6 ms·

>It's too hard to protect the interests of artists, fuck 'em. It's too hard to protect the interests of buggy-whip makers. Let's outlaw automobiles. It's too h

>It's too hard to protect the interests of artists, fuck 'em. It's too hard to protect the interests of buggy-whip makers. Let's outlaw automobiles. It's too hard to protect the interests of barges. Let's outlaw trains. It's too hard to protect the interests of ocean liners. Lets outlaw air travel. No one is entitled to a living. No one should have to rely on the government to protect their business model. If your business model doesn't work in an Internet-enabled world, too fucking bad. We didn't bail out the buggy whip makers for having a business model that couldn't survive in an automobile enabled world. We didn't bail out the barge and steamboat industry when trains came along. Why should we bail out the recording industry because they can't hack it in an Internet-enabled world? Because that's what this is. A bailout. This a bailout that dwarfs the bank bailout in terms of the harm it can do to our economy and our liberty. And it's not even a bailout for artists. It's a bailout for a parasitic monster that, as far as I can tell only serves to funnel money from consumers to lobbyists. EDIT: By your logic, even the recording industry itself shouldn't exist. The recording industry killed off the "home-performance" industry and drastically cut sheet music sales by making and distributing recordings of performances. So who's looking out for their interests?

earbitscom 15y ago
That's the thing, no one is entitled to free music, either. Your argument is ridiculous because we're talking about a product that everybody still wants. It's not a buggy whip. It's music. If you don't want it enough to pay for it, then you just don't need to have a copy. Is that really such a hard concept for you to grasp?
- quanticle 15y ago
  >Your argument is ridiculous because we're talking about a product that everybody still wants. Is it a product that everybody wants? Or is it a product that everybody says they want? If music were truly as appreciated as you say it is, then more people would be paying for it, no? And guess what? More people are paying for music. iTunes is selling millions of tracks each year. Amazon is doing the same. Do you really think that artists would go out of business if they got the whole share of their iTunes proceeds, rather than having to split it with the recording industry? As another comment below me says so eloquently, "Louis CK gets it. Trent Reznor gets it. Radiohead gets it. The recording industry doesn't get it and neither do you."
  - KleinmanB 15y ago
    Your ignorance and oversimplified reasoning is woeful. If banks left their vaults on locked and didnt enforce theft, you would bet your ass that people would filling their fat pockets with wads of $100s. If someone makes something and wants to charge a dollar amount you cannot say no and just take it. Your argument of people doing it right is irrelevant. They choose to sell it one way, and other artists choose another. You as a consumer can have an opinion as to which way is most effective, but you cannot decide how they distribute.
    - bobds 15y ago
      Think of a bank that CANNOT have an effective vault because there is technology available that allows people to walk through solid matter. You could outlaw (or make difficult to use, restrict its features) the walk-through-walls technology. Or you could just stop clinging to your old idea of what a bank or a vault is.
- barrkel 15y ago
  Thing is, music isn't even a product. It's an experience. Packaged, mass-produced, recorded music is a product, but it has only been in existence for a tiny fraction of human history. On the basis of history alone, there's no good reason to think it will continue to exist. Consider a few centuries in the future, when everybody has brain / computer interfaces, and access to perfect recollection through playback of previous sensory input. Do you think recorded music will still be a traded product then, when any friend or family member can casually transfer to you an exact reproduction of their own experience?
  - ericd 15y ago
    Heh if it worked like current DRM, you'd have to delete your own memory to transfer it to someone else, but only when that memory is of some copyrighted visual or sound. Really interesting thought experiment :-)
- Natsu 15y ago
  You're going to drive away customers by being negative like that. That's your right to be angry, but it's not good business. The new way of doing things is to work with your fans. Screw the pirates. Pretend the pirates don't exist. They weren't going to give you money anyhow, so they can go screw themselves. But your fans? They are. Focus on making them happy. You can't do that by being negative all the time. I know this issue is a sore spot and it makes you feel hurt. That's why I'd focus on the fans. You know, people who are happy to hear your music. You're absolutely right that making music is not obsolete, so focus on getting that music to your fans and providing the things they want. It's just good business. See Louis CK? See that success? Go copy it.
  - runn1ng 15y ago
    Why are you suddenly focusing on happiness of customers? I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music. And what earbitcom is saying is - if you think the digital music costs too much or has too much DRM, you don't have to download it. And, by the way, what Louis CK did that is so revolutionary? He did a show and sold the recording online. For money. What is so revolutionary in that?
    - Natsu 15y ago
      > Why are you suddenly focusing on happiness of customers? Because that's how you get people to give you money. It should be common sense, but I see people failing badly. Louis CK is a good example because he showed that caring more about fans than pirates is good business sense. Pirates are going to pirate, so he said screw them, I'll do right by my fans. See, you get $0 whether they pirate or don't pirate. But with fans? You get a sale if they buy and no sale if they don't. So the pirates are all zeroes anyway, while the fans are the difference between sale and no sale, and that is what makes or breaks your business. > I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music. As far as business goes, that debate is irrelevant. And unless you enjoy the whole starving artist thing, business is kind of important. Pirates haven't gone anywhere, so screwing your fans in the name of fighting piracy is cutting off your nose to spite your face. But you don't have to listen to me. You can tell your fans that it's your way or the highway if you want to. Just don't complain when they take the highway instead and go off to buy from someone who treats them well, like Louis CK.
- decklin 15y ago
  No one wanted a buggy whip. They wanted, and still want, what the buggy whip got them: transportation from point A to point B. People still want music. They never wanted the music industry.
  - snowwrestler 15y ago
    It's worth pointing out that in general, people still have to pay for transportation even though the buggy whips are gone. The argument here is whether in general, people still have to pay for music.
gareim 15y ago
The difference between your examples and the music industry is that buggy whip makers lost because they had an inferior product; who would want a horse-driven carriage when they could have a car? But here, people are still TAKING the music, just without paying. That's the problem. SOPA isn't the right answer. It tramples on too many fundamental rights for it to be. But to simply say that the music industry should die because the Internet makes piracy easy, that's a bold statement. Within a decade, books will be scanned and turned into eBooks at an incredible rate. It's already happening, but the technology is too slow to make digitizing every book right away possible. But when it does get there, will writers still be encouraged to write? Their books could be so easily pirated. Sure, some might still write. But those who write books on obscure subjects might not find the motivation to write anymore books when their book turns up on a torrent site instantly. And what about when 3D printers and 3D scanners get to a state of mass-consumption? Who will buy furniture anymore when they could scan and build it themselves from pirated blueprints? There's no easy answer. But to just say "too fucking bad" is wrong.
- eridius 15y ago
  I doubt quanticle's intent is to say the music industry should die simply because the Internet makes piracy easy. I certainly wouldn't say that. What I would say is the music industry needs to adapt, and find a business model that works in an Internet-enabled world. Instead, they're digging in their heels and trying to "solve" this problem by suing their customers and trying to turn their customer base into felons. Actually, I take it back. The music industry absolutely should die. They're just a bunch of middlemen who are now living in a world where the Internet makes middlemen obsolete. Musical artists absolutely should thrive, and there's ample evidence to suggest that they can thrive in an Internet-enabled world. For a perfect example, just take a look at Jonathan Coulton. There's absolutely no reason to believe that musical artists can't continue to create and sell their music with the Internet. But the music industry itself is a parasite.
- Sodel 15y ago
  >The difference between your examples and the music industry is that buggy whip makers lost because they had an inferior product; who would want a horse-driven carriage when they could have a car?" But here, people are still TAKING the music, just without paying. That's the problem. I think an argument could be made that the music industry has such a piracy problem (I concede this here, in spite of the music industry constantly reporting greater profit) because it is providing an inferior product, or service. (I am linking to the discussion.) There was a very interesting GamaSutra article posted here about a month ago, on how Valve sees piracy as a "non-issue": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3155052 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3155052 The summary from 10,000 feet is that the way to beat the pirates is to give those that buy the product a better service than the pirates do. Making music as difficult to acquire (oy, the fuss they put up about previews and digital distribution!) and use (format shifting, moving your music along with you) is not a a very customer-friendly mod of operation. I buy my music, but, with BitTorrent, you can listen to the entire song before you buy it. I don't know how much music I passed over because I didn't want to waste money on something that I may or may not like.

earbitscom 15y ago

That's the thing, no one is entitled to free music, either. Your argument is ridiculous because we're talking about a product that everybody still wants. It's not a buggy whip. It's music. If you don't want it enough to pay for it, then you just don't need to have a copy. Is that really such a hard concept for you to grasp?

quanticle 15y ago
>Your argument is ridiculous because we're talking about a product that everybody still wants. Is it a product that everybody wants? Or is it a product that everybody says they want? If music were truly as appreciated as you say it is, then more people would be paying for it, no? And guess what? More people are paying for music. iTunes is selling millions of tracks each year. Amazon is doing the same. Do you really think that artists would go out of business if they got the whole share of their iTunes proceeds, rather than having to split it with the recording industry? As another comment below me says so eloquently, "Louis CK gets it. Trent Reznor gets it. Radiohead gets it. The recording industry doesn't get it and neither do you."
- KleinmanB 15y ago
  Your ignorance and oversimplified reasoning is woeful. If banks left their vaults on locked and didnt enforce theft, you would bet your ass that people would filling their fat pockets with wads of $100s. If someone makes something and wants to charge a dollar amount you cannot say no and just take it. Your argument of people doing it right is irrelevant. They choose to sell it one way, and other artists choose another. You as a consumer can have an opinion as to which way is most effective, but you cannot decide how they distribute.
  - bobds 15y ago
    Think of a bank that CANNOT have an effective vault because there is technology available that allows people to walk through solid matter. You could outlaw (or make difficult to use, restrict its features) the walk-through-walls technology. Or you could just stop clinging to your old idea of what a bank or a vault is.
barrkel 15y ago
Thing is, music isn't even a product. It's an experience. Packaged, mass-produced, recorded music is a product, but it has only been in existence for a tiny fraction of human history. On the basis of history alone, there's no good reason to think it will continue to exist. Consider a few centuries in the future, when everybody has brain / computer interfaces, and access to perfect recollection through playback of previous sensory input. Do you think recorded music will still be a traded product then, when any friend or family member can casually transfer to you an exact reproduction of their own experience?
- ericd 15y ago
  Heh if it worked like current DRM, you'd have to delete your own memory to transfer it to someone else, but only when that memory is of some copyrighted visual or sound. Really interesting thought experiment :-)
Natsu 15y ago
You're going to drive away customers by being negative like that. That's your right to be angry, but it's not good business. The new way of doing things is to work with your fans. Screw the pirates. Pretend the pirates don't exist. They weren't going to give you money anyhow, so they can go screw themselves. But your fans? They are. Focus on making them happy. You can't do that by being negative all the time. I know this issue is a sore spot and it makes you feel hurt. That's why I'd focus on the fans. You know, people who are happy to hear your music. You're absolutely right that making music is not obsolete, so focus on getting that music to your fans and providing the things they want. It's just good business. See Louis CK? See that success? Go copy it.
- runn1ng 15y ago
  Why are you suddenly focusing on happiness of customers? I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music. And what earbitcom is saying is - if you think the digital music costs too much or has too much DRM, you don't have to download it. And, by the way, what Louis CK did that is so revolutionary? He did a show and sold the recording online. For money. What is so revolutionary in that?
  - Natsu 15y ago
    > Why are you suddenly focusing on happiness of customers? Because that's how you get people to give you money. It should be common sense, but I see people failing badly. Louis CK is a good example because he showed that caring more about fans than pirates is good business sense. Pirates are going to pirate, so he said screw them, I'll do right by my fans. See, you get $0 whether they pirate or don't pirate. But with fans? You get a sale if they buy and no sale if they don't. So the pirates are all zeroes anyway, while the fans are the difference between sale and no sale, and that is what makes or breaks your business. > I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music. As far as business goes, that debate is irrelevant. And unless you enjoy the whole starving artist thing, business is kind of important. Pirates haven't gone anywhere, so screwing your fans in the name of fighting piracy is cutting off your nose to spite your face. But you don't have to listen to me. You can tell your fans that it's your way or the highway if you want to. Just don't complain when they take the highway instead and go off to buy from someone who treats them well, like Louis CK.
decklin 15y ago
No one wanted a buggy whip. They wanted, and still want, what the buggy whip got them: transportation from point A to point B. People still want music. They never wanted the music industry.
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  It's worth pointing out that in general, people still have to pay for transportation even though the buggy whips are gone. The argument here is whether in general, people still have to pay for music.

gareim 15y ago

The difference between your examples and the music industry is that buggy whip makers lost because they had an inferior product; who would want a horse-driven carriage when they could have a car? But here, people are still TAKING the music, just without paying. That's the problem. SOPA isn't the right answer. It tramples on too many fundamental rights for it to be. But to simply say that the music industry should die because the Internet makes piracy easy, that's a bold statement. Within a decade, books will be scanned and turned into eBooks at an incredible rate. It's already happening, but the technology is too slow to make digitizing every book right away possible. But when it does get there, will writers still be encouraged to write? Their books could be so easily pirated. Sure, some might still write. But those who write books on obscure subjects might not find the motivation to write anymore books when their book turns up on a torrent site instantly. And what about when 3D printers and 3D scanners get to a state of mass-consumption? Who will buy furniture anymore when they could scan and build it themselves from pirated blueprints? There's no easy answer. But to just say "too fucking bad" is wrong.

eridius 15y ago
I doubt quanticle's intent is to say the music industry should die simply because the Internet makes piracy easy. I certainly wouldn't say that. What I would say is the music industry needs to adapt, and find a business model that works in an Internet-enabled world. Instead, they're digging in their heels and trying to "solve" this problem by suing their customers and trying to turn their customer base into felons. Actually, I take it back. The music industry absolutely should die. They're just a bunch of middlemen who are now living in a world where the Internet makes middlemen obsolete. Musical artists absolutely should thrive, and there's ample evidence to suggest that they can thrive in an Internet-enabled world. For a perfect example, just take a look at Jonathan Coulton. There's absolutely no reason to believe that musical artists can't continue to create and sell their music with the Internet. But the music industry itself is a parasite.
Sodel 15y ago
>The difference between your examples and the music industry is that buggy whip makers lost because they had an inferior product; who would want a horse-driven carriage when they could have a car?" But here, people are still TAKING the music, just without paying. That's the problem. I think an argument could be made that the music industry has such a piracy problem (I concede this here, in spite of the music industry constantly reporting greater profit) because it is providing an inferior product, or service. (I am linking to the discussion.) There was a very interesting GamaSutra article posted here about a month ago, on how Valve sees piracy as a "non-issue": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3155052 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3155052 The summary from 10,000 feet is that the way to beat the pirates is to give those that buy the product a better service than the pirates do. Making music as difficult to acquire (oy, the fuss they put up about previews and digital distribution!) and use (format shifting, moving your music along with you) is not a a very customer-friendly mod of operation. I buy my music, but, with BitTorrent, you can listen to the entire song before you buy it. I don't know how much music I passed over because I didn't want to waste money on something that I may or may not like.