Comment by jack-r-abbit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jack-r-abbit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Is reading a book in a library stealing?

No. The book was purchased. In some cases the book is purchased directly by the library. In other cases it was purchased by a citizen and then donated to the library when they were done with it. But in any case, each copy of the book (or CD or DVD) was purchased. You are borrowing a purchased copy and will return it when finished. Then someone else will borrow it. That is fair use. If you don't return it to the library, then it might be considered stealing.

> Listening to a song on the radio?

No. Radio stations have contracts in place with the various sources of the music that allows them to broadcast the music. Radio stations cover this cost by selling ads. Pay radio allows you to get the same content commercial free. But your subscription is covering the station's costs. I'm pretty sure there is some sort of royalty payments, but I'm not sure exactly how those work from one station to the next.

> Watching a show over broadcast TV?

No. TV stations a generally affiliates of a higher network that is actually creating the show. Other stations also pay for syndicated shows once they have reached a certain age. TV also uses the ad model and you also find pay stations (like HBO, etc). I would imagine the payment contracts in broadcast TV are also similar to radio.

> What if I avoid commercials...

This is an issue that scared the networks early on when things like TiVo and other DVRs were popping up. I'm pretty sure that commercial avoidance is pretty similar to web ads in that you can't force people to watch them. Even if you were watching it live and could not fast forward... that is typically when you would use the toilet or grab a snack.

So the big difference between all those things and piracy is that those things are approved methods of controlled content delivery and each has a payment structure in place that allows the content creator to receive compensation. Straight up piracy lacks that compensation.

> how does it change things if some people who torrent albums nevertheless spend money on music?

Doesn't matter. That is like saying it is ok to jump the subway turnstile today because you paid the fare 3 times last week.

>The book was purchased.

For most things to appear on BT or elsewhere, someone has to buy them first, too. Your argument, therefore, is invalid.

As for the rest, your whole point hinges on "it's approved content distribution". I say that is bullshit. You can and should not be able to control distribution of digital content. It's one of the greatest blessings of humanity to be able to access, hand on and build upon its shared heritage. We should embrace it as the monumental achievement it is - but here we are, having to justify it.

This entire "problem" amounts to an industry that is - excuse the language - butthurt about having lost their business model to technological progress, and feels entitled to being granted an exception by cementing said business model into law. This needs to stop before any more permanent damage is done.

>each has a payment structure in place that allows the content creator to receive compensation. Straight up piracy lacks that compensation.

Allow me to laugh, because the last people who benefit by this system are content creators. If you seriously believe copyright is, was or will be for creators, you're in for a bad surprise if you ever take a look at the history of what probably was the most harmful idea mankind ever allowed to happen.

And many of the compensation methods are merely forced monopolies, which don't have any validity beyond "the law says so". The law is wrong. It therefore needs to be changed. As long as that hasn't been done: ignore it. Subvert it. Attack it. In other words: pirate. And try to support the creators, while you're at it. And I mean the creators, not the copyright industry.

> For most things to appear on BT or elsewhere, someone has to buy them first, too. Your argument, therefore, is invalid.

The difference is that the book still only exists as one copy that is transferred from one entity to another. This is fair use. That is the same reason it is ok to give/sell your cd to someone else. You have relinquished ownership of it and passed it to someone else. That is how the used goods market works. That does not include making copies of something to distribute. My argument about books is not invalid.

It was my mistake to use the word "creator" instead of "source". Yes, the creator generally does not benefit as such. That is between him and the label/distributor/etc. How noble of you to stick up for the underpaid content creator by not paying for the result of his work at all. I applaud you, sir.

For everything else you said... heard it before. Don't buy it. It is all just rationalizing the behavior.

That's doctrine of first sale, not fair use, btw.

yes. you are correct. fair use is something else.

Also, I should note that as the copyright holder for a book I wrote, I believe it would benefit me (creator) if I ever found my work being distributed without my consent. I don't see it as the most harmful idea mankind ever allowed to happen. Does it get abused? sure it does. But so does BitTorrent, no?

>For most things to appear on BT or elsewhere, someone has to buy them first, too. Your argument, therefore, is invalid.

The fundamental difference is that BT assumes you make a copy. Everyone who gets a copy has that copy forever, essentially gaining all the benefits of purchase. At a library, however, you get it for 3 weeks and then you bring it back. It's protected by the doctrine of first sale which says that I can do what I wish with the physical thing that I own, include lending it or reselling it. Digital copies are not "lent" they are copied and never need to be returned.

>Allow me to laugh, because the last people who benefit by this system are content creators. If you seriously believe copyright is, was or will be for creators, you're in for a bad surprise if you ever take a look at the history of what probably was the most harmful idea mankind ever allowed to happen.

This argument... is patently untrue. If I publish a book, everyone who buys a copy puts money in my pocket. Everyone who downloads it without buying it gets all the benefits of my work without compensating me. To make the argument your making is unfair to all the people who make their living producing content.

Here's the deal, I get your point. I agree with it. I think the content industry (I make a distinction from the copyright industry because I think copyright, in its intended form is a good thing) is crappy. It continually tries to subvert our rights (our right to the free flow of information, i.e. net neutrality, our right to the public domain, our right to use our content, our right to fair use, etc.). That's bad. But don't walk around trying to say that downloading stuff is not stealing. It is. Don't consume the content if the industry bothers you that much. Buy your music directly from artists, go to the opera, read only public domain books, whatever, hell, even steal it, but don't pretend you're doing the writer or musician a favor.

>Everyone who gets a copy has that copy forever, essentially gaining all the benefits of purchase.

So? If I really wanted, I could make a copy of a book from the library, too. The possibilities are endless, but all of them are less convenient and cost more than a digital copy. Other than that, there is no factual difference. Your argument is still invalid.

>This argument... is patently untrue.

Except it isn't. Unless you define "benefits from the system" as "gets a very small slice of the overall profits from a sale, the rest of which is swallowed by a useless industry".

>Everyone who downloads it without buying it gets all the benefits of my work without compensating me.

Am I obliged to pay you? No. You demand to be payed for the costless act of copying your book. That's ridiculous. If you want to be compensated for actually writing the book, find alternate ways of doing so (there's Kickstarter, for example). Nobody is entitled to make a living of selling copies of a non-scarce good. It's cool if you can, but not if that involves needing an artificial monopoly on said non-scarce good.

I take the liberal approach here: I can't force you to give me things, but neither can you stop me (or others) from sharing them.

>But don't walk around trying to say that downloading stuff is not stealing.

But it isn't, no matter how much you some people try to insist it is. There is no valid definition of "stealing" that could be applied to the act of sharing digital data. None. Argumentum ad nauseam won't make it any more true, either.

>Don't consume the content if the industry bothers you that much. Buy your music directly from artists, go to the opera, read only public domain books, whatever, hell, even steal it, but don't pretend you're doing the writer or musician a favor.

How is this mutually exclusive? I enjoy going to concerts - which is how musicians can (and do) make money these days. I also have quite a lot of merchandise in the form of T-shirts. Services and services - both are business models with a future. Charging for exclusive access to a non-scarce resource, by contrast, isn't.

Content will become scarce indeed if no one pays for it, unless clever side-channel monetization props it up. It is not clear that is desirable. Are you familiar with copyright's justification in the US Constitution, by the way? It is a time-imited monopoly designed to promote progress in science and arts.

>Content will become scarce indeed if no one pays for it

An common, but unproven claim, which also confuses content creation with distribution. It's the monopoly over the latter that I and many others object to. We are currently seeing the beginning of an era where sharing and remixing is giving rise to an unprecedented number of new art and culture. It has never been easier to produce content.

>It is a time-limited monopoly designed to promote progress in science and arts.

Though I'm from Europe, I'm quite familiar with that phrase, and I don't buy it. The problem with it is that it's from a time where the copyright industry was, to a certain degree, necessary for the dissemination of content. The founding fathers could have never even anticipated something like the Internet and technological advancements like BitTorrent and other file-sharing services, which pretty much invalidate a lot of the assumptions made when the constitution was written.

Also, as far as I remember, copyright is merely something congress is allowed to make laws about, not a constitutionally granted right.

You seem to have your mind made up and no amount of rational and logic thought will change that. So I will simply wish you good luck in life. I hope one day you create something that everybody wants but you end up pennyless because everyone just shared it for free. Good day.

Thomas Jefferson was strongly against the idea of intellectual property. http://bit.ly/JJa8Va

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

> "gets a very small slice of the overall profits from a sale, the rest of which is swallowed by a useless industry".

Yet every day new bands are signing up with this 'useless industry' trying to gain more exposure and money than they would without this 'useless industry'.

> Am I obliged to pay you? No. You demand to be payed for the costless act of copying your book. That's ridiculous.

This statement is utterly ridiculous. Just because something is easy to copy means it should be free? I can easily copy a 100$ bill on my Xerox machine at work, I should be able to do this without consequence? You must not be in the content creation industry and rely on it to pay your rent. The art, creativity and experience are where the value lies in a book, not in the 'copy', so yes I as a content creator do have a right to charge you to enjoy my art.

> It's one of the greatest blessings of humanity to be able to access, hand on and build upon its shared heritage. We should embrace it as the monumental achievement it is - but here we are, having to justify it.

I do love it when people wax poetic when it comes to piracy discussions online like this. By the above you mean the monumental achievement it is like having access to data such as the Human Genome Project, or online journals and data related to AIDS, cancer and other research correct?

Please don't try and state it is a human right to have free, immediate access to the latest Lady Gaga album and Game of Thrones for free.

I do love it when people people in online discussions about piracy try to downplay the value of Free[1] sharing to "the latest Lady Gaga album or Game of Throne". It's a lot more than that. The implications are huge. They include a lot of what you mentioned, and more.

[1]: Free as in speech, like with Free Software. Copyright and protection of Free Speech are mutually exclusive. You can't have one while having the other.

In the typical case most radio stations acquire the music they play for no cost.

What now?

I don't believe that radio stations do not a) compensate the music source in some way or b) have an agreement with the source otherwise authorizing them to broadcast it. If they don't, then that is between them and the source. You are not involved in that part.

It's b. Producers pay radio stations to advertise their music. It is called payola.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com