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

281–290 of 295 posts

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

#281

Post by d0lph »

deong wrote: post #280
d0lph wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ok, what is the loss when I copy a file and give it to a friend? You haven't stated what the exact loss is. If your answer is that it deprives you of possible future profit, which seems like a bizarre thing to protect.

Obviously I meant unwillingly deprived, now you're just being pedantic.

But let's make your analogy more accurate, it would be more like me walking into your house, drawing it, and reproducing it at home.

> ... The law allows you to ...

You are in fact making the claim that something is (morally) wrong or not because it is illegal.

I will explain why competition doesn't count, because even though you make less money, they aren't directly taking it from you.

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

#282

Post by TylerE »

prepend wrote: post #86
ghaff wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is subscribing to HBO inconvenient? It's a combination of price and convenience. There's some upper limit to the monthly price you (and everyone else) is willing to pay for content.

HBO Now is a much worse experience than torrents. The navigation is slow, the updates to new episodes are poorly placed under a bunch of clicks, there are ads for other hbo shows over and over (even after I watched every single West world episode they still show me ads about a “new show”), streaming bugs (Although this improved quite a bit). It wasn’t the price that moved me away from HBONow, it was their lack of con…

If you have Amazon Prime, you can subscribe to HBO via Prime Video and watch it in Prime, both the library and live streams.

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

#283

Post by dang »

miragle wrote: post #219
fortythirteen wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because 100 million murdered by communists in the 20th century wasn't enough, amirite?

How did you jump from talking about left politics on the internet to literally murdering 100 million people?

Would you please also not use HN for ideological flamewar? It's what we're most trying to avoid here, really.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#284

Post by paool »

mrtksn wrote: post #15

You know what's interesting? A Decentralised media platform used to be huge and actually is still huge: Torrents. There's a huge community that consumes media that's not hosted anywhere particular and there are apps like Popcorn Time that offer viewing experience almost as good as Netflix. The problem, of course, is that up until now there was no way to reward the creators and almost all the media consumed on Torrent…

Not exactly what you had in mind, but checkout Joystream.

https://joystream.co

You basically get paid in crypto (Bitcoin Cash) for seeding torrents. Inversely, you can also pay BCH to get "high priority" speeds.

as for a platform to reward content creators, check out

https://yours.org

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

#285

Post by ahtu123 »

Grue3 wrote: post #42
Jyaif wrote: post #11

Roughly half of the content is about cryptocurrencies. The other half is stolen content (e.g. https://d.tube/#!/c/nba-highlights ). I don't think YT and FB are sad about losing those types of "creators".

YT wasn't very sad about stolen content when they were starting up...

I remember I started using Youtube originally because they had pretty much every season of every TV show uploaded there.

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

#286

Post by topmonk »

laurentoget wrote: post #279
topmonk wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a flawed analogy. Eating tomatoes from your own garden would be akin to listening to music that you yourself composed and recorded.

If you enjoy content and declare "It isn't worth the price, and I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so what's the harm, right?" you are still satisfying your urge to be entertained. If, without this access to free, overpriced entertainment, you would have otherwise sought out and bought other entertainment that you deemed worthy of your money, you are stealing from the people offering worthy entertainment.

If someone owned a practically infinite supply of water from a spring and bottled water for $50 per 12 oz bottle, and you said, "Hey it's fine if I sneak on their land and drink from their spring, because I wouldn't pay for their water anyway, so who am I hurting, right?" regardless that there is tap water that you would have otherwise bought at $0.03 per gallon, but now have no need for.

You may not be hurting the spring owners, but you are hurting the utilities selling the tap water.

IMO, this is why entertainment mostly sucks nowadays. It's very hard to make any money in it, because people are all watching/listening to crap movies/music, turning their nose at it and refusing to pay, and then going in for a second helping. /rant

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

#287

Post by deong »

d0lph wrote: post #281
deong wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ok, what is the loss when I copy a file and give it to a friend? You haven't stated what the exact loss is. If your answer is that it deprives you of possible future profit, which seems like a bizarre thing to protect. Obviously I meant unwillingly deprived, now you're just being pedantic. But let's make your analogy more accurate, it would be more like me walking into your house, drawing it, and reproducing it at ho…

The loss I've suffered is the loss of the right to attempt to sell your friend the file under the terms I want to set. I have the right to set those terms because I did the work of creating the artifact. You're completely allowed to find that a bizarre thing to protect, but you're not free to just declare that view the only reasonable one and expect no one to argue.

If I made my livelihood by designing homes, and I was good enough at that job that people demanded my services, then yes, copying one of my designs and distributing it without my consent is stealing something from me.

And I'm not conflating morally and legality. I'm really not. The two correlate pretty highly here (as most laws do for obvious reasons), so I guess maybe that's what's confusing you. But if I write a novel, and you put the original file on bittorrent, I created all the value here. You dragging a dropping a icon representing the bits on a hard drive isn't valuable work. And I believe that morally, the nearly infinitely greater amount of productive work I did to create that copy than what you did entitles me to more creative control. I believe that completely independently of whatever the legal system says. I also know that the legal system agrees with that determination and sets penalties for violating rules set up to enforce it. But I'm not using that as evidence for my moral position. It's not immoral because its illegal. The causation goes the other way around. It's illegal because the shared ethical framework of the people and society that drafted the constitution found it immoral.

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

#288

Post by alphydan »

mrtksn wrote: post #220
metmirr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all. I am another one who love steemit and create original content for it.

Can you give a link to your original content? I'm curious what HN'ers create!

Not from the poster above, but here's my original content on Steemit

https://steemit.com/linux/@alphydan/teaching-cyber-security

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

#289

Post by alphydan »

mattsfrey wrote: post #177
mtgx wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All platforms kickstart within a niche. Remember when Facebook was just for students? Or when Bitcoin was "just for drug dealers" (it wasn't, but that's what the media got everyone to believe).

Seeing some downvotes on this but TBH Silk Road and the underground economy _is_ what originally drove the lions share of demand for bitcoin as a currency, not miners and enthusiasts - everything else ballooned out from there.

> what originally drove the lions share

I think that is known to be false (although it is repeated ad nauseam on HN). The best estimate around 2011 / 2012, is from this study: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7139

which estimated SR transactions to be between 4% - 9% of the total Bitcoin transactions. Hardly what I would call "The lion's share".

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

#290

Post by d0lph »

deong wrote: post #287
d0lph wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, what is the loss when I copy a file and give it to a friend? You haven't stated what the exact loss is. If your answer is that it deprives you of possible future profit, which seems like a bizarre thing to protect. Obviously I meant unwillingly deprived, now you're just being pedantic. But let's make your analogy more accurate, it would be more like me walking into your house, drawing it, and reproducing it at ho…

The loss I've suffered is the loss of the right to attempt to sell your friend the file under the terms I want to set. I have the right to set those terms because I did the work of creating the artifact. You're completely allowed to find that a bizarre thing to protect, but you're not free to just declare that view the only reasonable one and expect no one to argue. If I made my livelihood by designing homes, and I w…

> but you're not free to just declare that view the only reasonable one and expect no one to argue

To be fair, I believe I am free in my expectations and declarations. I didn't and don't expect that however.

> right to attempt to sell your friend the file under the terms I want to set

To attempt a sale is not a right, at least not one I am familiar with.

> You dragging a dropping a icon representing the bits on a hard drive isn't valuable work.

Actually, in as much as that is included in the archival process, I disagree.

> It's illegal because the shared ethical framework of the people and society that drafted the constitution found it immoral.

Good thing Disney has nothing to do with it, otherwise copyright might stretch out to over a century.

Post reply on HN