5 ms·

> a signal that their product offering doesn't actually match demand Is it? Why would a smart businessman (the bar owner) pay more for a product when a cheaper

by danem 7y ago

> a signal that their product offering doesn't actually match demand Is it? Why would a smart businessman (the bar owner) pay more for a product when a cheaper alternative (pirating) exists?

sjwright 7y ago
For the same reason they don’t stock their bar with beer stolen from the brewery?
- ashtonian 7y ago
  You can't steal information
  - vageli 7y ago
    > You can't steal information We already have legal terms for information that is property, namely intellectual property, the theft of which is routinely prosecuted (regardless of ideological beliefs on the nature of information).
    - benatkin 7y ago
      It isn't exactly stealing. It deprives of potential money, but it doesn't deprive them of the good. It's copyright infringement, which is a form of cheating, and megacorps routinely cheat in other ways, like doing their taxes so they record a loss and paying little or no income taxes. http://theconversation.com/is-downloading-really-stealing-the-ethics-of-digital-piracy-39930 http://theconversation.com/is-downloading-really-stealing-th... Calling it stealing is at least imprecise. I think it's also inaccurate.
- danem 7y ago
  Exactly my point. I don't get the whole "if the service isn't cheap or convenient enough, piracy is fair game" argument that gets thrown around on HN all the time.
  - pdimitar 7y ago
    What is so hard to get about it?
    - briandear 7y ago
      If a Mercedes costs too much, it’s ok to steal it? That’s what this attitude means. That it isn’t a physical good doesn’t mean there isn’t a cost to produce and distribute it and the price of producing that product is set specifically to make the economics work for the producers. That the bar is making revenue specifically because of the content someone else is producing makes this theft even more unjustifiable. If someone misused GPL, there’d be outrage, if a bar steals soccer, there is sympathy? If open source people expect (and enforce) licensing for software, how is it consistent that a bar owner is reselling soccer content (i.e. using it to attract customers,) is justified? The idea that people wouldn’t watch it otherwise is ridiculous — they’d seek out a bar that has it. So in this case, this is a direct loss of revenue to the producer of the content.
      - benatkin 7y ago
        With piracy, they don't have to pay for distribution, because the peer to peer networks take care of it. What's unjustifiable is overcharging for essential music, books, and video, some of which is old, because of the ridiculous extensions on the copyright terms. Sometimes the artists have said they understand why people who can't afford it download their stuff, and can't blame them. Also unjustifiable is how the media conglomerates exploit the artists.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        sjwright 7y ago
        Mercedes doesn't bear any costs either when a car is stolen.
        7y ago
ordu 7y ago
Because "smart" isn't a synonym for a "criminal".

by danem 7y ago

> a signal that their product offering doesn't actually match demand Is it? Why would a smart businessman (the bar owner) pay more for a product when a cheaper alternative (pirating) exists?

sjwright 7y ago

For the same reason they don’t stock their bar with beer stolen from the brewery?

ashtonian 7y ago
You can't steal information
- vageli 7y ago
  > You can't steal information We already have legal terms for information that is property, namely intellectual property, the theft of which is routinely prosecuted (regardless of ideological beliefs on the nature of information).
  - benatkin 7y ago
    It isn't exactly stealing. It deprives of potential money, but it doesn't deprive them of the good. It's copyright infringement, which is a form of cheating, and megacorps routinely cheat in other ways, like doing their taxes so they record a loss and paying little or no income taxes. http://theconversation.com/is-downloading-really-stealing-the-ethics-of-digital-piracy-39930 http://theconversation.com/is-downloading-really-stealing-th... Calling it stealing is at least imprecise. I think it's also inaccurate.
danem 7y ago
Exactly my point. I don't get the whole "if the service isn't cheap or convenient enough, piracy is fair game" argument that gets thrown around on HN all the time.
- pdimitar 7y ago
  What is so hard to get about it?
  - briandear 7y ago
    If a Mercedes costs too much, it’s ok to steal it? That’s what this attitude means. That it isn’t a physical good doesn’t mean there isn’t a cost to produce and distribute it and the price of producing that product is set specifically to make the economics work for the producers. That the bar is making revenue specifically because of the content someone else is producing makes this theft even more unjustifiable. If someone misused GPL, there’d be outrage, if a bar steals soccer, there is sympathy? If open source people expect (and enforce) licensing for software, how is it consistent that a bar owner is reselling soccer content (i.e. using it to attract customers,) is justified? The idea that people wouldn’t watch it otherwise is ridiculous — they’d seek out a bar that has it. So in this case, this is a direct loss of revenue to the producer of the content.
    - benatkin 7y ago
      With piracy, they don't have to pay for distribution, because the peer to peer networks take care of it. What's unjustifiable is overcharging for essential music, books, and video, some of which is old, because of the ridiculous extensions on the copyright terms. Sometimes the artists have said they understand why people who can't afford it download their stuff, and can't blame them. Also unjustifiable is how the media conglomerates exploit the artists.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - sjwright 7y ago
        Mercedes doesn't bear any costs either when a car is stolen.
        7y ago

ordu 7y ago

Because "smart" isn't a synonym for a "criminal".