but each good also has some raw materials so you
really can't sell them below a certain price or you lose your shirt.

In the information economy you get this weird artifact. Your 'good' gets
copied and distributed without remuneration. This appears to be lost sales,
but in fact it is simply that your good is priced outside the demand curve for
those buyers. What is even stranger is that you can lower your price all the
way to zero if you choose because the marginal cost to make a new one is zero.
This gives you tremendous pricing leverage in the info economy and people who
use it well typically price high for novelty value early, then lower to
capture the larger market, and then lower still to pick up the remnant market.
The cost of R&D, marketing, etc can be amortized over all of these and if you
look at it as an integral value function you can actually make reasonable
pricing decisions.

Of course old school media doesn't get the 'info' economy any more than
telling a teenager that the 'fair' price is one that someone will pay even if
they think it is too high.

Over time these concepts are making themselves known in the mainstream but it
does take waaaay more time than it does to innovate so it seems like its not
changing at all.

~~~
philwelch
There's two sides of this. There's the side where the seller's price is above
the demand curve, so the buyer pirates the movie. But there's _also_ the side
where the seller's price is below the demand curve, but the buyer pirates it
anyway to capture more consumer surplus.

What's really happening is that, the easier piracy becomes, the closer the
supply curve comes to turning into a very flat line at price 0. Now, the
actual cost to the consumer in time, energy, bandwidth, and guilt is higher
than 0, and it's possible to reduce those costs by trading off some actual
money cost to get the permission of copyright holders the way Apple or Rdio
are doing, but it's not clear that this will last forever.

~~~
Natsu
What makes you think iTunes won't last?

~~~
philwelch
What if someone makes a better-designed iTunes that happens to work using
piracy instead of legitimate sales? Or comes close enough that $0.99 isn't
worth it?

~~~
Natsu
They've tried. For legitimate competitors, Apple has them outgunned in terms
of selection due to all their deals with the labels and such. For illegitimate
competitors, Apple has a comparatively huge budget for design/UX.

The "isn't worth it" actually goes the _other_ way at this point: it's isn't
worth pirating anything you can get from iTunes. Most of their customers are
perfectly capable of pirating stuff, but it _isn't worth their time_ compared
to grabbing it from iTunes.

I'm not saying nobody will ever compete with them or that people don't still
pirate anyhow, just that they're more than capable of competing with free.
They've been successfully doing that the entire time, in fact.

~~~
philwelch
I agree that's the status quo, but Apple's a rather unique organization in
terms of their mix of negotiation ability, closeness to Hollywood, and design
ability. And there's already cracks showing when it comes to their software
quality. Those advantages can't last forever.

~~~
Natsu
> Apple's a rather unique organization in terms of their mix of negotiation
> ability, closeness to Hollywood, and design ability.

That's exactly the part that makes me believe they have staying power.

------
julian37
Another solution (albeit more costly) would be to re-hinge the door so it
swings outwards, and make the springs easy enough so people can push it open
using their shoes.

That's not the gentleman's way of operating a door, but with the trashcan
solution people also have to hold the door open _somehow_ while disposing of
the towel, unless it comes with springs that are adjusted _just right_ so it
stays open _just long enough_ for people to sneak out in time.

Making the door open outwards is the right thing to do anyway with regards to
fire safety, as far as I understand.

Of course, if you have the space to spare (without things getting too
intimate) you can also just leave out the doors altogether, which is how many
airports I've been to seem to handle the issue.

(I'd say an automatic bathroom door is overkill and a bit creepy, too, which
probably is why I've never seen one.)

~~~
snprbob86
> Making the door open outwards is the right thing to do anyway with regards
> to fire safety

You've got that backwards. You want the door to open inward, in case there is
an obstruction. If it opens outward, there may be something on the ground
blocking the path of the door. It may be too heavy (or hot!) to push away, but
small enough to climb over or around. Furthermore, it's dangerous to open a
door outward into the path of people walking.

Think about the front door on your house or apartment, the door to your
bedroom, your bathroom door, etc. They all open in to the room, away from the
hallway.

~~~
julian37
I'm not a fire safety expert by any means, which is why I added the "as far as
I understand" qualifier. That said, don't you have the possibility of
something blocking the path of the door regardless of which way it swings? I
guess if it's on your side of the door, there is a greater chance that you can
move it out of the way as long as it's not too hot or bulky. Then again, if
something unexpected is blocking the way in a fire I'd expect there is a very
good chance that it _is_ hot or bulky.

So far I was under the impression that doors should generally open towards the
exit (as the sibling already noted) in order to make it as easy as possible to
exit the building. But maybe that is a misconception. I find this a very
interesting topic, if you have more information to share I'd be very curious.

EDIT: Also, aren't hot door handles a big issue in case of a fire? I'd imagine
that the ability to push the door open (assuming it doesn't lock when closed)
rather than having to pull the handle is a plus. And I guess a door that
swings both ways is ideal with regard to blockage.

~~~
redridingnews
I'm not in any way a safety expert, as well. But this argument caught my eye.
So I asked my brother who is a fire fighter. Fire exits are, in general,
supposed to open outwards. Regarding blocking, according to him, there is a
reason why when you look at any properly made fire exit, there is nothing
heavy hovering above it.

Now as for the door knobs, most fire exits don't have the normal door handles.
Like in cinemas and theaters, there's this small slot where you can place your
hand. For larger buildings though, there are bigger handles shaped like a
hook.

------
oz
_"The signs never worked. Instead, they just annoyed and angered people. Some
people even threw more paper towels on the floor because they didn’t like the
condescending way they were being instructed."_

 _"This pattern is common. We often try to fight problems by yelling at them
instead of accepting the reality of what people do, from controversial
national legislation to passive-aggressive office signs. Such efforts usually
fail, often with a lot of collateral damage, much like Prohibition and the
ongoing “war” on “drugs”."_

This is something I've learned in when trying to convince people to do
something that's for their own good. Often times, it all too easy to yell. But
human nature is such that if you 'attack' a person's beliefs or actions,
(rational or not) they will defend them, further entrenching them and
encouraging the person to continue if even out of spite.

Sure, sometimes an 'intervention' is necessary. But I've found that in most
cases, it's more strategic to boil a person as a frog rather than a lobster.

~~~
r00fus
There's even a term for it: cognitive dissonance [1]. Fact is, the best way to
make a point is to appeal to your audience. The appeal can be to authority,
ethics, humor, aesthetics, etc. WIIFM applies here.[2]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#The_Induce...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#The_Induced-
Compliance_Paradigm) [2]
[http://www.websitemagazine.com/content/blogs/posts/archive/2...](http://www.websitemagazine.com/content/blogs/posts/archive/2010/09/16/business-
writing-the-wiifm-principle.aspx)

------
jd
People are so grossed out by a doorknob they refuse to touch it, only to
immediately walk to their desk to type on their keyboard. A keyboard which is
typically far dirtier than the bathroom they just avoided touching[1]. Oh, the
irony.

[1]
[http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Germs/story?id=4774746&page...](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Germs/story?id=4774746&page=1)

~~~
robryan
I think it would really suck to go through life worrying about every surface I
touched and the gems it contained.

~~~
mechanical_fish
It does. But it beats catching a cold or flu every couple of months.

And it's not as if hand-washing is some kind of crazy placebo:

 _In a research published by British Medical Journal on November 2007,
physical barriers, such as regular handwashing and wearing masks, gloves and
gowns, may be more effective than drugs to prevent the spread of respiratory
viruses such as influenza and SARS... Handwashing and wearing masks, gloves
and gowns were effective individually in preventing the spread of respiratory
viruses, and were even more effective when combined... Another study,
published in the Cochrane Library journal on 2007, finds handwashing with just
soap and water to be a simple and effective way to curb the spread of
respiratory viruses, from everyday cold viruses to deadly pandemic strains._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_washing_with_soap#Disease...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_washing_with_soap#Disease_prevention_in_handwashing_with_soap)

~~~
robryan
I may just be lucky but I don't seem to get this, sure I catch some minor
things but it is more like once a year. Your right if I was constantly
catching things I would be more careful.

------
xiaoma
I really don't understand where the author is coming from on this:

\---

 _"One of the floor’s tenants attempted to solve this problem by posting
passive-aggressive notes on the paper-towel dispenser._

 _(Image of a paper with "Please discard paper towels into wastebasket."
written on it)_

 _The signs never worked. Instead, they just annoyed and angered people. Some
people even threw more paper towels on the floor because they didn’t like the
condescending way they were being instructed._

\---

That message is anything but passive-aggressive. It's direct, reasonable and
courteous. It's also very ordinary and I've seen signs like it in various
public restrooms, train stations, subway stations and other areas. If someone
is actually angered by this kind of sign and decides to litter _more_ as a
response, they're probably not a very easy person to get along with.

In many places, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and much of east Asia,
this problem is solved via fines. Over time the fines even change social norms
about littering and the situation improves in areas without the fines. The
analogy to copyright is pretty weak. Many places with more civilized norms in
terms of litter really don't care about copyright infringement to the extent
that English-speaking countries do. Copyright behavior has also been very
resistant to being altered by fines.

~~~
rue
It's passive-aggressive, because it doesn't directly address the problem.

A direct message would have been at the door and said: “Please stop throwing
paper on the floor, there's a wastebasket on the other side of the room”.

(I also suspect that the reaction would have been at least somewhat more
positive.)

~~~
xiaoma
I disagree.

"Please discard paper towels into wastebasket" is direct and specifies
_exactly_ what kind of behavior is desired. Your example doesn't do that. It
says there _is_ a wastebasket, but the only request is not to throw paper on
the floor. It could be satisfied by leaving the wet paper towels on the sink,
leaving them draped on the door handle or slapping them on the wall. (How's
_that_ for passive-aggressive!)

The original message is both shorter and clearer. It's both pro-active and
respectful. Getting angry at the notice and littering to show you won't
tolerate "condescension" is just being a dick.

~~~
tedsan64
I'm glad you see this rationally. I don't understand at all how people see
this as condescending. Why is it that in our society, people are offended by
being asked to behave in an adult manner?

What irks me is that everyone thinks they're psychologists so they throw
around clinical terms like "passive aggressive" which they have right to use.
No more so than a layperson trying to sound intelligent by using terms like
"exponential complexity"...

~~~
pedrogrande
In my mind, 'being asked to behave in an adult manner', is condescending. I am
not excusing the people who litter, they could still use paper to open the
door and then dispose of it elsewhere.

In regard to the article, my take-away from it is that all the media industry
needs to do to lessen piracy, is make their content easier to access legally -
not make it more difficult.

~~~
Czarnian
If you need to be told to put trash in a trash basket, you deserve to be
condescended to. If you don't want to be treated like a child, don't act like
a child.

------
sedev
On a personal note, I had a workplace bathroom once that was worse than this,
also in trash bins. The one you were _supposed_ to throw paper towels into
after washing your hands, had a spring-loaded lid that required at least two
pounds of pressure to open - and that was the least of the design problems.

More to the point, it fascinates me how the media companies' obduracy makes
hackers in particular blindingly angry. It's interesting that from our side,
they seem so insanely, self-destroyingly, offensively _stupid_ that we just
can't believe that they're really doing this. It's interesting on that
cultural level as well as on the less abstract levels.

------
jsankey
It seems obvious that the best long term strategy for media companies is to
start addressing the demand. Indeed, over the long term, any other strategy
will likely result in those companies being left behind.

But if you're in charge of a media company today, and your bonus this year is
tied to a cash cow you can keep alive for a few more years, would you be
taking the risk and short term pain of making the transition?

I don't think it's stubbornness or stupidity we're looking at, it's a classic
case of misaligned incentives.

~~~
abraxasz
I will have to disagree. Not that I think that the people in charge of the
MPAA and co. are altruistic, nice people. But I don't think they act the way
they act because they are looking for immediate profit, or rather this is not
the principal reason.

There was an excellent comment on HN a month or so ago (during the SOPA
madness, I can't find it though) from a guy from the industry that explained
that the main problem was "ignorance and misunderstanding". And this echos
what the OP explained so well: the MPAA think they are right, and don't
understand why people are downloading illegally (they most likely think it's
just about money).

~~~
jsankey
I think it's too easy to look at people in these positions and say they just
don't get it. This is their industry, they're immersed in it every day. They
may not have seen this coming, but it's been in their face for a while now,
and even if a few can't see what's going on I simply can't believe that none
of them do. At best I would say any "ignorance" could still be tied back to
incentives: even if they know the truth, it's inconvenient and not worth
acknowledging widely (or perhaps even to themselves). Better to keep on
peddling the line that piracy is theft to preserve the status quo as long as
possible.

~~~
nirvdrum
I've mentioned something similarly here before (I think during the SOPA
stuff): people simply do economically irrational things to take a principled
stand. I've certainly done things that my friends and family thought were
batshit crazy just so I could achieve perceived balance in the universe. My
take is that's what we're seeing now and have been for a while. The media
companies obviously want our money, but more than that, I think they just
don't want you to have access to their content if you didn't pay for it, to
break this overwhelming sense of entitlement many of us have. I don't condone
the methods, but I don't disagree with the rationale either (providing that
actually is the case).

------
Sivart13
Most importantly, I never knew why so many people at my office threw their
paper towels on the ground next to the door (or in a trashcan located
thereabouts, when available). Now I do.

I still don't understand why people think the post-bathroom door is disgusting
enough to merit hand protection. If anything, it's the door people are most
likely to have touched AFTER washing their hands. Do these people bring
another paper with them to open the door on the way in?

~~~
potater
In heading to the restroom I know that I'll have the opportunity to wash my
hands after, so the handle leading in is of little concern to me.

In my admittedly anecdotal experience, the rate of full grown adults who
casually ignore the sinks after finishing up their business and leaving a
stall seems to be disturbingly high. It just kinda gets my ick-factor going.
Granted, I'm something of a germaphobe (I wash my hands many times/day) so I
might just be more inclined to notice those who don't vs those who do---
regardless, I'll almost always save a paper towel or something to turn the
door handle when possible.

Anyway, I don't think the lack of a trash can nearby excuses those who would
dispose of it on the floor though. I just hold onto it until I find the next
closest trash can outside the bathroom. That usually takes less than a minute,
depending on where I am.

~~~
rflrob
> In my admittedly anecdotal experience, the rate of full grown adults who
> casually ignore the sinks after finishing up their business and leaving a
> stall seems to be disturbingly high

I dunno about stalls, but there is some not totally unreasonable (though still
mildly icky) argument for not washing your hands after using a urinal:
[http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1987#c...](http://www.smbc-
comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1987#comic)

~~~
cperciva
Not only that, but urine is -- assuming you don't have a UTI -- sterile and
even a mild disinfectant. The purpose of washing hands isn't to remove any
urine; rather, it's to remove any fecal bacteria along with other pathogens
which may have been picked up _outside_ of the washroom.

If for some reason you can't wash your hands, you'd probably be better off
deliberately peeing on them.

~~~
ralph
Which is why it's odd that most washrooms have you pull a door by the handle
to exit, a handle many others have probably touched without washing their
hands. Ikea is one place that comes to mind that avoids this, instead having a
sequence of offset walls to give privacy without a door.

~~~
cperciva
I see that design quite often at airports too -- if you have a large volume of
traffic, doors run into collision issues.

But doors do have another purpose in addition to privacy: They contain
airflow. I suspect that where this design is used there is extra work to
ensure a persistent flow of air coming in through the entrance and then being
evacuated from within, similar to negative-pressure rooms in hospitals.

------
afhof
Marco's posts are always short, sweet, and to the point. I wonder if anyone in
a position to make these kinds of decisions will heed his advice.

~~~
jarek
No. The point has been made over and over and one more restating, however
short, sweet, and to the point, will not materially change the situation.

~~~
keithpeter
Sadly, I'm with Max Planck on this one

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new
generation grows up that is familiar with it."

------
jamesrcole
I agree with his point, but I dislike how he talks of it as _right_ versus
pragmatic. It should be _moralising_ versus pragmatic.

'Right' means 'true', and the _moralising_ stance he talks about is not the
correct way to deal with the problem. It's not 'right', it's blinkered
moralising.

Calling such things 'right' muddles the notion of truth. We don't need more of
this. Most of the people I come across seem to think there's no such thing as
truth because it's all relative, and uses of 'right' like in this article
serve to reinforce such beliefs.

~~~
zerostar07
"Right" _is_ a moral concept, not necessarily the (empirical) truth, it's the
opposite of "wrong", not of "false".

~~~
jamesrcole
He says

 _They just kept posting more signs, because they were convinced that they
were right._

They believed that the right way to solve the problem was for people to use
the bin where it was located (that is, an empirical view as to what was the
best solution, driven by a moralising attitude).

His point is that their view was incorrect - false.

------
jtchang
Get one of these: <http://toepener.com/>

Of course the people still might continue to throw paper towels on the floor.
Changing a habit is difficult.

~~~
karolist
A large bank in UK has all of it's office doors plated with metal near the
bottom, also the doors open both ways making them really suitable for kicking,
I don't know if the original intention was that.

------
ChristianMarks
Bring rubber gloves to the bathroom. I remember the graffiti written on the
seat cover dispenser in a bathroom stall at the NYNEX Science and Technology
offices. The hand-written inscription provided a helpful arrow with the legend
"ass gasket."

------
newbusox
This article seems to imply that you can never change people's behavior by law
(i.e. like posting a sign on a door saying not to throw towels on the floor)
because people will always do whatever they want. I don't think I agree with
that--I think the quesiton is to what extent are entities willing to impose
penalties and enforce the law to sufficiently change people's behavior. For
example, obviously if the company in the hypothetical hired a guy to sit in
the bathroom to make sure that people threw paper towels in the trash can and
then fired people who disobeyed, far fewer people who throw paper towels on
the floor.

So, the issue as related to piracy is not necessary that people would never
change their behavior, its just that the cost of monitoring behavior and
enforcing currently existing law/creating new law to effect such a behavioral
change ("don't pirate stuff") is extraordinarily high. Right now, the strategy
of the media industry appears to be to spend money under the presumption that
the amount of money they spend enforcing/lobbying/trying to pass laws to
prevent piracy makes economic sense: they will gain/save more money than they
spend. This seems unlikely, but probably people have punched the numbers for
these companies and concluded that this is the case. The radical alternative
approach is to completely rethink the distribution and pricing scheme, and
focus less on margins but more on quantity--distribute the content to as many
people as possible, but make fewer $/product. To impose that would require
either some fairly revolutionary thinking in companies that have repeatedly
shown a hesitancy to innovate (and would require them to abandon a strategy
now that still makes hefty profits), or to make media companies hurt to such
an extent that they have no alternative (which, right now, does not appear to
be happening).

~~~
icebraining
_Right now, the strategy of the media industry appears to be to spend money
under the presumption that the amount of money they spend
enforcing/lobbying/trying to pass laws to prevent piracy makes economic sense:
they will gain/save more money than they spend. This seems unlikely, but
probably people have punched the numbers for these companies and concluded
that this is the case._

Of course it's the case: their endgame is to get governments to criminalize
all copyright infringement and get the taxpayer to pay for all that. Of
course, the balance for society as a whole is well in the red, but why should
they care?

But the worst is not the economic costs, but the (much more important IMHO)
costs in terms of human rights, such as freedom from censorship, privacy,
access to a indispensable medium, etc.

------
maxharris
There's a third option Marco forgot. Imagine that the problem is avoided
because someone says, "it's right that we have a trash can by the door because
people don't want to touch the door knob with their bare hands," and then
follows through on that _correct_ theory by putting a garbage can there.

So I say: if your theory is correct, it'll make sense as a theory (i.e.,
integrate with the rest of your existing knowledge) AND it'll work in
practice. If what you're trying keeps failing, the solution is to go back,
check your premises, and identify what's wrong with your theory. Often people
do this automatically (and call it being "pragmatic"), but with bigger ideas,
an explicit approach is required.

To go for long without theory is to fly blind, and that's dangerous. Ideas and
theory are what allow us to fly in the first place, as well as to change
course before we hit the proverbial mountain hidden in the fog just ahead.

------
Czarnian
I'll probably lose a bunch of karma over this, but here goes.

This is my takeaway from the article:

The pragmatic approach means that the company (media companies) should
accommodate the folks who:

1) Are so emotionally damaged that they can't perform the simple act of
opening a door without making a mess (pay a couple of bucks for content that
they like.) 2) Are so ill-mannered that they have no respect for the people
they share a space with (take content without the creator's permission.) 3)
Are so poorly socialized that any attempt to correct their behavior causes
them to act out like a 5 year old by making a bigger mess (downloading even
more stuff that they don't even really want.) 4) Are so lazy that they can't
be bothered to take the simple action of taking the towel back to their desk
and putting it in their own trash can (using the distribution channels the
creator asks them to use.)

I find his argument unconvincing.

~~~
orangecat
It's understandable that you aren't happy with the state of the world and of
human nature, but that's not an argument. Believing that it is, is in fact
exactly the fallacy the article describes.

------
amanuel
This reminds me of the story of the paving the walkways story
<http://sivers.org/walkways>

~~~
bobbles
The university I used to work at had walkways with at least 5 years with of
dirt trails from being used as walkways across the grass.. When the
administration had paths built.. they built them in completely different
locations so that they matched the aesthetic of the other paths in the area
when viewed from the top of the hill.

Now they have great looking new paths (unused) AND the dirt trails across all
of the grass..

------
Hominem
One of the VPs at my current company actually won $100 in a best suggestion
contest in the office. His suggestion was "garbage cans next to the bathroom
door". That is why the man is a VP.

------
pbreit
Where I thought Marco might have been going with this is all the web designers
who try to solve their design deficiencies with help text.

------
protomyth
It is an interesting example, but I will bet that putting the trash can by the
door didn't work either. I've worked in a place with a design that has the
trash cans by the door and there is still paper on the ground. So, the next
step would be to put a camera in the bathroom and review the tape to find all
the people who didn't use the cans. Simple, quick, and only takes a couple of
minutes after the cleaning staff says there is still towels on the ground.

At some level, the people throwing stuff on the ground know that someone has
to clean it up. They probably justify it, when they think about it at all,
with some happy thought of keeping those people employed. After all, they are
probably sure that is all the maintenance worker does (never mind all the
things they need to do everyday).

Pirating content and throwing towels on the floor both come down to placing a
lack of value on the work of others and not caring about them.

~~~
ghshephard
To push the analogy to the limit - no, putting the trash can by the door
doesn't stop 100% of the people, but for the 95% of the people who just don't
want to touch the door with their hands, it does.

Likewise, making content easy to purchase won't stop 100% of the pirates who
can afford to pay for their shows, but for the 95% of us who can, and just
want to watch Game of Thrones, and are more than happy to buy it from iTunes,
it will capture our revenue.

~~~
protomyth
If I install the camera, I will catch 99.9% and know who is so unconcerned
with our maintenance workers. In a pragmatic world that is an acceptable
solution. It would probably be a good idea to find out who those people are so
you know not to trust them with doing anything that is not convenient.

~~~
skore
It may be a solution, superficially, but only to the problem that _you_ have
outlined. If you make it your goal to eliminate "all paper thrown on the
floor", why not go for 100% and get rid of the paper towels in the first
place?

The question is not how to get rid of people throwing paper on the ground, or
how to guilt the remaining careless ones into throwing theirs in the bin. The
question is actually - what is the most cost-effective solution to manage the
problem: Having to spend energy on peoples carelessness.

If putting a bin there catches 95% of the paper towels that were thrown on the
ground before, that's as perfect as you could wish it to be. Those further 5%
(or 4.99%) will cost you so much time, money and effort that once they do
achieve your goal, you will surely ask yourself whether you would have been
just as OK with 95%.

~~~
ghshephard
That's the important element in the "Moral" vs "Prgamatic" scenario - how much
are we spending in time, energy, collateral damage in trying to be "right." In
the case of the bathroom (war on drugs, anti-piracy, etc..) - not only are we
now spending money on a camera, monitoring it, following-up, firing people -
we are also invading people's privacy, impacting employee morale. Yes - it's
true, taken to the logical conclusion - all of these moral victories can be
one, should we be willing to go to extremes to demonstrate we are "right" -
but at the end of the day, what did it that moral victory end up costing us?

So - in Portgual, and British Columbia - Heroin Addiction is now treated as a
health issue. Government actually supports safe injection sites in Vancouver.
They might have lost the "Moral" victory, but drug overdoses have effectively
ceased. Giving in to all those employees in the bathroom who are lazy, might
have been ceding the moral victory, but for the price of a move of the garbage
can, the paper issue was handled.

We are, of course, actually talking about intellectual property, and the
mechanism by which the media industry can extract maximal profits, without
regard to their own moral position - iTunes Match is a nice first step -
recognize that yes, their may be some people with illegitimately acquired
content - so, give them the highest quality version of it, and charge them
$25/year for the service.

Once you realize the actual goal is not moral superiority, but the pragmatic
end-game, all sorts of opportunities open up.

------
bipolarla
In human history there are always problems. An individual or group needs to
change it only happens when they decide to. If we want to stop HIV we need to
decide if we want to make a smart choice to have safe sex. Young people want
adventure and like risks. This is why there are so many overdoses and young
people who get STD's. The smart ones decide they value life and don't drug or
do other risky behaviors. My main suggestion for change is to create an
exciting dialogue that might change the "coolness" of negative acts. Smoking
is being done less due to the real negative media ads, people knowing about
cancer deaths, and many talking about why smoking kills.

------
Miky
This article reminds me quite a bit of linguistic prescriptivism and
descriptivism.

Many people like to pretend that there's some platonic, _right_ form of
language. Splitting an infinitive is wrong, ending a clause with a preposition
is wrong, using pronouns in the accusative case as a subject (“Me and her do
this”) or a predicate nominative (“It's me”) is wrong. This attitude reflects
the same stubborn insistence on being right instead of pragmatic. The reality
is that language changes over time and is defined by usage, so Those arguing
that a common usage is incorrect are wrong by definition.

------
sek
Or when we build the next building, we make automatic doors with a corner so
you can't see anything from the outside and nobody has to touch anything.

------
petercooper
_But some of them dislike it so much that they’ll take their paper towel over
to the door, turn the knob with it, and throw it on the floor while exiting._

OK, cool post, cool story, etc. But is it merely for rhetorical effect? I've
used a lot of office and public bathrooms over the years and have never seen
paper towels scattered around the doorway.

Protip for the slovenly scatterers, though, this is what cuffs are handy for
;-)

~~~
brown9-2
Yes, I've seen similar things and almost-identical signs posted in office
bathrooms before.

------
zwischenzug
I spend a lot of my time at work telling junior designers: "That's a great
idea - let's not do it!" "Why not?" "Because no-one behaves like that" "But if
they only put the info A into the place B every time, their jobs will be much
easier" "Yes. But they won't. We have to find a way to force them (which will
annoy them), or work around it."

------
jeffool
I'm reminded of school, where the bathrooms had no doors. Yet they were
designed in a way that you walked in, around one partition to get to the sink,
and a second partition to use the bathroom. The sounds and smells of the
bathroom never seemed to be an issue there.

------
tnuc
For management to be right they should take away the paper towels and install
a hot air hand dryer.

------
zerostar07
Valid points about piracy. People use whatever way is fastest to view content,
but nobody gets paid that way. How about selling virtual "tickets" that allow
you to download the movie from wherever you want as long as you have bought
the ticket?

------
Jarred
The door should have metallic arm-slots where people can push the door open
using just their arms. People usually don't pee/poop on their arms, so it'd be
and appear clean, while removing the need to use paper towels to open the
door.

------
superkinz
This argument goes equally well for the war on drugs. Possibly even
immigration.

------
vibrunazo
I'd rather have people understand there's no simplistic black or white right
vs wrong. But only each ones personal interests. Than to come up with
subjective excuses of why we shouldn't try to do the "right".

Piracy isn't "wrong", it's in the best interest of some and not of others. The
most healthy attitude, imo, is to objectively measure the pros vs cons and
only then judge what should you do. Almost any decision you ever take will
favor someone and not others. What we cannot let happen is let those of
opposite interest convince us that our interest is "wrong", ignoring one of
the sides of the issue.

Intellectual monopoly privileges might be in the interest of a few select
copyright holders. But maybe not in the best interest of users. No side is
right our wrong, but just have different interests.

------
drawkbox
I like the final line of the article. It is really basics, if you are making a
product tailor it to the way the customer demands it. Path of least
resistance, if there is an easier way it will be the way.

------
djrconcepts
Ya know, the bathroom door swing problem has to do with the swing direction of
the door + no one wants to touch a door knob.

If the door gets replaced with one that swings in both directions by push...
problem solved.

------
twfarland
This is related to the concept of 'desire lines' used by architects.

------
hdalskfhkjlad
the problem starts when you want to sell the same show in us, UK and Thailand.
in uk it would cost twice as much then us and ten times as much then Thailand,
why? because people can pay more, and the industry wants to squeeze as much as
they can.

if they get rigid price, then in Tainan people may need a month pay for an
episodes, and or the opposite, huge losses in uk.

solve that, and you got the piracy problem solved.

------
SG90
It is totally correct that condescending people, more often than not tends to
have a negative effect, but what about those people who do not care if their
paper towel falls in the dustbin or outside it?

A lot of people are out there who do the wrong thing, just for the kick of it,
what can be done to influence such people. Same is the case with piracy, a lot
of people share content because they get a feeling that by doing this they are
getting back at the world

------
chj
All these is in our gene, called Selfish.

------
paulovsk
Really nice piece.

------
rasper
The article assumes it is wrong for the restroom user to discard his paper
towel onto the floor. But why? A complete moral analysis would take into
account the fact that he is a valuable employee and he doesn't want to pick up
germs and thereby risk becoming ill.

Just because his action imposes a small cost on somebody else _who is payed to
tidy up_ that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

(Besides, picking up the towels takes a few seconds. Not much more time than
picking up _one_ towel, and far less time than cleaning the rest of the
restroom.)

It's a false christian morality which says that actions taken on behalf of
oneself are always wrong and that actions taken on behalf of others are always
right. There's a right use for a paper towel and there are right uses for
various people's time. Morality _is_ practical.

~~~
ok_craig
This really doesn't seem like he was saying at all. If you read the article,
he actually doesn't have a problem with people throwing things on the ground,
and is quite antagonistic towards the posted messages telling people to do
otherwise. The only thing the article assumes is that it is desirable to have
a bathroom that isn't persistently littered with paper towel on the floor. Is
that something you disagree with?

The solution provided was to adapt to what users were already doing,
suggesting that the management, who implied the action of discarding paper
towels on the ground was bad, was wrong, and that it was the management which
had to change. He was not suggesting that the behavior of the paper towel
litter-ers had to change.

Especially the part about "false christian morality" is kind of weird. It's
like you scanned through until you found one thing you think some philosophy
you have applies to, so that you can comment on it, but you didn't understand
or follow through with the rest of the article.

~~~
rasper
He thinks that throwing the towels on the floor is OK and that better still
would be to install a new waste bin by the door. I agree with him. But he
wants to reject moral language and label his approach 'pragmatic'.

In reality he merely has a different opinion as to what is right in the first
place.

My concern is that if people do what they judge to be right but call it
'wrong' or 'pragmatic' or whatever then this can cause harmful confusion and
guilt. And I think that the idea that 'Selfish == wrong; selfless == right' is
the hangover of a puritanical strain of Christian thinking.

------
icebraining

        The single least-attractive attribute of many of the people
        who download content illegally is their smug sense of entitlement. …
    
        The world does not OWE you Season 1 of “Game Of Thrones” in
        the form you want it at the moment you want it at the price you
        want to pay for it. If it’s not available under 100% your terms, you
        have the free-and-clear option of not having it.
    

This isn't any kind of counterargument. No, the world doesn't owe me¹ that,
but I'm not forcibly taking it either.People are _voluntarily_ sharing it with
me. So what I'm owed is irrelevant. YCombinator doesn't owe me access to HN
either, but I'm not a bad person for using it if they're offering it to me.

¹ completely hypothetically and for the sake of argument. For all you know I'm
just playing devil's advocate, so let's keep the personal attacks to a
minimum, please.

EDIT: fixed typo.

~~~
avree
Are you typing "own" instead of "owe"? Why?

Also—"people offering" you something doesn't mean it wasn't "forcibly taken."

All pirated material, movies, etc _are_ forcibly taken by _someone_. They're
ripped from DVDs, captured from telecasts, etc. Just because they're offering
it to you doesn't mean that it's free.

If I steal something from a store and then give it to you, the item's still
stolen.

~~~
icebraining
_Are you typing "own" instead of "owe"? Why?_

Typo, sorry.

 _Also—"people offering" you something doesn't mean it wasn't "forcibly
taken."

All pirated material, movies, etc are forcibly taken by someone. They're
ripped from DVDs, captured from telecasts, etc. Just because they're offering
it to you doesn't mean that it's free._

They did not forcibly took it: they _bought_ the DVD, Blueray and/or access to
the telecast. It's theirs.

 _If I steal something from a store and then give it to you, the item's still
stolen._

Yes, but it's not what's happening here, so that's irrelevant.

~~~
robryan
What if the DVD they brought comes with terms preventing them from
distributing it?

~~~
icebraining
Just like where I live a term saying I waive my right to a warranty is
considered abusive and void, so would be such terms, in my opinion, even if
legally valid.

What's next, the guy who sold me my house deciding who can I invite to it?

~~~
jiggy2011
You might buy a physical item (say a DVD) from a shop but the contents of the
DVD are separately licensed. Obviously this a somewhat convoluted arrangement.

The economic difference is that when you buy something like say a car the
person selling it will price it roughly as cost for them to acquire/make + tax
+ profit margin.

If you wanted to actually _buy_ a piece of music the price that you paid would
have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+
for a CD.

Of course then you would be free to do what you wanted with it, such as put it
on the Internet for free download but pretty quickly you'd realise you were
getting a bum deal so would want to at least get some of the money you paid
for it back from other people who were enjoying it.

~~~
icebraining
_If you wanted to actually buy a piece of music the price that you paid would
have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+
for a CD._

Nope. I don't have to pay for the costs of the whole R&D required to create my
car either - millions, no doubt - just for the costs to produce _that
particular copy_ , plus a small profit that will obviously pay for a very
small slice of the real cost of producing the car.

Same with that piece of music.

~~~
jiggy2011
Most of the R&D in your car will be protected by some sort of IP such as
patents.

If you produced a perfect 1:1 copy of your car and posted schematics etc
online showing others how to do so also; you could expect to get sued by the
manufacturer.

It's just that car manufacturers are lucky in the sense that almost nobody has
the resources and skills to economically produce a car, anyone with a computer
has the facilities to reproduce a digital recording at close to zero cost.

If people do this, how do you propose the R&D to produce the music etc is
funded in the first place?

~~~
icebraining
_If people do this, how do you propose the R &D to produce the music etc is
funded in the first place?_

By people buying and going to shows. The meme that file sharers don't pay is
false¹.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-
pira...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-
more-music)

They just pay for different reasons (helping the artist, financing new works,
etc), not as a moral imperative for getting the content.

The argument that more file sharing leads to less works is also far from
proven:

    
    
        Data on the supply of new works are consistent with our argument
        that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. The
        publication of new books rose by 66% over the 2002-2007 period.
        Since 2000, the annual release of new music albums has more than
        doubled, and worldwide feature film production is up by more than
        30% since 2003. At the same time, empirical research in file sharing
        documents that consumer welfare increased substantially due to the
        new technology.
    
        (...)
    
        The decline in music sales -- they fell by 15% from 1997 to 2007 -- is
        the focus of much discussion. However, adding in concerts alone shows
        the industry has grown by 5% over this period.
    

There are also the consecutive MPAA _record_ profits:
[http://www.zeropaid.com/news/92692/piracy-who-mpaa-
celebrate...](http://www.zeropaid.com/news/92692/piracy-who-mpaa-
celebrates-5th-consecutive-year-of-record-profits/)

¹ There are certainly those who don't, but then you have to discount all of
those who wouldn't have anyway - "going without" may make one feel good, but
does absolutely _nothing_ to benefit the artist.

~~~
jiggy2011
The problem with that study IIRC is that it doesn't separate illegal downloads
from legal free downloads. Also it doesn't take revenue into account, if you
get 1 track off itunes and then pirate 10 how can you know how many tracks you
would have purchased had piracy not been an option?

There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work in
all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the other
side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country. The
other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well to
live performances.

I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end
users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy
over the long term. I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10
for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially
thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set
by the original rights holder.

~~~
icebraining
_Also it doesn't take revenue into account, if you get 1 track off itunes and
then pirate 10 how can you know how many tracks you would have purchased had
piracy not been an option?_

Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new
works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or
not.

 _There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work
in all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the
other side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country._

Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't
support legal coercion.

 _The other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well
to live performances._

Can you give me some examples?

 _I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end
users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy
over the long term. I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10
for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially
thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set
by the original rights holder._

I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others
from copying whatever they want.

~~~
jiggy2011
_Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new
works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or
not._

That's the issue, how do we know how much is required to create new works?
perhaps more money would also create better new works? I would also assume
that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something popular with a younger more
tech savvy audience would be more likely to be pirated (I assume at least).

 _Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't
support legal coercion._

We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor
contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this
should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement
otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system. Very few other
industries can exist purely on what would essentially be donations so not sure
why IP should be different.

 _Can you give me some examples?_

Sure , Movies (although I suppose you could count cinema as performance) ,
video games and pretty much all software. There's also a lot of musicians that
I enjoy but have no real desire to see live (mostly electronic stuff).

 _I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others
from copying whatever they want._

A counter question to this; If you create a piece of IP then what additional
rights should you have over everyone else? Should somebody else be able to use
it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps
misrepresenting your views in the process?

Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work? For example say you
write and record a song and a large company with more resources than you
decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it and they make
serious money doing this do they owe you anything?

Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially
what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?

~~~
icebraining
_That's the issue, how do we know how much is required to create new works?_

If new works are still being produced - and right now, they're being produced
more than ever - we know there is enough.

 _perhaps more money would also create better new works?_

Define "better work".

 _I would also assume that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something
popular with a younger more tech savvy audience would be more likely to be
pirated (I assume at least)._

Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant.

 _We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor
contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this
should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement
otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system._

And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for
example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant
community of creation.

Legal coercion should be reserved to when it's actually necessary. I'm not
convinced it is in this case.

 _Very few other industries can exist purely on what would essentially be
donations so not sure why IP should be different._

(I don't like the term IP. I'm talking about copyright.)

Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music,
movies, software, etc creation _is_ different from most other industries for
that fact alone.

 _A counter question to this; If you create a piece of IP then what additional
rights should you have over everyone else? Should somebody else be able to use
it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps
misrepresenting your views in the process?_

Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I
don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting _my_ views, then they're
defaming me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that.

 _Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work?_

No, because that would be fraud. Again, you don't need copyright, just basic
consumer protection.

 _For example say you write and record a song and a large company with more
resources than you decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it
and they make serious money doing this do they owe you anything?_

Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the
_artistic_ quality of that work.

 _Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially
what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?_

No, why should I?

~~~
jiggy2011
_If new works are still being produced - and right now, they're being produced
more than ever - we know there is enough._

This I would think is partly due to having some copyright protection for their
works.

* Define "better work". *

I don't think there's a universal definition, but higher budget works or just
more lower budget works that might appeal to different people.

 _Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant._

it's relevant because piracy of certain works more than others will mean that
stuff that gets highly pirated becomes less lucrative to produce. Think PC
gaming as an example of this.

 _And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for
example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant
community of creation._

Fashion relies on trademarks to protect labels, also having an expensive
fashion item is a way to visibly display wealth as much as anything else,
movies and music don't really work like this.

 _Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music,
movies, software, etc creation is different from most other industries for
that fact alone._

Marginal costs are low but the up front costs can be very high , this needs to
be recouped somehow.

 _Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I
don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting my views, then they're defaming
me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that._

I don't like censorship either but if I say wrote a song that was adapted and
used as an anthem for a racist group I wouldn't be pleased with that.

They don't have to misrepresent your views directly but they can make you seem
guilty by association and it is hard to get damages for that.

 _Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the
artistic quality of that work._

Or simply a larger marketing budget gets it out in front of more people, not
necessarily a bad thing but surely it seems reasonable that the original
author can dictate at least some terms of use?

 _No, why should I?_

Because it encourages parasitic business models , the guy who created the work
has created more value than the guy who put adverts around it but the economic
incentive is to be the latter.

