6 ms·

This round is going to be fun. See, I'm old enough to remember this battle starting for music and movies. We know how that ended. But now, it's for the very k

This round is going to be fun. See, I'm old enough to remember this battle starting for music and movies. We know how that ended. But now, it's for the very knowledge that drives our civilization. "Stallman was right", oh how that statement is going to get tested.

SamUK96 9y ago
I think it's a right-of-passage now for every technology-orientated person to realise that Stallman isn't crazy after all this time about Intel, social media and the general degenerating human race he always bangs on about...
- kaffeemitsahne 9y ago
  Rite of passage, instead of right. :)
  - r3m3mb3rm3 9y ago
    Thanks!!!
- thearn4 9y ago
  Well, I still think Stallman is quite crazy still, but makes some excellent points too. He's definitely not stupid.
IshKebab 9y ago
This is quite different to music and film for a variety of reasons: 1. Film and music were always vaguely reasonably priced, and collecting a fee is totally reasonable - at least some of the money goes to the creators. This is not true for papers. The authors are never paid and the prices are insane. 2. Music & videos are luxuries, and are also somewhat fungible. If you need a specific paper (e.g. because it was referenced by another) you usually can't just swap it for another. 3. The actual files are usually a lot smaller than music and definitely smaller than films, so it will be easier to share entire libraries and hence harder to stop. 4. Morality is clearly on the side of sci-hub. Music/film piracy is much more ambiguous.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  Regarding point 4: piracy has provided the ability to masses to a wealth of obscure, hard to find cultural gems. I for example am into animation. There is no way I would have been able to access, legal or otherwise, half of the films I have seen, many of which are cultural milestones in the history of animation. Also, in wealth terms, if you start with the reasonable assumption that a pirated copy doesn't directly translate to a sales loss, then piracy can be argued to be a net plus, since vastly more people "profit" from it (the people who download) than there are people who suffer from it (the people being pirated). Just wanted to mention those arguments, since I rarely hear them in these discussions.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    > if you start with the reasonable assumption that a pirated copy doesn't directly translate to a sales loss I think the reasonable assumption is that it translates on average to a fraction of a sale loss; less than one, but more than zero.
    - vanderZwan 9y ago
      Even that is debatable, because it also creates exposure. This is especially true for non-mainstream stuff. So you might end up with a net sales-win because of the "advertising"
      - euyyn 9y ago
        There's never been any impediment to people giving away their music for free to create exposure. To radio stations, TV, movies, as free concerts, as mp3s to download from their website, whatever. The argument "I'm pirating the fruit of your work and investment against your will, but trust me it'll be in your best interest, I know your interest better than you do" is untenable.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  1. is painfully true. Movies and music cost money to make, and that money is recouped by sales. We can talk about profiteering and Hollywood accounting and the like, but fundamentally sales still fuel production. Academic work also costs money, but journals have tricked someone else into paying for it. Research gets done on government, corporate, and university budgets, submitters get no compensation, and reviewers do the hard work behind publication for free. Journals have been priced far above costs for decades, but with the advent of online distribution costs have sunk even further while prices continue to rise. The best (moral) argument against piracy was always "if everyone does this, we won't get more media". That's not even true in the case of journals: it looks an awful lot like the system would find a way to work even at 100% piracy rates.
fnord123 9y ago
>See, I'm old enough to remember this battle starting for music and movies. We know how that ended. Extremely affordable all you can eat subscription models?
- dsacco 9y ago
  With the caveat that most people no longer own any media, and merely rent access to it under DRM terms.
  - urethrafranklin 9y ago
    So what?
    - dsacco 9y ago
      Some people have strong opinions about media ownership and DRM. For that set of people, what I mentioned is just that: a caveat.
jl6 9y ago
It really doesn't feel like the story of music and movie rights has ended. I can still see many plausible and distinct outcomes.

SamUK96 9y ago

I think it's a right-of-passage now for every technology-orientated person to realise that Stallman isn't crazy after all this time about Intel, social media and the general degenerating human race he always bangs on about...

kaffeemitsahne 9y ago
Rite of passage, instead of right. :)
- r3m3mb3rm3 9y ago
  Thanks!!!
thearn4 9y ago
Well, I still think Stallman is quite crazy still, but makes some excellent points too. He's definitely not stupid.

IshKebab 9y ago

This is quite different to music and film for a variety of reasons: 1. Film and music were always vaguely reasonably priced, and collecting a fee is totally reasonable - at least some of the money goes to the creators. This is not true for papers. The authors are never paid and the prices are insane. 2. Music & videos are luxuries, and are also somewhat fungible. If you need a specific paper (e.g. because it was referenced by another) you usually can't just swap it for another. 3. The actual files are usually a lot smaller than music and definitely smaller than films, so it will be easier to share entire libraries and hence harder to stop. 4. Morality is clearly on the side of sci-hub. Music/film piracy is much more ambiguous.

vanderZwan 9y ago
Regarding point 4: piracy has provided the ability to masses to a wealth of obscure, hard to find cultural gems. I for example am into animation. There is no way I would have been able to access, legal or otherwise, half of the films I have seen, many of which are cultural milestones in the history of animation. Also, in wealth terms, if you start with the reasonable assumption that a pirated copy doesn't directly translate to a sales loss, then piracy can be argued to be a net plus, since vastly more people "profit" from it (the people who download) than there are people who suffer from it (the people being pirated). Just wanted to mention those arguments, since I rarely hear them in these discussions.
- euyyn 9y ago
  > if you start with the reasonable assumption that a pirated copy doesn't directly translate to a sales loss I think the reasonable assumption is that it translates on average to a fraction of a sale loss; less than one, but more than zero.
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    Even that is debatable, because it also creates exposure. This is especially true for non-mainstream stuff. So you might end up with a net sales-win because of the "advertising"
    - euyyn 9y ago
      There's never been any impediment to people giving away their music for free to create exposure. To radio stations, TV, movies, as free concerts, as mp3s to download from their website, whatever. The argument "I'm pirating the fruit of your work and investment against your will, but trust me it'll be in your best interest, I know your interest better than you do" is untenable.
Bartweiss 9y ago
1. is painfully true. Movies and music cost money to make, and that money is recouped by sales. We can talk about profiteering and Hollywood accounting and the like, but fundamentally sales still fuel production. Academic work also costs money, but journals have tricked someone else into paying for it. Research gets done on government, corporate, and university budgets, submitters get no compensation, and reviewers do the hard work behind publication for free. Journals have been priced far above costs for decades, but with the advent of online distribution costs have sunk even further while prices continue to rise. The best (moral) argument against piracy was always "if everyone does this, we won't get more media". That's not even true in the case of journals: it looks an awful lot like the system would find a way to work even at 100% piracy rates.

fnord123 9y ago

>See, I'm old enough to remember this battle starting for music and movies. We know how that ended. Extremely affordable all you can eat subscription models?

dsacco 9y ago
With the caveat that most people no longer own any media, and merely rent access to it under DRM terms.
- urethrafranklin 9y ago
  So what?
  - dsacco 9y ago
    Some people have strong opinions about media ownership and DRM. For that set of people, what I mentioned is just that: a caveat.

jl6 9y ago

It really doesn't feel like the story of music and movie rights has ended. I can still see many plausible and distinct outcomes.