In my views, it's mostly about balance rather than picking between divergent choices. Who says one can't be a firm leader also capable of soliciting and respecting the opinions of others?
The NY Giants won the SuperBowl as you note, with a famously dictatorial top-down coach [Tom Coughlin]; the NY Jets didn't even make the playoffs with a very horizontal come-as-you-are coach [Rex Ryan].
Interestingly, Coughlin didn't win any SuperBowls - he now has two - until he learned to loosen up. And by all appearances, the NY Jets won't win one until Ryan learn to tighten up.
Apologies for all the football references:) But I suspect Mr. Spolsky would understand very well.
I disagree that one cannot distinguish between the likely ethics of a bootstrap or VC-funded startup. Logically, when a business has its own customers as the only means of support, there is a greater symbiotic relationship - sustained by age-old notions of fair exchange. I work hard to give my customer what they need so that they continue to sustain my business. A big side effect is ethical behavior.
The entities most capable of unfair or exploitative behavior are those who no longer need value that relationship to their customer. Yes, in one case this applies to companies close to failure - no matter their funding source. But as noted elsewhere, the acceptance of investor money adds many layers and new definitions to what 'failure' is.
Failure is no longer just 'going out of business' - it morphs to mean things like not having hit a number, not having made money fast enough, being pushed out of a job because people have lost faith in you, etc. The options for failure proliferate in an investor-funded corporation.
It's that same irony when a Fortune 500 firm makes a nice profit but the stock tanks because they didn't make as much as someone thought they should. Profit = success in the natural world; but somehow it gets turned around to equal failure - oftentimes costing real people their real jobs and costing companies real value of their shares that they could use to conduct real business.
So, as investor-funded companies are allowed only a small number of ways to define success, they are always closer to failure, and are forever more aware of the benefits of unethical behavior - especially when that behavior is so well-shielded by the corporate veil.
Actual success rates aren't that important - I think the point can be examined more clearly simply by considering things in their true light: there is a big difference between having money you've got and having money someone has lent you. They may both be money, but one is a credit and one is a debt.
Practically, this is the difference between buying a house with cash or buying it with a mortgage. And that's part of DHH's point - the homeowner who buys their house with a mortgage they can pay only if everything goes right is hardly and barely the owner of their house or destiny.
I'd also add that the successful moon-shot companies don't justify the business model in-and-of-themselves either. An overnight success, beholden to investors with short time frames, that gets pushed to an IPO and into the arms of shareholders with an even shorter timeframe . . . not an attractive recipe in my opinion. Companies built slowly, organically, and personally are capable of more longer-term thinking and risk-taking then entities that more resemble a joint-venture between investors and contract workers glued together mostly by their dream of mutual exits. If everyone is thinking of how they are going to leave, the bonds are by definition very weak.
This is not an indictment of VCs per se - moreso of the short-term pressures that dominate when money is at stake and opportunity costs are forever pressing on the gas pedal.
Sorry, but this post is based on a false notion that intellectual property is a beneficial crutch propping up only corporations and piggybacks on the idea that destruction of entrenched interests is always regenerative. That second point is likely so - but the battle isn't about finding new corporate captains to pay creative individuals - it's about how not to pay creative individuals.
I find the irony very sad that we are supposed to move from an industrial to a post-industrial knowledge-based economy - one presumably underpinned by the ability and right of individuals to monetize their knowledge . . . but people have had their free lunch and prefer it instead, perhaps as some salve.
I've said it 1000 times - if you don't like how corporations conduct their business, set something up yourself and if you have a better solution, you'll eventually find yourself a real market. The willy-nilly urge to destroy intellectual property rights for individuals and corporations alike is nothing more than a selfish catharsis - without any sense - neither common-sense, nor business-sense, nor a sense of history. When you take power away, it hurts the weakest first and the strongest last - all the while preserving the existing power structure. That's not a smart solution for anything.
When corporations conduct their business by lobbying for their business model to be legally protected, trying to compete with them in the market is bringing a knife to a gunfight.
But in my conception of copyright reform there is a separation of copyright ownership law vs. legal protection of instances of when that copyright is monetized. The weakness in current copyright law isn't that it exists at all, it's that rights that properly benefit the individual transfer wholesale to the entity able to bring the idea to market. This needn't be the case. And a fix has beautiful consequences that align well with the major needs of the players involved. Though it would take agreement between both public, corporations, and government alike, the prime mover for such a parallel opt-in copyright system would be the individual themselves - which means such a system is both incremental and possible.
Enough with the cowardly and anonymous down-votes. If you've something wrong with what I've written, presumably you have a point to make of your own. Otherwise you are just confirming my point that people don't like any ripple in the construction of their own reality.
I suspect that people view your sentiment as sufficiently--forgive me--old-fashioned and out of touch as to be not worth redressing seriously. (Though to be fair, I don't really like HN's downvote culture either. I didn't downvote you.)
The main reason I'm posting is to direct you to some irony in your phrase "people don't like any ripple in the construction of their own reality." While it might apply to silent downvoters, it also applies to people who haven't realized the futility and cost of holding onto copyright as a legal concept.
I appreciate your sentiments - I really do. From my perspective, the inability of people to involve themselves in discussion both prevents them knowing me and also finding a better solution. My views on copyright are far more nuanced and forward-thinking than the rants against copyright that fill 20% of HN on any given day.
Hum. Well, now I'm on the downvote train. So it goes. Perhaps people view my post as sufficiently idealistic and radical as to be not worth serious redress. ;)
You're saying that we should play by the rules. Part of the game, though, is that we can change the rules.
Intellectual property is more or less dead. This is not a willy-nilly urge, nor a selfish catharsis. It's the outcome of a generation growing up with instant access to their culture, and once such freedom is granted it is not easily revoked.
Go ahead - look through all my comments I've written on IP. When you know what I am saying, you'll know I am not saying one should play by the rules - I never have in my life, that's for sure.
And yes - the current urge is selfish - as you point out it grows out of having taken a freedom - not having worked to be 'granted' anything - and then had that freedom 'revoked'.
There is always a greater good. I am 100% for us building one that benefits us as individuals rather than corporate entities. But the desire to wipe out IP does nothing to put economic power into the hands of creative individuals - what it empowers by a much greater factor is consumption. Last I checked we had enough of that as it was - and this is empty-calorie consumption that flows upward to the new corporate entities that can withstand the pennies to be made on it. It will never devolve power to the individual level.
A better system of IP exists - I have several detailed ideas of how it would function - and it basically revolves around treating the work of corporations differently from that of the individuals - separating ownership and monetization. A system built like this could work as an opt-in model to gradually replace current copyright - but it NEVER will without consumers playing by the much fairer rules. Yes - there are still rules - no system works without them.
If one can't meet the most basic burden of civil society by playing a game, however new, by mutually accepted rules, then there is no recourse - is there? And one can't, won't and shouldn't be taken seriously as a partner for change.
>And yes - the current urge is selfish - as you point out it grows out of having taken a freedom - not having worked to be 'granted' anything - and then had that freedom 'revoked'.
I suppose that is accurate as far as it goes, but labeling that "selfish" seems to be a point of view connotation rather than a necessary one. That is to say, whether or not a thing is a right or an overzealous demand is in the eye of the beholder.
And I unequivocally support the right of people to their culture, and I'm part of a world where that culture is increasingly free.
>But the desire to wipe out IP does nothing to put economic power into the hands of creative individuals
_Exactly._ It removes economic concern from the art. No more rock stars selected and groomed by the establishment; instead hard-working touring musicians.
The fear that seems to drive any continuation of copyright seems to be that artists will stop making art. The fear that seems to drive patents is similar; that our engineers will stop building things.
You can never stop humans from constructing beautiful things! It's in our nature!
I as an artist and an engineer _don't want my output to be property._
In my eyes, your take on things is very far from the live-and-let-live stance that you appear to want to adopt. It's more like social engineering.
You continue to be free to do your art for free and without concern for profit; in no way does someone else doing their art for profit affect your ability to make your choice. So what gives you the right to champion something that 'removes economic concern from the art'? How does your desire not to have your output be property - totally your choice - square with your desire to deny choice to others?
Another point oft-heard is that 'people won't stop making art' - which is a selfish, parasitic argument if I have every heard one. For years I worked producing independent musicians - you might not pay for art that you experience, but I assure you someone does - there is no free lunch.
I have seen indie musicians burn tens of thousands trying to monetize their art; have seen marriages and relationships end - and careers end. My point here isn't about piracy - a much more important point is for consumers to respect the work that goes into the content they consume. The art you consume 'freely' may appeal to your idealistic side, as though you are removing commerce from art - but all you are actually doing is turning a blind eye to the cost. There is always someone paying a price so that you might have it for 'free'.
Once upon a time, people grew their own foods, hunted them - people worked with their hands -people had an intrinsic sense of the burden of production. I think one bad side-effect of the internet is that it has removed people so far from the means of production that they are incapable of appreciating the work that goes into what appears in front of them.
I am not trying to be too pejorative, but it really is like a child who is used to just stating their urge - whether for food, drink, or sleep - and having a benevolent force [parents] provide those things on-demand.
We have fair-trade products from a to z and yet the work of artists isn't worth .01. Really??
>In my eyes, your take on things is very far from the live-and-let-live stance that you appear to want to adopt.
That's because I want to kill. I want to throw away copyright, I want those musicians that sign up to work with greedy suits--not to cast aspersion on your (former?) line of work which seems to be good-faith and productive--to have to find other ways to express themselves, I want the systems that were _once_ our best effort at promoting artistic expression to die.
I want these things dead because after they're dead the absurd but somehow sometimes true accusations of "selling out" won't have any weight.
I _actually don't care_ that people will lose jobs because copyright is dead.
>I think one bad side-effect of the internet is that it has removed people so far from the means of production that they are incapable of appreciating the work that goes into what appears in front of them.
I think this is the most insightful sentence of your post. It attacks the central barrier to removing copyright with a few swift words.
Thus I think it important to describe the manner in which I find that it misses the mark. The Internet is bringing people into contact with the arts of gardening, cooking, woodworking, electronics as never before.
Absurdly the disconnect between production of food and appreciation for food has grown _so large_ that food production is looked at as an art--that is, just another mode of human expression!
And I couldn't be happier about that. Appreciation of art is the act of appreciating the work that goes into it.
---
The problem, of course, is that our economic woes _far_ overshadow our cultural ones. You speak from the side of "There is no free lunch," and we may well be on a course where that is alarmingly and devastatingly true. If the Euro collapses, if America can't afford to keep its carrier fleet's Pax Americana running, it may turn out that the debate over copyright was not important at all.
IP is a huge game, but culture is a tiny speck on the landscape of it. Try selling Äpple computers or Nyke shoes on the street of any Western-ish country, and don't even get me started on patents.
Ten years as a period for copyright? How about you go first.
Since the tech industry understands copyright so much better than everyone else it might be good for them to set an example and show all the 'old' dodo-like industries how it's done.
After ten years all code should be made open-source. Google has made plenty of money - and I think it's time that they release their algorithm so other innovative and disruptive companies can make better use of it. I mean, how many Google bikes can one ride behind?
Fogcreek has had a nice run too - surely some open-sourced FogBugz would be of great value in second and third world countries that have emergent tech sectors but can't possibly afford the cost of the real service? Certainly, even 10-year-old Fogbugz is going to help society a lot more than license-free copies of My Big Fat Greek Wedding [2002] or Stuart Little 2 [2002].
Anyway, since many of these places exchange rates means they could never purchase software in the first place, it's not like there would be any lost sales, right?
Oh another thing: very important:: a short term of copyright like a few years would be the biggest boon to Hollywood ever as they could simply sit and wait for works to drop into the public domain before turning around and producing them without paying the creators a penny. There would be tons of creators strung along via a studio option - just long enough till the work dropped into the public domain. It would harder than ever for individuals to profit from their creative work and easier than ever for Hollywood to make money off of it.
So - sorry to say - I'm a bit disappointed! But that's just my fault - assuming that people who knew so well the cure for the ills of the content industry would actually have an idea about how that world works. My bad.
You are conflating Google's code ten years ago with Google's current codebase.
I think releasing 2002's Google open source would be far less revolutionary than you think. 2002 was, like, really long ago.
C++? C++ was still largely pre-Standard in practice. GCC 3.x (which was the first release line with good C++98 support) was still in its infancy, and most universities still had GCC 2.95 installed until 2004 or 2005. Java? Java 1.4 wasn't released until February 2002. Do you remember Java from those days? Casts. Two, three, four casts per line. Generics wouldn't be introduced until late 2004, at which point Java would become usable. Python 2.2 was all the rage in 2002. I don't know about you, but I cry every time I have to write a Python script which works with 2.4 because of a busted old server. Decorators weren't even a glint in Guido's eye back then. Source control meant CVS. CVS.
How about the Web? Well, IE6 was the new thing back in 2002, so there's that. Phoenix -- later renamed Firebird, later renamed Firefox -- was released late in 2002. Opera's leading feature was that it would reload your old tabs if you restarted it, which was great because it crashed every 15 minutes. Ajax was used by, like, two sites. Webmail meant Yahoo!. MySpace didn't even exist in 2002, let alone Facebook. People still used ICQ, although AIM was still more popular. KaZaA was still spelled with random capital letters in 2002, and people still used it. "Warcraft" meant the hot new game, Warcraft III.
Ten years is a really long time in internet time. I don't think Google or Fogcreek would be hurt in the least by releasing their 10-year-old codebases, because their 10-year-old codebases are damn near useless by modern standards.
Just to explain my downvote: you're arguing that, when locked into thermonuclear war, one side should just unilaterally disarm. You obviously know this is absurd. Unless all parties agree to a compromise (or they are forced to by higher authorities), the first mover will always be a loser.
Oh, and the 10-years copyright is extreme, of course, but current rules are also extreme and need to go. That is Joel's point: in order to get a sane compromise, we must ask for an insane target.
It's funny, I never down-vote people even when I don't agree with them. But that's just me - I am anti-censorship.
Though, I do thank you for taking the time to make an argument - I get down-votes for almost every unpopular viewpoint I take here on HN; 90% of the time the down votes are anonymous.
In order to get a sane compromise one first has to appear credible. The pro-copyright folks have no legitimacy around here because they demonstrably don't understand how the tech world works; clearly that disconnect extends to both sides.
Just out of curiosity, do you work in the tech industry? I notice that 90% of your posts have to do with copyright, usually from a perspective that is very corporation-sympathetic.
Anyhow, to address your point: I would argue that the computer software field is light years ahead of any other enterprise in human history, in terms of free, open, and shared contributions toward the betterment of mankind. That's not to say that we're without flaws or total fuckups, but a lot of us have been practicing what we've been preaching for decades. Would you disagree? Given that the music and movie industries still operate like it's 1930, what's to say they would follow suit if we "went first"? Because I would argue that we already did, 30 years ago.
I'm a new arrival in the tech industry; used to work in the content industry. I have NO love for corporations - none at all - it's just that I have really gotten to know the people on both sides and find it frustrating that the fight ends up being about which sides corporations can win - not how we can all win. I might add, as an aside, that we've seen with Google's recent turn that no corporation can be trusted to 'not be evil'.
I would certainly agree that the people that make up the content side of the tech industry - programmers, devs, designers, etc . - really do take open and shared contribution seriously, to an impressive extent.
But that's true in Hollywood too - forget about the business structure - the real work happens across thousands of small disparate shops with groups of people working together on the things they love. This is true from development all the way to post-production. It's an open and creative environment.
I do see a clear way that copyright can be reformed to create a win-win scenario. It's a lengthy idea and if I can find the time to put it on paper, I'll happily post it here.
Fine, the copyright protection for Google's algorithm has evaporated. Where do you plan on getting a copy of it? And even if you did somehow acquire it, how do you plan on using it without violating Google's trade secret protection on it?
There are existing legal frameworks in place (trade secret, trademark, service marks, etc.) that complement copyright and would enable software (and movies!) to remain viable enterprises even with drastically shorter copyright terms (or no copyright at all.)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If my business and my copyright are the same thing, why should I be forced to 'open-source' my business after ten years?
Neither trade secret nor trademark nor service marks protect my creative work; only copyright. But my copyright is my business just as the source code is the foundation of Joel's business. So what Joel thinks is good for my business is surely acceptable for his own.
If anti-copyright folks are as concerned as they claim to be about adding value back into society - and as quickly as possible at that - it makes overwhelming sense that valuable services such as software should be scrutinized first, before mere entertainment. We should obviously be talking about limiting a term on trade secrets - not just copyright - people will still have trademarks and service marks to defend their reputation and authenticity.
>We should obviously be talking about limiting a term on trade secrets
That doesn't make any sense. Copyrights and trade secrets are two very different creatures. In order to benefit from a copyrighted work, the creator has to show the work, but this is not the case with trade secrets.
I honestly don't understand how one could even begin to compare the two. Copyrights and patents have to be revealed specifically in order to be granted protection, and you are certainly within your rights to keep your patented creations and copyrighted works to yourself.
The limiting of copyright and patent is supported by advocates of such limitations on the basis of benefits from the work accruing in a more fair balance between the individual and society. It is stated on this thread and many others that it is society that chooses to allow patent and copyright to exist exactly in order to bring forth the work of individuals. The good of society is placed above that of the creator of the work.
If one likes that idea, it works even better in the case of 'trade secrets'. Abolishing trade secrets and instead substituting a time limit like that of a patent would REALLY let those benefits flow to society at large. We force pharmaceutical firms to come up with new ideas every patent cycle; why should software - after all, it's 'eating the world' and is a highly-maleable product - be exempt from that process of creative renewal?
Case in point: Microsoft used it's dominance gained from Windows to directly stifle competition, to the point where the law had to get involved.
Google was a disruptive force initially, but now they have begun to tweak their algorithm to fortify the walled-garden they wish to build - while also using the Microsoft model of buying up potentially disruptive companies.
> After ten years all code should be made open-source.
Long digression. Which may not even be totally true, but close enough to make the point.
This isn't actually that far from the original intention of patents. It used to be that things were kept as trade secrets and hence lost to the ages, which is why no one knows how to make Damascus steel anymore. On the other hand, if someone leaked your trade secret, you could sue them for breach of contract or something, but once the secret itself was out, it was just free speech and free enterprise for people who didn't sign an NDA with you to go ahead and use it. So trade secrets were both ineffective for the secret-holder (unless they kept them very, very well) and bad for society as a whole (since none of us could use any of the secrets that didn't leak out.)
So the patent was invented. Now you had a choice: either your trade secret could remain secret or it could become a patent. If you patented, for instance, your revolutionary manufacturing process for steel, no one in the entire country could legally use that process themselves--at least not until the patent term was up. On the other hand, the process itself was published, and once your patent expired, everyone gained your knowledge.
Copyright enters the picture with software in a funny way. If you documented the process of, say, manufacturing steel, the document itself would be copyrighted. Anyone could read that document and then implement the process with no problem. The same is true for, say, the plans to some machine or appliance--the plans themselves would be copyrighted, but that wouldn't prevent you from assembling an actual device. Obviously with software this is different.
I actually think that with software, both traditional patents and the copyright process don't really work. Rather, I think software should be subject to the same kind of social contract patents successfully imposed on pre-software inventions: no copyright protection on source or executable code (copyright on documentation or string or graphic resources are acceptable), source and executable code can be "patented", which entails a limited-term (5-10 year) monopoly on the use of that source code, but after 5-10 years the code is effectively public domain, and published in perpetuity by the government.
How exactly did you go from expiring copyright to open sourcing?
Expiring copyright is just that: you can copy the distributed result (binaries) as you want. It does not entail open sourcing any more than it would force the studios to release their raw footage and CGI files.
Oh another thing: very important:: a short term of copyright like a few years would be the biggest boon to Hollywood ever as they could simply sit and wait for works to drop into the public domain before turning around and producing them without paying the creators a penny. There would be tons of creators strung along via a studio option - just long enough till the work dropped into the public domain. It would harder than ever for individuals to profit from their creative work and easier than ever for Hollywood to make money off of it.
What creators, exactly, are you talking about? If you mean screenwriters, they could simply sign a simple contract ("You shall not produce a movie based on the work without authorization") before showing it to the studios. Why would they need copyright?
Expiring copyright and open-sourcing are not the same thing - but they can have the same result. That's a point I think tech-people don't think about enough. If my business is the creative work I've done, what right does an expiring copyright have to put me out of business? By placing my work in the public domain?
Open-sourcing code - though different from an expiring copyright - would create the same result in a business based on the ownership and public non-availability of that code.
Regarding the 'simple contract': contracts mean very little - leverage means everything. Granting very short-term copyrights removes all leverage from the owner of the work. His commercialization window grows very small and he is dependent on organized outside entities to 'make it happen' for him.
Patent coverage isn't even as short as a ten-year term mentioned in the OP. And patents are usually produced by it integrated firms that already have a huge commercialization apparatus running 24/7.
I'm sorry but this kind of thread from the initial post on down to the echo chamber of opinions smacks more of Jonestown than Silicon Valley. I personally find it disturbing. The vast majority of this country enjoys some part of what comes out of Hollywood - whether they pay for it or not. I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of HNers do as well. Is there some reason suddenly why a tyranny of the minority should be such a beautiful concept?
It's as senseless as requesting people should 'kill creativity' or 'kill talent' - not because Hollywood is their equal but because lots of talented and creative people work there. There is scant support around here for creative people having any right to their work as it is - so I am beyond curious as to the foundations of business models that find 'better ways to entertain people'.
People entertain people; with how badly the content industry is being savaged and prejudged - this thread as a glowing example - in 20 years a pub might be the best business model to capture that 'unique value proposition'.
I don't get your point. What tyranny of the minority? "Killing", in the context of the post, means "finding ways that people prefer". If new businesses (startups or not) compete and win the market from Hollywood, it's because the majority prefers them, no?
PG is not using 'killing' in the sense of "finding ways [entertainment] that people prefer". To quote:
"The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down. It would therefore be a good thing if competitors hastened their demise."
Trying to do things better than the next guy is a positivistic approach that I would applaud; excoriating a straw-man enemy with prejudicial overtones is tyrannical - especially when coming from a person in a position of power. The sentences I quote above could apply to ANYTHING: Washington DC, the banking industry, the VC industry.
The content from "Hollywood" forms the bulk of what people who file-share or pirate want. If there was no "Hollywood" there would be no piracy problem because there would be precious little content worth chasing after. As noted elsewhere, good content costs money - not because of copyright - but because it takes a lot of time, craft and people to perfect something. Anyone who has worked in the commercial creative arts knows this; espc. that the last 10% - the part that makes something really 'commercial' - takes 50% of the time and budget.
PG has a problem with this. A problem that apparently boils down to the fact that this creative work happens under the auspices of "Hollywood". What he is wishing for is that those 'creatives' would somehow come under the control of the tech-media universe instead:
"There will be several answers, ranging from new ways to produce and distribute shows, through new media (e.g. games) that look a lot like shows but are more interactive, to things (e.g. social sites and apps) that have little in common with movies and TV except competing with them for finite audience attention. Some of the best ideas may initially look like they're serving the movie and TV industries. Microsoft seemed like a technology supplier to IBM before eating their lunch, and Google did the same thing to Yahoo."
Come under the control of the tech-media conglomerates where I am sure they'll be much better treated:P
Trading one master for the next doesn't solve any of the problems of the creative individual in modern society - and THAT's the real problem I have with the PG post. A much better realization would be to say that if we could find a better way for the internet to equip and reward talented individuals so that they could exist outside of production systems - THAT would be a real accomplishment - and we wouldn't be stuck in the middle between the copyright and piracy.
I do applaud some commenters on this thread for sketching out some solutions that do try to mind the individual approach. But, as lovely as the Louis CK example was [as an example of doing a successful commercial production outside a ready system], it's telling that just as there was not a shred of organized old-media involved, neither was there a shred of organized new-tech. What made the Louis CK production successful was talent, time, craft, money and people.
And I will lambast PG and whomever else would ever suggest that those things need to be 'taught a lesson'. The way forward isn't by taking oaths to new Dons - it's by finding a way in the anonymous pool of the internet to treat each other as a worthy community.
PG is not using 'killing' in the sense of "finding ways [entertainment] that people prefer". To quote:
"The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down. It would therefore be a good thing if competitors hastened their demise."
I read that quote. It says competitors. Not assassins, lobbyists or lawyers. Competitors.
Trying to do things better than the next guy is a positivistic approach that I would applaud; excoriating a straw-man enemy with prejudicial overtones is tyrannical
How is it a strawman enemy? The MPAA is sponsoring bills like SOPA and PIPA. People like PG, but also Wikipedia, Reddit, Tumblr, and lots of others feel they are a threat to civil liberties. You may disagree, but that doesn't make it a strawman.
especially when coming from a person in a position of power.
Are you seriously saying PG is in a position of power compared to the MPAA? That's a joke, right?
The content from "Hollywood" forms the bulk of what people who file-share or pirate want. If there was no "Hollywood" there would be no piracy problem because there would be precious little content worth chasing after.
Or maybe without the competition from the millions of marketing from Hollywood, other content creators would appear. You need something to back up that claim.
As noted elsewhere, good content costs money - not because of copyright - but because it takes a lot of time, craft and people to perfect something. Anyone who has worked in the commercial creative arts knows this; espc. that the last 10% - the part that makes something really 'commercial' - takes 50% of the time and budget.
Maybe. Or maybe Hollywood is inefficient and behind the times. Everyone thinks they're doing things the best way possible until someone comes up with a new way to do it.
PG has a problem with this. A problem that apparently boils down to the fact that this creative work happens under the auspices of "Hollywood". What he is wishing for is that those 'creatives' would somehow come under the control of the tech-media universe instead:
"There will be several answers, ranging from new ways to produce and distribute shows, through new media (e.g. games) that look a lot like shows but are more interactive, to things (e.g. social sites and apps) that have little in common with movies and TV except competing with them for finite audience attention. Some of the best ideas may initially look like they're serving the movie and TV industries. Microsoft seemed like a technology supplier to IBM before eating their lunch, and Google did the same thing to Yahoo."
Come under the control of the tech-media conglomerates where I am sure they'll be much better treated:P
If you read it carefully, he's using MS, IBM, etc as examples. PG is a guy who invests in small startups that often compete with such conglomerates, so I don't see how you can assume he's defending putting them in control.
Trading one master for the next doesn't solve any of the problems of the creative individual in modern society - and THAT's the real problem I have with the PG post. A much better realization would be to say that if we could find a better way for the internet to equip and reward talented individuals so that they could exist outside of production systems - THAT would be a real accomplishment - and we wouldn't be stuck in the middle between the copyright and piracy.
One can't exist without the other. The anti-piracy bills sponsored by Hollywood give them the power to eliminate those potential Internet-based systems that you're proposing.
SOPA is a disaster but there seems to be far too much groupthink going on to consider an obvious point: if people treated their internet with more respect we wouldn’t be ending up here.
Forget ‘copyrights’ - forget boogeyman #1 RIAA and boogeyman #2 TPB -- if there was even a modicum of respect for treating others - people who work hard to produce content - fairly, treating them the way you’d want to be treated yourself, things like SOPA would never have seen the light of day.
But instead we get movies posted to streaming and torrent sites before they are released. Entire albums leaked before they drop. iPhones jailbroken so apps can be ripped off. Game-consoles hacked so that people can play games without paying for the service. The list goes on and on and on. It’s a culture of petty thievery. The definition of sharing needs to change, for sure, but it's new definition will never be like the start of this paragraph.
What we have now is a totally unbalanced system. As noted elsewhere, it is like the older generation who thought a one-way relationship with planet earth was as reasonable as it was convenient - take whatever you need, dump whatever you don’t - nothing bad will ever come of it and if it does it’s always someone else’s problem.
“I don’t need to pay for this movie - plenty of people already have.”
“I don’t need to recycle - so many people are already doing that.”
“So even if some bands don’t make it, there’ll always be other bands. They need to adapt”
“We’ve got so many species, is it a big deal if we lose some? That’s evolution isn’t it?”
“I don’t feel bad ripping stuff off - I spend plenty of money on media anyway.”
“I don’t feel bad about dumping garbage in the woods - I pay my taxes.”
When you live like that, you live with the consequences of having no regard for the balance of the system - and you reap the whirlwind you whip up.
I don’t support SOPA - but I also think the total lack of respect for the side of content-producers is a miserable state of affairs - and amounts to a enacted prejudice against people who produce content, shamefully defended with the language of equality and freedom. If one wants to release stuff for free and seed their own torrents - they have every right to choose that ‘business model’ - but to force that choice, to force artists into situations that make them into sharecroppers - is consumerism every bit as wicked and morally empty as capitalism has been. “Let them eat cake!” [Let them sell t-shirts] Does it make it okay because Ashton Kutcher says so? To cover his investments and enhance his street cred?
I don't have a solution for SOPA. I do have ideas about how to ease piracy in a positive way - but no idea stands up when most people don't give a damn - and they don't. Reading some of the exculpatory comments on SOPA/piracy threads has made that embarrassingly clear.
if people treated their internet with more respect we wouldn’t be ending up here
No this is not clear thinking, here's why: it only takes one person to upload the prerelease movie. Any system where a 99% "respectful" rate of content-consumers is insufficient is unworkable under any scheme. Perhaps downloading is rampant among certain demographics, but there are open questions there (e.g. about the degree to which that may simply represent a pricing failure in an artificial monopoly-supply market).
Sorry to tell you this but, no, most people don't have a shred of respect for the handful of media conglomerates or their business model. They're notorious for ripping off the artists they supposedly "represent".
iPhones jailbroken so apps can be ripped off
I'm sorry to ask this, but are you just trolling? Everyone I know jailbreaks their iPhones and none of them are ripping off apps.
SOPA/PIPA represent a choice we have to make. Are we better off as a civilization with a happy entertainment industry and censorship-happy government or with a well-functioning and free Internet where an entrepreneur can start a website (and maybe even make a buck) without an army of lawyers?
By making a law like SOPA, the USA is making a decision on the behalf the entire world and forcing people in other countries to deal to deal with it, with no say in the matter.
I did not have say on the representatives in Congress (I'm in Canada), then why am I effected so drastically by laws made in the USA? Just because the ICANN is in the USA, does not mean that the USA should removing an entire website from the worldwide internet for failing to notice one piece of infringing content that was user-submitted.
SOPA is just too vague and not only targets sites which are specifically made for piracy, but also those simply made to allow user submissions, such as Youtube, where there a great amount of original content, not made for copyright infringement. This also targets new sharing platforms, including those not yet made. Launching a new sharing platform as a startup is going to be almost impossible under this law. If SOPA was more specific towards the sites that took part in rampant piracy (and did not discard the notion of innocent until proven guilty), I would be far more supportive of it than I am now.
The idea of the "internet" being disrespectful towards content creators is an uninformed generalization. The internet is a community anyone can be part. There are no formal requirements to be part of it, and as a result of that, there are going to be people, who will take part in such activities. Due to the fact that there no requirements to be part of the internet, it is not possible to make a claim about the internet as a whole.
Lastly, iPhone jailbreaking and game-console hacking is so the owner of the device has the freedom to use their device in the way they choose. On the iPhone, you can only install apps that are approved by Apple. There are quite a few apps that are really well made and innovative, that are not on the appstore because they did not fit Apple's guidlines. Jailbreaking is the only way to get these apps.While jailbreaking is often used for piracy, saying the entire practice is wrong is taking away the ability for users to control what they can use on their own device.
I couldn't agree more. The closer we get to overreaching legislation like SOPA, the angrier I get that the future of the internet I use is in jeopardy because other people can't stop acting with a misguided sense of entitlement.
I pay for what I want. In my world, people who create things of value get value in return. And yet, I have to live in a world where everyone is treated like criminals, while listening to people who contribute to the problem complain about evil "media conglomerates".
The SOPA outcry reminds me of global warming - specifically the generation that doesn’t believe in it, that scoffs at the notion that man could even affect mother nature.
That generation seems so backwards and hubrisitic: the crazy idea that one could just take and take and take without giving something back, without respect for the balance of the system. “My actions don’t count because mother nature will always figure a way to make it all work out okay.” Could there be a more juvenile train of thought?
That’s the fundamental problem when it comes to content; that’s the fundamental problem when it comes to ‘business models’ - not the RIAA or MPAA or even TPB - but the hordes of people who have too little respect for the people who create the content that is voraciously consumed. Hordes that take advantage of a system and predictably cry out when anything threatens their spot at the teet.
The earth, of course, doesn’t ask for money - just for respect - respect shown when each individual asks “Am I hurting you?” and when each individual wonders “Is there a better way I could be doing this?”
A lot of folks fancy themselves the smartest person in the room, but there is a lesson in respect for others that needs to be learned before true success can be realized. Put away the false dichotomy of how things used to be and how you want them to be; there is a real way they can be, and a balanced way they should be.
I remain optimistic. But then, it's sometimes tempered; Upton Sinclair said it well:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The NY Giants won the SuperBowl as you note, with a famously dictatorial top-down coach [Tom Coughlin]; the NY Jets didn't even make the playoffs with a very horizontal come-as-you-are coach [Rex Ryan].
Interestingly, Coughlin didn't win any SuperBowls - he now has two - until he learned to loosen up. And by all appearances, the NY Jets won't win one until Ryan learn to tighten up.
Apologies for all the football references:) But I suspect Mr. Spolsky would understand very well.