Piracy

Well?

WELL?

Well

>>1147674
>people who consider themselves Libertarians not oppose and even participate in it?
Physical property cannot be copy and pasted.

Copyright is a legal restriction over something that is fundamentally easy. "Intellectual property" is an oxymoron. It's nothing like real property.

Copyright is fundamentally incompatible with the digital world, and trying to enforce it does harm. It should be abolished, and creators can move to pay-before-they-create models. (Kickstarters, subscriptions, custom work.)

It also hinders technological and creative progress. When the first monkey saw the other monkey had built a mud hut, he didn't require the monkey chief's permission to copy the idea. Thus humanity progressed.

>>1147674
>Is Piracy anticapitalist?
So basically, what I am saying, is that copyright and patents are communist ideas. The state will reach out its arm and ensure the poor little artist is properly compensated.

True capitalism and free marketism has no need of such things, and is held back by such things.

>>1148119
>>1148122
OK so let's take a common scenario.

Someone writes a book or creates a piece of software.

One nigger buys it, photocopies the book(for example) or reverse-engineers the software and releases it for free to everyone.


Now the creator makes no money and has no further interest in creating more because he sinks his valuable time into something that just gets stolen.

How is that fair, exactly?

Do you not consider a product someone's effort and skill "intellectual property"?

Piracy is still a part of the system, as it isn't a limitation imposed by the government like patents.

>>1148128
Libertarians don't have to vouch for individuals and goods that cannot sustain themselves. Whether that's good or not is up for debate.

>>1148131
I don't really understand how it's not theft and harmful to innovation.

Be careful when adressing piracy

>not every piracy is a lost sale
>you dont even lose anything materially when somebody pirates
>the downside being that the product is made with leveraged money.


Piracy is a lower priority than other types of copyright infringment.

>>1148136
It has been known to destroy small developers and can pretty much be assumed they left the field as a for-profit thing.

>Spend hundreds to thousands of hours writing software
>Someone cracks it and releases it for free
>Nearly no one in their right mind buys $1000+ software when it's available for free

Is it not "muh everything should be free"? How is that not communist?

>>1148148
The free software movement is full of libertarians, so the views definitely aren't incompatible.

>>1148179
I don't get it.

I understand free software as a movement, that's understandable when you publish it under an open source license but piracy is about stealing.

Also aren't people like RMS literally communists? Some of the shit he says...

>>1148119
>It also hinders technological and creative progress
Or it provides incentive to actually make that progress. If someone can freely copy your idea, why even bother coming up with it?

>>1148119
Agreed wise monkeyanon

>>1148231
This.

The biggest innovation comes from financial incentive.

No ones going to pour thousands of hours into a project for it to just get stolen in the end.

If he did, he'd at best maybe pour 1/25th at best, of the effort just doing it as a hobby during sparetime.

>>1147674
Piracy and knockoffs are to be expected. With piracy you have a subset of a potential fanbase that are more likely purchase a legal copy of something they enjoy after consuming the freely available media

>>1148272
Why would they be more likely to spend money when they can get it for free?

Are you actually telling me anyone but a small minority of people will pay money when an identical, free of charge copy is readily available?

>>1148148
>$1000 software
There's the problem, the average dick and joe that will use it, cannot shell out that sort of money.

If the product is any good won't they make enough from professional licenses to businesses.

>>1148133
Ideas aren't capital goods that can be stolen like other goods, unless the government makes it so. Hopefully you'll understand the full implications and not knee-jerk this time.

>>1148419
To clarify, I do believe that IP should be protected by the government for a few years. I just don't pretend that ideas are the same as apples.

Intellectual property legislation is anticapitalist.

>>1148119
>paying sight-unseen
never ever
>>1148122
You can say the same about anti-monopoly laws and even most of the staunchest capitalists are in favor of those, because they repel the tyranny of big business that keeps the market from truly being free. The same goes for truth-in-advertising laws because the market isn't really free if the people don't have coherent, meaningful choices and are left with lie A or lie B. It's the same with copyrights and patents, it's just that copyrights have gotten out of hand in some countries. It's even more valuable with patents because they encourage companies to put designs out into the public and make them freely copyable eventually instead of keeping them as trade secrets forever.

I can't even bear to look at my comment replies, I imagine the asspain is strong.

Everything I said is true.

>>1148477
>It's even more valuable with patents because they encourage companies to put designs out into the public and make them freely copyable eventually instead of keeping them as trade secrets forever.
If you think laws are the solution to that "problem", then I can think of a better law: You are legally obligated to document the system you sell.

There. No patents necessary. Consumers, industry empowered.

But that won't happen.

>>1148787
I don't see what simply documenting their work would do, but I like that that's the only part you take issue with.

>>1148781
You should probably look at the comments before you post next time. I didn't see even a shred of asspain in them. Fairly good, reasonable points on both sides of the argument actually.

File: ngbbs4a7324ad791f0.jpg (32KB, 321x568px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 321x568px

>>1148272
>>1148285
Photoshop faggot here.
> Crowd using a pirate copy of Adobe
> Adobe becomes industry standard
>> Profit

(Same for MSWin, Ableton...)

It seems that a lot of people are arguing the <ethics> or <business concerns> of piracy, which doesn't really apply to the topic at hand. OP's question is more or less: how does the free market's invisible hand naturally squash piracy concerns for businesses? The free market theory accounts for things such as resource scarcity (raise prices to reduce demand of scarce resources) and labor rights (workers will get the best they can demand, thus we don't need labor laws) but OP is wondering how it stops piracy.

Easy Answer A: Intellectual property rights are considered the same as physical property rights; just as the government is expected to stop criminals from stealing Google's Self-Driving cars, it is expected to stop people from stealing Google's search bar algorithms. Piracy is not issues for the free market to fix

Easy Answer B: If everyone was pirating, Devs would make no money and stop producing. Eventually, the demand would be high enough and the profits enticing enough that someone would make <product>. Just like if apples kept getting stolen, apple farms would shut down and prices/potential profits would skyrocket, attracting new apple farmers, with the price for apples settling at a new (higher) equilibrium.

A more in depth answer is that the free market theory was developed centuries ago, but the internet was developed decades ago, and in my opinion, the world is getting a little too complex for the free market. Not that I support more government bureaucracy, but there definitely is something that will have to change soon

>>1147674
Publishers get fucked by piracy moreso than Artists.

Publishers were already fucking over Artists.

Therefore piracy hurts Publishers more than it does Artists, in turn encouraging alternate financing models like Patreon.

Therefore piracy is better for Artists in the long run.

>>1149297
>Be hobby musician.
>Want to stick my media up.
>All sites take a large chunk except Bandcamp (stopped before SoundCloud became huge).
>Looking at info on further costs if I were a career musician.
>They make less than haypennies on the dollar.
>All their money is made from concerts/live shows.
Made my stomach churn a bit. Also:
>Be Radiohead.
>Put up album on internet under "donate whatever, even $0" model.
>Best selling and most profitable album.
Piracy can't harm the music industry. There's millions of people that sound just like your favorite musician that do it for free. You can even hire people on fiverr to make songs for you about whatever.

Programs I get, though. I buy any program I make money on.

>>1149293
>Ideas and plays and such never existed before

Do you have any idea how many knockoff plays, paintings, and pieces came out from some of the classics?

>>1147674
Piracy is good when the rich do it but bad when anybody else does. Because reasons.