logoalt Hacker News

hlynurdtoday at 10:39 AM4 repliesview on HN

>companies spent a long time telling us downloading single songs via Napster was the worst thing ever, before torrenting every book in existence themselves

really not the same entities here


Replies

CJeffersontoday at 10:46 AM

No, but why should we accept they get away with it? Also Microsoft has definitely sued people for pirating windows and now collaborates with OpenAI and uses their ai trained on stolen materials.

show 1 reply
ipythontoday at 11:02 AM

Well, it's kinda converging, because Napster and Microsoft have teamed up to build a multimodal interactive video agent through a simple proxy API (this is a direct quote from Napster's blog post)

https://www.napster.com/blog/napster-heads-to-microsoft-buil...

cgiotoday at 10:47 AM

Not at leaf level, but if you trace the trunk, pretty sure you end up on the same one.

torginustoday at 11:32 AM

Morally speaking, one of the issues of modern society is the idea that knowledge should be free which was partially started by the file sharing movement, which didn't really move society in the right direction imo.

Free means the same as worthless, which inherently isn't true - since information takes time to consume in some form, and your time isn't worthless. Therefore even if you could listen to all songs theoretically for free, you would need to spend an inordinate time doing that.

When I was a kid, getting a CD from your favourite band was a major expense, getting a video game even more so. But it formed a sort of emotional attachment (and not even just for me), my friends talked about how 'band X''s new album was amazing or a stinker. Since there were multiple bands making similar kinds of music, choosing to be a fan of one but not the other carried real monetary weight.

Nowadays you just fish out a song you think you would like out of the endless sea of Spotify, no different from prompting an LLM. No, Spotify didn't make me enjoy music more.

Same applies for Steam & videogames.

Therefore I think the ritualistic act of paying money to get access to something does have a purpose. It inherently establishes the value of information to you, makes it an investment that you need to recoup by using it. I'm sure most musicians would trade a million fans who might check them out if they're in town, to ones who think their music changed their perspective in life.

Also the process of creating a song that vaguely appeals to millions is different from making one that speaks to a thousand.

This is a fundamental issue of modern capitalistic society, similar to the Marxist idea of 'alienation' - once something is cheap to get, you don't appreciate the effort that went into making it. And if your customers don't care about the thing they get, producers won't make an effor to make it good either.

And once nobody cares, people even forget what a quality product is like.

show 2 replies