4 ms·

I feel capitalism here is the problem, not the solution. The solution is file sharing (via BitTorrent & co), which is very much not capitalism.

by forty 2y ago

bayindirh 2y ago
Or, "honest trade" (as a solution), I may say. I pay, I get files. I may pay more for higher grade files. With this model, I legitimately paid for: - Sidologie: A C64 game soundtrack tribute album, in lossless audio. - OK COMPUTER NOT OK: Reissue of Radiohead's OK COMPUTER album, in 24 bit studio masters (post mastering). - Too many albums from Bandcamp, in lossless form. - Apple iTunes, in acceptable quality AAC files. So it's possible, albeit less profitable (ERR_NOT_ENOUGH_VAL_XTRCT), so frowned upon. BTW, I used to play in an orchestra, so making music/art is not like writing code. It's way more abstract and painful to create.
- forty 2y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for DRM-free purchases where most of the money goes to the artists. BitTorrent is a way to handle the fact when there is no such option (and put economic pressure so that options exist)
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    > BitTorrent is a way to handle the fact when there is no such option (and put economic pressure so that options exist). I fully agree. I just wanted to point that it's not that black and white, and there're a small number of grays in between.
- account42 2y ago
  This model doesn't really exist for movies / tv series. Closest you can get are DRMed discs which which you can then rip into DRM-free files ... thanks to friendly pirates sharing the keys needed to access what you bought.
_0ffh 2y ago
> The solution is file sharing (via BitTorrent & co), which is very much not capitalism. You'd be surprised, how many laissez faire capitalists regard "intellectual property" to be an anti-capitalist artificiality. The whole raison d'etre for private property is that two people cannot use the same good for different purposes at the same time, it is rivalrous. Property ownership is the mechanism that resolves any potential conflicts arising from this rivalrousness. The owner gets to decide what to do with the good. The same is not true for information, because we can both e.g. watch the same movie at the same time without interfering with each other, therefore there is no conflict that needs resolving. Therefore "intellectual property" is not a thing. (The reasoning goes further, but that is the simplest version of the most important argument I think.)
- forty 2y ago
  I don't know, I view capitalism mostly as a way to allow people who have money to make more money without providing work or value from people who do work. I feel that intellectual property (which in my language, French, is simply translated as "author's right"), by making intellectual work ("art of the mind") a normal merchandise, allows platforms, labels, editors, etc to make money from the artists work, so is favorable to capitalism. Note that DRM makers are the main winners from this shit, as they capture value created by the artists, and they provide no value of their own since DRM has never prevented piracy.
  - _0ffh 2y ago
    > I don't know, I view capitalism mostly as a way to allow people who have money to make more money without providing work or value from people who do work Well, that's not how capitalists view it, quite the opposite. In a free market economy, which relies on voluntary interactions, the only way to make money is to generate value for others. Take me buying a loaf of bread: To me the bread has more value than the money I give to the baker, otherwise I would not agree to the interaction. To the baker OTOH the money has more value than the bread, otherwise he would not agree to the interaction. Free markets are a positive-sum game.
    - 2y ago

I feel capitalism here is the problem, not the solution. The solution is file sharing (via BitTorrent & co), which is very much not capitalism.

by forty 2y ago

I feel capitalism here is the problem, not the solution. The solution is file sharing (via BitTorrent & co), which is very much not capitalism.

bayindirh 2y ago

Or, "honest trade" (as a solution), I may say. I pay, I get files. I may pay more for higher grade files. With this model, I legitimately paid for: - Sidologie: A C64 game soundtrack tribute album, in lossless audio. - OK COMPUTER NOT OK: Reissue of Radiohead's OK COMPUTER album, in 24 bit studio masters (post mastering). - Too many albums from Bandcamp, in lossless form. - Apple iTunes, in acceptable quality AAC files. So it's possible, albeit less profitable (ERR_NOT_ENOUGH_VAL_XTRCT), so frowned upon. BTW, I used to play in an orchestra, so making music/art is not like writing code. It's way more abstract and painful to create.

forty 2y ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for DRM-free purchases where most of the money goes to the artists. BitTorrent is a way to handle the fact when there is no such option (and put economic pressure so that options exist)
- bayindirh 2y ago
  > BitTorrent is a way to handle the fact when there is no such option (and put economic pressure so that options exist). I fully agree. I just wanted to point that it's not that black and white, and there're a small number of grays in between.
account42 2y ago
This model doesn't really exist for movies / tv series. Closest you can get are DRMed discs which which you can then rip into DRM-free files ... thanks to friendly pirates sharing the keys needed to access what you bought.

_0ffh 2y ago

> The solution is file sharing (via BitTorrent & co), which is very much not capitalism. You'd be surprised, how many laissez faire capitalists regard "intellectual property" to be an anti-capitalist artificiality. The whole raison d'etre for private property is that two people cannot use the same good for different purposes at the same time, it is rivalrous. Property ownership is the mechanism that resolves any potential conflicts arising from this rivalrousness. The owner gets to decide what to do with the good. The same is not true for information, because we can both e.g. watch the same movie at the same time without interfering with each other, therefore there is no conflict that needs resolving. Therefore "intellectual property" is not a thing. (The reasoning goes further, but that is the simplest version of the most important argument I think.)

forty 2y ago
I don't know, I view capitalism mostly as a way to allow people who have money to make more money without providing work or value from people who do work. I feel that intellectual property (which in my language, French, is simply translated as "author's right"), by making intellectual work ("art of the mind") a normal merchandise, allows platforms, labels, editors, etc to make money from the artists work, so is favorable to capitalism. Note that DRM makers are the main winners from this shit, as they capture value created by the artists, and they provide no value of their own since DRM has never prevented piracy.
- _0ffh 2y ago
  > I don't know, I view capitalism mostly as a way to allow people who have money to make more money without providing work or value from people who do work Well, that's not how capitalists view it, quite the opposite. In a free market economy, which relies on voluntary interactions, the only way to make money is to generate value for others. Take me buying a loaf of bread: To me the bread has more value than the money I give to the baker, otherwise I would not agree to the interaction. To the baker OTOH the money has more value than the bread, otherwise he would not agree to the interaction. Free markets are a positive-sum game.
  - 2y ago