6 ms·

>That's flawed reasoning. You don't say. >Suppose their technology killed BitTorrent over night. Will it stop piracy? Of course not - we have a myriad of othe

by batista 14y ago

>That's flawed reasoning. You don't say. >Suppose their technology killed BitTorrent over night. Will it stop piracy? Of course not - we have a myriad of other technologies adept at transferring data from one host to another. Yes, but it would be a very significant setback. Already the raids on DDL sites have had a large impact on the availability and easy access to pirated material. For example, they made 5 years worth of DDL links unreachable in one night. In the end, you don't have to kill piracy --you just have to make it inconvenient enough, and most of the people will give up.

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
Google learns, so the amount of links from Megaupload or pages with Megaupload links in the search results is almost zero by now. And this guys are probably going to become the center of DDOS attacks and legal conflicts, making their business model even less profitable.
moe 14y ago
you just have to make it inconvenient enough, and most of the people will give up. Let's verify that claim, shall we? 1. Fact: For the past 10 years the content industry has been doing everything in their power to make file-sharing as inconvenient as possible. 2. Result: http://disruptive-music.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/usmusicindustryevolution.jpg http://disruptive-music.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/201... I'll tell you where your (and their) mistake is. Instead of trying to make "illegal" sharing inconvenient, the focus should be on making "legal" consumption convenient. When the content is available immediately, everywhere, at good quality, for a reasonable price, then most people have no reason to consider other channels. The content industry has only themselves to blame for not providing that. Case in point: I'd like to watch avengers, on my flatscreen at home, asap. Chances are PirateBay will make that happen before iTunes, even though I would happily pay $10 for it, if they'd let me.
- huggyface 14y ago
  You seem to have a confused message. On the one hand you are arguing that it is futile trying to stop file sharing by linking to dropping music sales. But then you argue that they simply need to make legal consumption convenient: Music is superbly convenient to legally purchase online, with instant gratification. What you're really demonstrating is that a lot of people simply like things for free. Hopping on the soap box and pontificating how it is everyone else's fault is a ruse that we've seen since the early days of piracy. It is always someone else's fault, and it's always some natural right to have everything for nothing.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    "people simply like things for free" Maybe those things, objectively, no longer worth as much as they used to twenty years ago? You can make things free, too, with e.g. ad-supported streaming.
  - moe 14y ago
    Music is superbly convenient to legally purchase online, with instant gratification. That is a very recent invention with spotify and the ilk - and even they still have ways to go. iTunes may seem superficially convenient, but in reality it is only convenient when you already know what you want. Discovery is non-existent, and that's what many people want. And: It is way too expensive. (There, I said it!) You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph, but: Reality is that people value movies higher than music. $10 for a film is reasonable to most people. $10 for (most) albums is not. $10/month flat for all music is then again in their comfort zone, as demonstrated by spotify et al. You can now either take the stance of the music industry; i.e. cry, complain and spend all your money on trying to turn back time to the golden 80s - where consumers had little choice other than pay whatever you asked. Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy.
    - huggyface 14y ago
      It is way too expensive It's hard to compete with $0, which is the price that thieves are willing to pay. You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph I'm not in the music industry. I'm not in the movie industry. I would benefit, financially, from piracy by simply engaging in it myself. But, you know, I don't because I can't justify it. I find the arguments that do completely transparent and selfish. I honestly find these piracy excusing arguments sad for society as a whole: It is the tragedy of the commons, everyone taking a dump in the well simply because they can, making laughable arguments why what they're doing is justified ("If only there was a toilet every 10 feet and someone wiped my arse for me..."). It's hearing a teenager justify why they litter (it's the city's fault and McDonald's fault and their parent's fault and...). Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy. Yachts....another adorable excuse for theft.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  "everything in their power to make file-sharing as inconvenient as possible" != a lot Their power is very limited, so really all they've been doing is nipping around the edges. Their goal is to expand that power technologically and legally in order to both stop piracy and make absolutely no concessions to consumer convenience, maintaining maximum flexibility in their choices when bringing sights and sounds to market. All profits being held equal, the studios would prefer to charge $100 million a ticket and have you watch it in a closet in some LA office. The industry creates films that it doesn't care if anybody sees, and creates music that it doesn't care if anybody hears. That's the problem, and that's why we're surrounded by crap. I'll tell you what kind of convenience I want: if I watch a movie that turns out to be deceptively marketed garbage, I don't want to have paid any more than those two hours of my life for the chance. I also want an easily streamlined, audited, and publicly supported way for me to support the artists that I want to encourage to create more things that I want to see. I don't want to be marketed to, I want to be asked, and I want honest recommendations from people who know my tastes enough to think I may like something. I don't want glorified distributors being able to hold both the artists and the consumers over the barrel to move a product that doesn't even need to be distributed any more. I don't want my culture to be a patchwork of ownership, like the land became. If I hear a song, I can sing a song. So, basically, I wouldn't happily pay $10 for The Avengers on my television, and at best that would be a partial solution for the industry IMO.
muuh-gnu 14y ago
> and most of the people will give up. And start doing what? Buying all the stuff they were just hoarding because it was "free" and they never were able to afford in the first place? I don't think so. If the effort to get stuff increases above the value of the stuff, they'll simply wait until somebody solves the problem and decreases the effort, so the stuff becomes "free" again.
b0rsuk 14y ago
Why make piracy inconvenient ? Why not make legal purchases more convenient instead ?
- batista 14y ago
  I'm not against that, of course. But if both are equally convenient, then the zero cost (piracy) will probably win. So the big media also have to make piracy inconvenient. Changing their methods to be more convenient also take huge amounts of money and time. One example: worldwide, simultaneous distribution of a movie, probably needs tons of contracts with resellers, local networks, etc renegotiated. Plus changes in accounting, etc -- whereas fighting piracy just takes some lobbying money, a few crappy DRM add-ons, and lame FBI warning videos...
  - batista 14y ago
    Plus: piracy will always be more convenient, because even with everything else being exactly the same, you have the paying step at the end in commercial site, whereas you just download away on the piracy site.
    - guard-of-terra 14y ago
      It is not true, Apple proved otherwise.
      - batista 14y ago
        Apple proved what exactly? That's far from equal. I din't dispute that music purchases can be made EASY. Or that current piracy methods are or can be hard. What I said is --and it's mere logic, it cannot be disproven--, that piracy will always have the option to be ONE STEP EASIER, i.e omit the paying step. People say that you don't have to fight piracy, just make buying easier. And I say that if you don't fight piracy and just let it be, then at best you get, say: a) a piracy service b) a commercial service Since we "don't fight piracy", nothing prevents the piracy service to offer whatever the commercial service does, from streaming to high quality lose-less files, to a great UI, to being totally free and even without ads. But the commercial service must always have the buying step (enter credit card details etc), plus all the legal and logistical necessities.

by batista 14y ago

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago

Google learns, so the amount of links from Megaupload or pages with Megaupload links in the search results is almost zero by now. And this guys are probably going to become the center of DDOS attacks and legal conflicts, making their business model even less profitable.

moe 14y ago

you just have to make it inconvenient enough, and most of the people will give up. Let's verify that claim, shall we? 1. Fact: For the past 10 years the content industry has been doing everything in their power to make file-sharing as inconvenient as possible. 2. Result: http://disruptive-music.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/usmusicindustryevolution.jpg http://disruptive-music.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/201... I'll tell you where your (and their) mistake is. Instead of trying to make "illegal" sharing inconvenient, the focus should be on making "legal" consumption convenient. When the content is available immediately, everywhere, at good quality, for a reasonable price, then most people have no reason to consider other channels. The content industry has only themselves to blame for not providing that. Case in point: I'd like to watch avengers, on my flatscreen at home, asap. Chances are PirateBay will make that happen before iTunes, even though I would happily pay $10 for it, if they'd let me.

huggyface 14y ago
You seem to have a confused message. On the one hand you are arguing that it is futile trying to stop file sharing by linking to dropping music sales. But then you argue that they simply need to make legal consumption convenient: Music is superbly convenient to legally purchase online, with instant gratification. What you're really demonstrating is that a lot of people simply like things for free. Hopping on the soap box and pontificating how it is everyone else's fault is a ruse that we've seen since the early days of piracy. It is always someone else's fault, and it's always some natural right to have everything for nothing.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  "people simply like things for free" Maybe those things, objectively, no longer worth as much as they used to twenty years ago? You can make things free, too, with e.g. ad-supported streaming.
- moe 14y ago
  Music is superbly convenient to legally purchase online, with instant gratification. That is a very recent invention with spotify and the ilk - and even they still have ways to go. iTunes may seem superficially convenient, but in reality it is only convenient when you already know what you want. Discovery is non-existent, and that's what many people want. And: It is way too expensive. (There, I said it!) You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph, but: Reality is that people value movies higher than music. $10 for a film is reasonable to most people. $10 for (most) albums is not. $10/month flat for all music is then again in their comfort zone, as demonstrated by spotify et al. You can now either take the stance of the music industry; i.e. cry, complain and spend all your money on trying to turn back time to the golden 80s - where consumers had little choice other than pay whatever you asked. Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy.
  - huggyface 14y ago
    It is way too expensive It's hard to compete with $0, which is the price that thieves are willing to pay. You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph I'm not in the music industry. I'm not in the movie industry. I would benefit, financially, from piracy by simply engaging in it myself. But, you know, I don't because I can't justify it. I find the arguments that do completely transparent and selfish. I honestly find these piracy excusing arguments sad for society as a whole: It is the tragedy of the commons, everyone taking a dump in the well simply because they can, making laughable arguments why what they're doing is justified ("If only there was a toilet every 10 feet and someone wiped my arse for me..."). It's hearing a teenager justify why they litter (it's the city's fault and McDonald's fault and their parent's fault and...). Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy. Yachts....another adorable excuse for theft.
pessimizer 14y ago
"everything in their power to make file-sharing as inconvenient as possible" != a lot Their power is very limited, so really all they've been doing is nipping around the edges. Their goal is to expand that power technologically and legally in order to both stop piracy and make absolutely no concessions to consumer convenience, maintaining maximum flexibility in their choices when bringing sights and sounds to market. All profits being held equal, the studios would prefer to charge $100 million a ticket and have you watch it in a closet in some LA office. The industry creates films that it doesn't care if anybody sees, and creates music that it doesn't care if anybody hears. That's the problem, and that's why we're surrounded by crap. I'll tell you what kind of convenience I want: if I watch a movie that turns out to be deceptively marketed garbage, I don't want to have paid any more than those two hours of my life for the chance. I also want an easily streamlined, audited, and publicly supported way for me to support the artists that I want to encourage to create more things that I want to see. I don't want to be marketed to, I want to be asked, and I want honest recommendations from people who know my tastes enough to think I may like something. I don't want glorified distributors being able to hold both the artists and the consumers over the barrel to move a product that doesn't even need to be distributed any more. I don't want my culture to be a patchwork of ownership, like the land became. If I hear a song, I can sing a song. So, basically, I wouldn't happily pay $10 for The Avengers on my television, and at best that would be a partial solution for the industry IMO.

muuh-gnu 14y ago

> and most of the people will give up. And start doing what? Buying all the stuff they were just hoarding because it was "free" and they never were able to afford in the first place? I don't think so. If the effort to get stuff increases above the value of the stuff, they'll simply wait until somebody solves the problem and decreases the effort, so the stuff becomes "free" again.

b0rsuk 14y ago

Why make piracy inconvenient ? Why not make legal purchases more convenient instead ?

batista 14y ago
I'm not against that, of course. But if both are equally convenient, then the zero cost (piracy) will probably win. So the big media also have to make piracy inconvenient. Changing their methods to be more convenient also take huge amounts of money and time. One example: worldwide, simultaneous distribution of a movie, probably needs tons of contracts with resellers, local networks, etc renegotiated. Plus changes in accounting, etc -- whereas fighting piracy just takes some lobbying money, a few crappy DRM add-ons, and lame FBI warning videos...
- batista 14y ago
  Plus: piracy will always be more convenient, because even with everything else being exactly the same, you have the paying step at the end in commercial site, whereas you just download away on the piracy site.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    It is not true, Apple proved otherwise.
    - batista 14y ago
      Apple proved what exactly? That's far from equal. I din't dispute that music purchases can be made EASY. Or that current piracy methods are or can be hard. What I said is --and it's mere logic, it cannot be disproven--, that piracy will always have the option to be ONE STEP EASIER, i.e omit the paying step. People say that you don't have to fight piracy, just make buying easier. And I say that if you don't fight piracy and just let it be, then at best you get, say: a) a piracy service b) a commercial service Since we "don't fight piracy", nothing prevents the piracy service to offer whatever the commercial service does, from streaming to high quality lose-less files, to a great UI, to being totally free and even without ads. But the commercial service must always have the buying step (enter credit card details etc), plus all the legal and logistical necessities.