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

The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid

wired.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid

#81

Post by cobrausn »

jarek wrote: post #80
cobrausn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discussing an artist whose music you've heard is in no way guaranteed to compensate that artist. At best, someone, somewhere, will hear the word of mouth and spend some money that goes back in the direction of the artist. There is no guarantee though - you end up hand-waving in a benefit when it cannot be proven that your piracy helped anything, though it can be proven that you didn't pay for what they are asking you…

Just wondering, do you have any guidelines as to what it takes to become a cool guy? Does buying a $20 tshirt justify my previous pirating of a band's three albums? How about paying $25 for tshirt+CD after pirating two albums? Is there an equation for this? I'd like to make sure I'm a cool guy here.

Pretty simple actually. Two albums cost, what, around 20 ~ 40 depending upon the band? Buy enough swag to make up the cost. More of the profits will go to the band than would have before.

Re: The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid

#82

Post by jiggy2011 »

cobrausn wrote: post #81
jarek wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wondering, do you have any guidelines as to what it takes to become a cool guy? Does buying a $20 tshirt justify my previous pirating of a band's three albums? How about paying $25 for tshirt+CD after pirating two albums? Is there an equation for this? I'd like to make sure I'm a cool guy here.

Pretty simple actually. Two albums cost, what, around 20 ~ 40 depending upon the band? Buy enough swag to make up the cost. More of the profits will go to the band than would have before.

Problem is I don't necessarily want a T shirt (if the band even sell them in the first place) not to mention that buying the T shirt might bring up other moral issues (overseas child labour etc).

It would make more sense for the artist to sell me the tracks I want in a convenient way (direct download, no DRM, standard format, easy payment) rather than for them to distribute their music in a DRM format that I don't want and to have it pirated and then buying T shirts to somehow make up for it.

Re: The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid

#83

Post by jarek »

cobrausn wrote: post #81
jarek wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wondering, do you have any guidelines as to what it takes to become a cool guy? Does buying a $20 tshirt justify my previous pirating of a band's three albums? How about paying $25 for tshirt+CD after pirating two albums? Is there an equation for this? I'd like to make sure I'm a cool guy here.

Pretty simple actually. Two albums cost, what, around 20 ~ 40 depending upon the band? Buy enough swag to make up the cost. More of the profits will go to the band than would have before.

What if I had bought the CDs used for $8 or $5 each? Do I have to go by the full retail price, and if so, is this price at introduction, or is retail price a couple of years later okay?

Oh yeah, I forgot - how much is buying a ticket to seeing them live worth? Full ticket retail price, or less?

Re: The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid

#84

Post by cobrausn »

jarek wrote: post #83
cobrausn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty simple actually. Two albums cost, what, around 20 ~ 40 depending upon the band? Buy enough swag to make up the cost. More of the profits will go to the band than would have before.

What if I had bought the CDs used for $8 or $5 each? Do I have to go by the full retail price, and if so, is this price at introduction, or is retail price a couple of years later okay? Oh yeah, I forgot - how much is buying a ticket to seeing them live worth? Full ticket retail price, or less?

Compensate the band for their efforts - it's really not hard, your attempts to muddy the water with asinine value qualifications notwithstanding. You don't owe them anything more than what you would owe them by acquiring music through legal means - but you do owe them something. At least as long as the means of profit is tied to distribution. I have nothing more to say about it - you obviously can't see the forest for the trees.

EDIT: I'm going to add in that I'm also not going to bother replying anymore because you obviously think the downvote button is the 'nuh-uh!' button. How productive.

Re: The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid

#85

Post by cobrausn »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #82
cobrausn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty simple actually. Two albums cost, what, around 20 ~ 40 depending upon the band? Buy enough swag to make up the cost. More of the profits will go to the band than would have before.

Problem is I don't necessarily want a T shirt (if the band even sell them in the first place) not to mention that buying the T shirt might bring up other moral issues (overseas child labour etc). It would make more sense for the artist to sell me the tracks I want in a convenient way (direct download, no DRM, standard format, easy payment) rather than for them to distribute their music in a DRM format that I don't wa…

It would - I agree completely. But are you better served by pirating their music, which only gives the RIAA more ammo regarding piracy stats to get their asinine laws passed, or just finding music from people that satisfies your requirements and paying for that? I'm obviously a fan of the second - I consider it a form of boycott.

Re: The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid

#86

Post by cobrausn »

CodeMage wrote: post #76
cobrausn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, because their product is not up to your arbitrary set of demands, you feel justified in pirating it? Couldn't they meet those and you could just come up with more demands? I don't buy it. Hiding behind a list of demands that must be met in order for you to be okay with actually financially compensating the people who financially backed, created, and then distributed said content is just posturing. At least, that'…

You did read the comment where I said that piracy is not legal, no matter how one puts it, right? Just checking, before I go on. First of all, I resent your assumptions and insinuations. Self-righteous rhetoric like that sounds appealing to the listener, but it doesn't really add any rational weight to your arguments. Contrary to what you imply, I do buy the music I like, whenever I can find an outlet that satisfies…

So you think your demands are protecting your rights, and you think you're hurting the industry that goes against them. We've established that. But these rights haven't actually been established as 'rights' - which might need to change - which makes them just consumer demands on your part. It seems to me as though we've reached the point where piracy makes them make more repressive DRM, which makes more people pirate, which gives them more legal ammo to make more repressive DRM and lobby for laws, etc. and so on to infinity or until the laws change. You can see why I don't choose to be a part of this cycle.

Besides, the reason artists sign contracts is the same reason game developers go work for companies like Ubisoft who then make their games use repressive DRM that they completely disagree with - that is the industry we have, and they'd rather be a part of it, making money and exercising their talents, than standing on the outside struggling to get by while they rage against the machine. It's not their fault the current institution is set up the way it is.

Also, I'm pretty sure if Honda sold a car that only worked on Route 66, people would just not buy it, but I feel the comparison doesn't completely do it all justice because we've long argued that physical goods are not equivalent to digital media, otherwise piracy would be stealing instead of... well, piracy.

Re: The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid

#87

Post by jarek »

cobrausn wrote: post #84
jarek wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I had bought the CDs used for $8 or $5 each? Do I have to go by the full retail price, and if so, is this price at introduction, or is retail price a couple of years later okay? Oh yeah, I forgot - how much is buying a ticket to seeing them live worth? Full ticket retail price, or less?

Compensate the band for their efforts - it's really not hard, your attempts to muddy the water with asinine value qualifications notwithstanding. You don't owe them anything more than what you would owe them by acquiring music through legal means - but you do owe them something. At least as long as the means of profit is tied to distribution. I have nothing more to say about it - you obviously can't see the forest fo…

> You don't owe them anything more than what you would owe them by acquiring music through legal means - but you do owe them something.

What does the band get from me buying a CD of theirs used? Is it substantially more quantifiable than talking about the band?

> I have nothing more to say about it - you obviously can't see the forest for the trees.

I'll admit I'm trolling with the questions, but it's hard not to when you're attempting to divide pirates into "cool people" and the other kind based on categories you yourself seem to not have thought out very well.

> EDIT: I'm going to add in that I'm also not going to bother replying anymore because you obviously think the downvote button is the 'nuh-uh!' button. How productive.

Hacker News doesn't let users downvote posts in immediate response to their posts (replies one deep). I upvoted your responses to me as a matter of personal policy. The only other post of yours in this entire thread I've voted on is http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3590726; I recall downvoting due to general flimsiness of your argument, particularly the irony of dismissing word-of-mouth arguments as hand-waving when yours were no stronger, and the ill thought out attempt to distinguish cool pirates from uncool pirates. Thanks for asking.

Re: The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid

#88

Post by cobrausn »

jarek wrote: post #87
cobrausn wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compensate the band for their efforts - it's really not hard, your attempts to muddy the water with asinine value qualifications notwithstanding. You don't owe them anything more than what you would owe them by acquiring music through legal means - but you do owe them something. At least as long as the means of profit is tied to distribution. I have nothing more to say about it - you obviously can't see the forest fo…

> You don't owe them anything more than what you would owe them by acquiring music through legal means - but you do owe them something. What does the band get from me buying a CD of theirs used? Is it substantially more quantifiable than talking about the band? > I have nothing more to say about it - you obviously can't see the forest for the trees. I'll admit I'm trolling with the questions, but it's hard not to whe…

> What does the band get from me buying a CD of theirs used? Is it substantially more quantifiable than talking about the band?

I would argue that the profit from first sale has already been made, and the terms of that distribution include the ability to resell. They've already made money off that CD, and you are paying the person who owned it originally for it now, not the band. Since they produced the CD, they agreed to these terms when they sold the physical media.

> I'll admit I'm trolling with the questions, but it's hard not to when you're attempting to divide pirates into "cool people" and the other kind based on categories you yourself seem to not have thought out very well.

I wasn't actually trying to imply group A is cool and group B is not, 'cool' was just the verbage I was using to indicate that I didn't really have a problem with what group A was doing, as they were following the spirit (if not the letter) of the law and were attempting to compensate the band for their efforts. I apologize if my poor choice of wording called you 'uncool' by accident. :-)

I will return the upvote for the civil reply.

Re: The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid

#89

Post by CodeMage »

cobrausn wrote: post #86
CodeMage wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did read the comment where I said that piracy is not legal, no matter how one puts it, right? Just checking, before I go on. First of all, I resent your assumptions and insinuations. Self-righteous rhetoric like that sounds appealing to the listener, but it doesn't really add any rational weight to your arguments. Contrary to what you imply, I do buy the music I like, whenever I can find an outlet that satisfies…

So you think your demands are protecting your rights, and you think you're hurting the industry that goes against them. We've established that. But these rights haven't actually been established as 'rights' - which might need to change - which makes them just consumer demands on your part. It seems to me as though we've reached the point where piracy makes them make more repressive DRM, which makes more people pirate…

But these rights haven't actually been established as 'rights' - which might need to change - which makes them just consumer demands on your part.

Like I said before, I'm not arguing the legality here. I'm not sure what prevents the big shots in other industries colluding to treat their customers like crap, but I don't really care whether it's laws or something else.

You can see why I don't choose to be a part of this cycle.

Of course. That's your decision. I wasn't objecting to that. I was objecting to the tone of moral superiority and implied accusations.

Besides, the reason artists sign contracts is the same reason game developers go work for companies like Ubisoft who then make their games use repressive DRM that they completely disagree with - that is the industry we have, and they'd rather be a part of it, making money and exercising their talents, than standing on the outside struggling to get by while they rage against the machine.

Smells like a false dichotomy.

It's not their fault the current institution is set up the way it is.

Not my fault, either. Let's face it, both artists and pirates have choices and a wide variety of reasons and motivators behind the choices they actually make. Yet pirates are invariably branded as bad guys, parasites and criminals, while artists are generally perceived as having no other choice. Why? On the surface, it's because piracy is not legal. Scratch a little deeper and you'll see that the real reason is because it's easy to just shrug and say "that's the way things are".

Are there pirates who are mere parasites, who just want free stuff? Of course, there's a whole lot of them. Would all of them still be pirates, even if there was a really good, cheap alternative? My anecdotal experience of human nature makes me incline towards "No, a lot of them would buy their stuff without thinking twice." But that's just me, of course.

Thing is, what pisses me off is the way entertainment industry treats people who would like to spend money and be respected in return. And yet pirates are the bad guys, just because there are laws that need to change.

Also, I'm pretty sure if Honda sold a car that only worked on Route 66, people would just not buy it, but I feel the comparison doesn't completely do it all justice because we've long argued that physical goods are not equivalent to digital media, otherwise piracy would be stealing instead of... well, piracy.

Missed the point. The analogy was "Route 66 accepts only Honda", not "Honda can only run on Route 66" and the point of it was that such nonsense would not be acceptable, even if all of the car manufacturers got together with the government and made that kind of stuff legal.

Post reply on HN