"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
A large bank in UK has all of it's office doors plated with metal near the bottom, also the doors open both ways making them really suitable for kicking, I don't know if the original intention was that.
Another solution (albeit more costly) would be to re-hinge the door so it swings outwards, and make the springs easy enough so people can push it open using their shoes.
That's not the gentleman's way of operating a door, but with the trashcan solution people also have to hold the door open somehow while disposing of the towel, unless it comes with springs that are adjusted just right so it stays open just long enough for people to sneak out in time.
Making the door open outwards is the right thing to do anyway with regards to fire safety, as far as I understand.
Of course, if you have the space to spare (without things getting too intimate) you can also just leave out the doors altogether, which is how many airports I've been to seem to handle the issue.
(I'd say an automatic bathroom door is overkill and a bit creepy, too, which probably is why I've never seen one.)
> Making the door open outwards is the right thing to do anyway with regards to fire safety
You've got that backwards. You want the door to open inward, in case there is an obstruction. If it opens outward, there may be something on the ground blocking the path of the door. It may be too heavy (or hot!) to push away, but small enough to climb over or around. Furthermore, it's dangerous to open a door outward into the path of people walking.
Think about the front door on your house or apartment, the door to your bedroom, your bathroom door, etc. They all open in to the room, away from the hallway.
I think in some european countries the regulation says the doors must always open in the direction towards the exit. So in this case it would open outwards.
There's a reason why those are called 'panic doors'. When a mob is trying to escape a place you're gonna have a hard time trying swing the door inside rather than outside and usually people get trampled while trying to open it.
I'm not a fire safety expert by any means, which is why I added the "as far as I understand" qualifier. That said, don't you have the possibility of something blocking the path of the door regardless of which way it swings? I guess if it's on your side of the door, there is a greater chance that you can move it out of the way as long as it's not too hot or bulky. Then again, if something unexpected is blocking the way in a fire I'd expect there is a very good chance that it is hot or bulky.
So far I was under the impression that doors should generally open towards the exit (as the sibling already noted) in order to make it as easy as possible to exit the building. But maybe that is a misconception. I find this a very interesting topic, if you have more information to share I'd be very curious.
EDIT: Also, aren't hot door handles a big issue in case of a fire? I'd imagine that the ability to push the door open (assuming it doesn't lock when closed) rather than having to pull the handle is a plus. And I guess a door that swings both ways is ideal with regard to blockage.
I'm not in any way a safety expert, as well. But this argument caught my eye. So I asked my brother who is a fire fighter. Fire exits are, in general, supposed to open outwards. Regarding blocking, according to him, there is a reason why when you look at any properly made fire exit, there is nothing heavy hovering above it.
Now as for the door knobs, most fire exits don't have the normal door handles. Like in cinemas and theaters, there's this small slot where you can place your hand. For larger buildings though, there are bigger handles shaped like a hook.
The question is: what way do most people go in case of an emergency and how can we make that way the easiest?
If the door of a bathroom would open to the outside, the door would block the path (the hallway) people would take in case of an emergency. It would block more people than it would help escape the bathroom. The same with the doors of offices, etc. No one needs to enter a bathroom in case of an emergency (well, a different kind of emergency...), so it doesn't matter if it may blocked to the inside. So doors to closed rooms adjacent to a hallway open to the inside, while doors in the emergency path of the entire stream of people open to the outside.
Of course, there are situations where emergency paths cross and neither option is ideal. However, for most cases, the rule is pretty clear and obvious.
In England and Wales your door layout needs to comply with these regulations:
Part B Fire safety:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/AD_B_v1_wm.pdfhttp://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/AD_B_v2_wm.pdf
The actual regulations are very simple; most of these documents are guidelines. Example, the regulation for alerting of fire and providing for escape is: "Means of warning and escape B1. The building shall be designed and constructed so that there are appropriate provisions for the early warning of fire, and appropriate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building capable of being safely and effectively used at all material times.
(a) 1952 C.52; Section 33 was amended by Section 100 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (C.33) and by S.I. 1963/597."
You can do something different from the guidelines as long as you are willing to spend the money to get a fire engineering strategy which proves to the satisfaction of the Building Control department that your design will comply with these regulations.
In the US the regulations vary state by state and are generally more proscriptive. I remember when I was working on a building in New York the actual manufacturer of the drainage pipe required appeared to be specified by the regulations, which seemed a bit fishy to me. But, I'm not an expert in US building codes, so maybe I misunderstood.
It's a bit more complicated than that for non-residential buildings over a small size.
Any emergency exits and doors for an area where a large group of people might aggregate (i.e. a classroom) almost always have to open outward because mobs are the biggest problem in an emergency. Emergency exits also generally have to be equipped with a crash bar and other hardware (such as auto-closing arms).
Inward opening doors are frequently problems in emergencies. People get smashed up against them by a mob and are unable to open it.
Generally though, bathrooms and other interior doors that do not open to a path of egress can do whatever is most convenient for the location and use.
If you want to minimize the amount of time required for a building to vacate, you want as many doors to open outward toward the path of egress as possible.
Residential buildings have entirely different constraints (and the code for hallway width / obstructions is vastly different).
In the film noir classic 'Double Indemnity', the writers Billy Wilder and Raymond Chandler needed to resolve a particular conceit in the plot where the femme fatale shows up at the doomed hero's apartment but needs to be hidden from an occupant inside. They decided to use an outward-opening door.
It seems obvious that the best long term strategy for media companies is to start addressing the demand. Indeed, over the long term, any other strategy will likely result in those companies being left behind.
But if you're in charge of a media company today, and your bonus this year is tied to a cash cow you can keep alive for a few more years, would you be taking the risk and short term pain of making the transition?
I don't think it's stubbornness or stupidity we're looking at, it's a classic case of misaligned incentives.
I will have to disagree. Not that I think that the people in charge of the MPAA and co. are altruistic, nice people. But I don't think they act the way they act because they are looking for immediate profit, or rather this is not the principal reason.
There was an excellent comment on HN a month or so ago (during the SOPA madness, I can't find it though) from a guy from the industry that explained that the main problem was "ignorance and misunderstanding". And this echos what the OP explained so well: the MPAA think they are right, and don't understand why people are downloading illegally (they most likely think it's just about money).
I think it's too easy to look at people in these positions and say they just don't get it. This is their industry, they're immersed in it every day. They may not have seen this coming, but it's been in their face for a while now, and even if a few can't see what's going on I simply can't believe that none of them do. At best I would say any "ignorance" could still be tied back to incentives: even if they know the truth, it's inconvenient and not worth acknowledging widely (or perhaps even to themselves). Better to keep on peddling the line that piracy is theft to preserve the status quo as long as possible.
I've mentioned something similarly here before (I think during the SOPA stuff): people simply do economically irrational things to take a principled stand. I've certainly done things that my friends and family thought were batshit crazy just so I could achieve perceived balance in the universe. My take is that's what we're seeing now and have been for a while. The media companies obviously want our money, but more than that, I think they just don't want you to have access to their content if you didn't pay for it, to break this overwhelming sense of entitlement many of us have. I don't condone the methods, but I don't disagree with the rationale either (providing that actually is the case).
I theory you are right. But can you say of a king that he understands his people? Or of a president that he fully understands the country he is ruling? There is a difference between knowing, and understanding/acknowledging. And sometimes, people don't get it, even though it would be in their best interest to understand things.
In this case, I think the people at the top are in an "ivory tower" of righteousness. They know what's going on (you're right on that point), but they don't understand it, that's why they can't act pragmatically on it.
This is as old as the hills. A business has an incredibly difficult time cannibalizing a line of business that is profitable. And the music, television, gaming and movie businesses are very profitable.
The music business got lucky with Apple and iTunes. But this caused the TV and movie industry to get upset about having to a) give a cut to another middleman and b) reduce prices.
So piracy will continue until either the businesses stumble into a solution, or someone comes along and disrupts them.
And despite the wailing and teeth gnashing about DRM in the tech blogosphere, I'm not convinced that the public is truly concerned about this to the extent that techies are.
There's a third option Marco forgot. Imagine that the problem is avoided because someone says, "it's right that we have a trash can by the door because people don't want to touch the door knob with their bare hands," and then follows through on that _correct_ theory by putting a garbage can there.
So I say: if your theory is correct, it'll make sense as a theory (i.e., integrate with the rest of your existing knowledge) AND it'll work in practice. If what you're trying keeps failing, the solution is to go back, check your premises, and identify what's wrong with your theory. Often people do this automatically (and call it being "pragmatic"), but with bigger ideas, an explicit approach is required.
To go for long without theory is to fly blind, and that's dangerous. Ideas and theory are what allow us to fly in the first place, as well as to change course before we hit the proverbial mountain hidden in the fog just ahead.
Most importantly, I never knew why so many people at my office threw their paper towels on the ground next to the door (or in a trashcan located thereabouts, when available). Now I do.
I still don't understand why people think the post-bathroom door is disgusting enough to merit hand protection. If anything, it's the door people are most likely to have touched AFTER washing their hands. Do these people bring another paper with them to open the door on the way in?
Well the difference between the pre-bathroom door handle and the post-bathroom door handle (opposite sides of the same door, presumably) is that one of them is much more likely to have been touched by someone who may have just been to the toilet without washing their hands.
You wouldn't be that worried about touching the door on the way in especially if you knew you were going to be washing your hands in a moment.
Isn't that just a psychological thing? I mean, if people don't wash their hands after using the bathroom they might be less likely to wash their hands in general, but they're still using other doors, kitchen appliances, papers and (depending on culture) you shake hands with them in the morning. There's no way to avoid that while not looking socially awkward, just wash your own hands more.
Also, don't you remove some of that bacteria left on the door handle by touching it yourself? The amount of bacteria on bathroom door handles should remain rather constant given that you take some away as you leave some of your own, also door handle not having favourable replication conditions for germs.
Well I haven't done any studies on it but I'd assume that the number of people going to the toilet and then immediately touching the way-out door handle without washing their hands is probably higher than the number of people going to the toilet outside the bathroom and then touching the door handle on the way in...
Not to mention that bathroom door handles are pretty good conditions for germs: warm (indoors), damp (from people who haven't dried properly), lots of new germs from people who haven't washed.
Where I live, there are lots of men that don't wash their hands after urinating. I've seen it enough that I'll never touch the door without a bit of paper to protect me.
In heading to the restroom I know that I'll have the opportunity to wash my hands after, so the handle leading in is of little concern to me.
In my admittedly anecdotal experience, the rate of full grown adults who casually ignore the sinks after finishing up their business and leaving a stall seems to be disturbingly high. It just kinda gets my ick-factor going. Granted, I'm something of a germaphobe (I wash my hands many times/day) so I might just be more inclined to notice those who don't vs those who do--- regardless, I'll almost always save a paper towel or something to turn the door handle when possible.
Anyway, I don't think the lack of a trash can nearby excuses those who would dispose of it on the floor though. I just hold onto it until I find the next closest trash can outside the bathroom. That usually takes less than a minute, depending on where I am.
> In my admittedly anecdotal experience, the rate of full grown adults who casually ignore the sinks after finishing up their business and leaving a stall seems to be disturbingly high
Not only that, but urine is -- assuming you don't have a UTI -- sterile and even a mild disinfectant. The purpose of washing hands isn't to remove any urine; rather, it's to remove any fecal bacteria along with other pathogens which may have been picked up outside of the washroom.
If for some reason you can't wash your hands, you'd probably be better off deliberately peeing on them.
Which is why it's odd that most washrooms have you pull a door by the handle to exit, a handle many others have probably touched without washing their hands. Ikea is one place that comes to mind that avoids this, instead having a sequence of offset walls to give privacy without a door.
I see that design quite often at airports too -- if you have a large volume of traffic, doors run into collision issues.
But doors do have another purpose in addition to privacy: They contain airflow. I suspect that where this design is used there is extra work to ensure a persistent flow of air coming in through the entrance and then being evacuated from within, similar to negative-pressure rooms in hospitals.
I'd rather have people understand there's no simplistic black or white right vs wrong. But only each ones personal interests. Than to come up with subjective excuses of why we shouldn't try to do the "right".
Piracy isn't "wrong", it's in the best interest of some and not of others. The most healthy attitude, imo, is to objectively measure the pros vs cons and only then judge what should you do. Almost any decision you ever take will favor someone and not others. What we cannot let happen is let those of opposite interest convince us that our interest is "wrong", ignoring one of the sides of the issue.
Intellectual monopoly privileges might be in the interest of a few select copyright holders. But maybe not in the best interest of users. No side is right our wrong, but just have different interests.
On a personal note, I had a workplace bathroom once that was worse than this, also in trash bins. The one you were supposed to throw paper towels into after washing your hands, had a spring-loaded lid that required at least two pounds of pressure to open - and that was the least of the design problems.
More to the point, it fascinates me how the media companies' obduracy makes hackers in particular blindingly angry. It's interesting that from our side, they seem so insanely, self-destroyingly, offensively stupid that we just can't believe that they're really doing this. It's interesting on that cultural level as well as on the less abstract levels.
The door should have metallic arm-slots where people can push the door open using just their arms. People usually don't pee/poop on their arms, so it'd be and appear clean, while removing the need to use paper towels to open the door.
This article seems to imply that you can never change people's behavior by law (i.e. like posting a sign on a door saying not to throw towels on the floor) because people will always do whatever they want. I don't think I agree with that--I think the quesiton is to what extent are entities willing to impose penalties and enforce the law to sufficiently change people's behavior. For example, obviously if the company in the hypothetical hired a guy to sit in the bathroom to make sure that people threw paper towels in the trash can and then fired people who disobeyed, far fewer people who throw paper towels on the floor.
So, the issue as related to piracy is not necessary that people would never change their behavior, its just that the cost of monitoring behavior and enforcing currently existing law/creating new law to effect such a behavioral change ("don't pirate stuff") is extraordinarily high. Right now, the strategy of the media industry appears to be to spend money under the presumption that the amount of money they spend enforcing/lobbying/trying to pass laws to prevent piracy makes economic sense: they will gain/save more money than they spend. This seems unlikely, but probably people have punched the numbers for these companies and concluded that this is the case. The radical alternative approach is to completely rethink the distribution and pricing scheme, and focus less on margins but more on quantity--distribute the content to as many people as possible, but make fewer $/product. To impose that would require either some fairly revolutionary thinking in companies that have repeatedly shown a hesitancy to innovate (and would require them to abandon a strategy now that still makes hefty profits), or to make media companies hurt to such an extent that they have no alternative (which, right now, does not appear to be happening).
Right now, the strategy of the media industry appears to be to spend money under the presumption that the amount of money they spend enforcing/lobbying/trying to pass laws to prevent piracy makes economic sense: they will gain/save more money than they spend. This seems unlikely, but probably people have punched the numbers for these companies and concluded that this is the case.
Of course it's the case: their endgame is to get governments to criminalize all copyright infringement and get the taxpayer to pay for all that. Of course, the balance for society as a whole is well in the red, but why should they care?
But the worst is not the economic costs, but the (much more important IMHO) costs in terms of human rights, such as freedom from censorship, privacy, access to a indispensable medium, etc.
The single least-attractive attribute of many of the people
who download content illegally is their smug sense of entitlement. …
The world does not OWE you Season 1 of “Game Of Thrones” in
the form you want it at the moment you want it at the price you
want to pay for it. If it’s not available under 100% your terms, you
have the free-and-clear option of not having it.
This isn't any kind of counterargument. No, the world doesn't owe me¹ that, but I'm not forcibly taking it either.People are voluntarily sharing it with me. So what I'm owed is irrelevant. YCombinator doesn't owe me access to HN either, but I'm not a bad person for using it if they're offering it to me.
¹ completely hypothetically and for the sake of argument. For all you know I'm just playing devil's advocate, so let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum, please.
Also—"people offering" you something doesn't mean it wasn't "forcibly taken."
All pirated material, movies, etc are forcibly taken by someone. They're ripped from DVDs, captured from telecasts, etc. Just because they're offering it to you doesn't mean that it's free.
If I steal something from a store and then give it to you, the item's still stolen.
Also—"people offering" you something doesn't mean it wasn't "forcibly taken."
All pirated material, movies, etc are forcibly taken by someone. They're ripped from DVDs, captured from telecasts, etc. Just because they're offering it to you doesn't mean that it's free.
They did not forcibly took it: they bought the DVD, Blueray and/or access to the telecast. It's theirs.
If I steal something from a store and then give it to you, the item's still stolen.
Yes, but it's not what's happening here, so that's irrelevant.
Just like where I live a term saying I waive my right to a warranty is considered abusive and void, so would be such terms, in my opinion, even if legally valid.
What's next, the guy who sold me my house deciding who can I invite to it?
I think with a house a better example is that after buying te house you still have to pay council rates (you do here at least). The person selling your the house transfered you all their rights to it, the house though comes with the stipulation you have to pay the rates.
That's not a condition imposed by the previous owner. It's not buying the house that comes with that stipulation, it's having one, regardless of how it came to your possession.
You might buy a physical item (say a DVD) from a shop but the contents of the DVD are separately licensed. Obviously this a somewhat convoluted arrangement.
The economic difference is that when you buy something like say a car the person selling it will price it roughly as cost for them to acquire/make + tax + profit margin.
If you wanted to actually buy a piece of music the price that you paid would have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+ for a CD.
Of course then you would be free to do what you wanted with it, such as put it on the Internet for free download but pretty quickly you'd realise you were getting a bum deal so would want to at least get some of the money you paid for it back from other people who were enjoying it.
If you wanted to actually buy a piece of music the price that you paid would have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+ for a CD.
Nope. I don't have to pay for the costs of the whole R&D required to create my car either - millions, no doubt - just for the costs to produce that particular copy, plus a small profit that will obviously pay for a very small slice of the real cost of producing the car.
Most of the R&D in your car will be protected by some sort of IP such as patents.
If you produced a perfect 1:1 copy of your car and posted schematics etc online showing others how to do so also; you could expect to get sued by the manufacturer.
It's just that car manufacturers are lucky in the sense that almost nobody has the resources and skills to economically produce a car, anyone with a computer has the facilities to reproduce a digital recording at close to zero cost.
If people do this, how do you propose the R&D to produce the music etc is funded in the first place?
They just pay for different reasons (helping the artist, financing new works, etc), not as a moral imperative for getting the content.
The argument that more file sharing leads to less works is also far from proven:
Data on the supply of new works are consistent with our argument
that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. The
publication of new books rose by 66% over the 2002-2007 period.
Since 2000, the annual release of new music albums has more than
doubled, and worldwide feature film production is up by more than
30% since 2003. At the same time, empirical research in file sharing
documents that consumer welfare increased substantially due to the
new technology.
(...)
The decline in music sales -- they fell by 15% from 1997 to 2007 -- is
the focus of much discussion. However, adding in concerts alone shows
the industry has grown by 5% over this period.
¹ There are certainly those who don't, but then you have to discount all of those who wouldn't have anyway - "going without" may make one feel good, but does absolutely nothing to benefit the artist.
The problem with that study IIRC is that it doesn't separate illegal downloads from legal free downloads. Also it doesn't take revenue into account, if you get 1 track off itunes and then pirate 10 how can you know how many tracks you would have purchased had piracy not been an option?
There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work in all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the other side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country. The other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well to live performances.
I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy over the long term.
I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10 for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set by the original rights holder.
Also it doesn't take revenue into account, if you get 1 track off itunes and then pirate 10 how can you know how many tracks you would have purchased had piracy not been an option?
Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or not.
There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work in all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the other side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country.
Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't support legal coercion.
The other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well to live performances.
Can you give me some examples?
I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy over the long term. I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10 for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set by the original rights holder.
I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others from copying whatever they want.
Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or not.
That's the issue, how do we know how much is required to create new works? perhaps more money would also create better new works? I would also assume that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something popular with a younger more tech savvy audience would be more likely to be pirated (I assume at least).
Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't support legal coercion.
We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system. Very few other industries can exist purely on what would essentially be donations so not sure why IP should be different.
Can you give me some examples?
Sure , Movies (although I suppose you could count cinema as performance) , video games and pretty much all software. There's also a lot of musicians that I enjoy but have no real desire to see live (mostly electronic stuff).
I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others from copying whatever they want.
A counter question to this;
If you create a piece of IP then what additional rights should you have over everyone else?
Should somebody else be able to use it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps misrepresenting your views in the process?
Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work? For example say you write and record a song and a large company with more resources than you decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it and they make serious money doing this do they owe you anything?
Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?
That's the issue, how do we know how much is required to create new works?
If new works are still being produced - and right now, they're being produced more than ever - we know there is enough.
perhaps more money would also create better new works?
Define "better work".
I would also assume that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something popular with a younger more tech savvy audience would be more likely to be pirated (I assume at least).
Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant.
We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system.
And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant community of creation.
Legal coercion should be reserved to when it's actually necessary. I'm not convinced it is in this case.
Very few other industries can exist purely on what would essentially be donations so not sure why IP should be different.
(I don't like the term IP. I'm talking about copyright.)
Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music, movies, software, etc creation is different from most other industries for that fact alone.
A counter question to this; If you create a piece of IP then what additional rights should you have over everyone else? Should somebody else be able to use it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps misrepresenting your views in the process?
Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting my views, then they're defaming me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that.
Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work?
No, because that would be fraud. Again, you don't need copyright, just basic consumer protection.
For example say you write and record a song and a large company with more resources than you decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it and they make serious money doing this do they owe you anything?
Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the artistic quality of that work.
Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?
If new works are still being produced - and right now, they're being produced more than ever - we know there is enough.
This I would think is partly due to having some copyright protection for their works.
* Define "better work". *
I don't think there's a universal definition, but higher budget works or just more lower budget works that might appeal to different people.
Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant.
it's relevant because piracy of certain works more than others will mean that stuff that gets highly pirated becomes less lucrative to produce. Think PC gaming as an example of this.
And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant community of creation.
Fashion relies on trademarks to protect labels, also having an expensive fashion item is a way to visibly display wealth as much as anything else, movies and music don't really work like this.
Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music, movies, software, etc creation is different from most other industries for that fact alone.
Marginal costs are low but the up front costs can be very high , this needs to be recouped somehow.
Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting my views, then they're defaming me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that.
I don't like censorship either but if I say wrote a song that was adapted and used as an anthem for a racist group I wouldn't be pleased with that.
They don't have to misrepresent your views directly but they can make you seem guilty by association and it is hard to get damages for that.
Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the artistic quality of that work.
Or simply a larger marketing budget gets it out in front of more people, not necessarily a bad thing but surely it seems reasonable that the original author can dictate at least some terms of use?
No, why should I?
Because it encourages parasitic business models , the guy who created the work has created more value than the guy who put adverts around it but the economic incentive is to be the latter.
If you rent an apartment, you're expected to comply with your rental agreement.
Sure, because the property is still theirs.
If you buy a house, you're expected to comply with your homeowner's association bylaws.
That's not the previous owner telling me what to do. And not if they're considered abusive: banning families with minors, for example, is illegal. I consider their conditions abusive too, even if the law doesn't.
If you use your house for criminal activities, you may forfeit it if a judge agrees.
If you're a convicted sex offender, you're required to register your address with the government.
Completely different. And that's still not the previous owner telling me what to do.
Life is full of compromises, tradeoffs, and other restrictions to what you may consider your "rights."
Yes. And some of them I consider legitimate, and others I don't. Is != ought. Just because a restriction exists doesn't mean it should.
The purpose of copyright is to ensure new works continue to be produced. In my opinion, copyright is not needed - nay, it's harmful to that goal and therefore it has not justification to exist.
I've now got a funny picture in my head of there being good distributors and bad distributors based on whether they initially purchased the material or not. Sorta like buying organic foods, only in this case seeking out torrents from those that produce a receipt showing they're legitimately good guys.
It's not really like HN though, YCombinator may be voluntarily providing the service and us users are voluntarily providing the content.
The difference with a torrent download (in many cases at least) is that the author is not voluntarily sharing it with you so they're not really offering it. Somebody else may be voluntarily sharing their bandwidth with you but that's about it.
These arguments on here are starting to feel like a broken record.
It's more like you lend your car to a friend under certain conditions (such as not relending) and find that they have in fact re-lent it to their friend who has in turn re-lent it to someone else who re-lent it to someone who decided to melt it down and sell it for scrap.
Putting analogies aside, as everyone seems to focus on the analogy rather than the actual topic:
Person A made something and is granting access to their creation subject to certain conditions. Person B finds a way to access the creation while circumventing the creators conditions. This is clearly wrong.
Some conditions are abusive. Try selling a non-perishable product in the EU with the condition that you provide less than two years of warranty and you can have a court telling you that.
Of course, this particular conditions are legal, but that doesn't mean they're not abusive too.
I might have misunderstood you. Do you mean that if they don't want you to share the content then they shouldn't sell it to you, because you will share it regardless of what the terms of the sale dictate?
Usually you can set whatever conditions you like as long as they don't contradict existing laws.
What you can is not necessarily what you should be able to do.
If paying for music is so abusive then why not just make your own music instead?
I never said paying for music is abusive. I said not being able to share stuff you bought - or that someone has voluntarily shared with you - is abusive.
'yes, the world does. Copyright is an artificial construct whose moral basis exists solely as a calculated decision to try to increase production, a bargain between the public - of which I am one - and the creators - misleadingly called "the world" - about creating and providing works. Now, under the current rules, I and the rest of the public have chosen not to impose explicit mandatory terms of access, but we have in other cases like bandwidth and orphan works, so let's not pretend that we can't do it for you too. You may welsh on the spirit of our agreement while satisfying the letter of our law, and we may choose to overlook it because it's not serious enough a problem to invoke the grim majesty of the legal meatgrinders or for other reasons, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that there is welshing going on here. And you certainly do not get to lecture me about it!"
People are sick. When I see people throwing a paper or anything on the floor it really drives me mad. This is the worst act of disrespect for janitors. There are not too many thing I like about Singapore but giving fines to people who throw garbage on the ground is something I like.
People are so grossed out by a doorknob they refuse to touch it, only to immediately walk to their desk to type on their keyboard. A keyboard which is typically far dirtier than the bathroom they just avoided touching[1]. Oh, the irony.
It does. But it beats catching a cold or flu every couple of months.
And it's not as if hand-washing is some kind of crazy placebo:
In a research published by British Medical Journal on November 2007, physical barriers, such as regular handwashing and wearing masks, gloves and gowns, may be more effective than drugs to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses such as influenza and SARS... Handwashing and wearing masks, gloves and gowns were effective individually in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, and were even more effective when combined... Another study, published in the Cochrane Library journal on 2007, finds handwashing with just soap and water to be a simple and effective way to curb the spread of respiratory viruses, from everyday cold viruses to deadly pandemic strains.
I may just be lucky but I don't seem to get this, sure I catch some minor things but it is more like once a year. Your right if I was constantly catching things I would be more careful.
Not only this, but these same people seem to have no problem touching other door knobs throughout the office, which presumably all of the dirty-bathroom hands of your officemates have also touched.
The university I used to work at had walkways with at least 5 years with of dirt trails from being used as walkways across the grass.. When the administration had paths built.. they built them in completely different locations so that they matched the aesthetic of the other paths in the area when viewed from the top of the hill.
Now they have great looking new paths (unused) AND the dirt trails across all of the grass..
The better solution is to use an open door design (often found in airports) and have hand dryers rather than paper towels. Less waste and associated mess, no garbage to change, no doorknobs to not touch.
But it requires more floor space, which may not be available.
Also, in the vein of the lesson being taught, that may be the "right" solution, but in an existing building, it's certainly more pragmatic to add a wastebin (versus, say, rebuilding the bathrooms).
The Dyson Airblade hand driers are really catching on in the UK in public building toilets. They are fun to use and actually work rather well. However the bottom of the opening where you put your hands gets some cruddy water/residue in it.
To my understanding hand driers are less hygienic. With paper towels you actually wipe off some the grime while with hand driers any left over stuff just dries on your hands.
The Dyson ones I've seen have only ever shot cold air on my hands and pushed my hands against both sides of the dryer. Maybe they've been horribly misconfigured at all 3+ places I've seen them at, but in my experience they've just been less effective and less sanitary than both traditional air dryers and paper towels.
I'm reminded of school, where the bathrooms had no doors. Yet they were designed in a way that you walked in, around one partition to get to the sink, and a second partition to use the bathroom. The sounds and smells of the bathroom never seemed to be an issue there.
"The signs never worked. Instead, they just annoyed and angered people. Some people even threw more paper towels on the floor because they didn’t like the condescending way they were being instructed."
"This pattern is common. We often try to fight problems by yelling at them instead of accepting the reality of what people do, from controversial national legislation to passive-aggressive office signs. Such efforts usually fail, often with a lot of collateral damage, much like Prohibition and the ongoing “war” on “drugs”."
This is something I've learned in when trying to convince people to do something that's for their own good. Often times, it all too easy to yell. But human nature is such that if you 'attack' a person's beliefs or actions, (rational or not) they will defend them, further entrenching them and encouraging the person to continue if even out of spite.
Sure, sometimes an 'intervention' is necessary. But I've found that in most cases, it's more strategic to boil a person as a frog rather than a lobster.
There's even a term for it: cognitive dissonance [1]. Fact is, the best way to make a point is to appeal to your audience. The appeal can be to authority, ethics, humor, aesthetics, etc. WIIFM applies here.[2]
There are lots of examples of this. Moralistic thinking simply isn't productive in this context. If you build an economic system that depends on everyone voluntarily cooperating rather than acting self-interestedly, self-interested people will ruin it; if your public health strategy for HIV is to discourage people from extramarital sex, lots of people will have extramarital sex and get HIV; if your strategy to compete with BitTorrent is to try and make people feel guilty about using BitTorrent, people will tune you out and use BitTorrent.
Of course, if you used those examples instead of a silly example about designing an office restroom, the HN thread gets derailed by people talking about economics or HIV. One could criticize the HN community for that kind of bikeshedding, but it's more pragmatic to just use a boring, contrived example to sell the point. Certainly, a HN thread won't end up filled with a side discussion about office restroom design.
I actually like the side discussion about restroom design a lot. The difficult part about these types of problems is that the guy who's picking up the paper towels doesn't have the authority to move the trash can.
Authority is a funny thing. In many situations, simply doing the right thing -- putting a trashcan in the right place, here -- is much, much easier than getting the notional authority to do it.
Or as so many people have put it, forgiveness is often easier than permission.
To root this discussion solidly in hardware, moving the trash can might not be such an easy task — in many restrooms the paper towel baskets are actually embedded in walls. There you would to actually take the basket from elsewhere.
To make the entire thing even more fun, I've actually worked in an office that had relatively strict sanitary requirements (the office contained some food testing labs), and opening the door with a paper tower was obligatory. Didn't stop the management from putting the basket on the other side of the bathroom.
I may actually care about the described issue in restroom context more than in piracy context. But then again, my most common download is books.
Certainly, a HN thread won't end up filled with a side discussion about office restroom design.
I've upvoted your comment to help ensure that won't be the case.
My other comment being close to the top of the thread at the moment, I'm sorry to have addressed the door design aspect rather than Marco's main point, it's indeed not as interesting a topic for discussion. I might learn something about fire safety today, though. And I'm confident HN voters will make sure there's no derailment.
Don't be sorry; you're not derailing anything. Just having a discussion on a specific part of the post. It's not obligatory to address the main point of a post; in fact, sometimes the main point is boring and some minor point is far more interesting.
I find it interesting to read these various clever technical solutions for the same problem, even so mundane as "users don't want to touch the doorknob on the way out". As long as they acknowledge it is a problem and don't get into the moral argument about what ought to be.
Some of the ways in which this issue can be addressed may have analogs in the problem space actually being addressed.
Of course we'll change the subject to restroom design. What else is there to say, here, about BitTorrent?
This article, and the Oatmeal comic which inspired it, are great, but they could have been written a decade ago, if one replaced Game of Thrones with Kid A and "BitTorrent" with "Napster". (Ten years ago, Napster had already been shut down for seven months. How time flies.)
We've had this discussion, had it again, printed it on T-shirts and coasters. Apple went and instantiated this concept in the music industry, and made billions of dollars in the process, and even that is old news now.
The sad thing about Marco's argument is that it's not only right, but it applies to itself. Being correct feels great, and it certainly helps, but it's not the same thing as making progress.
I think outlining the fallacy of applying moralistic thinking ("well people just SHOULDN'T DO THAT") to systems design was the more interesting part of his post, though.
This is one of the weird things about the information economy. So if you make a gizmo in the goods economy, and price it outside of the demand line, they sit on the shelf and you go broke.
Of course in the goods economy you had a cost of making the item, sure there was R&D and advertising Etc. but each good also has some raw materials so you really can't sell them below a certain price or you lose your shirt.
In the information economy you get this weird artifact. Your 'good' gets copied and distributed without remuneration. This appears to be lost sales, but in fact it is simply that your good is priced outside the demand curve for those buyers. What is even stranger is that you can lower your price all the way to zero if you choose because the marginal cost to make a new one is zero. This gives you tremendous pricing leverage in the info economy and people who use it well typically price high for novelty value early, then lower to capture the larger market, and then lower still to pick up the remnant market. The cost of R&D, marketing, etc can be amortized over all of these and if you look at it as an integral value function you can actually make reasonable pricing decisions.
Of course old school media doesn't get the 'info' economy any more than telling a teenager that the 'fair' price is one that someone will pay even if they think it is too high.
Over time these concepts are making themselves known in the mainstream but it does take waaaay more time than it does to innovate so it seems like its not changing at all.
In the goods economy, you weren't competing with perfect duplicates of your product that are priced at $0.00.
In the pirate economy, companies are forced to compete with their exact product, their exact work at $0.00. Take away the alternative at $0.00, and their prices might well have very nice intersections of supply and demand, but with Kim Dotcom offering it at $0 or $5/mo for millions of products, the market is completely distorted.
I know that a lot of intellectually dishonest fellows such as yourself like to pretend that there are no lost sales, but no thinking person believes that trope. It's obvious that if the same product is available for $20 and $0, that many of the people who understand how to get it for $0 will do so, even if they otherwise would've paid $20.
There's two sides of this. There's the side where the seller's price is above the demand curve, so the buyer pirates the movie. But there's also the side where the seller's price is below the demand curve, but the buyer pirates it anyway to capture more consumer surplus.
What's really happening is that, the easier piracy becomes, the closer the supply curve comes to turning into a very flat line at price 0. Now, the actual cost to the consumer in time, energy, bandwidth, and guilt is higher than 0, and it's possible to reduce those costs by trading off some actual money cost to get the permission of copyright holders the way Apple or Rdio are doing, but it's not clear that this will last forever.
What if someone makes a better-designed iTunes that happens to work using piracy instead of legitimate sales? Or comes close enough that $0.99 isn't worth it?
They've tried. For legitimate competitors, Apple has them outgunned in terms of selection due to all their deals with the labels and such. For illegitimate competitors, Apple has a comparatively huge budget for design/UX.
The "isn't worth it" actually goes the other way at this point: it's isn't worth pirating anything you can get from iTunes. Most of their customers are perfectly capable of pirating stuff, but it isn't worth their time compared to grabbing it from iTunes.
I'm not saying nobody will ever compete with them or that people don't still pirate anyhow, just that they're more than capable of competing with free. They've been successfully doing that the entire time, in fact.
I agree that's the status quo, but Apple's a rather unique organization in terms of their mix of negotiation ability, closeness to Hollywood, and design ability. And there's already cracks showing when it comes to their software quality. Those advantages can't last forever.
The idea of selling copies of information is very basically broken. Half the time stuff is made but undersells copies because the producer did not find out no-one wanted it, and the other half, people are prevented from realising value that could actually be freely available.
Such a structure consumes a scarce resource -- creative effort -- wastefully, and restricts an abundant resource -- communicability of information -- unnecessarily. That seems very much the opposite of economically efficient.
Information goods should be more like better kinds of software production. But the current copyright-based system makes it all more like a 'waterfall economy'
> Of course, if you used those examples instead of a silly example about designing an office restroom, the HN thread gets derailed by people talking about economics or HIV. One could criticize the HN community for that kind of bikeshedding, but it's more pragmatic to just use a boring, contrived example to sell the point. Certainly, a HN thread won't end up filled with a side discussion about office restroom design.
"Certainly, a HN thread won't end up filled with a side discussion about office restroom design."
I like those really tall faucets, the ones used by surgeons when they scrub in. I want one in my office restroom, so that I can easily wash up to my elbows after a messy coding session, and I don't care to listen to the moralists who tell me that those faucets are only for surgeons.
172 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 234 ms ] thread"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Of course the people still might continue to throw paper towels on the floor. Changing a habit is difficult.
That's not the gentleman's way of operating a door, but with the trashcan solution people also have to hold the door open somehow while disposing of the towel, unless it comes with springs that are adjusted just right so it stays open just long enough for people to sneak out in time.
Making the door open outwards is the right thing to do anyway with regards to fire safety, as far as I understand.
Of course, if you have the space to spare (without things getting too intimate) you can also just leave out the doors altogether, which is how many airports I've been to seem to handle the issue.
(I'd say an automatic bathroom door is overkill and a bit creepy, too, which probably is why I've never seen one.)
You've got that backwards. You want the door to open inward, in case there is an obstruction. If it opens outward, there may be something on the ground blocking the path of the door. It may be too heavy (or hot!) to push away, but small enough to climb over or around. Furthermore, it's dangerous to open a door outward into the path of people walking.
Think about the front door on your house or apartment, the door to your bedroom, your bathroom door, etc. They all open in to the room, away from the hallway.
So far I was under the impression that doors should generally open towards the exit (as the sibling already noted) in order to make it as easy as possible to exit the building. But maybe that is a misconception. I find this a very interesting topic, if you have more information to share I'd be very curious.
EDIT: Also, aren't hot door handles a big issue in case of a fire? I'd imagine that the ability to push the door open (assuming it doesn't lock when closed) rather than having to pull the handle is a plus. And I guess a door that swings both ways is ideal with regard to blockage.
Now as for the door knobs, most fire exits don't have the normal door handles. Like in cinemas and theaters, there's this small slot where you can place your hand. For larger buildings though, there are bigger handles shaped like a hook.
If the door of a bathroom would open to the outside, the door would block the path (the hallway) people would take in case of an emergency. It would block more people than it would help escape the bathroom. The same with the doors of offices, etc. No one needs to enter a bathroom in case of an emergency (well, a different kind of emergency...), so it doesn't matter if it may blocked to the inside. So doors to closed rooms adjacent to a hallway open to the inside, while doors in the emergency path of the entire stream of people open to the outside.
Of course, there are situations where emergency paths cross and neither option is ideal. However, for most cases, the rule is pretty clear and obvious.
You can do something different from the guidelines as long as you are willing to spend the money to get a fire engineering strategy which proves to the satisfaction of the Building Control department that your design will comply with these regulations.
However, in the case of toilets, the layout is much more likely to be constrained by disability access requirements. Part M Disabled access http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADM_2004....
In the US the regulations vary state by state and are generally more proscriptive. I remember when I was working on a building in New York the actual manufacturer of the drainage pipe required appeared to be specified by the regulations, which seemed a bit fishy to me. But, I'm not an expert in US building codes, so maybe I misunderstood.
Any emergency exits and doors for an area where a large group of people might aggregate (i.e. a classroom) almost always have to open outward because mobs are the biggest problem in an emergency. Emergency exits also generally have to be equipped with a crash bar and other hardware (such as auto-closing arms).
Inward opening doors are frequently problems in emergencies. People get smashed up against them by a mob and are unable to open it.
Generally though, bathrooms and other interior doors that do not open to a path of egress can do whatever is most convenient for the location and use.
If you want to minimize the amount of time required for a building to vacate, you want as many doors to open outward toward the path of egress as possible.
Residential buildings have entirely different constraints (and the code for hallway width / obstructions is vastly different).
This small detail has caused much discussion ever since, a good example is here: http://jpgamboa.com/archives/1424
But if you're in charge of a media company today, and your bonus this year is tied to a cash cow you can keep alive for a few more years, would you be taking the risk and short term pain of making the transition?
I don't think it's stubbornness or stupidity we're looking at, it's a classic case of misaligned incentives.
There was an excellent comment on HN a month or so ago (during the SOPA madness, I can't find it though) from a guy from the industry that explained that the main problem was "ignorance and misunderstanding". And this echos what the OP explained so well: the MPAA think they are right, and don't understand why people are downloading illegally (they most likely think it's just about money).
In this case, I think the people at the top are in an "ivory tower" of righteousness. They know what's going on (you're right on that point), but they don't understand it, that's why they can't act pragmatically on it.
The music business got lucky with Apple and iTunes. But this caused the TV and movie industry to get upset about having to a) give a cut to another middleman and b) reduce prices.
So piracy will continue until either the businesses stumble into a solution, or someone comes along and disrupts them.
And despite the wailing and teeth gnashing about DRM in the tech blogosphere, I'm not convinced that the public is truly concerned about this to the extent that techies are.
So I say: if your theory is correct, it'll make sense as a theory (i.e., integrate with the rest of your existing knowledge) AND it'll work in practice. If what you're trying keeps failing, the solution is to go back, check your premises, and identify what's wrong with your theory. Often people do this automatically (and call it being "pragmatic"), but with bigger ideas, an explicit approach is required.
To go for long without theory is to fly blind, and that's dangerous. Ideas and theory are what allow us to fly in the first place, as well as to change course before we hit the proverbial mountain hidden in the fog just ahead.
I still don't understand why people think the post-bathroom door is disgusting enough to merit hand protection. If anything, it's the door people are most likely to have touched AFTER washing their hands. Do these people bring another paper with them to open the door on the way in?
You wouldn't be that worried about touching the door on the way in especially if you knew you were going to be washing your hands in a moment.
Also, don't you remove some of that bacteria left on the door handle by touching it yourself? The amount of bacteria on bathroom door handles should remain rather constant given that you take some away as you leave some of your own, also door handle not having favourable replication conditions for germs.
Not to mention that bathroom door handles are pretty good conditions for germs: warm (indoors), damp (from people who haven't dried properly), lots of new germs from people who haven't washed.
In my admittedly anecdotal experience, the rate of full grown adults who casually ignore the sinks after finishing up their business and leaving a stall seems to be disturbingly high. It just kinda gets my ick-factor going. Granted, I'm something of a germaphobe (I wash my hands many times/day) so I might just be more inclined to notice those who don't vs those who do--- regardless, I'll almost always save a paper towel or something to turn the door handle when possible.
Anyway, I don't think the lack of a trash can nearby excuses those who would dispose of it on the floor though. I just hold onto it until I find the next closest trash can outside the bathroom. That usually takes less than a minute, depending on where I am.
I dunno about stalls, but there is some not totally unreasonable (though still mildly icky) argument for not washing your hands after using a urinal: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1987#c...
If for some reason you can't wash your hands, you'd probably be better off deliberately peeing on them.
But doors do have another purpose in addition to privacy: They contain airflow. I suspect that where this design is used there is extra work to ensure a persistent flow of air coming in through the entrance and then being evacuated from within, similar to negative-pressure rooms in hospitals.
Piracy isn't "wrong", it's in the best interest of some and not of others. The most healthy attitude, imo, is to objectively measure the pros vs cons and only then judge what should you do. Almost any decision you ever take will favor someone and not others. What we cannot let happen is let those of opposite interest convince us that our interest is "wrong", ignoring one of the sides of the issue.
Intellectual monopoly privileges might be in the interest of a few select copyright holders. But maybe not in the best interest of users. No side is right our wrong, but just have different interests.
More to the point, it fascinates me how the media companies' obduracy makes hackers in particular blindingly angry. It's interesting that from our side, they seem so insanely, self-destroyingly, offensively stupid that we just can't believe that they're really doing this. It's interesting on that cultural level as well as on the less abstract levels.
So, the issue as related to piracy is not necessary that people would never change their behavior, its just that the cost of monitoring behavior and enforcing currently existing law/creating new law to effect such a behavioral change ("don't pirate stuff") is extraordinarily high. Right now, the strategy of the media industry appears to be to spend money under the presumption that the amount of money they spend enforcing/lobbying/trying to pass laws to prevent piracy makes economic sense: they will gain/save more money than they spend. This seems unlikely, but probably people have punched the numbers for these companies and concluded that this is the case. The radical alternative approach is to completely rethink the distribution and pricing scheme, and focus less on margins but more on quantity--distribute the content to as many people as possible, but make fewer $/product. To impose that would require either some fairly revolutionary thinking in companies that have repeatedly shown a hesitancy to innovate (and would require them to abandon a strategy now that still makes hefty profits), or to make media companies hurt to such an extent that they have no alternative (which, right now, does not appear to be happening).
Of course it's the case: their endgame is to get governments to criminalize all copyright infringement and get the taxpayer to pay for all that. Of course, the balance for society as a whole is well in the red, but why should they care?
But the worst is not the economic costs, but the (much more important IMHO) costs in terms of human rights, such as freedom from censorship, privacy, access to a indispensable medium, etc.
¹ completely hypothetically and for the sake of argument. For all you know I'm just playing devil's advocate, so let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum, please.
EDIT: fixed typo.
Also—"people offering" you something doesn't mean it wasn't "forcibly taken."
All pirated material, movies, etc are forcibly taken by someone. They're ripped from DVDs, captured from telecasts, etc. Just because they're offering it to you doesn't mean that it's free.
If I steal something from a store and then give it to you, the item's still stolen.
Really? What force was used to take them?
Typo, sorry.
Also—"people offering" you something doesn't mean it wasn't "forcibly taken."
All pirated material, movies, etc are forcibly taken by someone. They're ripped from DVDs, captured from telecasts, etc. Just because they're offering it to you doesn't mean that it's free.
They did not forcibly took it: they bought the DVD, Blueray and/or access to the telecast. It's theirs.
If I steal something from a store and then give it to you, the item's still stolen.
Yes, but it's not what's happening here, so that's irrelevant.
What's next, the guy who sold me my house deciding who can I invite to it?
The economic difference is that when you buy something like say a car the person selling it will price it roughly as cost for them to acquire/make + tax + profit margin.
If you wanted to actually buy a piece of music the price that you paid would have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+ for a CD.
Of course then you would be free to do what you wanted with it, such as put it on the Internet for free download but pretty quickly you'd realise you were getting a bum deal so would want to at least get some of the money you paid for it back from other people who were enjoying it.
Nope. I don't have to pay for the costs of the whole R&D required to create my car either - millions, no doubt - just for the costs to produce that particular copy, plus a small profit that will obviously pay for a very small slice of the real cost of producing the car.
Same with that piece of music.
If you produced a perfect 1:1 copy of your car and posted schematics etc online showing others how to do so also; you could expect to get sued by the manufacturer.
It's just that car manufacturers are lucky in the sense that almost nobody has the resources and skills to economically produce a car, anyone with a computer has the facilities to reproduce a digital recording at close to zero cost.
If people do this, how do you propose the R&D to produce the music etc is funded in the first place?
By people buying and going to shows. The meme that file sharers don't pay is false¹.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira...
They just pay for different reasons (helping the artist, financing new works, etc), not as a moral imperative for getting the content.
The argument that more file sharing leads to less works is also far from proven:
There are also the consecutive MPAA record profits: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/92692/piracy-who-mpaa-celebrate...¹ There are certainly those who don't, but then you have to discount all of those who wouldn't have anyway - "going without" may make one feel good, but does absolutely nothing to benefit the artist.
There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work in all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the other side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country. The other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well to live performances.
I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy over the long term. I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10 for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set by the original rights holder.
Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or not.
There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work in all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the other side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country.
Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't support legal coercion.
The other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well to live performances.
Can you give me some examples?
I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy over the long term. I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10 for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set by the original rights holder.
I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others from copying whatever they want.
That's the issue, how do we know how much is required to create new works? perhaps more money would also create better new works? I would also assume that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something popular with a younger more tech savvy audience would be more likely to be pirated (I assume at least).
Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't support legal coercion.
We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system. Very few other industries can exist purely on what would essentially be donations so not sure why IP should be different.
Can you give me some examples?
Sure , Movies (although I suppose you could count cinema as performance) , video games and pretty much all software. There's also a lot of musicians that I enjoy but have no real desire to see live (mostly electronic stuff).
I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others from copying whatever they want.
A counter question to this; If you create a piece of IP then what additional rights should you have over everyone else? Should somebody else be able to use it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps misrepresenting your views in the process?
Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work? For example say you write and record a song and a large company with more resources than you decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it and they make serious money doing this do they owe you anything?
Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?
If new works are still being produced - and right now, they're being produced more than ever - we know there is enough.
perhaps more money would also create better new works?
Define "better work".
I would also assume that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something popular with a younger more tech savvy audience would be more likely to be pirated (I assume at least).
Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant.
We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system.
And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant community of creation.
Legal coercion should be reserved to when it's actually necessary. I'm not convinced it is in this case.
Very few other industries can exist purely on what would essentially be donations so not sure why IP should be different.
(I don't like the term IP. I'm talking about copyright.)
Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music, movies, software, etc creation is different from most other industries for that fact alone.
A counter question to this; If you create a piece of IP then what additional rights should you have over everyone else? Should somebody else be able to use it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps misrepresenting your views in the process?
Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting my views, then they're defaming me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that.
Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work?
No, because that would be fraud. Again, you don't need copyright, just basic consumer protection.
For example say you write and record a song and a large company with more resources than you decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it and they make serious money doing this do they owe you anything?
Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the artistic quality of that work.
Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?
No, why should I?
This I would think is partly due to having some copyright protection for their works.
* Define "better work". *
I don't think there's a universal definition, but higher budget works or just more lower budget works that might appeal to different people.
Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant.
it's relevant because piracy of certain works more than others will mean that stuff that gets highly pirated becomes less lucrative to produce. Think PC gaming as an example of this.
And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant community of creation.
Fashion relies on trademarks to protect labels, also having an expensive fashion item is a way to visibly display wealth as much as anything else, movies and music don't really work like this.
Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music, movies, software, etc creation is different from most other industries for that fact alone.
Marginal costs are low but the up front costs can be very high , this needs to be recouped somehow.
Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting my views, then they're defaming me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that.
I don't like censorship either but if I say wrote a song that was adapted and used as an anthem for a racist group I wouldn't be pleased with that.
They don't have to misrepresent your views directly but they can make you seem guilty by association and it is hard to get damages for that.
Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the artistic quality of that work.
Or simply a larger marketing budget gets it out in front of more people, not necessarily a bad thing but surely it seems reasonable that the original author can dictate at least some terms of use?
No, why should I?
Because it encourages parasitic business models , the guy who created the work has created more value than the guy who put adverts around it but the economic incentive is to be the latter.
If you rent an apartment, you're expected to comply with your rental agreement.
If you buy a house, you're expected to comply with your homeowner's association bylaws.
If you use your house for criminal activities, you may forfeit it if a judge agrees.
If you're a convicted sex offender, you're required to register your address with the government.
Life is full of compromises, tradeoffs, and other restrictions to what you may consider your "rights."
Sure, because the property is still theirs.
If you buy a house, you're expected to comply with your homeowner's association bylaws.
That's not the previous owner telling me what to do. And not if they're considered abusive: banning families with minors, for example, is illegal. I consider their conditions abusive too, even if the law doesn't.
If you use your house for criminal activities, you may forfeit it if a judge agrees.
If you're a convicted sex offender, you're required to register your address with the government.
Completely different. And that's still not the previous owner telling me what to do.
Life is full of compromises, tradeoffs, and other restrictions to what you may consider your "rights."
Yes. And some of them I consider legitimate, and others I don't. Is != ought. Just because a restriction exists doesn't mean it should.
The purpose of copyright is to ensure new works continue to be produced. In my opinion, copyright is not needed - nay, it's harmful to that goal and therefore it has not justification to exist.
The difference with a torrent download (in many cases at least) is that the author is not voluntarily sharing it with you so they're not really offering it. Somebody else may be voluntarily sharing their bandwidth with you but that's about it.
The author may not be, but then again when Renault sold me a car, they don't get to tell me who I can share it with.
It's more like you lend your car to a friend under certain conditions (such as not relending) and find that they have in fact re-lent it to their friend who has in turn re-lent it to someone else who re-lent it to someone who decided to melt it down and sell it for scrap.
Person A made something and is granting access to their creation subject to certain conditions. Person B finds a way to access the creation while circumventing the creators conditions. This is clearly wrong.
Of course, this particular conditions are legal, but that doesn't mean they're not abusive too.
If paying for music is so abusive then why not just make your own music instead?
What you can is not necessarily what you should be able to do.
If paying for music is so abusive then why not just make your own music instead?
I never said paying for music is abusive. I said not being able to share stuff you bought - or that someone has voluntarily shared with you - is abusive.
'yes, the world does. Copyright is an artificial construct whose moral basis exists solely as a calculated decision to try to increase production, a bargain between the public - of which I am one - and the creators - misleadingly called "the world" - about creating and providing works. Now, under the current rules, I and the rest of the public have chosen not to impose explicit mandatory terms of access, but we have in other cases like bandwidth and orphan works, so let's not pretend that we can't do it for you too. You may welsh on the spirit of our agreement while satisfying the letter of our law, and we may choose to overlook it because it's not serious enough a problem to invoke the grim majesty of the legal meatgrinders or for other reasons, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that there is welshing going on here. And you certainly do not get to lecture me about it!"
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Germs/story?id=4774746&page...
And it's not as if hand-washing is some kind of crazy placebo:
In a research published by British Medical Journal on November 2007, physical barriers, such as regular handwashing and wearing masks, gloves and gowns, may be more effective than drugs to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses such as influenza and SARS... Handwashing and wearing masks, gloves and gowns were effective individually in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, and were even more effective when combined... Another study, published in the Cochrane Library journal on 2007, finds handwashing with just soap and water to be a simple and effective way to curb the spread of respiratory viruses, from everyday cold viruses to deadly pandemic strains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_washing_with_soap#Disease...
Now they have great looking new paths (unused) AND the dirt trails across all of the grass..
Also, in the vein of the lesson being taught, that may be the "right" solution, but in an existing building, it's certainly more pragmatic to add a wastebin (versus, say, rebuilding the bathrooms).
http://www.dysonairblade.co.uk/
"This pattern is common. We often try to fight problems by yelling at them instead of accepting the reality of what people do, from controversial national legislation to passive-aggressive office signs. Such efforts usually fail, often with a lot of collateral damage, much like Prohibition and the ongoing “war” on “drugs”."
This is something I've learned in when trying to convince people to do something that's for their own good. Often times, it all too easy to yell. But human nature is such that if you 'attack' a person's beliefs or actions, (rational or not) they will defend them, further entrenching them and encouraging the person to continue if even out of spite.
Sure, sometimes an 'intervention' is necessary. But I've found that in most cases, it's more strategic to boil a person as a frog rather than a lobster.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#The_Induce... [2] http://www.websitemagazine.com/content/blogs/posts/archive/2...
If the door gets replaced with one that swings in both directions by push... problem solved.
Of course, if you used those examples instead of a silly example about designing an office restroom, the HN thread gets derailed by people talking about economics or HIV. One could criticize the HN community for that kind of bikeshedding, but it's more pragmatic to just use a boring, contrived example to sell the point. Certainly, a HN thread won't end up filled with a side discussion about office restroom design.
Or as so many people have put it, forgiveness is often easier than permission.
To make the entire thing even more fun, I've actually worked in an office that had relatively strict sanitary requirements (the office contained some food testing labs), and opening the door with a paper tower was obligatory. Didn't stop the management from putting the basket on the other side of the bathroom.
I may actually care about the described issue in restroom context more than in piracy context. But then again, my most common download is books.
I've upvoted your comment to help ensure that won't be the case.
My other comment being close to the top of the thread at the moment, I'm sorry to have addressed the door design aspect rather than Marco's main point, it's indeed not as interesting a topic for discussion. I might learn something about fire safety today, though. And I'm confident HN voters will make sure there's no derailment.
I find it interesting to read these various clever technical solutions for the same problem, even so mundane as "users don't want to touch the doorknob on the way out". As long as they acknowledge it is a problem and don't get into the moral argument about what ought to be.
Some of the ways in which this issue can be addressed may have analogs in the problem space actually being addressed.
This article, and the Oatmeal comic which inspired it, are great, but they could have been written a decade ago, if one replaced Game of Thrones with Kid A and "BitTorrent" with "Napster". (Ten years ago, Napster had already been shut down for seven months. How time flies.)
We've had this discussion, had it again, printed it on T-shirts and coasters. Apple went and instantiated this concept in the music industry, and made billions of dollars in the process, and even that is old news now.
The sad thing about Marco's argument is that it's not only right, but it applies to itself. Being correct feels great, and it certainly helps, but it's not the same thing as making progress.
Of course in the goods economy you had a cost of making the item, sure there was R&D and advertising Etc. but each good also has some raw materials so you really can't sell them below a certain price or you lose your shirt.
In the information economy you get this weird artifact. Your 'good' gets copied and distributed without remuneration. This appears to be lost sales, but in fact it is simply that your good is priced outside the demand curve for those buyers. What is even stranger is that you can lower your price all the way to zero if you choose because the marginal cost to make a new one is zero. This gives you tremendous pricing leverage in the info economy and people who use it well typically price high for novelty value early, then lower to capture the larger market, and then lower still to pick up the remnant market. The cost of R&D, marketing, etc can be amortized over all of these and if you look at it as an integral value function you can actually make reasonable pricing decisions.
Of course old school media doesn't get the 'info' economy any more than telling a teenager that the 'fair' price is one that someone will pay even if they think it is too high.
Over time these concepts are making themselves known in the mainstream but it does take waaaay more time than it does to innovate so it seems like its not changing at all.
In the pirate economy, companies are forced to compete with their exact product, their exact work at $0.00. Take away the alternative at $0.00, and their prices might well have very nice intersections of supply and demand, but with Kim Dotcom offering it at $0 or $5/mo for millions of products, the market is completely distorted.
I know that a lot of intellectually dishonest fellows such as yourself like to pretend that there are no lost sales, but no thinking person believes that trope. It's obvious that if the same product is available for $20 and $0, that many of the people who understand how to get it for $0 will do so, even if they otherwise would've paid $20.
What's really happening is that, the easier piracy becomes, the closer the supply curve comes to turning into a very flat line at price 0. Now, the actual cost to the consumer in time, energy, bandwidth, and guilt is higher than 0, and it's possible to reduce those costs by trading off some actual money cost to get the permission of copyright holders the way Apple or Rdio are doing, but it's not clear that this will last forever.
The "isn't worth it" actually goes the other way at this point: it's isn't worth pirating anything you can get from iTunes. Most of their customers are perfectly capable of pirating stuff, but it isn't worth their time compared to grabbing it from iTunes.
I'm not saying nobody will ever compete with them or that people don't still pirate anyhow, just that they're more than capable of competing with free. They've been successfully doing that the entire time, in fact.
That's exactly the part that makes me believe they have staying power.
Such a structure consumes a scarce resource -- creative effort -- wastefully, and restricts an abundant resource -- communicability of information -- unnecessarily. That seems very much the opposite of economically efficient.
Information goods should be more like better kinds of software production. But the current copyright-based system makes it all more like a 'waterfall economy'
http://www.hxa.name/notes/note-hxa7241-20120103T1008Z.html
But we can still make poop jokes, right?
I like those really tall faucets, the ones used by surgeons when they scrub in. I want one in my office restroom, so that I can easily wash up to my elbows after a messy coding session, and I don't care to listen to the moralists who tell me that those faucets are only for surgeons.