Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 295 posts

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#271

Post by rectang »

pjc50 wrote: post #265
rectang wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're fine with content creators selling t-shirts, but they are hostile to the idea of creators being compensated for the distribution of their creations, or having any control at all over the propagation of their work -- because that necessarily constrains the ability to copy "information" at will. The big winners in a world without copyright are ISPs, who achieve instant vertical integration of both content and d…

> that necessarily constrains the ability to copy "information" at will. Well, yes. The alternative would have been to give the music and video industry a total veto over all consumer electronics, including computers, all operating systems, all content manipulation software, and so on. This would also have included repeated charges for moving media between devices and premiums for certain types of use; setting a song…

I'm confused by this response. We live in a world with copyright and so creators have a say and copying information cannot be done at will, yet what you describe did not come to pass: Spotify exists, etc.

Did it sound like I was advocating that creators be compensated for every last copy? That would not make sense: copyright holders can and do license content to allow such usage, and of course copyright law itself allows for copying under certain circumstances.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#272

Post by topmonk »

laurentoget wrote: post #229
jim_dow_jones wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By violating the copyright of the content you are stealing the creators money. I'm surprised the meme that copyright violation is "different" than stealing is still a meme. Yes, copyright violation is not "stealing", but the majority of the time the end result is "stealing" money from the content creators.

Who is stealing which money when I watch a video of a song on Youtube? Do you really think I would have bought all those songs if they were not available on Youtube?

If those songs weren't there for free, would you be just staring at a wall doing nothing?

You may not be stealing directly from the people whose works you are entertaining yourself with, but you are stealing from the people whose works you would have otherwise bought if you didn't have this free entertainment that you consider unworthy of your purchase yet still view anyway.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#273

Post by deong »

d0lph wrote: post #257
lordlimecat wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The difference is that there is no loss. In this thread, we recognize the existence of supply / demand. It is exceptionally ignorant to claim that increasing the supply of a relatively scarce thing has no economic impact on the creator / owner.

Actually, what is really exceptionally ignorant is to apply laws of supply and demand to digital assets. What I find really ignorant though, is you've decided that lowering demand is equivalent to theft. Does that mean competitors are "stealing" from one another.

It's only ignorant to apply supply and demand to digital goods if you start from the premise that copyright shouldn't exist.

1. Copyright shouldn't exist. 2. If copyright didn't exist, anyone would be able to get any digital file easily without restriction. 3. If you can get any digital file without restriction, then supply is infinite and demand doesn't matter. 4. If supply is infinite, then supply and demand doesn't matter and you're ignorant for trying to apply it.

That's basically the argument you're making, and you're rather trivially just assuming the consequent.

On the second part, that's just a really faulty analogy. Competitors aren't "stealing" from one another for the simple reason that they haven't taken anything. Copyright infringement isn't "stealing" demand. It's stealing an item that has demand. It's the infringement that's the theft, not the consequences. The consequences are just the justification for having the law in the first place. To repeat, competitors aren't "stealing" when they lower demand for the stupidly obvious reason that they haven't stolen anything.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#274

Post by nailer »

vinceguidry wrote: post #262
nailer wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it sounds like you'd be OK with the BBC moving to a PBS style funding model. Great, me too.

I don't know what part of "more public arts funding" made you think that, but whatevs.

The fact you were happy with the PBS funding model in the comment I replied to.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#275

Post by pjc50 »

rectang wrote: post #271
pjc50 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that necessarily constrains the ability to copy "information" at will. Well, yes. The alternative would have been to give the music and video industry a total veto over all consumer electronics, including computers, all operating systems, all content manipulation software, and so on. This would also have included repeated charges for moving media between devices and premiums for certain types of use; setting a song…

I'm confused by this response. We live in a world with copyright and so creators have a say and copying information cannot be done at will, yet what you describe did not come to pass: Spotify exists, etc. Did it sound like I was advocating that creators be compensated for every last copy? That would not make sense: copyright holders can and do license content to allow such usage, and of course copyright law itself al…

Spotify only exists at the price it does because piracy exists. It's a compromise price that takes enough people out of the piracy scene.

At the rates for on-demand streaming that the labels were demanding in the early 2000s, a Spotify subscription would be several hundred dollars.

As recently as 2012 someone was charged $9,250 per song download in punitive damages. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/minnesota-woman-orde...

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#276

Post by jim_dow_jones »

d0lph wrote: post #254
jim_dow_jones wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a content creator on youtube and I reupload your video and place ads on it, I am stealing ad revenue from you.

So if you don't place ads on it you're good, or is that also stealing?

In most instances you are stealing views from the original creator and as a result of those lost views, revenue.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#277

Post by d0lph »

deong wrote: post #273
d0lph wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, what is really exceptionally ignorant is to apply laws of supply and demand to digital assets. What I find really ignorant though, is you've decided that lowering demand is equivalent to theft. Does that mean competitors are "stealing" from one another.

It's only ignorant to apply supply and demand to digital goods if you start from the premise that copyright shouldn't exist. 1. Copyright shouldn't exist. 2. If copyright didn't exist, anyone would be able to get any digital file easily without restriction. 3. If you can get any digital file without restriction, then supply is infinite and demand doesn't matter. 4. If supply is infinite, then supply and demand doesn'…

It's only ignorant to able to apply the laws of supply and demand to something where supply _is_ infinite.

Copying a file is free, it's weird to make it equivalent to theft when there is no loss on behalf of the studio. Perhaps a better example would be one friend sharing a dvd with another friend.

That's what I'm saying though, it is stupid, to call file sharing theft. Theft involves loss on behalf one party. If simply taking profit(file sharing media companies would say) is enough to count as theft, then regular competition does that.

Another analogy: suppose you had a technology where you could clone real life items, you could copy food, cars, precious metals etc. you wouldn't call that theft. However in computing that technology readily exists.

Another thing, you're conflating laws with morality, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. Copyright has been extended again and again by the Disney company afraid to lose their mouse.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#278

Post by rectang »

pjc50 wrote: post #275
rectang wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused by this response. We live in a world with copyright and so creators have a say and copying information cannot be done at will, yet what you describe did not come to pass: Spotify exists, etc. Did it sound like I was advocating that creators be compensated for every last copy? That would not make sense: copyright holders can and do license content to allow such usage, and of course copyright law itself al…

Spotify only exists at the price it does because piracy exists. It's a compromise price that takes enough people out of the piracy scene. At the rates for on-demand streaming that the labels were demanding in the early 2000s, a Spotify subscription would be several hundred dollars. As recently as 2012 someone was charged $9,250 per song download in punitive damages. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/minnesota-w…

Well, until creators of commercially viable content get offered a better deal, they'll remain allied to the establishment copyright middlemen and will continue trying to make life difficult for the upstarts. Better to be exploited than to be decimated.

I hope for a future where the innovators in this space do find ways to reward creators. (Patreon is a good start, and maybe there's hope in the blockchain.) That might actually win powerful allies as commercially viable content authors migrate, and the long-hoped-for disempowerment of the current copyright middlemen comes within reach.

I don't see that happening when content creators are treated as acceptable collateral damage in the war to found an "information wants to be free" utopia, though. It will have to be a different faction that successfully negotiates the alliance.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#279

Post by laurentoget »

topmonk wrote: post #272
laurentoget wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is stealing which money when I watch a video of a song on Youtube? Do you really think I would have bought all those songs if they were not available on Youtube?

If those songs weren't there for free, would you be just staring at a wall doing nothing? You may not be stealing directly from the people whose works you are entertaining yourself with, but you are stealing from the people whose works you would have otherwise bought if you didn't have this free entertainment that you consider unworthy of your purchase yet still view anyway.

Am i stealing from McDonalds when I decide to stay home and eat the tomatoes from my garden instead of patronizing their establishment?

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#280

Post by deong »

d0lph wrote: post #277
deong wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only ignorant to apply supply and demand to digital goods if you start from the premise that copyright shouldn't exist. 1. Copyright shouldn't exist. 2. If copyright didn't exist, anyone would be able to get any digital file easily without restriction. 3. If you can get any digital file without restriction, then supply is infinite and demand doesn't matter. 4. If supply is infinite, then supply and demand doesn'…

It's only ignorant to able to apply the laws of supply and demand to something where supply _is_ infinite. Copying a file is free, it's weird to make it equivalent to theft when there is no loss on behalf of the studio. Perhaps a better example would be one friend sharing a dvd with another friend. That's what I'm saying though, it is stupid, to call file sharing theft. Theft involves loss on behalf one party. If sim…

And the correct lotto numbers tomorrow are free once you know them once, but that's not how prices work.

And what I'm saying is that you're simply declaring by fiat that there's no loss to the studio when you copy a file they own the rights to, and from there, building up to a conclusion that there's no loss to the studio when you copy a file they own the rights to.

It's a circular argument that falls apart because I reject the premise that I suffer no loss if you infringe on my right to profit from my own creation. You're not going to be able to argue me away from that by just saying the opposite is true with no further evidence.

Again, theft isn't depriving someone of property. If I go to your house and say, "ooh, cool guitar" and you give it to me, no theft has occurred. You've been deprived of that guitar, but I had the right to take it because you gave me permission.

Theft is committing an act of taking something that you don't have the right to take. The value of that thing doesn't determine whether or not it's theft, it determines damages. Regular competition or loaning a DVD to a friend don't consititute theft because you took no action you aren't allowed to take. The law allows you to make a competing product or to loan your books and movies to a friend for personal use. That's the whole reason why we don't refer to that as stealing something.

You can't steal something if you didn't steal something, regardless of the impact your action has on someone else. But in copyright infringement, you took something. You took the exclusive right to distribute a piece of content. That is an actual thing that is recognized by law and by common everyday economics as a real thing that has value. Depriving its rightful owner of that thing can be reasonably described as theft.

I haven't mentioned morality at all. I haven't even mentioned my personal stance on what I'd like to see IP law become. The only think I'm doing is arguing against this notion that it can't possibly be considered "theft" unless there's physical piece of plastic involved.

Post reply on HN