Thread

1. cynicalsecurity · 1789987718 · focus · HN ↗

   Meanwhile pirates don't see any ads. Make this make sense.

   1. chrisstu · 1789987796 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. Daneel_ · 1789988098 · focus · HN ↗

         Taking the cash from a bank deprives others of the money. Duplicating a video doesn’t deprive another person of anything.

         Piracy is simple: when you make your product more convenient than piracy, people use it. Steam is popular for a reason - no crap, enormous game selection.. it’s just better than pirating. Netflix used to be the same - great selection, no ads.. now look: terrible selection and price is too high.

         1. Brendinooo · 1789989520 · focus · HN ↗

            If a production crew of 1000 people makes a movie and everyone pirates it, you don't think those people will be deprived of anything?

            1. Daneel_ · 1790032663 · focus · HN ↗

               If I wasn't willing to pay for the movie/streaming service/etc then the objective answer is no.

               If I would pay to watch it then yes, but I'm not going to pay money to a streaming platform only to watch ads.

               1. Brendinooo · 1790035269 · focus · HN ↗

                  Setting aside the fact that you didn't actually answer my question: the objective answer is not "no". That's just a frame and some assumptions you'd like everyone to hold in order to justify yourself.

                  1. Daneel_ · 1790043454 · focus · HN ↗

                     I can’t speak for everyone else’s take on it, but I do feel like I addressed your question.

                     A significant portion of piracy is opportunistic as far as I’m aware, in that people say “well, since it’s free I’ll grab it”. The opportunity cost is effectively zero.

                     What I’m getting at is that if you have 100 people who pirate the film, perhaps only 5 of those might have been willing to pay to see it, if only there was a convenient opportunity to do so. No money was lost through the other 95 - their decision was between ‘pirate’ and ‘don’t watch it’.

                     Of the remaining 5, yes, it’s lost revenue, but that’s because there likely wasn’t a convenient service with no ads at a price where people think they’re getting value. It’s all about convenience at the end of the day - if it’s more convenient to pirate it then your service is going to suffer. You have be more convenient.

                     1. Brendinooo · 1790091404 · focus · HN ↗

                        >I do feel like I addressed your question

                        The point of my question was to note that, if everyone acts like pirates do, then the people who make the thing make zero dollars, which would hurt them greatly - they will be deprived of something meaningful. So the idea that piracy does not do this at all is false.

                        Pirates violate the terms that the creators ask in exchange for their work, and get to enjoy content at no cost to them by free-riding off of people who pay, and then try to argue that this is Actually Fine because they weren't going to pay for it anyways.

                        "I wouldn't pay for it anyways" is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and it's a bad moral code anyways: the only difference between me doing an Actually Fine thing and an Actually Bad thing is my own personal judgment about whether or not I was going to pay for it.

                        >if it’s more convenient to pirate it then your service is going to suffer. You have be more convenient.

                        So you are conceding that the service will suffer if people pirate?

                        Regardless, that's completely separate from the question of whether or not mild inconveniences give you the right to enjoy non-essential-for-life fruits of the labors of others without compensating them for it.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.