

Ask HN: If SOPA isn't the answer, how do you eliminate online piracy? - DilipJ

I know most on HN are opposed to SOPA. I am not familiar enough with the bill to know the full implications if it becomes law. But doesn't everyone agree that there needs to be some law passed to protect the works of media creators? If SOPA isn't the answer, is PIPA the solution?<p>How would you design a bill to fight against online piracy?
======
noonespecial
You don't fight piracy with laws. You fight piracy with _products_.

Most piracy is more about convenience than price. Thousands of smarter people
than me have written reams about this. Its like fighting obesity. You don't
just take a drug and get a quick fix, it takes a different mindset that causes
the patient to live a different kind of life.

~~~
DilipJ
Convenience doesn't justify anything. It is more convenient for me to take a
newspaper off my neighbor's lawn than it would be to contact the newspaper
company and order a subscription, but that doesn't mean it's ok.

~~~
malandrew
That's theft not piracy. The marginal cost of production of that newspaper is
non-zero. The marginal cost of production for information goods is zero.

~~~
DilipJ
Marginal cost shouldn't matter. What matters is consent. If the content
creator does not consent for someone to enjoy his/her work without some level
of compensation, then it is up to the customer to decide whether or not to
purchase the work at the set price.

If the customer decides not to purchase it at that price, then his recourse
his to purchase either a competing product or wait for the price to come down,
not to steal it.

~~~
malandrew
Good thing there was no concept of intellectual properties rights when fire
was discovered or the wheel invented.

You are aware that the concept of intellectual property rights didn't even
begin with the concept of a creator having monopoly rights over their
creations. Instead the concept of government granted monopolies begun during
the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1 with the East India Company came first. It
wasn't until later that the concept of government granted monopolies was
applied to intellectual goods. However, when the concept of government granted
monopolies were applied to intellectual goods it was done so with the
intention of maximizing the benefit of society by providing _only_ enough
incentive to encourage innovation not profits. Intellectual properties rights
today have become completely divorced from their original intention of
maximizing the commons due to the selfish pursuits of individuals and
companies that have distorted the laws. Most of these distortions of the law
weren't even introduced by those actually doing the inventing, but by heirs
and assigns trying to establish and safeguard a constant source of revenue.
That constant source of revenue has permitted many people to sit on their
laurels instead of innovating.

Intellectual Property rights have been completely distorted from their
original intent of encouraging innovation and maximizing benefit for society.
Let me tell you who doesn't innovate: heirs and assigns. If anything,
intellectual property rights have enabled a lot of people to make a living by
not innovating.

~~~
DilipJ
i agree that heirs don't innovate. But copyright laws expire after a certain
number of years after the creator's death, at which point they enter the
public domain.

My question to you is, for material that is not in the public domain, do you
believe that the innovator has a right to determine at what price they should
sell their product at? And if not, is that not dissuading innovation?

And the 64 million dollar question, if they have a right to sell their product
without digital infringement, how can you prevent this, without some bill law
SOPA or PIPA?

~~~
noonespecial
_But copyright laws expire after a certain number of years after the creator's
death_

I'd argue that this(1) is(2) not(3) true(4).

(1) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1831>

(2) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909>

(3) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976>

(4) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act>

------
armaanahluwalia
Let's all be clear here. SOPA is less about piracy and more about censorship.

The internet has evolved into becoming our only defense against people in
power ( be they governments or corporations ) conspiring to keep the status
quo by keeping information from us. SOPA is their attempt at confiscating this
wonderful tool we have for organisation and spreading information.

This discussion is part of a larger debate as to the balancing act of
affording unchecked power to a selected group of people. Keep in mind, the
ideal of democracy allowing the replacement of these powers DOES NOT WORK in
real life. THIS is the real root of the problem. This entire debate reminds me
of the Lokpal bill debate going on in India. Essentially asking – How do you
police the police?

~~~
DilipJ
That's just conspiracy talk. So the same U.S. government that created the
internet, and opened it up to the public, is now trying to censor it? I think
the politicians are acting honestly and with good intent: their goal is to
prevent this tool for communication for being used for criminal purposes, and
yes, digital piracy is a crime.

~~~
armaanahluwalia
The government doesn't act as a collective unit. It is made up of individual
actors, however, it is entirely possible that by making decisions with the
best of intentions, they end up gifting certain elements a magic wand to
censor any and all activity that may threaten their power.

It's true, you wouldn't call the guys who created the atomic bomb mass
murderers, however that doesn't change the disastrous consequences of their
actions!

------
clueless
How do you stop drug trade? How do you stop illegal activities in general. I'm
not sure you can ever eliminate these. Most you can do is to curb them.

In the case of online piracy, as some have already said, part of the issue is
convenience. But that is only a part of the issue (and this where netflixes,
spotifies, and steams of the world come in). But you will never be able to
stop people who rather pirate (either for financial reasons, symbolic reasons,
etc.).

Now the question is, are you willing to give power to people who may abuse it
to stop something that may be unstoppable or would you rather work on other
means of curbing the issue.

------
rythie
You can't eliminate it completely, though companies like Nike, Apple and
Microsoft are able to continue being profitable despite widespread pirating of
their goods. In part the problem is that piracy is easier than current methods
of getting content and partly that businesses haven't adapted to the new
business models needed.

~~~
DilipJ
They are still profitable, but obviously they would more profitable without
piracy. That is a point that needs to be considered. No one can just suddenly
state that one company has too much profit. Just because media companies are
profitable doesn't excuse pirating of their products

~~~
rythie
Don't make the mistake of assuming that pirating users would pay for something
they currently value as zero. Also there is a trial effect where people pirate
software like Photoshop at home, learn how to use it and later on get
employers to by it for them when they are employed.

~~~
DilipJ
but they don't value it at zero. if they did they wouldn't pirate it in the
first place. pirating takes time (which is valuable) and storage on a hard
disk, which has a cost. so any pirater is valuing it on some level. as for the
photoshop example, again you are attempting to rationalize a crime. Companies
already provide subsidized software for students so that they can gain
familiarity with it prior to entering the workforce

~~~
rythie
Yes it's already a crime and personally I wish people would just use gimp
which is free. People behave in a certain way and changes to law won't really
change that - given that these activities are already against the law.

------
Avenger42
Actually, I don't agree - to my mind, the DMCA (as much as I disagree with
most of it) already provides a mechanism for the situation to be handled: if
we find our content on your site, we send you a notice; to be eligible for
"safe harbor" status, the site must take the content down.

We've already seen that this law is often misused by large-scale content
creators (see: Warner and Hotfile, various music labels issuing takedowns on
files uploaded by their own artists). I don't know why I should expect that
giving additional power to those most likely to misuse it is a good idea.

