Hacker News Reader

Comment by ssharp | Hacker News Reader

How does it being an unavoidable side-effect negate it as a legitimate problem? I don't see how the two traits are mutually exclusive.

View on HN

Right. Pollution was an unavoidable side effect of the Industrial Revolution, and spoilage is an unavoidable side effect of long-distance transport of perishable goods, and heat is an unavoidable side effect of pretty much everything, but all are still legitimate problems.

The very fabric of nature is changing for humans. Data can be replicated worldwide in seconds. The problem of intellectual property getting copied is not solved by hindering or putting barriers to copying. The solution is to change the business model.

Make it so that the copying is free and anyone can do it, but If I earn money from said copying, then a reasonable tiny fraction of my profits go to the entity that did most of the work in making my profits possible. All surrounded by a heaping helping of due process. Note that my proposal isn't necessarily the best one, but it doesn't attempt to enforce the impossible.

Like maeon3 pointed out, we deal with pollution, spoilage and waste heat by modifying the process, not the laws of physics.

We deal with pollution by having laws that prohibit the process of pollution.

I completely agree, but I am also follow the school that you shouldn't spend energy on something you can't control or stop. Instead you should focus on things that you can readily change to mitigate the problem, or even make it go away.

It's hard to know how controllable something is until you try to control it. The copyright industry has plenty of evidence that it isn't practical. They're slowly moving toward accepting that not everyone wants a DVD, but I still can't get half the movies I want to see with Netflix Instant. I would happily pay a few dollars more for Netflix if the copyright industry would let them stream new DVD releases.

I would actually love to see a better tiered Netflix model. $5/mo for TV shows that have been released on DVD, $5/mo for movies that have been released on DVD, an extra $10/mo for new release DVDs, an extra $10/mo for TV shows delayed a week from broadcast, an extra $10/mo for getting those released DVDs mailed to you (broad spectrum). So for the full gamut, you're paying a lot (but less than cable), but you can pick and choose which of those matter to you.

If you wanted just what they have right now, you'd pay $10/mo for released movies and DVD releases of TV shows streamed. If you wanted just TV shows including recently aired, you'd pay $15/mo. To get those released DVDs mailed would cost $25/mo, and to get it all you'd be paying $40/mo.

If you think about a music subscription service, you'd basically paying the cost of 1 album per month for songs you're going to be listening to over and over. With this structure of Netflix, you'd be paying for two DVDs per month but movies are generally only watched once or twice.

I'd be happy to pay $50/mo for netflix that included HBO, Showtime, AMC and BBC new releases if only because Netflix supports so many devices.

Cable services provide unbelievable horrible services (locally it's $25/mo to rent a PVR that supports DNLA but it is software disabled so you have to rent a PVR for each TV!)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com