2 ms·

>In other words, consumers will get the movie either way, that the rights-holders are not getting money for it is someone else's problem (at least, that's how I

>In other words, consumers will get the movie either way, that the rights-holders are not getting money for it is someone else's problem (at least, that's how I interpreted the original post). Well, your overall comment is just a statement of what's happening. We all know there's a market, demand, etc. And, your interpretation of the original post is pretty much how I interpreted it as well. But, it still begs my original question: why is it OK for "consumers to get the movie either way?" Why is it someone else's problem? That someone else actually owns the movie. Where else do we actually believe it's OK to take something that belongs to someone else simply because we don't like their terms? Then, we turn around and blame them for our stealing it because they should have offered better terms? It's just weird. I mean, if people want to steal something, then just steal it and be ready to pay the consequences as with anything else. But, all of this rationalization that they somehow deserve to own it because they were inconvenienced by the rightful owner is what I don't understand.

res0nat0r 12y ago
Entitlement. Posters above feel entitled to demand the content on their own terms because if they don't agree they can easily just download it without facing any consequences, and feel for some reason that Hollywood should now cater to their demands. If there was a 99% chance of being fined / sued the next day after torrenting the latest blockbuster, the entitlement attitude I think would change dramatically.
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  True, but there is no chance of being fined/sued and there never will be. That's the reality we live with, and there are proven business models that will make a huge amount of money in that reality. Businesses that attempt to live in a separate reality will suffer. It's hardly fair, but it is fact.
- kbenson 12y ago
  I think calling it "entitlement" is doing a disservice to the situation and the complex motivations and desires on all sides that have lead to and inform the future of the current situation. There's blame all around, from consumers that are willing to skirt and outright break the law, to rights-holders that have time and again resorted to morally ambiguous contracts and actions with a consumer base that's quickly coming to the conclusion they can't always expect a fair deal[1]. That said, only one of these groups has any real power to make a change in the short term. In the long term other possible solutions exist, such as through enacting new laws, but that seems to backfire as often as not given a enough time for the landscape to change yet again, so I don't hold hope that a good solution will come out of that. 1: http://boingboing.net/2013/12/15/amazon-takes-away-access-to-pu.html http://boingboing.net/2013/12/15/amazon-takes-away-access-to...
  - Illotus 12y ago
    I think you touch a key issue here. Changing the situation is really difficult. From consumer point of view pirating and campaigning for changing laws are pretty much the only ways that have potential to make a difference. Boycotting is not practical, because it so very rarely has any effect when the product is very desirable for many people.
    - lazylizard 12y ago
      what if consumers got irritated enough and repeal copyright altogether? and then where are we?
icebraining 12y ago
why is it OK for "consumers to get the movie either way? In a liberal society, the question of "why should a citizen be allowed to do X" is wrong. The proper question is, "why not?" Where else do we actually believe it's OK to take something that belongs to someone else Taking means "dispossess someone of (something); steal or illicitly remove". There's no "taking" involved. There's a person who legally bought a copy, then shared it with others who accepted it. No taking whatsoever.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >In a liberal society, the question of "why should a citizen be allowed to do X" is wrong. The proper question is, "why not?" The "why not" is implicit in my question, but I will rephrase if you prefer: why should content producers not be able to enjoy the economic benefit of their labor? >Taking means "dispossess someone of (something); steal or illicitly remove". There's no "taking" involved. This rationalization is a pretty old one and it's just wrong. The economic value of the creation is absolutely being destroyed and thus the creator is being dispossessed of that value.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    The "why not" is implicit in my question, but I will rephrase if you prefer: why should content producers not be able to enjoy the economic benefit of their labor? Your question is senseless. As a producer of Free/Libre works, I can assure you there's no impediment to enjoying such benefits (it's my whole income). But it's my job to figure out how to capture them, not society's, like in any other activity. This rationalization is a pretty old one and it's just wrong. The economic value of the creation is absolutely being destroyed and thus the creator is being dispossessed of that value. It's not being destroyed, it's simply remaining with the consumer instead of being transferred to the content creator.
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      The question is quite sensible, although as with anything, it can be rendered senseless by reducing it to a logical fallacy: "I am an artist. This does not harm me. Therefore, this does not harm any artists". >there's no impediment to enjoying such benefits Surely there are, else this thread would not exist. >it's my job to figure out how to capture them, not society's That seems absurd on its face, but perhaps you mean something other than what can otherwise be extended to say that there should be no contract law, property rights, etc.? If so, please enlighten us as to how you capture benefits without any assistance from society/civil law. >It's not being destroyed, it's simply remaining with the consumer instead of being transferred to the content creator Surely you know that statement was intended to say the value is destroyed for the creator. But, if not, there it is.
narag 12y ago
why is it OK for "consumers to get the movie either way?" If you insist in asking the wrong questions, you will receive a lot of useless answers. It's not that it's OK. It's that people don't care, as simple as that. If you don't understand that, your ignorance of human nature is astounding.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  Indeed. But, then, I give credit to most HNers for having the ability to read beyond the obvious and understand the real question being asked, and the real issue at hand. Those who engage in higher thinking often assume that the obvious is a given, and that the real matter must lie elsewhere. They would therefore be unlikely to commit, say, the faux pas of restating the obvious as a conclusion. Thankfully, many HNers are able to engage in such higher thinking. There is a small percentage, however, who generally seem very nearly oblivious. But, they typically announce themselves through their misguided, yet uncannily self-assured comments.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

res0nat0r 12y ago

Entitlement. Posters above feel entitled to demand the content on their own terms because if they don't agree they can easily just download it without facing any consequences, and feel for some reason that Hollywood should now cater to their demands. If there was a 99% chance of being fined / sued the next day after torrenting the latest blockbuster, the entitlement attitude I think would change dramatically.

tjradcliffe 12y ago
True, but there is no chance of being fined/sued and there never will be. That's the reality we live with, and there are proven business models that will make a huge amount of money in that reality. Businesses that attempt to live in a separate reality will suffer. It's hardly fair, but it is fact.
kbenson 12y ago
I think calling it "entitlement" is doing a disservice to the situation and the complex motivations and desires on all sides that have lead to and inform the future of the current situation. There's blame all around, from consumers that are willing to skirt and outright break the law, to rights-holders that have time and again resorted to morally ambiguous contracts and actions with a consumer base that's quickly coming to the conclusion they can't always expect a fair deal[1]. That said, only one of these groups has any real power to make a change in the short term. In the long term other possible solutions exist, such as through enacting new laws, but that seems to backfire as often as not given a enough time for the landscape to change yet again, so I don't hold hope that a good solution will come out of that. 1: http://boingboing.net/2013/12/15/amazon-takes-away-access-to-pu.html http://boingboing.net/2013/12/15/amazon-takes-away-access-to...
- Illotus 12y ago
  I think you touch a key issue here. Changing the situation is really difficult. From consumer point of view pirating and campaigning for changing laws are pretty much the only ways that have potential to make a difference. Boycotting is not practical, because it so very rarely has any effect when the product is very desirable for many people.
  - lazylizard 12y ago
    what if consumers got irritated enough and repeal copyright altogether? and then where are we?

icebraining 12y ago

why is it OK for "consumers to get the movie either way? In a liberal society, the question of "why should a citizen be allowed to do X" is wrong. The proper question is, "why not?" Where else do we actually believe it's OK to take something that belongs to someone else Taking means "dispossess someone of (something); steal or illicitly remove". There's no "taking" involved. There's a person who legally bought a copy, then shared it with others who accepted it. No taking whatsoever.

unclebucknasty 12y ago
>In a liberal society, the question of "why should a citizen be allowed to do X" is wrong. The proper question is, "why not?" The "why not" is implicit in my question, but I will rephrase if you prefer: why should content producers not be able to enjoy the economic benefit of their labor? >Taking means "dispossess someone of (something); steal or illicitly remove". There's no "taking" involved. This rationalization is a pretty old one and it's just wrong. The economic value of the creation is absolutely being destroyed and thus the creator is being dispossessed of that value.
- icebraining 12y ago
  The "why not" is implicit in my question, but I will rephrase if you prefer: why should content producers not be able to enjoy the economic benefit of their labor? Your question is senseless. As a producer of Free/Libre works, I can assure you there's no impediment to enjoying such benefits (it's my whole income). But it's my job to figure out how to capture them, not society's, like in any other activity. This rationalization is a pretty old one and it's just wrong. The economic value of the creation is absolutely being destroyed and thus the creator is being dispossessed of that value. It's not being destroyed, it's simply remaining with the consumer instead of being transferred to the content creator.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    The question is quite sensible, although as with anything, it can be rendered senseless by reducing it to a logical fallacy: "I am an artist. This does not harm me. Therefore, this does not harm any artists". >there's no impediment to enjoying such benefits Surely there are, else this thread would not exist. >it's my job to figure out how to capture them, not society's That seems absurd on its face, but perhaps you mean something other than what can otherwise be extended to say that there should be no contract law, property rights, etc.? If so, please enlighten us as to how you capture benefits without any assistance from society/civil law. >It's not being destroyed, it's simply remaining with the consumer instead of being transferred to the content creator Surely you know that statement was intended to say the value is destroyed for the creator. But, if not, there it is.

narag 12y ago

why is it OK for "consumers to get the movie either way?" If you insist in asking the wrong questions, you will receive a lot of useless answers. It's not that it's OK. It's that people don't care, as simple as that. If you don't understand that, your ignorance of human nature is astounding.

unclebucknasty 12y ago
Indeed. But, then, I give credit to most HNers for having the ability to read beyond the obvious and understand the real question being asked, and the real issue at hand. Those who engage in higher thinking often assume that the obvious is a given, and that the real matter must lie elsewhere. They would therefore be unlikely to commit, say, the faux pas of restating the obvious as a conclusion. Thankfully, many HNers are able to engage in such higher thinking. There is a small percentage, however, who generally seem very nearly oblivious. But, they typically announce themselves through their misguided, yet uncannily self-assured comments.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]