Nintendo's big piracy case is a sad story

2022-06-0811:46312252kotaku.com

There's a human element to these stories that is rarely seen by the public

Business Mario

Back in February, Gary Bowser—who in most media reports has been described as a ‘hacker’—was sentenced to 40 months in prison for his role in selling cheat and modification devices for Nintendo hardware. Being a court case, most of the reporting dealt only with names on a page and cold facts, but a transcript of Bowser’s sentencing hearing has just been released, giving us all a reminder that this was a very human case where the motivations, actions and outcomes were more complex than has mostly been reported.

The transcript—first reported by Axios— records everything that was said at Bowser’s sentencing, including statements by his lawyer, representatives from the United States Attorney’s Office and Department of Justice, Nintendo’s General Counsel, and the judge himself.

I’m not going to reprint the entire thing here, but there were a number of passages that I think paint this case in a more human light than we’d have otherwise been able to see through the lens of “Crime + Verdict” reporting. I thought these were worth sharing.

This is Anand Patel from the Department of Justice, pointing out how much Bowser made during his time with the hacking group Team Xecuter after his previous business had gone bust:

While he might have been an unlucky businessman, that doesn’t condone his actions here. The stipulated loss amount was the foreseeable result of the enterprise’s and Mr. Bowser’s conduct. But even if you do look at Mr. Bowser’s gain, the $320,000 over the course of seven years, it did provide a very comfortable lifestyle. That equates to about $3,800 a month, all of which was disposal income that would not have been available to him but for his involvement in the conspiracy. And you have to keep in mind that this was in the Dominican Republic, where the lifestyle is a little bit different than some of the other co-defendants in the case. That amount allowed Mr. Bowser to live a comfortable life. He bought a car, he was living in a nice apartment, after basically losing everything.

These are comments from Bowser’s lawyer, explaining the kind of conditions he has been detained in since he was first arrested, and which Nintendo were only so keen to send out a congratulatory press release boasting about back in February:

Your Honor, when I met with Mr. Bowser, when Mr. Sanders and I met with Mr. Bowser this morning in the lockup — it’s really interesting how you learn new things all the time, even after you have been with someone for a year — and we were just discussing the journey he took when he arrived in New Jersey, was taken into custody, and then went from one federal prison to another and ended up in Nevada. And he told me when he came in, he weighed 410 pounds — I didn’t know that he weighed that much — and by the time he got to the FDC, he was down to 320. He had lost 90 pounds. So I asked him, “Well, how did that happen?” Well, he said he wasn’t getting adequate treatment for the elephantiasis in his leg. And the one thing you have to really worry about is you have to worry about skin breakage, and when that happens, you’re very susceptible to a bad infection. He had a bad infection, they took him to a hospital in Pahrump, Nevada, and he got past that. But, you know, I asked him how he was doing this morning. He says, “Well, you know, I had this little break in my skin this morning.” I said, “Well, how are you dealing with that?” He said, “Well, I had some coffee and I made a little paste, and I’ve heard that that’s really good to take care of your skin.” And I think it just brought home for me that the physical challenges he has — they’re not life threatening; you know, the BOP will try to do the best they can to take care of him — it is a big challenge to get adequate medical care, and he has to essentially care for himself.

This is a picture of a typical cell at the detention center at SeaTac. Two people live in this space. I showed this to Mr. Bowser this morning — because this is not his cell — and he said, “Well, you know, I’m in a somewhat special cell. Mine is about 18-inches wider because it’s a special cell to accommodate the wheelchair that I was using much of the time, and I get the bottom bunk because of my problem.” But there are two people here. For six months of the last 16 months, he has been locked in this sized cell, plus 18 inches, for at least 23 hours a day. During the height of COVID, they only let people out every three days to go out to take a shower for maybe a half an hour and come back. So, you know, he gets out a little bit, but this is where he spent six months.

Bowser’s lawyer also took the opportunity to remind everyone that, while the defendant was commonly known now as a “hacker” thanks to news reports covering the case, his exact role with Team Xecuter was actually as a salesman and support guy:

One of the things that has happened over time is that facts get embellished when we’re talking about what the group did and what Mr. Bowser’s role was, and I think it’s important to keep those two things separate. Without Mr. Bowser, this enterprise would have gone on. There would have been another Mr. Bowser. Without Mr. Chen, without Mr. Louarn [the leaders of Team Xecuter], that’s not true. Mr. Bowser was not a developer. The developers, the people who actually made these devices and fixed them when Nintendo responded to it, they were paid very handsomely, much more than Mr. Bowser. He was not a reseller. He was not one of those independent contractors who was making a lot of money for that. That being said, the comments about Mr. Bowser’s role as being significant are accurate, and we’re not disputing that.

Bowser himself also took the stand, mostly to apologise to developers and publishers for his actions, but also to provide some further background as to what his 16 months in custody had been like:

It has been a very traumatic experience for me getting arrested, coming here, going through this. This is my first time actually in a jail going through the court process and everything. And the amount of time I’ve spent already, 16 months in custody, a lot of that time — I spent six months, basically, locked up due to COVID. I went through all three of the COVID waves before there was even a vaccine available. I personally haven’t got the vaccine, and the reason, I am skeptical with my medical condition, how it will affect me, and I haven’t been able to actually have proper medical treatment because I haven’t been able to have a one-on-one with a doctor to see if the vaccine would be possible with my health conditions. When I first got arrested, I was 410 pounds. I had to use a wheelchair. I spent my life drinking, since I was age 15, after my mom died, and this is the longest time I have been sober in my life.

This is Nintendo’s General Counsel Ajay Singh, repeating the same fallacy you always see in piracy cases—the false equivalence that every pirated game equals a lost sale, which is simply not true—before getting to the real meat of Nintendo’s pursuit: he claims that Team Xecuter, the group Bowser was part of, had been such a pain in Nintendo’s ass that the company had to release entirely new models of hardware, which seems like a much more likely motivating factor in this lawsuit than the games themselves:

With respect to Nintendo, the defendant and the government have stipulated to damages greater than $65 million. On top of that, Nintendo has spent enormous resources trying to stop Team Xecuter. We have been working on this for decades — well, at least for a decade, I would say. Nintendo has had to update its hardware to prevent Team Xecuter devices from working. That included releasing a new version of our console. It has also spent significant resources on software updates and, of course, on IP enforcement around the world.

And finally, here is the judge sentencing Bowser, saying that he’s somehow going hard on the defendant (by “sending a message”) while also simultaneously going easy on him (by saying under “normal circumstances” he would be sent to prison for “five years”):

...I always tell the jurors, “Your role is not to send a message. Your role is to decide guilt or innocence on the facts.” But my role sometimes does entail sending a message. For a long time, you know, white-color crime was considered not real crime and it flourished. We, in this community, still remember the Washington Mutual Bank disaster where nobody went to prison, nobody went to jail, nobody got criminally prosecuted, for what should have been serious criminal offenses. And when people do start getting charged with things, it does have an impact and provides general deterrence that this is not a joke, these are serious criminal offenses, with real victims and significant financial impacts on communities. So I think there is a role to be played here in terms of a message being sent out, and I want the message to be clear that, under normal circumstances, I would send Mr. Bowser to prison for five years. I don’t want to send any kind of mixed message to France. If Mr. Louarn [a more prominent figure in the piracy scene] comes in front of me for sentencing, he may very well be doing double-digit years in prison for his role and his involvement, and the same with the other individual. But we do have a situation here where Mr. Bowser, as terrible as his crimes were, is the least culpable of the three, and he has serious medical issues and challenges, and he’s been incarcerated under very difficult conditions for a significant period of time. So taking all of those things into consideration, I’m going to agree with Ms. Whaley here that a 40-month sentence is appropriate, and I will impose the 40 months.

None of this changes the fundamentals of the story, or Bowser’s guilt. The man committed a crime, knows he did and has been punished for it. But like I said, it does provide some context for the events beyond “man does crime,” and maybe helps show that cases like this are more complicated than press releases sent out by Nintendo and federal authorities are capable of getting across.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By if_by_whisky 2022-06-0921:026 reply

    I used to work for an expert witness who testified on valuations in IP infringement cases. I really lost faith in the way the US handles IP infringement in that job. I know patents are contentious in tech, but sometimes I think copyright is just as bad. I know it's not a popular opinion, but seeing how things actually play out really made me feel for defendants in those cases.

    Regardless of what you think of the effectiveness of IP protection, the way damages are calculated (and ultimately determined by courts) is just awful. I haven't looked at the specifics of that $65M calculation, but if the real number were closer to $650k I wouldn't be surprised-- 2 orders of magnitude was a pretty typical spread between plaintiff and defendant expert witnesses' valuations in the IP cases I worked on.

    • By efitz 2022-06-0922:487 reply

      There is a very real cost to society to provide patent and copyright. We have to have additional law enforcement, court, and prison capacity. It’s not clear at all to me that society is getting its money worth in defending essentially rent seeking behavior from big business. It’s also not clear that either patent or copyright in their current form actually “promote progress in the useful arts”.

      I hate the terms “intellectual property” and “piracy” because patent and copyright are not much like property at all, and because actual piracy is a crime of violence and nothing like infringement. And it’s not clear to me that the punishments inflicted are reasonable given the impact of the “crime”.

      Given that, I believe that we would be better off without patent or copyright, or with only a very modest time period of a couple years.

      • By willcipriano 2022-06-0922:543 reply

        It isn't 1900 anymore. With things with additive manufacturing and other innovations you can go from prototype to product faster than ever. A few year head start should be sufficient reward for most innovations. Perhaps you could handle the special cases (ie. somebody spends a billion dollars to invent a engine that runs on water) as one offs.

        Same with movies, television shows and music. They just don't have the impact they used to. You can do special effects for a few grand that cost a million dollars a few decades ago. As it is faster and easier than ever to make a movie, we don't need to offer such a long period of time for exclusivity.

        • By ghufran_syed 2022-06-0923:027 reply

          Any reason to think being creative in general is somehow easier for people than before? Whatever solution you offer should also apply to the base case which is writing a story or a song, both of which are “cheap” in terms of required tools and yet extremely difficult for most people to do well. So maybe we don’t want to discourage the creators just yet?

          • By readbeard 2022-06-100:491 reply

            In 1790, copyright term in the US was 14 years (if registered) plus 14 more years (if renewed), for a maximum total of 28 years. As of 1998, the copyright term is 95 years after publication (or 75 years after the author's death). So if creativity is equally as difficult now as it was in the past, I would ask why copyright terms have been so substantially expanded.

            It's also worth pointing out that, since the vast majority of works generate almost all their profits within the first few years of publication, such a lengthy copyright term primarily benefits rights holders of the extremely elite set of works that remain popular after decades of publication. In practice, this mostly winds up being companies like Disney, Sony, Universal, and so on. Meanwhile, the group that is most directly harmed is not the public in general, but everyday artists—who are less free than they were in the past to build on previous works, remix them, or use them as supporting elements in a larger project.

            Consider that, whereas consumers wanting to enjoy an older (let's say WWII-era) work usually face a choice between paying a small fee and getting an unauthorized copy somehow, creators face a choice between enduring a difficult and extremely costly licensing ordeal or opening themselves up to substantial legal risk. Creators often lose heart when faced with this dilemma—and many projects, at least a few of which would probably have been great, will never be made because of this.

            • By aidenn0 2022-06-1017:01

              Disney's Sleeping Beauty (1959) could not have been made until 1986[1] if the current rules were in effect (The ballet it was based on was from 1890, and copyright is 95 years).

              That's my go-to example for why this entire "creators vs consumers" narrative is so bogus. Copyright today is no less of a lottery ticket than getting noticed by the Medici family was 100s of years ago.

              1: In theory they could have licensed it, but I suspect a theoretical person in charge of maintaining the dignity of Tchaikovsky's works might have balked at giving Disney free reign to make a cartoon version and add lyrics for children to the instrumental music. Also, I don't think a ballet writer would feel particularly incentivized to know that someone would pay their estate to make a cartoon movie 60 years after they die.

          • By TheDong 2022-06-0923:471 reply

            Do you think open source code is worse off for the fact that copyright has been removed (via the various licenses, all of which reduce copyright's restrictions)?

            In my mind, open source code has been an excellent experiment showing that eschewing copyright doesn't mean people are less creative. Certainly, I've seen more creative open source code than I've seen creative proprietary code.

            Similarly, there are huge swathes of fanfiction out there which are incredible pieces of creative writing which are not charged for, are not created for commercial interest, and while technically copyrighted, the author may not even realize that.

            There are masses of people producing tiktok videos and spotify music for an audience, with no explicit expectation of copyright protection.

            People clearly want attribution, not control to the point where they can say that their work cannot be remixed into a new tiktok video (a common thing), or used as fuel for a new creative endeavor.

            On the other hand, copyright is largely used to stop such remixing, to prevent making creative derivative use of a work. If it were used just for "you must attribute me" (what open source licenses reduce it to), I would have no complaints.

            • By paulmd 2022-06-0923:56

              > Do you think open source code is worse off for the fact that copyright has been removed (via the various licenses, all of which reduce copyright's restrictions)?

              Open-source code doesn't mean it's not copyrighted, and in fact copyleft licenses are explicitly designed to use this copyright as a coercive/protective mechanism the same as any other copyright.

              But as a general statement, everything anyone produces is copyrighted from the moment they produce it. Your "hello world" that you write in a demo project and never open again is copyrighted. Your phone snap of your dog is copyrighted. MIT/BSD licensed code is copyrighted.

              A license providing grant of permissions is not the same thing as not having a copyright. Open-source code still has an author, and that owner can also offer other licenses if they want.

          • By caconym_ 2022-06-0923:144 reply

            +1

            People don't seem to consider what it would be like for authors (and similar) if copyright disappeared overnight: just as quickly, their work will be published and distributed by for-profit entities who can still turn a profit on it but don't have to give them a dime. Congratulations, you've made it impossible to make a living---or even part of one---as an author, except as an employee of a corporation that also controls distribution (e.g. your Disneys, your HBOs, and so on).

            I don't want to live in a world where the importance of storytelling [in media] is marginalized even further than it already is. A lot of people seem to have a "how hard could it be?" attitude toward it; the answer is, really fucking hard.

            • By zozbot234 2022-06-0923:361 reply

              > People don't seem to consider what it would be like for authors (and similar) if copyright disappeared overnight

              We know very well what things were like pre-copyright. People still came up with compelling stories. Creativity flourished. Of course we've seen an increase since then, but that's the effect of industrialization and overall prosperity not copyright per se.

              > Congratulations, you've made it impossible to make a living---or even part of one---as an author

              The success of distributed patronage platforms like Kickstarter is a very real challenge to this assumption. People are in fact making a living by producing content that can be freely copied and distributed. Meanwhile, the average self-proclaimed author sees their content languishing in utter obscurity. This can hardly be called a "benefit" of copyright.

              • By caconym_ 2022-06-100:192 reply

                > We know very well what things were like pre-copyright. People still came up with compelling stories. Creativity flourished. Of course we've seen an increase since then, but that's the effect of industrialization and overall prosperity not copyright per se.

                Do you think differences in how stories were copied and distributed "then" vs. today might have some bearing on the question of whether the absence of copyright "then" implies that authors don't benefit from it today?

                For instance, in the year 1400 AD, the cost of reproducing a written work of any significant length for mass distribution was beyond exorbitant. Today, it is essentially zero.

                > The success of distributed patronage platforms like Kickstarter is a very real challenge to this assumption. People are in fact making a living by producing content that can be freely copied and distributed.

                If copyright is done away with, making money on works before they're released to the public might indeed be the only way for independent authors to make money. Right now it's an alternative to self-pub that's really only available to authors who already have a large established following, e.g. Brandon Sanderson; if people can just wait for you to finish and get the work for free, I doubt they're going to put money up front before you've even finished it unless they're already big fans of your work.

                So---in short---no, I don't think the Kickstarter model will protect most independent authors from the effects of a dissolution of copyright law. But I welcome any challenges to the above reasoning.

                > Meanwhile, the average self-proclaimed author sees their content languishing in utter obscurity. This can hardly be called a "benefit" of copyright.

                What's the relevance of this bitter little nugget? Somebody who has written something is perfectly free to release it to the public domain if they like, and indeed many authors do just that. They are not bound to hold onto exclusive rights to their work just because copyright grants those rights by default.

                • By somenameforme 2022-06-1010:511 reply

                  Twitch is a reasonable argument to the contrary. You can watch Twitch completely for free with 0 impairment whatsoever to your experience (so long as at least have an ad-blocker), yet there are vast numbers of people making a living streaming, with a small chunk even becoming millionaires from it all, largely from people donating a few bucks at a time. Like you're saying there's always a big get bigger type phenomena, but that's an issue everybody has to deal with regardless of the system. And examples like Richard Bachman [1] would suggest its deterministically surmountable.

                  There are also countless other examples of things like DRM free products selling just fine in spite of the fact you can get a byte identical copy for free in about 2 seconds with a torrent. The point I make with this is that people are willing to part with more than enough money for people to make a living off of, even when they are not coerced into doing so.

                  [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bachman

                  • By caconym_ 2022-06-1016:14

                    > Twitch [...]

                    People donate to/tip streamers because they perceive that it will strengthen their parasocial relationship with the streamer in question, and more generally because they're watching a performance where tipping the performer(s) is directly encouraged and culturally normalized. It follows that for e.g. a writer to make money from this model, they have to either a) turn the act of writing itself into a performance compelling enough to extract donations/tips from an audience, or b) perform on stream when they aren't writing.

                    ---

                    Given how competitive streaming already is (most streamers seem to report working long hours just to maintain their audience, however large or small, and burnout is common), I don't think it's unfair to equate streaming with more or less a full time job. If you aren't writing on stream, then, you've got your day job (presumably, for 99% of writers and early-career streamers), plus your streaming^[1], plus actually writing. It feels untenable to me, and it's also wandering further from "making money as a writer" as an abstract concept---at what point are you making money as a streamer/performer instead, and how important does your writing end up being to whatever success you find?

                    So I think we can say option b) is not a good replacement for making money off your writing directly, by selling published written works to people who want to read them. It introduces many extra steps, requires a skillset many writers simply don't have and shouldn't be expected to have (performance), and finding meaningful success will likely marginalize your actual writing practice.

                    As seems to be the case with many "variety streamers", you'll probably just end up playing video games in a crop top and cat ears.^[2]

                    ---

                    Option a), actually writing on stream, will not be an option for most writers who haven't allowed the nature of that performance to erode the quality, complexity, and/or volume of their work. Writing is a full brain thing that requires you to hold a thread of complex context in your mind (a bit like programming, actually), and it's not visual, which is going to make an audiovisual performance centered around it that much more difficult to execute well.

                    Seriously, imagine pair programming except it's a thousand people looking over your shoulder and your livelihood depends on making each one of them believe you're their friend.

                    I know writing streamers do exist. Right now on Twitch the viewer counts are very small, but I'll check them out later because I'm curious. However, the fact that some of them exist doesn't change any of the above; the vast majority of writers aren't doing it.

                    ---

                    > Richard Bachman

                    From the linked Wiki page:

                    > King concludes that he has yet to find an answer to the "talent versus luck" question, as he felt he was outed as Bachman too early to know. The Bachman book Thinner (1984) sold 28,000 copies during its initial run—and then ten times as many when it was revealed that Bachman was, in fact, King.

                    Beyond that, I'm not really sure what point you're getting at by invoking Bachman. Writing is a talent and a skill, and King is supremely talented and skilled at it. From a 'determinism' angle, it makes complete sense that he could write a book under a pseudonym, get it published, and see some amount of success on the market. The average debut author starting at his level could expect the same.

                    However, the average debut author is not at his level. King has (famously) done a lot of writing, and it shows. One has to wonder how that would have gone if the only way for him to find success as an author was to run a successful Twitch channel at the same time.

                    ---

                    tl;dr: Streaming is not writing, and they go together like oil and water. Other media might integrate better with audiovisual performance, e.g. drawing. Either way, losing rights to their work will strip independent creators of important avenues to profiting from it.

                    ---

                    > There are also countless other examples of things like DRM free products selling just fine in spite of the fact you can get a byte identical copy for free in about 2 seconds with a torrent. The point I make with this is that people are willing to part with more than enough money for people to make a living off of, even when they are not coerced into doing so.

                    It's naive to think torrenting is an accessible option for the average person. It would probably take me hours spread across multiple days to get my wife set up for it, for instance.

                    "DRM Free" content, unless I'm mistaken, still allows the original creator(s) to maintain the copyright. This prevents big distribution channels that are accessible to normal consumers (e.g. Kindle) from selling the work without giving the creator(s) a cut. If I publish a novel "DRM Free" in some indie-ish context, I can still sell it through other channels, and I have some recourse if somebody rips it off. Not so, if copyright is dissolved.

                    > coerced

                    This word choice is totally absurd. Nobody is being coerced, with a few notable exceptions (students who need certain overpriced textbooks to graduate, etc.). Is it coercion if I list an old lawnmower on Craigslist for $100, and when somebody shows up to buy it I expect them to pay?

                    ---

                    ^[1] Obviously, hypothetically, you expect streaming to pay your bills. Bootstrapping an audience big enough for that is the problem; if you already have a following big enough to make a living on, maybe you will have the time and creative energy to write on the side to do a little writing, but this goes back to the Kickstarter problem: you have to build your platform first.

                    ^[2] Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it isn't writing.

                • By hakfoo 2022-06-125:51

                  I suspect we'd see a shift towards "give the first one away free". If you're a new author, you're going to have to release some compelling teaser to get people to subscribe to the second installment.

                  It sort of reminds me of how anime series tend to trail behind their source material, or cut off after a few dozen chapters-- there's a real expectation it's a teaser for buying the serialized books and magazine releases.

            • By TheDong 2022-06-0923:514 reply

              Free software / open source licenses have effectively made copyright disappear for open source code.

              Red Hat certainly does package up a large collection of open source work and sell support for it, but that has not caused authors of open source software to despair and quit writing code. It is not common for a commercial entity to republish open source software, and Red Hat is an exception.

              Sure, there are a vast number of open source developers who do it on the side, or are not compensated... but that is also true of professions where copyright remains. Most authors, most artists, they write or draw on the side, post their work to substack or twitter or deviant art or such, and never see a dime.

              I think open source software is a good example of what happens when you get rid of copyright - people still feel ownership for what they make, people are still creative, and a tiny fraction of people manage to make a profit off their passion projects.

              • By ssalazar 2022-06-100:30

                Copyleft / GPL licenses require copyright law to have any threat of enforcement. Otherwise anyone could just ignore the terms of a copyleft license and use open source under any terms they wish.

              • By caconym_ 2022-06-100:342 reply

                > Free software / open source licenses have effectively made copyright disappear for open source code.

                [...]

                > I think open source software is a good example of what happens when you get rid of copyright - people still feel ownership for what they make [...]

                I think this is a quite a stretch given the prominence of copyright in popular open source licenses, including (for example) the extremely popular and permissive MIT license. You can copy it, modify it, distribute it, etc., but I still own the copyright, and you still have to give me credit for the initial development. I can choose whatever license I want, which may or may not impose restrictions on who can use my code in derivative works, etc., and how.

                In a very real sense, I do own the FOSS software I've released to the world. If legal codification of that ownership isn't important to open source developers, why are so many pixels spent discussing it?

                • By TheDong 2022-06-100:541 reply

                  Public domain / UNLICENSE style licenses are less popular, but still have the same qualities I mentioned of people feeling ownership, even though there is zero copyright in that specific case and their is no legal codification of ownership.

                  I understand that MIT etc are copyright licenses, but they remove the majority of copyright's requirements. They only require attribution, and are a statement that the other parts of copyright, the restrictions on distribution and modification, explicitly do not apply.

                  They remove the part of copyright that people typically think of when someone says copyright.

                  • By caconym_ 2022-06-101:27

                    Sure, some developers are cool with public domain; the same is true with writers and other creatives working in pretty much any medium you can name.

                    The fact remains, copyright is very much relevant to the open source community today. It's absurd to say otherwise, given the amount of discussion the topic generates. On that basis I categorically reject your statement that "free software / open source licenses have effectively made copyright disappear for open source code."

                    > They remove the part of copyright that people typically think of when someone says copyright.

                    "People" don't know the first thing about copyright, because (besides the obvious lack of technical knowledge) it's invisible to them when it's working in their favor and highly visible when it isn't.

                    What does copyright mean to creators, to whom it is granted? Does it mean ownership, in some vague, ill-defined sense? Guaranteed attribution wherever their work ends up? The right to ensure their work is used only for applications they consider ethical? A guarantee that nobody will be able to make money off it? A guarantee that nobody will be able to make money off it but them? A guarantee that movie studio X won't hire a hack writer-director for a cash-in sequel that ruins the original's reputation? The answer is that it means all these things, and more, to different creators.

                    As a creator of copyrighted works (of both FOSS and fiction, as it happens), copyright means something in particular to me. It means something else to other creators. I wouldn't speak for them, and I'm kind of astonished by how many people with (apparently) little or no skin in the game are willing to do so.

                • By thayne 2022-06-101:46

                  So it would be like a copyright system where you have to give credit to the creator, but don't have to pay royalties.

              • By vel0city 2022-06-101:091 reply

                Free software/ open source licenses are copyright.

                • By throwaway75026 2022-06-106:351 reply

                  MIT/BSD licenses are essentially a copyright waiver.

                  • By rdpintqogeogsaa 2022-06-107:581 reply

                    They are not. You still have strings attached: the requirement of attribution and the disclaimer. With 3-clause and 4-clause BSD, there are even more strings attached.

                    You can't just take MIT-licensed code. You have to take the code and the full copyright notice and license grant with disclaimer.

                    • By throwaway75026 2022-06-109:45

                      Copyright law doesn't allow you to waive those rights without falling into Public Domain, which is considered grey area in some countries.

              • By RcouF1uZ4gsC 2022-06-100:371 reply

                > Free software / open source licenses have effectively made copyright disappear for open source code.

                And some of those licenses are being rethought by companies as they realize that that Amazon/Google/Microsoft can just take their work, put it on AWS as SAAS and capture most if not all of that value.

                • By pabs3 2022-06-104:56

                  I watched a talk somewhere that argued that Amazon/Google/Microsoft selling SaaS access to software massively increases the size of the market for that software and in the process actually increases the revenue of existing businesses in that market, while still decreasing their market share. With a savvy team and a good relationship with the big SaaS vendors, you could definitely ride that wave to increased success.

            • By mattnewton 2022-06-103:451 reply

              We ran that experiment of dramatically shorter copyright terms, and it produced much of the culture you know and love before 1975. Copyright has been extended in 1976 and then again in 1998 mostly at the behest of rent seeking corporations who bought the culture after it’s creation and after paying the authors handsomely for it. Calling Disney’s business “marginalized” seems ridiculous to me?

              • By caconym_ 2022-06-106:171 reply

                See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31688954

                I'm advocating for copyright from the perspective of independent creators, not big media conglomerates. Additionally, my comment is (explicitly, if you read closely) addressing the case of copyright being completely dissolved, which---as crazy as this seems---is an idea some people apparently support. You need look no further than this thread to prove this to yourself.

                I am not necessarily against shorter copyright terms. Honestly, since the main reason I support copyright is because it protects independent creators' rights to their own work, I would be totally fine with completely striking the postmortem copyright period for non-corporate authors (certainly, 70 years is insane) and cutting the pseudonymous/corporate terms in half.

                • By mattnewton 2022-06-1016:26

                  Then I think we are in violent agreement. People who say “copyright has gotten out of control” or “is the cost worth it to society” largely are complaining about the current state of copyright where it lasts generations in my experience. Nobody hates the creator of culture they love, the hate the lawyers strangling anyone’s ability to participate in that culture in any way other than as a consumer. If we turned back the clock to 1975 levels of protection, we would get a public domain again which is good for creators, and creators would still have long periods to profit off their labor. The next Disney could be born as the first Disney was, by remixing the rich public domain. Of course that wouldn’t be good for the current disney monopoly and so it’s unlikely to happen.

            • By landryraccoon 2022-06-101:111 reply

              I think there's middle ground between "throw away all copyright protections" and "throw copyright infringers into prison for years".

              I'm more inclined toward leniency than the draconian laws we have now.

              I mean, 95 years of copyright protection? Is society really going to be destroyed if Disney has to release some of their IP under creative commons after 30 years instead? I doubt it.

              • By caconym_ 2022-06-101:30

                I don't really disagree with any of this. Big business has corrupted the modern implementation of copyright law (e.g. erosion of fair use) and something should be done to turn it back in favor of independent creators.

                Of course, big money runs everything, so that probably isn't going to happen.

          • By svachalek 2022-06-0923:142 reply

            I hate to say it but I think society is pretty full up on creativity these days. If the richest 1000 musicians stopped composing, would there be no music? Would it be worse than what we have now?

            • By bruce511 2022-06-104:28

              >> Would it be worse than what we have now?

              Point of view is everything. From at least one point of view the answer is yes.

              Say I'm a small unsigned singer/songwriter, grinding along looking for a break. I write one good song. Elvis hears my song, and is free to just perform it himself. No copyright, no payment to me. His release is a smash hit, making him millions.

              His performance of the song contributes a lot to his success, but the song itself is valuable too.

              Of course elvis is signed by a record label, who pays him. The other record label buys one CD, and copies it (as they are entitled to do - no copyright remember.) they make millions selling it cheap (no need to spend on artists or marketing.) In fact they have a chain of stores where you can by any CD ever at half price.

              So the real winner here is the person who sells to the customer, and pays not a penny upstream.

              Musicians and song writers and audience builders upstream all work in construction doing their day job, and the cream of that crop can't afford to spend much time on creating. Their secret sauce is lost, and we are all poorer because of that.

              Which personally, for me, sounds like a much worse system.

            • By mauvehaus 2022-06-100:00

              On the basis of what's on the radio these days, I'd say that if the richest 1000 musicians quit composing, it might be a huge win.

          • By kelnos 2022-06-100:531 reply

            I think for smaller creators, what you are saying makes a lot of sense. While writing a song or story doesn't require much equipment cost, it does take a lot of time and effort, and that's time and effort that would be impossible to justify if the returns don't at least pay for food and housing.

            But for big business media, it feels like the usual justification that rightsholders use for aggressive enforcement is that if too many people "steal", then there won't be enough revenue to even break even, let alone make a profit, and so no one will make movies anymore. Which is technically true, but I don't think we've ever seen infringement on a level that would make these sorts of creations financially infeasible to make.

            Actually, going back to small creators: it's not like current copyright terms are reasonable, anyway. I mean, let's say it takes you a year of full-time work to write a novel and get it published. So you could say that's a year of "lost" wages. Maybe copyright terms should be floating. As soon as the author recoups the "lost wages" plus some percent for creation-related expenses and profit, then it goes into the public domain. Why should creators (and often their descendants) get to milk their work for decades? I get that something like this would be a nightmare to handle legally, so maybe it makes sense to set a shorter copyright term based on some sort of average time to break even (or perhaps say 30th percentile or whatever, to make it more inclusive of some works that take longer). That's still difficult; I imagine you'd have to have different terms for different types of work. But it might be a lot more fair to the public commons.

            Regardless, current terms for copyright are ridiculous: 95 years after publication, or 75 years after the death of the creator. I mean... what? That's nuts. Before Disney and Sonny Bono got greedy about all this, max term was less than 30 years, which sounds a lot more reasonable... though IMO still high! If the cost to create has gone down over time -- which for many types of creations I believe it has -- then copyright terms should be adjusted downward, not upward!

            • By hypertele-Xii 2022-06-104:271 reply

              > if too many people "steal", then there won't be enough revenue to even break even, let alone make a profit, and so no one will make movies anymore

              At current budgets. To make a movie all you need is a camera, and we pretty much all got one in our pockets at this point.

              Someone will make movies sans copyright. It just won't be a massive, entrenched studio on a billion budget.

              • By kelnos 2022-06-1021:45

                Sure. To be clear, I'm not saying I buy the movie studios' rationale here; I'm merely pointing out what they often say.

                I think a question we should also ask, though, is: is there artistic and entertainment value in massive-budget blockbuster films? I think yes, there is. I mean, I certainly enjoy plenty of them. But is that worth our current copyright regime? I would say no. But, like anything else, I expect the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. I don't think I would advocate for no copyright at all, but I would want it to be much more limited than it is now (even more limited than in the 90s, with 14+14-year terms, I'd say).

          • By _carbyau_ 2022-06-0923:23

            Honestly? I do think that video and song writers are overrated for different reasons.

            Movies. It isn't that they aren't worth what people pay to watch. But after ... say three to five years at most, it HAS entered Public Domain in a practical sense - just not legally... A more fun way to measure it, once you can stop using [spoiler alert] in a public forum about a movie, it is in the Public Domain.

            Why a shorter period of time now? Availability. In the 1930's seeing a movie was tricky business compared to streaming on every device any time. Nowadays, after three years, anyone who really wants to see your movie has had sufficient time to do so.

            Song Writers. Have you seen some of the lyrics they come up with? Teen Spirit for example. These are not literary masterpieces. But the performance is key. Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" did ok with her own performances, but blasted out of the park when Whitney Houston covered it. Yet Dolly made money for a song that had been out for 20 years? Damn, that's a good racquet if you have the connections - because song writing talent is only 5% of this equation. The performance, publicity around the movie etc etc made that happen.

            As for - "but it will make it hard for creators to make money"

            Yes, the future will be different. Not all people will be able to make money from art. But a large chunk of this of down to democratisation of tools. Just because you too have an Apple laptop and Garageband doesn't mean you should be able to make money.

            Ultimately, all the people wanting to make big $ out of music are looking at the 60's-2000's time of music where corporations milked the scale of selling copies of music rather than performances. Now that bubble has popped.

            Will your song be a masterpiece in a gallery earning you a lifetime of riches? Likely not. But that is the same for most painters in history.

        • By pronlover723 2022-06-101:233 reply

          Looking at the long list of credits of most recent effects heavy movies I don't think it's quite true that special effects are cheap. Sure, I get that anyone with enough motivation and Blender can making something cool. But at least at the moment, looking at any 3D movie or animated movie, it's 1000s of people for 1-3 years of work to make them. That's way way WAY UP from what it was 10-20-30 years ago.

          • By thayne 2022-06-101:29

            Still, those movies are often profitable within a year or two, how much does society gain by the copyright lasting decades?

          • By _gabe_ 2022-06-101:35

            > Looking at the long list of credits of most recent effects heavy movies I don't think it's quite true that special effects are cheap.

            >> You can do special effects for a few grand that cost a million dollars a few decades ago.

            You can definitely do the same special effects that were available 10-20 years ago by yourself for free today. If you want to do special effects that match today's standards, yes that's going to be much harder. I don't think that's what the OP meant though. I think they were saying that what used to be very difficult and cost tons of money, can now be done by one person relatively cheaply or even for free.

          • By thayne 2022-06-101:351 reply

            How many of those 1000s of people will continue to benefit from the royalties years after the movie is made?

            • By redwall_hp 2022-06-103:481 reply

              None of the special effects artists, sound engineers, editors, costume designers or other associated professionals are getting royalties at all. They get paid for the work they do once and that's it. Actors get royalties, but if you're not one of the top names in the film, the checks will maybe buy a dinner out occasionally.

              • By pronlover723 2022-06-126:05

                Not quite? The reason they have money to pay the salaries of special effects artists, sound engineers, editors, costume designers or other associated professionals is because of previous movie income.

        • By caconym_ 2022-06-102:242 reply

          > Same with movies, television shows and music. They just don't have the impact they used to. You can do special effects for a few grand that cost a million dollars a few decades ago. As it is faster and easier than ever to make a movie, we don't need to offer such a long period of time for exclusivity.

          You should take a look at the Wikipedia list of the most expensive films, inflation-adjusted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films#M...

          There are a lot of problems with your comment (are impressive special effects the only thing you need to make an "impactful" movie or television show? can you show your work to prove your claim that music, film, and television today are less "impactful" than in the past?) but I think this is the most obvious one: we are, evidently, spending more to make blockbuster movies today than we ever have before. This would seem to put your "faster and easier" claim on very shaky ground.

          • By imron 2022-06-102:431 reply

            > You should take a look at the Wikipedia list of the most expensive films, inflation-adjusted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films#M...

            How on earth is Tangled #9 on this list?

            • By chevill 2022-06-104:431 reply

              IIRC development hell. I think they had to scrap basically the whole movie and start over at one point.

              • By imron 2022-06-107:37

                That it cost more than Avatar (released around the same time) in both actual and adjusted costs is staggering .

          • By Retric 2022-06-102:431 reply

            Many of those most expensive films spent much of their budgets on major actors. That’s a function of Hollywood accounting where actors need to be paid upfront for the potential value of the income generated rather than paid based on how well a film does.

            The most expensive film on that list Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) out of a nominal 378.5 million paid $55 Million for Jonny Depp. Orlando Bloom made 11 million on that same film etc.

            By comparison Orlando Bloom made got $175,000 For The Lord Of The Rings trilogy and 21 million for the Hobbit trilogy.

            • By caconym_ 2022-06-102:541 reply

              > Many of those most expensive films spent much of their budgets on major actors. That’s a function of Hollywood accounting where actors need to be paid upfront for the potential value of the income generated rather than paid based on how well a film does.

              A brief Google safari suggests that while this may sometimes be the case, it's far from universal, and can't really account for the overwhelming trend of recent films appearing on the list I posted.

              So where's the source? Where's the inflation-adjusted budget breakdown equivalent of what I posted?

              Relevant Wiki page with a handful of budget breakdowns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_budgeting

              • By Retric 2022-06-103:351 reply

                The budget breakdown you just linked is fine for what I am describing.

                The logic here is a little strange but it does explain why more recent movies especially sequels dominate that list. More recent films have larger audiences due to population growth and ticket prices have kept up with inflation. That means more recent films have a larger likely revenue stream especially sequels for popular movies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films EX: Ben-Hur the most expensive movie that had been made in 1959 at the equivalent of 158 million and pulled in the equivalent of 900 million would hardly worth mentioning as a major film today.

                Actors/directors/screenwriters/music rights holders/etc are going to negotiate based on the potential revenues therefore the larger the potential revenue the more they want to be paid upfront.

                Now, that doesn’t directly impact shooting or special effects budgets, but if you’re already spending 100+ million on the “Actors/directors/screenwriters/music rights holders/etc” then there is little reason to economize on the special effects budget. Trying to economize at that point is just not worth the risk especially when the budget is fixed before you start. Might as well keep things padded at that point.

                • By caconym_ 2022-06-106:04

                  Ok, I think I see what you're saying. I would definitely expect the expanded market for modern blockbusters to be a big factor in driving the upward budget trend. As you say (I think), most or all of the different production departments will then get a bigger piece of pie.

      • By toss1 2022-06-0923:211 reply

        I used to think that patents were essential, but the reality is that they don't provide much protection to ordinary inventors and are mostly used in rent-seeking and extractive behaviors by major entities.

        The reality is that a patent or copyright is not a protection, but just a ticket to a lawsuit. That lawsuit will take years and 6-figure dollars to prosecute to a usually unsatisfactory result. When it costs well into 5-figure dollars merely to get a patent, it's not worth it for a small inventor and is just the cost of business for a patent troll.

        Other than marketing value of "we have 5 patents on the tech in this product!", it's generally better to go trade secret, IMO...

        Copyright, is better in that it doesn't cost much to assert one, but going beyond a decade or two after the life of the author is again only something that favors some large corporate entities.

        Remember, the entire purpose of both of these is to benefit society and the country as a whole - to promote innovation. Promoting large corporations rent-seeking and extractive profits fails to do that.

        • By bruce511 2022-06-104:481 reply

          >> Remember, the entire purpose of both of these is to benefit society and the country as a whole - to promote innovation

          This is inaccurate. Patents are designed to promote innovation.

          Copyrights are designed to promote creativity, not innovation. My novel is not innovative, it is creative. Copyrights allow me to monetize my creations if I choose to do so.

          Patents are designed for people to monetize invention.

          Conflating the two is both common, and unhelpful, as they both need different reforms in different aspects.

          • By toss1 2022-06-1014:101 reply

            Of course they are distinct and need somewhat different reforms.

            However, they have much more in common

            They are both legal structures creating and enforcing the concept of "intellectual property" and supporting monetization of that property for the creators.

            I read the phrase "promote creativity" as indistinguishable from "promote innovation in the non-STEM (artistic, literary, etc.) fields" — sure, in general, "innovative" connotations differing from "creative", but in this discussion, it is a distinction without a difference.

            Maybe I'm missing something, and I agree that they both need reforms in different aspects, but that is primarily because they have different sets of laws, not because of some distinction between the two words you've highlighted.

            • By bruce511 2022-06-1016:001 reply

              "Intellectual Property" as a term covers more than monetization though. For example it covers Trade Marks which has more to do with ownership (ie a "brand") than with direct monetization. I don't sell my trademark.

              The distinction is important because one can be pro, or against, monetization - for or against ownership, pro or against copyright and so on. Incidentally copyright isn't as much about monetization (almost no creative works make any money) - it's more about control over the creation.

              >> I read the phrase "promote creativity" as indistinguishable from "promote innovation in the non-STEM (artistic, literary, etc.) fields"

              I understand where you are coming from, but I would argue that there's a big difference between innovation and creativity, and conflating the two does not necessarily lead to progress in reforming either.

              • By toss1 2022-06-130:13

                >>"Intellectual Property" as a term covers more than monetization though. For example it covers Trade Marks which has more to do with ownership (ie a "brand") than with direct monetization. I don't sell my trademark.

                Interesting example, but it is still all about monetization, even if slightly indirect. E.g., every franchise operation licenses it's trademark to it's operators - You and I can setup a hamburger restaurant, but we'd better not call it McDonald's or Wendy's without signing up to their franchise agreement and paying the fees.

                I've worked in both software and now in mechanical engineering fields, and I'm also having a hard time seeing both how innovation is not merely creativity applied to one field and the arts are creativity applied to another. Whether I'm creating a new widget, or way to make the widget, or you are creating a new painting, song, or written work, we're both applying our training, knowledge, experience, and creativity to create something new.

                Even more so, I don't see how making this distinction inhibits making reforms.

                In both cases, we need to reform the system so that it is not merely a tool for corporations to implement restrictive rent-seeking regimes to extract profit and inhibit progress. Any further detail you can provide?

      • By hovden 2022-06-0923:031 reply

        Physical property and intellectual property are fundamentally different legally and philosophically. The terminology causes much confusion, especially among those with classical liberal leanings.

        https://c4sif.org/2022/01/natural-rights-scarcity-intellectu...

        • By pas 2022-06-107:59

          sorry, could you somehow summarize it?

      • By adamhi 2022-06-100:05

        As far as I understand, there is no criminal penalty associated with patent infringement.

        With copyright violations you can in theory get prison time (as the warning on a DVD informs us), but it's very rare — on the order of a couple hundred people a year, and mostly for selling bootlegs, not for downloading movies off The Pirate Bay. I don't believe that the extra prison capacity required to house that many people is really much of an argument (even in small part) for removing all copyright and patent protections for everyone.

        Keep in mind that the work of every independent artist — writer, musician, game developer, whatever — is enabled by being able to sell their work, rather than have a perfect knockoff sold on Amazon for $.99 the day after it's released.

      • By readbeard 2022-06-0923:581 reply

        Re: "intellectual property" and "piracy," I agree. The terms are problematic and misleading. How about "intellectual monopoly" and "infringement" as more accurate, neutral terms?

        • By bruce511 2022-06-104:42

          The concept of "intellectual property", which is a blanket term to include trade marks, copyright, patents, trade secrets and more is unhelpful because this covers multiple parts of the law, which were developed independently with different goals.

          While there is a lot of good in there, (not much complaint about trademarks), some mixed (copyright is good, 95 years is excessive), some bad (software patents) it's very mixed, and so lumping it all together as "intellectual property" is unhelpful. If for no other reason than it is too broad a topic that is too easily distracted to get anything resolved.

      • By 0dayz 2022-06-108:25

        Ive always been in favor of the idea that only a person(s) can hold said copyright or patent and not the company, instead the company can have a license that protects their specific version of said work.

      • By ChadNauseam 2022-06-0922:533 reply

        How would you fund things like the discovery of new drugs, or the creation of big-budget movies, without parents and copyright respectively?

        • By zozbot234 2022-06-0923:413 reply

          New drugs are one thing (though even there, prizes and academic grants are a meaningful alternative to patent protection), but do we really need big-budget movies? They seem like a total waste. Most of them have trouble ever making a profit, and that's in spite of extreme levels of copyright enforcement (at least wrt. average users, not dedicated pirates).

          • By dahart 2022-06-100:211 reply

            > Most of them have trouble ever making a profit

            If that were true, most of the big-budget movie studios would be going out of business regularly. But that isn’t happening, by and large. They do sometimes want you to think they’re not making money. Having worked in the film & games industries, I’ve witnessed some of the creative accounting that gets used.

            > do we really need big-budget movies? They seem like a total waste.

            Well, people pay for them, and our IP laws are designed to protect the business of creations and inventions. Most of the pharma industry is also peddling stuff we don’t need and is wasteful, however it is big business.

            • By rpdillon 2022-06-103:132 reply

              They do make some money!

              > Here are the combined financial figures for all 29 Hollywood blockbusters (budgeted over $100m)…

              > Total combined budgets: $4.37 billion

              > Total combined costs (including budgets, marketing and all other costs): $11.52 billion

              > Total combined income (from all revenue streams): $11.95 billion

              > Profit across all movies: $428.9 million

              > An average profit of $14.8 million per movie

              The whole thing is an interesting read!

              https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-b...

              • By dahart 2022-06-104:44

                It is interesting, but should be taken with a couple pretty big grains of salt IMO. It does a good job of discussing the many varied sources of cost and income. But the secret unsourced data of unnamed movies that is “trust me” better than what’s on Wikipedia and Box Office Mojo… really big red flag. I absolutely do not buy that the average profit is 3.7%. I worked on one of the movies he discusses (Shrek 2) and the paragraph about it is misleading, which for me makes me wonder how many other paragraphs are misleading. I also worked for a 2nd major film company and watched first-hand how they account for production budgets, which can involve trading costs with other nearby productions to make the expenses appear larger in order to do things like justify restructuring decisions, hide gains and losses, divert money toward or away from bonus pools. What really happens is impossible to know even as an insider, but the outcomes of this industry reveal that despite what they claim, it’s quite healthy for the big-budget crowd.

              • By bruce511 2022-06-104:58

                It's worth understanding that "profit" is usually not the goal, and in any business can be easily made to go higher or lower.

                For example if I want my business to make more profit, I can stop paying me a salary. I can just take the same money out as profit. Or vice versa. Ultimately I end up optimising my salary/profit ratio according to the tax laws.

                Notice the studios managed to spend 8 billion on "other stuff". That's not "profit" (so less to pay people who have profit share) but it certainly went somewhere. And those feeding at the $8b trough certainly view big budget movies as a massive win.

                Sure Hollywood Accounting is well known, but it's no different to any business. Profit is a meaningless number and ultimately the flow of money is optimised for many other things.

          • By npteljes 2022-06-106:30

            >Most of them have trouble ever making a profit

            They just do the accounting in a specific way to reduce taxes. It's on such a scale that it has its own name: Hollywood accounting.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

        • By concordDance 2022-06-107:591 reply

          If you abolished patents you'd have to reduce regulations on drug discovery enough that university teams can make new ones (like in the bad old days of the 1950s). Big budget movies we can just do without.

          On a related note: If you reduce the regulations on drugs you could go back to the good old days where new drugs cost under a hundred million dollars to make. This would let smaller companies make new drugs and drug companies would get slightly less insane margins (your average big pharma company gets $2 for shareholders for every $1 they spend on R&D, manufacturing, admin, advertising, etc).

          • By andi999 2022-06-1010:52

            A few more people might get damages from that, so lets hope they are in different countries /s

        • By jerojero 2022-06-102:38

          Lots and I really do mean lots of drugs are funded almost entirely by governments and basic research at universities. Covid vaccines being one example.

          If you look at where the money for research comes (for new drugs, not for variation of existing drugs) from in big pharma you'll see a significant part of it is government money.

          But ethically do you think it is okay for big pharma to keep the intellectual property on medicine that can very well save lives? I think you have to make a very good case for patents being a force of innovation to justify keeping this medicine out of peoples reach. Let's not forget when bill gates spent millions of dollars distributing information in Africa against the copyright waiver the government was planning in order to make AIDS medicine affordable. Rent seeking on medication is, in my opinion, one of the worst use cases for copyright.

          And then, from there, isn't access to culture also a human right? Personally I think it is. Of course in our current societal and economic system it is extremely punishing to be an artist. But to me, that indicates there is something wrong with our system when artists have to rent seek or starve! We do have to question the basis of what makes our society tick more carefully. There are always trade offs, but I think the direction we've taken... The direction of strenghtening rent seeking behavior is probably at odds with creativity and freedom of expression.

          I mean, look at "memes". These images with funny text that people make. These are often anonymous pieces of work that are meant to be copied and distributed for free! I think the proliferation of talent and artwork is related to the disruption of access rather than copyright. Look at the amount of free work that is produced on the internet, from tiktok to memes to fanfiction. 60 years ago it took a lot to be a writer, publishing was very expensive so of course there needed to be a system to support that. But that's no longer the case, the internet gives you a way to reach millions of people instantly. Anything that can be digitalized is on a whole other level now.

          So to me, the cost of maintaining copyright has to be put in the balance with its benefits... And I'm not sure we wouldnt see big budget productions without it. I mean, wasnt game of thrones the most pirated show ever anyway?

    • By shakes_mcjunkie 2022-06-0921:073 reply

      Isn't it also just generally impossible to say if a sale was lost because of piracy? A pirated copy may never have actually been a sale and how would anyone know?

      • By vanderZwan 2022-06-0921:261 reply

        A lot of early studies on piracy suggested that it actually promotes sales more than it removes them. It's just that this is mainly on the side of the less famous musicians, artists, etc, because it gives them more reach (in the case of music people were less likely to try out their stuff if they only had a limited budget to buy records and little opportunity to listen to albums beforehand). It's mainly the biggest mainstream acts that see reduced sales.

        Personally I don't have much of an issue with that. Of course, this was before streaming was a thing so who knows if the effects of piracy on sales have shifted again as a result of that.

        And then there is of course the angle that we're artificially limiting supply of digital goods anyway, but that's an entirely different can of worms.

        • By thrdbndndn 2022-06-0923:46

          The flip side of this is that sometimes copyright owner may not even care about sales, they simply don't want people to get their work for free.

          Of course it's almost never the case for large companies which are profit driven, but I once saw an indie Japanese artist said things similar to (when reacting to his work being pirated) that (paraphrasing) "I didn't care if it helps promote my work or the fact I won't lose sales anyway (since I don't sell my work overseas); I just found it's not fair for people who actually paid".

          I personally is still on the fence, but his comment did make me think.

      • By jonny_eh 2022-06-0921:224 reply

        You could say the same of a stolen DVD. Would the thief have otherwise paid for the DVD? At least in the case of a physical good, you could argue that the item being stolen "may" have prevented someone else from buying it, but even then there's no guarantee.

        • By tshaddox 2022-06-0921:394 reply

          That's a totally different, much simpler question. A stolen DVD is very clearly a reduction in the number of DVDs the seller can possibly sell.

          • By jraph 2022-06-0921:595 reply

            Devil's advocate, it's not that simple. Producing a DVD is cheap, the seller can produce them for almost nothing per unit (not zero though).

            It could be that this stolen DVD allows N people to discover its content and buy the DVD. The seller wins from this stealing even for a small N. N could be bigger than when downloading the movie instead, because the DVD can be seen in a shelf for example.

            Is it fundamentally different? (it's a genuine question, I have not studied anything on the matter).

            The only difference I see is that almost nothing = zero when downloading the DVD's content instead of stealing the physical object.

            edit: I actually see a difference, there's no guarantee that a stolen DVD does produce any sale, and so there is a loss even if it is small, but I think the question is still not simple to answer.

            • By tshaddox 2022-06-0922:261 reply

              > Producing a DVD is cheap, the seller can produce them for almost nothing per unit (not zero though).

              That's true, although I was thinking more about retailers who presumably pay much more than the marginal cost (though still much less than the retail price). It's also probably true that copyright laws are responsible for the vast majority of the commercial value of physical copies of digital media. Perhaps an easier way to see the fundamental difference is that when you're downloading a copy of a movie from BitTorrent, all the parties actively involved are willing participants.

              > It could be that this stolen DVD allows N people to discover its content and buy the DVD.

              This is also a real possibility, and is a strong argument for copyright holders to rethink their business models (and, in my view, for societies to rethink copyright laws). But I don't think it's a strong argument for treating the theft of a physical DVD and someone torrenting a movie as being remotely comparable.

              • By gridspy 2022-06-100:56

                It is possible that movie (DVD, Blueray) sales are similar to book sales. The stock is only paid for when it is actually sold. That allows shops to hold huge stock on day 1 with less financial risk and also to price-match all other shops regardless on when they received their stocks.

            • By Dylan16807 2022-06-0923:23

              By the time the DVD is licensed and produced and shipped and put on a shelf taking up space, that's most of the price tag accounted for.

              Even if you used the wholesale price for theft, it wouldn't make a big difference. There's a real burden there that's very close to a lost sale even if it's not actually a lost sale.

              With piracy none of those costs exist, and any costs that do exist are paid for by the pirate.

            • By WWLink 2022-06-0923:021 reply

              How about buying a preowned DVD? If we decide that what you're paying for is the entertainment and joy of watching a movie, are we not stealing from the content creators by reselling and purchasing used DVDs?

              Edit: I'm making it clear I absolutely despise this argument of course :D Being able to buy/sell used physical media is my favorite reason to buy physical and never buy digital.

              • By shakes_mcjunkie 2022-06-104:331 reply

                I'm sure there are many owners out there that hate the fact physical media is resellable. I'm sure this is at least part of the reason everything is becoming more restricted by copy protection, streamed, proprietary downloads, etc. Everything is becoming harder to own and share without "pirating".

                • By WWLink 2022-06-119:02

                  The thing I really hate about not owning content is the access is so damn unreliable. One day I have an album in my playlist, the next day it's gone because licensing or whatever. Then I randomly have to log back in. Maybe on a device i dedicated for playing music that's a pain in the ass to interact with.

                  I could play Mp3s on a 20 year old computer. That 20 year old computer won't work with apple music lol.

                  Hell, I can play DVDs that I bought 6 months ago on my 17 year old PowerBook G4!

            • By bee_rider 2022-06-101:34

              A stolen DVD seems more likely to be a lost sale, than an unauthorized digital copy. The person stealing the DVD has gone there in person and is willing to risk a possible interaction with staff/security. So they probably want the DVD, and would buy it otherwise. The person who downloads the movie might just be randomly browsing and not really all that interested otherwise.

          • By thaumasiotes 2022-06-0922:02

            > A stolen DVD is very clearly a reduction in the number of DVDs the seller can possibly sell.

            But that's not true; you would have to assume that the number of DVDs the vendor orders is independent of the number of DVDs the vendor loses to all forces including both sales and theft. That assumption is obviously false. If you run a store, you're not limited to ordering a single shipment of whatever DVD; if it sells well, you can order additional shipments.

          • By fcsp 2022-06-0921:52

            Not if it's stolen from a person who bought it, instead of a warehouse

          • By ntoskrnl 2022-06-100:34

            If I steal 50 Disney DVDs from a store (and they aren't recovered by the police) the store's insurance will reimburse the store for the loss, and then the store will order more DVDs to refill their stock. Disney actually comes out ahead in that case, believe it or not

        • By entropicdrifter 2022-06-0921:55

          And in the case of the stolen DVD, the DVD is physically gone from where it was. In the case of digital copies, nothing is lost besides the potential for one particular sale.

        • By duped 2022-06-0922:331 reply

          If the DVD was taking up shelf space and no one was buying it the thief might actually be saving them money

          • By jonny_eh 2022-06-0922:57

            > If the DVD was taking up shelf space

            I think in 2022, that's true of most DVDs.

        • By lmm 2022-06-0922:38

          The damages are at least the wholesale price of the DVD (probably half the consumer price) in that case. With piracy that becomes harder because the marginal cost is zero.

      • By midasuni 2022-06-0921:49

        In many cases copyright infringement doesn’t result in a lost sale. If the copyright holder refuses to sell the product, then surely the damages are zero.

        The majority of copyrighted material is not available for purchase

    • By ksec 2022-06-1011:43

      > I know it's not a popular opinion

      Not sure where you get that idea, HN is pretty much Anti Patents and Copyright regardless of its merit, if there are even any from their perspective.

    • By Asooka 2022-06-1010:51

      Over time I have honestly went from "Copyright must be reigned in" to "Copyright must be abolished". Some limited kind of author's rights should remain, but copyright itself seems to have an entirely negative utility.

    • By esaym 2022-06-105:39

      Copyright violations can be equally bad: https://www.eff.org/cases/capitol-v-thomas

    • By fxtentacle 2022-06-0921:063 reply

      Well in this case, we're talking about a industry espionage and modchip crew that has been around since the first Xbox. I personally know people who used their products and (as the result) never ever purchased a game that they played. So my experience would suggest that Xecutor modchips were really popular. I'm pretty sure $65m is a rather conservative estimate of the lost sales that they caused.

      • By p1necone 2022-06-0922:102 reply

        There have been periods of my life where I pirated almost every game I played. If it wasn't for piracy... I wouldn't have bought any games, because I didn't have any money to spend on them.

        Then Steam and Actually Having a Job happened and I didn't do that any more.

        I still pirate games, but it's only ones that aren't being sold any more, so I don't see who's missing out there.

        • By indrora 2022-06-100:441 reply

          Gabe Newell was absolutely right when he made it clear that piracy was a demand being unmet.

          I suspect part of the Steam Summer Sales being as deep as they are is to give a chance for people who can't afford AAA games normally to have a way to snag them at 80-90% off. A big AAA title makes the majority of its money in the first few months of sale, then fucks off for the rest of its lifetime, so doing deep cuts in the summer makes it profitable through volume.

          • By johnwalkr 2022-06-101:29

            I like to buy them at about 50% off, and forget about them until I try to buy them again at 90% and remember that I already own it and haven’t even downloaded it yet.

        • By RajT88 2022-06-0923:08

          I will say, I knew many who were similar.

          If they pirated 100 games, maybe they would have bought a handful at retail price, even given unlimited funds. A few more on discount.

          Anecdata, sure. But it speaks to the point that game pirates don't really play the vast majority of what they pirate, they try them out a bit and move on mainly because the time cost is virtually nil.

      • By shakes_mcjunkie 2022-06-0921:082 reply

        If the chips didn't exist though would they have actually bought every one of those games? Would they have bought the console? I doubt this is information that could actually be gathered and calculated accurately as damages.

        • By fxtentacle 2022-06-0921:152 reply

          There's likely millions of people in a situation like me. If each of them only didn't buy one single $60 game because of the modchip, then that sums up to $60 mio.

          I agree that pirated copy != lost sale. But if you play 20+ games and buy 0, I'm pretty sure without modchip it would even out at maybe buy+play 5 games. Plus there's games like the Zelda series that every hardcore fan will play. So for those games, I think it is fair to assume 50% of piracy would have been a lost sale.

          And lastly, how do you know that people didn't "buy" their cracked games? When I was traveling Asia, you could buy a modchipped Switch and bootlegged games in the same store. So then you still pay $5 for a new Switch game, it's just that the money goes to some Chinese counterfeit group, not to Nintendo.

          • By BiteCode_dev 2022-06-0921:23

            > There's likely millions of people in a situation like me

            Unlikely. Most console users don't even know what modding mean, and among the few that do, fewer even make the step to do it. It's not trivial.

            It's very niche, at least in the occidental markets.

          • By gowld 2022-06-0921:191 reply

            > But if you play 20+ games and buy 0, I'm pretty sure without modchip it would even out at maybe buy+play 5 games.

            This is absolutely absurd.

            Look at the modern internet. "Free" is consumed at rates far more than 4x of "paid equivalents that existed before the free option".

            • By AussieWog93 2022-06-100:151 reply

              >This is absolutely absurd.

              Really?

              It sounds pretty much right to me. Consoles have a typical tie ratio of around 8-10 games, and people who mod their systems (who, if anything, would skew towards people who would otherwise buy _more_ games) typically buy zero.

              • By waffleiron 2022-06-109:46

                But people who mod their system might never have bought the system if that option wasn't available.

        • By deweywsu 2022-06-0921:17

      • By Phrodo_00 2022-06-0923:03

        > I personally know people who used their products and (as the result) never ever purchased a game that they played.

        On the other hand, in some markets, consoles only become an option after they're unlocked and can't get any penetration without that.

  • By quadrifoliate 2022-06-101:421 reply

    Sorry for the somewhat obvious reference, but I thought that The Right to Read by Richard Stallman [1] would probably have predicted something similar. Of course, it had:

        There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central
        Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in
        software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool,
        and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading
        books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them
        turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were
        easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for
        pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.
    
    
    People may quibble about the specifics here "It's a game, not a book", but to me it honestly sounds like we are firmly on the trajectory to this horrific reality.

    No one should ever go to prison for a lot of things, but "allowing people to play computer games" sounds like it should be pretty high on those lists. I have never owned a Nintendo device, and will continue to avoid them now that I know about the terrible consequences of their profit-seeking.

    ----------------------------------------

    [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

    • By matheusmoreira 2022-06-104:181 reply

      The Right to Read always hits me hard. This horrific reality is already here. A reality where hacking our own devices is a "terrible" crime.

  • By kelnos 2022-06-101:053 reply

    I just can't really feel any animosity toward Gary Bowser (or his business partners) here. The amount that Nintendo "lost" is probably a couple orders of magnitude less than the damages that Nintendo claims. An illegally-obtained copy of something does not equal a lost sale! It's of course not surprising, but is ultimately gross, that rightsholders keep trying to claim that every unauthorized copy is one that the recipient would have paid for if it hadn't been available illegally, when we know at this point that's far far far from the truth. The vast majority of people who obtain illegal copies would never pay in the first place.

    I think it would suck if a small creator got screwed over to this degree by a group of infringers like this. But the true loss to Nintendo here is far less than it costs them to litigate, and is a rounding error when compared to their total revenue numbers over the years involved here. It's only profitable for them to litigate because they're able to obtain awards in such ridiculous excess of their actual damages.

    I don't think I'm really strictly in favor of this sort of organized copying, especially for profit. But I just can't get even a tiny bit riled up about it, either. I think, up to a certain point, companies should be forced to just accept this sort of thing as a cost of doing business. Sure, figuring out what that certain point is might be really difficult to agree on. But I think this particular case falls well below that point. Remember that copyright is a social and legal construct. It's up to the public to decide what rights it confers, and what remedies are available to rightsholders who feel harmed by infringers. There's nothing inherently "correct" about the rent-seeking behavior our current laws enable.

    • By shkkmo 2022-06-102:32

      > The amount that Nintendo "lost" is probably a couple orders of magnitude less than the damages that Nintendo claims.

      That seems unlikely. The group made millions of dollars over the years which would probably make it at most a single order of magnitude overestimate.

      That said, I am not a big fan of copyright or the DMCA provisons that this conviction was obtained for.

    • By WoahNoun 2022-06-102:271 reply

      >An illegally-obtained copy of something does not equal a lost sale

      Not one to one, but easy availability of pirated content certainly results in a non-zero number of lost sales. So then the argument is about the size of the damages and not whether damages exist.

      • By mojzu 2022-06-108:48

        There's also an argument to be made that piracy increases sales in some cases, most of my music/game/tv/film tastes as an adult can largely be traced back to content I pirated as a teenager who didn't have money to spend. Now most of my spending on entertainment either goes to artists/franchises that I was introduced to via piracy, or on services that are more convenient then piracy (Steam, Apple Music, Netflix, etc.)

    • By Asooka 2022-06-1010:531 reply

      Nintendo: has record profits.

      Also Nintendo: We arE loSiNg gaJiLLionS to pIraCy

      • By stewx 2022-06-1013:14

        Those are not contradictory statements, even if their claimed losses are exaggerated.

HackerNews