Hacker News Reader

Comment by biot | Hacker News Reader

If someone clones all your employer's apps with all the in-app purchases and release everything for free and sales plummet, you're okay losing your job because you haven't grown up and adapted your business model, you disgustingly rich person with unjustifiable income, you? :)

View on HN

I understand your point of view, but this discussion is more about the transparency of the UK legal process than about the rights or wrongs of downloading.

The UK can be very opaque at times and it would be nice to see what is going on easily.

Edit: and to avoid collateral damage like [1] (shared hosting with 1 IP address)

[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/15/site_blocking_after_...

Our Internet access is being censored in secret because of entrenched interests in big media companies. The desire to prevent piracy is not childish in and of itself, but this is a doomed approach with considerable collateral damage. Successful digital content delivery services have proved the viability of alternative business models that actually benefit consumers. So, a better analogy would be asking whether you'd have been upset at losing a job making horse drawn carriages when the car got invented. Probably yes, no-one likes losing their job - but you'd have to be pretty selfish to lobby for a blanket ban on automobiles.

ironically i have had to deal with this precise problem.

in the real world you deal with real world problems - you don't get to negotiate because you feel entitled - in the general case at least people have zero tolerance for such behaviour and it gets you nowhere.

we have a capitalist society after all... supply, demand and competition rule supreme in our economy.

don't downvote this guy his point is perfectly valid.

i would add as well that i work in the entertainment industry... i have nothing against artist, performers, production staff and feel they deserve rewarding for their work - but (and i have personal bias) i have no love for the leeches that tie them into exploitative contracts then winge when they don't get the benefit of their /should be illegal and are certainly immoral/ business practices because they went out of date 10 years ago.

While it's good to get rid of exploitative contracts, denying the ability for copyright holders (which includes starving artists, indie game developers, artist-owned publishing collectives, etc.) to litigate against those who are ripping off their work goes too far. Without legal tools at their disposal, the small guy WILL get ripped off by larger, more powerful entities. Or small entities for that matter; it's not like copying bits poses any technical hurdle.

you have to pay the price both ways with these things... i still think copyright is garbage. if people can do a better job by ripping me off they deserve it and so do the customers who get a better product. everyone wins except for me... i can't cry too much about that.

The biggest problem is when someone comes and takes your software and doesn't do anything except sell it online for half the cost. This happened to me a number of years ago. They didn't do a better job or offer a better product. They didn't compete on functionality or user experience. They sold my unmodified, identical binaries (at a lower cost) as if they were an authorized reseller and kept all the money for themselves. I fail to see how this individual was deserving of the pure profit they made from my hard work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com