3 ms·

I wish your view wasn't so negatively moderated here, because I think it's the only view that results in the quality and quantity of content that we now take fo

by Zetice 4y ago

I wish your view wasn't so negatively moderated here, because I think it's the only view that results in the quality and quantity of content that we now take for granted. It's weird to me that folks now feel entitled to content in the way that piracy allows. The concept that you simply cannot watch a show or movie if you haven't paid for it is genuinely foreign to many people, but it is the only reality that results in those shows in the first place. Content has to produce revenue for its creators, or they're not able to create that content, or as much of that content, or as high quality of that content. I don't "hate" piracy, and I don't think it even cracks the top 1000 problems in the world right now, but to think it's morally justified seems silly to me.

jjav 4y ago
> It's weird to me that folks now feel entitled to content in the way that piracy allows. They shouldn't, but that is not at all what this case and discussion are about. The scenario here is an unrelated third party being accused of being complicit in a crime merely for hosting a general-purpose tool that could be used for piracy but can be used for many other things. The equivalent analogy would be if Home Depot is convicted of being a participant in every home burglary in their area simply because they sell sledgehammers and drills and other tools that could conceivably be used by someone to break into a house.
rcoveson 4y ago
> The concept that you simply cannot watch a show or movie if you haven't paid for it is genuinely foreign to many people, but it is the only reality that results in those shows in the first place. If you're genuinely curious why this view tends to be "so negatively moderated", it's this ridiculous notion. Lots of people want to listen to good music, watch good shows, and read good books. Some people are capable of producing those things. Supply, meet demand. You think that without IP everybody is just going to give up on making art happen? Even expensive, large scale art? It's absurd, and it's propaganda. Technological advancement has made this the best time in history for patronage of the arts. Subscription services would be perfect for this. Subscribe to get a vote on what gets made; subscribe to have your review of it count after it's done. Subscribe for ease of access. I don't know if these industries shrink (or even grow) with the elimination of IP. But the notion that any product people enjoy today just stops getting made at all is crazy.
- Zetice 4y ago
  I couldn't disagree more strongly. Artists can create the content you love because they get paid to do so. Without IP, these artists do not get paid, and therefore cannot create the content you love, full stop. The only reason you're able to pirate in the first place is because you rely on other people not to pirate, so the artist still gets paid. That seems to be working out, which is why I really don't see piracy as a meaningful problem, but if the scales tipped to where most people were obtaining content in violation of IP laws, then you would absolutely see a strong chilling effect on content creation. It's the underlying premise of capitalism; I focus on making art in exchange for a shared currency I can then use to buy housing and food from people dedicated to those things. Without the ability to depend on others to provide those services, artists will have to do other things besides create art to convince the people creating food to give them some.
  - rcoveson 4y ago
    > I couldn't disagree more strongly. Artists can create the content you love because they get paid to do so. Without IP, these artists do not get paid, and therefore cannot create the content you love, full stop. But why? Why full stop? There's no argument here, just an assertion. I want artists to create things. I will pay them to do it! There are many others like me in this regard! > It's the underlying premise of capitalism; I focus on making art in exchange for a shared currency I can then use to buy housing and food from people dedicated to those things. Yes, we agree there. You should make art in exchange for currency. You should not make art and then try to extract currency from people for looking at it. In an alternate reality, Netflix produces shows that it streams to its subscribers. Subscribers review those shows which influences which shows continue to be developed. Just like in our reality, some people are "freeloaders" who watch the shows without paying for them (but it's not illegal). Still, many people subscribe because it's broadly understood that shows only get made if people subscribe. In this reality (much like our own), production houses release pilots. If nobody wants to watch the show that would follow the pilot, then it's a sunk investment. But if they do, then they have to pay for it to get made (which they do, because that's how capitalism works). The rest is just a coordination problem, which the Internet trivializes. Need $5 million to make a season? Don't make the season until you've got it. If you're on the other end of the transaction: Do you want that season to get made? Then do your best to get it paid for. I'm happy to listen to an argument for why this model would result in a smaller industry, and a subsequent argument about why a smaller industry is so unacceptable that we need IP law. But I won't accept proclamations like "...cannot creeat the content you love, full stop." The market is not so totally uncreative that it can't match up broadly distributed demand (I want to watch good TV) to concentrated supply (I can make good TV).
JohnFen 4y ago
> The concept that you simply cannot watch a show or movie if you haven't paid for it is genuinely foreign to many people I'm certainly not arguing otherwise. However, I am arguing that things like YouTube-DL have legal and legitimate uses. Assuming that even its primary use is for piracy is a pretty huge assumption.
- Zetice 4y ago
  Yeah fair, I guess I got a bit lost in the IP argument; I believe in IP and I think people act entitled to IP that isn't theirs without thinking about what a world would look like if that were generally how people behaved. BUT yeah the issue is how people use the tool, not the tool itself, and this is for sure a huge overreach by the RIAA.
coffeeling 4y ago
The issue here is that if a watchdog so much as looks at a provider wrong, under this ruling, they have to obey instantly even if the watchdog's claim is wrong and fraudulent. To repeat, this would mean the innocent have to go through the trouble to prove their innocence in the face of bullies who are given maximum leeway instead of the watchdogs having to thoroughly substantiate their claim to demand removal in unclear cases. It makes the watchdogs de facto sovereign censors of the Internet, and turns any idea of due process into a pleasant fiction for most people. It's also worth noting that ISPs are pretty low on the internet services stack, and as such should be much closer to a water or electricity company than to a newspaper.
spopejoy 4y ago
One HN phenomenon that is genuinely puzzling is illustrated in this thread, where a view is expressed in a non-inflammatory way and is moderated into near-invisibility because of it's unpopularity. OK fine ... but then there's a non-insignificant amount of responses, indicating genuine engagement with OP's position. Now you have to squint to read the greyed-out post if you're interested in what the discussion is about, and likewise with your response, which is again well-expressed if not popular. IMO, moderation should exist to keep discussions within HN guidelines, which these posts clearly follow. Instead it's plainly "I don't agree with you so I'm going to try to vote your view out of existence", which doesn't even work as folks still engage/respond. Is there any way out of this? HN is famously the best-behaved discussion site on the internet, but this seems to be an unfortunate tendency that happens fairly often.

by Zetice 4y ago

jjav 4y ago

> It's weird to me that folks now feel entitled to content in the way that piracy allows. They shouldn't, but that is not at all what this case and discussion are about. The scenario here is an unrelated third party being accused of being complicit in a crime merely for hosting a general-purpose tool that could be used for piracy but can be used for many other things. The equivalent analogy would be if Home Depot is convicted of being a participant in every home burglary in their area simply because they sell sledgehammers and drills and other tools that could conceivably be used by someone to break into a house.

rcoveson 4y ago

> The concept that you simply cannot watch a show or movie if you haven't paid for it is genuinely foreign to many people, but it is the only reality that results in those shows in the first place. If you're genuinely curious why this view tends to be "so negatively moderated", it's this ridiculous notion. Lots of people want to listen to good music, watch good shows, and read good books. Some people are capable of producing those things. Supply, meet demand. You think that without IP everybody is just going to give up on making art happen? Even expensive, large scale art? It's absurd, and it's propaganda. Technological advancement has made this the best time in history for patronage of the arts. Subscription services would be perfect for this. Subscribe to get a vote on what gets made; subscribe to have your review of it count after it's done. Subscribe for ease of access. I don't know if these industries shrink (or even grow) with the elimination of IP. But the notion that any product people enjoy today just stops getting made at all is crazy.

Zetice 4y ago
I couldn't disagree more strongly. Artists can create the content you love because they get paid to do so. Without IP, these artists do not get paid, and therefore cannot create the content you love, full stop. The only reason you're able to pirate in the first place is because you rely on other people not to pirate, so the artist still gets paid. That seems to be working out, which is why I really don't see piracy as a meaningful problem, but if the scales tipped to where most people were obtaining content in violation of IP laws, then you would absolutely see a strong chilling effect on content creation. It's the underlying premise of capitalism; I focus on making art in exchange for a shared currency I can then use to buy housing and food from people dedicated to those things. Without the ability to depend on others to provide those services, artists will have to do other things besides create art to convince the people creating food to give them some.
- rcoveson 4y ago
  > I couldn't disagree more strongly. Artists can create the content you love because they get paid to do so. Without IP, these artists do not get paid, and therefore cannot create the content you love, full stop. But why? Why full stop? There's no argument here, just an assertion. I want artists to create things. I will pay them to do it! There are many others like me in this regard! > It's the underlying premise of capitalism; I focus on making art in exchange for a shared currency I can then use to buy housing and food from people dedicated to those things. Yes, we agree there. You should make art in exchange for currency. You should not make art and then try to extract currency from people for looking at it. In an alternate reality, Netflix produces shows that it streams to its subscribers. Subscribers review those shows which influences which shows continue to be developed. Just like in our reality, some people are "freeloaders" who watch the shows without paying for them (but it's not illegal). Still, many people subscribe because it's broadly understood that shows only get made if people subscribe. In this reality (much like our own), production houses release pilots. If nobody wants to watch the show that would follow the pilot, then it's a sunk investment. But if they do, then they have to pay for it to get made (which they do, because that's how capitalism works). The rest is just a coordination problem, which the Internet trivializes. Need $5 million to make a season? Don't make the season until you've got it. If you're on the other end of the transaction: Do you want that season to get made? Then do your best to get it paid for. I'm happy to listen to an argument for why this model would result in a smaller industry, and a subsequent argument about why a smaller industry is so unacceptable that we need IP law. But I won't accept proclamations like "...cannot creeat the content you love, full stop." The market is not so totally uncreative that it can't match up broadly distributed demand (I want to watch good TV) to concentrated supply (I can make good TV).

JohnFen 4y ago

> The concept that you simply cannot watch a show or movie if you haven't paid for it is genuinely foreign to many people I'm certainly not arguing otherwise. However, I am arguing that things like YouTube-DL have legal and legitimate uses. Assuming that even its primary use is for piracy is a pretty huge assumption.

Zetice 4y ago
Yeah fair, I guess I got a bit lost in the IP argument; I believe in IP and I think people act entitled to IP that isn't theirs without thinking about what a world would look like if that were generally how people behaved. BUT yeah the issue is how people use the tool, not the tool itself, and this is for sure a huge overreach by the RIAA.

coffeeling 4y ago

The issue here is that if a watchdog so much as looks at a provider wrong, under this ruling, they have to obey instantly even if the watchdog's claim is wrong and fraudulent. To repeat, this would mean the innocent have to go through the trouble to prove their innocence in the face of bullies who are given maximum leeway instead of the watchdogs having to thoroughly substantiate their claim to demand removal in unclear cases. It makes the watchdogs de facto sovereign censors of the Internet, and turns any idea of due process into a pleasant fiction for most people. It's also worth noting that ISPs are pretty low on the internet services stack, and as such should be much closer to a water or electricity company than to a newspaper.

spopejoy 4y ago

One HN phenomenon that is genuinely puzzling is illustrated in this thread, where a view is expressed in a non-inflammatory way and is moderated into near-invisibility because of it's unpopularity. OK fine ... but then there's a non-insignificant amount of responses, indicating genuine engagement with OP's position. Now you have to squint to read the greyed-out post if you're interested in what the discussion is about, and likewise with your response, which is again well-expressed if not popular. IMO, moderation should exist to keep discussions within HN guidelines, which these posts clearly follow. Instead it's plainly "I don't agree with you so I'm going to try to vote your view out of existence", which doesn't even work as folks still engage/respond. Is there any way out of this? HN is famously the best-behaved discussion site on the internet, but this seems to be an unfortunate tendency that happens fairly often.