12 ms·
Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions
- literalusername 15y agoDon't bother trying to load the MPAA's contact page if you reject their cookies. It just loops a reload. I'm not exactly surprised that they value tracking over usability.
- ck2 15y agoThe irony here is it's a much worse federal crime to photocopy US currency. You can get around this by making sure it's (much) smaller than the original and only copied on one side. http://www.secretservice.gov/money_illustrations.shtml http://www.secretservice.gov/money_illustrations.shtml
- crusso 15y agoYeah, this is one of those things like joking around in the airport security line where it just isn't worth doing.
- scoot 15y agoAs you say, that refers to printed copies, photocopies etc. That isn't what the article is suggesting.
- kaybe 15y agoThat and you will need a copy machine that actually copies bills. Some machines use software to block it. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation)
- lisper 15y agoHelp yourself to a dollar: http://imgur.com/uFJht http://imgur.com/uFJht
- stavrianos 15y agoYou sure you can afford this? I wouldn't want to impose.
- lisper 15y agoIt's a privilege to sacrifice for a good cause.
- joering2 15y agowow...a xerox machine that has a built-in database of images to "do not reprint", WOW!!!
- halfasleep 15y agoIt's not so much a database as a pattern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation
- ekianjo 15y agoHe's talking about sending DIGITAL copies.
- sukuriant 15y agoIANAL. Is it illegal to photocopy money and send it? Or, is it just illegal to use the photocopied money?
- sliverstorm 15y agoIllegal to photocopy money. Also illegal to mail cash, but if it is fake they probably can't charge you with anything there.
- true_religion 15y agoIt's illegal to mail cash?
- sukuriant 15y agoACK! Didn't mean to downvote; and now the joke I was going to make won't make sense.. Either way: "Your grandmother has been a terrible person all those years for sending you money in your birthday card >:V"
- ianterrell 15y agohttp://www.snopes.com/legal/postal/sendcash.asp http://www.snopes.com/legal/postal/sendcash.asp
- sliverstorm 15y agoMy mistake, thank you.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- WiseWeasel 15y agoBut you can snap a photo with your phone, right?
- kamjam 15y ago
- LilValleyBigEgo 15y agoDomain takedown in 3... 2...
- maeon3 15y agoVery creative and thought provoking, but wrong. A DVD version of avatar sells for say $20 and Riaa gets some percentage of that. Joe blow downloads avatar for free from google or some other website, ptp or sneakernet. Joe blow sends the riaa some percentage of $20 in photocopied money. That does not provide the same utility for riaa as the avatar.mp4 did for Joe blow. Whether or not Joe blow's download of avatar for free is unfair against the store that stocks the DVD, the trucker who moved it, the actors, producers and supporting staff or the media ads that promoted it is another question. The question comes down to how much Joe blow WOULD have paid for avatar.mp4 had his only option been to purchase a DVD, wait and rent it, or watch it at a friends house. When we replace avatar with "schematics for a 3d printable car/computer/cup" then we will have to deal with this problem of rewarding the creators of valuable data according to how badly people want it, preserving our freedom from censorship and preserving net neutrality. Yarr!
- marshray 15y agoWhat if Joe Blow watches Avatar and then comes to the realization that he's wasted 2 hours of his life? How shall that be recovered?
- nextparadigms 15y agoShould it be recovered? If you buy a product that you wish you didn't buy, wouldn't you normally return it? I see no reason for businesses to get money by basically tricking their customers into buying something they later find out it's not what they expected.
- scoot 15y agoWhat are the odds that two articles at the top the front page of HN refer to the same obscure (?? I hadn't heard it before) tale of Ōoka Tadasuke and the stolen smell? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694672 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694672
- Danieru 15y agoHere is some low fidelity ascii money: http://www.retrojunkie.com/asciiart/money/bills.txt http://www.retrojunkie.com/asciiart/money/bills.txt Think of it as mp3 money.
- kamjam 15y agoI need some British money. Failing that, some Nyan Cat money!
- corin_ 15y agoSeeing the title, here's what I was expecting to read: "They think illegal downloads happen because people want to steal, we think they happen because people what better digital distribution. Send them money [real, actual payments] so they think 'holy shit, look how much money we just got sent, think how much more we could make by offering good digital distribution'." Which would be a more interesting, more thought-provoking campaign, in my opinion - though one with obvious flaws, and I certainly wouldn't personally endorse it.
- cgray4 15y agoThis is actually an idea that I've been kicking around for a couple of weeks. My idea is slightly more complicated, but this is the gist. I would call it a digital media consumer's union, where a person pays in a certain amount per month and then the total is allocated to the copyright holders proportionally to the amount that their media are consumed by the members of the union. Consumption statistics for music are already tracked by things like last.fm (and libre.fm), and it would not be hard to build a tracker for things like movies, books, and possibly websites and computer programs. The monthly bundle of money would obviously be the carrot, and if one of the companies getting the money decided to sue a member for copyright infringement, then the money would be coverted into a stick in the form of a legal defense fund. What about free riders? There would obviously be some, but I think a lot of people really do think that digital distribution is terrible and would pay if given the chance. What about trust? Whoever was doing the collecting would have to have a great reputation and be completely transparent. It should probably be a non-profit and regularly audited. Would it be be sued into oblivion? IANAL, but it seems like giving people money should not be actionable. The big guys would probably try to get the list of members, so being paranoid about privacy seems like it would be a good idea. What would it do to the incentives? This is my favorite part. Instead of the publishers attempting to lock everything up, the incentive would be for them to make content that is as consumed as possible. That is, the publishers would want their stuff to get out there so that people see it and give some of their share to the publisher. Things like digital locks would become counterproductive. Things like flattr provide some precedent for this idea, though they obviously don't go track down people that aren't part of the system. I'd love to hear critiques of this idea, because if it can't work, then I can stop thinking about it.
- anthonyb 15y ago> They've made it very clear that they consider digital copies of physical property to be just as valuable as the original. Wow, talk about missing the point. Digital copies of movies and music are just as valuable as the originals, particularly as CDs and DVDs become obsolete. Copies of dollar bills are somewhat less so - you can't buy stuff with them. If you actually want to argue against the movie and music industries, you'll need to use real facts, not convenient, pretend ones.
- tikhonj 15y agoFirst of all, I'm sure the actual original copy actually has more value for collectors and the like. The real argument is that they are just copies and literally cost the studios nothing--that is, the studios do not have to spend any money on your downloading the film from a third party. So, by extension, you pay them in a way that does not cost you anything, by using a copy of money. The only value a copy--distinct from the media its on and the bandwidth it takes--is through copyright. If you do not believe in copyright, or at least not in the system as is, (and I imagine the person who set this up does not) then these copies do not really have value. The analogy is to the smell from a restaurant--it costs the restaurant nothing, so if somebody outside enjoys it, they do not have to pay the restaurant anything.
- anthonyb 15y agoA large number of people are still willing to pay for music. How many people would be willing to pay you for a photocopy of a $1 bill? I understand the argument that you and this site are trying to make, but it's fundamentally flawed. Ultimately you're going to have to convince both government and the music industry of whatever solution you're proposing.
- kreek 15y ago> (and I imagine the person who set this up does not) From his site: All content copyright © 2011-2012 Get.com, Inc. -- All rights reserved Looks like he believes in copyright :)
- baddox 15y ago
- bithive123 15y agoI am concerned that sites like this do more harm than good because they misrepresent the issue. Taking this joke to its logical conclusion, why not instead post a shell script that makes a trillion copies of dollar_bill.jpg and then offer to "license" it to the RIAA for a modest fee?
- tkahn6 15y ago> They've made it very clear that they consider digital copies of physical property to be just as valuable as the original. What does this even mean? It appears the message of this campaign is that digital music is devoid of monetary value.
- ktizo 15y agoCopying music was once an industry that required massive capital for both the recording and distribution, so these had monetary value as services to the artist and consumer. Now the artist can own their recording equipment outright and no longer has to rent it and the distribution channel, while not free, is so cheap it is given away in order to help sell coffee. So, digital music is not only nearly devoid of monetary value as it is no longer an industry in and of itself, but from a commercial perspective is the advert for the live show and so can even be viewed as a marketing cost.
- AshleysBrain 15y agoDon't a lot of copiers/scanners have technology that prevents them copying currency? Thought there was a special dot pattern or something.
- lwat 15y agoQuestion for you: What do you think is the percentage of browsers with cookies disabled out in the wild today?
- jonah 15y agoYes. [1] As do image editing softwares. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation [2] http://www.petapixel.com/2011/08/09/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-edit-photos-of-money-in-photoshop/ http://www.petapixel.com/2011/08/09/heres-what-happens-when-...
- reaktivo 15y agoSomewhat related? Is selling your physical dvd allowed in the US? A crowd sourced Netflix would be awesome, where you can rent directly from and to other users.
- icebraining 15y agoYes, it is allowed. It's called the First-sale doctrine, and Wikipedia tells me it's been upheld specifically for DVDs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Application_to_DVDs_and_NEBG_v_Weinstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Applicatio...
- kreek 15y agoTo paraphrase James Taylor being a musician is a blue collar job, but at least blue collar jobs pay minimum wage. If the attitude conveyed in this site keeps up independent content creators are just going to say it's not worth it and all you'll be left with is the manufactured pablum the music industry serves up.
- tomflack 15y agoThat sounds like it's true, but I don't think it is. People have been making music for as long as we have recorded history, why would that change now?
- Jd 15y agoThis is pointless and a complete waste of time.
- memset 15y agoThis is just awful. "They've made it very clear that they consider digital copies of physical property to be just as valuable as the original." What is an "original"? With food I understand. smell:food::sound:coins. Or even smell:food::picture:money. So in this case, picture:money::torrent:?? What is the 'original'? The physical medium containing the footage original? A live performance? If you were to pay for the movie - just as one might pay to eat actual food - what would you pay for? If not a copy of the movie's bits on your hard drive, what? Or do you think nothing at all? The original article was saying that there used to be a scarcity in the act of watching a movie: you had to go to the theater. Now that scarcity, the problem of "how shall I procure this entertainment" has been solved. But movies themselves still cost money. Movies themselves are scarce! We can watch movies as easily as we breathe air. But we cannot make movies as easily.
- scelerat 15y agoMaybe the shift is that you don't make such expensive movies. Or create an experience that is impossible to reproduce via digital distribution.
- tibbon 15y agoBy doing this you're clearly stealing money by making digital copies of it, devaluing money for everyone and making the maker of the money (US Mint) bankrupt.
- wiredfool 15y agoWe need a snappy name for it. Lets call it Quantitative Easing 3. (hollywood likes sequels, doesn't it?)
- dools 15y agoHold on - I thought this was an awesome idea right up until it was a joke. Why don't we actually give the RIAA millions of dollars? Like, the argument from all advocates of digital freedom isn't that artists don't need money to survive, but by making things simple and easy, people will quite willingly part with their money. So why not solve this "chicken and egg" issue by hurling a few eggs their way to get the ball rolling? Let's give them shitloads of money to prove that people will willingly pay for their product.
- AngrySkillzz 15y agoThe problem with that is that the RIAA/MPAA produce no products. They are lobbying organizations for the publishers in their respective industries; they don't have much relation to the artists at all. If one was truly inclined to pay the artists who produced an album (or the equivalent in a different content industry), it would be best to send it to them directly. Then they'd realize (a la Louis CK) that the publishers are unnecessary middlemen in the creator/consumer relationship, thus obsolescing that entire segment of industry and the RIAA/MPAA with it.
- thuang513 15y agoisn't that what we are doin when people go watch all the crap movies?
- wisty 15y agoI was hoping it was something like this - you can donate $0.01 by credit card, and they will lose out (overall) due to merchant account fees.
- MiWHackerNews 15y agothis violates us laws and international treaties on currency controls. It's conspiracy to commit counterfeitng and inciting others to commit wire fraud Remember they used to hang people over this. Newton watched with glee as coin shavers he had caught were executed. Mmmm move on. Not quite right. See EUrion
- warmfuzzykitten 15y agoSecond that. Copying currency is counterfeiting. This demented idea will achieve nothing but bring the Secret Service to your door with a warrant.
- sofifonfek 15y agoDoes anyone know how the japanese judge story [2] and the german trickster Till Eulenspiegel [2] are related ? I knew the story as an adventure of Till Eulenspiegel. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Coka_Tadasuke#Famous_cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Coka_Tadasuke#Famous_cases [2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Till_Eulenspiegel http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Till_Eulenspiegel
- bborud 15y agoI'm pretty sure that scanning US currency, printing it and then sending the result across state borders is quite possibly a federal offense so I wouldn't exactly recommend you do this.
- paulsutter 15y agoHilarious and clever, but would any of us want to be paid for our mobile apps or online services with the same currency?