<story><title>Facebook’s Piracy Problem</title><url>http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2015/07/freebooting_stolen_youtube_videos_going_viral_on_facebook.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>hackuser</author><text>A radical idea: Maybe our model of intellectual property is wrong, or outdated. When IP was tied to a physical object, it made some sense to restrict and explicitly license each reproducer.&lt;p&gt;Now we have incredible machines that can reproduce intellectual property almost infinitely, distribute it anywhere on Earth, and find it almost anywhere on Earth. Wow! Maybe we should embrace that innovation, and find a model that encourages the spread, use and re-use of IP, for the betterment of society. Yes, motivating creators is a problem, but there are many possible solutions.&lt;p&gt;Another radical thought: The notion of IP created from whole cloth obviously was always a fallacy; we all &amp;quot;stand on the shoulders of giants&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;good artists borrow, great artists steal&amp;quot;, etc. Now that our IP machines make finding, copying, and distributing IP so easy, we can expect even more of that wonderful, creative larceny. As IP creators are benefitting from these amazing IP finding&amp;#x2F;copying&amp;#x2F;distributing systems and so much of their own product is stolen, perhaps they have less claim on the profits from those things they put their names on.&lt;p&gt;A third: Many creative people are motivated to do great things withhout payment. Remember, all those FOSS creators, from RMS to Linus Torvalds to Tim Berners-Lee to every little FOSS project on Github. Remember also Van Gogh and millions of other starving artists you have and haven&amp;#x27;t heard of (quick, name a poet who cashed in on their life&amp;#x27;s work). Perhaps financial renumeration, while fair, isn&amp;#x27;t entirely necessary (and perhaps we&amp;#x27;d have less crap with less of it).</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>talon88</author><text>&amp;quot;Perhaps financial renumeration, while fair, isn&amp;#x27;t entirely necessary&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Is it that in your world, eating and paying the rent isn&amp;#x27;t necessary either?&lt;p&gt;&amp;#x27;Many&amp;#x27; creative people sounds like some programmers, which is somewhat small subset of all creatives. I&amp;#x27;d be surprised if the majority of creative people — artists, writers, actors, and more — would happily go about saying that financial renumeration doesn&amp;#x27;t matter to them.&lt;p&gt;Destin, for example, puts a lot of effort into his videos and his work. Financial renumeration not being necessarily inevitably means Destin does something else for the majority of his time and does Smarter Ever Day less (if at all). This is almost certainly the same for every other artist out there. Sure — maybe all art isn&amp;#x27;t necessary. Maybe some of it is crap. But saying that being paid to be creative isn&amp;#x27;t necessarily means that you get very little art, if at all.</text></comment>
<story><title>Facebook’s Piracy Problem</title><url>http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2015/07/freebooting_stolen_youtube_videos_going_viral_on_facebook.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>hackuser</author><text>A radical idea: Maybe our model of intellectual property is wrong, or outdated. When IP was tied to a physical object, it made some sense to restrict and explicitly license each reproducer.&lt;p&gt;Now we have incredible machines that can reproduce intellectual property almost infinitely, distribute it anywhere on Earth, and find it almost anywhere on Earth. Wow! Maybe we should embrace that innovation, and find a model that encourages the spread, use and re-use of IP, for the betterment of society. Yes, motivating creators is a problem, but there are many possible solutions.&lt;p&gt;Another radical thought: The notion of IP created from whole cloth obviously was always a fallacy; we all &amp;quot;stand on the shoulders of giants&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;good artists borrow, great artists steal&amp;quot;, etc. Now that our IP machines make finding, copying, and distributing IP so easy, we can expect even more of that wonderful, creative larceny. As IP creators are benefitting from these amazing IP finding&amp;#x2F;copying&amp;#x2F;distributing systems and so much of their own product is stolen, perhaps they have less claim on the profits from those things they put their names on.&lt;p&gt;A third: Many creative people are motivated to do great things withhout payment. Remember, all those FOSS creators, from RMS to Linus Torvalds to Tim Berners-Lee to every little FOSS project on Github. Remember also Van Gogh and millions of other starving artists you have and haven&amp;#x27;t heard of (quick, name a poet who cashed in on their life&amp;#x27;s work). Perhaps financial renumeration, while fair, isn&amp;#x27;t entirely necessary (and perhaps we&amp;#x27;d have less crap with less of it).</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ggchappell</author><text>&amp;gt; A radical idea: Maybe our model of intellectual property is wrong, or outdated.&lt;p&gt;Honestly, that&amp;#x27;s not really radical. It seems to be pretty clear to anyone who knows anything about computers. There may be flaws your other thoughts, as other commenters have suggested, but not with the first one.&lt;p&gt;The big problem -- in the U.S. anyway -- is that there are huge companies with a vested interest in maintaining something like the late-ish 20th century copyright regime. These make campaign contributions to lawmakers, who pass laws in their favor, which allow them to continue making money, which they contribute to lawmakers, etc. It appears to me that little is going to change until that cycle is broken.</text></comment>