9 ms·

The term "piracy" doesn't help the problems any---it's a smear term that tries to put downloading and sharing on the same level as murder and kidnapping. https

The term "piracy" doesn't help the problems any---it's a smear term that tries to put downloading and sharing on the same level as murder and kidnapping. https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-t.. https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-t.... I prefer the term "sharing". As you mention, intent is not always to avoid paying. Some people may want backups, may have lost their copy after paying for it, may be frustrated by DRM-laced copies that don't work on their PC/devices, the reasons you mentioned, etc...

alanwatts 10y ago
>The term "piracy" doesn't help the problems any---it's a smear term that tries to put downloading and sharing on the same level as murder and kidnapping. Precisely: >I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. -Jack Valenti (former president of MPAA for 38 years), 1982 congressional hearing https://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm https://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm
- mikegerwitz 10y ago
  Thank you for sharing this! This is not only a good piece of history, but an excellent example of history repeating itself. Correct me if I'm wrong---I haven't read it yet, but I'm excited to do so over the weekend.
  - alanwatts 10y ago
    It's simply luditism. Their business model depends upon the constraints of obsolete technology, so they will resist every new innovation as an evil killer until their artificial monopoly finally bleeds out.
josho 10y ago
Sharing is just as bad as pirating. Let's call it what it is. Copyright infringement.
- candu 10y ago
  Well, your statement is tautological, since those are two terms for the same thing :) The real question is how "bad" we should consider copyright infringement to be. For many of us, copyright law has lost its moral footing with draconian DRM, extreme examples of RIAA / MPAA litigation, insane Disney-fueled copyright terms, and a corresponding erosion of the public domain. It may not have lost its legal footing, but legality is not morality, and to call something "bad" because it is illegal is disingenuous. Or should I remind you how many of our modern societal / legal norms were once illegal?
  - squeaky-clean 10y ago
    > Well, your statement is tautological, since those are two terms for the same thing They mean the word choice, not the act it's describing. "Piracy" smears it as a terrible thing (you're a pirate!), but "sharing" frames it as a good (What do you mean, I was only sharing the movie). The GGP comment switches one biased term for another biased term.
  - Noos 10y ago
    Copyright infringement is to artists as H1-B Visa abuse is to programmers. Both make it harder to earn a living and depress wages/destroy jobs in their respective fields. Both tend to hit the individual or little guy harder than the big company/rockstar-copyright infringement can siphon enough sales from small presses or independent artists to make it no longer profitable to operate. Many programmers seem to have no real care for creators, so it seems moral to them to more or less destroy their wages, force them to make money not off of creating, but touring, beg for tips via Patreon, etc. If the same thing was done to them, they'd be howling how unfair it is. How about your job pays you little to nothing and you need to advertise and get people to support you monthly on a crowdfunding site just to make ends meet in your field?
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      Copyright infringement is to artists as H1-B Visa abuse is to programmers. Both make it harder to earn a living and depress wages/destroy jobs in their respective fields. See, here's the biggest problem with "copyright infringement" as a term; it's too broad. It covers $random_co using your stuff commercially, but it also covers your gran downloading songs from sketchy websites in Russia. I don't think even the most die-hard of $(insert favorite adjective form of term under discussion) would excuse the first, but quite a few normal, reasonable people would excuse the second, in part, because the economic "harm" is unambiguous in the first case, and impossible to quantify (possibly negative) in the second. Large multibillion dollar organizations suing grandmothers, printers, and dead people, and claiming $(insert noun form of term) is responsible for $dubious_bignum in "lost sales" isn't helping.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
I also like "illegal sharing" for the description. Almost anyone can understand that with little, additional info. "Copyright infringement" is not something I can explain in 10 seconds. They'll probably remember it wrong over time, too.
- Endy 10y ago
  Because copyright is a broken system that needs to be dissolved.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    No, because there's about five rights or so with considerations for hiw they're used. Whereas, "you can use whatever you buy but sharing the file or password is probably illegal" is easy for most people to understand and lets them avoid 99% of lawsuit risk. This is true whether copyright system is good or bad. Just simple, mental model.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Except that sharing is not illegal. The idea itself is absurd and sounds absurd when expressed. If you told people that sharing was illegal, the most common response you'd get would likely be, "lol, wut?"
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Sharing what you don't own without owner's permission is either illegal or considered u ethical. Cant recall off yop of head. Buying copywritten works usually buys license yo use, not distribute (share). So, don't share the copywritten work seems like sane default if one wants to stay legal. Whether or not copyright systems make sense or not is another discussion entirely. Irrelevant even given it has to be changed via Congress by strong, voter push and/or more bribes than pro-copyright groups. If talking laws and metaphors, I focus on what is rather than should be.
lettergram 10y ago
> As you mention, intent is not always to avoid paying. Oh man, I used to have to reformat my computer regularly (like 3 times a year). There were several hardware issues, my house was struck by lightning, etc. I swear every time I'd have to call windows, and be like "hey my key is not working" (I know it's because it was activated previously, but still). They would usually make me call and reset it or what have you. Eventually, I just got sick of it. I torrented a cracked version and it worked like a charm. I know people who do the same with video games. They'll get a "shared" copy first, then buy it if they like it. Honesty, I'd argue most people would pay if they could (at a reasonable price), torrenting just makes all the barriers go away.
- mikegerwitz 10y ago
  > Honesty, I'd argue most people would pay if they could (at a reasonable price), torrenting just makes all the barriers go away. Or pay more, even, for a non-DRM-encumbered version; DRM stops people like you, but not crackers or the analog hole. Thanks for sharing a good example.
  - oxide 10y ago
    >DRM stops people like you punish the paying customer and hope for the best.
soheil 10y ago
If "piracy" is too strong of a word "sharing" is too weak of a word. Clearly we must differentiate between legal sharing and non-legal. Piring? (it also sounds like peering which is very much in the spirit of p2p.) To me it hasn't been proven yet how the argument for p2p copyright laws is any different than a hypothetical argument for let's say drinking, should we make drinking illegal because some people end up harming others because of it and hence any positive/neutral experience derived from it denied to us and overshadowed in the darkness of legality.
andrepd 10y ago
>As you mention, intent is not always to avoid paying. Yeah, not always, but very often. Everyone here is trying to downplay this, but I would say >80% of people (disclamer: pulled from my behind) torrent simply because it's free and if they can easily obtain it free rather than paying, then they will. The argument that people pirate because the paid options are shit, and if they were as convenient as torrents people would just pay for them, is rendered moot with the Steam counterexample. Content distribution is much more well advanced and convenient in games compared to movies, and people still pirate en masse. Of course, all of us are really just talking out of our collective asses until we can cite figures from a study.
- digler999 10y ago
  Stop talking "out of your ass". I pirate an occasional movie for a friend, but I spend more time watching shows on Netflix. Why would I even pay for Netflix when I could get anything I want for free ? Because they have a really convenient UI and easy access to their content. I recently purchased a Google Play Music subscription, despite having 10^6 "pirated" songs on my HDD. Why ? Because they have a reasonable price, cool UI and artwork, convenience of listening anywhere, and the AI bot that helps me find new music I might be interested in. All of those things dont exist in pirate land.
  - andrepd 10y ago
    Good for you. There are 6,999,999,999 other people in the world. It's not reasonable to assume everyone else thinks the same as you.
    - digler999 10y ago
      why are you suddenly using facts when your initial position used total guesses ?
- lewisl9029 10y ago
  > Everyone here is trying to downplay this, but I would say >80% of people (disclamer: pulled from my behind) torrent simply because it's free and if they can easily obtain it free rather than paying, then they will. The argument that people pirate because the paid options are shit, and if they were as convenient as torrents people would just pay for them, is rendered moot with the Steam counterexample. Content distribution is much more well advanced and convenient in games compared to movies, and people still pirate en masse. There is also the argument that a large portion of those people would never have paid for your content in the first place even if it wasn't available for free through piracy, that most of them shouldn't even be considered a part of your customer base to begin with because they simply aren't willing or aren't able to pay for it.

alanwatts 10y ago

>The term "piracy" doesn't help the problems any---it's a smear term that tries to put downloading and sharing on the same level as murder and kidnapping. Precisely: >I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. -Jack Valenti (former president of MPAA for 38 years), 1982 congressional hearing https://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm https://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm

mikegerwitz 10y ago
Thank you for sharing this! This is not only a good piece of history, but an excellent example of history repeating itself. Correct me if I'm wrong---I haven't read it yet, but I'm excited to do so over the weekend.
- alanwatts 10y ago
  It's simply luditism. Their business model depends upon the constraints of obsolete technology, so they will resist every new innovation as an evil killer until their artificial monopoly finally bleeds out.

josho 10y ago

Sharing is just as bad as pirating. Let's call it what it is. Copyright infringement.

candu 10y ago
Well, your statement is tautological, since those are two terms for the same thing :) The real question is how "bad" we should consider copyright infringement to be. For many of us, copyright law has lost its moral footing with draconian DRM, extreme examples of RIAA / MPAA litigation, insane Disney-fueled copyright terms, and a corresponding erosion of the public domain. It may not have lost its legal footing, but legality is not morality, and to call something "bad" because it is illegal is disingenuous. Or should I remind you how many of our modern societal / legal norms were once illegal?
- squeaky-clean 10y ago
  > Well, your statement is tautological, since those are two terms for the same thing They mean the word choice, not the act it's describing. "Piracy" smears it as a terrible thing (you're a pirate!), but "sharing" frames it as a good (What do you mean, I was only sharing the movie). The GGP comment switches one biased term for another biased term.
- Noos 10y ago
  Copyright infringement is to artists as H1-B Visa abuse is to programmers. Both make it harder to earn a living and depress wages/destroy jobs in their respective fields. Both tend to hit the individual or little guy harder than the big company/rockstar-copyright infringement can siphon enough sales from small presses or independent artists to make it no longer profitable to operate. Many programmers seem to have no real care for creators, so it seems moral to them to more or less destroy their wages, force them to make money not off of creating, but touring, beg for tips via Patreon, etc. If the same thing was done to them, they'd be howling how unfair it is. How about your job pays you little to nothing and you need to advertise and get people to support you monthly on a crowdfunding site just to make ends meet in your field?
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Copyright infringement is to artists as H1-B Visa abuse is to programmers. Both make it harder to earn a living and depress wages/destroy jobs in their respective fields. See, here's the biggest problem with "copyright infringement" as a term; it's too broad. It covers $random_co using your stuff commercially, but it also covers your gran downloading songs from sketchy websites in Russia. I don't think even the most die-hard of $(insert favorite adjective form of term under discussion) would excuse the first, but quite a few normal, reasonable people would excuse the second, in part, because the economic "harm" is unambiguous in the first case, and impossible to quantify (possibly negative) in the second. Large multibillion dollar organizations suing grandmothers, printers, and dead people, and claiming $(insert noun form of term) is responsible for $dubious_bignum in "lost sales" isn't helping.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

I also like "illegal sharing" for the description. Almost anyone can understand that with little, additional info. "Copyright infringement" is not something I can explain in 10 seconds. They'll probably remember it wrong over time, too.

Endy 10y ago
Because copyright is a broken system that needs to be dissolved.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  No, because there's about five rights or so with considerations for hiw they're used. Whereas, "you can use whatever you buy but sharing the file or password is probably illegal" is easy for most people to understand and lets them avoid 99% of lawsuit risk. This is true whether copyright system is good or bad. Just simple, mental model.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Except that sharing is not illegal. The idea itself is absurd and sounds absurd when expressed. If you told people that sharing was illegal, the most common response you'd get would likely be, "lol, wut?"
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Sharing what you don't own without owner's permission is either illegal or considered u ethical. Cant recall off yop of head. Buying copywritten works usually buys license yo use, not distribute (share). So, don't share the copywritten work seems like sane default if one wants to stay legal. Whether or not copyright systems make sense or not is another discussion entirely. Irrelevant even given it has to be changed via Congress by strong, voter push and/or more bribes than pro-copyright groups. If talking laws and metaphors, I focus on what is rather than should be.

lettergram 10y ago

> As you mention, intent is not always to avoid paying. Oh man, I used to have to reformat my computer regularly (like 3 times a year). There were several hardware issues, my house was struck by lightning, etc. I swear every time I'd have to call windows, and be like "hey my key is not working" (I know it's because it was activated previously, but still). They would usually make me call and reset it or what have you. Eventually, I just got sick of it. I torrented a cracked version and it worked like a charm. I know people who do the same with video games. They'll get a "shared" copy first, then buy it if they like it. Honesty, I'd argue most people would pay if they could (at a reasonable price), torrenting just makes all the barriers go away.

mikegerwitz 10y ago
> Honesty, I'd argue most people would pay if they could (at a reasonable price), torrenting just makes all the barriers go away. Or pay more, even, for a non-DRM-encumbered version; DRM stops people like you, but not crackers or the analog hole. Thanks for sharing a good example.
- oxide 10y ago
  >DRM stops people like you punish the paying customer and hope for the best.

soheil 10y ago

If "piracy" is too strong of a word "sharing" is too weak of a word. Clearly we must differentiate between legal sharing and non-legal. Piring? (it also sounds like peering which is very much in the spirit of p2p.) To me it hasn't been proven yet how the argument for p2p copyright laws is any different than a hypothetical argument for let's say drinking, should we make drinking illegal because some people end up harming others because of it and hence any positive/neutral experience derived from it denied to us and overshadowed in the darkness of legality.

andrepd 10y ago

>As you mention, intent is not always to avoid paying. Yeah, not always, but very often. Everyone here is trying to downplay this, but I would say >80% of people (disclamer: pulled from my behind) torrent simply because it's free and if they can easily obtain it free rather than paying, then they will. The argument that people pirate because the paid options are shit, and if they were as convenient as torrents people would just pay for them, is rendered moot with the Steam counterexample. Content distribution is much more well advanced and convenient in games compared to movies, and people still pirate en masse. Of course, all of us are really just talking out of our collective asses until we can cite figures from a study.

digler999 10y ago
Stop talking "out of your ass". I pirate an occasional movie for a friend, but I spend more time watching shows on Netflix. Why would I even pay for Netflix when I could get anything I want for free ? Because they have a really convenient UI and easy access to their content. I recently purchased a Google Play Music subscription, despite having 10^6 "pirated" songs on my HDD. Why ? Because they have a reasonable price, cool UI and artwork, convenience of listening anywhere, and the AI bot that helps me find new music I might be interested in. All of those things dont exist in pirate land.
- andrepd 10y ago
  Good for you. There are 6,999,999,999 other people in the world. It's not reasonable to assume everyone else thinks the same as you.
  - digler999 10y ago
    why are you suddenly using facts when your initial position used total guesses ?
lewisl9029 10y ago
> Everyone here is trying to downplay this, but I would say >80% of people (disclamer: pulled from my behind) torrent simply because it's free and if they can easily obtain it free rather than paying, then they will. The argument that people pirate because the paid options are shit, and if they were as convenient as torrents people would just pay for them, is rendered moot with the Steam counterexample. Content distribution is much more well advanced and convenient in games compared to movies, and people still pirate en masse. There is also the argument that a large portion of those people would never have paid for your content in the first place even if it wasn't available for free through piracy, that most of them shouldn't even be considered a part of your customer base to begin with because they simply aren't willing or aren't able to pay for it.