* Those who download pirated charts would never had paid for them anyway
* Having seen a pirated chart, the downloader has effectively had the designer "advertised" to them, making it more likely they will buy from them in the future
etc.
The parallels with software (and music) are clear, but there are differences too. It's not clear to me that anything can be done, and the current trend in the field is that small designers are giving up and not making their work public at all. The entire field is losing variety, and just the mainstream, made for the lowest common factor designs are seeing the light of day.
> * Having seen a pirated chart, the downloader has effectively had the designer "advertised" to them, making it more likely they will buy from them in the future
The creator of a work has a right to determine who they distribute it too. Most people on HN wouldn't like it if somebody ripped the source to their web app as a form of 'advertising'. This is no different.
I made this argument for music on here a while back, that even if it is not the most economical outcome that a content creator should be able to choose who they distribute to. Wasn't a popular one.
* People who get that creative output is creative output, and that as creators at HN we should support creation and our ability to determine who gets to copy what we make.
* There's another part who says 'digital is special' and because we use computers, anything that uses computers is somehow good and should not be stopped.
> anything that uses computers is somehow good and should not be stopped
Whether copying on the internet should be stopped is irrelevant. The whole point of the net is to copy vast amounts of data across the world cheaply and effortlessly. You couldn't stop this without shutting down the net. Which is impossible.
You seem to have completely missed the tenor of my point. These are arguments I've already heard, and which I consider hackneyed. They are quite specifically not arguments I agree with.
My apologies for not making that clearer.
ADDED IN EDIT:
Having said that, the general consensus seems to be that the artist does not in fact have that right. The "modern" consensus seems to be that those who produce anything easily copied can only expect it to be copied, and it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution.
Indeed it wasn't clear that you disagreed with those points. I'm glad you don't support them.
> The "modern" consensus seems to be that ... it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution.
That's not the consensus in my circles - then again, I know a lot of people who make things - whether code, lingerie, or sculpture. They know they can't stop everyone stealing their work, but they also know they can can reduce it by trying - they certainly don't feel stupid for doing so.
These are arguments I've already heard, and which I consider hackneyed.
One problem with dismissing the argument that downloaders would not have been purchasers is that a download count doesn't accurately reflect usage of the item. Producers cry in horror that their "content" was downloaded 100,000 times, but each user may have inadvertently been double or triple counted based on multiple computers, failed saves, forgotten file locations, or mistaken download methods (eg, view image versus save to disk).
On top of this, hoarding behavior causes people to collect things for which the perceived value (something) is greater than the cost (free / time to download). Hoarders will likely never use the item, but will show up as a download (or two or three) anyway.
Lastly, I doubt this to be the case in this situation, but artificially increasing a download count for the purpose of inflating possible damages is blindingly simple.
In short, I agree with your addendum, that anything which can be copied will be copied, and copies have nothing to do with sales unless you collect money at the point of copy. The more time spent complaining about loss, the less of a business and more of a funded hobby you are (and wouldn't we all like to have funded hobbies).
> The creator of a work has a right to determine who they distribute it too.
They might have a moral right, or even a legal right. But in the age of the internet, they have no practical right, since you can't in practice stop copying.
Anyone who produces an informational work today knows that if it gets popular it will be copied on the internet without their permission. If they don't like that, they are free not to create the work in the first place. But since they know what will happen (or would know, if they had any intelligence at all), it seems silly of them to complain when it does.
While this doesn't add much in the way of new approaches to old pro-piracy arguments, this point did make me think: "people consider that pop stars make so much money they won’t miss the few pounds from file-sharers"
From a macro economic perspective, can the economy of a society be improved once everything that can be shared for free (or negligible cost) is done so? Could, would or should open-source gamers create Starcraft 2?
One strategy I hope to see tried (and succeed!) is an open source game with a central for-pay server that sets up world-wide games. You can choose to use it or not (but no doubt it will be the largest community for the game).
The cost model to this is proven - there are MMOs that operate this way already, with monthly subscriptions but no upfront cost. EVE Online works like this - you start with a free trial for 21 days, then pay for each 30 days of access to the server. There are optional boxsets, but with those you are essentially paying for the included 60 days of access and some physical items, rather than the game.
Follow the "done some sums" link she talks about, and this is a salient bit:
This particular design, Summer Blackwork, retails for $9. Of course I have production costs, wholesale discounts, distributor fees, etc. so I don’t actually make $9 when I sell one. (wouldn’t that be nice?!)
That to me suggests the industry is ripe for disruption. For production costs I assume that means software (Photoshop? I actually don't know) which could, potentially, be made cheaper. For distributor fees, well that's something the internet is good at for digital goods like designs. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown in the other costs she alluded to.
Well, it's not really clear who's doing the pirating, but I can say as a matter my ownn observed opinion that crocheting, knitting, and embroidery are still popular hobbies for young women. I think this because I know of several different 20something girls who like these crafts, and whom walk in different social circles. I also know the local roller derby team has a weekly knitting/embroidery meeting (like a knitting circle for 20something alternative girls).
Pretty sure the real problem with that theory is those aren't the licenses most people choose.
Movies, software and games that are non-distributable have significant signs or precautions in place advertising that. The only thing that doesn't is music.
"not merely because designs are being “shared” (read “pirated”), but because people are downloading free charts rather than paying for a designer’s work."
Who cares if there's no new music, or new paintings, or new sculptures. There are plenty out there already.
Who cares if there are no live musicians, we have plenty of recordings. Who cares if there are no sculptors, we have 3D printing machines that can scan existing objects and reproduce them perfectly.
If you want to create, create. Don't demand a living from it, and don't tell me society has a duty to provide that living "for the good of everyone."
And for the love of God don't tell me on the freaking HACKER news network that technology needs to be restricted "for the good of art".
3D printing machines will scan existing objects and reproduce them perfectly, and this is a problem why? If you have all the free bowls and plates and shoes you need, well, maybe you'll have more free time to sculpt.
The argument that art will disappear without copyright has been comprehensively disproven. People have been infringing copyright on musical recordings with increasing efficiency for decades. If this argument were correct, the Top 40 would be the Top 5 by now, but it turns out there are currently more people creating more music than any time in history. Equally, by that argument, music would have been a rare oddity prior to copyright (it wasn't). Copyright, it seems, is useful to encourage the development of publishing businesses, but has a negative impact on the creation of art, primarly by muting the influnce of previous artists. The lower cost of distribution, brought on by technological change, is clearly a benefit to both artists and art lovers, but copyright in its current form is a net negative for society.
On the other hand, who cares if the middlemen get paid to distribute frozen copies of art, even if such distribution is to cheap to measure?
Consider the possibility that while there is more music now, it is less good. Consider that there are brilliant musicians who no longer make music because they cannot afford to do so. We lose out, we get the crap, because the best musicians no longer produce in a form we have access to.
Yes there was a lot of music before copyright, but copying was less efficient back then, so your arguments don't really make the watertight case you seem to think they do.
I know some brilliant musicians who have turned to other means to live, and who no longer use their gifts, talents and skills in music. Instead there's vast amounts of crap floating around, with the occasional gem that's hard to find.
I'm not saying copyright made it better, because there were the toads and slimey bastards in the middle, taking their excessive cut and squeezing the artists. What I'd really like to see is the best artists (not just musicians) being fairly compensated, just as I'd like to see the best programmers getting the recognition they deserve.
It doesn't happen, it probably won't happen. Certainly it never has happened.
But instead of technology just making the copying easier, wouldn't it be nice if it also made the proper compensation of artists possible.
Won't happen. The very people who could make it happen are the ones who claim it doesn't matter.
What's so frickin surreal about this, is that this new "industry" (selling digital embroidery designs on the internet) didn't exist until long after people were already freely sharing such things online. How it suddenly be a surprise to those involved? Such a surprise that "designers are retiring and shops are closing". Surely if you've invested in a business for this concept, it must be a requirement to to have some basic understanding of your market? Sounds like stupidity is their problem, not a sudden and surprising lack of co-operation by the entire world.
Not to wade in to the entire debate, and recognising that your stance probably has some validity (although I regret your method of expression) some of these designs are copyright and published in magazines. they are now being scanned and distributed without the designer's permission.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate your entire argument, but it does seem to be something you haven't addressed.
I think the debate is about the digital representation of the design. Obviously the art form has existed for far longer than copyright, let alone the internet. The design which is discussed in the linked article is called "Summer Blackwork" - Blackwork is a style popular in the 1500s and was described by Chaucer. Ironically, designs from the 1500s have largely not survived, due to the corrosive effect of the iron-based dye, and designs from today will will not survive 500 years either, due to the corrosive effect of modern laws.
These designs are unusually easy to copy. Unlike, say, a watercolour, it is simple to create an exactly identical copy (lossless copying) with Roman-era technology and limited skill. The "intellectual property" can be represented by an 80x80 bitmap (in the case of the design which is discussed in the linked article), with perhaps a few additional bits to provide some hints on different stitches or sequence.
Only in the past few years have people begun selling simple frozen data representations of these designs (without any physical product) long after the internet, mass production, modern copyright law and discussion - in fact largely after people begun freely sharing other commercial digital representations such as music and film. How someone can invest such a business while being totally oblivious to the fundamentals of it is beyond me. It would be like starting a taxi company before discovering there were private cars on the road or something. In fact, the major of these shops were started by hobbyists, who were previously artists who would create, evolve and freely share their designs - and were probably much happier that way. The creation of this artifical industry by modern copyright law simply adds inefficiency to the system - there is demonstrably no shortage prior to the laws, and with modern technology, there is a greater supply of both copyrighted and free design than at any time in history. The argument for copyright at all seems weak and the argument for our current infinite copyright system weaker still. Ditch the lot, have the artists go back to designing and sewing instead of spending their time scouring the web looking for their "intellectual property", and everyone will be happier and more creative.
> Ditch the lot, have the artists go back to designing ...
But then how do the designers make money? There is a huge gulf between really, really good designs, and the stuff that hacks produce, just as there is a huge gulf between well-designed web sites and the stuff my uncle's friend's son does (say). There is virtually no market for design to commission, so how does an excellent designer make money?
Currently designs are produced, then the work is stitched, photographed, and a kit made up. Sometimes the chart is sold alone (fronted by the photo of the finished work) and sometimes with the material and thread included. There is a market for these designs, thin though the margins be.
But now people buy a design, scan both the design and the photo, and make them freely available. People then download them with no compensation to the original designer.
I know this is how the world currently is. I know this is what happens. I know it's not going to change.
But I lament the loss of the craftsperson who can no longer make a living.
If there were no copying then I could go to a shop and purchase a high-quality design at a reasonable price, with the designer making money on volume. But there is copying, and many of the best designers are now turning to other means of making money, often completely unrelated, and less beloved of themselves and others. I can't afford to commission work, so now I have no high-quality designs at all.
Tell me how this is a good thing. Tell me how gifted and skilled designers can make money in the face of wholesale copying. Tell me how I can benefit at a reasonable cost from the hard-won skills of these talented people.
I don't think I can, and now that's my loss.
(In truth, this isn't my thing, but I know someone who is hurting badly because of the situation, and I speak for them as best I can.)
The "intellectual property" of art is a blip. For thousands of years, people have made art. Currently, we are in the odd situation where the is value in the idea alone, and the artists are not selling art, but selling instructions. It seems we're heading back towards the artists selling actual art again.
Frankly, I'm kind of on the fence about this. It seems like a nice idea, that one can build a business on selling ideas on the internet, and kind of callous that people no longer sufficently value it.
But then I suppose no-one worries how a verbal storyteller is to make a living in this age of cheap newspapers, or war painters in the age of digital photography. Sewing instruction salesmen seem destined to go the same way.
You need a number of 'points of difference' which varies between jurisdictions in most parts of the world. People can and have paid out significant amounts of money to companies whose designs they've ripped off and not sufficiently altered. Ask someone who actually works in the industry.
As someone who actually has some experience in this particular industry (my mother ran a cross-stitch group for a number of years) I can tell you that the number one gripe has always been - the price of designs.
It has always been very difficult to make a good living from stitching supplies, including designs, it's one of those weird disconnects where people have always seemed to resent paying for them. Kits always sold better than designs alone and I don't think many people paid out too often if they could help it, and this was 10 years ago.
My mother had design software back then, so I imagine it is still available today, and if people can do it themselves, or get a techy relative (lol) to whip up what they want, why pay for it?
I also doubt that this "piracy" trend is new, the designs back then were just printed in black and white on paper with number references for the thread colour, people could just photocopy them or simply hand them around. I imagine that this kind of behaviour is what is going on now, I mean I think it's similar to the cry of "everyone should buy their own CDs", stitching is one of those things where people share deigns.
I mean you take a look at the Etsy listings someone posted, these are discrete seperate peices, one alphabet letter is $4, all of them are very simple, and unlikely to be used alone, so you get back to designs being stupidly expensive. Want to write a name with your Disney character design? It'll all add up, and then the stitcher needs the threads and equipment on top of the design, so people share designs, I know Wendy has an A, I could get an L and so and so has a I and so on.
10 years ago, the large designs were being sold as high as a few hundred £s each, and people baulked at the price, they baulked at £25, they baulked at £10 or less sometimes, lol, everything was too expensive, and it's hard to justify spending a large amount of money on a hobby with little return apart from as a nice gift.
One interesting thing would be to see who the demographic is these days, because piracy tends to be associated with the young, but stitching tends to be the refrain of middle aged and older women, I'd be interested to know, if it is still the 45+ demographic and if they even realise they ARE "pirating" designs.
38 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 93.1 ms ] thread* Those who download pirated charts would never had paid for them anyway
* Having seen a pirated chart, the downloader has effectively had the designer "advertised" to them, making it more likely they will buy from them in the future
etc.
The parallels with software (and music) are clear, but there are differences too. It's not clear to me that anything can be done, and the current trend in the field is that small designers are giving up and not making their work public at all. The entire field is losing variety, and just the mainstream, made for the lowest common factor designs are seeing the light of day.
That can't be good for a creative industry.
The creator of a work has a right to determine who they distribute it too. Most people on HN wouldn't like it if somebody ripped the source to their web app as a form of 'advertising'. This is no different.
* People who get that creative output is creative output, and that as creators at HN we should support creation and our ability to determine who gets to copy what we make.
* There's another part who says 'digital is special' and because we use computers, anything that uses computers is somehow good and should not be stopped.
Whether copying on the internet should be stopped is irrelevant. The whole point of the net is to copy vast amounts of data across the world cheaply and effortlessly. You couldn't stop this without shutting down the net. Which is impossible.
You can't stop any human behaviour completely. This is irrelevant to whether you should try.
My apologies for not making that clearer.
ADDED IN EDIT:
Having said that, the general consensus seems to be that the artist does not in fact have that right. The "modern" consensus seems to be that those who produce anything easily copied can only expect it to be copied, and it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution.
> The "modern" consensus seems to be that ... it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution.
That's not the consensus in my circles - then again, I know a lot of people who make things - whether code, lingerie, or sculpture. They know they can't stop everyone stealing their work, but they also know they can can reduce it by trying - they certainly don't feel stupid for doing so.
One problem with dismissing the argument that downloaders would not have been purchasers is that a download count doesn't accurately reflect usage of the item. Producers cry in horror that their "content" was downloaded 100,000 times, but each user may have inadvertently been double or triple counted based on multiple computers, failed saves, forgotten file locations, or mistaken download methods (eg, view image versus save to disk).
On top of this, hoarding behavior causes people to collect things for which the perceived value (something) is greater than the cost (free / time to download). Hoarders will likely never use the item, but will show up as a download (or two or three) anyway.
Lastly, I doubt this to be the case in this situation, but artificially increasing a download count for the purpose of inflating possible damages is blindingly simple.
In short, I agree with your addendum, that anything which can be copied will be copied, and copies have nothing to do with sales unless you collect money at the point of copy. The more time spent complaining about loss, the less of a business and more of a funded hobby you are (and wouldn't we all like to have funded hobbies).
They might have a moral right, or even a legal right. But in the age of the internet, they have no practical right, since you can't in practice stop copying.
Anyone who produces an informational work today knows that if it gets popular it will be copied on the internet without their permission. If they don't like that, they are free not to create the work in the first place. But since they know what will happen (or would know, if they had any intelligence at all), it seems silly of them to complain when it does.
From a macro economic perspective, can the economy of a society be improved once everything that can be shared for free (or negligible cost) is done so? Could, would or should open-source gamers create Starcraft 2?
A viable strategy seems to be to open the program, but keep the assets (like graphics and music and so on) proprietary.
This particular design, Summer Blackwork, retails for $9. Of course I have production costs, wholesale discounts, distributor fees, etc. so I don’t actually make $9 when I sell one. (wouldn’t that be nice?!)
That to me suggests the industry is ripe for disruption. For production costs I assume that means software (Photoshop? I actually don't know) which could, potentially, be made cheaper. For distributor fees, well that's something the internet is good at for digital goods like designs. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown in the other costs she alluded to.
Another thing to look at: Etsy lists some designs: http://www.etsy.com/search_results.php?search_query=machine+...
Some of them are download only and it would be good to see how these designers handle sharing.
Movies, software and games that are non-distributable have significant signs or precautions in place advertising that. The only thing that doesn't is music.
Who said anyone forgot? The article doesn't. It clearly says the author of the content found their work being shared without consent.
The real problem is someone is ripping off someone else's work.
Leaving aside the never ending discussion on piracy, I don't get what your point is.
"not merely because designs are being “shared” (read “pirated”), but because people are downloading free charts rather than paying for a designer’s work."
At least, that's how I read it.
Who cares if there are no live musicians, we have plenty of recordings. Who cares if there are no sculptors, we have 3D printing machines that can scan existing objects and reproduce them perfectly.
And for the love of God don't tell me on the freaking HACKER news network that technology needs to be restricted "for the good of art".
3D printing machines will scan existing objects and reproduce them perfectly, and this is a problem why? If you have all the free bowls and plates and shoes you need, well, maybe you'll have more free time to sculpt.
On the other hand, who cares if the middlemen get paid to distribute frozen copies of art, even if such distribution is to cheap to measure?
Yes there was a lot of music before copyright, but copying was less efficient back then, so your arguments don't really make the watertight case you seem to think they do.
I know some brilliant musicians who have turned to other means to live, and who no longer use their gifts, talents and skills in music. Instead there's vast amounts of crap floating around, with the occasional gem that's hard to find.
I'm not saying copyright made it better, because there were the toads and slimey bastards in the middle, taking their excessive cut and squeezing the artists. What I'd really like to see is the best artists (not just musicians) being fairly compensated, just as I'd like to see the best programmers getting the recognition they deserve.
It doesn't happen, it probably won't happen. Certainly it never has happened.
But instead of technology just making the copying easier, wouldn't it be nice if it also made the proper compensation of artists possible.
Won't happen. The very people who could make it happen are the ones who claim it doesn't matter.
I could not live in a world where MPAA gets their will and be perfectly happy.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate your entire argument, but it does seem to be something you haven't addressed.
These designs are unusually easy to copy. Unlike, say, a watercolour, it is simple to create an exactly identical copy (lossless copying) with Roman-era technology and limited skill. The "intellectual property" can be represented by an 80x80 bitmap (in the case of the design which is discussed in the linked article), with perhaps a few additional bits to provide some hints on different stitches or sequence.
Only in the past few years have people begun selling simple frozen data representations of these designs (without any physical product) long after the internet, mass production, modern copyright law and discussion - in fact largely after people begun freely sharing other commercial digital representations such as music and film. How someone can invest such a business while being totally oblivious to the fundamentals of it is beyond me. It would be like starting a taxi company before discovering there were private cars on the road or something. In fact, the major of these shops were started by hobbyists, who were previously artists who would create, evolve and freely share their designs - and were probably much happier that way. The creation of this artifical industry by modern copyright law simply adds inefficiency to the system - there is demonstrably no shortage prior to the laws, and with modern technology, there is a greater supply of both copyrighted and free design than at any time in history. The argument for copyright at all seems weak and the argument for our current infinite copyright system weaker still. Ditch the lot, have the artists go back to designing and sewing instead of spending their time scouring the web looking for their "intellectual property", and everyone will be happier and more creative.
Currently designs are produced, then the work is stitched, photographed, and a kit made up. Sometimes the chart is sold alone (fronted by the photo of the finished work) and sometimes with the material and thread included. There is a market for these designs, thin though the margins be.
But now people buy a design, scan both the design and the photo, and make them freely available. People then download them with no compensation to the original designer.
I know this is how the world currently is. I know this is what happens. I know it's not going to change.
But I lament the loss of the craftsperson who can no longer make a living.
If there were no copying then I could go to a shop and purchase a high-quality design at a reasonable price, with the designer making money on volume. But there is copying, and many of the best designers are now turning to other means of making money, often completely unrelated, and less beloved of themselves and others. I can't afford to commission work, so now I have no high-quality designs at all.
Tell me how this is a good thing. Tell me how gifted and skilled designers can make money in the face of wholesale copying. Tell me how I can benefit at a reasonable cost from the hard-won skills of these talented people.
I don't think I can, and now that's my loss.
(In truth, this isn't my thing, but I know someone who is hurting badly because of the situation, and I speak for them as best I can.)
Frankly, I'm kind of on the fence about this. It seems like a nice idea, that one can build a business on selling ideas on the internet, and kind of callous that people no longer sufficently value it.
But then I suppose no-one worries how a verbal storyteller is to make a living in this age of cheap newspapers, or war painters in the age of digital photography. Sewing instruction salesmen seem destined to go the same way.
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...
Apprently copyright law doesn't apply to fashion designs because clothing is considered "utilitarian".
I'm most familiar with Australia, so one case: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898914955.h... . I understand there's been a few others with Bettina Liano jeans (which are known for a particular cut that fits wide hipped girls).
It has always been very difficult to make a good living from stitching supplies, including designs, it's one of those weird disconnects where people have always seemed to resent paying for them. Kits always sold better than designs alone and I don't think many people paid out too often if they could help it, and this was 10 years ago.
My mother had design software back then, so I imagine it is still available today, and if people can do it themselves, or get a techy relative (lol) to whip up what they want, why pay for it?
I also doubt that this "piracy" trend is new, the designs back then were just printed in black and white on paper with number references for the thread colour, people could just photocopy them or simply hand them around. I imagine that this kind of behaviour is what is going on now, I mean I think it's similar to the cry of "everyone should buy their own CDs", stitching is one of those things where people share deigns.
I mean you take a look at the Etsy listings someone posted, these are discrete seperate peices, one alphabet letter is $4, all of them are very simple, and unlikely to be used alone, so you get back to designs being stupidly expensive. Want to write a name with your Disney character design? It'll all add up, and then the stitcher needs the threads and equipment on top of the design, so people share designs, I know Wendy has an A, I could get an L and so and so has a I and so on.
10 years ago, the large designs were being sold as high as a few hundred £s each, and people baulked at the price, they baulked at £25, they baulked at £10 or less sometimes, lol, everything was too expensive, and it's hard to justify spending a large amount of money on a hobby with little return apart from as a nice gift.
One interesting thing would be to see who the demographic is these days, because piracy tends to be associated with the young, but stitching tends to be the refrain of middle aged and older women, I'd be interested to know, if it is still the 45+ demographic and if they even realise they ARE "pirating" designs.