Imagine how all these comments glorifying "let's steal paid content and share it for free because content should be free" must read to a YCombinator founder who is misled into thinking that it's okay to sell content for money.
What is even the point of starting a startup that offers content of any kind if people are going to do everything in their power to rip you off, share your value everyone they know for free, and claim that they have the moral high ground while doing so?
Do those glorifying torrents here also use ad-blockers, to ensure that absolutely no revenue whatsoever reaches a content creator, no matter how much you enjoy that content? Is the goal of revenue starvation here to simply bring an end to content creation altogether?
It's hard to see what other possible outcome exists given the overlap amongst HN readers between "I torrent" and "I adblock". I've never hoped more strongly that y'all are not representative of reality than I have reading these comments today.
> Is the goal of revenue starvation here to simply bring an end to content creation altogether?
Most people don't think of the future, only the present.
Most people only think of themselves, not others.
People aren't trying to hurt creators or prevent new film from being made, they're just trying to watch the awesome stuff their friends are talking about for free.
"Blocking ads and Torrenting" shouldn't be conflated, in the same way that "Torrenting and Containers" shouldn't be conflated, into a single argument. HN is a technical crowd and that's really the only connector between the two things you've mentioned; the technical knowledge of how to actually do it.
I adblock because of the cesspool digital advertising has become, and my conscience is clear in this decision.
Those who don't block ads probably would if it was easy. Ability is the barrier to entry that must be cleared in order to earn the 'reward' of a safer, less intrusive, less privacy-invading, bandwidth-wasting, and potentially harmful Internet browsing experience - which is a sad indictment on the current state of the Internet.
Ad-blocking isn't illegal; isn't intellectual property theft, which is another reason it shouldn't be mixed up with the discussion of torrenting.
Torrenting of copyrighted content is a different beast. There's, of course, the technical ability barrier to entry, but there's also the knowledge that it IS illegal and it is intellectual property infringement, and there's a specific value of the item to purchase legitimately. Where it gets all kinds of blurry is pretty much all ideological arguments that surround 'the products of creativity':
Who the money actually goes to
Availability / Geo-fencing
Restrictions of format
Restrictions of devices
Restrictions of platforms
The concept of 'ownership' versus 'licensing'
The cost vs. value of the item
The history of the Hollywood's inception
Payola
Cultural participation
Terms of copyright
Open source complications (related to devices and platforms)
Each of the above points could have a thesis written about them, and each and every consumer has individually varying levels of emotional response to each of them. None of that, however, changes the fact that it's illegal (copyright infringement) to download the 'product' without paying for it. But, for those whose emotional response to the arguments is extreme enough, and has cleared the barrier to entry, has the opportunity to feel that they're squaring the ledger to some extent, and therefore feel justified in their actions.
It's not a black and white argument by any means whatsoever.
I'm happy to pay for everything insofar that my rights are respected and the prices are fair. Which is what I do now. I pay for Spotify - the family plan - for my entire family. It's extremely well priced and I'm happy to pay for it indefinitely. My Netflix account is shared with a friend in a different state. It costs twice as much as what it was five years ago and the library is a lot worse. But it's acceptable... as it stands.
The reason why we accepted Netflix' DRM model is because they started off with "we encourage you to share your account!" which everyone jumped on. Now that we have all the b/s associated with digital content, they're pulling back. Which is okay... because we can pull back too.
A good example is when HBO decided to partner-up in an exclusive deal with a horrible price-gouging cable media provider, many Australians decided to pirate Game of Thrones instead. I don't know of a single person who paid for it. I know of professional suit-wearing offices that hosted watch parties for episodes that were pirated. And everyone knew... and nobody cared. I think the final numbers were that about 8% of the entire Australian population pirated the show. If only HBO had decided to not screw over an entire country then perhaps they would have made a lot more money.
The issue is that they will never have their fill. They will always be hungry, and if Netflix could charge you 10% of your annual income and get away with it, then they will. And a great example of this is with college textbooks.
I don't think I'm entitled to media, but I don't think the creators are entitled to my dollars either for digital content. I just don't care about content creators in this regard. This might come across as terrible, but I couldn't care less if it leads to their bankruptcy. If they want to produce something at a reasonable price, then great. If they won't, then it won't be paid for. That's the playing field they're choosing to enter. If they don't like it, they are free to exit.
There's no morality in it either way -- paying for content doesn't make a person any more or less immoral than someone who doesn't.
Adblocking is in a similar boat, insofar that if you think that stripping me of any privacy without my consent is okay, then you're going to be quickly disappointed with how well my pi-hole setup works.
I'd encourage you to take a step back and look at it as if you're dealing with software patents, cause that's all copyright law for digital media really is. And choosing to have a patent called "PROVIDING AN INTERNET THIRD PARTY DATA CHANNEL"[0] doesn't mean people are immoral if they don't pay. It also doesn't mean they're moral if they do.
If you product doesn't make money because of piracy, then perhaps your product sucks. GoT was the most pirated show ever, and also the most popular show ever. Piracy isn't that big of a deal if you make a good product, it actually helps.
So people are pirating out of altruism or because they want to steal content. You didn’t pay for the right to the content — it isn’t yours. It’s stealing no matter how you justify it. The creator and financer of the content isn’t getting paid when you steal. And GoT was popular which is why it was pirated, not the other way around.
"Our experience is, it all leads to more penetration, more paying subs, more health for HBO, less reliance on having to do paid advertising… If you go around the world, I think you’re right, Game of Thrones is the most pirated show in the world. Well, you know, that’s better than an Emmy." - Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/04/15/game-of-t...
Would Netflix users pay an extra $5/user/month to give valid legal credentials to their friends? Your reasoning, that pirates pay extra versus non-pirates, implies yes - but upthread given the attempt to justify pirating one or another service based on cost of service and value perceived for that cost, I seem correct to think otherwise.
I would buy a Netflix sub for a year for someone with a gift card before I would share my credentials, because I want Netflix to continue existing, and if everyone gave away credentials instead of buying gift subs, that’s much less likely to happen.
(ps. “Sharing Netflix credentials isn’t pirating”: Incorrect. It’s not torrenting. Historical usage of “pirating” as in “pirating cable TV pay channels through splices and illegal decoders” had nothing to do with recording it and sharing recordings. I see no case made that Netflix credentials sharing is any different than buying an illegal Showtime decoder box, nor its impact on revenue.)
It's definitely getting into a gray area. If I own a DVD, I can loan it to a friend legally. I can also invite a bunch of friends over and show it to them. I can even make a copy for my own use, like a backup or format-shifting. Sharing credentials doesn't violate copyright as far as I can tell, it's just a ToS thing.
Copyright infringement isn't theft. All of the creators have already been paid. Arguing that piracy will "bring an end to content creation altogether" is pure hyperbole.
What is even the point of starting a startup that offers content of any kind if people are going to do everything in their power to rip you off, share your value everyone they know for free, and claim that they have the moral high ground while doing so?
Do those glorifying torrents here also use ad-blockers, to ensure that absolutely no revenue whatsoever reaches a content creator, no matter how much you enjoy that content? Is the goal of revenue starvation here to simply bring an end to content creation altogether?
It's hard to see what other possible outcome exists given the overlap amongst HN readers between "I torrent" and "I adblock". I've never hoped more strongly that y'all are not representative of reality than I have reading these comments today.