4 ms·

There's no way to stop piracy, everyone knows this. The key is too slow it down and make it more troublesome. Just like there's no such thing as a safe that c

by soup10 14y ago

There's no way to stop piracy, everyone knows this. The key is too slow it down and make it more troublesome. Just like there's no such thing as a safe that can't be broken into, that's not the point of anti-piracy measures. Piracy is a problem because it requires minimal effort and is far too easy these days, often easier than obtaining the content legitimately. If the copyright holders could just occasionally shutdown whatever the most popular site is at the time, and force people to smaller sites. Far less people would be pirating. The crux of the problem is that it is incredibly easy to pirate things, and even a token/whack-a-mole effort would dissuade most people. Look at web-advertising. If browsers came pre-installed with adblock google would have to find a new business model. But such a small thing like not making it the default, has huge effects. Similarly having to find a new public website every month to download things is going to dissuade a big percentage of people.

slowpoke 14y ago
I find it hugely amusing how people still make out piracy as the problem. It isn't. It never was. The problem is the insistence of an industry on their business model in face of a technology that made them obsolete. Their continued, stubborn refusal to accept reality. Their audaciousness to demand that this very technology be regulated to fit their business model again (which is both technically impossible as well as undesirable on a scale of "impediment to the entirety of mankind"). Piracy - or, how it actually should be called, Free (as in Speech) sharing of art, culture and technology - is probably mankind's biggest achievement. And here we are, arguing over an irrelevant industry that thinks it's entitled to a working business model for all eternity, and happens to excel at loudly crying at the shoulders of politicians and lie like a whole regiment of troopers. We should embrace free and unlimited sharing of what amounts to a non-scarce resource, instead of buckling down to the prolonged sissy fit of a child that doesn't get what it wants anymore. It makes no fucking sense, both economically as well as logically, to limit something that is infinitely available. I'm positive we'll be past this farce in about a decade, with the pirates ultimately emerging as the victors, because it's impossible to halt progress forever, even for the copyright industry. The more they entrench themselves in their vain fight, the more satisfying it will be to see them crash down.
- soup10 14y ago
  Tell me slowpoke about the great wonders of Ubuntu and Gimp and every other crappy open source clone of proprietary software. Just because a product is made of bits instead of atoms doesn't mean the product didn't cost capital to create and require revenue to continue being created. "I'm positive we'll be past this farce in about a decade" Sure right after we figure out a better system than capitalism for digital goods and get everyone to agree to it. I find it hugely amusing how people still don't understand basic economics and "cause and effect" on a macro scale.
  - slowpoke 14y ago
    >Tell me slowpoke about the great wonders of Ubuntu and Gimp and every other crappy open source clone of proprietary software. I don't feel obliged to answer this. Please keep your flame-bait to yourself. >Just because a product is made of bits instead of atoms doesn't mean the product didn't cost capital to create and require revenue to continue being created. You're conflating creation with distribution, in addition to a basic sweat of the brow fallacy. Just because you worked doesn't mean you are entitled to payment - else I will hereby demand you to pay me forty two fantastillion dollars for reading my comment, because that's what I value my work done here. See where this is going? I still don't see how it's in any way reasonable to create artificial monopolies over a good that isn't scarce. Business models come and go with technological progress, and I do not think the copyright industry is the first to be entitled to an exception to the detriment of the rest of mankind. >Sure right after we figure out a better system than capitalism for digital goods and get everyone to agree to it. Yep. Such as the emerging service-based information society. :)

by soup10 14y ago

slowpoke 14y ago

I find it hugely amusing how people still make out piracy as the problem. It isn't. It never was. The problem is the insistence of an industry on their business model in face of a technology that made them obsolete. Their continued, stubborn refusal to accept reality. Their audaciousness to demand that this very technology be regulated to fit their business model again (which is both technically impossible as well as undesirable on a scale of "impediment to the entirety of mankind"). Piracy - or, how it actually should be called, Free (as in Speech) sharing of art, culture and technology - is probably mankind's biggest achievement. And here we are, arguing over an irrelevant industry that thinks it's entitled to a working business model for all eternity, and happens to excel at loudly crying at the shoulders of politicians and lie like a whole regiment of troopers. We should embrace free and unlimited sharing of what amounts to a non-scarce resource, instead of buckling down to the prolonged sissy fit of a child that doesn't get what it wants anymore. It makes no fucking sense, both economically as well as logically, to limit something that is infinitely available. I'm positive we'll be past this farce in about a decade, with the pirates ultimately emerging as the victors, because it's impossible to halt progress forever, even for the copyright industry. The more they entrench themselves in their vain fight, the more satisfying it will be to see them crash down.

soup10 14y ago
Tell me slowpoke about the great wonders of Ubuntu and Gimp and every other crappy open source clone of proprietary software. Just because a product is made of bits instead of atoms doesn't mean the product didn't cost capital to create and require revenue to continue being created. "I'm positive we'll be past this farce in about a decade" Sure right after we figure out a better system than capitalism for digital goods and get everyone to agree to it. I find it hugely amusing how people still don't understand basic economics and "cause and effect" on a macro scale.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  >Tell me slowpoke about the great wonders of Ubuntu and Gimp and every other crappy open source clone of proprietary software. I don't feel obliged to answer this. Please keep your flame-bait to yourself. >Just because a product is made of bits instead of atoms doesn't mean the product didn't cost capital to create and require revenue to continue being created. You're conflating creation with distribution, in addition to a basic sweat of the brow fallacy. Just because you worked doesn't mean you are entitled to payment - else I will hereby demand you to pay me forty two fantastillion dollars for reading my comment, because that's what I value my work done here. See where this is going? I still don't see how it's in any way reasonable to create artificial monopolies over a good that isn't scarce. Business models come and go with technological progress, and I do not think the copyright industry is the first to be entitled to an exception to the detriment of the rest of mankind. >Sure right after we figure out a better system than capitalism for digital goods and get everyone to agree to it. Yep. Such as the emerging service-based information society. :)