6 ms·

Anyone who disagrees, frankly, can go fuck themselves. Well consider me fucked. What the author doesn't realize is that he's fighting against an organic pheno

Anyone who disagrees, frankly, can go fuck themselves. Well consider me fucked. What the author doesn't realize is that he's fighting against an organic phenomenon. Even if SOPA passes, piracy will continue to thrive. There are thousands of eager engineers begging for the chance to prove that they can produce an elegant hack around this poorly considered attempt to control the internet. There is also a culture that has now adjusted its formula for content value, and those people will demand piracy, just as they demand jailbroken phones and modded xboxes, and someone will rise to meet their demands. A new file sharing solution will emerge, and the media companies will have to spend another decade trying to lobby for a way to whack the next mole. In the meantime, those of us who understand that you can't prevent a bit from being copied have learned how to create content that people feel good paying for. Of course, people don't have the right to download content without paying for it, but you can't stop the spread of 1s and 0s without giving the media companies an authority that goes beyond what is reasonable.

dlss 15y ago
This. A million times this. Thank you. The customer's desire to give you money is the product. This is inherent in the nature of near zero cost replication. Loius CK gets it, Reznor gets it, Yorke gets it, kickstarter gets it. OP doesn't, the RIAA doesn't.
- donnyg107 15y ago
  So you're saying that we only REALLY want the products to which we would chritably throw cash? so when I buy coke at the grocery store, it's because I want to charitably contribute to the coca-cola company's artful soda recipe? And when I don't feel like appreciating it, I should just take them? OBVIOUSLY NOT. If you don't appreciate the music, or even the artists work, then don't download it. If you don't want it, dont steal and insist that your "just getting it for the right price." I can't even begin to explain how entitled it sounds o hear people saying that they wil pay for the things that they "really should be paying for because they want to be." This is a justification for piracy and is in no way a solution to the curent issues. You buy a product, you donate to charities which you like. Charities ask you to contribute, firms tell you what you need to to pay for their product. Louis CK is in no way an indication that people will pay for things they 'really appreciate,' lots of people really wanted the experiment to work. But what of Kanye's album? I see hundreds saying "Oh this guy is a jerk, I'm just gonna take his album." Is that how natural markets work? Don't like it? Good, that's your NATURAL INCLINATION to go for lowest price possible which will in no way just 'go away' when you really appreciate your products, nor should it. And this is not zero cost replication. There are people that put a ton of time and effort into piracy to make it work. We'll know when we've reached a solution that works when the enormous online filesharing infrastructure necessary for the current levels of piracy dissolves, and people simply start to pay for the products like they would any other.
  - dlss 15y ago
    > This is inherent in the nature of near zero cost replication If coca-cola sold their recipe rather than selling cans of soda, then I would agree with your paragraph one. Remember that coca-cola does not pay royalties to many of the inventors of the ideas the bottler uses to bottle soda. Newton's heirs do not own the world. As for paragraph two, all I can say is that yes: human markets do work that way. My advice to you is to remember that a rational man adjusts to the world, rather than becoming angry that it isn't the way he wants it to be. As for paragraph three, you're wrong -- we all donate to charities we like, we all give gifts, we all help each other; we read books by great thinkers and are thankful for their gift. When you really like an artist, learning that they need money to recoup their cost of production is much the same as learning what a friend wants for their birthday: you give it as a token of your affection. edit: you just added paragraph four. Please reread what you wrote. You're not even pretending to understand the subjects you're commenting on any more :(
    - donnyg107 15y ago
      That is not for you to choose. If the artist wants you to give as a token of your affection, they can, but for now, you have no right to decide that you need not pay for their work until they've earned your affection. This is in no way a solution. And I have every right to be angry at justifications for theft with claims that theft is the baseline, and benevolence is a product of further appreciation. Theft cannot be the baseline. People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. And if say this magical benevolent system is implemented, are you to guarantee that good will can ensure that the money is actually paid? I can't, and based on the justifications for theft I've seen on this forum, I seriously doubt anyone here will actually pay for the all music they take, especially under the anonymity and "I'm special so it doesn't matter when I do this immoral thing" of the internet.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. I agree, but that doesn't justify copyright or any other draconian law. We should do away with them and people will need to decide if they want to pay and ensure their survival or not. immoral Oh, I love this. You can't even comprehend the notion that people may actually not find copyright infringement to be immoral, can you? Tip: many don't.
donnyg107 15y ago
If you're comfortable not stealing the products that you don't "feel good paying for" then go right ahead, only pay for the products you feel good paying for. But if you're saying that it's cool to just steal the work and effort of a product that just didn't sit right with you, then you are far in the wrong. No one insists that we can all steal from athletic shoe companies with factory worker human rights issues overseas, and yet somehow every time we think a media company abuses our rights to their content with oh so high pricing, we're just entitled to take their content. The issue of online theft isn't one of personal ethical comfort, and that it is no way to convince lawmakers that the online community is onboard to accept FAIR legislation, or even be civil with a government-free solution.
- vectorpush 15y ago
  if you're saying that it's cool to just steal the work From my post: Of course, people don't have the right to download content without paying for it. There is no doubt that people deserve compensation for their work, but if the full value of your effort can be represented as a string of 1s and 0s, then you must accept the reality that computers, the most ubiquitous machines on the planet, are all designed with the fundamental purpose of shifting around 1s and 0s. You simply cannot fight the reality that data is cheap and easy to share without setting back progress.

dlss 15y ago

This. A million times this. Thank you. The customer's desire to give you money is the product. This is inherent in the nature of near zero cost replication. Loius CK gets it, Reznor gets it, Yorke gets it, kickstarter gets it. OP doesn't, the RIAA doesn't.

donnyg107 15y ago
So you're saying that we only REALLY want the products to which we would chritably throw cash? so when I buy coke at the grocery store, it's because I want to charitably contribute to the coca-cola company's artful soda recipe? And when I don't feel like appreciating it, I should just take them? OBVIOUSLY NOT. If you don't appreciate the music, or even the artists work, then don't download it. If you don't want it, dont steal and insist that your "just getting it for the right price." I can't even begin to explain how entitled it sounds o hear people saying that they wil pay for the things that they "really should be paying for because they want to be." This is a justification for piracy and is in no way a solution to the curent issues. You buy a product, you donate to charities which you like. Charities ask you to contribute, firms tell you what you need to to pay for their product. Louis CK is in no way an indication that people will pay for things they 'really appreciate,' lots of people really wanted the experiment to work. But what of Kanye's album? I see hundreds saying "Oh this guy is a jerk, I'm just gonna take his album." Is that how natural markets work? Don't like it? Good, that's your NATURAL INCLINATION to go for lowest price possible which will in no way just 'go away' when you really appreciate your products, nor should it. And this is not zero cost replication. There are people that put a ton of time and effort into piracy to make it work. We'll know when we've reached a solution that works when the enormous online filesharing infrastructure necessary for the current levels of piracy dissolves, and people simply start to pay for the products like they would any other.
- dlss 15y ago
  > This is inherent in the nature of near zero cost replication If coca-cola sold their recipe rather than selling cans of soda, then I would agree with your paragraph one. Remember that coca-cola does not pay royalties to many of the inventors of the ideas the bottler uses to bottle soda. Newton's heirs do not own the world. As for paragraph two, all I can say is that yes: human markets do work that way. My advice to you is to remember that a rational man adjusts to the world, rather than becoming angry that it isn't the way he wants it to be. As for paragraph three, you're wrong -- we all donate to charities we like, we all give gifts, we all help each other; we read books by great thinkers and are thankful for their gift. When you really like an artist, learning that they need money to recoup their cost of production is much the same as learning what a friend wants for their birthday: you give it as a token of your affection. edit: you just added paragraph four. Please reread what you wrote. You're not even pretending to understand the subjects you're commenting on any more :(
  - donnyg107 15y ago
    That is not for you to choose. If the artist wants you to give as a token of your affection, they can, but for now, you have no right to decide that you need not pay for their work until they've earned your affection. This is in no way a solution. And I have every right to be angry at justifications for theft with claims that theft is the baseline, and benevolence is a product of further appreciation. Theft cannot be the baseline. People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. And if say this magical benevolent system is implemented, are you to guarantee that good will can ensure that the money is actually paid? I can't, and based on the justifications for theft I've seen on this forum, I seriously doubt anyone here will actually pay for the all music they take, especially under the anonymity and "I'm special so it doesn't matter when I do this immoral thing" of the internet.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. I agree, but that doesn't justify copyright or any other draconian law. We should do away with them and people will need to decide if they want to pay and ensure their survival or not. immoral Oh, I love this. You can't even comprehend the notion that people may actually not find copyright infringement to be immoral, can you? Tip: many don't.

donnyg107 15y ago

If you're comfortable not stealing the products that you don't "feel good paying for" then go right ahead, only pay for the products you feel good paying for. But if you're saying that it's cool to just steal the work and effort of a product that just didn't sit right with you, then you are far in the wrong. No one insists that we can all steal from athletic shoe companies with factory worker human rights issues overseas, and yet somehow every time we think a media company abuses our rights to their content with oh so high pricing, we're just entitled to take their content. The issue of online theft isn't one of personal ethical comfort, and that it is no way to convince lawmakers that the online community is onboard to accept FAIR legislation, or even be civil with a government-free solution.

vectorpush 15y ago
if you're saying that it's cool to just steal the work From my post: Of course, people don't have the right to download content without paying for it. There is no doubt that people deserve compensation for their work, but if the full value of your effort can be represented as a string of 1s and 0s, then you must accept the reality that computers, the most ubiquitous machines on the planet, are all designed with the fundamental purpose of shifting around 1s and 0s. You simply cannot fight the reality that data is cheap and easy to share without setting back progress.