Hacker News Reader

Comment by BuyMyBitcoins | Hacker News Reader

Regardless of what people think about copyright infringement, I see torrenting as an essential tool for the transmission and preservation of information.

In this day and age of convoluted terms of services (TOS/TOC), xyz as a service/subscription, and just plain DRM, no one really owns anything anymore. No one can be sure what version they do have is the original and immutable version. Edits and omissions happen because of licensing issues and just plan social activism. Problematic content should be acknowledged but not purged and erased.

It’s vital people have the means to share data regardless of what the powers that be allow to be shared.

/soapbox

View on HN

> Problematic content should be acknowledged but not purged and erased.

By problematic content, do you mean stolen content? What do you suggest other than purging and erasing stolen content?

By problematic he means stupid things like GTA Vice City losing parts of its original soundtrack due to idiotic copyright licensing issues and people having their games replaced with this "updated" version.

Also, you can't steal data. Copying is not stealing.

Jumping the fence at a concert and sitting in an empty seat is not stealing. But that doesn't mean it is moral, legal, or to the benefit of the musicians + concert venue that invested in the act.

> Jumping the fence at a concert and sitting in an empty seat is not stealing.

Of course not. That's trespassing, a real crime unlike copyright infringement. Physical space at the venue is limited and the actual artists are the most scarce resources there is. It makes sense to pay to see artists you love play live.

No idea why you're applying physical world concepts to digital "content" which can be infintely copied. It doesn't work. Mental gymnastics like copyright exist purely to enable rent seeking monopolists. It's not even morally defensible. Artists receive what, 30% of the profits of their record sales?

Artists receive a fraction of their profits because the distribution network is immensely valuable to them.

The 30% is pulled out of your ass. If I did all my own editing and released songs on Spotify without any assistance I would get a much higher cut. If I don't like Spotify I am allowed to sell mp3s on my own website. However - if I was trying to produce a high quality album a year and coordinate worldwide tours then it is worth it to me to share my profits with hundreds of talented artists/marketers/engineers on my team or in contract with my team.

> The 30% is pulled out of your ass.

I pulled it off a search engine. And that was one of the better figures. Do you have better data?

ASCAP, SEACAM and BMG I think are the big three licensing orgs (USA). When you buy licenses from them they give you some paperwork that explains where the fees go. They even have a person explain it to you on the phone. (They took steps to pre-emptively high prices) I've cancelled those contracts awhile ago so I don't have handy numbers. It might even be on their sites?

If that seat would remain empty otherwise, is it not more moral to fill it? After all who wants a concert with no fans

Moreover, if the trespassing fan buys merchandise after the concert, you could argue it was better for the artists that they jumped the fence.

You're probably in the wrong place to get sympathy for billionaires and megacorps.

'Legality' of some actions is not a Sacred Cow. A lot of essential freedoms we now take for granted were once illegal.

As famous quote goes, 'Slavery, Apartheid and Holocaust were legal'

Or as Bill Burr said [0]:

> (imitating a woman defending ridiculous divorce settlements): "That's what the law says!"

> (himself): "A hundred years ago I could beat you with a mop handle, that's what the law said! Doesn't make it right!"

[0]: https://youtu.be/x0gaYyNk7QA?t=603

Reply on news.ycombinator.com