Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Reddit's /r/Piracy is deleting almost ten years of history to avoid ban (torrentfreak.com)
163 points by okket 13 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 134 comments

It seems like rights holders have realized that carpet bombing is a cheap and "effective" strategy. There are reports (https://youtu.be/JwG0bQ7WC3c) of music copyright holders reporting the use of even a single chord in YouTube videos. This strategy appears to be having a chilling effect across multiple platforms.

Copyright claims are super easy to make at scale, but the platforms themselves cannot investigate at scale, meaning the small guy suffers. Yes, redditers who are truly infringing should have their posts removed, but the result of trigger-happy, likely bot controled complaints is having an effect on legal speech.

After the new EU copyright directive passed parliament, I went on a bit of a hunt for reasons. Outside Germany, we simply didn't get traction for protest. And one reason people gave was "it won't be enforcable anyhow".

This here clearly shows what Germans have known for years thanks to our stupid "Abmahnwesen" legal abnormality: enforcement is not the bottleneck when private entities sue other private entities. It won't be a Hadopi-style government institution petitioning $youtube to take down any videos at the threat of a mild fine. It will be $sony suing the crap out of $youtube with the prospect of millions and millions in reparations. There is zero reason to believe they will be anything less than maximally-aggressive in doing so, and so they will provide all the incentive $youtube needs to block everything that has a hint of a smell of copyrighted material.

And bear in mind, the EU regulation defines $youtube in a way that potentially includes most small forum operators, virtually every community built by a small corporation etc. And there's equally no reason to believe those will be spared by the copyright industry and their lawyers.

> And one reason people gave was "it won't be enforcable anyhow".

This has been a surprisingly common view in France* for a long time. I consider it an unfortunate attitude that breeds cynicism and allows laws to be passed that simply express a desire, rather than laws that might make things better. I understand there can be protest exhaustion and one has to pick one's battles.

* I mention France by name only because the only European countries I've lived in are France and Germany.

In Estonia there was barely any talk about article 13. When it passed it was a 3 sentence article in the national newspaper. We had some follow up later, but it was mostly a politician saying that everything's fine.

People are unaware.

> Copyright claims are super easy to make at scale, but the platforms themselves cannot investigate at scale, meaning the small guy suffers.

They don't have to investigate. They could simply follow the procedure given in the DMCA.

1. Rights holder sends a notice claiming infringement and meeting the various requirements for such a notice given in the DMCA.

2. The service provider removes the material and promptly notifies the user who put the material up.

3. The user can file a counter notice, disputing that the material infringes.

4. The service provider passes the counter notice back to the rights holder. If the rights holder does not file an infringement lawsuit against the user within 14 days, the service provider puts the material back up.

If they do this, this gets the service provider off the hook for liability to the rights holder if it turns out that the work infringes, and it gets them off the hook for any liability to the user if it turns out that the work does not infringe.

A rights holder could send notices for ridiculous things, like things that are obviously fair use, but unless they are willing to actually go to court they will just get counter notices for most and the material will go back up.

The sites that have implemented their own systems that take down upon any claim and make it hard or impossible for the poster to dispute this are going way beyond what the law requires them to do.

Even if they go back up again it still requires a lot of effort to counter notice it, because it requires a human to do so. The claim is lobbed by an algorithm though.

There need to be severe consequences for claiming everything.

Good. The more damage copyright holders do to the public, the more people understand why the idea of owning ideas is stupid.

This is a common misunderstanding. Copyright does not allow you to own an idea -- there is nothing in the law to allow that. Instead it gives you a right to copy something. Specifically, it gives you an exclusive right. When people talk about "intellectual property" the are referring to owning rights with respect to some intellectual concept, not owning the intellectual concept itself. The very common confusion that you seem to suffer from is the reason why the FSF has previously recommended that people don't use the term "intellectual property" -- because it is very misleading.

I could rephrase your statement as "...the more people understand why the idea of granting exclusive rights to an intellectual concept is stupid". I suspect it doesn't materially change your feeling on the subject, but it's important to discuss these things as they really are, or else people will just dismiss your argument without thinking about it.

Copyright is not a property right, but it relates to ideas the same as property right relates to real life objects: both define what one can do with the subject. IMHO, one of the reasons why the copyright has gained success is because of existing cognitive bias[0]: people desire to treat ideas like physical objects, or as close to that as possible, because they have no other concept of what ideas are. I sometimes use figures of speech like "to own an idea" as a way to say the above succinctly, though it is indeed confusing when interpreted literally.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument

This seems like a direct knock on effect of the ridiculous asymmetry in legal liability. Due to the draconian way the DMCA works all the content platforms have their own informal process. The informal process involves no liability for a false claim so as a result you get this mass claiming.

Here's a fun point though - the DMCA is draconian partly because platforms like Youtube enabled mass piracy in order to capture market share when they were small. The costs of Youtube's illegal activity early on is now being passed on to their users today.

The DMCA was passed in 1998, how is a company established in 2005 responsible for the law being draconian? Not even Napster was around in time to influence the DMCA.

People were sharing copyrighted material on Usenet throughout the 90s. Piracy long-predated the DMCA.

The DMCA is not draconian, and in fact is a pretty even handed law. Its implementation by the various platforms is what's draconian - a mostly automated system that defers to rights holders without any sort of real appeals process.

Because the DMCA allows it. If you want an even-handed process, mandate it. It's the same problem (well, one of them) that the EU equivalent is now presenting: all the incentives for overblocking, no incentive to prevent it.

One of my favourite torrent sites decided to go private because of DMCA takedown requests. That probably wouldn't work for Reddit. But it just illustrates that the pirate ship will keep on sailing even if you can't see it.

If you can't see it, it will also be harder for casual pirates to find. It's basically impossible to stop piracy, but it can be made more difficult, and that could have a significant impact.

There seriously should be a law against such "carpet bombing".

The hated copyright directive contains provisions that require the creation of mechanism for challenging wrongful take downs, which if implemented properly would resolve the issue.

Except that it will only apply in the case of a real copyright takedown notice. Platforms don't like dealing with legal disputes, so they will create their own way to send notices of infringement. A platform doesn't have to publish your work, which means that their private solution for takedowns will not be held to that requirement.

It's the EU, so the law being divorced from reality is to be expected.

I'm sure you have a very coherent argument for how platforms can do any sensible sort of censorship at all without collaborating with the IP holders, at which point the 17.7 et all would apply.

In the end though, it is the ECJ that will decide if your head canon has any relevance for this topic.

Why do YouTube and others allow mass reporting at scale? They should use a CAPTCHA for each reported URL to ensure that the reports are being sent by humans.

They would probably be held liable under DMCA if they did that.

Can't wait until reddit decides to ban porn as advertiser-unfriendly, à la tumblr. They're heading steadfast in the direction of sanitizing the site until it's nothing but gifs of puppies yawning.

There's something heartwarming about 4chan remaining committed to being absolute cancer.

4chan, despite all its vileness, has convinced me of the necessity to maintain as much unrestrained human freedom in (at least) some quarters of the Internet as is possible.

Such freedom seems so essential to Internet culture that, in my opinion, it must be protected.

> 4chan, despite all its vileness, has convinced me of the necessity to maintain as much unrestrained human freedom ...

Can you provide an example of something valuable you found on 4chan/8chan that could not be found on a site with less "vileness"?


Ok admittedly, this was 10 years ago and 4chan was a much different place (as was the internet at large). I was younger and spent a lot of (read: too much) time on 4chan back then.

At the very beginning of Minecraft, before it was even a thing, Notch would post on /v/ about it almost daily - incorporating changes/suggestions/criticisms people would fling at him anonymously and randomly. No one thought it would be huge - it was just fun. And Notch was so receptive.

I can't help but think his current Alt-Right views may have been influenced by his exposure to 4chan, but in those days it wasn't as crazy as it is now.

I have a 4 year old daughter now who LOVES Minecraft. And personally, it's been valuable to me, and I am utterly convinced that had Minecraft not been developed in its earliest days on 4chan, it might not have gotten to where it is today.

*Small shoutout also to Katawa Shojo - also made with lots of input from 4chan, which turned out to be quite a compleling VN game.

What has 4chan done lately that is valuable? That I couldn't tell you.

Is Minecraft something that could not be developed on a site with less "vileness"?

For example, couldn't Notch post on Reddit every day, incorporating changes/suggestions/criticisms people would fling at him anonymously and randomly?

Is there something about 4chan/8chan that is intrinsically better for building Minecraft that isn't available anywhere else?

It could have, and in fact Notch moved to reddit shortly after Minecraft's "birth" which helped expand it's popularity exponentially. (He went from posting on /v/ 100% to 100% on /r/minecraft over the course of a couple months - memory is hazy)

I'm convinced the initial randomness/anonymous feedback/chaos of that initial period helped grow the spark from the ember that split off of Infiniminer.

There is something creative in the chaos of 4chan - just look a greentexts. 99% of them are absolutely terrible. But the occasional gem catches on and made viral on the larger, less vile sites.

Also, I can't believe I forgot about Caturday. That started on 4chan as well. (also 10+ years ago).

Loli Ripe's j-breakcore.

Also greentexts.

I get both from elsewhere, but they originate on 4chan.

Some people find vileness valuable, and since it's completely subjective, they should have a place to participate in it unfettered and undeterred.

The thing about 4chan is that it's got a shitton of boards, and those boards are like kind of like, say, subreddits - they're pretty self-contained and have distinct communities. So, say, you have places like /pol/, but you also have places like /tg/, the "traditional games" forum (i.e. Magic enthusiasts and RPG players) which turned into a bubbling hub of creativity and collaborative storytelling. (and shitposting.) 4chan was abrasive everywhere, but it's hardly vile everywhere.

The experience I found on 4chan is pretty unique, and I don't know how well I can describe it, but I'm really glad that there was somewhere like it.

That said, 4chan's culture definitely started to decline around 2014~2015ish, around the time of Gamergate and the Trump campaign. Whenever 4chan's "hub of vileness" reputation starts getting really public in the news, the result is that a bunch of new people who think "hey, that sounds like exactly my jam!" start flooding in. And those two events both drew a huge amount of attention to 4chan, and not the kind of attention that brings good people. (It didn't help that a huge chunk of the old userbase fled around the time of Gamergate due to controversies about it on the site itself.) /pol/ was always a little leaky, but it started to get a lot worse around that time. Not to mention that /tg/ itself was already on the decline because of the positive reputation it had gained elsewhere on the Internet as various stories originally found on it were posted elsewhere, and so it increasingly became full of people who wanted to hear those kinds of stories but weren't actually RPG players themselves. There's a lot less positive to recommend the site these days, and a lot more negative.

Freedom of expression.

Political arguments that differ from the mainstream and that could only happen on a platform which is both anonymous and has a hands off approach to moderation and monetisation.

Still looking for an example of something valuable you found on 4chan/8chan that could not be found on a site with less "vileness".

> Political arguments that differ from the mainstream

That is a polite way of describing anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories such as Q-Anon.

yes, and twitter is nothing except a polite way to say cyberbullying

Even they've gone down that route. 4chan's been split into two domains with the NSFW boards on the original and the SFW boards (or as safe as 4chan ever gets) on the other.

Unfortunately the design is very much dated and some of the boards are too (Why does /vp/ need to exist when users can easily migrate to /vg/)

Not just about piracy but..

This is the usual pattern in online discussion platforms. Start free, advocate for free speech, then figure out you need to make money and you suddenly stop being a rebel and sink down to be the corporate sellout you always preached against. Reddit will eventually be replaced by something else and the cycle continues.

It's a natural movement of power between older and newer generations. As power transfers, the recipients change strategies from attack to defend.

that makes it sound far more inevitable than it really is.

It sure looks inevitable.

given that every corporate player gets displaced by another one that operates with the same incentives and structures, and plays by the same rules.

as a counterexample: in this case, r/piracy (and reddit more generally) could (in theory, and increasingly in practice) be replaced by p2p tech, which would simply not be controllable, nor have any incentive to appease advertisers.

a different example: you could say the same about healthcare providers. a medical startup could displace an established provider, then turn around and push the same rent extraction BS on their customers. Socialized healthcare (while it has its own problems for sure) will not follow the same rules.

Read: if something seems sucky yet inevitable, you're probably not questioning enough of your assumptions.

I'd argue that this is mostly restricted to for profit discussion platforms that only considers monthly users and are otherwise uninterested in community and topic issues.

There are lots of subject matter discussion platforms that never go trough this phase as a natural consequence of having primary concerns that isn't simply growing MAU numbers.

usually platforms that allow controversial topics to be discussed also happen to be the ones which grow faster. at some point, even hosting becomes a problem requirement some revenue streams. i am not blaming reddit or any other platform i am just stating that this cycle has existed for a long time and is predictable.

I don't know, it seems like platforms have learned to adapt without causing mass emigration. Basically, their shittiness to their userbase has to be gradual at a rate that they gain new users faster than they lose old ones.

And the turn to being shitty is often caused by the need to appease investors as you go for your next round of funding. But it seems that the patronage model is now offering substantial pro-consumer alternatives to the VC-backed model (growth at all costs, choke all competition with deep pockets).

Was Reddit preaching against copyrights? Or even against "corporate selloutism"?

I mean, banning watch-people-die is obviously because they are trying to be somehow attracting more advertisers, being more profit-friendly, but they never condoned copyright infringement as far as I know.

The best thing that ever happened to Reddit from a growth perspective was Digg blocking DeCSS keys. Digg flipped out trying to block it because it violated the DMCA and as a result a huge set of users fled to Reddit which notably did not block the same keys from being posted at the time.

Edit: Looks like it was the AACS key (Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) was the key that set all this off, not CSS.

eternal september forever

How is Reddit’s crackdown on piracy-mentioning posts going to affect r/Scholar? That’s a subreddit where the guidelines clearly point people to Sci-Hub and Libgen, and if the desired content is not there, people are encouraged to supply that content to those who request it. r/Scholar is very popular in the academic world, especially in countries like India where institutions often lack subscriptions to publication-hosting databases, and I can imagine great disappointment if that subreddit were shut down.

Dunno man, but I hope it survives. Even if it is banned, maybe it'll pop up as a different community elsewhere?

My Reddit time has dropped to almost 0 with the mass adoption of Discord. Lots of valuable Google Sheets full of resources are pinned in the most niche of Discord servers. It's not an effective swap in many cases, but it's advantages are currently vastly outweighing the disadvantages.

My only problem with Discord is that it's quite hard to keep organized. Honestly I think a good combination would be a Discord server coupled with a good wiki

I've considered spending more time on Discord than reddit but finding quality Discord servers is hard.

How did you find such valuable servers? Could you guide me.

mostly from within the communities that you wish to follow... for instance the podcasts and youtube channels surrounding $HOBBY might lead you their own server. then once you're in a couple, and get chatting, people mention other servers, or one of the channels will be dedicated to listing similar or related servers. many will be linked/pinned from subreddits too.

what's your interest? I might be able to point you to a few

Thanks for the guidance.

Most of my interests revolves around business, masterminds, entrepreneurship, freelancing etc.

I have an IPFS archive available here, feel free to pin it to your node.


It seems that links all point to the original website, not an IPFS copy.

As a result, you'd still lose a lot of content, for example all the images stored in imgur. Is there a way to solve this ?

The goal of the archive was to keep anything from inside reddit (submission links, comments) available with the smallest footprint possible. (compressed 80MB, decompressed 1.2GB)

I guess you could run the archive tool with some extra parameters to grab external content, but it will substantially increase the archive size.

At some point, I think content-hosts should counter-sue for time and customers/clients/users lost for erroneous copyright filings. Then the internet can just become one great big lawsuit that happens to have computers attached to it.

If people want the data after this purge is complete, it might be available in resoruces such as those linked from https://www.reddit.com/r/datasets/comments/6lqbsd/downloadin...

Though you may need to do some work to extract what you want from the mass of data, and won't get the latest information.

I’m surprised reddit let’s the sports stream subreddits stay up.

These are kind of going mainstream and must be a huge thorn in the side of cable companies

They started cracking down on the soccer stream subs a few months ago, but I'm not sure why they haven't followed suit on the American sports streams.

Yeah, and people just moved elsewhere. All it's going to do is hurt Reddit's bottom line. Let me guess porn is next? Digg is looming

That massive ban-wave was pushed by entities such as Sky who don't have an interest in American sports streams

RIP r/soccerstreams

My only guess is that the NFL, NBA, etc. don’t really care. The viewers are still watching the ads.

Some of r/Piracy seems to be willing to play with more p2p solutions. If you're willing to sacrifice archival properties (like the last ten years woth of stuff...) then even an IRC channel might do. Some people are playing with scuttlebutt/ssb, and frankly I don't see why that wouldn't be a good fit, assuming you handle your feed with a bit of care if you want to stay anonymous.

Edit: of course, not everyone is happy about this. There is definitely a culture mismatch between most of the (current) ssb community and r/piracy.

I hope people from internet archive is storing everything.

Until no alternative to unique source of streaming with a single account shows up, I 'm not going to pay for every streaming service

I wonder why regulations target content sharing platforms, not the content itself. or the ads companies.

Funny yet /r/NHLStreams persists. The internet is a funny place.

It's all up to the copyright holder. Some are more active looking over their copyrights, some just care less.

This is a small price to pay for the censorship that has successfully defeated the scourges of white nationalism, bigotry, and general ignorance.

Oh, censorship hasn't actually achieved those things, you say? Then why the fuck are we tolerating its coordinated resurgence?!

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0. The same old authoritarian bullshit that jumpstarted reddit can now end it. It is once again time to move on to new pastures, ideally ones that can't just flip the censorship switch in the future.

It's just a victim of the times we live in. Reddit, like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, simply grew too much outside of its original intention. It was a place to form anonymous communities around niche interests, but these interests started to spread into the dark elements of hate speech, child pornography, etc. When profitability comes into question, as any company wants to strive for, it has to appease.

Reddit was a nice idea, but it just got too big. Either it has to take responsibility for its users' content, and act as an editor/publisher, or it has to find a revenue stream outside of pursuing advertising revenue.

"Reddit, like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter," ... "It was a place to form anonymous communities around niche interests"


None of these platforms got established as primarily long tail platforms. They were meant to be potentially big with lowest common denominators (news, aggregation, social connection in education communities) and grow into niches.

Niche are topical forums and topical social networks.

Reddit was a link aggregator for the lowest common denominator. But with the introduction of comments and subreddits they stumbled into the role of an aggregator of niche communities and mostly pivoted to fulfill that role better, until fairly recently (with the redesign, community containment and bans etc. in an effort to increase mass appeal)

Facebook was for students, specifically one or two campuses to begin with. YouTube is in the name, it was a video platform for users to start personal channels of tubing themselves and idk wtf twitter was ever supposed to be.

Twitter was started as any easy way to send group texts via SMS, before phones would widely support group texting.

>or it has to find a revenue stream outside of pursuing advertising revenue

hey what do we pay gold for then :(

As far as I understand, the gold revenue is not really meaningful compared to advertising, it's something like a few percent of their total revenue.

The four horsemen have always been on reddit, hence my reference to the AACS key.

The only things that have changed is that the payment processors have decided to leverage their business in a play to control speech, and that there is a good contingent of users cheering on the resulting censorship push in a shortsighted fantasy of making people better.

The latter is what I take issue with. Sure, it's really just that ignorant pop(ulist) culture has usurped the Internet. And yes that itself was unfortunately inevitable. But it's not Internet culture and there should be more uniform condemnation and outrage from the traditionally marginalized communities who took to the Internet earlier, rather than mental gymnastics justifying how censorship is great when it's deployed against today's undesirables.


Calling safe spaces 'fascist' offhandedly is rather extreme. such a statement should probably be explained or left out. Currently, it just looks hostile for the sake of being hostile.

It's funny you call safe spaces Fascistic while arguing against censorship. A lot of it doesn't have much to do with civilized disagreement and honest debate since many of the people deplatformed are neither interested nor capable of it

ah yes 4chan lite was supposed to turn out completely differently.

You mean canv.as?


well yes considering how much he has empowered far right racist crowd

If you're suggesting that Donald Trump has some connection with the bans of controversial subreddits I think you're wrong, since the one big ban of fatpeoplehate, shitniggerssay and a few other controversial subreddits happened in 2015, a full year before Donald Trump's election.

Especially given that /r/The_Donald is still around.

it's absolute bullshit that they haven't banned that cesspit yet

But political subreddits didn't start seeing bans until 2016. Around the same time, the face of the major news subreddits drastically changed as well. I don't know if it was a result of the election, but the timing does seem to consider further consideration of motives.

I think this is the result of anti-propaganda efforts after the election.


/r/jailbait and a few related subreddits were closed way back in 2011.

And while they are less popular, there definitely are still subreddits dedicated to "legal aged women who look like very young teenagers wink wink" content, with rules that are entirely designed to argue the letter of the law so they don't get banned.

Stop signs and police citations are a small price to pay for the traffic control that has eliminated fatal road accidents.

Oh, traffic control hasn't actually eliminated every fatality? Then why the fuck are we tolerating stop signs and police citations?

/r/Piracy owners deserve it. They should've considered such a possibility before allowing their community to grow on a platform they do not control.

So they are not "victims", just a bit inconsiderate. And there is no reason to blame reddit, or anyone, for the deletion. They are not obliged to provide their service to anyone.

On the other hand, it's thanks to communities like this one and others that Reddit got where it is today. So not unreasonable to blame them when they change their mind in the name of Ads.

Nope. These communities' owners and participants were basically just doing free work by producing content. But they didn't sign a contract or anything.

> So not unreasonable to blame them when they change their mind in the name of Ads. That change of mind was a part of their business model. Why blaming people for making legal businesses?

The problem is in people who trust "free" services and expect the terms to remain the same forever.

I could create a site promising to host all files forever and after years of operation delete everything. It would certainly be within my rights, but you'd have every reason to hate me. Having a legal right to do something doesn't mean it is a good (and compassionate) idea.

There's a difference between being right and being constructive, and you should consider this difference when submitting public commentary on sensitive topics (or just any time you open your mouth). In a purely self-interested sense, being right but abrasive is a poor strategy because it induces people to focus on the faults in your argument, rather than the merits.

To wit, you've got a good point about the importance of autonomy and independence. But no one is rushing to defend your position here because you've sprinkled in a few unsympathetic value judgments and absolute claims along the way.

Linking to content is not piracy.

/r/piracy had a strict policy of not linking to pirate content, even. They really tried to stay on Reddit's good side.

I don't go on /r/Piracy, but from my understanding there were already rules in place, and heavily enforced, about not linking to infringing content, and it was supposed to be just a place to discuss piracy. How is simple discussion of a topic infringing at all? How did they deserve this purge?

It's exactly this attitude that has a chilling effect on all speech, no matter the subject. You should be ashamed.

> It's exactly this attitude that has a chilling effect on all speech, no matter the subject.

No, it isn't. The lack of precaution and inability to decently set up a forum software is.

Good. Piracy must be eradicated if culture is to survive.

Culture != commerce. The very fact that piracy is sustained by volunteer communities should speak for itself here, but if you need more evidence, consider:

> The scope of music collected on What.cd was almost incomprehensibly vast: More than a million distinct “releases” of songs, albums, and bootlegs.

> Bach cello suites. Obscure Chinese indie rock. Nigerian hip-hop. Thai psych-funk from the 1970s. Every release of Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue, including vinyl rips and remasters. UK techno tracks that were pressed on vinyl in the 90s, with only a few hundred copies made, and uploaded by dedicated crate-diggers.

> The collections of Spotify and Apple Music may seem infinite, but What.cd had thousands of albums that were not available anywhere else—and now, are not available anywhere at all. The site had about 800,000 artists as of early 2016...

from https://qz.com/840661/what-cd-is-gone-a-eulogy-for-the-great...

Piracy may well be a requirement for culture to survive beyond that which is mandated and approved by the major content owners.

In fact, once something enters the public domain, copying it, consuming it, drawing attention to it, documenting it, analysing it, archiving it, reusing it, in short, using it; is absolutely vital to keep those facets of culture a part of our heritage. And it is completely legal.

But between the public domain and the moment cultural artefacts are created is a vast gap where copyright shields everything from those acts, even when nobody is monetizing it, and when all that stands between losing it forever and maintaining it for future generations is a couple of pirates who ripped a copy at an opportune moment.

The current copyright status quo is killing culture. 28 years of copyright protects the creator, life plus 100 years just protects the profits of some faceless megacorporation or rent-seeking artist's estate.

Not arguing that there's no loss but Redacted, What.cd's successor, is currently at 840k releases and 725k artists. As far as pure numbers are concerned that's a decent recovery.

This is a rather strange take considering how large and quality the cultural (music, movies, tv, games, books, art, etc) communities are in the pirating scene.

If anything piracy is essential to the survival of culture. The more we barricade our works into locked off walled gardens the more likely we are to lose them. The music piracy scene is a large reason why a lot of music is still around today.

Bands and Artists whither away and die but the music lives on. How do you make that happen when all the music is locked behind DRM on streaming services?

Likewise goes for gaming communities that have reverse engineered the online services for long dead games. It's cracking and its piracy to distribute these games but they maintain vibrant communities for abandoned games.

I fear that with the increased reliance on streaming services, other gated content providers, and the increased effort to force copyright compliance that a lot of what we consume nowadays will become lost internet history.

> This is a rather strange take considering how large and quality the cultural (music, movies, tv, games, books, art, etc) communities are in the pirating scene.

> If anything piracy is essential to the survival of culture.

The book pirating scene is poor though. Outside of YA best-sellers and the usual K. Dick and Pratchett there isn't much to pirate if you are into anything not completely maintstream.

Can't say I agree, Libgen alone has plenty more.

You have plenty of private boards with absolutely everything you want.

I think that's a type of self-constructed self-assuring extrapolation. The concept that because the things that one individual wants are available, surely all things for all individuals are available.

Looking at my paper books; Pooley's Flight Guide 1985; FIDO - Flying Through Fog; The Engineering History of the North of Ireland. Just three volumes out of thousands that are slowly slipping into oblivion.

The long tail of the Internet is not long enough to preserve all knowledge, particularly at the rate libraries are discarding old and 'unwanted' books.

GP did say "absolutely everything." Surely the intent was that "all things for all individuals are available."

They don't have the book I am currently reading (or any from that publisher), Die Wand/The wall from Marlen Haushofer - french translation, though but I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

Mind you this is the kind of book I buy, even in ePub format.

People passionate about something are much more responsible than actual legal rights holders.

Rights holders only do the absolute minimum to preserve the culture they own, countless movies available in the commercial space are the worst quality versions of those movies and people passionate about those movies will go as far as tracking down multiple versions to take the picture quality of one, cut scenes from another, the sound from another and the subtitles from a fourth to make definitive best image, best sound, no cuts version and they do all that for free.

> Rights holders only do the absolute minimum to preserve the culture they own ...

I mean, this is not just true, but even more clearly so when you look at things beyond the (fairly niche and not legally sanctioned) 'piracy' scene. There is solid scholarship showing that content which has entered the public domain is far better preserved and accrues far more references, compared to very similar content which is still copyright-encumbered. So it is clearly the case that, while having some copyright is likely good for culture, we have way more of it at present than would be justified.

I know I’m short a night of sleep but:

I’m pretty sure you two are in complete agreement.

I misread "not just" as "just not", but after staring for a while, I don't think they're arguing.

They are, but it took me a second read too.

Is there a keyword for that kind of version improvement?

Huh? Piracy: permissionless copying, extending, including, remixing, transforming, retelling, inspiring; is culture.

>Piracy: the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work.

Doesn't seem inherently bad to me. It would be bad if it were for your own commerical benefit but if done for the preservation of culture for example it could be justified. If we couldn't copy CD's some music or video games might be lost forever -- even though copying is forbidden by the licence.

Humans learn by copying and adapting. Pretty awesome culture we'd have if artists and musicians of days past would have to jump through DMCA-hoops.

I can picture it...sorry Mr. Picasso great artists don't steal...they go straight to jail. Besides, your art ain't all that. Mr. Mozart, we are sorry to inform you that Symphony No. 37 violates Mr. Haydn's intellectual property and has to be removed from the musical canons for all eternity (just like pretty much all of Mr. Händel's work)

Arguably the greatest US piece of music culture (Jazz) would be banned completely because it's the worst possibly offense. Live streaming piracy with no shame.

etc. pp.

We had culture before copyright, we'll have culture after copyright.

All that needs to be eradicated is the obsolete middle-men acting as gatekeepers to our shared culture for profit.

The middle-men are the most desperate about tyrannical copyright laws. The content creators don't need IP to survive and create, because they can always monetize their content in some form. But for the middle-men it's their only means of income.

We're actually at a point where the supposed middle-men are clearly acting against the creators' best interest, in many ways. Which means we're mot even dealing with middle-men anymore, just pure copyright trolls.

Copyright needs to be eradicated if culture is to survive.

Without piracy, "culture" is exactly what the IP overlords say it is, nothing more noting less. Do you want to live in that world?

You're so short-sighted it's amazing. We've seen numerous times how things lacking copies are lost to time, Doctor Who is probably the most prominent example, had people pirated it, we might still have something that has a big cultural value.

Piracy is also the only way a lot of us can get access to content, georestrictions are a huge annoyance for far too many of us literally no way to get paid access for years and years and years. That's not fair treatment.

All culture is a lie and persists only in the telling. If we don't copy those movies, they don't really live on ..

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Since this statement is an absolute truth claim, perhaps the one making it is a sith?

This comment will eventually cause the deletion of this entire thread. Congratulations.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact