5 ms·

For what it's worth, I also have a much bigger problem with commercial copyright infringement than non-commercial copyright infringement. https://news.ycombina

For what it's worth, I also have a much bigger problem with commercial copyright infringement than non-commercial copyright infringement. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5084439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5084439 I can see how the Daft Punk thing would get on your nerves. It seems like all this man does is use people.

zxcdw 14y ago
"Uses" people by creating products other people are willing to pay for. Just like your local pig farm "uses" the animals to provide you food you are willing to pay for. Mega is just being a midleman here. What's so wrong about it, really? If an industry goes down because it can't compete with "free", then maybe it should go down because technology makes the business model unprofitable? Big players go down and small ones come to rule the game, it's not like people stop caring about entertainment. But of course this all whining about piracy is exactly about securing people's own position and ability to survive in the competitive market. After all, an industry-wide collapse could very well mean loss of a job(not for a single person, but also for co-workers etc) or at least huge cut in income. In the end it's just everyone playing for themselves. Hopefully in a few decades we have machines creating superior content for us(at least to some degree), so we can finally start getting rid of the publishing/content providing industries which hinder technological progress and start to focus on consuming whatever we find most suitable for us, without legal or ethical barriers. Everyone wins if we don't let bullshit legislation hinder the progress.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  No, it's not "just like" at all. And that's for the not-difficult-to-discern reason that people and pigs are not interchangeable, which why you can have bacon for breakfast without being charged as an accessory to murder. And I'm sorry that think that getting the artists out of art and just handing the satisfaction of the human intellect to machines is a situation where "everyone wins." A liberal education may not get you a job, but it'll save you from embarrassing yourself with stuff like this.
  - zxcdw 14y ago
    > No, it's not "just like" at all. And that's for the not-difficult-to-discern reason that people and pigs are not interchangeable You're arguing against something I never even claimed. However, what you said still doesn't change the fact that pigs are being used. Problem? > And I'm sorry that think that getting the artists out of art and just handing the satisfaction of the human intellect to machines is a situation where "everyone wins." I mean, that's just embarrassing. What's the problem with this? People who are creative can stil create things as much as they like, while people who prefer consuming things can get the said things for cheaper and for less effort. Of course this sounds like a dystopian future for an artsy person who would love to get paid for their hobby. But just as radio amateurs with their love for analog electronics have gone underground, so will happen for those who can't adapt to the ever-accelerating technological progress we're going through. And the fact that we can now share information so effortlessly is a great sign of that. Of course it would be ideal that I could create X, set it a price Y and then people would pay for it if they consider my product worth it's price. However, because of the way the world changes, it isn't possible in a strict sense. It will never be possible during this digital era, at least not without sacrificing liberties and creating some godlike authority over information sharing. Now how would that not be a dystopian future!?
    - seertaak 14y ago
      Comments such as these never cease to astonish me; I'm not sure what musicians/artists have done to warrant your unremitting contempt, but it is that which oozes out of every statement you make. - "People who are creative can stil create things as much as they like": no, they are constrained by their budget and time. Piracy destroys the potential for remuneration on the back of e.g. recorded music, thus restricting the ability of the artist to create. Stop pretending like all worthwhile (by which I mean to say in-demand, whether legally or not) art can be made on a Sunday afternoon by a single person. - "Artsy person...": I resent your suggestion that art is axiomatically a hobby, and those that create it -- "artsy persons", really? -- are all mere hobbyists. You seem to value music/film/etc. enough to unilaterally grant yourself unlimited rights to it, yet you use belittling terms, the better to convey your perceived superiority (presumably because you think programming requires more intelligence?) when discussing it. Not cool. - "who can't adapt to the ever-accelerating technological progress we're going through": Yes, we musicians are all such idiots, we simply don't get revolutionary rockstar technologies like node.js and mongodb. - "we can now share information": Please stop invoking lofty principles like liberty and the right to information to justify your consumption of the latest hollywood-made blockbuster movie or pop single without compensation the artists who created it. - "Of course it would be ideal that I could create X, set it a price Y and then people would pay for it if they consider my product worth it's price. However, because of the way the world changes, it isn't possible in a strict sense." "Of course it would be ideal for me not to whack you on the head with a club and take your possessions, but it's just not realistic in a strict sense; at least not without sacrificing vital liberties and the creation of a police force with godlike authority."
- georgeorwell 14y ago
  He doesn't create the products he is selling access to and he doesn't have a license to be a middleman. I agree that the creators have a broken business model, but his business model of exploiting that brokenness is not a replacement for it. In fact, it depends on it. I don't believe that machines will replace artists either, because I believe art is the expression of personal human experience.
- miracle2k 14y ago
  I'm waiting for machines to build the next Mega and put Mr. Dotkom out of a job. Afterwards, machines can replace all the layers and sue us for pirating the content they create.

zxcdw 14y ago

"Uses" people by creating products other people are willing to pay for. Just like your local pig farm "uses" the animals to provide you food you are willing to pay for. Mega is just being a midleman here. What's so wrong about it, really? If an industry goes down because it can't compete with "free", then maybe it should go down because technology makes the business model unprofitable? Big players go down and small ones come to rule the game, it's not like people stop caring about entertainment. But of course this all whining about piracy is exactly about securing people's own position and ability to survive in the competitive market. After all, an industry-wide collapse could very well mean loss of a job(not for a single person, but also for co-workers etc) or at least huge cut in income. In the end it's just everyone playing for themselves. Hopefully in a few decades we have machines creating superior content for us(at least to some degree), so we can finally start getting rid of the publishing/content providing industries which hinder technological progress and start to focus on consuming whatever we find most suitable for us, without legal or ethical barriers. Everyone wins if we don't let bullshit legislation hinder the progress.

alexqgb 14y ago
No, it's not "just like" at all. And that's for the not-difficult-to-discern reason that people and pigs are not interchangeable, which why you can have bacon for breakfast without being charged as an accessory to murder. And I'm sorry that think that getting the artists out of art and just handing the satisfaction of the human intellect to machines is a situation where "everyone wins." A liberal education may not get you a job, but it'll save you from embarrassing yourself with stuff like this.
- zxcdw 14y ago
  > No, it's not "just like" at all. And that's for the not-difficult-to-discern reason that people and pigs are not interchangeable You're arguing against something I never even claimed. However, what you said still doesn't change the fact that pigs are being used. Problem? > And I'm sorry that think that getting the artists out of art and just handing the satisfaction of the human intellect to machines is a situation where "everyone wins." I mean, that's just embarrassing. What's the problem with this? People who are creative can stil create things as much as they like, while people who prefer consuming things can get the said things for cheaper and for less effort. Of course this sounds like a dystopian future for an artsy person who would love to get paid for their hobby. But just as radio amateurs with their love for analog electronics have gone underground, so will happen for those who can't adapt to the ever-accelerating technological progress we're going through. And the fact that we can now share information so effortlessly is a great sign of that. Of course it would be ideal that I could create X, set it a price Y and then people would pay for it if they consider my product worth it's price. However, because of the way the world changes, it isn't possible in a strict sense. It will never be possible during this digital era, at least not without sacrificing liberties and creating some godlike authority over information sharing. Now how would that not be a dystopian future!?
  - seertaak 14y ago
    Comments such as these never cease to astonish me; I'm not sure what musicians/artists have done to warrant your unremitting contempt, but it is that which oozes out of every statement you make. - "People who are creative can stil create things as much as they like": no, they are constrained by their budget and time. Piracy destroys the potential for remuneration on the back of e.g. recorded music, thus restricting the ability of the artist to create. Stop pretending like all worthwhile (by which I mean to say in-demand, whether legally or not) art can be made on a Sunday afternoon by a single person. - "Artsy person...": I resent your suggestion that art is axiomatically a hobby, and those that create it -- "artsy persons", really? -- are all mere hobbyists. You seem to value music/film/etc. enough to unilaterally grant yourself unlimited rights to it, yet you use belittling terms, the better to convey your perceived superiority (presumably because you think programming requires more intelligence?) when discussing it. Not cool. - "who can't adapt to the ever-accelerating technological progress we're going through": Yes, we musicians are all such idiots, we simply don't get revolutionary rockstar technologies like node.js and mongodb. - "we can now share information": Please stop invoking lofty principles like liberty and the right to information to justify your consumption of the latest hollywood-made blockbuster movie or pop single without compensation the artists who created it. - "Of course it would be ideal that I could create X, set it a price Y and then people would pay for it if they consider my product worth it's price. However, because of the way the world changes, it isn't possible in a strict sense." "Of course it would be ideal for me not to whack you on the head with a club and take your possessions, but it's just not realistic in a strict sense; at least not without sacrificing vital liberties and the creation of a police force with godlike authority."
georgeorwell 14y ago
He doesn't create the products he is selling access to and he doesn't have a license to be a middleman. I agree that the creators have a broken business model, but his business model of exploiting that brokenness is not a replacement for it. In fact, it depends on it. I don't believe that machines will replace artists either, because I believe art is the expression of personal human experience.
miracle2k 14y ago
I'm waiting for machines to build the next Mega and put Mr. Dotkom out of a job. Afterwards, machines can replace all the layers and sue us for pirating the content they create.