8 ms·

Listen, you have no right to someone's else own work. If you don't want to pay HBO NOW to watch a single TV show. No problem. If you do however pirate their

Listen, you have no right to someone's else own work. If you don't want to pay HBO NOW to watch a single TV show. No problem. If you do however pirate their show, then that's stealing and the owner has a right to call you a thief. If HBO decides to charge $1,000 per episode, that would be very outrageous, but that still doesn't give anyone the right to steal their show. BTW, I know the pain, I really want to watch Showtime's "Billions" but I'm not willing to pay $12.95 for one month to watch it. I pay for Netflix and all my shows is restricted to Netflix, youtube and what's on TV.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deepnet 10y ago
Everyone has the legal right to view something. Copyright only prevents producing and distributing unlicensed copies, i.e. uploading or sharing. Downloading, streaming, or attending an unlicensed performance is not copyright infringement. Without Copyright, and when it expires, the natural state of culture is to be copied, that is how it evolves - all works exist naturally in the public domain. Copyright is a limited right to encourage the arts by providing a temporary monopoly. The word theft is entirely out of place in discussions of copyright.
- 6d6b73 10y ago
  You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. If they say that you can view it after you pay, that's their right. If you pay and are allowed to view it you can describe it in any way you want to other people, but you are not allowed to spend that time you had for viewing it to make a copy of it and show it to some other people that did not pay the original author. If you at the same time use your copy to make money, taking that potential income from the original owner how is that not a theft?
  - deepnet 10y ago
    It is legal to view something, regardless of whether the source is licensed. Copyright only prevents producing and distributing unlicensed copies, i.e. uploading or sharing - it does not cover viewing or downloading. You may not agree with the law but nonetheless there is no prohibition against viewing an unauthorised copy. -- can't reply below ? So replying here. > as legal as buying a stolen tv. Buying stolen goods is an offense in law. Buying an unauthorised copy is not. > How is downloading not creating a copy? There was one file before you downloaded it, now there are two. Yes, but it is not copyright infringement. Making a local copy for the purposes of viewing a web page, a picture or other digital media is not copyright infringement, this is well established by precedent.
    - arcticfox 10y ago
      How is downloading not creating a copy? There was one file before you downloaded it, now there are two.
    - 6d6b73 10y ago
      It's about as legal as buying a stolen TV.
      - snovv_crash 10y ago
        I think a knockoff TV would be a better analogy.
        wolfgke 10y ago
        I don't think this is a good analogy either: Since at a knockoff TV the seller deceives the buyer that the TV is an original. So it's a clear case of fraud.
  - deepnet 10y ago
    > but you are not allowed to spend that time you had for viewing it to make a copy of it and show it to some other people that did not pay the original author I clearly said that making an unlicensed copy and distributing it infringes copyright so we agree. > You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. Here we disagree, copyright does not prevent many things like borrowing a friends book or downloading a movie. Do you have any sources where someone was prosecuted for unlicensed viewing or downloading - this would substantiate your argument. Uploading and sharing is what copyright prevents, not downloading. > how is that not a theft? It is not theft, theft means depriving someone of something actual - copyright infringement is against the law but no-one is charged with theft for it. Damages are awarded against uploaders but potential income and stolen money are not equivalent. Copyright is a time limited monopoly, possesion is not - trying to conflate copying with theft does not further the discussion, it only muddies the discourse.
wolfgke 10y ago
Not allowing to redistribute data is a form of censorship.
- 6d6b73 10y ago
  As is creating something and keeping it only to yourself isn't it?
  - angersock 10y ago
    That would be the term self-censorship, yes.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
lately 10y ago
People just want to find some noble reason for their behaviour. Pirating is wrong, but I do it because I don't have the money to spend.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  Then why are you labelling it with the negative moral qualifier wrong? It may be illegal or considered reprehensible by the society you live in (i.e, someone else may call it wrong), but why would you do it if you consider it wrong?
  - frosting 10y ago
    Because it disagrees with the ethical principles someone might want to live their life by.
kofejnik 10y ago
watching/reading something without authorization is not theft; redefining the words to suit your cause feels no less wrong than 'pirating'
- 6d6b73 10y ago
  It's you who is trying to redefine the words to make theft acceptable.
  - GFischer 10y ago
    The crux of the issue is whether intellectual creations are "property" or not. For people that believe something written can be property, then theft is an appropriate word (theft : the act or crime of stealing). If, OTOH, you believe intellectual creations should not be treated like physical property, then theft is not the correct word. Definitely not clear-cut. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#The_term_.22intellectual_property.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#The_term... "Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman argues that, although the term intellectual property is in wide use, it should be rejected altogether, because it "systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion". He claims that the term "operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws [which] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues" and that it creates a "bias" by confusing these monopolies with ownership of limited physical things, likening them to "property rights"" Economists Boldrin and Levine prefer to use the term "intellectual monopoly" as a more appropriate and clear definition of the concept, which they argue, is very dissimilar from property rights
  - sctb 10y ago
    Please stop posting unsubstantive comments. Discussions on HN are to be in the spirit of intellectual curiosity and not ideological warfare. Comments that predictably derail conversation ruin these threads for everyone.
duozerk 10y ago
No, it isn't "stealing". You're not depriving them of the content, you're copying it. And you're not even depriving them of the price they charge to access that content, unless you would've bought it had it not been available through piracy. And that's I think really the exception, not the rule. I know I download a hell of a lot of movies, tv shows, etc. that I would definitely never watch if they were not available easily like that. As for the moral aspect of this, I personally consider that the advantages to society provided by the free, widespread availability of cultural material far outweighs the inconvenience to content distributors & creators; moreover, I consider downloading content 'illegaly' like that to be a form of social protest; to be practiced until their outdated, absurd model changes. Part of this is certainly me rationalizing my behaviour, but I genuinely believe that most of it is not. And when content is available without any form of DRM and with a minimal amount of intermediaries, I always pay for it (a good example is games through gog.com). Personally, I'll stop downloading illegaly when all content is available like that. And no, netflix doesn't cut it; I want the same, convenient service I get through piracy: a mkv/mp4/whatever without any form of DRM that I can store, read on any of my devices, copy, backup, etc.
- Nelson69 10y ago
  Sure, it's all virtual, you're not actually 'stealing' their money since you weren't actually going to pay for it anyways, but if we're pedantic about it you are depriving them their rights. As the owner, they can copyright it, they can specify the terms by which you're allowed to view it or not view it. They can decide to not let you view it. You are taking that right from them. You are saying your right to access the content is more important than their rights, it's pretty simple. Sure, it's a big faceless corporation that already has billions of dollars, so it's as offensive. but it's basically the same thing as a GPL violation. Whenever a big corporation steals, err, I mean 'copies,' GPL code and refuses to give the output away, they aren't actually stealing, they were never going to contribute anything anyways...
  - duozerk 10y ago
    "You are saying your right to access the content is more important than their rights, it's pretty simple." Not exactly; I'm saying the benefits to society as a whole offered by the post-scarcity nature of data on the Internet (infinitely copiable with negligible cost) is so large that, in my opinion, their right to decide who should access the content is far less important and so should be ignored. It certainly sucks for them; and it certainly means that we need to think about new models to finance content creation (since we are living in a definitely scarcity-based society in real life, for now at least); but there you go. And you say they are the "owner" of the content; given the current laws, yes, "they" usually posess the content. But the "they" in question is very often great industry behemoths constructed on the old, physical model of distribution; regularly offering incredibly bad deals to content creators. As I said, when a content creator distributes its content directly or with a non-DRM intermediary (such as GoG) - and I consider, for example, both netflix and steam as little more than new forms of DRM - then I always pay for it. I pay for it because we still don't have a new model allowing free distribution of data while providing incentives for content creators (a global licence mechanism or something similar - easier said than done), and so I see it as a compromise in the meantime. It also encourages those new means of distribution.
zipwitch 10y ago
Thomas Babington Macaulay gave some brilliant speeches on this, back in the first half of the 19th century: http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/commentary/MacaulaySpeeches.html http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExte... One takeaway from his words is brutally practical: if access to information (including entertainment) is not cheap and plentiful, people will pirate. All that attempts to prevent piracy (i.e. enforce rent-extracting monopolies)accomplish is encourage it, and create not just sympathy, but public acceptance and encouragement of it.
unicornporn 10y ago
"We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth. We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity. Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter. There is no matter here."[1] When I read comments like yours I can't help missing the early visionaries of the cyberspace. [1] https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
- clock_tower 10y ago
  No matter in cyberspace? I guess their servers live in the cloud. ;)
Mimu 10y ago
You make me think about that commercial you couldn't skip on DVD. "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR" Bitch if I could copy a car on street for free I would do it. Not to mention the only people seeing that fucking clip were the ones that bought the DVD. Way to ensure returning customers, well done.
frosting 10y ago
Historically speaking, the only reason anyone "owns" media is due to literally hundreds of years of lobbying. Books, stories, and songs were all once free to copy. This is the nature of religious books, fairy tales, and folk songs. Ethically speaking, "ownership" has a tenuous position. I find it easier to argue that ownership is a construct of society than it is an innate part of anything. That means it's flexible to what society decides. Right now, on this issue, that's definitely in flux. From a utilitarian perspective, it's really pretty weird too. Ignoring economics for a second (that's my next point), it is probably better for all society to have information free of barriers. A lot more people can enjoy it if more people have access, particularly when the cost of copy and distrubution is so cheap. Economically it costs a LOT of money though. HBO would not produce game of thrones without being able to get said money back. And they're only going to put as much money into it as they expect to get back. Why don't we have more CGI dragons? because HBO, while rich, is not an endless supply of money. and CGI dragons are really expensive. Yes, to reiterate the point, if HBO had enough money we'd have more dragons. And as for the cost? $15/month for one show is actually VERY reasonable. Remember it costs millions of dollars to produce - just that one show. Even if you don't watch any other show you are still getting more than your money's worth. If you do watch other shows (And I highly recommend it), it's still easily worth your money. BTW, Netflix, HuluPlus, etc are also all worth their relative costs relative to what you get out of them.
- rhino369 10y ago
  The only reason you own anything is thousands of years of lobbying. Copyright and property rights are both artificial constructs.
  - Ace17 10y ago
    The scarcity that physical property deals with isn't artificial.
    - rhino369 10y ago
      I'd argue that the lack of scaricity makes owning a work of art less problematic. Someone can always make a new one. I was born into a world where every peace of land I could use to survive on is owned. But there are an unlimited number of songs or books that can be written. What's the harm in letting a person own the book they created. There are an unlimited number left.
aluhut 10y ago
> someone's else own work It's not like the person would have oome up with whatever without their environment. He is in a constant flow of input and draws his art from that. This goes for every kind of art so the product in the end is as well a product of the environment as by the guy who decided to fix it on the medium. The owner has the right sure. It's given to him by another product of the environment a certain portion of people agreed upon some time ago. It doesn't make it right or some kind of physics law. Especially not in the digital world where there is no "stealing". There is more of it after the act.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deepnet 10y ago

Everyone has the legal right to view something. Copyright only prevents producing and distributing unlicensed copies, i.e. uploading or sharing. Downloading, streaming, or attending an unlicensed performance is not copyright infringement. Without Copyright, and when it expires, the natural state of culture is to be copied, that is how it evolves - all works exist naturally in the public domain. Copyright is a limited right to encourage the arts by providing a temporary monopoly. The word theft is entirely out of place in discussions of copyright.

6d6b73 10y ago
You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. If they say that you can view it after you pay, that's their right. If you pay and are allowed to view it you can describe it in any way you want to other people, but you are not allowed to spend that time you had for viewing it to make a copy of it and show it to some other people that did not pay the original author. If you at the same time use your copy to make money, taking that potential income from the original owner how is that not a theft?
- deepnet 10y ago
  It is legal to view something, regardless of whether the source is licensed. Copyright only prevents producing and distributing unlicensed copies, i.e. uploading or sharing - it does not cover viewing or downloading. You may not agree with the law but nonetheless there is no prohibition against viewing an unauthorised copy. -- can't reply below ? So replying here. > as legal as buying a stolen tv. Buying stolen goods is an offense in law. Buying an unauthorised copy is not. > How is downloading not creating a copy? There was one file before you downloaded it, now there are two. Yes, but it is not copyright infringement. Making a local copy for the purposes of viewing a web page, a picture or other digital media is not copyright infringement, this is well established by precedent.
  - arcticfox 10y ago
    How is downloading not creating a copy? There was one file before you downloaded it, now there are two.
  - 6d6b73 10y ago
    It's about as legal as buying a stolen TV.
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      I think a knockoff TV would be a better analogy.
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        I don't think this is a good analogy either: Since at a knockoff TV the seller deceives the buyer that the TV is an original. So it's a clear case of fraud.
- deepnet 10y ago
  > but you are not allowed to spend that time you had for viewing it to make a copy of it and show it to some other people that did not pay the original author I clearly said that making an unlicensed copy and distributing it infringes copyright so we agree. > You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. Here we disagree, copyright does not prevent many things like borrowing a friends book or downloading a movie. Do you have any sources where someone was prosecuted for unlicensed viewing or downloading - this would substantiate your argument. Uploading and sharing is what copyright prevents, not downloading. > how is that not a theft? It is not theft, theft means depriving someone of something actual - copyright infringement is against the law but no-one is charged with theft for it. Damages are awarded against uploaders but potential income and stolen money are not equivalent. Copyright is a time limited monopoly, possesion is not - trying to conflate copying with theft does not further the discussion, it only muddies the discourse.

wolfgke 10y ago

Not allowing to redistribute data is a form of censorship.

6d6b73 10y ago
As is creating something and keeping it only to yourself isn't it?
- angersock 10y ago
  That would be the term self-censorship, yes.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

lately 10y ago

People just want to find some noble reason for their behaviour. Pirating is wrong, but I do it because I don't have the money to spend.

Freak_NL 10y ago
Then why are you labelling it with the negative moral qualifier wrong? It may be illegal or considered reprehensible by the society you live in (i.e, someone else may call it wrong), but why would you do it if you consider it wrong?
- frosting 10y ago
  Because it disagrees with the ethical principles someone might want to live their life by.

kofejnik 10y ago

watching/reading something without authorization is not theft; redefining the words to suit your cause feels no less wrong than 'pirating'

6d6b73 10y ago
It's you who is trying to redefine the words to make theft acceptable.
- GFischer 10y ago
  The crux of the issue is whether intellectual creations are "property" or not. For people that believe something written can be property, then theft is an appropriate word (theft : the act or crime of stealing). If, OTOH, you believe intellectual creations should not be treated like physical property, then theft is not the correct word. Definitely not clear-cut. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#The_term_.22intellectual_property.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#The_term... "Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman argues that, although the term intellectual property is in wide use, it should be rejected altogether, because it "systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion". He claims that the term "operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws [which] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues" and that it creates a "bias" by confusing these monopolies with ownership of limited physical things, likening them to "property rights"" Economists Boldrin and Levine prefer to use the term "intellectual monopoly" as a more appropriate and clear definition of the concept, which they argue, is very dissimilar from property rights
- sctb 10y ago
  Please stop posting unsubstantive comments. Discussions on HN are to be in the spirit of intellectual curiosity and not ideological warfare. Comments that predictably derail conversation ruin these threads for everyone.

duozerk 10y ago

No, it isn't "stealing". You're not depriving them of the content, you're copying it. And you're not even depriving them of the price they charge to access that content, unless you would've bought it had it not been available through piracy. And that's I think really the exception, not the rule. I know I download a hell of a lot of movies, tv shows, etc. that I would definitely never watch if they were not available easily like that. As for the moral aspect of this, I personally consider that the advantages to society provided by the free, widespread availability of cultural material far outweighs the inconvenience to content distributors & creators; moreover, I consider downloading content 'illegaly' like that to be a form of social protest; to be practiced until their outdated, absurd model changes. Part of this is certainly me rationalizing my behaviour, but I genuinely believe that most of it is not. And when content is available without any form of DRM and with a minimal amount of intermediaries, I always pay for it (a good example is games through gog.com). Personally, I'll stop downloading illegaly when all content is available like that. And no, netflix doesn't cut it; I want the same, convenient service I get through piracy: a mkv/mp4/whatever without any form of DRM that I can store, read on any of my devices, copy, backup, etc.

Nelson69 10y ago
Sure, it's all virtual, you're not actually 'stealing' their money since you weren't actually going to pay for it anyways, but if we're pedantic about it you are depriving them their rights. As the owner, they can copyright it, they can specify the terms by which you're allowed to view it or not view it. They can decide to not let you view it. You are taking that right from them. You are saying your right to access the content is more important than their rights, it's pretty simple. Sure, it's a big faceless corporation that already has billions of dollars, so it's as offensive. but it's basically the same thing as a GPL violation. Whenever a big corporation steals, err, I mean 'copies,' GPL code and refuses to give the output away, they aren't actually stealing, they were never going to contribute anything anyways...
- duozerk 10y ago
  "You are saying your right to access the content is more important than their rights, it's pretty simple." Not exactly; I'm saying the benefits to society as a whole offered by the post-scarcity nature of data on the Internet (infinitely copiable with negligible cost) is so large that, in my opinion, their right to decide who should access the content is far less important and so should be ignored. It certainly sucks for them; and it certainly means that we need to think about new models to finance content creation (since we are living in a definitely scarcity-based society in real life, for now at least); but there you go. And you say they are the "owner" of the content; given the current laws, yes, "they" usually posess the content. But the "they" in question is very often great industry behemoths constructed on the old, physical model of distribution; regularly offering incredibly bad deals to content creators. As I said, when a content creator distributes its content directly or with a non-DRM intermediary (such as GoG) - and I consider, for example, both netflix and steam as little more than new forms of DRM - then I always pay for it. I pay for it because we still don't have a new model allowing free distribution of data while providing incentives for content creators (a global licence mechanism or something similar - easier said than done), and so I see it as a compromise in the meantime. It also encourages those new means of distribution.

zipwitch 10y ago

Thomas Babington Macaulay gave some brilliant speeches on this, back in the first half of the 19th century: http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/commentary/MacaulaySpeeches.html http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExte... One takeaway from his words is brutally practical: if access to information (including entertainment) is not cheap and plentiful, people will pirate. All that attempts to prevent piracy (i.e. enforce rent-extracting monopolies)accomplish is encourage it, and create not just sympathy, but public acceptance and encouragement of it.

unicornporn 10y ago

"We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth. We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity. Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter. There is no matter here."[1] When I read comments like yours I can't help missing the early visionaries of the cyberspace. [1] https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence

clock_tower 10y ago
No matter in cyberspace? I guess their servers live in the cloud. ;)

Mimu 10y ago

You make me think about that commercial you couldn't skip on DVD. "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR" Bitch if I could copy a car on street for free I would do it. Not to mention the only people seeing that fucking clip were the ones that bought the DVD. Way to ensure returning customers, well done.

frosting 10y ago

Historically speaking, the only reason anyone "owns" media is due to literally hundreds of years of lobbying. Books, stories, and songs were all once free to copy. This is the nature of religious books, fairy tales, and folk songs. Ethically speaking, "ownership" has a tenuous position. I find it easier to argue that ownership is a construct of society than it is an innate part of anything. That means it's flexible to what society decides. Right now, on this issue, that's definitely in flux. From a utilitarian perspective, it's really pretty weird too. Ignoring economics for a second (that's my next point), it is probably better for all society to have information free of barriers. A lot more people can enjoy it if more people have access, particularly when the cost of copy and distrubution is so cheap. Economically it costs a LOT of money though. HBO would not produce game of thrones without being able to get said money back. And they're only going to put as much money into it as they expect to get back. Why don't we have more CGI dragons? because HBO, while rich, is not an endless supply of money. and CGI dragons are really expensive. Yes, to reiterate the point, if HBO had enough money we'd have more dragons. And as for the cost? $15/month for one show is actually VERY reasonable. Remember it costs millions of dollars to produce - just that one show. Even if you don't watch any other show you are still getting more than your money's worth. If you do watch other shows (And I highly recommend it), it's still easily worth your money. BTW, Netflix, HuluPlus, etc are also all worth their relative costs relative to what you get out of them.

rhino369 10y ago
The only reason you own anything is thousands of years of lobbying. Copyright and property rights are both artificial constructs.
- Ace17 10y ago
  The scarcity that physical property deals with isn't artificial.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    I'd argue that the lack of scaricity makes owning a work of art less problematic. Someone can always make a new one. I was born into a world where every peace of land I could use to survive on is owned. But there are an unlimited number of songs or books that can be written. What's the harm in letting a person own the book they created. There are an unlimited number left.

aluhut 10y ago

> someone's else own work It's not like the person would have oome up with whatever without their environment. He is in a constant flow of input and draws his art from that. This goes for every kind of art so the product in the end is as well a product of the environment as by the guy who decided to fix it on the medium. The owner has the right sure. It's given to him by another product of the environment a certain portion of people agreed upon some time ago. It doesn't make it right or some kind of physics law. Especially not in the digital world where there is no "stealing". There is more of it after the act.