3 ms·

So you suggest that people in smaller countries should just shut up and accept that they are second class citizens in the modern world? These are people that ar

So you suggest that people in smaller countries should just shut up and accept that they are second class citizens in the modern world? These are people that are very able and very willing to pay for content -- they just have no way to do so.

bmelton 11y ago
If that's the only alternative to taking things that don't belong to them, then I consider it the preferable alternative. I wasn't aware that the unavailability of House of Cards was tantamount to torture, and personally, I don't see it that way at all.
- Touche 11y ago
  Plenty of people never bought into the idea that an entity could own a sequence of bytes. Until you understand this you'll continue to not understand why people have such an easy time getting content that you think they "just shouldn't watch".
  - bmelton 11y ago
    To the contrary, I understand it perfectly, I just don't agree with it. There are plenty of people who think that think gay people shouldn't be allowed to be married. I understand that too, and also disagree. Just because a lot of people think something doesn't make it right. It took real people time, money and effort to make the shows that others are pirating, and to my mind at least, their efforts entitle them more to it than my "need" to watch it entitles me to pirate it.
    - mercer 11y ago
      > but it boggles my mind how comfortable everybody seems able to justify it. > To the contrary, I understand it perfectly, I just don't agree with it. I don't really understand how it can 'boggle your mind' while you still understand it. Mind-boggling implies that it's surprising to you, which it shouldn't be. Don't get me wrong, while I do not entirely agree with your point of view, I understand it. But to describe it as mind-boggling would be both inconsistent and perhaps a bit condescending. It seems to me that it would be better to express understanding and then explain why you disagree, rather they to pretend 'being startled'.
      - bmelton 11y ago
        Fair point. i made my earlier point poorly, as I didn't respond to your post in context (but rather as its own entity). In the same way that I understand the appeal of, say, scientology (e.g., You are a superior being, and with just a little help, we can make you far more successful, rich in pocket, body, spirit, blah blah), but it still boggles the mind that people fall for it. I understand the appeal to self-justify taking something from another that you want more. I understand the appeal of copying something you don't own, or can't buy, which doesn't physically "take" anything away from the owner. I understand those things just fine. What I don't understand is how low the lack of respect for your fellow man has to be that they can create something, not give it to you, and that isn't a deterrent from just taking it anyway. Even if I accept the argument that it doesn't take anything from the owner (which I don't), and that a given copy of data is nothing more than a secret a friend won't tell me, I still respect other people enough that I'm not going to dig through their things until their secrets are mine.
        mercer 11y ago
        The thing is that it still strikes me as rather arrogant to compare pirating to something like scientology, or imply that it is 'respectless' to my fellow man. Even just based on this HN thread, there's probably a huge part of society that is 1) intelligent, 2) conscientious, and 3) does not consider pirating a big crime. I just need to look at myself and the vast majority of my friends to confirm this. I could defend my point of view by saying that I would simply not download certain things if there was no easy way to do so, but clearly we disagree on this issue. But arguing that it's 'simply' lack of respect for your fellow man and 'simply' taking does not do the issue justice. Either it is as simple as you say, and all of us who pirate are lesser creatures than yourself (which would be convenient to conclude), or it's not as simple as you say. I don't really see how there's a third option, and that's the problem I had with your comment.
        bmelton 11y ago
        It was (probably a poor) analogy, not a comparison. I was simply trying to come up with something else that is both understandable to me, and yet still mind boggling. I was definitely not attempting to conflate the two. As for the rest, it's very possible that despite how much thought I've put into it, I'm completely wrong. Offtopic, but your focus on the word "simply" made me wonder if I'd said it. I hadn't, so I'm curious as to the focus on it. To me, if someone creates (or has) something unique, and doesn't want someone else to have it, then they should not. It doesn't matter to me whether it's freely available on the pirate bay, or locked up in their sock drawer; they created it, not me, and if they want me to have it, they'll either give it to me, or make it available to me to purchase. Anything else violates their wishes on their thing.
  - rogersm 11y ago
    Commercial software (with a long tradition) is based on that idea. And Free software is based on the same idea, only that you renounce to that ownership right.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Free software is a hack on a legal system to provide something that should work this way by default. And commercial software could get away with being based on that idea because they could enforce it, and only as long as they could. Which is why at first it worked, then it stopped thanks to the Internet, and now it's working again, because everyone's moving to SaaS model. Which, by the way, is a step backwards in progress.
- freshhawk 11y ago
  Not "taking things that don't belong to them", "seeing things others don't want them to". The reason it seems strange to you isn't a difference in morals or ethics but framing.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  The alternative is that the owners of the content sell it/rent it to them. Result profit.
- true_religion 11y ago
  I think that possession is the essence of property rights. People have a real viceral reaction when you come and take something out of their house, or out of their hand. However, copying no matter how perfect isn't the same kind of infringement under law or common morals. If someone peeks at your house, then builds a perfect replica on their own land then you may be sad that you lost the uniqueness of your properly without their paying you for the privilege of copying it... But it's not "piracy", and will hardly cause a pitchfork mob to form outside your neighbors newly copied house.
s73v3r 11y ago
Except that is not the case, and your statement is nothing more than worthless hyperbole.
- mortehu 11y ago
  It's hard to believe you have ever used YouTube, Netflix or Google Play TV in a small country. For current TV shows, your options are usually to watch them as they air, or not watch them at all. This even includes stuff for which Netflix is the original distributor, like House of Cards, because they may have licensed the content exclusively to a broadcast TV station.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  You are absolutely wrong. It happens to Australians all the time.

bmelton 11y ago

If that's the only alternative to taking things that don't belong to them, then I consider it the preferable alternative. I wasn't aware that the unavailability of House of Cards was tantamount to torture, and personally, I don't see it that way at all.

Touche 11y ago
Plenty of people never bought into the idea that an entity could own a sequence of bytes. Until you understand this you'll continue to not understand why people have such an easy time getting content that you think they "just shouldn't watch".
- bmelton 11y ago
  To the contrary, I understand it perfectly, I just don't agree with it. There are plenty of people who think that think gay people shouldn't be allowed to be married. I understand that too, and also disagree. Just because a lot of people think something doesn't make it right. It took real people time, money and effort to make the shows that others are pirating, and to my mind at least, their efforts entitle them more to it than my "need" to watch it entitles me to pirate it.
  - mercer 11y ago
    > but it boggles my mind how comfortable everybody seems able to justify it. > To the contrary, I understand it perfectly, I just don't agree with it. I don't really understand how it can 'boggle your mind' while you still understand it. Mind-boggling implies that it's surprising to you, which it shouldn't be. Don't get me wrong, while I do not entirely agree with your point of view, I understand it. But to describe it as mind-boggling would be both inconsistent and perhaps a bit condescending. It seems to me that it would be better to express understanding and then explain why you disagree, rather they to pretend 'being startled'.
    - bmelton 11y ago
      Fair point. i made my earlier point poorly, as I didn't respond to your post in context (but rather as its own entity). In the same way that I understand the appeal of, say, scientology (e.g., You are a superior being, and with just a little help, we can make you far more successful, rich in pocket, body, spirit, blah blah), but it still boggles the mind that people fall for it. I understand the appeal to self-justify taking something from another that you want more. I understand the appeal of copying something you don't own, or can't buy, which doesn't physically "take" anything away from the owner. I understand those things just fine. What I don't understand is how low the lack of respect for your fellow man has to be that they can create something, not give it to you, and that isn't a deterrent from just taking it anyway. Even if I accept the argument that it doesn't take anything from the owner (which I don't), and that a given copy of data is nothing more than a secret a friend won't tell me, I still respect other people enough that I'm not going to dig through their things until their secrets are mine.
      - mercer 11y ago
        The thing is that it still strikes me as rather arrogant to compare pirating to something like scientology, or imply that it is 'respectless' to my fellow man. Even just based on this HN thread, there's probably a huge part of society that is 1) intelligent, 2) conscientious, and 3) does not consider pirating a big crime. I just need to look at myself and the vast majority of my friends to confirm this. I could defend my point of view by saying that I would simply not download certain things if there was no easy way to do so, but clearly we disagree on this issue. But arguing that it's 'simply' lack of respect for your fellow man and 'simply' taking does not do the issue justice. Either it is as simple as you say, and all of us who pirate are lesser creatures than yourself (which would be convenient to conclude), or it's not as simple as you say. I don't really see how there's a third option, and that's the problem I had with your comment.
        bmelton 11y ago
        It was (probably a poor) analogy, not a comparison. I was simply trying to come up with something else that is both understandable to me, and yet still mind boggling. I was definitely not attempting to conflate the two. As for the rest, it's very possible that despite how much thought I've put into it, I'm completely wrong. Offtopic, but your focus on the word "simply" made me wonder if I'd said it. I hadn't, so I'm curious as to the focus on it. To me, if someone creates (or has) something unique, and doesn't want someone else to have it, then they should not. It doesn't matter to me whether it's freely available on the pirate bay, or locked up in their sock drawer; they created it, not me, and if they want me to have it, they'll either give it to me, or make it available to me to purchase. Anything else violates their wishes on their thing.
- rogersm 11y ago
  Commercial software (with a long tradition) is based on that idea. And Free software is based on the same idea, only that you renounce to that ownership right.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Free software is a hack on a legal system to provide something that should work this way by default. And commercial software could get away with being based on that idea because they could enforce it, and only as long as they could. Which is why at first it worked, then it stopped thanks to the Internet, and now it's working again, because everyone's moving to SaaS model. Which, by the way, is a step backwards in progress.
freshhawk 11y ago
Not "taking things that don't belong to them", "seeing things others don't want them to". The reason it seems strange to you isn't a difference in morals or ethics but framing.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
The alternative is that the owners of the content sell it/rent it to them. Result profit.
true_religion 11y ago
I think that possession is the essence of property rights. People have a real viceral reaction when you come and take something out of their house, or out of their hand. However, copying no matter how perfect isn't the same kind of infringement under law or common morals. If someone peeks at your house, then builds a perfect replica on their own land then you may be sad that you lost the uniqueness of your properly without their paying you for the privilege of copying it... But it's not "piracy", and will hardly cause a pitchfork mob to form outside your neighbors newly copied house.

s73v3r 11y ago

Except that is not the case, and your statement is nothing more than worthless hyperbole.

mortehu 11y ago
It's hard to believe you have ever used YouTube, Netflix or Google Play TV in a small country. For current TV shows, your options are usually to watch them as they air, or not watch them at all. This even includes stuff for which Netflix is the original distributor, like House of Cards, because they may have licensed the content exclusively to a broadcast TV station.
chris_wot 11y ago
You are absolutely wrong. It happens to Australians all the time.