Hacker News Reader

Comment by burke | Hacker News Reader

I'm only one data point, but:

I used to pirate (all of my) music. I have bought a grand total of one CD ever. Now I happily consume most of my music through a paid subscription to Rdio.

Similarly, I pay for netflix. I (grudgingly) go to theatres occasionally. I don't own and have no desire to own a dvd player, and pirate movies occasionally when they're not conveniently available.

Similarly, I pirate Game of Thrones, but would happily pay up to $5 per episode if it were an option. I will not buy the DVDs, as I have no desire to see it again. If I could buy the DVDs at the same time as the show airs (without getting off my couch), I would happily do so.

It is quite literally all about convenience for some people.

View on HN

> Similarly, I pirate Game of Thrones, but would happily pay up to $5 per episode if it were an option. I will not buy the DVDs, as I have no desire to see it again. If I could buy the DVDs at the same time as the show airs (without getting off my couch), I would happily do so.

How about when you pirate the episode, you put the $5 aside, and when it's released on DVD, buy the DVDs, regardless of whether you want to watch it again? This has essentially the same result as buying the DVD "at the same time as the show airs".

This is what I have done with shows that are cable-exclusive. And as a perk, I end up with the DVDs.

Having stuff you don't want cluttering up your life is a perk?

Then donate the discs to someone who likes to collect physical media.

Assuming the pirate bought the disc as a penance/feelgood/whatever for downloading the media, this totally negates that whole motivation. To the studio/network, two people got to see the content for the price of one. Ironically, the giftee becomes the beneficiary of the piracy, but with none of the risk. And the pirate, who assumed all the risk, was the person who paid for it.

Therefore promoting the DVD business instead of incentively them to move to digital distribution.

This is why we can't have nice things.

How about $3 an episode? http://www.amazon.com/Winter-Is-Coming/dp/B007HJ84ZK/

Key phrase in OP: "at the same time as the show airs"

Strangely, I find I'm capable of waiting a few months.

Sure, why not, or waiting for ever and not watching it at all.

Issues: the marketing blitz and news don't wait for a few months, and the various communities around the show don't wait either, "waiting for a few months" means ignoring the marketing blitz (easy), deftly skipping all news of the show to avoid spoilers (annoying), being completely split from any possible community built around the show (annoying, and often a significant loss) and finally avoiding significant interactions with colleagues who watch the show, because they probably won't remember that you're not watching it yet when discussing the episode which just eared (downright shitty).

Meanwhile pirating the episode has none of these drawbacks, it's available hours after the broadcast on every country on the planet in high quality.

One minor correction for you. It's rare that a popular show is available hours after the original broadcast. Usually a few minutes and sometimes before the show even airs on the west coast.

It is available a few minutes after the show airs, but usually not in a very high quality. And I did qualify my notes with that.

OK, seriously? Watercooler discussion is the rationale now? That's a reason to take money from the pockets from the 1000s of people who worked months or years to make something you like?

Really?

> Watercooler discussion is the rationale now?

No, it's an argument. And it's got nothing to do with "watercooler discussions", people can talk without involving you, people can talk at the bar, people will talk, art is not just a personal experience it's also a social one and the social part is actually important — hell, there are a number of cases where it's fundamental.

It's especially the case for TV series (with significant and/or cult followings) as they become shared/group cultural artefacts and values and a significant section of social interaction.

> That's a reason to take money from the pockets from the 1000s of people who worked months or years to make something you like?

No, but I should not be surprised by your mis-representation since you seem to have no interest in discussing this.

It's a reason why "waiting a few months" is not an acceptable alternative.

And by the way, pirating does not "take money from the pockets of [people]" any more than not watching at all does. That doesn't even remotely make sense.

So you want the experience without compensating the people who made the experience possible.

It's entirely possible to compensate them if the experience is valuable to you. Not doing so is wrong. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

> So you want the experience without compensating the people who made the experience possible.

No. But yet again you're intent on strawmanning your way to feeling good about yourself, so I'm just going to stop this worthless "interaction".

> Not doing so is wrong. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Sure, and you're free to do so, but — again — this has no relation to "tak[ing] money from the pockets [of people]".

What if you download it and then buy it later.. what would you call that?

I do this with movies sometimes. I don't always feel like watching things in my crappy local theater, so I'll buy a ticket online, and then torrent the film.

Still illegal, but.. my conscience is at least clear.

That would be fine, since you compensated the people who made the experience possible, as they have very clearly asked you to do.

No offense, but this stuff is not a complicated moral dilemma by any means.

But between the download and the buy there's just a "promise" to buy. Would this make it just as illegal (or illegal) as just downloading it?

"No offense, but this stuff is not a complicated moral dilemma by any means"

Well, I agree to some extend, but moral != law.

Well it is definitely a reason why the alternative offered isn't a good one. lots of things people do have "silly" social reasons, so don't dismiss those factors out of hand. Also, "taking money from the pockets of others" is an incredibly biased way to frame the discussion, and doesn't help at all.

In what way is money not being taken from the pockets of others?

The rationale that someone wouldn't buy it anyway doesn't hold when the argument is that they want it so much they can't wait for it.

Economically speaking there is no difference between losing money and not making money, but socially there's a clear distinction. You're not automatically indebted to someone just because they built something you want. No value is lost when a digital good is duplicated. The only thing lost in this case is an opportunity.

>The rationale that someone wouldn't buy it anyway doesn't hold when the argument is that they want it so much they can't wait for it.

The point is that customers wouldn't buy the show under the conditions it's currently offered to them anyway.

" No value is lost when a digital good is duplicated. The only thing lost in this case is an opportunity."

I know this is a popular justification for piracy, but surely you can see that a lost opportunity is in fact lost value.

> a lost opportunity is in fact lost value.

I know this is a popular justification for curtailing liberties, but surely you can see that this makes no actual sense.

So now it's "curtailing liberties" to ask someone to pay for value they are provided.

Right.

You seem to have no issue ascribing ideas they have never written to people who reply to your comments. I therefore assume (and assumed) you are in full and complete agreement with the various *AA over the handling of piracy. Including but not limited to rights-restriction, network monitoring, traffic shaping and mass legal threats.

Also, your comment was idiotic and I was spinning it the other way 'round to demonstrate this.

Your assumptions are completely incorrect. I support none of those things.

I do support content creators being compensated in the manner and amounts they choose to ask.

These are different things.

"In what way is money not being taken from the pockets of others?"

In the way that they are taking money out of their own pockets by not catering to this sizeable crowd.

Intellectual Property does not fit neatly into our existing socio-economic framework. This is one of the areas where that really shows.

I'd have more sympathy for this line of argument if I wasn't currently watching season 1 of Game Of Thrones.

When it aired, sure I wanted to see it. People I know were talking about it. But I didn't want to pay what it cost to see it then.

So you know what choice I made? I waited.

And now it's available in a format I want at a price I'm willing to pay. So I paid and I'm enjoying it.

And, in a development that would evidently be quite shocking to some in this thread, I'm finding that I have plenty of people to talk to about it.

Look. I would love it if they made the show available online the next day, like Mad Men does. I think they're mistaken not to do so. I think they'd make more money if they did.

But they don't.

So I wait.

Well I watched it at a friends who had it copied on his DVR. Does that make me a pirate? I was given a copy by another friend who did copy if off a DVR. I do have the blu-ray version of season one as well.

I will be watching season two without ever paying for HBO, again I am watching it via a DVR. How is my watching it on someone's DVR not the same as downloading it and watching it? In neither case did I pay for it, someone else did in both.

The true issue is that HBO sees more money at risk than they see to gain.

Suppose instead his solution was to find a buddy with HBO and watch the show together. Would you still say money is being taken, despite the 100% legality of this approach? If not, why?

Because someone paid for it, and more than one person watching at one location is factored into the price.

One of the biggest reasons for art existing at all - before it was ever about money - is as a social object, something to be talked about.

It's a rational. Remember, we're not looking for excuses, we're looking for reasons.

For many people TV-shows are a shared cultural event. Discussing the show is at least as big a part of the experience as watching it. Remove the shared experience and the show loses much of its total value.

I still pirate all of my music, but I give money to and promote artists that I listen to.

Rdio, Spotify, and other 'legal' solutions give pathetic amounts of money to the artist. I'd rather have a copy of the music in whatever format I want, on whatever device I want, played with whatever software I want, and spend a little extra time figuring out how to compensate the artist fairly for their contribution to my human happiness.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4074288

Your logic works if you only are going to listen to a song a few times, but after a certain threshold, the artist would receive more money than from a CD or iTunes purchase.

I also pay an Rdio subscription and enjoy it, but I still buy the records I find myself listening more often.

My reason is simply this: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music...

Okay lets do some simple math on this.

If I buy a song off iTunes, the artist gets $.09

Every time I listen to it on Rhapsody, they get $.0022

Some quick division: .09/.0022 = ~41

What this means is that, if I've listened to a song less than 40 times, the artist makes more if I buy it off iTunes. But once I've listened to it 41 times or more, the artist is making more profit if all those listens were on Rhapsody.

Now I don't know about you, but when it comes to songs I like I listen to them a hell of a lot more than 40 times. You say you buy the records you find yourself listening to more often? Then you are taking money out of the artists' pockets, because every 40 listens through the album on Rhapsody is equivalent to buying the album anew on iTunes.

To make it even more lopsided, consider just how many times more you would listen to those songs throughout your lifetime. Buy the CD once, and the artist will never see another cent from you, whereas the streaming services continue to pay them, forever.

Despite the irritating and condescending tone, that’s a good argument.

While Rdio and Spotify has some wrinkles to iron out, that chart is simply lying with pretty colours. Full album != single track != single play.

do you have better sources? it seems simple math to me. I have also seen a few articles from artists (not record companies) that say the same thing. if you have proof of the contrary it would make me feel better.

Ultimately, the best solution for audiences and companies is to simulcast the episode on TV and online. If you're a paid subscriber you can watch it for no additional charge; otherwise, the cost is $3 (or whatever).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com