6 ms·

For a news site frequented by software engineers, many of whom receive six figure salaries related to the creation and sale of software, this feels in very bad

For a news site frequented by software engineers, many of whom receive six figure salaries related to the creation and sale of software, this feels in very bad taste. Movie staff and music artists deserve to have their copyright respected. If you don't like it, just don't watch/listen. It's plainly simple.

justizin 11y ago
Sometimes, we've paid for a movie or TV show and the delivery mechanism is shit. I have absolutely watched content off TPB that I have paid for multiple copies of.
- brian-armstrong 11y ago
  That's a rationalization. You're also supporting others violating copyright when you do this. It's wrong and I think you know that.
  - lmm 11y ago
    Nonsense. If that were true, why am I not also torrenting ebooks, music and video games? Those are all things that I used to torrent, but stopped torrenting when the official delivery mechanisms got good enough for my use cases.
digler999 11y ago
if "Movie staff and music artists" feel like they aren't being paid enough, they should lobby the industry and demand more money. Recording artists earn less than 10% of album sales. The industry pays $20 million to have Johnny Moviestar in their movie. But somehow there's not enough for "movie staff" ? That's not a problem attributable to piracy.
- brian-armstrong 11y ago
  But this still doesn't justify violating copyright. Think about how you feel when someone violates GPL. How is this any different?
  - wfo 11y ago
    To be honest, I'm not sure that most software developers care much if a student, for example, downloads software and tinkers with it for personal use 'breaking copyright'. In fact many large software companies encourage piracy so that when these kids grow up to work at a company, they'll demand the tools they know already from past piracy. There's a huge difference between making money off a business model which is based around breaking copyright and breaking it for personal use. Most software folks don't care at all about the second, which is what the article is about, which is why your comments are unconvincing.
    - brian-armstrong 11y ago
      There is no business usecase for movies and music (with some small exceptions for ads, but nothing like enterprise software). So, by your criteria, they just shouldn't receive copyright protection because their product targets consumers? How does that make any sense?
      - digler999 11y ago
        I say they shouldn't receive copyright protection because consumers dont enjoy equal representation in Congressional copyright hearings, such as those for DMCA or the numerous copyright extensions. We simply cannot afford to pay for congressmen to vote for our interests the way the movie, music, and publishing industries can.
        brian-armstrong 11y ago
        And the compromise you're looking for is... that artists receive nothing? What justifies wholesale piracy of their hard work?
      - 11y ago
- soundwave106 11y ago
  Increasingly "the industry" is the technology industry itself. And yes, if you haven't noticed, movie staff and music artists are lobbying the (legitimate) streaming services for better compensation. That's fine to me, in fact I see it as a good challenge. Ideally, streaming monetization is good enough for content creators to be relatively happy, while simultaneously both preserving the ease of access and wide choice that have made streaming services / tubes popular with consumers, and allowing for a viable business. Perhaps its impossible to completely have it all ways, but if it can be done, it might reduce the influence of the current middleman, the "old media industry", and all of its ills. This to me would be win / win / win. Unfortunately, the Pirate Bay isn't the way to pursue this. While the Pirate Bay certainly has revenue (via web page advertisements), it certainly doesn't seem to even make a pretense of compensating content creators. That's a no-no in my book.
jameslk 11y ago
If I was still writing desktop software, I would have no problem with my software being pirated. I'd make it difficult enough for it not be worth the effort for anyone who can afford it, but I know that there's plenty of others who might not be able to afford my software, who are willing to spend the time instead cracking the software. Some kid out there might be building a future career on cracked versions of my software. Ideally they might someday be able to afford it and pay for it. That was certainly the case for me. With the movie and music industry, they went the other way. They made it difficult to buy their products and a lot easier to pirate. And now they're the ones paying for it.
- brian-armstrong 11y ago
  Although it's nice to hear that you would be ok with the reciprocal in this case, you can't make that decision for everyone. Personally, if I sold consumer desktop software, I'd be disappointed in people who chose to pirate. Buying movies and music electronically now is far easier than it has ever been. I don't think that's really a valid excuse, but even still, you'd be blaming the industry for a crime you're committing against it. How is that just?
  - jameslk 11y ago
    I didn't say it's just. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. People will do unjustified things when they want to and making something difficult to attain is one of the things that leads to piracy[0]. It's like a river: it will take the path of least resistance. I choose to accept that this is inevitable and try to find solutions to control the river by paving paths for it to take, instead of blaming it for doing what it does. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Motivation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Motivat...
- bduerst 11y ago
  >They made it difficult to buy their products and a lot easier to pirate. And now they're the ones paying for it. Historically, yes, but this has changed, hasn't it? You can typically purchase or rent a major movie through a variety of streaming-capable channels and mediums. I just rented Room on Google play and streamed to my TV over the weekend. If I bought it, I could download it to my devices for offline viewing.

justizin 11y ago

Sometimes, we've paid for a movie or TV show and the delivery mechanism is shit. I have absolutely watched content off TPB that I have paid for multiple copies of.

brian-armstrong 11y ago
That's a rationalization. You're also supporting others violating copyright when you do this. It's wrong and I think you know that.
- lmm 11y ago
  Nonsense. If that were true, why am I not also torrenting ebooks, music and video games? Those are all things that I used to torrent, but stopped torrenting when the official delivery mechanisms got good enough for my use cases.

digler999 11y ago

if "Movie staff and music artists" feel like they aren't being paid enough, they should lobby the industry and demand more money. Recording artists earn less than 10% of album sales. The industry pays $20 million to have Johnny Moviestar in their movie. But somehow there's not enough for "movie staff" ? That's not a problem attributable to piracy.

brian-armstrong 11y ago
But this still doesn't justify violating copyright. Think about how you feel when someone violates GPL. How is this any different?
- wfo 11y ago
  To be honest, I'm not sure that most software developers care much if a student, for example, downloads software and tinkers with it for personal use 'breaking copyright'. In fact many large software companies encourage piracy so that when these kids grow up to work at a company, they'll demand the tools they know already from past piracy. There's a huge difference between making money off a business model which is based around breaking copyright and breaking it for personal use. Most software folks don't care at all about the second, which is what the article is about, which is why your comments are unconvincing.
  - brian-armstrong 11y ago
    There is no business usecase for movies and music (with some small exceptions for ads, but nothing like enterprise software). So, by your criteria, they just shouldn't receive copyright protection because their product targets consumers? How does that make any sense?
    - digler999 11y ago
      I say they shouldn't receive copyright protection because consumers dont enjoy equal representation in Congressional copyright hearings, such as those for DMCA or the numerous copyright extensions. We simply cannot afford to pay for congressmen to vote for our interests the way the movie, music, and publishing industries can.
      - brian-armstrong 11y ago
        And the compromise you're looking for is... that artists receive nothing? What justifies wholesale piracy of their hard work?
    - 11y ago
soundwave106 11y ago
Increasingly "the industry" is the technology industry itself. And yes, if you haven't noticed, movie staff and music artists are lobbying the (legitimate) streaming services for better compensation. That's fine to me, in fact I see it as a good challenge. Ideally, streaming monetization is good enough for content creators to be relatively happy, while simultaneously both preserving the ease of access and wide choice that have made streaming services / tubes popular with consumers, and allowing for a viable business. Perhaps its impossible to completely have it all ways, but if it can be done, it might reduce the influence of the current middleman, the "old media industry", and all of its ills. This to me would be win / win / win. Unfortunately, the Pirate Bay isn't the way to pursue this. While the Pirate Bay certainly has revenue (via web page advertisements), it certainly doesn't seem to even make a pretense of compensating content creators. That's a no-no in my book.

jameslk 11y ago

If I was still writing desktop software, I would have no problem with my software being pirated. I'd make it difficult enough for it not be worth the effort for anyone who can afford it, but I know that there's plenty of others who might not be able to afford my software, who are willing to spend the time instead cracking the software. Some kid out there might be building a future career on cracked versions of my software. Ideally they might someday be able to afford it and pay for it. That was certainly the case for me. With the movie and music industry, they went the other way. They made it difficult to buy their products and a lot easier to pirate. And now they're the ones paying for it.

brian-armstrong 11y ago
Although it's nice to hear that you would be ok with the reciprocal in this case, you can't make that decision for everyone. Personally, if I sold consumer desktop software, I'd be disappointed in people who chose to pirate. Buying movies and music electronically now is far easier than it has ever been. I don't think that's really a valid excuse, but even still, you'd be blaming the industry for a crime you're committing against it. How is that just?
- jameslk 11y ago
  I didn't say it's just. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. People will do unjustified things when they want to and making something difficult to attain is one of the things that leads to piracy[0]. It's like a river: it will take the path of least resistance. I choose to accept that this is inevitable and try to find solutions to control the river by paving paths for it to take, instead of blaming it for doing what it does. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Motivation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Motivat...
bduerst 11y ago
>They made it difficult to buy their products and a lot easier to pirate. And now they're the ones paying for it. Historically, yes, but this has changed, hasn't it? You can typically purchase or rent a major movie through a variety of streaming-capable channels and mediums. I just rented Room on Google play and streamed to my TV over the weekend. If I bought it, I could download it to my devices for offline viewing.