Comment by wmblaettler | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wmblaettler | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, this argument is REALLY weak. Hollywood spends millions of dollars to create these movies. To pirate it and not compensate the companies involved is irresponsible, selfish and ignorant -- it is stealing. There is is great amount of financial investment that goes into creating these movies. Today with the internet, the distribution avenue exists for people to produce and self publish, independent of Hollywood, but there is so much more to creating a successful movie: expensive sets, actors' salaries, special effects, post processing, marketing, the list goes on... In order to be successful these movies require great financial outlay and to expect the final product to be free is ridiculous. If these people really believe in free movies and music, they'd boycott Hollywood productions (they very stuff they call 'trash') and instead trade independent creations where the artist or writer chooses to give it away.

This argument is not about freedom of exchanging original ideas or even sharing bits of "copyrighted" information, it's about the wholesale stealing of movies which took a great deal of time money and effort to create, even if they are considered 'trash'. In the end, TPB and it's users only pander to the "culture" that they supposedly so despise by consuming such media, they just don't like paying for it.

The "great game" referenced (Civilization, at least the most recent version: 5), is ironically available to download on The Pirate Bay. I suppose this is not worth paying Sid Meier and the development studios he worked with to create this game either.

Pretty much the only thing I don't disagree with are the buried statements about Fox News and the media's control over the public opinion and the inhumane conditions in foreign factories.

FWIW, I OPPOSE SOPA and PIPA, I called my congressmen and voiced my concern today, the proposed law is useless to curb this behavior, but will instead hurt those who DO want to freely exchange ideas and information.

No it's just copying. Copying is not "theft" or "piracy" unless you prove that there is a loss. Arguing that investment return should be a guarantee is kind of creepy. Honestly, story telling has never been so expensive.

There's always a rogue fringe in the population. No matter how many laws you introduce, these law are only going to inconvenience the majority of the population. America has this great trend of over-criminalizing everything and for what ? The content industry represents what, 1% of the GDP ?

I'm not saying that if everybody would use TPB is wouldn't be bad for the content industry but last time I saw their numbers, they never have made as much profit. If it weren't for TPB&friends, we would probably not have Spotify or Netflix because the pressure wouldn't be there. The rogue people have always been useful in history to challenge status quo and we should cut them some slack. This is where the freedom kicks in.

Also, by repeating these terms of "piracy" and "theft", you are playing right in the hands of the hollywood PR. It's not aligned with reality and oversimplifies the complexity of what is going on. That's why I'm reacting. I'm sick of seeing the same biased ideas repeated by intelligent people that sound exactly as coming from hollywood.

Please, can't we just have more tolerance for each-other ?

You are asking for more tolerance, but blindly ignoring the fact that artists are asking you to pay them for their content. Don't believe that? Or think downloading the music is acceptable as long as you go see them in concert?

Here is Anthony Hamilton who is a Grammy winner signed to RCA Records tweeting an hour ago asking to please not bootleg his music: https://twitter.com/#!/HamiltonAnthony/status/15984085001528...

Also asking for an investment on a return is creepy? Isn't that kind of what you do for work? I'm investing in the fact I'm going to get paid at the end of the month in return for time I put in at the office every week.

Don't generalize artists. Of all the artists I know in person (a couple dozen; many of them published and touring) none of them support this legislation, and some are radical opponents of intellectual property.

I'm not saying at all they support SOPA, I am saying that I'm sure most of them would like you to pay for their music instead of downloading it for free, just like you or I would like to be paid at the end of the day for our work.

Also I'm not sure why I'm being down voted, but why is it that everyone believes artists/musicians etc, just in the last 10 years or so don't deserve to be paid now that their works are easily duplicatable via the internet? Just because we don't like the big music companies and how they do business doesn't seem to justify not paying for music. We all seem to hate Comcast and AT+Ts service, yet we still pay them because there isn't an easy way to get free cellphone service, or free internet to our houses. So using piracy as a way to 'stick it to the man' sounds like a cop out and a reason to get free music, otherwise you would be boycotting Comcast and your cellphone company too.

No one here even discussed the thought that musicians don't deserve to be paid. Wide-scale piracy is not a way to "stick it to the man." This is not a teen angst movement. Pirating is so massively done because it's convenient. There aren't millions of people out there who hate Sony or Virgin and download music/videos just to cause them to lose potential profits.

Juxtaposing a communication service (ATT/Comcast) to a "product" (music) is not even a valid comparison. You can't pirate ATT/Comcast; maybe you can pirate software they have developed, but that's about the extent that you can compare them.

I apologize if this is double post, my connetion cut out.

This is true. Which is why I wish all of these long winded essays from The Pirate Bay and others along the lines of 'information wants to be free', really would just be replaced by 'I want what I want when I want it, and as cheap as I want it'.

Piracy by people in the US is still huge even though a lot of major content is easily available via Netflix, iTunes, Amazon et al. But that is always going to lose out when it is being given away for free somewhere else.

> I'm not saying at all they support SOPA, I am saying that I'm sure most of them would like you to pay for their music instead of downloading it for free

No, then you really seem to have never met artists. 90% of these bands have albums that are downloadable through SoundCloud or other mediums. They share they stuff very openly, and are huge pirates themselves, and support the Remix culture in multiples ways.

CDs for them are merch. Their money come from playing in venues and holding day jobs. And there's nothing too terrible about that.

Yet, some artists and developers are happy to release downloads straight after the release. Some are happy for you to pay what you want, rather than some standard retail price.

To your Anthony Hamilton anecdote, I throw in an anecdote about artists just asking to leave your recorder on the stage for better effect (Phish if I remember correctly), or you know... just selling the bootleg after some time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lillywhite_Sessions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleg_recording

Yup, it is great Phish lets you record their livesets, it is their choice. It is also the choice of Anthony Hamilton to ask you not to copy his new CD without paying for it. Artist choice, not consumer.

As soon as you refer to copying as "theft" you lose me. Society can function just fine with unlimited PirateBay activity. It already does! Society cannot function with unlimited real-life thievery. QED

Society can function with unlimited theft from bike shops, so theft from bike shops isn't really theft.

You've merely proven that copyright infringement is not bicycle theft. I think we all agree on that.

I think his point was that only bike shops would collapse. Society would be just fine. That doesn't mean we shouldn't protect bike retailers from theft.

> * Society can function just fine with unlimited PirateBay activity. It already does! Society cannot function with unlimited real-life thievery.*

What does "unlimited" mean here? Does it mean "if everybody torrented" and "if everybody stole"?

If so, you're basically stating that there should be no IP. How would a writer or filmaker make money then? After they wrote a book, would they just publish it online and hope to stay ramen profitable by running ads in the background? But wait! That wouldn't even work... because if everybody torrented, nobody would even see the advertisements on the creator's website!

If LouisCK released his video "Live at the Beacon Theater" and nobody bought it, and everybody torrented it, would Louis be likely to release another one without DRM?

Would society truly "function just fine" if the creation of intellectual property netted the creator nothing? (I'm assuming that torrenting doesn't net the creator anything -- a valid assumption given the torrents I've seen)

Ah, of course, I'm misunderstanding your usage of the word "unlimited". Perhaps you meant that currently ThePirateBay is relatively "unrestricted"?

In that case, you're stating that at least some people will be willing to pay for intellectual property (and these people manage to keep the creators afloat), while there will not be enough people who will pay for physical property if stealing of physical objects were condoned. Why's that?

The convenience argument states that people are willing to pay for music if it's A) at a reasonable price and B) easy to obtain. If that applies to IP, why doesn't that apply to physical objects as well? It seems like you believe in the convenience argument, so I'll attack that right now. The convenience argument doesn't work with your proof at all. You're stating that the fundamental difference between IP and physical objects that causes a society that condones a stealing of the latter to "not function" is because stealing a bottle of Coke from CVS is easier than paying for it. Bullshit. Do you really think it's easier to steal?

Ah, maybe you don't believe in the convenience argument anymore. Tell me why people nowadays are still willing to pay for IP (even though they can get it off of ThePirateBay) but wouldn't be willing to pay for a physical item.

- Earth is flat

- If we free the slaves nobody will do the unpleasent work.

- Writer and filmaker will not make money without IP

- 64 Kbyte of ram should be enougth for anybody

The third one doesn't fit.

How would a writer or filmmaker make money if everybody torrented their works?

The first one doesn't fit, either. If the Earth were round wouldn't the people on the other side fall off?

(earth.shape != flat) != (earth.shape == round)

For the record, I don't believe copyright infringement equals theft.

The OP that I replied is correct with that claim. His proof, however, is wrong.

Here's a genuine question:

How would an artist make money if everybody pirated just as everybody stole? (I'm going off what the OP said.)

That question is mute. If you really need to hear a answer, they want. In this extream case there want be any people who make money with creating "art". This is probebly not how its going to turn out if there is no IP.

People will have to innovate. You have to get paid for the creation of your work not for the distribution. Kickstarter is an idea. People are already starting to blog or podcast for free and then make more and more money with it. You can earn money with selling t-shirts and stuff (this is what many bands allready do).

Its all about innovation, I think we would live in a better but diffrent world overall. That said we cant not just talk away patents and copyright in one instance. We have to start with reducing the copyright and reworking the patent system, plus we have to treat copyright infringement justly (ie not with 5 years of prison).

> That question is mute. If you really need to hear a answer, they want. In this extream case there want be any people who make money with creating "art". This is probebly not how its going to turn out if there is no IP.

I don't have a problem with the OP's position. I have a problem with his argument: it's fallacious. Enticing at first, but upon scrutiny, it doesn't hold water.

> Hollywood spends millions of dollars to create these movies. To pirate it and not compensate the companies involved is irresponsible, selfish and ignorant -- it is stealing

I think the point being made (albeit badly - through one poor analogy) is that society gains more through the distribution of 'creativity' than it does through ensuring that artists are fairly compensated.

I'm not entirely in either camp, however I would say to you that 'compensation' is never well applied. There are millions of artists who have changed the world and have made little to no money off their inventions. On the other hand there are many who have also made little contribution to the world, but profit hugely from incredibly meagre creations (often off the back of other, real inventions).

Why stop at stealing? Why isn't pirating a movie also rape, murder, armed robbery and polygamy, and any other crime it doesn't fit the definition of?

How many times am I allowed to watch a movie after I buy it?

Imagine now that I _buy_ the movie. Can I watch it with my friends? Or do they have to pay the movie too? If they pay _me_ then I'm a pirate. If they don't, are they pirates?

If nobody payed for the movie than me and my friends who watch it are all pirates. Except that I didn't buy it because someone in the "extended circle of my friends that I've never met" gave it to me. At least that's how I'm pretending it to be.

Now it's not entirely like this but this is the problem with the Internet Hollywood doesn't like. You can interact with people you've never met very easily and pretend that they're your friends.

I completely agree. It's time for all of the pirates to stop justifying their stealing by putting up the facade of protecting online freedoms in front of the obvious primary motive, not paying for content.

Steal if you want to, but stop trying to call it something else.

  > It's time for all of the pirates to stop justifying
  > their stealing by putting up the facade of protecting
  > online freedoms

Does this mean you feel it's ok to take away our freedoms just so long as it's in order to fight piracy?

  > Steal if you want to, but stop trying to call
  > it something else

So anyone that insists that copyright infringement be called copyright infringement is "just a pirate trying to justify their theft?" That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com