3 ms·
"But when you're a bunch of pricks, people go to The Pirate Bay and think of you as the enemy, and then you don't get any money. Take notes, you idiots." v. fu
by Mistone 18y ago
"But when you're a bunch of pricks, people go to The Pirate Bay and think of you as the enemy, and then you don't get any money. Take notes, you idiots."
v. funny indeed
- unalone 18y agoFunny - and so true. There's a working business model online, and people who take advantage of it will most certainly benefit.
- peterb 18y agoThe MPAA & RIAA are all about distribution. They want to maintain a lock on content so they (the distributors) make money, not the artists.
- unalone 18y agoI largely agree. I think they're on the decline now. I don't know if whatever follows them will be better, but I'd like to think there's at least a chance.
- alaskamiller 18y agoI think this is just geek angst passively breaking out. Why would people care about MPAA or the RIAA except for the passing glances of those acronyms while going through the morning paper or during a movie pre-commercial? It serves them no purpose to care about those organizations unless they're being sued. Mommy dearest doesn't know what Pirate Bay is, much less torrent files. But if you tell her that she can get stuff for free, then by all means she'll jump on the deal. Getting her to think that this is some epic battle between good and evil is just Hollywood fantasy. And quite frankly, this attitude of "oh, I'll just keep stealing until they get it" is just counter-productive.
- jobeirne 18y agoI completely agree. It appalls me to see, day after day, comments on reddit boasting about how the poster continues to steal media to spite these various organizations. Isn't it obvious that when you steal a piece of media, you're stealing from its creator, i.e. the good guy?
- rms 18y ago>Isn't it obvious that when you steal a piece of media, you're stealing from its creator? It's a lot more complicated than that. And steal is the wrong word. You mean when you violate someone's copyright.
- jobeirne 18y agoSeems to me that copyright violation is tantamount to stealing. How does the situation being more "complicated" nullify the fact that when you steal (or violate copyright, whatever) something that was crafted for profit (else the creator would've released it for free) you're doing a complete disservice to the author?
- rms 18y agoI believe that it is completely ridiculous to have this artificial construct of scarcity to try and increase the marginal cost for something that inherently has no scarcity: the marginal cost for a digital download is zero. Obviously if you replace paying the artist money for music with an illegal download you are doing a disservice to the author and the author's distribution company. If you weren't going to pay the author anything though, you can only benefit him, assuming you like the author's work enough to tell friends and/or attend live performances. Sure, it's better for the artist to get paid, but there is a distinction between doing a disservice and being morally wrong and the use of the word steal is an attempt to equate copyright violation with being morally wrong. In the end, illegal downloads are inevitable. It's impossible to entirely stop; all you can do is try and make the legal downloads as convenient and practical as possible (like Amazon's service). This is already changing the business model for artists. Live shows and packaging and merchandise become more important than ever. There's an analogous situation with software: desktop software is easily crackable but SaaS is often impossible to copyright violate. Most of the developers here are doing SaaS and they will indeed get paid for their work.