6 ms·

So they're criminalizing yet another everyday activity that hurts no one and is already protected by civil law. It seems to me the US and its puppet follower st

by joesmo 11y ago

So they're criminalizing yet another everyday activity that hurts no one and is already protected by civil law. It seems to me the US and its puppet follower states just love the idea of criminalizing things that occur naturally, hurt no one, and in their enforcement and chaos bring in billions of dollars in profit off of ruining people's lives. This has now been the norm for almost two decades and the movie / music "industry" wonders why many people refuse to give them a penny? The damage has already been done. At this point, piracy is the only ethical solution to obtaining such content, as giving these companies money is immoral and supports people who threaten and ruin people's lives for profit.

jakejake 11y ago
If you feel that way and don't want to support the industry, the real ethical thing to do is to not watch or listen to their products. Only support artists who are releasing their material under terms that you agree with.
- flarg 11y ago
  I want to disagree with you because what you propose is, at the very least, inconvenient - but you're 100% correct, we should vote with our pocketbooks.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    From http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/stop-treating-citizens-as-consumers.html http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/stop-treating-c... "When people are framed as consumers, society becomes little more than a marketplace. Social problems get treated with individualized, market-oriented solutions — where each consumer-citizen is solely responsible for spotting deceptive practices and avoiding unfair schemes — instead of collective, rights-based protections. When the private sector enters into the social contract, ... [we get] shallow public-private partnerships in which the corporate actors are really in charge. While the public is hung out to dry with effectively no defense or recourse since our political rights have evaporated into market choices."
    - rayiner 11y ago
      How is that applicable here? What political rights are in play here? We're talking about entertainment, about as purely commercial a product as you can get. We're not talking about healthcare or water or food or housing.
      - walterbell 11y ago
        The EFF has kindly created a youth education project on the topic of legal rights related to the history of innovation and copyright law, fair use, free speech and the public domain. From http://www.teachingcopyright.org/ http://www.teachingcopyright.org/ "Kids and teens are bombarded with messages from a myriad of sources that using new technology is high-risk behavior. Downloading music is compared to stealing a bicycle — even though many downloads are lawful. Making videos using short clips from other sources is treated as probably illegal — even though many such videos are also lawful."
- api 11y ago
  Also important to note that even if you pirate, you are increasing a film or album's viral coefficient and possibly helping verbally promote it. So yeah, if you hate an industry boycott it. Remove it from your life.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    That's the funny part. One of the principle arguments for "legit" piracy is that the increased exposure is actually good for business. So combined, these two arguments amount to "you should pirate from these terrible, evil companies in order to increase their profits." Huh.
    - kiiski 11y ago
      And that's why you shouldn't combine arguments from two separate persons. Just because they both disagree with you, doesn't mean they agree with each other.
- klagermkii 11y ago
  But if you want change isn't defiance generally way more effective at creating it than boycotts? Especially when there is a huge power difference between consumers and the multi-national media conglomerates. I get the feeling when people promote boycotts as the so-called ethical choice they're basically saying "shhhh, I like the system as it is, why don't you just go do your own thing instead". Even though intellectual property might be viewed as a relatively unimportant issue, I think it only helps protect the status quo to push an ineffectual form of protest.
- joesmo 11y ago
  I'm already not supporting them financially. Why should I have to also deprive myself of culture as well because of them, especially when I think access to culture is my right? Your argument makes no sense.
  - jakejake 11y ago
    Depriving yourself of culture? Give me a break! Just say that you don't want to pay anything for music and movies released by major labels and studios, but you still want to enjoy them. Don't pretend you're taking some ethical stance.
- maldusiecle 11y ago
  One problem with this line of reasoning is that even cultural products released on looser terms tend to be captured by corporate behemoths. It's not uncommon for large labels to buy up rights to independently-released music, for instance. The artists may have limited say in this: they licensed the music to a small label, that label went bankrupt, the rights got bought up by a bigger company (which never would have signed the artist in the first place, but now that they're semi-successful there's less risk). The problem isn't that you can't buy this or that new album without supporting the industry, the problem is that an entire medium is getting sucked up by these huge corporations, who push for copyright limits which make it impossible for that work to ever enter the public domain. "Vote with your wallet" is not a reasonable answer to this kind of situation.
rayiner 11y ago
> At this point, piracy is the only ethical solution to obtaining such content, as giving these companies money is immoral and supports people who threaten and ruin people's lives for profit. I don't understand this rationale at all. Surely the solution to an industry whose business practices you don't like is to stop using their products. Indeed, your rationale is one reason why Hollywood has so much power. Piracy eviscerates the criticism against these legal measures by strengthening the idea that people don't really care about freedom, they just want a popular product for free. Every time you pirate a Hollywood movie instead of simply forgoing watching it, you just validate the value and importance of the products Hollywood produces. You just reinforce the idea that these products are so important, it's worth undertaking these extreme measures to protect the companies that produce them.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  When effective cultural participation requires keeping up to date with at least some of Hollywood's products, choosing not to view/listen is the same as choosing to be just that much more socially disconnected. See Moxie Marlinspike's presentation about this concept applied to technology: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk When one oligopoly owns the vast majority of contemporary popular culture, we, the populace, should be expecting a lot more in return.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    One of my very most successful friends, by far one of the most socially and artistically connected people I know, didn't see Star Wars until his late 30s. He seemed to have suffered for that: not at all. Exactly, in as much detail as you can be patient enough to provide, how does "effective cultural participation" require you to see shitty new-release Hollywood movies? Is Marco Arment culturally disconnected? http://www.marco.org/2015/04/11/popular-movies-i-havent-seen http://www.marco.org/2015/04/11/popular-movies-i-havent-seen
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      When I was growing up, we didn't have a television until partway through junior high. (One of the best moves my parents made.) I kept hearing these conversations in the hallway: "Did you see Starsky & Hutch last night?" (Yes, I really am that old...) I felt a bit left out based on that. But I felt left out because of a lot of things. I wasn't a member of the dominant religion. I came into that school knowing nobody, because I didn't attend one of the elementary schools that fed into it. I didn't live in the neighborhood (my parents got me to go to that school rather than the one I was geographically supposed to attend because it had fewer knife fights.) And, I was a nerd. So the actual amount I was "left out of things" because of not having a TV and therefore being unable to effectively culturally participate was... pretty small. That was in junior high. Today, it's even less relevant to me. There's a conversation about a movie I didn't see? "Nope, didn't see it." If they are uncaring enough to keep having the conversation about that for the next 20 minutes, well, I'll just do something else. Or I'll listen, learn a bit about a movie I didn't see, go to Wikipedia and read about the plot, and save about two hours and $7.
forrestthewoods 11y ago
If you're gonna go that far then I'd contest that simply consuming their content is unethical. HBO is more than thrilled with the piracy rates for Game of Thrones. It helps them. A lot. If you don't want to support "immoral" companies then great. But you don't get claim moral superiority while benefiting from their work. You can't have your cake and eat it.

by joesmo 11y ago

jakejake 11y ago

If you feel that way and don't want to support the industry, the real ethical thing to do is to not watch or listen to their products. Only support artists who are releasing their material under terms that you agree with.

flarg 11y ago
I want to disagree with you because what you propose is, at the very least, inconvenient - but you're 100% correct, we should vote with our pocketbooks.
- walterbell 11y ago
  From http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/stop-treating-citizens-as-consumers.html http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/stop-treating-c... "When people are framed as consumers, society becomes little more than a marketplace. Social problems get treated with individualized, market-oriented solutions — where each consumer-citizen is solely responsible for spotting deceptive practices and avoiding unfair schemes — instead of collective, rights-based protections. When the private sector enters into the social contract, ... [we get] shallow public-private partnerships in which the corporate actors are really in charge. While the public is hung out to dry with effectively no defense or recourse since our political rights have evaporated into market choices."
  - rayiner 11y ago
    How is that applicable here? What political rights are in play here? We're talking about entertainment, about as purely commercial a product as you can get. We're not talking about healthcare or water or food or housing.
    - walterbell 11y ago
      The EFF has kindly created a youth education project on the topic of legal rights related to the history of innovation and copyright law, fair use, free speech and the public domain. From http://www.teachingcopyright.org/ http://www.teachingcopyright.org/ "Kids and teens are bombarded with messages from a myriad of sources that using new technology is high-risk behavior. Downloading music is compared to stealing a bicycle — even though many downloads are lawful. Making videos using short clips from other sources is treated as probably illegal — even though many such videos are also lawful."
api 11y ago
Also important to note that even if you pirate, you are increasing a film or album's viral coefficient and possibly helping verbally promote it. So yeah, if you hate an industry boycott it. Remove it from your life.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  That's the funny part. One of the principle arguments for "legit" piracy is that the increased exposure is actually good for business. So combined, these two arguments amount to "you should pirate from these terrible, evil companies in order to increase their profits." Huh.
  - kiiski 11y ago
    And that's why you shouldn't combine arguments from two separate persons. Just because they both disagree with you, doesn't mean they agree with each other.
klagermkii 11y ago
But if you want change isn't defiance generally way more effective at creating it than boycotts? Especially when there is a huge power difference between consumers and the multi-national media conglomerates. I get the feeling when people promote boycotts as the so-called ethical choice they're basically saying "shhhh, I like the system as it is, why don't you just go do your own thing instead". Even though intellectual property might be viewed as a relatively unimportant issue, I think it only helps protect the status quo to push an ineffectual form of protest.
joesmo 11y ago
I'm already not supporting them financially. Why should I have to also deprive myself of culture as well because of them, especially when I think access to culture is my right? Your argument makes no sense.
- jakejake 11y ago
  Depriving yourself of culture? Give me a break! Just say that you don't want to pay anything for music and movies released by major labels and studios, but you still want to enjoy them. Don't pretend you're taking some ethical stance.
maldusiecle 11y ago
One problem with this line of reasoning is that even cultural products released on looser terms tend to be captured by corporate behemoths. It's not uncommon for large labels to buy up rights to independently-released music, for instance. The artists may have limited say in this: they licensed the music to a small label, that label went bankrupt, the rights got bought up by a bigger company (which never would have signed the artist in the first place, but now that they're semi-successful there's less risk). The problem isn't that you can't buy this or that new album without supporting the industry, the problem is that an entire medium is getting sucked up by these huge corporations, who push for copyright limits which make it impossible for that work to ever enter the public domain. "Vote with your wallet" is not a reasonable answer to this kind of situation.

rayiner 11y ago

> At this point, piracy is the only ethical solution to obtaining such content, as giving these companies money is immoral and supports people who threaten and ruin people's lives for profit. I don't understand this rationale at all. Surely the solution to an industry whose business practices you don't like is to stop using their products. Indeed, your rationale is one reason why Hollywood has so much power. Piracy eviscerates the criticism against these legal measures by strengthening the idea that people don't really care about freedom, they just want a popular product for free. Every time you pirate a Hollywood movie instead of simply forgoing watching it, you just validate the value and importance of the products Hollywood produces. You just reinforce the idea that these products are so important, it's worth undertaking these extreme measures to protect the companies that produce them.

nitrogen 11y ago
When effective cultural participation requires keeping up to date with at least some of Hollywood's products, choosing not to view/listen is the same as choosing to be just that much more socially disconnected. See Moxie Marlinspike's presentation about this concept applied to technology: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk When one oligopoly owns the vast majority of contemporary popular culture, we, the populace, should be expecting a lot more in return.
- tptacek 11y ago
  One of my very most successful friends, by far one of the most socially and artistically connected people I know, didn't see Star Wars until his late 30s. He seemed to have suffered for that: not at all. Exactly, in as much detail as you can be patient enough to provide, how does "effective cultural participation" require you to see shitty new-release Hollywood movies? Is Marco Arment culturally disconnected? http://www.marco.org/2015/04/11/popular-movies-i-havent-seen http://www.marco.org/2015/04/11/popular-movies-i-havent-seen
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    When I was growing up, we didn't have a television until partway through junior high. (One of the best moves my parents made.) I kept hearing these conversations in the hallway: "Did you see Starsky & Hutch last night?" (Yes, I really am that old...) I felt a bit left out based on that. But I felt left out because of a lot of things. I wasn't a member of the dominant religion. I came into that school knowing nobody, because I didn't attend one of the elementary schools that fed into it. I didn't live in the neighborhood (my parents got me to go to that school rather than the one I was geographically supposed to attend because it had fewer knife fights.) And, I was a nerd. So the actual amount I was "left out of things" because of not having a TV and therefore being unable to effectively culturally participate was... pretty small. That was in junior high. Today, it's even less relevant to me. There's a conversation about a movie I didn't see? "Nope, didn't see it." If they are uncaring enough to keep having the conversation about that for the next 20 minutes, well, I'll just do something else. Or I'll listen, learn a bit about a movie I didn't see, go to Wikipedia and read about the plot, and save about two hours and $7.

forrestthewoods 11y ago

If you're gonna go that far then I'd contest that simply consuming their content is unethical. HBO is more than thrilled with the piracy rates for Game of Thrones. It helps them. A lot. If you don't want to support "immoral" companies then great. But you don't get claim moral superiority while benefiting from their work. You can't have your cake and eat it.