5 ms·

I'd say the opposite with regards to convenience, but maybe I've been away from the scene for a few years now Nowadays it seems more of a hassle to pirate cont

I'd say the opposite with regards to convenience, but maybe I've been away from the scene for a few years now Nowadays it seems more of a hassle to pirate content, especially here in the UK with torrent sites getting blocked by ISPs (necessitating a need for VPNs or proxy services) along with having to constantly find new sources for torrents as authorities crack down on sites like KickAssTorrents. I find it easier to just subscribe to Netflix and Spotify, but maybe I have more disposable income now that it doesn't bother me.

scrollaway 10y ago
I used to have a Spotify subscription. Then I moved out of Sweden and lost half my playlists. Never subscribed again. I never had a Netflix subscription because I don't have a good enough connection to stream high quality videos - Additionally, I rewatch some series a lot. It's simply more convenient to have them on my hard drive. The US gov is running around the internet policing copyright for very specific companies, acting like they're doing the world a favour. Calling everybody thieves. Threatening people with fines and prison. "You can just pay for a Netflix/Spotify subscription"... well, no, not everywhere and it's certainly not as convenient for everyone. Sidenote: Spotify's content bootstrapping was a dump of music from TPB. If it weren't for piracy, we wouldn't have spotify. The system is broken.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Sidenote2: Hollywood got started because of a move from NYC to get around having to pay licenses to Edison. Hollywood exists because they wanted to infringe the protections without paying. MPAA would prefer we didn't remember that.
  - mountaineer22 10y ago
    Do you think Edison was not a rent-seeker?
  - mind_heist 10y ago
    Hmm ...this is really interesting, I didn't know about 'Hollywood built on piracy' story at all. I did some research and found this interesting comment in one of the articles, which does seem to make sense. "The proponents of this myth seem to want to suggest an analogy: Hollywood was built by “outlaws”; now Hollywood has become the incumbent, seeking to stop the next generation of “outlaws”. But this is a false equivalence. The Pirate Bay (or Megaupload, etc.) isn’t producing its own movies. Recognizing exclusive rights to a creative work doesn’t prohibit anyone from creating their own works. Stopping someone from offering copies, especially complete, verbatim copies, of a work is not anti-competitive." from : http://www.copyhype.com/2012/05/was-hollywood-built-on-piracy/ http://www.copyhype.com/2012/05/was-hollywood-built-on-pirac...
    - anexprogrammer 10y ago
      That's some impressive variation from how I remember reading it, though you'll note I said licensing not piracy. If memory serves it was equipment licensing that was the issue - rental of cameras, projectors and such. I don't know enough of the period to know who's right, but looking at the about page tells me all I need to know about the independence of view: "... representing creators across the spectrum of copyright disciplines. He represents the Copyright Alliance in all copyright and related policy issues in a variety of forums". So choose your preferred flavour of spin? It's well known Edison was an evil bastard for instance. You've only to read a little, especially on Tesla, to realise that. So there's little doubt that moving to Hollywood and escaping Edison's thugs was a good thing. The fact remains he had the movie industry of the time tied up with patents. I think it was actually Edison who pirated a movie, and ended up putting someone out of business in the process.
- robk 10y ago
  Do you have a source for that bootstrapping comment? I'd love to hear more if it's documented anywhere.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    I don't know if it's documented anywhere but everyone who works at spotify knows about it. It's not exactly a secret.
  - ninjin 10y ago
    I am not aware of any write-up, but I was an early beta user and can confirm that you could enter names of release groups into the search field and get hits back then. Initially I believed in streaming my music, but when they went public I lost half my playlists and has gone back to "files on disk" ever since. It is remarkable how difficult it is to pay for music, I wish we would see more sites like Bandcamp.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  You would think music, film, and games would be comparable, but I find that these fall into distinct categories for me. I am totally okay with paying a monthly flat fee for films and series (mostly watch once and be done with it). I am also okay with paying once for a game and not keeping the downloaded files around after I finish it. Rather, I let Steam or the HumbleStore handle that, and if these go belly-up one day, I don't feel like I've lost much; the value I get in hours of entertainment is in balance with what I spend there, and I am okay with the limited risk of losing access to some games. For music on the other hand, I absolutely want the files on my hard disk. Music is replayed over and over, and losing access to what is essentially the soundtrack of your life is something I would like to avoid. I'd love a service that allows me to download, say, up to 8 hours of music (any genre, in an open lossless format) a month from a universal catalogue for a reasonable flat fee (like Netflix), but this simply doesn't exist. It is either streaming or paying way more than I find reasonable. Interestingly, for games the existence of reliable, affordable legal channels for digital delivery means that I have not felt the urge to illegally download any game at all for over a decade, and the same seems to hold true for many colleagues and friends. People are totally fine with downloading films, series, and music for a variety or reasons, but why bother with games? The money you pay, say, Steam or the HumbleStore seems to flow back to the developers in a fairly fair fashion, there are good deals to be had, and it is all very convenient — for games it just seems like a solved problem.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    Games are essentially solved as far as consumption goes. There's still some fuckery going on with DRM in some companies, but that's the minority. However, they aren't solved when it comes to archival. It's getting constantly worse with the rise of online-only games with closed source, undistributed servers. A subject for another day, though.
    - Freak_NL 10y ago
      Fair point. The archival question is complex because of the inherent difficulty in keeping old software running on modern operating systems. At some point it doesn't pay to keep supporting newer operating systems even if you still have sales; only for the really popular titles. Perhaps containers would work?
- nobleach 10y ago
  >Sidenote: Spotify's content bootstrapping was a dump of music from TPB. If it weren't for piracy, we wouldn't have spotify. This explains why Sailing by Christopher Cross ends with the beginning of Minstrel Gigolo like the rip I downloaded from Napster...

scrollaway 10y ago

I used to have a Spotify subscription. Then I moved out of Sweden and lost half my playlists. Never subscribed again. I never had a Netflix subscription because I don't have a good enough connection to stream high quality videos - Additionally, I rewatch some series a lot. It's simply more convenient to have them on my hard drive. The US gov is running around the internet policing copyright for very specific companies, acting like they're doing the world a favour. Calling everybody thieves. Threatening people with fines and prison. "You can just pay for a Netflix/Spotify subscription"... well, no, not everywhere and it's certainly not as convenient for everyone. Sidenote: Spotify's content bootstrapping was a dump of music from TPB. If it weren't for piracy, we wouldn't have spotify. The system is broken.

anexprogrammer 10y ago
Sidenote2: Hollywood got started because of a move from NYC to get around having to pay licenses to Edison. Hollywood exists because they wanted to infringe the protections without paying. MPAA would prefer we didn't remember that.
- mountaineer22 10y ago
  Do you think Edison was not a rent-seeker?
- mind_heist 10y ago
  Hmm ...this is really interesting, I didn't know about 'Hollywood built on piracy' story at all. I did some research and found this interesting comment in one of the articles, which does seem to make sense. "The proponents of this myth seem to want to suggest an analogy: Hollywood was built by “outlaws”; now Hollywood has become the incumbent, seeking to stop the next generation of “outlaws”. But this is a false equivalence. The Pirate Bay (or Megaupload, etc.) isn’t producing its own movies. Recognizing exclusive rights to a creative work doesn’t prohibit anyone from creating their own works. Stopping someone from offering copies, especially complete, verbatim copies, of a work is not anti-competitive." from : http://www.copyhype.com/2012/05/was-hollywood-built-on-piracy/ http://www.copyhype.com/2012/05/was-hollywood-built-on-pirac...
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    That's some impressive variation from how I remember reading it, though you'll note I said licensing not piracy. If memory serves it was equipment licensing that was the issue - rental of cameras, projectors and such. I don't know enough of the period to know who's right, but looking at the about page tells me all I need to know about the independence of view: "... representing creators across the spectrum of copyright disciplines. He represents the Copyright Alliance in all copyright and related policy issues in a variety of forums". So choose your preferred flavour of spin? It's well known Edison was an evil bastard for instance. You've only to read a little, especially on Tesla, to realise that. So there's little doubt that moving to Hollywood and escaping Edison's thugs was a good thing. The fact remains he had the movie industry of the time tied up with patents. I think it was actually Edison who pirated a movie, and ended up putting someone out of business in the process.
robk 10y ago
Do you have a source for that bootstrapping comment? I'd love to hear more if it's documented anywhere.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  I don't know if it's documented anywhere but everyone who works at spotify knows about it. It's not exactly a secret.
- ninjin 10y ago
  I am not aware of any write-up, but I was an early beta user and can confirm that you could enter names of release groups into the search field and get hits back then. Initially I believed in streaming my music, but when they went public I lost half my playlists and has gone back to "files on disk" ever since. It is remarkable how difficult it is to pay for music, I wish we would see more sites like Bandcamp.
Freak_NL 10y ago
You would think music, film, and games would be comparable, but I find that these fall into distinct categories for me. I am totally okay with paying a monthly flat fee for films and series (mostly watch once and be done with it). I am also okay with paying once for a game and not keeping the downloaded files around after I finish it. Rather, I let Steam or the HumbleStore handle that, and if these go belly-up one day, I don't feel like I've lost much; the value I get in hours of entertainment is in balance with what I spend there, and I am okay with the limited risk of losing access to some games. For music on the other hand, I absolutely want the files on my hard disk. Music is replayed over and over, and losing access to what is essentially the soundtrack of your life is something I would like to avoid. I'd love a service that allows me to download, say, up to 8 hours of music (any genre, in an open lossless format) a month from a universal catalogue for a reasonable flat fee (like Netflix), but this simply doesn't exist. It is either streaming or paying way more than I find reasonable. Interestingly, for games the existence of reliable, affordable legal channels for digital delivery means that I have not felt the urge to illegally download any game at all for over a decade, and the same seems to hold true for many colleagues and friends. People are totally fine with downloading films, series, and music for a variety or reasons, but why bother with games? The money you pay, say, Steam or the HumbleStore seems to flow back to the developers in a fairly fair fashion, there are good deals to be had, and it is all very convenient — for games it just seems like a solved problem.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  Games are essentially solved as far as consumption goes. There's still some fuckery going on with DRM in some companies, but that's the minority. However, they aren't solved when it comes to archival. It's getting constantly worse with the rise of online-only games with closed source, undistributed servers. A subject for another day, though.
  - Freak_NL 10y ago
    Fair point. The archival question is complex because of the inherent difficulty in keeping old software running on modern operating systems. At some point it doesn't pay to keep supporting newer operating systems even if you still have sales; only for the really popular titles. Perhaps containers would work?
nobleach 10y ago
>Sidenote: Spotify's content bootstrapping was a dump of music from TPB. If it weren't for piracy, we wouldn't have spotify. This explains why Sailing by Christopher Cross ends with the beginning of Minstrel Gigolo like the rip I downloaded from Napster...