4 ms·

Right, so, let me get this straight. This porn company makes films that are, presumably, distributed through licensed channels from which they earn revenue. The

Right, so, let me get this straight. This porn company makes films that are, presumably, distributed through licensed channels from which they earn revenue. The lawsuits they're filing are against individuals illegally[0] downloading their movies via bittorrent, from which they obviously don't earn any revenue. Whilst I think a lot of companies bring bittorrent upon themselves[1], as it were, I'm not entirely convinced I'm quite as outraged by this particular company's conduct as I expected to be when I clicked through to the story. [0] The ethics here can become decidedly contentious very quickly. [1] And if you want to know what I mean by companies bringing bittorrent upon themselves, take a look at this discussion and the linked article, currently also on the front page of HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38613154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38613154. I could feel my blood starting to boil as I read.

wlll 3y ago
Here's a guess at some of the reasons this has got people worked up to the point that someone wrote an article in the LA Times: 1. They're being hypocritical. They're making porn that they presumably stand by artistically, and don't believe is "wrong" in some way but are then using the shame of watching it to control people. 2. Linked to 1. they're engaging in blackmail. Pay this hefty fine or we associate your name online with watching porn. They're not just taking this through the courts, they're threatening a public shaming (according to the article at least). 3. The demands are disproportionate and seem to be targetted at how much the firm can get people to settle for rather than redress any actual harm done. I think it helps to look at how people in society in general judge the problem to use as a baseline here. Most (unverified, my belief/experience) people never had a problem with home taping of music, either for listening to in the car or giving a copy to a friend. Same with CDs. In the UK there are strict limits as to how long you're allowed to keep something taped off the TV that almost no-one ever payed any attention to. Back when software was distributed on CD no-one I know ever had an issue with sharing it around to their friends. Simply, "piracy" isn't seen as a big deal. People just don't see it as stealing (after all, it's /not/ like stealing a car because you're not denying the owner the actual use of the original), or if they do it's like stealing something harmless that no-one will ever suffer from. Undoubtedly people who "pirate" copyrighted material have broken some law, but then demanding $5000 with a threat to publicly shame people if they don't pay up is a pretty significant thing to do and disproportionate to the harm the copyright owner has sufferred, considering the status of piracy in society. *edit The limits on home taping of TV seem to have changed. I believe there was a definite limit, however there is not one now, but there is provision for "Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as "time shifting""

wlll 3y ago

Here's a guess at some of the reasons this has got people worked up to the point that someone wrote an article in the LA Times: 1. They're being hypocritical. They're making porn that they presumably stand by artistically, and don't believe is "wrong" in some way but are then using the shame of watching it to control people. 2. Linked to 1. they're engaging in blackmail. Pay this hefty fine or we associate your name online with watching porn. They're not just taking this through the courts, they're threatening a public shaming (according to the article at least). 3. The demands are disproportionate and seem to be targetted at how much the firm can get people to settle for rather than redress any actual harm done. I think it helps to look at how people in society in general judge the problem to use as a baseline here. Most (unverified, my belief/experience) people never had a problem with home taping of music, either for listening to in the car or giving a copy to a friend. Same with CDs. In the UK there are strict limits as to how long you're allowed to keep something taped off the TV that almost no-one ever payed any attention to. Back when software was distributed on CD no-one I know ever had an issue with sharing it around to their friends. Simply, "piracy" isn't seen as a big deal. People just don't see it as stealing (after all, it's /not/ like stealing a car because you're not denying the owner the actual use of the original), or if they do it's like stealing something harmless that no-one will ever suffer from. Undoubtedly people who "pirate" copyrighted material have broken some law, but then demanding $5000 with a threat to publicly shame people if they don't pay up is a pretty significant thing to do and disproportionate to the harm the copyright owner has sufferred, considering the status of piracy in society. *edit The limits on home taping of TV seem to have changed. I believe there was a definite limit, however there is not one now, but there is provision for "Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as "time shifting""