Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The big difference is between stuff that you release and stuff that you don't.

Once released bits become common knowledge and they lose a large amount of their potential value because the scarcity element is instantly gone.

This is one of the driving engines behind the the whole software-as-a-service game, it gets rid of the problem of piracy and it turns the product into a subscription rather than a one-time sale.

No second hand version of google docs will ever be sold.



Paid mobile apps are widely released, and people I know make a living selling them. Is anyone who buys a mobile app a chump?

And what about the ACH information? If you came across that sort of data you would feel free to use it to transfer a few million bucks to your own account? It would be just as easy as copying a movie. So if the data is out there, you are arguing that it's OK to do that?


> Paid mobile apps are widely released, and people I know make a living selling them. Is anyone who buys a mobile app a chump?

You used google and facebook as an example, they are clearly not releasing binaries but are in the service industry. Mobile applications (which I think are a transient phenomenon that will evaporate when mobile web applications will be more viable, the same happened with desktop software, with some notable exceptions) are already pirated wholesale (see http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20107572-94/how-piracy-ruin...) that doesn't make the writers of mobile software 'chumps', but it does mean that they will have to factor this in or they will likely be hurt.

> It would be just as easy as copying a movie, and the data is out there, so you are arguing that it's OK to do that?

No, obviously I'm not arguing that it is ok to do that.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: