7 ms·
Don't Make Me Steal
- jefe78 16y agoCool project but I'd rather not have to sign with Facebook/Twitter. Can you implement an alternative please?
- caillou 16y agoWe considered many different authentications and chose Facebook and Twitter because they make it really easy to show avatars of the people who sign. What alternatives would you suggest?
- jefe78 16y agoA simple registration form with some default avatars would be ideal, in my opinion.
- Seldaek 16y agoAnother factor was the really short time we had for development, so implementing those two allow us to cover the largest part of our target audience with a simple UI.
- aphyr 16y agoEmail address + gravatar.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- phillijw 16y agoEmail address with gravatar
- marshray 16y agoHow about just asking for a name and email like everything else?
- meatsock 16y agofingerd
- zaidf 16y agoTypo: Movies are delivered adds free.
- defen 16y agoI don't think running a protection racket is the best way to get your point across. "I promise never to watch a movie until my demands are met" might actually carry some moral weight.
- krainboltgreene 16y agoNo it wouldn't, because the people companies make money from aren't willing to stop watching movies. It would be like saying "I won't walk outside until the city cleans the streets!" It's a promise a majority of people simply won't, or can't, keep.
- defen 16y agoSorry, but it just sounds like entitled whining. No one has an inherent right to watch any movie, no matter how much they love them, and it's not a necessity.
- Confusion 16y agoHe's not claiming they have the right: he's claiming they feel the need. That feeling of need has been created and fostered by the filmstudio's, who spend tons on advertising to make people feel they need to see movies. Just watch your average trailer: it is hardly about the movie and much more about why you need to see it anyway. Some consider that quite an achievement in market experience; others consider it exploitation of the human psychology bordering on criminal behavior.
- markstansbury 16y agoSo, you're saying, if a company is successful at creating and marketing its product and I don't like the price I can steal it?
- tptacek 16y agoI PROMISE not to steal the 2011 BMW M3 Coupe SO LONG AS you price it no higher than cost + 5%.
- jacoblyles 16y agoI have some quibbles with the listed criteria, but I like the basic idea. When I was a pirate, I was a pirate of convenience. I barely pirate anything now that I have access to Amazon MP3, iTunes, and Netflix instant. The piracy I do partake in is mostly focused on ebooks since the Kindle store is so limited. But I also buy a lot of Kindle books when they are available. I wonder if most pirates are pirates of convenience who will convert into paying customers if there is a convenient way to do so. I do get a little angry at content companies who are a decade behind the times in technology.
- mike_esspe 16y agoThis can start a copyright flame, but in order to be fair, "steal" should be replaced with "copy".
- mattgreenrocks 16y agoI find it amusing that second-rate grammar (loose/lose) and spelling is the norm for some communities, but the second this topic comes up, everyone turns into a armchair semantic guru.
- randallsquared 16y agoThere hasn't been a decades-long campaign to deliberately confuse the concepts of "lose" and "loose". It's just a mistake.
- mattgreenrocks 16y agoMy meta-commentary was on the fact that the issue of semantics seems to serve as a all-too-convenient cognitive escape hatch in these discussions, diverting them from the harder topic at hand: that of intellectual property rights. I find it regrettable that it is employed, as it hinders being able to discuss the problem in a mature, logical fashion.
- nlogn 16y agoVery true. Hacker News is not a community where second-rate grammar and spelling is the norm, however. Also, I'm sure you can see how those who are copying/stealing/whatever you want to call it might wish to call it copying instead of stealing, as that implies a lesser moral judgment (deservedly imo).
- Silhouette 16y agoTechnically yes, but it is and always has been a shallow argument to claim that copyright infringement is not theft. Of course it's not the same to duplicate information as it is to remove a physical item, but both are based on an artificial legal concept of property. The natural state of things is indeed that I can copy any information coming my way, and copyright artificially restricts my right to do so in the eyes of the law. Then again, the natural state of things is also that if you have a physical item and I want it, then if I am bigger than you/have a bigger gun than you/have more friends than you, then that item is now my possession and not yours, and theft-related statutes artificially restrict my right to take it in the eyes of the law. In the end, copyright, like physical property, is an economic tool. Society gives it the force of law to make sure that people don't game the system unfairly. It makes no sense to debate that law, in either letter or spirit, without considering the economic implications of breaking it. Those implications are not zero just because information that already exists can be reproduced with near zero marginal cost and time overhead using modern technology.
- kemiller 16y ago"Hey RIAA lawyers, here's a list of people who download movies!"
- rubidium 16y agoI really don't like the "don't make me steal" attitude. It undermines a good society. The creators of this campaign decided that "Purchase should not exceed the cinema price." Really? What if we did that for, say, organic bread. "I won't buy organic bread unless it's x3 or less than the cost of the generic white bread. If it is more expensive, I'm entitled to steal it." Sorry folks, you're entitled to not buy it, not to steal it.
- krainboltgreene 16y agoIn the context of downloading movies not buying is the same as "stealing".
- StavrosK 16y agoReplace "stealing" with "watch it without paying".
- endtime 16y agoYou're entitled to watch organic bread without paying. The problem with comparing content piracy with theft of physical objects is that the latter are scare and the former is not. I'm not trying to justify content piracy, I'm just saying that you-wouldn't-download-a-car analogies are invalid.
- tptacek 16y agoNo, you aren't. The response to your silly analogy is, "if I throw a black drape over my organic bread and allow you to see it only after paying for a loaf, you cannot legally enter my shop and remove the drape". The fact that nobody would set up such a system is evidence that your analogy is unproductive, not that your argument is strong.
- endtime 16y agoThe very point of my comment is that such analogies are silly and unproductive.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- pavel_lishin 16y agoWhy is the most important point made last?
- Seldaek 16y agoBecause importance is subjective :)
- drivebyacct2 16y agoIf I could watch content on Hulu, Netflix or other in Linux and I didn't want to throw myself in front of the lunatic-driven University bus, I'd be happy. TPB -> "The Italian Job" + 3 hours = me happy. There is NO legal alternative for me. No, I'm not walking 30 miles to Best Buy to waste $30 on a DVD that won't play in my computer that doesn't have a DVD drive. And I don't consider running Win7 in a VM to be reasonable at all.
- Silhouette 16y agoThere are plenty of legal alternatives for you. Indeed, you just mentioned several of them, and another is not to consume that particular content at all and to find your entertainment in some other way. Please don't pretend anyone somehow forced you to break the law. You chose to do that yourself.
- drivebyacct2 16y ago1. Hulu in Linux is effectively impossible. It's completely broken in Chrome and it stops after 10 minutes of playback in Firefox. More importantly, it does not have the movies I'm interested in. 2. Netflix has no client or support for Linux. Microsoft won't license the DRM components and Netflix refuses to change. I never, ever mentioned that I was forced into breaking the law, but thanks for putting those words into my mouth. Make no bones about it. I broke the law because it is more convenient. I would pay for the movies if, as I already stated, I wasn't forced to borrow someone's car to buy a frickin DVD. Surely, you can understand that "Don't consume the content at all" is as much of a copout as someone saying they were "forced" to steal the content. Both I and the movie industry would benefit from me having easier access to the content that I would happily pay for. This is partly why I'm hopeful to see what Amazon has in store.
- itg 16y ago"There is NO legal alternative for me." Yes there is. You choose not to use them because they are inconvenient. You are not entitled to dl a copy of the movie instead.
- 16y ago
- tptacek 16y agoMy partner Dave asks when we can expect the MPAA/RIAA to put up "DON'T MAKE US SUE".
- phillijw 16y agoI think the proper response would be to point them to this
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- philfreo 16y agoI don't think these are really fair to include in the criteria: "I have access to the audio in every language that has been produced." and "Once I bought a movie, I can watch it in every available language."
- armandososa 16y agoI'll better sign a petition that is like: letmebuy.com, and the only clause will be "Outside US we are people too. Here, take our hard-earned money"
- flatline 16y agoThe implication is that by signing the petition, my intent is to "steal" a movie unless certain terms are met. No, thanks.
- anatoli 16y agoThe whole "languages" section sounds like it was written by somebody with no understanding of how dubbing is produced, who pays for it, and the issues that arise with the rights to these different versions of a film. Often it gets even more complicated with TV Shows. Convenience? Now you're getting completely unreasonable. If you can't filter by all metadata you're going to "steal"? Come on...
- Seldaek 16y agoWe did have people in the workshop that were quite knowledgeable in those areas, but we had to keep the text short to avoid most people just skipping over everything. This is bound to create inaccuracies. As for this point in particular, of course it is unreasonable as it is, legal issues would prevent most of this, but the point is to start a discussion. We also had folks from the European Union there that were really enthusiastic about hopefully getting a case to present to (or rather against) detractors. The filter thing was because yes, some services do not presently allow you to search for all movies that are dubbed in language X. If you are trying to watch something with your kids, it is pretty annoying to have to look for a movie, then go in the language selection, then choose the language of your liking, and then at the end be told it's not available. It's basic UX imo, but if people don't do it right now, it's worth static.
- eli 16y agoI'm guessing the point they were trying to get at was, you should be able to download and share subtitle files -- which are only useful to people who already have the movie -- without fear of prosecution.
- anatoli 16y agoHere's the relevant bit from the "manifesto": "I have access to the audio in every language that has been produced." Even the subtitle issue is complicated. Are these fan-made subtitles? Otherwise, again, you're entering a minefield and the chances of something like that ever happening within a unified interface — as requested — are slim. Something like that would require a fundamental change to how films and especially TV Shows are distributed in other countries. Not to mention the technical issues that will occur due to certain countries getting a slightly modified (whether censored or extended or just modified) version of the original. You're far more likely to get somewhere if what you're asking is at least somewhat reasonable.
- protomyth 16y agoHere's what I really don't understand. What exactly do they believe gives them the "right" to watch a given movie / tv show?
- nooneelse 16y agoProbably something along the lines of "it is in front of them".
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- btipling 16y agoDon't agree with 'Purchase should not exceed the cinema price.' since that stuff comes with extra content and 20 years from now I'm sure whatever the cinema costs were will have become untenable due to inflation...
- theDoug 16y agoAll the arguments below aside, are there any cases where an online petition has had its desired effect on an any large business, let alone an entire industry? I do ask this both as a jab and as a legitimate curiosity.
- kmfrk 16y ago> I have access to pretty much every movie ever made. Oh c'mon.
- wazoox 16y agoToo bad I haven't a facebook nor a (personal) twitter account :)
- jonpaul 16y agoThis name is awful. 1)It implies that copyright infringement is stealing. 2)It implies lack of responsibility, as in someone is making you do a certain action. You have a choice.
- baggachipz 16y agoThe page itself seems as if it was written by fifth graders: "Movies are delivered adds free." No streaming movie I've ever purchased has required me to pay for the privilege of doing arithmetic.
- jacoblyles 16y ago>"The page itself seems as if it was written by fifth graders" or a bunch of redditors/chaners.
- siglesias 16y agoThis should compel you not to steal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
- dotBen 16y ago"Movies are delivered adds free" I closed the page at this point.
- amalcon 16y agoI also want my TV to be ad-free if I'm paying for it. I prefer to pay for it than to watch the ads, because my time has value, but I don't demand that this alternative be offered. Yet. This being said, I already follow this. I also don't illegally download media. I just don't watch stuff that's not available in a reasonable way. It seems silly, given that paying $10/month for Netflix gets me access to more content than I could ever possibly watch. If only it worked on Linux. My Win PC is basically a "Netflix box" these days.
- bena 16y agoYou could always get a PS3 to use as a Netflix box. $300 and it can stream Netflix, play DVD and BluRay titles, various formats found in AVI containers, it's a DLNA receiver, and if you get bored with all that you can play PS1 and PS3 games. I think the Wii has Netflix streaming that doesn't require a disc or secondary subscription as well. And those can be found in the $200 range. (I'd suggest the XBox 360 but it requires a $60/year Gold subscription on top of the price of the console.) I'd consider it a suitable alternative if I didn't have a Windows box laying around.
- mitcheme 16y agoI agree with the general idea but the specific criteria sounds very good from a consumer POV and not very realistic for a company to offer. "Rent should not exceed 1/3 of the cinema price. Purchase should not exceed the cinema price." Rent/purchase and cinema are completely different businesses, with different expenses. Going to the cinema doesn't give you a permanent copy. I'm pretty sure movie ticket prices are subsidized by sales of overpriced popcorn, drinks, and snacks. Online sales/rentals might be better compared to brick-and-mortar sales/rentals rather than cinema. Either that or offer a breakdown of how it might be viable for a company to charge those prices. "I have access to pretty much every movie ever made." This isn't possible using any other legitimate method that I know of; the only reason pirates can do it is because they don't have to worry about the legal issues, pay for licensing, etc. They just need access to a physical or digital copy which is far easier to do. This will probably be even harder when combined with the pricing demands since it limits how much companies can pay for licensing. If you mean major films/TV shows only, "most" might be a better word, otherwise it sounds like you want them to chase down every indie filmmaker who's put out a movie that a dozen people might be interested in watching. "Pricing of TV shows is about 1/3 of movies. I pay for the content, not for bandwidth." These seem almost contradictory to me. I'm guessing the pricing of TV shows should be 1/3 that of movies because they're 1/3 as long, but if "content" means "length" then the second point doesn't mean very much in most cases. If content is some measure of quality/popularity then there's no reason why TV shows would cost less than movies. (Especially since, from my POV, there are far more good TV shows right now than good movies.) (edited for formatting and grammar.)
- SoftwareMaven 16y agoI love iPads, but Apple charges more than I think they should be allowed to charge. I'm going to steal one until they lower the price. I promise I'll buy one then. I love Photoshop, but Adobe charges more than I think they should be allowed to charge. I'm going to steal it until they lower the price. I promise I'll buy one then. I love Wolfram-Alpha's database, but Mathematica costs way more than I think they should be allowed to charge. I'm going to steal it until they lower the price. I promise I'll buy one then. Does this not seam like a ludicrous attitude to you?
- lotusleaf1987 16y agoFrancis Ford Coppola: Q: How does an aspiring artist bridge the gap between distribution and commerce? A: We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it's only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script. This idea of Metallica or some rock n' roll singer being rich, that's not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I'm going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money? In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you'd be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, "Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money." Because there are ways around it. http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-On-Risk-Money-Craft-Collaboration http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O...
- bena 16y agoYes, I'm totally convinced by the words of the son of a professional concert flautist who gets paid 7 figures to make films and was able to buy that winery with those proceeds. So for him to say, "Oh you can make money other ways, make films for art's sake. Look at me, I'm a wine-maker" is a bit disingenuous.
- rdouble 16y agoCoppola bought his winery with the proceeds from The Godfather.
- anonymoushn 16y agoFortunately it is impossible to steal non-rivalrous goods.
- pyrmont 16y agoMaybe they thought dontmakemeinfringe.com didn't have the same 'zing'.
- mindctrl 16y agoI love this idea. Please fix the spelling and grammar errors so that the powers that be take it seriously. Thanks!
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- wyclif 16y agoAds, not "adds."
- daniel02216 16y agoThis seems like 'I want a store like the iTunes Music Store for videos' that doesn't have the movie-company BS that the actual iTunes movie store does. (i.e. DRM free, has absolutely everything, doesn't cost a ridiculous amount for TV shows, etc) They'd need to add on 'simultaneous worldwide availability' and Linux compatibility, maybe subscriptions, and the subtitles stuff, but it'd get close to satisfying this manifesto. I hope that a store like this exists soon. But given the track record of the studios, it's not likely that they'll become sane anytime soon.
- jacques_chester 16y agoAs a former classifieds phone operator, please note: "ad free", not "adds free". Please. I beg you.
- mkramlich 16y agoI sympathise a great deal with the spirit of that manifesto. However, I don't full agree with it. Mainly because it's basis comes down to, "I want a pony, Daddy. And I want it now! And it must pink! And made out of licorice!" And I don't agree with arguments like that because unless you yourself (the person desiring the pony) are the one who's making/building/providing the pony, then you're in the weakest possible position to be making such specific demands. "I'd like a pony too, little Virginia, but I have to figure out how much it costs, I have to go find one, figure out where to keep it, feed it, make sure it stays healthy, etc. And if it's not pink how the fuck do I make it pink? Don't even talk to me about licorice." Note that I'm not saying that all consumers should conform their desires to whatever the producers feel like producing and providing it under. But I do think it requires give and take on both sides, and the folks on the producer side are much more likely to be constrained by Physical Reality, whereas the consumer role can prance around in Fantasy Land. Wanting convenience is fine. Wanting "fairness" is more problematic, because it's not always clear what is fair when you have to consider things from the provider's position, not just the consumer. And some consumer demands are arbitrary or undefensible. For example, what reasonable basis would one have for demanding that you should not have to pay more money to own a product (a DVD/video) than you would to rent it (watch movie in theatre)? There are arguments for why each should be more expensive than the other, and the "cost plus" model is only part of the consideration. Value-based pricing is also fundamental to economics and market-making. Yes, artificial scarcity can make prices for a thing higher than what it would be otherwise. However, if you're not the one producing the thing in question, you're not in the position to decide whether or how much to turn that dial. As a consumer you can choose not to buy a thing under terms you don't like, but you're not in a position to demand or force a provider to match your ideal terms. You are always free to get off your ass and go make the very thing you want. But if you lack the creativity, energy, intelligence, skills, willpower, etc. to make that thing, then you will absolutely be (at least somewhat) at the mercy of those that do overcome and perform those things in order to provide it. Thus the give and take, and thus a market where price and terms must be reached by compromise on both sides. Don't make me steal? Don't make me laugh.
- ivankirigin 16y agoDigital Media Consumption Manifesto Clearly should have been "agreement" instead of a "manifesto". Then they would have made a new DMCA.
- Skroob 16y agoAll I want is for any TV or movie on iTunes that is purchasable to also be rentable. I don't have any desire to buy, say, The Social Network for $20, but I'll rent it for $5. This goes double for TV shows. I love Fringe, but if I miss an episode I don't want to spend $3 to buy it, watch it once and never see it again. Let me rent it for $1 and I'll be happy.
- AppDev054 16y agoIf you don't like the law, make your own 'content' then you can set prices, etc. No one cares what you think is the 'right price'. If you don't want to pay, don't buy it. No amount of whining is an excuse for stealing. Grow up!
- redthrowaway 16y agoI agree with everything except yes to pay and no to ads. There really should be a way to provide free, ad-supported video, and premium, ad-free video. Once you purchase a movie it is free for all time, but every time you watch it for free it's ad-supported.
- Cadsby 16y agoThe music industry in particular is infamous for making it's fortunes via the deliberate exploitation of artist and musicians over the decades. So when those same industries turn around and try and take the moral high ground regarding piracy, for better or worse, consumers mostly laugh at the hypocrisy and continue pirating. I agree pirating is morally indefensible. But the reality is consumers will never be swayed by those arguments. Give consumers the product they want, at the price point they would like to pay. That is the only practical solution to this issue, regardless of how loudly the content industries screams about "stealing." Failure to accept this reality will only lead to piracy continuing if not increasing.