Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Rather, when dealing with post-scarcity goods, the seller has two, and only two options: Monetize the people that are getting that content, or spend money and resource playing pirate whackamole.

One of these two things makes money.

We're halfway through the 2010s, if a random web developer can paywall content and take money for access in hours, then the BBC can manage. I want to give them money. They won't let me.

Their loss. My conscience is clear when I watch Countdown through a UK proxy.



Both make money. If the second option didn't, as you disingenuously imply, they wouldn't be trying to stop the piracy.


That implies a rational business. Rationally, new content ends up on the internet, unencrypted, within minutes of air, and all the whackamole in the world doesn't change that.

All the anti-piracy methods practiced by major content providers is inherently irrational.


Not all of them. The ones that convince people that piracy is immoral may actually get some people to buy content.


That argument is asinine. Murder happens even though we outlaw it and enforce the law. That doesn't make the law ineffectual or "irrational".


...Please try to understand how "asinine" a comparison between copyright infringement and murder is.


Or maybe you should understand the point of the comparison. If it truly makes you feel better, pretend I said speeding.




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

Search: