Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikecane | Hacker News Reader

Use any argument, take any emotional stand you want, but you'll be smacked down again and again by the guy who wrote that post.

Fact: Alcohol prohibition failed.

Fact: The War on Drugs has failed.

Objections against the "pirates" are nothing more than a repeat of that history.

The customer -- and potential customer -- is talking. Start listening!

View on HN

Prohibition is a non-sequitur analogy. You're not going to get arrested for mere possession of general digital music/videos/books regardless of how acquired.

Yes, a potential customer is talking. He's justifying illegal activity: "if you won't consent to my terms, I'll just take your stuff anyway" - this is not a persuasive argument. I'll justify legal activity: "if you won't consent to my terms, I'll get comparable stuff elsewhere from someone who will" and proceed to get movies via Netflix and music via iTunes with acceptably, if imperfectly, cheap & convenient terms - this is a persuasive argument.

Throw the law out for a minute. Why? Because nobody cares about them. You are making an argument that only people who have some slavish devotion to the law will even care about. The rest of the world will go "Pfft, whatever" either explicitly or implicitly.

As was mentioned up thread, it's kind of like absurdly low speed limits. You can buy all the politicos you want, you can make all the crazy laws you want, but the absolute fact of the matter is you cannot make people at large follow laws they feel to be arbitrary and unfair.

The fact of the matter is this: People will pirate things, and there is fuck all you can do about it. You can try to make moral arguments, legal arguments, ethical arguments - that really changes nothing. Piracy is here to stay.

How do you choose to deal with it?

This is a much more concise and to-the-point rewording of the original post. Well done.

It's dealt with as I noted: others will arise who will agree to most consumers' terms. Netflix & iTunes make video & music so easy to get at such low cost, with walls just high enough that jumping 'em costs more than complying, that most consumers will in fact consent to payment & limitations. Why pirate? there's more to view/hear for a couple hundred bucks a year than I can possibly get thru.

Methinks the real point of the issue is that there is a subculture which is he11-bent on illegal/immoral behavior, and which will go to great lengths to both indulge and justify it. Make albums & movies $0.25 each, available on demand, and they'll still look for a way to watch/listen without paying. No? do you seriously think the author would be satisfied if someone just gave him a shoebox containing all commercial music & movies outright, no strings attached? or would you expect him to nonetheless find something to pursue, contrary to rules, to exercise his intellect & creativity & efforts on?

  >Netflix & iTunes make video & music so easy to get at such low cost, with walls just high enough that jumping 'em costs more than complying,

The problem is when they alter the deal - pray they do not alter it further. Netflix is nice and all, but as a recent TheOatmeal strip suggests, it's not for everything. A great deal of their content still requires disc rental due to studios stuck in last century.

And then their library took a huge hit when Starz pulled out.

As for iTunes, their price is still too high for me. $10 for an album? Pass. And the less said about their (still DRM-encumbered) video offerings, the better.

I'd much rather see a model much like the now defunct AllOfMP3 had - you pay per filesize, at a flat rate, - pick any format you want.

  >Methinks the real point of the issue is that there is a subculture which is he11-bent on illegal/immoral behavior

But are you willing to assume that the lion's share of, say, The Pirate Bay's users are that subculture? I'm not going to deny that a cracker culture exists - but they're kind of a minority. Most people would rather get their content at a non insulting price with non insulting terms.

  >do you seriously think the author would be satisfied if someone just gave him a shoebox containing all commercial music & movies outright, no strings attached? or would you expect him to nonetheless find something to pursue, contrary to rules, to exercise his intellect & creativity & efforts on?

Keep in mind that it is human nature to strike back at someone who wrongs you in some percieved way. If you shit on someone long enough, eventually they'll start doing things, even against their own best interest, just to spite you.

I'd wager the MafiAA and like organizations occupy that point in a lot of people's minds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com