Live data from Hacker News

I'm done with Google

deijin.bearblog.dev

231–240 of 327 posts

Re: I'm done with Google

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want people to have to purchase cd rom players and be limited to whatever can be physically shipped, or else they’re not allowed to enjoy music at all? Those limitations were a hard cap years ago. Now they aren’t: if you put them on somebody, they are arbitrary. And you’re going on a weird-ass rant about capitalism yet you’re not seeing that this is a classic capitalistic problem? You’re expecting people to go…

> Let people pirate if it’s the easy route for them FFS. Blame the record labels and distributors, they’re the ones at fault here. Except I'm not referring to anyone who hasn't retained their masters/credits outside of their first record 20+ years ago. The rest of their catalogs are producing checks, but they're fractions of cents per play because streaming music services that everyone here hates. The flip side is no…

And why is it so confusing for you that if convenience and accessibility tend towards piracy, then piracy will be picked over an inconvenient and inaccessible way of trying to pay for something?

Where convenience and accessibility tend towards paying, that will be the preferred solution. Spotify, Steam and Netflix built billion dollar businesses on that assumption being correct, in three different areas where people pirate frequently.

None of these businesses thought their time was best spent sending letters to individuals who were pirating. Not legal letters, not random HN comments talking about capitalism. Instead, they offered a solution.

Re: I'm done with Google

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Piracy is a service problem" means that most people pirate because they don't have access (or difficult access) to the product/service they want. They would gladly pay for it, but they can't, or can't be hassled to. I don't know if it's been backed up by real data, but services like Steam and Spotify tend to confirm this intuition.

Spotify confirms that piracy was in fact a pricing problem. With a Spotify subscription, you get way more music for a far lower price than under the previous “buy it to hear it” model a la iTunes or CDs. And artists make way less money now from recorded music than they used to. Studios only agreed to the Spotify pricing model because the alternative was rampant file-based piracy. They figured that getting something i…

For me, Spotify and similar services offer me better curated playlists. I have a lot of music on a Plex server and I still almost always use YouTube music because curation and dynamically generated, good playlist; and because the “radio to ownership” pipeline can be annoying when I’m running or whatever

Re: I'm done with Google

#233
Everyone involved in that movie production is probably dead by now (released in1939), plus it has profited handsomely (revenue at 10x production cost, according to Wikipedia), which is to say: no regrets pirating this kind of movie.

Re: I'm done with Google

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Piracy is a service problem" means that most people pirate because they don't have access (or difficult access) to the product/service they want. They would gladly pay for it, but they can't, or can't be hassled to. I don't know if it's been backed up by real data, but services like Steam and Spotify tend to confirm this intuition.

Spotify confirms that piracy was in fact a pricing problem. With a Spotify subscription, you get way more music for a far lower price than under the previous “buy it to hear it” model a la iTunes or CDs. And artists make way less money now from recorded music than they used to. Studios only agreed to the Spotify pricing model because the alternative was rampant file-based piracy. They figured that getting something i…

Spotify absolutely fit an access problem dead on: They're subscription, unless you can tolerate ads and various limitations*. Limits like not being able to control exactly what you're listening to (no beginning to end playback of albums, only shuffle), ads every 3-5 songs, playlists that were originally capped and again, only available on shuffle.

iTunes didn't improve on the physical store model any further than "now you don't have to get out of you chair to get new music." The DRM that wrapped around most tracks was frustrating enough for most people that the cost of the album didn't matter, you were better off going to a physical store, buying the physical CD, ripping it using iTunes to unencumbered ALAC/AAC and using it with iTunes or with other devices and apps.

Sure, people still used iTunes, but more for the fact that it was HEAVILY integrated with the Hot Shit Object, the iPod.

Spotify removed the barrier at the right time to succeed in the market. If you wanted to listen to Albums, you paid. But it was there, easy, no questions. You could just pop in and listen to That Single that just came out.

Most people who wanted ad-free music are going to be willing to pay for it. The rest, who are fine with radio-ish "I want to listen to the current top40" are fine with ads. It took Apple quite a while to come to near that, and they Only have a subscription model that isn't very well liked by its users.

Re: I'm done with Google

#235
The author was struck by the fact that you don't really own the things you purchase on Google platforms and the fact that they can block your access for any reason directed by an algorithm with no way to get back to them to recover the access you had.

I will argue about the first problem: one doesn't really own the things we buy on Google platforms.

This is a general trend with many platforms nowadays like Amazon and Kobo ebooks for example but also Netflix, Spotify and almost everything else. They just don't want to let you to download the content in DRM-free format. They say they are legally obliged but in reality this is what the content industry wants. They have used their lobbying power to obtain from the government the laws they wanted.

I sustain that this system is unfair to the users because:

1. users can be deprived of the goods they purchased with little or no possibility to have their rights restored. 2. users cannot, even temporarily, lend something they purchased to a friend or a familiar 3. users cannot sold back of give away what they purchased and no longer want to use

Please note that all these problems did not existed when the goods were physical objects like a music CD or a book. You owned them and you was free to lend or just give them to a friend or just someone else.

Please note that the fact you had these rights was not thanks to the benevolence of the content creation industry but it was just come from the simple fact that they sold you a physical objects and it was not practically possible to restrict people rights on the object they purchased.

In addition the laws we have since centuries protect the right of private property. These laws are a pillar of our society and has not been done under the pressure of some industries' lobbies.

What follows from these considerations is:

- the practice of restrict people from content they purchased in unfair to the user - the laws that govern these practice serve the interest of the content industries and are contrary to the user's right.

This means people should say "no" to purchase content on all these platforms and only purchase digitally when they get a DRM-free file with the content they purchased. It is also fine to pirate things because the system is just broken and unfair.

I would like also to add that even when they sell you a physical object or give you a DRM-free file, the relation between the user and the vendor is unfair. The reason is that, if we look to all the users together, the vendor can extract an unlimited and potentially disproportionate amount of money from their creation. I consider this unfair because the reward they get should be proportionate to the value of the content and the work it took to produce it but this is not actually the case.

To cite some example: an Elsevir article written and peer-reviewed by University researcher, may be thirty years ago, and if you want to read it you have to pay a ridiculous disproportionate amount like 30 dollars. They can extract and unlimited amount of money for something they contributed very little to. The system is flawed and unfair and the law are not there to fix things.

Another example: the copyright for US created content have been extended to the unreasonable to protect the interest of the content industry. Initially the old copyright law dictated a more reasonable duration before the copyright expired.

This means that the system of the copyright was already unfair since its beginning but now it is even more unfair than before.

We are trading our rights for a better system and good laws for convenience but sometimes, because of an accident, we are struck all of the sudden about how unfair the system is.

Re: I'm done with Google

#236
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, I feel like Google is large enough to refuse to be told what to do. If they really cared...

No they are not. The courts have been swift and merciless on this shit for music, video and similar things. Google may seem big but they do depends on the law still.

So how much money does Google make from their music streaming service? They can exit the business citing the shitty, unfair practices of music/movie licensing.

But they won’t. They aren’t in the business to ethically make money, just legally. Many times, what is legally right is not ethically right.

They can also use their vast resources to try to change laws, even if it is a Herculean task. They won’t try that either. Because the only thing that matters is profit, everything else be damned

Re: I'm done with Google

#237
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost completely gone in the US on Netflix also. I've had better luck watching older movies on Youtube 'Free with Ads' service, especially 80s and 90s movies, than I've had on Netflix. And there's no ads if you get Youtube's premium service (I currently don't, but don't mind the ads). Currently on there is Wrongfully Accused (funny Leslie Nielsen movie), Glengarry Glen Ross, Robocop (1987), Ghost in the Shell,…

If you haven't, you might checkout HBO Max. It's got a much better lineup of movies than Netflix imo, especially in that timeframe.

You're probably right about that, I have noticed a pretty good line up on there when we had it for Silicon Valley, Game of Thrones, and Barry.

But I'd expect that of HBO also. They were the original channel to go to if you wanted to see great movies when I was a kid.

Re: I'm done with Google

#238
This has certainly been discussed albeit not widely, but you do not own data. You do not buy digital movies. You don't own it, whether or not you paid for it and whether or not you have a file containing that data, with DRM or not.

You pay to enter into a contract to obtain a license to do things using the data, under the legal system for your jurisdiction.

Hypothetically, if people could be trusted to follow the law or the law could be enforced practically, it would be fine if all digital media were widely available. You could obtain the data, but being a law-abiding citizen, you would not play it without having obtained a license to do so.

Thus, the current state of affairs is really just the reductive case of the prisoners dilemma combined with society's decision that content creators deserve to be paid for their work (a tangential discussion on copyright as a concept).

Re: I'm done with Google

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even a hardcore pirate like me tried to do the right thing when it comes to music - I got Spotify. This is not the right thing to do. Spotify is peanuts to artists. If you want to do the right thing, buy music at Bandcamp: you get files you can keep forever and artists get a fair share of your money.

Yes you're taking peanuts from the artists and sacks of peanuts from the music corporations, that provide.. er, promotion, a contract, and own the rights to the music the artist created. Although it is true artists do get something, the lion's share goes to the music corporation.

That's the part about passion industries people don't understand: the distribution side doesn't have much power to structure the payment to artists, it's all in control of the publishers (labels/movie studios/game publishers) who control a large catalogue of works and have immense leverage to negotiate all this bullshit on geo-locked content, royalties' payments to the creators, etc.

Ranting about Spotify's, Apple Music's, Tidal's payments to the artists or region-locking IP is a smoke-and-mirrors move from major labels, they are the ones forcing these practices unto the distributors/streaming services.

Re: I'm done with Google

#240
I stated this multiple times: piracy is not a crime when the alternative is to spend your money on a temporary license to access something that lives on somebody else's computer, and that license can be revoked by the owner of the remote computer for any number of reasons. When that happens, the owner of the remote computer doesn't owe you any explanations, and you have basically wasted your money.

Not only piracy is not a crime in these cases, but it should be morally encouraged.

Of course I feel sorry for the creators whose work gets ripped off (and, being a creator myself, I know how much it hurts when somebody eats away my already thin profit margins).

But creators have lots of distribution channels today that they can actually own (from Bandcamp, to Funkwhale, to Peertube), that they can monetize however they like, that don't throw some spare change back at them (like Google or Amazon do), and that don't encourage broken and exploitative business models.

I feel like we ought to build more platforms that are actually owned by the creators in order to get out of Big Tech's grip over the creative industry - with all the distortions that come with it.

Post reply on HN