7 ms·

I expected more from HN than this knee-jerk support for TPB due to its self-promulgated association with "freedom of information." Freedom of information, in th

by freyr 14y ago

I expected more from HN than this knee-jerk support for TPB due to its self-promulgated association with "freedom of information." Freedom of information, in the specific context of The Pirate Bay, means denying content authors the freedom to choose channels of distribution for their work. It means repackaging content, giving it away "for free," while raking in advertising revenue. It means diverting money away from the entire chain of content creators (e.g., writers, actors, directors, extras, special effects artists), marketers, distributors, etc., and solely into the pockets of TPB's operators. It's OK to support freedom of information, and also recognize TPB for what it really is.

CamperBob2 14y ago
(Shrug) The money TPB is "diverting" is money that the content industry refuses to accept from its would-be customers. It's the industry's job to ask me what distribution channel I want to use, not dictate what channel they require me to use. When they figure that out, they'll start making money again.
- pflats 14y ago
  No. It's their content; they make the rules. It's the industry's job to use whatever distribution channels make them and their clients the most money. That's it. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy their content, but it doesn't give you the right to bootleg it. If a content maker doesn't like it, they don't have to use a big publishing house that restricts their sales avenues, but they also know they're probably going to make less money that way.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    (Shrug) They can make rules, or they can make money. Their call.
    - Kerrick 14y ago
      You can boycott them if you disagree with them, but you can't just boycott them while still enjoying their content via piracy. It's not morally sound.
      - CamperBob2 14y ago
        Oh.
    - bcgraham 14y ago
      I don't think your viewpoint is fit for dignified public discourse. It's theft. It's not a new, modern crime, with deep implications still being processed by moral intuitions, legislatures, and courts. When something becomes easy to steal, it doesn't become less of a theft.
      - CamperBob2 14y ago
        It's not a new, modern crime Everything related to copyright law is brand new and modern. It is not a natural right. It was created by consensus. That consensus can and will change.
      - joelthelion 14y ago
        No, it's not theft, and information is not property. At least there is no consensus on the matter.
  - ScottBurson 14y ago
    I agree with you that it's not right to bootleg their content anyway, but I also think there is little hope of persuading most people of that. So the content producers are going to have to change their business models. And I'm not sure they'll come out much worse for it. Imagine if Peter Jackson announced that his next movie would be a free download, and crowdfunded the money to make it. I bet he could raise a couple hundred million dollars without much trouble.
    - pflats 14y ago
      But the Hobbit just made a billion dollars in the box office alone. (And it cost around 200 million to make.) Peter Jackson has no reason to buck the system.
mich41 14y ago
Why should authors and not "consumers" (man, how I hate this word) choose distribution channels?
- hissworks 14y ago
  This is exactly the issue, TPB or something like it will always exist so long as there's a niche to be exploited between the final cut and your eyelids.
- freyr 14y ago
  When the author chooses the distribution channel, the channel is essentially part of the asking price. People are then free to gauge whether or not the asking price is too high, and opt not to buy. Ultimately, the choice of distribution channel becomes determined by both parties, the buyers and sellers, by agreeing on a price. On the other hand, if the consumers collectively decide to subvert this process and set the price at zero, where does that leave the author? Their message is "I'm going to take your work and pay you nothing for it. Get back to us when you can offer us a better deal than something for nothing." Which option seems like a better system to you? Technology has made taking content and paying nothing for it a frictionless transaction. Many people here seem to believe that since technology has enabled it, or made it so easy, or made it so difficult to regulate, it therefore must be a natural right that we've had all along, but can only now fully enjoy due to the miracles of modern technology. If some group on the supply side gains a monopoly, the government in theory steps in and regulates to protect the consumer from price gouging. This notion appeals to us, that when one party in the holds all the cards, they shouldn't use exploit that power to price gouge. Yet when the consumers suddenly hold all the cards, we turn a blind eye to imbalance in power. I'm not saying that movie studios and record labels should be protected so that they can cling to old distribution methods. But expecting authors, or anyone on the supply side, to offer a price as good as free is not a reasonable expectation.
edwardunknown 14y ago
I use it everyday but I can admit they're professional thieves who now appear to be under the protection of possibly the most brutal dictatorships on earth. The only reason they're still around is because everybody uses it and that makes it politically difficult to come down hard on them. This probably makes it significantly easier to bring the full force of the US government into play.
- mich41 14y ago
  > The only reason they're still around is because everybody uses it And since we are supposed to have democracy here, maybe it's a valid reason?
Dylan16807 14y ago
I wish people would stop pretending the ads on the pirate bay are of significant value. A couple banner ads is absolutely nothing compared to the cost of content production. TPB could run without ads and nothing would really change. They are not even in the same ballpark as 'raking in' the amounts of money content creators charge. There are in fact services where you pay significant amounts of money for media downloads, like rapidshare, that you can make a good argument are taking money from content producers. But TPB is not in that business. TL;DR: TPB allows downloads unapproved by content producers: YES Banner ads are key to allowing this: NO Banner ads mean they aren't nonprofit: YES* Banner ads mean they are taking money from content producers: NO
- freyr 14y ago
  > "They are not even in the same ballpark as 'raking in' the amounts of money content creators charge." What does the magnitude of TPB's profit have to do with anything? The morality of an action is determined by how much the offender profits monetarily? The content creators invest effort, money, and years of their lives to produce the content. A typical movie, for instance, represents the collective work of hundreds of people spanning several years. Of course they'll need to charge more to generate a profit. And TPB only needs banner ads to generate the profit. What's your point? > "...rapidshare, that you can make a good argument are taking money from content producers." You seem to have bought into this farce that people who download pirated content are categorically unwilling to pay money for non-pirated content. This is complete bs. My nephews and his friends don't spend money on music, since they can easily get it for free online and it lets them spend their money on other stuff. Are you claiming that if these kids grew up in the 70s or 80s, none of them would listen to music because they'd all be against spending their money on it? BS. "Taking money from content producers" doesn't just mean I've taken ten dollars out of some musician's wallet and put that same ten dollars into my wallet. It could mean taking ten dollars out of a musician's wallet, putting a dollar into mine, and burning the rest. Or burning it all. From the perspective of the musician, the result is the same. > "Banner ads are key to allowing this: NO" My argument was that, based on their actions and words, profit or notoriety are more likely their motivations than a principled stand on freedom of speech, as many here want to attribute to TPB. The Westboro Baptist Church is also defended by the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean we should hold up the Westboro Baptist Church as noble crusaders in a fight for our freedoms. That gives them way too much credit.
guelo 14y ago
The piratebay does not host content. It is a directory, it is pure speech. "Congress shall make no law..."
- millerc 14y ago
  I wish people would stop making such jumps in logic to justify an untenable position. Facilitating the download of illegal content has nothing to do with "speech" or personal opinion, even if the phrase can be rewritten as "telling people where to find warez".
  - mikeash 14y ago
    One man's "jump" is another man's "obvious". To me, handing out magnet links just looks like another form of speech. Obviously, others disagree, but I'm not going to accuse them of being silly to justify a bad position.
  - guelo 14y ago
    "congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unless that speech helps people download the avengers" ?
at_joanojr 14y ago
Sounds like reupp.org might be of service..

by freyr 14y ago

CamperBob2 14y ago

(Shrug) The money TPB is "diverting" is money that the content industry refuses to accept from its would-be customers. It's the industry's job to ask me what distribution channel I want to use, not dictate what channel they require me to use. When they figure that out, they'll start making money again.

pflats 14y ago
No. It's their content; they make the rules. It's the industry's job to use whatever distribution channels make them and their clients the most money. That's it. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy their content, but it doesn't give you the right to bootleg it. If a content maker doesn't like it, they don't have to use a big publishing house that restricts their sales avenues, but they also know they're probably going to make less money that way.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  (Shrug) They can make rules, or they can make money. Their call.
  - Kerrick 14y ago
    You can boycott them if you disagree with them, but you can't just boycott them while still enjoying their content via piracy. It's not morally sound.
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      Oh.
  - bcgraham 14y ago
    I don't think your viewpoint is fit for dignified public discourse. It's theft. It's not a new, modern crime, with deep implications still being processed by moral intuitions, legislatures, and courts. When something becomes easy to steal, it doesn't become less of a theft.
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      It's not a new, modern crime Everything related to copyright law is brand new and modern. It is not a natural right. It was created by consensus. That consensus can and will change.
    - joelthelion 14y ago
      No, it's not theft, and information is not property. At least there is no consensus on the matter.
- ScottBurson 14y ago
  I agree with you that it's not right to bootleg their content anyway, but I also think there is little hope of persuading most people of that. So the content producers are going to have to change their business models. And I'm not sure they'll come out much worse for it. Imagine if Peter Jackson announced that his next movie would be a free download, and crowdfunded the money to make it. I bet he could raise a couple hundred million dollars without much trouble.
  - pflats 14y ago
    But the Hobbit just made a billion dollars in the box office alone. (And it cost around 200 million to make.) Peter Jackson has no reason to buck the system.

mich41 14y ago

Why should authors and not "consumers" (man, how I hate this word) choose distribution channels?

hissworks 14y ago
This is exactly the issue, TPB or something like it will always exist so long as there's a niche to be exploited between the final cut and your eyelids.
freyr 14y ago
When the author chooses the distribution channel, the channel is essentially part of the asking price. People are then free to gauge whether or not the asking price is too high, and opt not to buy. Ultimately, the choice of distribution channel becomes determined by both parties, the buyers and sellers, by agreeing on a price. On the other hand, if the consumers collectively decide to subvert this process and set the price at zero, where does that leave the author? Their message is "I'm going to take your work and pay you nothing for it. Get back to us when you can offer us a better deal than something for nothing." Which option seems like a better system to you? Technology has made taking content and paying nothing for it a frictionless transaction. Many people here seem to believe that since technology has enabled it, or made it so easy, or made it so difficult to regulate, it therefore must be a natural right that we've had all along, but can only now fully enjoy due to the miracles of modern technology. If some group on the supply side gains a monopoly, the government in theory steps in and regulates to protect the consumer from price gouging. This notion appeals to us, that when one party in the holds all the cards, they shouldn't use exploit that power to price gouge. Yet when the consumers suddenly hold all the cards, we turn a blind eye to imbalance in power. I'm not saying that movie studios and record labels should be protected so that they can cling to old distribution methods. But expecting authors, or anyone on the supply side, to offer a price as good as free is not a reasonable expectation.

edwardunknown 14y ago

I use it everyday but I can admit they're professional thieves who now appear to be under the protection of possibly the most brutal dictatorships on earth. The only reason they're still around is because everybody uses it and that makes it politically difficult to come down hard on them. This probably makes it significantly easier to bring the full force of the US government into play.

mich41 14y ago
> The only reason they're still around is because everybody uses it And since we are supposed to have democracy here, maybe it's a valid reason?

Dylan16807 14y ago

I wish people would stop pretending the ads on the pirate bay are of significant value. A couple banner ads is absolutely nothing compared to the cost of content production. TPB could run without ads and nothing would really change. They are not even in the same ballpark as 'raking in' the amounts of money content creators charge. There are in fact services where you pay significant amounts of money for media downloads, like rapidshare, that you can make a good argument are taking money from content producers. But TPB is not in that business. TL;DR: TPB allows downloads unapproved by content producers: YES Banner ads are key to allowing this: NO Banner ads mean they aren't nonprofit: YES* Banner ads mean they are taking money from content producers: NO

freyr 14y ago
> "They are not even in the same ballpark as 'raking in' the amounts of money content creators charge." What does the magnitude of TPB's profit have to do with anything? The morality of an action is determined by how much the offender profits monetarily? The content creators invest effort, money, and years of their lives to produce the content. A typical movie, for instance, represents the collective work of hundreds of people spanning several years. Of course they'll need to charge more to generate a profit. And TPB only needs banner ads to generate the profit. What's your point? > "...rapidshare, that you can make a good argument are taking money from content producers." You seem to have bought into this farce that people who download pirated content are categorically unwilling to pay money for non-pirated content. This is complete bs. My nephews and his friends don't spend money on music, since they can easily get it for free online and it lets them spend their money on other stuff. Are you claiming that if these kids grew up in the 70s or 80s, none of them would listen to music because they'd all be against spending their money on it? BS. "Taking money from content producers" doesn't just mean I've taken ten dollars out of some musician's wallet and put that same ten dollars into my wallet. It could mean taking ten dollars out of a musician's wallet, putting a dollar into mine, and burning the rest. Or burning it all. From the perspective of the musician, the result is the same. > "Banner ads are key to allowing this: NO" My argument was that, based on their actions and words, profit or notoriety are more likely their motivations than a principled stand on freedom of speech, as many here want to attribute to TPB. The Westboro Baptist Church is also defended by the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean we should hold up the Westboro Baptist Church as noble crusaders in a fight for our freedoms. That gives them way too much credit.

guelo 14y ago

The piratebay does not host content. It is a directory, it is pure speech. "Congress shall make no law..."

millerc 14y ago
I wish people would stop making such jumps in logic to justify an untenable position. Facilitating the download of illegal content has nothing to do with "speech" or personal opinion, even if the phrase can be rewritten as "telling people where to find warez".
- mikeash 14y ago
  One man's "jump" is another man's "obvious". To me, handing out magnet links just looks like another form of speech. Obviously, others disagree, but I'm not going to accuse them of being silly to justify a bad position.
- guelo 14y ago
  "congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unless that speech helps people download the avengers" ?

at_joanojr 14y ago

Sounds like reupp.org might be of service..