Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhaps0dy | Hacker News Reader

> How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music?

Perhaps it is? I've almost never had anyone remark that I was doing something bad when not paying for a software or movie or music.

View on HN

Also there are still countries where downloading copyrighted materials is not illegal (distributing it usually is, though).

Well, hear it now. I'm judging you.

Let's pretend you developed a piece of software you want to sell. People download it without paying you. What do you do in that case?

Rethink my business model?

it's a logical fallacy to assume that people who downloaded your work would have discovered it and actually paid for it if there was no free option

a lot of artists would PAY to get millions of downloads/views

You mean pirated? It's a logical fallacy to assume that your otherwise non-discovery makes your decision moral.

Let me know when you can pay rent or buy groceries with retweets.

it's unclear if you do not realize thousands of people make their living full-time as promoters on social media. They literally pay rent with money that was paid to them proportionate to their retweets. Or if this was hyperbole to underscore your disagreement with a freemium business model

this seems like an equivocation

> it's a logical fallacy to assume that people who downloaded your work would have discovered it and actually paid for it if there was no free option

it's a "logical fallacy" to assume they wouldn't

I recognize that review comes from two sources, direct through sales and indirect, through discovery. So I try to make sure discovery reaches people with the best material and spend the most money to move the most people, persuading them to pay along the path of least resistance....

...which is exactly what the WSJ has been doing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com