The Real Pirate Bay | Hacker News Reader

The Real Pirate Bay

blogs.harvardbusiness.org

48 pointspeter12343 comments

I hate this particular writer's little articles. I've read 4-5 of them and they're so full of buzzwords and an attempt to sound "hip" and "with it" in terms of technology that it's pathetic and sad.

He's as bad as those social media marketing people, those shameless self promoters who don't actually create anything, merely talk themselves up with canned expressions.

Some examples of his article titles: * IdeaCast: the Zombieconomy * The Finance 2.0 Manifesto * Edgeconomy vs Twitter * Investment 1.0 vs Capitalism 2.0

I can't even list anymore, this guy only recycles phrases imo.

Umair Haque is actually quite brilliant, nothing at all like the stupid social media marketing people. His style kind of rubs people the wrong way, but there's a lot people can learn from him. I recommend this presentation he did a couple months ago: http://vimeo.com/3204792

Umair Haque is actually quite brilliant

Could you defend that by pointing out some articles where he makes a clear point without resorting to buzzwords or the latest fad/trend?

there's a lot people can learn from him

Such as?

Well, I recommended that video link, which is over an hour long.

If you'd like to get into his older material, you can check out the couple of power point decks on the right side of this page: http://bubblegeneration.com/

I could stomach buzzwords if loose ideas were argued. This is very Linda Richman. Topic and talk amongst yourselves. It's hard to discuss something when there is little to discuss other than nitpicking a broad idea. I get what he's suggesting, just wish he'd make more effort to defend the point.

I agree, what is this contributing to the discussion? In a world filled with people and their opinions, we need less fluff and more useful insight.

Mug someone on the street for $72 and loose change, go to jail for 3 years.

Join a bank and wreck the economy for tens of millions of people, retire with a golden parachute.

Where, I ask, is the justice?

Enter a restaurant without shoes, will not be served!

Join a bank, destroy the economy, profit.

Now sir I ask you, where is the justice?

Any why are we totally, 100% sure that it was the bankers who wrecked the economy? Did they not work within the system? Who broke the law and isn't going to jail?

This is just blind, bullshit populism where people want to target a group and spout their righteous anger.

Yep.

Welcome to the internet.

Welcome to the World.

That reminds me of the old line about how killing one person makes you a murderer and killing a million makes you a great leader.

That reminds me of Stalin. The death of one is a tragedy, the deaths of a million is a statistic.

This "analysis" has the sophistication of graffiti in a bathroom stall.

When journalism and twitter collide.

More like, when a lack of effort and the Internet collide. Which, interestingly, also accurately describes twitter.

Journalism, this is not.

Banks were destroyed by their greedy and foolish owners and managers.

Piratebay destroyed other people's businesses.

The difference is quite simple.

Not quite so simple. Banks are not like regular companies. Especially those in question. In a way, they are part of the public infrastructure. These banks wove an intricate web reaching into nearly every financial nook of the economy, from old ladies pensions to hospitals operating capital. The leaders of these banks manipulated the ratings systems, hid risk from investors (the public kind), and invented assets with bogus bookkeeping schemes. They stole billions from the public all while paying themselves 100's of millions in bonuses.

In short, bank leaders stole real money from real people using actual fraud. Lots. From lots.

The pirate bay: helped people connect with each other and then maybe trade copyrighted files that might have led to the loss of potential sales of zero marginal cost goods.

The bankers: Literally stalled human progress. The "pirates": Umm... Maybe "Thundercats The Movie" will have a smaller production budget? Even the comparison is obscene.

Haque doesn't accuse the bankers of fraud, just of "economically damaging actions." Reading that as "massive fraud" makes the article's point much clearer. (It's probably impossible to criminalize "economically damaging actions" in general.)

(It's probably impossible to criminalize "economically damaging actions" in general.)

That might be an extremely succinct way of expressing that point. The trackers didn't host any actual copyright infringing content. They did however engage in behavior that was likely "economically damaging" is some sense of the term. They still got jail time.

It was also likely to result in illegal actions, which cannot be said for the bankers.

Now, it's possible to argue about whether or not either should be illegal, but such is not the territory of courts, it is the territory of politicians.

Uh, where have you been? The Pirate Bay doesn't host any of the files and it's up to the producer of the media to give the consumer a better experience. They aren't doing that, what with the DRM on CDs, DVDs, etc. Don't forget the movie previews or other ads that are included before a movie begins. You also aren't given the option of purchasing just the movie as opposed to the movie + interviews + whatever.

The producers and distributors could be doing a much better job but they aren't, and the consumers don't like it which is why they resort to piracy (of course a lot of them probably do it because it's free).

"it's up to the producer of the media to give the consumer a better experience"?

Yeah, but don't forget it's also up to the consumer not to steal the producer's creation. This kind of mentality pervades society today. "It's the job of someone else to entertain me. If not, I'm going to kick and scream until they do." Bread and circuses, right?

Yeah, but don't forget it's also up to the consumer not to steal the producer's creation.

What a useless argument. I will give you a very specific example which happened to me the other day, that will show you that content producers/distributors are (for lack of a better word) fucking it all up for their paying customers.

I live in Australia, so things on iTunes are not always available due to licensing deals. These licensing deals however sometimes have their little quirks.

I went looking at TV episodes a few weeks ago, some shows were available, some were not.

The worst offenders were the shows that had missing seasons. Specifically, there was one show that I remember that had only seasons 1, 3 and 5.

Now I at the time was a PAYING customer, willing to put up my CASH to obtain content LEGALLY - yet was unable too. Why? Bad distribution deals.

Now if I was to jump onto any torrent tracker, I could have downloaded all of those episodes, from all seasons for FREE with a MUCH larger selection of shows than what was legally available.

The fact is, that content producers/distributors are providing a bad experience for end users.

Ever tried accessing hulu from outside the US without using some kind of hack to make you pretend your within the US? You can't - there goes another legal distribution point.

Right now, for the end user, these torrent trackers are not only beating the content producers/distributors on price point (free) but also on ease of accessing that information.

There is something very wrong when the path of least resistance is often unlawful.

If they really want to fix the problem, they really need to look at it from the users perspectives.. which is to make it as simple as possible for someone to pay for that content, with a good end user experience and make that content convenient and readily available.

Anything less is unacceptable, the rules have changed - they should at least make a reasonable attempt at playing the new game.

EDIT - Lastly regarding the film industry (and this is my favourite ironic point that I like to bring up) you have an industry that glorifies theft in their films. Ever watched Gone in 60 Seconds, The Italian Job, Inside Man, The Oceans 11 movies etc... Who are the heroes of these films?

Your argument begs the question. "I haven't legal access to something, therefore it is okay for me to steal it because otherwise I couldn't have it."

Loot on.

"There is something very wrong when the path of least resistance is often unlawful."

Oh man, this is just perfect. Welcome to our future, ladies and gentlemen.

Actually supporting the pirating of content isn't my position. My position is that producers/distributors of content crying foul when they're not providing an alternative service that comes close to other non-legal methods seems a bit pathetic.

I'm more than happy to pay them for that content, they just need to be able to make it easy, convenient, available and affordable for the consumer. Right now they're pretty much failing on all four points.

EDIT - glad you edited your comment after I replied, so allow me to reply to that too.

Oh man, this is just perfect. Welcome to our future, ladies and gentlemen.

This isn't the future, this is the present, and this IS something that they can change.

Unfortunately, they just don't have the balls to do so.

Granted, I'm with you there; however, just because something isn't readily available does not provide moral justification for its theft.

Well that depends on your moral subset, it's an entirely subjective matter.

You have a group of film producers that glorify theft, violence, murder and other heinous acts (many of which are morally questionable) in their films for the "entertainment" of the end users. Do you really think consumers are particularly thinking about content producers copyright when they're getting images of decapitation and bloodshed force fed to them?

Or to use their own campaigns against them - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

"you wouldn't steal a car" - no, but stealing 50 (aka, gone in sixty seconds) is ok. In fact, Hollywood frames the car thief's actions as a noble thing.

Personally, I don't think people should pirate stuff (even though it's been happening for longer than the internet has been readily available), but the Pandora's box HAS been opened - it's out there now and we're only seeing filesharing becoming more widespread.

Rather than fighting a losing battle, they should instead focus on providing a viable alternative.

Instead of trying to stop those consumers who will never pay for content, why not make it stupidly easy for those who will to do so.

The music industry caught on, unfortunately the Film/TV industry's ships are still sinking.

re: "you wouldn't steal a car"

I can't believe I'm quoting Reddit comments, but:

"you wouldn't steal a car" - "I would if I could download a car!"

Morality is not subjective. There is wrong and there is right. Stealing the toils of someone else is wrong.

Your argument is still nonsensical; just because Hollywood glorifies theft (which of course they would; it's the allure of the rebel mentality) doesn't make it rational or acceptable.

You bless weakness and the rationalization of cowardice.

>Morality is not subjective.

You make a fact-like statement for what is actually one of the most debated arguments in philosophical history. I disagree, morality is subjective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

And here you make one of the same lame moral relativist fallacies to back up your point.

Parent: "morals are absolute"

You: "no, because lots of people argue about it"

So, if lots of people argued about whether 1+1=2, does that make it false? Reality isn't consensus based.

Plus, disagreeing that morality is objective is incoherent. If it isn't objective, then what's wrong with stating that it is objective?

Moral relativism is to disavow the accumulation of any generalizable logic during humanity's stay. This is trendy and foolish.

Morality is not subjective? Can you explain how one determines, in an objective way, whether or not an act is moral? Is there a fundamental theorem of morality that I am unaware of?

FYI, objective morality doesn't require knowledge of moral axioms for people to observe particular instances of morally objective facts. Just as we don't need to know quantum physics to observe physical facts.

Anyways, if morality isn't objective, why get offended when someone insists that it is? He isn't doing anything immoral...

Does perpetuate moral humanity work? Of course, it is a necessary, but not sufficient sort of principle.

Easy: if an act does not impose force, threat, or fraud, it is moral.

Easy: if an act does not impose force, threat, or fraud, it is moral.

Well then by your "easy" definition, theft (within the context of piracy) is not a threatening force, is not fraudulent nor does it require force.

So you have just defined Piracy as a moral thing to do.

You just lost your own original argument by your own definition. Nice job.

You obviously misunderstood what I said; "force" does not only apply to physical things: it runs the gamut from plagiarism to patent infringement.

You are forcefully (and wrongly) obtaining media in that you have not first obtained the consent of the owner or producer.

But other people clearly have a different opinion of what constitutes force. So we're back to the beginning. I would suggest using a different word, since your definition of "force" very much bends the standard English meaning. In particular, it's hard to use the verb form in regards to piracy: nobody is "forcing" anyone to do anything.

Edit: the physical meaning of force ("I forced the lock") doesn't really apply either...

Oh is it easy? And downloading a movie falls into which of those categories?

It's certainly not force or threat, so it must be fraud. In which case:

Can you explain how one determines, in an objective way, whether or not an act is fraudulent?

There's that word again: steal..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com