Why I'm a Pirate • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#281

Post by cturner » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:07 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #161

cturner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting access to good content producers is the easy part of running a traditional media company. The challenges are about control of limited distribution and promotion channels. This is a vicious territory and a zero-sum game. This helps to explain why that space cultivates nasty people. The sort of person who would have no qualms about grinding an artist down as much as possible. There's an endless supply of naive,…

What are these "distribution and promotion channels" limited by? What you're saying sounds to me like artists don't deserve to get a larger share because what they do simply isn't the most difficult part of actually making money. At the end of the day it may just be a completely normal function of supply and demand. Many people can easily supply what mainstream radio stations play all day long.

    > What are these "distribution and promotion channels" limited by?

Limited radio spectrum, limited television stations, somewhat limited music distribution chains/relationships, somewhat limited magazine readership.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#282

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:08 PM UTC

sequoia wrote: post #274

hxa7241 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is that this is my decision. Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? > In that case, anybody can use it, replicate it, seek to profit from it, claim it as his own, or whatever, all without my having any say whatever in that process. This is a common approach, bu…

Let me first state that I'm in basically total agreement with OP and mostly agree with parent, but one point sticks in my craw: >> The point is that this is my decision. >Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? http://thegatheringplacehome.myfastforum.org/archive/life-le...…

The second an artist is trying to mass produce they are businessmen not artists anymore.

The artist didn't make the ability to produce in large numbers and distribute at zero cost, that is what technology did.

A technology that served the labels and musicians for one hundred years.

Now it is turning on them and they start to complain. Bo freaking ho.

People make music without making a single dime on it. Great music in fact fantastic music. The big artists are big because the record labels and IP laws make them big. Not because they through some fair game was the best of the crop.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#283

Post by dhimes » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:09 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #243

route66 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I'm a musician. What "physical manifestation" are you talking about? Compressed air? Because as soon as I make a record I have to "guard that physical manifestation" ... how? with SOPA? preventing CD'd from being sold? And in short you deny artists of ownership of anything else than the physical representation (unethical!) But in the next sentence you make the creation "other people's property". If I think of som…

Shows. Performances.

In many cases the writer is not the performer. What for them?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#284

Post by Dove » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:12 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #249

Spoom wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I realize that it can't happen any time soon due to the current businesses that rely on copyright protection, there have been alternatives proposed that work without it, like The Digital Art Auction ( http://tdaa.digitalproductions.co.uk/history/essay.htm ) and Street Performer Protocol ( http://www.schneier.com/paper-street-performer.html , blacked out due to SOPA as of writing). Vastly simplified, they descri…

I've read both of the links you provide at various times, and I remain skeptical. It seems like an awesome way to put a hard ceiling on what creative works actually get made, because the likelihood of anyone actually funding a project of magnitude is extremely small. I look at it from a game development point of view, and I have to ask--who's going to pony up the cash for the next Half-Life (not the next Valve game,…

who's going to pony up the cash for the next Half-Life (not the next Valve game, but the next product on that level) up-front when dealing with nobodies?

While I acknowledge that it doesn't seem to make economic sense, I have a great deal of respect for how people seem to be actually behaving. True nobodies can raise six figures on Kickstarter right now. I can only imagine what would happen if a somebody tried.

If Valve put HL3 on Kickstarter, might they raise the necessary funds? I kinda think they might.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#285

Post by Nelson69 » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:14 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #202

sbarre wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To draw my line in the sand, I have no problems with people pirating works they simply don't have any other access to. American shows that aren't broadcast overseas, for example; pirate away. Really? The problem I have with this argument is that you remove control of the creation from the creator. What if they are in the process of trying to make a distribution deal while people cut off demand at the knees by steal…

> If the food is too expensive at your favourite restaurant, you don't pull a runner after the meal, you simply don't eat there, and you hope that in time the owners will realize and make adjustments. But if they choose not to, then that is their right. Stuff like this really hurts your argument, IMO. When you eat at a restaurant and then don't pay, that restaurant loses a substantial amount of money. When you pirate…

What about non-monetary things the creator loses?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#286

Post by gnaritas » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:14 PM UTC

city41 wrote: post #186

cturner wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it correct that your premise is that if you don't pay for something then you don't have the right to enjoy it? Do you also apply this principle to sex? What about borrowed books, good views, jokes, ideas, intelligent conversation, exercise?

Do you work for free? It's pretty essential to all of society that work and/or value is generally paid for. You demanding that content be available for free simply because you want it is no different from your boss deciding to not pay you because he doesn't want to. Yes people can choose to make their work available for free, and that's great. But that choice again lies in the person who created the work, not the per…

The value of said work lies in the consumer, not the producer. If consumers by in large don't want to pay for something, then it simply isn't valuable and producing something in that segment and then complaining about piracy is rather pointless. You know going in consumers don't value that because they're accustomed to getting it for free. You had better expect piracy.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#287

Post by angersock » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:16 PM UTC

billpatrianakos wrote: post #273

hxa7241 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is that this is my decision. Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? > In that case, anybody can use it, replicate it, seek to profit from it, claim it as his own, or whatever, all without my having any say whatever in that process. This is a common approach, bu…

> Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? Then the alternative is that all creators keep their output to themselves and people with this entitled attitude never get to make use of their work. Or maybe they don't make something at all. Or maybe they don't even try to learn t…

Why is it that the folks defending copyright always pull out the "But then creators will take their balls and go home!" card? That's such a repugnant, faithless argument. Numerous examples exist of people creating in spite of the system--and even making a living doing the same!

So, the entire issue for indie developers (of whose ranks I count myself a member) can be solved by not making a product until you confirm that it is wanted (i.e., pay me while I develop it, then do whatever). Alternately, you leave the creation of games (which have little to no lasting value) to be works of art, and let the artists and hobbyists make them for whatever living they can eke out. Entertainment as an industry, much less a secure one, is a silly idea.

You can't live on PayPal donations

Tell that to the guys from Wolfire, or Notch. I'm sure they'll want to know--they've been doing it for years, and would be upset to find out that they can't make a living that way.

This whole anti-copyright argument sounds wonderful but the world isn't ready yet. Maybe in another 20 years. The answer isn't to get rid of copyright, the answer is to scale it back to a point where it's more sane.

There is no magical time where the switch will be flipped and the world will embrace and move post copyright. Better we solve this--now--then wait until our infrastructure and freedoms are attacked. Before drastic measures such as breaking core parts of the interne--oh, huh, welp.

There is no sane part to copyright. None. It's madness. It is saying that we must artificially introduce scarcity onto things that can be duplicated freely--that's mad!

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#288

Post by nadam » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:18 PM UTC

hxa7241 wrote: post #234

grellas wrote: post #212

Creative effort - or at at least any that is truly worthy of the name - takes tears, and sweat, and blood. We can marvel at the output of an artist, or a writer, or a composer, or a film maker and yet fail to focus on the years of toil that often preceded that work. And I am not here speaking of some isolated genius. I still remember the days when I was so dissatisfied with my lack of writing skills that I decided to…

> The point is that this is my decision. Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? > In that case, anybody can use it, replicate it, seek to profit from it, claim it as his own, or whatever, all without my having any say whatever in that process. This is a common approach, bu…

"But it is also short-sighted. You are not only a 'creator', you are a user too"

The question is: To what extent? If we measure how much income a person have from intellectual property and how much money they spend on intellectual property (if they not steal) then you will see the following:

Most people are only consumers.

A fraction of people create things as a hobby, so their consumption is not much smaller than their production.

A tiny fraction of people produce intellectual property for a living: their consumption is tiny compared to their production.

If you are in the first camp then in short term no-copyright may be good for you. But if you are in the 3rd camp, it is bad for you, because in that case you are 99% producer and 1% consumer of these kind of goods.

That's why I think that the no-copyright movement is unfortunatelly partly an anti-intellectual, populist, 'anti-civilisational', (ok, maybe anti elitist too) movement: the less creative people's fight to take away rights from more creative people. (And creativity is only partly talent, it is also really hard work, so this movement is against hard intellectual work.)

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#289

Post by Naga » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:18 PM UTC

etherael wrote: post #196

edw519 wrote: post #143

OP, if this is just a whine about how unfair the world is and how special you are, then fine. But if it's an attempt to make something happen (stop SOPA), then it's not working and is in fact counterproductive, so please just STFU. You are offsetting the good hard work of so many others trying to make the right things happen. Make no mistake about it, we have reached the point where the best course of action is proba…

I think copyright infringement by itself is unfair and impolite, but at a certain point, some organisations have taken action that probably realigns the hierarchy of acceptable behaviour when it comes to copyright infringement. Under no circumstances ever should people actively sabotaging the freedom of expression of the entire world ever be supported by any payments from anyone, ever. Especially not the people whose…

That is, I think, the most salient part of the original post, one that I had never considered before. Buying anything from those organizations is effectively money going towards lobbying and DRM and all those harmful things. I had never looked at it that way before.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#290

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 5:21 PM UTC

adharmad wrote: post #270

hxa7241 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is that this is my decision. Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? > In that case, anybody can use it, replicate it, seek to profit from it, claim it as his own, or whatever, all without my having any say whatever in that process. This is a common approach, bu…

> > The point is that this is my decision. > Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? Because, the creative work would not exist if not for the creator. If you take away the creator's right (and I am not arguing that it should be infinite and indefinite), you take away the i…

[deleted]