4 ms·

This is HACKER news, our central ethos is (should be) all information wants to be free. Sad to see the desire to pay for content is getting upvoted.

lolinder 3y ago
This is "Hacker" news for a bunch of independent definitions of "Hacker", and for most of us the definition isn't "breaks into computer systems and leaks stuff on the internet". For myself, when I think of the hacker ethos I think of Stallman and the GPL, which is explicitly designed around the idea that information can be ethically sold as long as you're actually selling it [0]. It's free as in freedom, not free as in beer, and under that philosophy being able to pay for services that respect your rights as a free human (which most current streaming services don't) is a desirable end state, not something to be condemned. > Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding. > Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
- defrost 3y ago
  This is the ballpit sandbox forum for YCombinator, a club for software startup investment fund managers who can quote from the Tibetian Book of the Dead. The lesson here is that attrition and shrinkage will always be with us, it's only the rate that varies in market accordance with the enshittification of product. The 'better' the product, the lower the shrinkage. As supported by a majority of thread comments "I used to pirate when I was poor, then I didn't - now I do again as the commercial offering sucks". [attribution] https://thebillionscompanion.net/all/tag/Tibetan+Book+of+the+Dead https://thebillionscompanion.net/all/tag/Tibetan+Book+of+the...
- int_19h 3y ago
  I distinctly recall Stallman himself saying that copyleft wouldn't really be necessary if copyright weren't a thing. In any case, hacking as a concept predates Stallman and FSF - indeed, they're the product of that mindset, not its originators. And the original hackers didn't care about copyright - just look at the early history of Unix.
dgfitz 3y ago
I’ve never equated “hacker == free” ever. In that save vein, no, all information should NOT be free. I sincerely reject your entire premise.
- orwin 3y ago
  I think information should be free as in freedom, but have a cost that should be paid (in time, money...), is this a better for you? (I disagree with GP BTW).
  - dgfitz 3y ago
    Many hearts, I am the GP.
    - nkurz 3y ago
      Others use it differently, but I think he was using "GP" to mean "grandparent", as in the comment you would get to if you clicked on "parent" twice starting at his comment. In that system, you would be the "OP", not the "GP", although this too is not fully standardized.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- scotty79 3y ago
  Information wants to be free. What people want is irrelevant. Trying to force information to be not free goes against the nature of information. You can try but it costs all of us.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
elzbardico 3y ago
This is not 1999's Slashdot my friend.
xboxnolifes 3y ago
Free as in libre, I agree. Free as in beer, I do not. The marginal cost of copying information may approach zero, but that's only relevant after the costs of creation are covered. The problem is: how does one make something "free as in libre" without affecting the "not free as in beer".
hooverd 3y ago
YC is the man now dawg.
echelon 3y ago
> all information wants to be free Including your personal information, browsing habits, purchase history, genome, genetic disorders, medical history, sexual partners, kinks, embarrassing photos and videos, moments of social faux pas, biggest fears, darkest secrets, cheating, illegal behaviors, personal psychiatrist notes, privileged lawyer information, passwords, private keys, bitcoin keys, financial statements, tax records, debts, etc. ?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kalleboo 3y ago
  Yes, going by how easily that stuff all ends us being leaked, it very much appears like that information is desperate to be free. Keeping it tied down is difficult work.
- sdiupIGPWEfh 3y ago
  Based on the frequency of data leaks and such, very much yes, that information tends toward finding freedom. Attempts to secure such records are necessary because they "want" to be free. Avoid leaving a trail of that information where you can, and keep as much as possible off the internet. The notion of "information wants to be free" should be taken as an observation about the nature of things and the folly of corporations trying to have it both ways—information made broadly available yet on their exact terms—not as a value statement on any inherent goodness behind freeing information.
paulddraper 3y ago
"hacker" = "free information" ?? I've never heard that definition.
- worthless-trash 3y ago
  Not OP, but this spawned from Woz mentioning this on a video ( https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/video/at-the-first-hackers-conference-in-1984-steve-wozniak-and-news-footage/146496695 https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/video/at-the-first-hackers... ) in the hackers conference. You may be too young (not an insult) or in a different geography to have been seen this, however it was definitely a thing.
  - kalleboo 3y ago
    The irony of this being hosted on Getty Images is not lost on me
topkai22 3y ago
Its revisiting the origin of that phrase, which “On the one hand you have—the point you’re making Woz—is that information sort of wants to be expensive because it is so valuable—the right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information almost wants to be free because the costs of getting it out is getting lower and lower all of the time. So you have these two things fighting against each other.” I find this to be a much more intelligent formulation of the concept, as it recognizes the reasons and the tension. We simply can’t get much of the media I like for free (gratis). That being said, it is maddening to have so much great content locked up. It feels insanely inefficient and that we produce far too much content unnecessarily. There are probably ways to balance this better- separation of content ownership, production, and distribution; more limits on copyright length; mandatory content licensing; simplification of older content license rules… That doesn’t mean it’s morally wrong to pay for content or put restrictions on distribution, just that optimum probably isn’t where we are.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
usefulcat 3y ago
If you're going to argue that "hackers" are wrong/dumb/whatever for desiring that content creators be fairly compensated for their work, by all means go ahead, but you're definitely going to need to do a lot better than that.
hiddencost 3y ago
This is the managed news site of YCombinator. It's a little garden designed to cultivate start-up culture for some of the wealthiest venture capitalists in the world to profit from.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Wanting facts to be free is definitely part of that. Entertainment isn't really the same kind of information, and is more complex.
Aeolun 3y ago
Most of all I want more content. I’m perfectly fine paying for new content if existing content is unencumbered.

lolinder 3y ago

This is "Hacker" news for a bunch of independent definitions of "Hacker", and for most of us the definition isn't "breaks into computer systems and leaks stuff on the internet". For myself, when I think of the hacker ethos I think of Stallman and the GPL, which is explicitly designed around the idea that information can be ethically sold as long as you're actually selling it [0]. It's free as in freedom, not free as in beer, and under that philosophy being able to pay for services that respect your rights as a free human (which most current streaming services don't) is a desirable end state, not something to be condemned. > Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding. > Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

defrost 3y ago
This is the ballpit sandbox forum for YCombinator, a club for software startup investment fund managers who can quote from the Tibetian Book of the Dead. The lesson here is that attrition and shrinkage will always be with us, it's only the rate that varies in market accordance with the enshittification of product. The 'better' the product, the lower the shrinkage. As supported by a majority of thread comments "I used to pirate when I was poor, then I didn't - now I do again as the commercial offering sucks". [attribution] https://thebillionscompanion.net/all/tag/Tibetan+Book+of+the+Dead https://thebillionscompanion.net/all/tag/Tibetan+Book+of+the...
int_19h 3y ago
I distinctly recall Stallman himself saying that copyleft wouldn't really be necessary if copyright weren't a thing. In any case, hacking as a concept predates Stallman and FSF - indeed, they're the product of that mindset, not its originators. And the original hackers didn't care about copyright - just look at the early history of Unix.

dgfitz 3y ago

I’ve never equated “hacker == free” ever. In that save vein, no, all information should NOT be free. I sincerely reject your entire premise.

orwin 3y ago
I think information should be free as in freedom, but have a cost that should be paid (in time, money...), is this a better for you? (I disagree with GP BTW).
- dgfitz 3y ago
  Many hearts, I am the GP.
  - nkurz 3y ago
    Others use it differently, but I think he was using "GP" to mean "grandparent", as in the comment you would get to if you clicked on "parent" twice starting at his comment. In that system, you would be the "OP", not the "GP", although this too is not fully standardized.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
scotty79 3y ago
Information wants to be free. What people want is irrelevant. Trying to force information to be not free goes against the nature of information. You can try but it costs all of us.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

elzbardico 3y ago

This is not 1999's Slashdot my friend.

xboxnolifes 3y ago

Free as in libre, I agree. Free as in beer, I do not. The marginal cost of copying information may approach zero, but that's only relevant after the costs of creation are covered. The problem is: how does one make something "free as in libre" without affecting the "not free as in beer".

hooverd 3y ago

YC is the man now dawg.

echelon 3y ago

> all information wants to be free Including your personal information, browsing habits, purchase history, genome, genetic disorders, medical history, sexual partners, kinks, embarrassing photos and videos, moments of social faux pas, biggest fears, darkest secrets, cheating, illegal behaviors, personal psychiatrist notes, privileged lawyer information, passwords, private keys, bitcoin keys, financial statements, tax records, debts, etc. ?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kalleboo 3y ago
Yes, going by how easily that stuff all ends us being leaked, it very much appears like that information is desperate to be free. Keeping it tied down is difficult work.
sdiupIGPWEfh 3y ago
Based on the frequency of data leaks and such, very much yes, that information tends toward finding freedom. Attempts to secure such records are necessary because they "want" to be free. Avoid leaving a trail of that information where you can, and keep as much as possible off the internet. The notion of "information wants to be free" should be taken as an observation about the nature of things and the folly of corporations trying to have it both ways—information made broadly available yet on their exact terms—not as a value statement on any inherent goodness behind freeing information.

paulddraper 3y ago

"hacker" = "free information" ?? I've never heard that definition.

worthless-trash 3y ago
Not OP, but this spawned from Woz mentioning this on a video ( https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/video/at-the-first-hackers-conference-in-1984-steve-wozniak-and-news-footage/146496695 https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/video/at-the-first-hackers... ) in the hackers conference. You may be too young (not an insult) or in a different geography to have been seen this, however it was definitely a thing.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  The irony of this being hosted on Getty Images is not lost on me

topkai22 3y ago

Its revisiting the origin of that phrase, which “On the one hand you have—the point you’re making Woz—is that information sort of wants to be expensive because it is so valuable—the right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information almost wants to be free because the costs of getting it out is getting lower and lower all of the time. So you have these two things fighting against each other.” I find this to be a much more intelligent formulation of the concept, as it recognizes the reasons and the tension. We simply can’t get much of the media I like for free (gratis). That being said, it is maddening to have so much great content locked up. It feels insanely inefficient and that we produce far too much content unnecessarily. There are probably ways to balance this better- separation of content ownership, production, and distribution; more limits on copyright length; mandatory content licensing; simplification of older content license rules… That doesn’t mean it’s morally wrong to pay for content or put restrictions on distribution, just that optimum probably isn’t where we are.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

usefulcat 3y ago

If you're going to argue that "hackers" are wrong/dumb/whatever for desiring that content creators be fairly compensated for their work, by all means go ahead, but you're definitely going to need to do a lot better than that.

hiddencost 3y ago

This is the managed news site of YCombinator. It's a little garden designed to cultivate start-up culture for some of the wealthiest venture capitalists in the world to profit from.

Dylan16807 3y ago

Wanting facts to be free is definitely part of that. Entertainment isn't really the same kind of information, and is more complex.

Aeolun 3y ago

Most of all I want more content. I’m perfectly fine paying for new content if existing content is unencumbered.