3 ms·

So during the SOPA protests the HN comment threads had a lot of people stating that copyright should be abolished, or that IP theft is a market failure, torrent

So during the SOPA protests the HN comment threads had a lot of people stating that copyright should be abolished, or that IP theft is a market failure, torrenting should be legal, etc, etc, etc... I'm guessing those people are also against Curebit doing what it's done? Is there a rallying cry of "HTML is easy to steal and therefore it's a market problem and not Curebit's fault since it is so easy"? I'm not saying it's a 100% parallel, but you see can see it. One one hand we have "IP theft is ok" and on the other "IP thieves! Get them!" I know the difference is Curebit's potential profit motivations vs. "I'm a movie collector who wouldn't have bought these overpriced DVDs", but the irony is still present given the close timing between the two events.

bermanoid 15y ago
One one hand we have "IP theft is ok" and on the other "IP thieves! Get them!" People don't care too much about "stealing" IP for your own viewing/listening enjoyment. They do care if you're stealing it and re-publishing it as part of your own product without the proper permissions. There's no contradiction here.
drostie 15y ago
I think it's important to scope the word "against" here. When one is "against" copyright, one is usually against extortion-esque tactics and expensive punitive judgments from courts against individuals in a campaign of intimidation. That's not really at play here, even discounting "potential profit motivations." There's just no threat of a lawsuit, and so that's probably why they'll be reasonably quiet on this article. If you're a comedian, there is a professional artistic courtesy that you do not steal another comedian's joke -- that if you do, then you are "taking credit" for something which you did not produce. It strikes me that this is the same sort of irritation. The corporations who get mad that you've been seeding the Bourne movies on BitTorrent don't pretend to any sort of artistic outrage, and if they did it would be absurd, because you're faceless and not claiming to any sort of artistic innovation. But we're quite clear, I think, on the fact that (a) they're executives, (b) the government gave them a monopoly on copying these films, and (c) they're upset because end-users didn't care about the monopoly and shared anyway. Given all that, I'm not sure I find the discrepancy particularly ironic. Actually, I think I'd more or less expect it -- if only because developers have clear human faces, while the RIAA's lawyers and executives do not.

bermanoid 15y ago

One one hand we have "IP theft is ok" and on the other "IP thieves! Get them!" People don't care too much about "stealing" IP for your own viewing/listening enjoyment. They do care if you're stealing it and re-publishing it as part of your own product without the proper permissions. There's no contradiction here.

drostie 15y ago

I think it's important to scope the word "against" here. When one is "against" copyright, one is usually against extortion-esque tactics and expensive punitive judgments from courts against individuals in a campaign of intimidation. That's not really at play here, even discounting "potential profit motivations." There's just no threat of a lawsuit, and so that's probably why they'll be reasonably quiet on this article. If you're a comedian, there is a professional artistic courtesy that you do not steal another comedian's joke -- that if you do, then you are "taking credit" for something which you did not produce. It strikes me that this is the same sort of irritation. The corporations who get mad that you've been seeding the Bourne movies on BitTorrent don't pretend to any sort of artistic outrage, and if they did it would be absurd, because you're faceless and not claiming to any sort of artistic innovation. But we're quite clear, I think, on the fact that (a) they're executives, (b) the government gave them a monopoly on copying these films, and (c) they're upset because end-users didn't care about the monopoly and shared anyway. Given all that, I'm not sure I find the discrepancy particularly ironic. Actually, I think I'd more or less expect it -- if only because developers have clear human faces, while the RIAA's lawyers and executives do not.