Hacker News Reader

Comment by meerita | Hacker News Reader

They already have been paid. Or you think mr. sound technician guy or lovely ms. Magda the hairdresser will receive money until his last day just because they have worked on a movie. The only one who will have that right is a company, who had nothing to do with filmaking process, they just invested, and for sure, after the premiere they've got, or not, a lot of money. Even the main actors release "rights".

View on HN

To me entertainment is very simple. The person who offers the entertainment presents a value. It is up to me whether or not the entertainment is worth the value. If it is, I'll pay the price, if it is not, then I will move on to one of a million other options. It's really that simple. If you don't like the deal that is offered then move on to the next one. I have no automatic right to any of the entertainment created. It is no different from any other transaction.

Then when your friends are at your home, you kick 'em out if you want to see a movie you pay, rented? wouldn't be fair also make them pay, or will you let them consume for free too?

Which rental service requires that each person watching pays a separate fee? If the terms dictated something like that then I simply wouldn't rent from that service.

Let's say you live alone and you want to see a movie. You pay for it. Same if I want to do it at my home. we both pay and we have the legal right to see it. What if suddenly, 20 friends come to my home to see the movie without paying as they were in their homes? Downloading is the same case. That's what I mean. You can't have the best of both worlds. Either you all pay to see it or no one.

But when you buy it you have a license to show it to 20 friends in a setting like that as long as you aren't charging (at least in the U.S.).

You are creating situations for the sake of this argument that simply don't exist.

You read the licence wrong. When you buy, rent, you're explicity forbid to do public playing: that means you cannot show other people the material, they have to pay for it. That way they're sure you dont mount a cinema in your home and invite the whole city.

That's simply not true. Public playing means that you cannot go to a part and project on a screen (as an example). In the confines of your home is not considered public playing.

I imagine that the fact that the regular worker has already been paid is not the big picture here.

If every movie is stolen or given away for free, this reduces the incentive to create more big pictures that would keep giving these people jobs.

Eventually this could possibly lead to fewer people getting paid much needed money due to fewer productions happening.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com