Comment by pascalmemories | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pascalmemories | Hacker News Reader

A classic example of organizations (BSA, Microsoft etc.) not understanding the internet and thinking this was going to deter others.

Lots of online comment (and views of the video[1]) are supportive of the guy and are viewing to remove the threat of him being financially ruined (it's almost at the 200,000 as I type).

MS just come across as intentional bullies and thugs (I'm paraphrasing comments made elsewhere rather than stating an opinion) and that's probably way more damaging to them than any of their make believe financial damages ever could be.

The BSA have a long track record of trying to game search engines and cause reputational damage to those they sue but I expect, in the long run, the 'pirate' will have more harm caused by long forgotten facebook postings than by the BSA. The world has moved on and the BSA have failed to even notice they've been left behind.

I'm tucking this one away as an example for the times I need to give examples of brain-dead stupid stuff that people who don't understand the internet, do, thinking they're being super clever and showing their super skills/exacting revenge etc.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKjPutIlBCA

[edit:spelling]

The thing is, the general public will never see sharing of media as a criminal act. The only difference to a normal person between lending a book and letting someone copy a movie is that you both can watch it at the same time.

To most copyright is just some made-up bullshit for the purpose of squeezing money from honest people.

So everyone who defends copyright always uses the example of the small artist stopping a giant company from just using their work and calling it their own, because thats the only real substantial of damage in an IP liberated world that does not happen now (copyright is not effective in granting the rights holder a guaranteed distribution monopoly anymore).

Are IP holders getting revenue from large businesses paying them to use their IP, or are said businesses just having their legal teams verify that their clone is just right on the cusp of infringing so they can still reuse others work without credit but instead through exploit loopholes in the system they built?

Because we know very well that the largest utilization of copyright law today is to suppress the development of competitive products to existing media brands and content providers, especially online where the DMCA is an absolute policy of presumed guilt. I want to know where these perceived benefits even are, because they keep the discourse about how to fix copyright unproductive when half the people are defending it for... some reason?

Most people are pretty dumb so what most people think isn't relevant.

Example: Donald Trump's popularity.

This point is idiotic. If the people who don't think that media sharing is a crime actually organized it would cease to be a crime.

Law is written by a privileged few but is enacted by the everyday people who choose whether to obey and enforce it based on their conscience and incentives.

Copyright is a great idea. The majority can think whatever they want and be wrong.

Laws aren't enforced by everyday people. They're enforced by, wait for it, law enforcement agencies.

We, the United States, live in a republic. If the majority of people think something it doesn't actually matter. The great thing about a republic is everyday Joe doesn't write the law. Nor should he. Because Joe isn't very smart.

I don't think you understand how human nature works, or how it affects dumb laws over the course of time.

So copyright is a bad idea because... human nature? I hope you aren't also a fan of GPL.

The root of this isn't that copyright is a good idea that's been spoiled by human nature. The root implies that copyright itself is fundamentally baD. An opinion that I respectfully disagree as strongly as can be.

Yep. This is the weirdest variation of the Streisand effect I've ever seen.

It was intentional: "In order for the firms' promise not to sue to be valid, they said, the video would have to be viewed at least 200,000 times within two months of its publication this week. A spokesman for the BSA told the BBC that the stipulation was to ensure that Jakub would help share it as widely as possible."

Agreed.

This action nearly forces the audience to sympathize with the poor man who is under attack from Big Co. They advertise themselves as the bad guys.

This will have just as much of an impact against piracy as the classic piracy warning from the IT Crowd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

It's great to see it hitting nearly 400k views. I hope they hold up their end of the bargain.

That looks like a legit one. Did you mean this one? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck

ha! yes. The IT Crowd one is so good I was fooled.

Good catch!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com