Comment by clydethefrog | Hacker News Reader

Comment by clydethefrog | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

What.CD achieved something that the magical efficient market never did. So it smashed it. In capitalism, it's perfectly legal to destroy an archive full of art and culture because of the loss of profit. Can't have the dangerous resistance of a vibrant, positive community being intrinsically motivated to gather knowledge and make an archive of culture without the exchange of money! What if Marx was right?

Let me link to an ode to Karagarga, a tracker specialised in obscure movies - you can easily replace movies with music.

>The myth that Netflix and iTunes offer a frontier where “everything” is available to watch instantly is a bad joke to anyone with a serious interest in movies. That crowd is forced, by the market itself, to fend for itself. Many of us would indeed buy an Out 1 Blu-ray or cue up Out 1 on Netflix if such a thing were possible. But in the meantime Karagarga will be cherished for the rare and valued access it affords.

http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/weekend-post/karagarga-and...

What.CD did piracy and this is why it achieved these things. Piracy is a violation of copyright. Copyright is a monopoly granted by the state. Monopolies prevent competition and are counter to capitalism. The shutting down of What.CD is the doing of the government, not the doing of capitalism.[1]

Free market capitalism means economic liberalism. It doesn’t mean “big evil companies making big money.” In a real free market, the government wouldn’t grant these monopolies. What.CD would be more convenient than Netflix and iTunes because it costs nothing and doesn’t have DRM, so Netflix and iTunes would disappear and What.CD would remain. This is literally what would actually happen in an actual free market.

Economists aren’t stupid. They don’t literally believe there is a magical invisible hand guiding the market any more than biologists believe there is a magical deity guiding the evolution of species. Magic isn’t required for a free market to be efficient: it's just a phenomenon that happens and that we have a logical, non-religious, non-faith-based explanation for.

[1]: I’ll quote Wikipedia on this:

– “Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright)

– “Exclusive rights are a form of monopoly.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right)

What rubbish. Capitalism requires one (or a government) to enforce property rights. The more one can declare as valid property (e.g IP) the better it is for the holder of that property. These motivations for more property do not simply evaporate when the government stops granting monopolies over works.

I'm as against copyright as anyone, but to say the push for it does not arise out of the conditions created by capitalism is false. Besides, in "free market" capitalism, there is still exploitation of the workers and disregard for the environment so long as that disregard does not hamper profits. The fact that there would be no copyright is hardly motivating in these circumstances.

Some libertarians do not accept the so-called "intellectual property" as a valid form of property, e.g. Kinsella [1, 2]. It's a debatable topic.

[1] https://fee.org/resources/intellectual-property-versus-real-...

[2] https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-hampers-t...

Precisely, but my point is that it would be good for any capitalist to consider as many objects as property as possible, for the purpose of claiming rights on that property. The fact that it's not actually property (which I agree with) is irrelevant. If the government were to agree on this point, great. But capitalists don't just throw up their arms and go home.

Capitalism has no regard for philosophies such as libertarianism. It crushes everything or finds a way.

No, what would happen in a free market is that the "big evil companies" would hire muscle to shut what.cd by other means. Like, let's say, seizing their servers. And justifying it by saying that they are the only ones allowed to redistribute this music.

That sounds awfully close to "using police to seize servers and justifying it with copyright", doesn't it? But yes, clearly, the government is to blame. It hasn't been lobbied by those companies to extend copyright duration, or increase punishment for copyright violation. Nope. A free market would totally make that better because they would never do such evil.

Uh, wtf? Capitalism requires capital, which is exactly what you are railing against. A monopoly over using a thing.

If you're reading the above comment and nodding your head or even feel the argument is wanting, I highly encourage you to read Postcapitalism by Paul Mason. There's even a chapter entitled "Was Marx Right?" Well worth the read.

https://www.amazon.com/Postcapitalism-Guide-Future-Paul-Maso...

Fucking spot on! They achieved something so incredibly special. That place was a glimpse into the future. A marvel of both engineering and community.

R.I.P.

I wholeheartedly second your post Sir. For me this feels like loosing Wikipedia, it's oink and what.cd the ones that got me lost in music (and accordingly buy 100s of records ever after) as opposed to disposable .99 tracks lost in some folder.

Trust MPAA to curate music. Lol :)

Lest anybody get the wrong impression, Karagarga was down very briefly but was soon restored and continues to operate at https://karagarga.in/ .

Reply on news.ycombinator.com