Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bud | Hacker News Reader

You might find it obvious that piracy must reduce income, but I don't think that's obvious at all. I don't pretend to know one way or the other. I think it's approximately just as likely that, at least in some cases, piracy can and has INCREASED income, by increasing hype and interest in a given movie or recording, which drives more awareness of it, which then eventually leads to some sales. Anecdotally, speaking only for myself, I'll admit to having pirated some media, gotten very interested, and then purchased that same media, either to reward the creators, or because I wanted a legit copy or a higher-quality copy, etc. I've also pirated some media, gotten interested, and then recommended it to many others, some of whom have then purchased it.

Why do you think it's obvious that piracy will always reduce income?

View on HN

I expect the hype generated by a pirated movie is reverse correlation to the movie's budget -- a blockbuster is already marketed to the nth degree, so additional hype from a bittorrent release is probably not going to make much impact. On the other hand, bittorrent releases of small budget movies can make a film's popularity explode[1].

[1] http://torrentfreak.com/producer-thanks-pirates-for-stealing...

I can't say whether pirating media will lose or gain money for the studios/producers/etc. but I know one thing for sure. You are not entitled to that media and if you don't like the methods in which these studios provide it then your only legal option is to not consume it. I'm over peoples use of the same tired excuses to justify piracy.

You can say that about any law that people disagree with and/or break. But being tired of the argument is irrelevant to whether it has validity. If you don't want to participate in it, then perhaps you shouldn't participate in it.

I've edited my post to more clearly reflect my opinion on the matter. I agree that people have the rights to disagree with and attempt to change laws. Though I haven't seen any arguments that are more than people feeling entitled to things. If someone uses their time and effort to create something it is up to them to distribute it as they see fit. I see piracy as nothing more than denying the owner of content the distribution method of their choice. Of course they may pick a method that isn't the most profitable, but that is their choice to make.

> I haven't seen any arguments that are more than people feeling entitled to things.

* Economically: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...

* Morally: http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/ethical-case-against-ip...

I'd draw a distinction between trying to "justify" piracy, which I am not trying to do, and pointing out that the MPAA's anti-piracy arguments are ludicrous and that their proposed penalties are massive overkill, which is closer to my actual point.

I have no disagreement with your point that nobody is "entitled" to pirate anything.

If you look at Kick-Ass, it was downloaded more than Inception but made about a tenth of Inception's worldwide gross. This suggests to me that because its cinematic 'wow factor' was less, pirates took the opportunity to forego the theatre experience and enjoy it for free. I can't see how piracy has helped it here - judging by its popularity it should have made an awful lot more money. If piracy drove ticket sales then why the stark contrast with Inception?

I am exactly the type of person Kick-Ass is targeted towards. If it was not available to me via torrent, I would not watch it at all. As it is, I have it downloaded, but not watched yet.

There is no possible universe where Kick-Ass has made money from me.

It is still theft no matter how many flowery words you try to use and how you try to justify it.

Your last three comments consist of you claiming that piracy is theft. Either you actually think that repeating a belief will make people agree with you, or you're trolling. Either way, please come up with a better argument (each of these three comments has at least one person debunking it, using the standard "theft deprives a person of an object, piracy does not" argument, which I have yet to see successfully disproved).

That's easy to disprove. Property is not an object but a right of disposal. If you steal someone's car, you have deprived them of their property because they can no longer dispose of their car how they wish. If you steal somebody's movie, you have deprived them of their property because they can no longer dispose of their movie how they wish (ie. control its distribution). They can still watch the movie, but their property has still been infringed.

You may say that's a semantic argument, but then frankly so is this whole 'piracy isn't theft' thing.

...and if the publisher decides to effect new control over the DVDs I've already purchased? Is it theft that I do not return them?

It is not theft or subtraction, it is piracy.

There was no loss when bits are copied, but because the downloader has no rights to the media, it is piracy.

There was no lost sales because the fact remains: the user wants a copy of the media or content without paying. To suggest that they would pay in some alternate universe is fantasy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com