TomOfTTB

The point is people who have good intentions can be reasoned with. The Cold War didn't end with bombs it ended with talk. Because the intentions were good on both sides.

Someone like pg could just as easily go to media companies and say "what you're doing here is stupid. Allow our startups access to your catalog for a reasonable price and let us try to create startups that will give people what they want and still ensure you make a profit"

I know he could do this because...that's exactly what Steve Jobs did. And now I've cancelled my cable, I buy shows off my TV and I can re-download them to any device I want as many times as I want.

Because Collaboration works, War just destroys

But it isn't. It's the machinations of SOME of the old-guard media. Other parts of the old-guard media, who want those extra revenue streams, feel the same way you do. That's the problem with wanting to kill the entire industry. You lose the good and the bad.

Follow the logic here. Denying Netflix content for a little longer might hurt Netflix because people will come to Netflix during that time, look for the content, and not find it. So if that's true wouldn't it just be easier to never give Netflix the content. I mean, if they're trying to kill Netflix that would seem the way to go.

The truth is they aren't trying to kill Netflix they're trying to maximize profit which is what every company does. They are delaying movies to Netflix because they've found people will buy the movies from iTunes during that time period.

If that will kill Netflix it's their job to say "hey, we're a revenue stream for you and we're going to go away if you delay these movies" and then a negotiation will ensue. This is how capitalism works with each company trying to make as much money as they can and companies negotiating with each other to do so.

Having said that I've always believed media should be treated as a monopoly and regulated accordingly. The current law treats media like just any other product where the free market can decide the price. This works with most products because there isn't that much of a difference between one brand of Vanilla Ice Cream and Another. But there is a big difference between different bands and since labels sign bands exclusively they should be regulated like monopolies

> Well, then they should be running honest businesses that won't be disrupted by some startup trying to give artists a good deal, rather than the raw deals they so frequently get, and they will therefore have nothing to fear.

But see that's the difference between "kill the industry" and "lets beat these guys". Kill the industry empowers people to do other things like pirate media because "this is war". But if people do that then even the honest media execs can't keep their business afloat.

On a larger note the issue is with our society becoming so hateful.

This is a little off topic but in 1918 Manfred Von Rechtoven , also known as the Red Baron, was shot down and killed behind enemy lines. At the time his record stood at around 80 kills (more than anyone else by far). And here (from Wikipedia) is what the Allied forces did...

----

In common with most Allied air officers, Major Blake, who was responsible for Richthofen's remains, regarded the Red Baron with great respect, and he organised a full military funeral, to be conducted by the personnel of No. 3 Squadron AFC.

Richthofen was buried in the cemetery at the village of Bertangles, near Amiens, on 22 April 1918. Six airmen with the rank of Captain—the same rank as Richthofen—served as pallbearers, and a guard of honour from the squadron's other ranks fired a salute. Allied squadrons stationed nearby presented memorial wreaths, one of which was inscribed with the words, "To Our Gallant and Worthy Foe".

----

Look at that in comparison with all the hatred and anger around here directed at the record companies and you can see why I find it so disturbing.

Two wrongs don't make a right but for the record pg started it. If you call the people in Hollywood mean and advocate taking their livelihood away and I have friends in Hollywood that means you're disrespecting them.

Second I don't think calling someone out is disrespecting them. Disrespecting them is letting them be an ass and not saying anything. Because calling them out means you care enough about them as a person to care about their behavior and try to get them to correct it

(though for the record I do wish I'd said "you're being an ass" rather than "you're an ass" since he's not an ass in everything)

I understand your point but for the record he was attacking my friends and everyone else. He specifically advocated tearing down the entire industry. That means everyone.

As for the downvote I have to say when you go into a topic like this where you know most people are going to be against you the downvotes become a point of pride. Whether people want to admit it here or not Karma is of some value (otherwise why would it be there). Being willing to lose something of value to stand up for what you feel is right actually feels kind of good.

Who said I was better? That said the idea that everyone is equal regardless of their contribution is laughable. That's not to say people who have contributed more are "better" but it is to say they've proven themselves to some extent.

For God's sakes if you're going to use a phrase at least know what it means. Ad Hominem means "an argument appealing to emotion" or "attacking an opponents motives rather than the content of their points". I did neither of those things.

Ironically you did both of those things in this comment.

But for the record I did not, in any way, mean to suggest that natep was lesser in any way. But I do think there's an arrogance to him schooling me on how things work on HN given our relative positions.

My karma rating means I've been around. I've read A LOT of comment threads and I've seen how names that are familiar to me react to things. So I have some idea of the norm and what is and is not acceptable (though in fairness I was so pissed when I made the original post that I didn't really care and I'll admit to that)

In that experience I've seen many people who have been around longer than I have lose their tempers and violate the guidelines in the occasional, rare post. My behavior was in line with that.

(That isn't to say I'm proud of said behavior just for the record)

Karma is a (imperfect) measure of contribution. Time is just time.

As far as Hollywood killing themselves that's not what he was doing. I quote from his post...

"The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down"

That's calling them names and assigning motive. Not observing their behavior and pointing out what the probably consequences will be.

Not the title but this paragraph...

"Hollywood appears to have peaked. If it were an ordinary industry (film cameras, say, or typewriters), it could look forward to a couple decades of peaceful decline. But this is not an ordinary industry. The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down. It would therefore be a good thing if competitors hastened their demise."

I have no problem with healthy contributions from startups. I do have a problem with demonizing people especially when I know some of those people are working towards the same goals as technology enthusiasts.

I get pissed because of the rhetoric. Not just from this side. I have many friends in the entertainment industry and from there it's all about "thieves". So you have "hate" and "kill" on this side and "theft" and "arrest" on that side and I'm sick of all of it.

The most effective solution to problems with the media industry has always been the same: Collaboration.

Look at allthestepisodes.com. This is a site that allowed people to watch every Star Trek episode for free and I personally know an actor who lost residuals because of it. But that problem is gone now. Their traffic has been in a freefall (http://siteanalytics.compete.com/allstepisodes.com/)

Why?

Because Netflix offers all those episodes now. Neflix, a company that engaged the industry rather than trying to kill it, solved that problem and everyone's happy. No one's killed or arrested or anything of the sort.

But Hollywood funds artists. My issue with pg's post is it's a clarion call to kill an industry without considering what that industry does and who that industry supports.

If someone can think up a better system I'm all for it. There's no shortage of startups creating media for online dissemination. But as of right now none of them manage to support artists like the traditional system.

So I don't disagree with you. If there's a better system then let it take hold and let the current media companies burn. But pg should be encouraging people to build a better system not focusing them on tearing down the current one.

Point count is the equivalent of contribution. It means you perhaps said something that opened someone else's eyes or led the conversation in a positive direction.

Guidelines are to prevent people who don't contribute valuable ideas (e.g. trolls) from bringing the conversation down.

So, if someone has proven them self not to be a troll, I think they're entitled to lose their temper every once in a while provided they don't cause too much damage

Everyone says "most of the artists get screwed by studios" but it generally isn't true and you know this because artists tend to start studios when they get money and those studios always end up acting in the same way as existing studios did. Because, as I said in my post, Hollywood has reached an equilibrium over time. It is the textbook definition of "a bad system except for all the rest".

As for them finding new jobs I have no problem with YCombinator funding a startup that tries to distribute content more equitably (or anything like that). But saying "lets kill that industry" implies tearing down something and that has proven disastrous throughout history.

Look at all the countries the western world has invaded only to make things worse. Iran is probably the biggest problem the world faces right now and that regime was born out of the western world installing the Shah (which in turn made the declining extreme religious community into an oppressed minority who eventually retook power)

But they aren't wasting resources. They're producing media that's consumed by millions and millions of people. pg's argument is you should try to kill them off even though they haven't proven their obsolescence. My argument is they haven't proven their obsolescence because there are good people in the studios (as well as bad people). So you shouldn't make everyone working in hollywood a blanket target.

I have no problem with YCombinator funding entertainment startups. More power to them. But you can do that without spreading hatred.

Do you think Steve Jobs also had bad intentions? If not why did he regularly meet with Murdoch on social occasions? Why did they have a friendly relationship? I could see Jobs biting his tongue to get business done but you don't have to discuss political issues on a social level if you think they're evil

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Because serfdom was largely destroyed by the death of feudalism. Feudalism died largely because it couldn't compete with societies that were adopting open trade policies around the ideas of Smith's Wealth of Nations.

That's important. Because the Wealth of Nations was an alternate philosophy. It was a way that everyone's life got better.

You're looking to tear down something without suggesting something else to take its place. In fact if you succeed what you'll have done is to shift more wealth to people who are already wealthy (by societies standards). You will have destroyed a system paying thousands of people $30,000 in favor of a startup that pays hundreds of people $150,000 a year.

But all of that isn't my point. My point is you're acting out of hate. My point is you shouldn't encourage people to create things in order to destroy other things because it's unnecessary. If what you're creating is better the bad thing will go away all on its own. There's no point to add more hate to the world.

I know record executives. I know executives at movie studios. And guess what, they're good guys. Not everyone in that profession is a good guy. But many are and for you to group them all into a "mean people who need to be destroyed" is wrong (and, if I may again say so, ass-like)

First Mr. 278 Karma I think my 7000+ karma has earned me the right to call pg an ass when he's making an ass out of himself guidelines be damned.

Second, plenty of people are wrong every day. That doesn't mean they and their industry deserve to be destroyed. it means you TALK TO THEM. Try to convince them of the error or their ways. That's why Steve Jobs formed a friendship with Rupert Murdoch. Not because they're such kindred spirits.

AND IT WORKED. Look at what Steve Jobs accomplished by NOT trying to destroy the industry.

You’re an ass.

Pardon the bluntness of that statement but I’m home right now because this pissed me off so much. So my tone is less measured. Have you even contemplated all the things the industry you’re trying to “kill” does?

Make note of something: Hollywood is one of the most unionized workforces in the United States. This isn’t a story of rich studio heads taking advantage of people. Actors, Writers, Stage Hands, Directors, and just about everyone else in Hollywood is in a union of some kind and there’s a reason for that.

Creativity is random and creative people can’t count on steady work. So they need equitable pay to survive.

There’s an organization called Chanel 101 in LA. It’s basically a bunch of creative people showing their work (they put the stuff online if you want to google it). What the great majority of these people have in common is they work in the industry. Not as actors or writers but as stagehands, clerks and other low level positions. They are the people fighting their way up through the system and the system is designed to support them while they do. The system you’re trying to kill is what keeps those people alive. What puts food on their table so they can keep working towards their dreams. Because they aren’t programmers. They can’t go out and get an $85,000 a year day job that allows them to live comfortably while they tinker on a startup in their spare time.

The studio system, as obnoxious as it is, exists for a reason. It’s an equilibrium that’s developed over decades of creating media. Every few years you’ll see a famous actor form their own studio yet those studios always end up playing by the same rules as the existing studios. Because it’s still roughly the most equitable system available (and if you don’t believe that you should feel free to try and start your own studio)

Yes, the media industry can help to create stupid laws. I don’t deny that. But it isn’t because they’re evil or mean. For the most part it’s because these companies are run by 60 year old men who don’t understand the nuances of technology. But their intentions are good. Their intention is to keep money on the table of all those creative people. To keep paying residuals to actors who might not find work for years at a time. To keep funding movies where there’s no guarantee of profit and keep all those stagehands, clerks, and so on employed.

It is quite frankly unconscionable for a millionaire to lead a bunch of people who can make over $100,000 a year in an effort to kill off the industry that’s paying all the folks who make less than $30,000.

(Let the down votes commence)

I think he makes a valid point but then gets lost in emotionalism.

Here’s the thing. They don’t hate you. The people who work at the companies that support the MPAA absolutely don’t hate you. They simply like themselves and like the money they’re getting now. If anything they’re afraid of you because they think you want to eliminate the way they make a living.

The problem is people on the other side don’t agree on what they want. Some want media to be free, some want studios to die and artists and directors to find ways to get paid directly and some just want laws that aren’t as draconian as SOPA.

So to the labels and the studios people like Mr. Arment are terrorizing them. Threatening to take their livelihood away while offering no alternative system. That’s why not supporting member companies won’t work. Because it just reinforces their fears.

What technology companies and people who are passionate about technology really need to do is suggest an alternate solution. The world works in opposites. Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative, and so on. The only way to deal with the labels is to create another side and coalesce around a common ideology. One that still allows the system that currently creates media to work but which allows people control over their media.

Because the one thing Mr. Arment is absolutely right about is this: You haven’t won anything as of now. In fact, what you have done is sent a clear message that laws like SOPA need to be done under the radar from now on and that’s a step backwards not forwards.

Lets say you're completely right. What then would be the productive thing to do next?

To my mind the obvious answer to that is to work on gaining more support. Anonymous doesn't have anywhere near the power or support to change the world by themselves. They need other people.

But most other people respect private property (and would consider an organization's website private property). So random destructive acts don't help you gain support.

Note: I'm not saying they need to stay completely between the lines here. If Anonymous members put up a website stating their case and then hacked other sites with a relatively respectful message that makes their points and then links them to the Anonymous site for more information that would be productive.

Bottom Line: Making a difference means drawing people to the power of your ideas not the power of the technology you use to vandalize other sites.

I think his Point #1 & #4 are the main drawbacks. In the consumer market it's great to have a closed ecosystem where everything just works. But in a school environment cross platform is a must-have.

The irony is Apple's success with the iPad is the biggest reason for this. I anticipate a lot of people are going to buy the much cheaper Kindle Fire, find it isn't sufficient, and then bite the bullet and spring for an iPad. When they do I suspect a lot of them will donate the fire to their local school.

That's why schools have to be cross platform. Because you never know what is going to come in the door as a donation. If Samsung shows up wanting to give each student a free Galaxy Tab you don't want to turn them down.

Also, and this is a little off topic, but as someone who has tested these devices in a school I've found Apple's adherence to a single form factor to be a problem. The iPad is too big to be comfortably used for long periods of time by Elementary level kids. The 7" form factor works a lot better.

I agree with you in many ways but it's important to remember copyright is in the constitution in the first place. If you surveyed most people I doubt they'd even know that.

I don't think there will be one until the bills are re-evaluated in February. To the best of my knowledge the only significant chance is the removal of the DNS restriction (Which the sponsor himself said was a change). Even if you do find a SOPA breakdown remember it would have to be reconciled with PIPA after being passed (if both were to be passed). So that would add wrinkles as well.

So basically no, i'm of absolutely no use to you on this.

Honestly this is pretty straight forward wishful thinking. It certainly isn't Keynes (who believed in paying debts down during upswings). Here is the article's point in his own words...

"The US government only has to make sure that the US debt growth rate doesn’t exceed the growth rate of our tax revenue. As long as we take in money faster than we borrow, we can always meet interest obligations and grow faster than we owe money."

Interest is, by definition, paying money for nothing. You received money in the past and are now paying for the privilege of having enjoyed whatever that money bought you back then. But in the present tense Interest is money for nothing.

The author foresees a world where we are constantly paying more and more money and getting nothing in return (because the previous generation enjoyed whatever that money bought them). While our debt continues to rise because we're putting nothing towards the principle and in all likelihood still spending more than we take in.

That doesn't sound like a good future to me.

Disclaimer: I heard the Editorial via my Audible subscription this morning and sometimes those editions are abridged. Though normally not in the Editorial section.

I thought the article was pretty fair to be honest. It called out the DNS issues as being egregious and they highlighted the constitutional basis of copyright which most people forget. They also highlighted the difference between individual piracy and piracy for business as an important point (the exact sentence is "This isn't college kids swapping MP3s as in the 1990s. Rather rogue websites set up shop overseas and sell US consumers bootleg [media]"

My main criticism is they made SOPA seem a little more benign than it is. They say...

"The notion that the SOPA dragnet would catch a stray Twitter Link or Facebook post is false"

Well, I don't see how that is false. My main issue with SOPA (now that the DNS part has be taken out) is it could be used to allow media companies to shut down legitimate indie products because they resemble commercial offerings. Because the bar is set so low as far as initial proof is concerned.

Anyway, the bottom line is the article is worth reading and it isn't just "Murdoch Henchmen Towing the Line". I wish they'd let it out of the paywall so you could see that.

And financial requirements. Because public universities have subsidies and donations coming in they can afford facilities required by some of the more arcane standards. Private Universities have to charge an arm and a leg and basically bury students in debt they'll likely never pay. If you aren't willing to do that you have a hard time succeeding

I think this article misses the point. The problem with our University system right now is they have a monopoly. A correct market price can only be set if competition is allowed and that only happens when everyone is allowed to compete. That's the not the case right now.

The bar to gain accreditation is so high that only large universities and (relatively) dishonest private corporations can get accredited. This puts an artificially high barrier to entry for competition.

If we made one simple change and accredited testing facilities instead of Universities the cost of education would plummet. What I mean by this is we as a society say...

"This is what a [Insert Major Here] should know. We don't care how you get the knowledge. At University, Online, Divine Intervention, whatever. Anything is acceptable as long as you can prove you have the knowledge at an accredited testing facility."

So the tests would be the same because they would be the tests students take at University now and testing facilities would have to prove they can administer those tests properly. But you could get the knowledge wherever you choose. So if you can pass the tests for a BS in Mathematics by watching Khan Academy videos that's fine.

I can't even imagine how fast the cost of an education would fall if that happened.

I think you're missing the strategic issues here. SOPA is really about the 2012 election.

On the content providers' side they see a close election for both the Presidency and the Senate (the House is likely to stay GOP no matter what). This means two very important things...

1. Control of the entire federal government is up for grabs

2. All Senate races will be under the microscope. Even those that don't usually get attention. Meaning Senators who aren't used to raising large sums of money are going to need large sums of money.

Both these factors mean the content providers' money is worth even more and they know it. So now is the time to push.

But the politician's are scared by protests. A close election means even a (relatively) small group of Internet activists could turn it. That makes politicians scared of laws that get people riled up.

So the content providers need to both pay off policitians AND find a strategy that gives them political cover. The best way to do that in a bad economy is to frame it as a "jobs bill". Especially since it's the exact strategy that worked in Spain just a few months ago.

That's why you're hearing about jobs and foreign thieves.

I think the author is singling out IP-Law when his problem is with our legal system in general. For better or worse our modern legal system is built around overly strict limits that are, by design, rarely enforced.

To give an example consider the freeway. Where I live most cars drive 70 to 75 mph without causing a safety risk and I know it's CHP policy to ignore anyone driving less than 10 miles over the limit. But they could pull over all those people because the official speed limit is 65 mph. So they've established a speed limit that's stricter than it needs to be and have encouraged the breaking of that limit. This allows them to pull over virtually anyone they want for any cause they feel like.

This is true throughout our legal system. There's actually a recently published book called "3 Felonies a Day: How The Feds Target the Innocent" that makes this case quite well. The premise being every American inadvertently commits 3 felonies a day just by living a normal life.

So while the blog post is right to point out the illogical nature of IP-Law he should understand it was written that way by design to allow for easier prosecution.

(prosecution might not be the right word since IP issues are civil but you get the point)