Live data from Hacker News

Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

wired.co.uk

311–320 of 372 posts

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree with much of anything you said. >With a capitalist economy certain elements of culture are effectively reserved for the wealthy. [...] The democratisation of media particularly through availability of music and film - which are so central to our cultural experience There is always going to be a culture. And there are always going to be things off-limits to the non-wealthy that would totally be pa…

> To the best of my understanding society had a culture 5, 50, 500, and even 5000 years ago. The current availability of books published last century is actually smaller than the current availability of books published before that. So there is actually a bit of a cultural hole from the 1900's because of materials are still in copyright and not published by their owners. Often it isn't even known who is the current ow…

Not having documentation on what culture was X years ago is different from there being no culture X years. I don't think your first example is relevant.

Copyright exists to serve the public. I think it largely achieves that goal. There are fair arguments to be made as to when copyright/patents stop serving the public interests. I don't think DRM as an enforcement of the copyright laws nullifies the protection already given. When it comes to copyright the following quote is long but largely sums of my thoughts.

"A distinguishing characteristic of intellectual property is its "public good" aspect. While the cost of creating a work subject to copyright protection—for example, a book, movie, song, ballet, lithograph, map, business directory, or computer software program—is often high, the cost of reproducing the work, whether by the creator or by those to whom he has made it available, is often low. And once copies are available to others, it is often inexpensive for these users to make additional copies. If the copies made by the creator of the work are priced at or close to marginal cost, others may be discouraged from making copies, but the creator’s total revenues may not be sufficient to cover the cost of creating the work. Copyright protection—the right of the copyright’s owner to prevent others from making copies—trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place. Striking the correct balance between access and incentives is the central problem in copyright law. For copyright law to promote economic efficiency, its principal legal doctrines must, at least approximately, maximize the benefits from creating additional works minus both the losses from limiting access and the costs of administering copyright protection." from An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are a fool if you're angry about piracy on your pet project. I'll tell my employees that as our company folds from lack of revenue. I'll tell my wife that as we apply for food stamps. I'll tell the that to the next person interviewing me for a job because people didn't want to pay for the value I provided.

> people didn't want to pay for the value I provided Well, that simply sounds like a failed product, no? Not everything is successful. Given finite resources (human labor in this case) not everything can be successful. Just because some people would take it for free does not mean they would take it at the cost it takes to make the product profitable.

The infuriating part is that the people that don't think the software is worth the value they would pay then also feel entitled enough to pay nothing and use it anyway. Don't want to use my software because you don't think it's worth the cost? That's fine, but you don't get to act high and mighty about using it without paying for it.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sunde was willing to take risks for what he believed in. He deserves a lot of respect for that no matter what people think about the morality of what he helped to create I find this argument completely fallacious. Does it change the value of a thing if someone takes a risk for it? Ought we respect the causes of suicide bombers, since they gave their lives for them?

Yes, it does. I will never advocate violence but if you look at the reasons that lead to that horrific moment in the suicide bomber's life, then you might see something even more terrifying than the act itself. Sure, you can blame it on bigotry or ignorance, but it turns out suicide bombers on average are more intelligent and well-educated than those in their society [0]. Camus attempts to explain this in his essay T…

> So maybe you should consider respecting someone who thinks taking his life and innocent lives to make a point, or at least respect the point he is trying to make.

"Even today it takes only the crudity of a persecution to give an otherwise completely indifferent sectarianism an honorable name. How? Does it change the value of a thing if someone gives his life for it? An error that has become honorable is an error which is that much more seductive."

> you cannot possibly ignore the fact that Sunde went to prison on his own for what he believed was right

Yes, but I don't find that in itself worthy of respect. Martyring yourself is a dramatic pose, a type of moralism that appeals to emotion and not reason. What Sunde did with his own personal life has absolutely nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of TPB (btw I am entirely in favor of that sort of filesharing).

But this childish fetish our society has with idolizing people who "feel strongly" and "sacrifice" does us no credit. It just muddies the already murky waters of whatever topic is under debate. The fact that someone makes a sacrifice in favor of some belief or conviction simply makes no difference whatsoever as to the rightness or wrongness of that belief. It is only a symptom of the type of person s/he is. And I see no reason to respect the willingness to sacrifice as a virtue in itself, since one could sacrifice for "evil" (bad/stupid/harmful) ends.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#314
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said in a comment below, you too have it backwards. It's not about the "right of the people to download shit for free". It's about the right of the corporations to go to hell and beyond to justify a few bucks; putting people in jail and corrupting the judicial and political system in the process... for what is essentially a harmless offence.

I think the level of penalty related to torrents and downloading copyrighter material is a matter of opinion. I don't know enough to say jail time is too harsh/not enough. "Harmless offence"? Really? Maybe harmless in the fact that no one died, but it's not harmless that people's work is being stolen. What if people stole your work? I don't think you can point to the rich people in Hollywood and say "They have enough…

So, when a movie has made $100 million and I buy a download for $5, how much of that goes to the ordinary workers (not rights holders, not first rank actors)? I'm going with none. Once the show breaks even the people who worked on it have been paid their wages. There's no argument of loss of income to make. Sure you can argue the rights holders deserve their extra millions (or cents) but your argument on loss of wages is void then.

So I torrent a movie, Avatar say, and now I should go to jail for several years and pay a fine that bankrupts me?

Whilst if I take a packet of cigarettes from a shop - about the same sales value - I get a fine of $20 and maybe if I'm really unlucky a night in a cell.

This is a complete disparity of punishment. The only reason for it to be like this is media interests owning the political process to such an extent that they can buy preferential treatment before the law.

And what's worse, is that the shop owner will get nothing, no police will help with their loss despite it being a physical good. Whilst for the movie rights holder, despite the actual loss being virtually zero (if not actually negative as sales can follow directly from the action) they get massive aid from the legal system and incomprehensibly large punishments on their behalf. Copyright infringement should by rights be a tort too.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try re-reading the post you replied to. The author does not want you to respect the cause for which he has taken the risk, but the fact that he felt strongly enough about it to put his life on the line for it. And yes, even suicide bombers deserve a bit of respect if they do their thing out of conviction, and not because they have been brainwashed about 72 virgins in next life.

> The author does not want you to respect the cause for which he has taken the risk, but the fact that he felt strongly enough about it to put his life on the line for it Again, I fail to see how conviction is by itself worthy of respect. Surely it is only respectable if the content of the conviction is also respectable. In other words: if I risk my life for something stupid or wrong or immoral or criminal, but I fel…

> Surely it is only respectable if the content of the conviction is also respectable.

Point in case: Would we be having this discussion if Sunde went to jail for a strong conviction in believing that a given race is inherently and naturally inferior to his own? I would submit a vote of "not likely", because I doubt very many people would find themselves respecting his conviction, if that were the case.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#316
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said in a comment below, you too have it backwards. It's not about the "right of the people to download shit for free". It's about the right of the corporations to go to hell and beyond to justify a few bucks; putting people in jail and corrupting the judicial and political system in the process... for what is essentially a harmless offence.

I think the level of penalty related to torrents and downloading copyrighter material is a matter of opinion. I don't know enough to say jail time is too harsh/not enough. "Harmless offence"? Really? Maybe harmless in the fact that no one died, but it's not harmless that people's work is being stolen. What if people stole your work? I don't think you can point to the rich people in Hollywood and say "They have enough…

When I go on Pirate Bay and type "Metallica", I get a bunch of songs and downloading and playing them is illegal (in some countries).

When I go on YouTube and type "Metallica", I get the same thing on completely unofficial channels and it's so legal that I can relink it to you here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqtaKkvCFaQ

The end result is the exact same thing: A non-paying user listened to an unofficial source for a song. Don't even try to argue that it's harmful because it's not. Don't even try to argue that one warrants jail time while the other does not... because you will be wrong, and this is not a subjective issue anymore.

YouTube has allowed for content producers to leverage those eyeballs and get people paid for their work. What actually needs to be talked about is solutions like YouTube and Spotify for content producers.

And all of this is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make... it's still not about the "right to download". It's about the right of the corporations to abuse and corrupt the system the way they do.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#317
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the level of penalty related to torrents and downloading copyrighter material is a matter of opinion. I don't know enough to say jail time is too harsh/not enough. "Harmless offence"? Really? Maybe harmless in the fact that no one died, but it's not harmless that people's work is being stolen. What if people stole your work? I don't think you can point to the rich people in Hollywood and say "They have enough…

So, when a movie has made $100 million and I buy a download for $5, how much of that goes to the ordinary workers (not rights holders, not first rank actors)? I'm going with none. Once the show breaks even the people who worked on it have been paid their wages. There's no argument of loss of income to make. Sure you can argue the rights holders deserve their extra millions (or cents) but your argument on loss of wage…

Residuals (ongoing income from films/tv) go to much of the crew. Above the line people get residuals in the form of direct payments. Below the line people get them in the form of payments to their unions to sustain benefits, such as insurance and retirement funds.

So there's a real loss even in that case.

*Above the line defined here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Above_the_line_(filmmaking)

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#318
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said in a comment below, you too have it backwards. It's not about the "right of the people to download shit for free". It's about the right of the corporations to go to hell and beyond to justify a few bucks; putting people in jail and corrupting the judicial and political system in the process... for what is essentially a harmless offence.

I think the level of penalty related to torrents and downloading copyrighter material is a matter of opinion. I don't know enough to say jail time is too harsh/not enough. "Harmless offence"? Really? Maybe harmless in the fact that no one died, but it's not harmless that people's work is being stolen. What if people stole your work? I don't think you can point to the rich people in Hollywood and say "They have enough…

I'd agree with you if data didn't show that people pirating media buy more than anyone else.

What really hurts margins? Apple, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon.

Re: Peter Sunde: 'I went to jail for my cause. What did you do?'

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people didn't want to pay for the value I provided Well, that simply sounds like a failed product, no? Not everything is successful. Given finite resources (human labor in this case) not everything can be successful. Just because some people would take it for free does not mean they would take it at the cost it takes to make the product profitable.

The infuriating part is that the people that don't think the software is worth the value they would pay then also feel entitled enough to pay nothing and use it anyway. Don't want to use my software because you don't think it's worth the cost? That's fine, but you don't get to act high and mighty about using it without paying for it.

While I can understand the frustration it's not really lost sales, it's just purchases that never would have been made in the first place.

It's the same with music piracy. Sure, one might buy 1 CD. Even 10 CDs. But very few people would buy those 20GB+ of worth of music they hoard on their harddrives. It's something they take for free but would never pay for.

The difference with music is that you can make a partial purchase because the product is sliced into small enough pieces. I may have the whole discography of a band spanning decades, but I only buy one or two of their albums. At least they still get some money that way, so maybe they don't have to feel the same frustration that you do.

In that sense piracy enables some sort of involuntary "set your own price" scheme. But that only works if the product can be sliced down into small enough units enabling the consumers to set their own price.

For software this is more difficult, but not impossible. For example adobe products or microsoft office get pirated in private environments but paid for in commercial settings. The private copies serve to entrench the product in the market, even if they don't generate a direct profit by themselves. So even there is a difference between what people are willing to pay and the retail price of the products.

Post reply on HN