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

Why I get my entertainment via BitTorrent

luminarious.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 191 posts

Re: Why I get my entertainment via BitTorrent

#161

Post by ajkessler »

archangel_one wrote: post #37
ajkessler wrote: post #26

I'm going to guess that a lot of the reason these services aren't available in a lot of other countries is not that they don't want your money, but rather that your governments either have ridiculous regulations to navigate, or there are concerns about their ability to protect intellectual property rights.

I highly doubt it is the former. I hear the US have pretty ridiculous regulations if you want to do crazy things like broadcast videos over the internet: http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/webcasting.html . Somehow these services manage to exist in the US regardless of the ridiculous regulations there, but allofmp3.com got stamped on despite complying with Russian law because they fell afoul of licensing interests in…

The fact that the U.S. might have ridiculous regulations has nothing to do with it. If you're a business, you might be willing to wade through all that red tape once, especially for the biggest consumer market in the world. Are you willing to do it 30 times? 195 times? If the Estonian market represents a paltry amount of money, why bother?

Re: Why I get my entertainment via BitTorrent

#162

Post by gcb »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #40
gcb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

slicing up markets artificially is the first sign of collusion, cartels.

In this case the boundaries aren't artificial, they're historic. The world will move to laws which are unified (or at least close enough) and allow day and date releases and true international markets but it's unrealistic to expect it to happen overnight. But a resistance to change (some of which will have it's feet in positive intentions, some in negative) is different to collusion.

i can fire up my browser and download music from .com, .com.br, .co.jp! sometimes i'm even wiling to pay :)

if you try to limit that based on historic boundaries set for other things, it's pretty artificial

Re: Why I get my entertainment via BitTorrent

#163

Post by Splines »

bonzoesc wrote: post #147
markokocic wrote: post #53

Well, this is just rationalizing. Stealing something (or obtaining it illegally) just because someone doesn't want to sell it to you (or give it to you for free) is still stealing (or obtaining it illegally), regardless of the fact that you want it so bad. As long as you own something, you have the right to choose if you want to sell it to some country, give it for free or do whatever else.

It really is a symptom of the decadence and entitlement of your typical Internet user. If somebody doesn't want you to have a thing they made, why not do without instead of acting against their wishes, taking it illegally, and rationalizing it?

Because it's easy, and the costs are low?

I sometimes torrent TV shows that I forgot to DVR and don't really feel bad about it.

It really is a symptom of the decadence and entitlement of your typical Internet user.

If the entire internet disappeared tomorrow, am I allowed to complain about it? Where do you draw the line? ("Be thankful for your brocolli, there are starving children in Africa")

Re: Why I get my entertainment via BitTorrent

#164

Post by masterzora »

adeaver wrote: post #158
tomjen3 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly if there is no chance that I ever buy something (say because it is not available for sale) what does it matter if I download it? I can see the argument for torrent over buy, but not really torrent over nothing.

Or, better question, why is it considered piracy to torrent a television show that is sent over the air to anyone with antenna?

If there exists a sensical answer (i.e. not a variation on "because that's the way it is"), it's related to not receiving the advertising with the torrent. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the show is the product. Unfortunately, just like in any other advertising-driven area, you are the product, and the show is a means to get your eyeballs on the advertising.

(Just to be clear and attempt to curb as many silly replies as possible: Just because it's true doesn't mean that I think it should be. Furthermore, your contrived circumstances wherein you turn the TV on and off at just the right moment to avoid seeing the ads is of no interest to me; besides being basically impossible to do properly, even most people doing other things during the commercials will be exposed to the advertising in some fashion.)

Re: Why I get my entertainment via BitTorrent

#165

Post by hxa7241 »

wccrawford wrote: post #116
rickmb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always amazes me that people who consider it an ethical issue by equating copyright infringement with "stealing", have no ethical problem with the fact that copyright law is being blatantly abused to achieve exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do, i.e. maximizing the distribution of original work. Copyright laws exist to serve society, not just a handful of corporations.

[Citation needed.] Was it really meant to maximize distribution, or was it meant to encourage production? Because it -does- encourage production.

It is meant to optimise the trade-off of both. (Encouraging production alone does not suffice to justify it.)

See paragraph 2 of http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html

Given that, the original point stands.

Re: Why I get my entertainment via BitTorrent

#166

Post by res0nat0r »

masterzora wrote: post #149
res0nat0r wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you never would have paid for it doesn't give you the automatic right to view/listen/consume it.

Clearly. Fortunately, nobody's arguing that it does give you such a right. The question at hand is "what harm does it do?", however, and the GP posits that the answer is "none, so why care?".

Since you are consuming the content, then it must have some value to you, otherwise you wouldn't be consuming it. So you should be paying something for that value.

Re: Why I get my entertainment via BitTorrent

#167

Post by masterzora »

res0nat0r wrote: post #166
masterzora wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly. Fortunately, nobody's arguing that it does give you such a right. The question at hand is "what harm does it do?", however, and the GP posits that the answer is "none, so why care?".

Since you are consuming the content, then it must have some value to you, otherwise you wouldn't be consuming it. So you should be paying something for that value.

I fail to see your point, at least in response to me. It would be a perfectly valid point to make to somebody claiming otherwise, but I am not. Is this comment misplaced, or am I just not following properly?

Re: Why I get my entertainment via BitTorrent

#168

Post by hxa7241 »

roel_v wrote: post #160
microtonal wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a utilitarian. If someone cannot afford a movie, downloading does not equate to a lost sale. It does not hurt any person involved with the creation of that movie. It can possibly make the downloader a bit happier. Therefore I think that, in this case, downloading perfectly moral.

Is stealing a bike not immoral until the owner of the bike notices it? Or until he misses it? Let's say he has a bike that he never uses, and never will. Is it not immoral to steal that bike? If you really mean what you say and understand the implications, I am disturbed by your ethics. I'm usually disturbed by utilitarians - they're the ones who end up saying 'torturing a couple of terrorists is morally OK when it m…

Well, you have started upon just the pertinent path, so let us consider the conclusion.

Would it be immoral to do something 'to' someone, when it has no effect on them at all? Hmmm, that seems rather difficult to find any immorality in -- after all, any moral concern must eventually bottom out on some actual effect -- deontological or consequentialist.

If all that can be said is that it would be 'spiritually' wrong or 'god' decrees it to be wrong, or merely that 'we' have decided it is wrong, that is unlikely to satisfy anyone rational.

Re: Why I get my entertainment via BitTorrent

#169

Post by res0nat0r »

masterzora wrote: post #167
res0nat0r wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you are consuming the content, then it must have some value to you, otherwise you wouldn't be consuming it. So you should be paying something for that value.

I fail to see your point, at least in response to me. It would be a perfectly valid point to make to somebody claiming otherwise, but I am not. Is this comment misplaced, or am I just not following properly?

Since you are consuming the content, it has value to you. So the argument that 'I wouldn't have paid for it anyway' doesn't stand up.

Re: Why I get my entertainment via BitTorrent

#170

Post by tomjen3 »

res0nat0r wrote: post #169
masterzora wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see your point, at least in response to me. It would be a perfectly valid point to make to somebody claiming otherwise, but I am not. Is this comment misplaced, or am I just not following properly?

Since you are consuming the content, it has value to you. So the argument that 'I wouldn't have paid for it anyway' doesn't stand up.

Yes I should - but the original assumption was that it was not legally for sale in my region, not whether I enjoy it.
Post reply on HN