5 ms·

Who is "you people"? People who pirate, or people in tech? What makes you think they're one and the same?

api 11y ago
The parent is referring to the typical attitude that's normally on display here about piracy of music, books, movies, etc. It usually ranges from the dismissive to claims that it actually benefits artists to the occasional bit of "fuck the artists" truth. (That's more or less verbatim from one thread I saw.) You'll also hear a lot of libertarian and/or fluffy pseudo-socialist arguments for abolishing IP law when this stuff comes up. Information wants to be free, man! But when it pertains to a programmer, a developer, an academic, etc., I do often see a very different attitude on display. You can see it in this thread. One of the top replies right now is about how the OP probably has an actionable DMCA claim. I thought the DMCA was Satan...? I guess that's only if certain kinds of people use it. I think it boils down to a kind of classism or cultural/vocational tribalism. Programmers and academics are members of our class/tribe, and their works are worthy of protection and compensation. But writers, actors, producers, musicians, etc. are not and they can go busk on street corners. I don't think most people realize they're doing this, but they are. They've just never stopped to reflect on it or to unpack this nonsense. There are exceptions, but dig up any thread around here on Popcorn Time or The Pirate Bay and you will see what I mean. Variants of "IP law should not exist" or "fuck the artists" is 9:1 the dominant opinion, with people putting forward a different view often getting down voted to the lightest shades of grey. I say this as someone who used to believe this stuff until I reflected on it and thought about the implications and learned a bit more about how the world actually works. Abolishing copyright will only benefit the big content aggregators and vertically integrated delivery/streaming services, who will now be able to monetize everything in any way they want without paying anyone for it. Artists will starve. Most will leave the profession. Music usually comes up in these threads but musicians won't be the most fucked -- at least musicians can tour. The most fucked profession will be writing. When was the last time you attended a paid recital of a novel by its author?
- cwyers 11y ago
  I think that trying to ding people for being intellectually inconsistent requires showing that the same people are the ones saying the inconsistent things. It's possible that different people are just drawn to commenting in different threads.
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    It also requires understanding the points people are making. Everyone agrees that selling pirated content is wrong. Hell, most pirates would agree to that. You can say it's a shitty attitude to have, but it's a consistent one: "Piracy is OK as long as you don't resell what you pirate" is internally consistent, even if you think it's morally wrong. Similarly, people seem to be consistently against plagiarism, which is apparently at issue here as well. Again, the stance "Piracy is OK but don't pass pirated works off as your own" is internally consistent, even if you think it's morally wrong.
- SeanBoocock 11y ago
  Can't agree more or upvote this high enough. As a programmer working in an entertainment medium (video games), I can understand both of the (caricatured) sides you posit. Ultimately my sympathies rest with content creators whose experience of the "disruptive" forces of technology and contemporary startup culture is a net negative to their individual livelihoods and their profession more generally. I'm all for technology moving fast, even breaking things. I just want those agents of disruption to spend as much time cleaning up the mess they create in the process.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    Agree with everything here. I enjoy the startups sticking it to the entrenched, backwards industries but they have a nasty habit of leaving a lot of innocent people stuck in the crossfire.
- sukulaku 11y ago
  Writing the kind of thorough examination of these issues your post deserves would be biting off way more than I could chew right now, so I'll just make some random remarks instead. People pirating entertainment isn't exactly "the free market" in action, but it's close. The common denominator is people doing what they want to, when no one intervenes in their activities. So if there's nothing to deter people from pirating movies, or to punish them for it, then they'll go ahead and pirate movies. The risk is really small, and the reward is (practically) instant gratification. Very few would pass that up. On the one hand, I think IP laws shouldn't exist. They're not meant to benefit the creators anyway, but the entertainment industry BigCorps instead. On the other hand, I think it's wrong, to a small extent, to pirate movies or music or anything else someone has created and put up for sale. There's a deal available to you, and it's up to you whether you'll take it. You get something, the creator gets money, and both are more or less happy. But if you circumvent the deal by downloading the product instead, that's comparable to stealing without the creator actually losing the product. Of course, the entertainment industry equates pirating with actual stealing, because it's more impactful that way. That's dishonest too. But all in all, people will act according to incentives, and they will pursue their personal gain and the satisfaction of their wants and needs. Nothing's going to change that, so it's pointless to even try. Ultimately IP laws do way more harm than good, and they're not meant to benefit us little guys anyway. Think of all the patent lawsuits flying around in the US, or that piece of shit Martin Shkreli charging outrageous prices for drugs people need to survive, etc. All of that follows from IP laws existing too. So it's not just about "creators" getting what they deserve, it's all the scummy other stuff too. Besides, what anyone deserves for his creation, is whatever he can get people to voluntarily pay for it. Nothing more, nothing less. That's something to keep in mind too. If there's no market for someone's creation, that doesn't mean there should be legislation that makes people pay for it. Alright, I guess that's enough rambling now.

api 11y ago

The parent is referring to the typical attitude that's normally on display here about piracy of music, books, movies, etc. It usually ranges from the dismissive to claims that it actually benefits artists to the occasional bit of "fuck the artists" truth. (That's more or less verbatim from one thread I saw.) You'll also hear a lot of libertarian and/or fluffy pseudo-socialist arguments for abolishing IP law when this stuff comes up. Information wants to be free, man! But when it pertains to a programmer, a developer, an academic, etc., I do often see a very different attitude on display. You can see it in this thread. One of the top replies right now is about how the OP probably has an actionable DMCA claim. I thought the DMCA was Satan...? I guess that's only if certain kinds of people use it. I think it boils down to a kind of classism or cultural/vocational tribalism. Programmers and academics are members of our class/tribe, and their works are worthy of protection and compensation. But writers, actors, producers, musicians, etc. are not and they can go busk on street corners. I don't think most people realize they're doing this, but they are. They've just never stopped to reflect on it or to unpack this nonsense. There are exceptions, but dig up any thread around here on Popcorn Time or The Pirate Bay and you will see what I mean. Variants of "IP law should not exist" or "fuck the artists" is 9:1 the dominant opinion, with people putting forward a different view often getting down voted to the lightest shades of grey. I say this as someone who used to believe this stuff until I reflected on it and thought about the implications and learned a bit more about how the world actually works. Abolishing copyright will only benefit the big content aggregators and vertically integrated delivery/streaming services, who will now be able to monetize everything in any way they want without paying anyone for it. Artists will starve. Most will leave the profession. Music usually comes up in these threads but musicians won't be the most fucked -- at least musicians can tour. The most fucked profession will be writing. When was the last time you attended a paid recital of a novel by its author?

cwyers 11y ago
I think that trying to ding people for being intellectually inconsistent requires showing that the same people are the ones saying the inconsistent things. It's possible that different people are just drawn to commenting in different threads.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  It also requires understanding the points people are making. Everyone agrees that selling pirated content is wrong. Hell, most pirates would agree to that. You can say it's a shitty attitude to have, but it's a consistent one: "Piracy is OK as long as you don't resell what you pirate" is internally consistent, even if you think it's morally wrong. Similarly, people seem to be consistently against plagiarism, which is apparently at issue here as well. Again, the stance "Piracy is OK but don't pass pirated works off as your own" is internally consistent, even if you think it's morally wrong.
SeanBoocock 11y ago
Can't agree more or upvote this high enough. As a programmer working in an entertainment medium (video games), I can understand both of the (caricatured) sides you posit. Ultimately my sympathies rest with content creators whose experience of the "disruptive" forces of technology and contemporary startup culture is a net negative to their individual livelihoods and their profession more generally. I'm all for technology moving fast, even breaking things. I just want those agents of disruption to spend as much time cleaning up the mess they create in the process.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Agree with everything here. I enjoy the startups sticking it to the entrenched, backwards industries but they have a nasty habit of leaving a lot of innocent people stuck in the crossfire.
sukulaku 11y ago
Writing the kind of thorough examination of these issues your post deserves would be biting off way more than I could chew right now, so I'll just make some random remarks instead. People pirating entertainment isn't exactly "the free market" in action, but it's close. The common denominator is people doing what they want to, when no one intervenes in their activities. So if there's nothing to deter people from pirating movies, or to punish them for it, then they'll go ahead and pirate movies. The risk is really small, and the reward is (practically) instant gratification. Very few would pass that up. On the one hand, I think IP laws shouldn't exist. They're not meant to benefit the creators anyway, but the entertainment industry BigCorps instead. On the other hand, I think it's wrong, to a small extent, to pirate movies or music or anything else someone has created and put up for sale. There's a deal available to you, and it's up to you whether you'll take it. You get something, the creator gets money, and both are more or less happy. But if you circumvent the deal by downloading the product instead, that's comparable to stealing without the creator actually losing the product. Of course, the entertainment industry equates pirating with actual stealing, because it's more impactful that way. That's dishonest too. But all in all, people will act according to incentives, and they will pursue their personal gain and the satisfaction of their wants and needs. Nothing's going to change that, so it's pointless to even try. Ultimately IP laws do way more harm than good, and they're not meant to benefit us little guys anyway. Think of all the patent lawsuits flying around in the US, or that piece of shit Martin Shkreli charging outrageous prices for drugs people need to survive, etc. All of that follows from IP laws existing too. So it's not just about "creators" getting what they deserve, it's all the scummy other stuff too. Besides, what anyone deserves for his creation, is whatever he can get people to voluntarily pay for it. Nothing more, nothing less. That's something to keep in mind too. If there's no market for someone's creation, that doesn't mean there should be legislation that makes people pay for it. Alright, I guess that's enough rambling now.