5 ms·

> The value is in the copying not the material. In having a mechanism to spread your material to as many eyes as possible. Sorry friend but this is a really ba

> The value is in the copying not the material. In having a mechanism to spread your material to as many eyes as possible. Sorry friend but this is a really bad take. I sink my time and energy into creating something and then when I get ripped off I should be happy because of the exposure? https://theoatmeal.com/comics/exposure https://theoatmeal.com/comics/exposure

Ludleth19 3y ago
Agreed, I feel like this attitude comes from people who consume content but never have tried to make and disseminate anything themselves. I genuinely feel so bad for anyone making music the last 10/15 years, it's been so undervalued socially and from within the recording/streaming industry itself.
- tivert 3y ago
  > Agreed, I feel like this attitude comes from people who consume content but never have tried to make and disseminate anything themselves. Yeah, I agree. I think most absolutist rejections of copyright and intellectual property are, at their core, a reaction against attempts to prevent piracy the person wants to engage in. Maybe mixed in with some misplaced Free Software idealism (that ignores stuff like the fact that copyright is the literal foundation of Free Software).
  - zirgs 3y ago
    Attempts to prevent piracy are laughable and ineffective. Even North Korea can't fully prevent imports of Western cultural products. This is why the music industry gave up and now we have services like Tidal, Spotify and Youtube.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- zirgs 3y ago
  That's because the musicians flooded the market. Good music isn't rare and it is not hard to find it. Spotify has 100M tracks - even if 99% of them were crap - that would still mean that there are 1 million good songs. More than you can listen in a lifetime.
  - Ludleth19 3y ago
    >Good music isn't rare and it is not hard to find it. I think you and I may have different standards and taste. I don't disagree that there's plenty of good stuff being made, but a lot of it is hard to find and sorting through all the chaff is a gigantic pain. This just points to the broader issue I was getting at in my previous comment. Record labels have never been great for artists, but they've pretty much abdicated any value they brought as a sort of filter awhile ago and have handed that off to algorithms that are questionable at best. Quality also isn't always rewarded "fairly" or given a fair chance to catch on with a different market than whatever insular scene it exists within- this is compounded further via the insular nature of online groups too. Music labels and streaming platforms offer basically no support to musicians and groups who need it the most and who could benefit from a more hands on approach, and instead defer all their resources onto a few golden geese, because its safe and pays the bills. This is short sighted though and creates an atmosphere of stagnation- a similar process is happening in film as well, culture is just being mediated by algorithms and markets, which is why culture has become so stagnant, predictable, boring, and circular.
tdb7893 3y ago
Yeah it read to me like the original comment is discounting the importance of the actual material for content, which would be the most hilariously tech bro thing I've read in a long time.
rvz 3y ago
Just ignore these HN folk about copyright as they clearly don't have a clue about it and all they can do is complain about it. What they want is for you to be very happy about you getting ripped off by them whilst they infringe and grift on your work for free with zero credit.
- hyggetrold 3y ago
  Generally speaking I do but when I see a top comment like that I feel compelled. It’s honestly somewhat schizophrenic on HN sometimes. You’ll read comments on one article and everybody goes full-bore Bay Area tech bro libertarian - no regulation, ever!!! And then in literally the next comment thread everybody is up in arms because why isn’t there government protection around this vitally important issue?!? Come on Uncle Sam! I’m old enough to know that I’m dealing with people and so there’s no reason to expect anyone to make sense or be consistent. But I’ll be darned if I don’t feel the cognitive dissonance from time to time.
  - grandma_tea 3y ago
    It's not inconsistent. Different articles attract different commenters.
    - hyggetrold 3y ago
      Mmm I’ve been on this site for over a decade and it is definitely inconsistent. Hang around and you will see it too. Like I said I don’t mind.
      - grandma_tea 3y ago
        I think you mistake my meaning. I'm saying the HN audience is not a hive mind. Different articles attract different commenters which have different opinions.
        hyggetrold 3y ago
Turing_Machine 3y ago
Copyright as we know it didn't exist before the Statute of Anne in 1709. Shakespeare. Leonardo. Michelangelo. Aristotle. All of them produced their timeless works without copyright. Copyright was a workable hack as long as making copies required buying a printing press (or equivalent), but those days are over and they aren't ever coming back. Rather than continuing to bail out the sinking ship of copyright, artists need to start thinking about (and working on) new ways to get paid.
- hyggetrold 3y ago
  Do you know anything at all about how all those artists got paid? Why is it on the exploited to figure it out? “Sorry bud, I know I keep holding you up for money. You really ought to figure out a way not to get robbed.”
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > Do you know anything at all about how all those artists got paid? Do you? Besides, that's not the point. Your previous way of making money is untenable, and has been since the invention of the Xerox machine. What are you doing about it? The manual drafters either learned CAD or got out of the trade. The blacksmiths either learned how to be machinists or got out of the trade. The farmers either learned how to use tractors or got out of the trade. Your current business model is utterly dependent on the assumption that making copies is difficult and/or expensive. That's not true, and hasn't been true for quite some time. You can either deal with that fact or find yourself in the position of whalers after Rockefeller started cranking out fuel for kerosene lamps by the trainload. > Why is it on the exploited to figure it out? No one is being "exploited". No one is standing over you with a whip and forcing you to work. Other people get paid for doing a job at the end of a week or month, and that's it. They don't continue to get paid for 90 years for one piece of work. I mean, yeah, that's a sweet deal, but sweet deals rarely last forever. The stated reason for copyright (at least in the US) is to improve society by "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts", not to enrich the authors per se. > “Sorry bud, I know I keep holding you up for money. You really ought to figure out a way not to get robbed.” Casual copyright violation is not, and never has been, prosecuted as theft or "robbery". The very concept didn't even exist until recent times, while real theft and robbery go all the way back to the beginning of history, likely long before.

Ludleth19 3y ago

Agreed, I feel like this attitude comes from people who consume content but never have tried to make and disseminate anything themselves. I genuinely feel so bad for anyone making music the last 10/15 years, it's been so undervalued socially and from within the recording/streaming industry itself.

tivert 3y ago
> Agreed, I feel like this attitude comes from people who consume content but never have tried to make and disseminate anything themselves. Yeah, I agree. I think most absolutist rejections of copyright and intellectual property are, at their core, a reaction against attempts to prevent piracy the person wants to engage in. Maybe mixed in with some misplaced Free Software idealism (that ignores stuff like the fact that copyright is the literal foundation of Free Software).
- zirgs 3y ago
  Attempts to prevent piracy are laughable and ineffective. Even North Korea can't fully prevent imports of Western cultural products. This is why the music industry gave up and now we have services like Tidal, Spotify and Youtube.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
zirgs 3y ago
That's because the musicians flooded the market. Good music isn't rare and it is not hard to find it. Spotify has 100M tracks - even if 99% of them were crap - that would still mean that there are 1 million good songs. More than you can listen in a lifetime.
- Ludleth19 3y ago
  >Good music isn't rare and it is not hard to find it. I think you and I may have different standards and taste. I don't disagree that there's plenty of good stuff being made, but a lot of it is hard to find and sorting through all the chaff is a gigantic pain. This just points to the broader issue I was getting at in my previous comment. Record labels have never been great for artists, but they've pretty much abdicated any value they brought as a sort of filter awhile ago and have handed that off to algorithms that are questionable at best. Quality also isn't always rewarded "fairly" or given a fair chance to catch on with a different market than whatever insular scene it exists within- this is compounded further via the insular nature of online groups too. Music labels and streaming platforms offer basically no support to musicians and groups who need it the most and who could benefit from a more hands on approach, and instead defer all their resources onto a few golden geese, because its safe and pays the bills. This is short sighted though and creates an atmosphere of stagnation- a similar process is happening in film as well, culture is just being mediated by algorithms and markets, which is why culture has become so stagnant, predictable, boring, and circular.

tdb7893 3y ago

Yeah it read to me like the original comment is discounting the importance of the actual material for content, which would be the most hilariously tech bro thing I've read in a long time.

rvz 3y ago

Just ignore these HN folk about copyright as they clearly don't have a clue about it and all they can do is complain about it. What they want is for you to be very happy about you getting ripped off by them whilst they infringe and grift on your work for free with zero credit.

hyggetrold 3y ago
Generally speaking I do but when I see a top comment like that I feel compelled. It’s honestly somewhat schizophrenic on HN sometimes. You’ll read comments on one article and everybody goes full-bore Bay Area tech bro libertarian - no regulation, ever!!! And then in literally the next comment thread everybody is up in arms because why isn’t there government protection around this vitally important issue?!? Come on Uncle Sam! I’m old enough to know that I’m dealing with people and so there’s no reason to expect anyone to make sense or be consistent. But I’ll be darned if I don’t feel the cognitive dissonance from time to time.
- grandma_tea 3y ago
  It's not inconsistent. Different articles attract different commenters.
  - hyggetrold 3y ago
    Mmm I’ve been on this site for over a decade and it is definitely inconsistent. Hang around and you will see it too. Like I said I don’t mind.
    - grandma_tea 3y ago
      I think you mistake my meaning. I'm saying the HN audience is not a hive mind. Different articles attract different commenters which have different opinions.
      - hyggetrold 3y ago

Turing_Machine 3y ago

Copyright as we know it didn't exist before the Statute of Anne in 1709. Shakespeare. Leonardo. Michelangelo. Aristotle. All of them produced their timeless works without copyright. Copyright was a workable hack as long as making copies required buying a printing press (or equivalent), but those days are over and they aren't ever coming back. Rather than continuing to bail out the sinking ship of copyright, artists need to start thinking about (and working on) new ways to get paid.

hyggetrold 3y ago
Do you know anything at all about how all those artists got paid? Why is it on the exploited to figure it out? “Sorry bud, I know I keep holding you up for money. You really ought to figure out a way not to get robbed.”
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > Do you know anything at all about how all those artists got paid? Do you? Besides, that's not the point. Your previous way of making money is untenable, and has been since the invention of the Xerox machine. What are you doing about it? The manual drafters either learned CAD or got out of the trade. The blacksmiths either learned how to be machinists or got out of the trade. The farmers either learned how to use tractors or got out of the trade. Your current business model is utterly dependent on the assumption that making copies is difficult and/or expensive. That's not true, and hasn't been true for quite some time. You can either deal with that fact or find yourself in the position of whalers after Rockefeller started cranking out fuel for kerosene lamps by the trainload. > Why is it on the exploited to figure it out? No one is being "exploited". No one is standing over you with a whip and forcing you to work. Other people get paid for doing a job at the end of a week or month, and that's it. They don't continue to get paid for 90 years for one piece of work. I mean, yeah, that's a sweet deal, but sweet deals rarely last forever. The stated reason for copyright (at least in the US) is to improve society by "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts", not to enrich the authors per se. > “Sorry bud, I know I keep holding you up for money. You really ought to figure out a way not to get robbed.” Casual copyright violation is not, and never has been, prosecuted as theft or "robbery". The very concept didn't even exist until recent times, while real theft and robbery go all the way back to the beginning of history, likely long before.