Hacker News Reader

I think people of our technological knowledge get sick and tired of screaming from the rooftops that we will watch streaming tv with commercials or listen to unlimited music for $10 a month and being shot down with a limit of the 5 newest episodes or limitations to spotify.

Unfortunately, bit torrent is the easiest way and if I am walking to my mother's and the florist only allows five flowers and I want the whole dozen, the neighbor's flower bed is a nice option.

If you are of that philosophical mindset, there is no rational argument that will change it. The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left.

If you think it's acceptable to go into someone's yard and pick the flowers they have spent money on for seeds, time designing the flower bed, water, fertilizer, weeding -- and then robbing them of the opportunity to benefit from the hard work they've put into it by seeing their flowers when they come home.

Well... what can I say to someone who thinks that is okay? It's not okay. If someone wants two cars and they can only afford one, is it okay for them to take your car out of your driveway?

Are you serious?

Extrapolate your philosophy to everyone in the world and tell me if you think it's a good one to live in. Do you think that would be a good world to live in? A world where people can just take whatever they want, simply because they want it? Without working for it? Without paying for it? Because that's the easiest way?

> The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left.

That argument holds true for a literal florist but as an analogy to filesharing it really breaks down pretty quickly, after all the garden would never empty of flowers 'taken' if they were copied. Your argument below that they are not 'free' because they take up server space and electricity and so on are also not valid because the storage, electricity and server space is not exactly provided by the original authors in the case of a pirated copy.

The whole piracy thing is a backlash against people that have been stealing from artists and consumers both.

Go read Janis Ians writing on this, or Courtney Love, or countless of other artists that have spoken up about this.

Times are changing, we'll find a new equilibrium and those that had a free ride for a long time will have to find a different racket at some point. Technically speaking they're already dead.

It will just take a while longer before we get there.

Artists that make music for the love of their work will continue to do so, and will find a way to make money. Artists that are creations of the media machine will have a problem, but then again, most of them weren't in it for the art to begin with so there is probably not much lost there.

I can't even name one band launched in the last 5 years that stood out for me that was not an indie band.

The record labels never stole anything. They entered into agreements with the artists. They put cds in stores that consumers agreed to pay for.

How can people on your side, in one argument say it isn't stealing to copy music, but it is stealing to enter into an agreement whereby one party exchanges something (music) for something else (money) and all parties freely choose to do so?

> They entered into agreements with the artists.

Please, those 'agreements' were put together by the best shyster lawyers to put artists in debt even if they were successful.

> How can people on your side, in one argument say it isn't stealing to copy music, but it is stealing to enter into an agreement whereby one party exchanges something (music) for something else (money) and all parties freely choose to do so?

Because 'just because it is written on a piece of paper and has a signature under it' doesn't make it right.

The music industry had turned fraud in to an art form.

Arists that don't get paid royalties, artists that are signed to a label only to find out there is no intention to produce, artists that are screwed in to being in major debt just because of some fine print clause that you'd have to be another shyster lawyer to spot and so on. The list is endless.

And then we're not yet talking about price fixing, the war on fair use (especially sampling) and so on.

And don't get me started on stupidity like the 'happy birthday' thing and Mickey Mouse and copyright.

Really. If you want to be the champion of something find a group or a cause that is worthy of it, the major labels are not, and plenty of the smaller ones are not much better.

If A list artists have a problem you can bet your life that it is worse at the lower rungs of the ladder.

At a friends (who is an artist, and a fairly famous one here in NL, several major hits and an enormous repertoire of songs for third parties) invitation I went to a local BUMA/STEMRA meeting a year ago, it was unbelievable how strong the disconnect is between the rights organizations, the labels and the artists.

This world needs shaking up, badly.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone knows when you enter into a legal contract you should understand what the legal words mean or don't sign it.

I don't care about the major labels, what I care about is maintaining a social structure where creativity can be rewarded and the investment and time put into great quality intellectual products isn't wasted.

You really have no idea what you're talking about here. An industry that has had almost a century to prepare has a considerable legal advantage over rookie musicians, who can usually barely afford their instruments, let alone proper representation.

> I don't care about the major labels, what I care about is maintaining a social structure where creativity can be rewarded and the investment and time put into great quality intellectual products isn't wasted.

Such a structure will eventually unfold, we're looking at a lively market here.

Just like open source didn't kill software development wholesale copying won't kill the music market. But it will kill the current business model.

You have no idea of what I have an idea. Why do conversations here seem to degrade into "You don't know what you're talking about?" Or as camperbob puts it, "Clearly you've thought a lot about this?"

bit sharing and open source are two topics that are so religious around here. This community has a huge axe to grind against powerful organizations who have profited off intellectual property. Why?

What exactly is so wrong about profiting off intellectual property? Software, music, movies?

> What exactly is so wrong about profiting off intellectual property? Software, music, movies?

Because the current system works by an artificial monopoly. Monopolies harm the public. The compensation that copyright is supposed to provide -- incentivising production -- is not clearly supported by evidence. And the restriction inherent in monopolised distribution is fundamentally opposed to the new benefits that the internet offers -- if we want one, the other must be reduced -- and we want the internet.

The problem is not people profiting from creating, it is that the system has been rigged by current encumbents to rip-off and obstruct the public.

I think you're over-analyzing. For me, the best summary of the debate comes from a ridiculous anti-piracy ad that used to play before movies in theaters here in Canada.

The ad said "You wouldn't download a car, would you?"

To which my reaction, and probably that of most people in the audience, is "Are you kidding me??? Of course I would if I could!"

Most people have an aversion to physical stealing, but most people are also happy to get a COPY of something for free, even if it's illegal. That's what reality boils down to, and I can't see anything changing it.

I understand your moral argument, and I don't disagree - there's nothing ambiguous about it. But if you could "download a car", for free, with no fear of repercussions - are your convictions strong enough that you would still choose to go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars on a "real" car?

I'd just do without. Just like I do without the latest version of photoshop or microsoft office. Instead, I use open office in a manner which its creators want me to use it.

Did you ever make someone a mix tape off the radio?

And why were record labels so anxious to stream for free over the airwaves they got themselves in trouble?

No I didn't.

No I didn't.

Well, unfortunately, your level of morality doesn't scale.

I find that hard to believe.

I don't know anyone within a degree or two of separation of myself who did not do that.

Including the previous generation (I was born in the early 80s, my parents in the 50s).

You've swallowed the *AA talking points, hook, line, sinker.

> I use X in a manner which its creators want me to use it.

I still did not understand this kind of often repeated argument, after years and years of reading it. Why _exactly_ should I freely, without any legal and consensual contract, limit my usage of any particular product X (be it a hammer, a car, a song, or a office spreadsheet) in any kind of way its manufacturer wishes after the point of sale?

This must be some kind of moral argument, please explain.

I'm saying that open office creators want you to use it for free. Creators of music do not want you to use it for free. They want to make some money that they can use to pay for rent and time to invest in more music. If you download a song, you are not entering into any product/consumer agreement.

"That argument holds true for a literal florist but as an analogy to filesharing it really breaks down pretty quickly, after all the garden would never empty of flowers 'taken' if they were copied."

Since copying is okay, is it okay to copy currency? After all, it's just a bunch of paper and ink and only a perceived value. If you look at the damage this causes the economy, you can directly see the damage it causes a content creator.

"Go read Janis Ians writing on this, or Courtney Love, or countless of other artists that have spoken up about this."

Boo Hoo. They signed a contract that gives the record companies their souls and are now complaining about it. This argument is bullshit. The creators of the Pirate bay don't really give a shit about the rights of anyone. They freely admit that they believe in sharing of everything, just like when they were children.

I find it a little ironic that many of the same people that are pro-piracy get all in a tizzy when companies decide to sell their information, which is just a copy (you don't actually lose anything. It's not like stealing a physical copy of something).

"Times are changing, we'll find a new equilibrium and those that had a free ride for a long time will have to find a different racket at some point. Technically speaking they're already dead."

Really? Create a full Metallica album from your house. How about Photoshop? If you can't, it means there is still a value for content creators. Copying us much different than creating. You seem to be equating them, which is just ridiculous.

Piracy pushes artists toward big corporations because they have no other way to make a living.

"Artists that make music for the love of their work will continue to do so, and will find a way to make money. Artists that are creations of the media machine will have a problem, but then again, most of them weren't in it for the art to begin with so there is probably not much lost there."

Right, because people that love art don't need to actually make a living.

It is my belief that piracy has made many markets stagnant. When you blur the line between losing sales due to piracy and losing sales due to a shitty product, content holders just increase copy protection rather than trying to innovate (because there is really no way to see the difference).

A real revolution would be creating a way for Indy artists to make a living and sell their music without a label.

There is a way, it's called the internet. They can put their music on their website and let paypal handle the transactions -- except people don't pay for it that way either and no one hears of the artist when they do...

"There is a way, it's called the internet. They can put their music on their website and let paypal handle the transactions -- except people don't pay for it that way either and no one hears of the artist when they do..."

Artists can still have clips of their own music on their site to give people a taste. They could even give out some songs for free (not all). There are multiple ways to get yourself out there without a label. The difference is that it's the artists' choice.

Without a major label, the Artist not only needs to make the music, but manage everything (including marketing). This is not an easy task and takes time away from what they really do best. Most people don't have the ability to run a successful business (which is what it is). This is why labels will always be around in some form.

You're making the point that paying for content is good because it enables the artist to eat while concentrating on creating the content -- rather than some other task to earn money.

And no, record labels may not always be around in some form if they can't make money doing what they do.

I'm tired of reading the same thing over and over. Before you decide to enter a public forum and argue, at least you should research the oppositions argument. I'm not going to rehash it here. It's already taking up to much space on the internet. Please read "Free Software, Free Society" and then make your argument. You sound silly comparing stealing to copyright infringement.

I don't believe that two products are different simply because one is represented in bronze and the other in bits. No one would suggest it is okay to steal a bronze sculpture.

I've heard the arguments and when you take something without compensating the creator -- or otherwise rightful owner -- it's stealing. If you don't believe it is stealing because of some semantic argument, then it the effect is the same -- you're taking something of value without paying for it and harm is caused to the market in which that product exists because value is lost.

I've heard the arguments and when you take something without compensating the creator -- or otherwise rightful owner -- it's stealing.

What, in your opinion, happens when I check a book out of the library and read it?

It's called "checking out a book" or you could use the term "borrowing."

Look, this "it's not stealing" argument is a bunch of hog wash. If you think it isn't stealing because the "stolen" goods are simply a copy, why do you use the term "piracy"? Did pirates make a copy of the loot?

When you say someone is stealing music -- everyone knows what is happening. People use the same term with cable television -- they're stealing cable. It means they are enjoying the benefits of cable -- without paying the cable company.

You can use whatever term you want for the behavior -- we all know what it is and why it isn't right and it is just as wrong as stealing IMO.

You can use whatever term you want for the behavior -- we all know what it is and why it isn't right and it is just as wrong as stealing IMO.

But when does the theft actually take place? When I download the content? That's obviously a victimless crime, up until the point I derive value from what I 'stole' by watching it. At that point, what have I done that's any different from checking a book out of a library, where a vast number of readers can derive value from a limited number of purchased copies?

Words, like laws, sometimes outlive their relevance.

Yes, when you download it. Specifically, when you acquire possession of the material. If you steal someone's money, but don't spend it, you still stole it.

It's not a victimless crime. The victim is the artist who should have received compensation for your acquisition of the material.

Some laws do outlive their relevance, but these laws are just as relevant today as they were when the printing press was invented or audio recording devices.

Guns made murder easier, but not more legal -- or more moral.

If you steal someone's money, but don't spend it, you still stole it.

Don't be ridiculous.

The victim is the artist who should have received compensation for your acquisition of the material.

How is someone victimized by the presence of a particular arrangement of magnetic dipoles on my hard-disk platter? The only way an artist can lose anything they're rightfully entitled to is if someone experiences what they've created without paying for it.

Guns made murder easier, but not more legal -- or more moral.

You've clearly thought this issue through, I can tell.

> it's more philosophical ... We are consuming everything without conscience

The crucial difference is that, unlike most physical things, informational copies are an infinite resource. The only essential moral action is to share them freely. Whether that causes problems is entirely conditional on particular economic systems.

It is indeed also true that supporting production is moral. But producing and sharing are not negatively dependent. If you don't do one, it doesn't do any good to then not do the other. They are mutually supportive: you should do both, and doing either you indirectly support the other.

1) Informational copies aren't infinite, they take server space, electricity, and maintenance.

2) and more importantly, how do you overcome the hurdle that production itself requires resource consumption? Stuff at the lower level of Maslow's hierarchy: Food, Shelter?

Producing quality content requires investment. How is a producer of that content to get a return on that investment if people don't pay for the product after it is produced?

I agree that we should all produce and share, but not all sharers produce. Just because you have the bits on your hard drive does not mean the product those bits define are yours to share. Those bits are not simply bits, they are the definition of something that creates value. It takes risk to create the order of ones and zeros and if that risk is not rewarded, then the risk/reward ratio becomes too high and there is no incentive to take the risk to create the product.

I know that many people create for the love of the game, but those creators have to make money somehow. They have to have day jobs or something that distracts them from the many hours it takes to create quality content. If they could get paid for the content after it is produced, then they could spend more time creating more quality content for us to consume.

There was a quote from Ayn Rand about money where she describes money as a battery that stores labor so we can benefit from that labor over a longer time than it takes to perform the labor. Well, those bits are just like that. Bits are a battery that stores the labor required to create the order of bits. Content production is the opposite of entropy and to defeat entropy, we must take energy from outside the system. The artist in this metaphor is the closed system -- the artist's brain is the system that creates the content. The consumer is outside that system and must put energy into it in the form of food so that artist can use that energy to create order from a disordered set of random bits.

Money is that energy required to oppose entropy. Without a transfer of energy, there is no way to create order. Without order, there is no content. It's just white noise and consumers don't want that...

If consumers don't pay for the content, where will the energy to produce it come from?

> How is a producer of that content to get a return on that investment if people don't pay for the product after it is produced?

That is the question! Now copyright is looking very inappropriate we need some good answers. I expect it is a matter for evolution: try lots of things and see which work best. There are already some incipient examples out there.

> yours

(With information, it can only mean acknowledgement -- 'ownership' doesn't make sense.)

> those creators have to make money somehow.

Broadly, yes, just not by old copyright-oriented ways.

The point is seeing the two things separately. We need only pay for production, not for copies. That is economically optimal, and more practically fitted to current technological circumstances.

If you aren't paying for the music, you aren't paying for the production. If you were paying for the production, you'd pay what the artists' time was worth to create it, the studio time to record it, the post production editing...

But you'd never pay that much. That's why the artists/record labels/whoever spreads out that cost over all the copies of the of the recording. Then they account for risk, some cash to reinvest, and profit.

When you buy a book, you aren't paying for production either. Nor when you buy a piece of art. Or watch a movie.

All this arguing on behalf of the people who think stealing music is okay is really immature. Everyone knows it is wrong and no one would want someone taking their livelihood away from them -- yet plenty of consumers argue, "oh, it's fine to 'pirate' music... because of yada yada"

Everyone knows it's not okay. It's not okay.

Look at the arguments you make:

  A) It's not stealing -- it's a copy
  B) Record labels deserve it
  C) Piracy is actually *good*!
  D) Everyone else is doing it!
  E) It's so easy!

Seriously! These are piracy proponents arguments! It's a pity really. Pathetic that people of rational minds would stoop to such irrationality when it suits their wants.

You sound like a corporate astro-turfer: you don't appear to have understood anything I have said, and counter with non-arguments such as "is really immature" and "everyone knows it is wrong. It is wrong".

Neither what I have said, nor the rather odd and hardly even oblique caricature you offer of me, are irrational.

I suggest you actually learn something about copyright.

I think that's a valid point. For long years mostly the live performance of media was paid for. Then with the manifestation of media as data, the guys who had the machines to record and create copies claimed the stakes and the exclusive rights as a form to create economic value. Time has passed and now we have found out that every data are equal and data can hardly be bounded and the exclusivity of copying has gone away. Perhaps it's time to rethink the claims.

OK, you hold a legitimate view, one I mostly share.

However, please stop equating 'loss of potential sale' with simple theft. Clearly, if I take one of your DVDs, it is lost to you. If I copy a digital file of the same movie, you still have the use of your own copy.

Now from a publisher's point of view, what TPB is doing is not so much depriving them of movies or other content, but interfering with their right to bring it to market at a price of their choosing - if the same software is easily available for $0, there is little incentive to purchase it. (We can argue about whether the purchase would ever have taken place; eg if a student downloads some high-end 3d modelling software to learn how to use it, but that's been addressed elsewhere.)

This is an extreme case of the ongoing economic struggle between publishers and distributors in general.

If we have to stop calling equating it with stealing, then we also have to stop equating it with piracy, because pirates didn't make copies of the goods they stole either.

Somehow "piracy" bugs me less, I think because in this context the usages are different enough that there isn't as much likely confusion. When someone calls copyright infringement "stealing", they often seem to mean it pretty literally: they really do believe that it is, or should be, morally and legally identical to stealing. But when they call it "piracy", I don't usually take it as an actual assertion that copying a DVD is morally identical to armed raids on shipping. It's just become sort of a jargon term disconnected from the original usage.

If as you say "consumers really need more self control", then why does the content itself encourage the sort of apathy that you appear to be so opposed to? Look at most any torrent (latest Hollywood garbage, warez TPB top 100) and they are all encouraging apathy.

However, how a bout this -- what if torrents are encouraging efficiency. Think about this, the top (could have changed since I have been typing this) torrent on TPB is the 1080p version of avatar. Never mind all of the gag tv torrents That is 10900mbyte/(20mbit/sec/8(to mbyte))=4954.5sec (assuming.05mbit overhead 4954.5sec/60 = 82.6 min. So a bit more than an hour. What about going to purchase avatar 1080p on blu-ray? Thats waiting for the bus/paying for gas or buying it on amazon for $20 (with insane DRM restrictions)

so: waiting 80min to get a file that will play as many times as I want on whatever I want vs. waiting 48 hours for amazon to ship it out on a good day...