4 ms·

Or you can pay a reasonable price to rent on iTunes and Amazon Prime. Stop pretending that you pirate because it's a "better experience". You pirate because it'

Or you can pay a reasonable price to rent on iTunes and Amazon Prime. Stop pretending that you pirate because it's a "better experience". You pirate because it's cheaper to steal other people's hard work than to pay a fair price for it.

ensiferum 10y ago
I don't download or condone downloading copyrighted material. Just saying that that famous oatmeal comic still rings very true.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  It's only copyright material you aren't licensed to use that is potentially tortuous. "Big Buck Bunny" out whatever is copyright but the free and open license allows you to download it and consume it. Seems pedantic but IMO it's an important point. Copyright is automatic, restrictive licensing isn't.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    >Copyright is automatic, restrictive licensing isn't. You're wrong there. The "default" state of affairs for copyright is that the author retains all rights.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      Rights aren't a license. If the creator adds a license they have free rein on the form of license. They don't have to offer a license of course.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        Sorry, you're just wrong here. If I publish a video online, it is a copyright violation for you to redistribute it without my permission. I don't need to put a license or even a copyright marking.
        pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        The point i feel you're missing is that if I'm making my work available for redistribution I must attach a license to it, that license -- for a limited example -- doesn't have to include no public performance (a common license term for movies, play manuscript, music) you can allow it and retain your copyright in full. The context is you providing a video for me to redistribute. You don't have to, say, give me geographic limits.
        detaro 10y ago
        I think you are completely misunderstanding each other. pbhjpbhj is not saying what you imply and merely pointed out that "downloading copyrighted material" is a misleading phrase since all non-public-domain material is copyrighted. The fact that it's under copyright isn't important, what's important is if it is under a license that allows copying or not.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
I may know a friend who torrented a film they had on DVD because their DVD player broke and it was faster and cheaper than ripping it themselves. This is a tort again in the UK, it wasn't then. Also, most people would be happy to pay the actors and crew a very healthy wage but baulk at paying to add DRM and several layers of executives whose function appears to be to make it as hard as possible to actually watch the content without paying again and again and who extract far more than their share of the revenue. I actually looked for a download of that DVD (for my friend!) but none was available. The family in question used a hacked Wii to watch DVDs, but the DRM prevented half of them from working. Meanwhile we watched a show on YouTube other day, we could have watched it on "watch again" but the content quality was immeasurably better. Of course that too was a tort akin to torrenting.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  >Also, most people would be happy to pay the actors and crew a very healthy wage but baulk at paying to add DRM and several layers of executives whose function appears to be to make it as hard as possible to actually watch the content without paying again and again and who extract far more than their share of the revenue. Sure, all of the people torrenting are really just protesting as the unjust profits made by studio executives. This is laughable. >The family in question used a hacked Wii to watch DVDs, but the DRM prevented half of them from working. And a perfectly functional DVD player is like $20. =============================== Rate-limited by HackerNews, but in response to the below: =============================== >What's your second point? That just because it only costs a week's groceries to buy a DVD player it was wrong to torrent a work that has been paid for and only can't be consumed due to DRM? Do you find that use immoral? Copyright becomes unenforceable if you can just go buy a physical DVD with cash whenever you get sued or warned for pirating something.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    First point taken, I overstretched. What's your second point? That just because it only costs a week's groceries to buy a DVD player it was wrong to torrent a work that has been paid for and only can't be consumed due to DRM? Do you find that use immoral?

ensiferum 10y ago

I don't download or condone downloading copyrighted material. Just saying that that famous oatmeal comic still rings very true.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
It's only copyright material you aren't licensed to use that is potentially tortuous. "Big Buck Bunny" out whatever is copyright but the free and open license allows you to download it and consume it. Seems pedantic but IMO it's an important point. Copyright is automatic, restrictive licensing isn't.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  >Copyright is automatic, restrictive licensing isn't. You're wrong there. The "default" state of affairs for copyright is that the author retains all rights.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    Rights aren't a license. If the creator adds a license they have free rein on the form of license. They don't have to offer a license of course.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      Sorry, you're just wrong here. If I publish a video online, it is a copyright violation for you to redistribute it without my permission. I don't need to put a license or even a copyright marking.
      - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        The point i feel you're missing is that if I'm making my work available for redistribution I must attach a license to it, that license -- for a limited example -- doesn't have to include no public performance (a common license term for movies, play manuscript, music) you can allow it and retain your copyright in full. The context is you providing a video for me to redistribute. You don't have to, say, give me geographic limits.
      - detaro 10y ago
        I think you are completely misunderstanding each other. pbhjpbhj is not saying what you imply and merely pointed out that "downloading copyrighted material" is a misleading phrase since all non-public-domain material is copyrighted. The fact that it's under copyright isn't important, what's important is if it is under a license that allows copying or not.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

I may know a friend who torrented a film they had on DVD because their DVD player broke and it was faster and cheaper than ripping it themselves. This is a tort again in the UK, it wasn't then. Also, most people would be happy to pay the actors and crew a very healthy wage but baulk at paying to add DRM and several layers of executives whose function appears to be to make it as hard as possible to actually watch the content without paying again and again and who extract far more than their share of the revenue. I actually looked for a download of that DVD (for my friend!) but none was available. The family in question used a hacked Wii to watch DVDs, but the DRM prevented half of them from working. Meanwhile we watched a show on YouTube other day, we could have watched it on "watch again" but the content quality was immeasurably better. Of course that too was a tort akin to torrenting.

marcoperaza 10y ago
>Also, most people would be happy to pay the actors and crew a very healthy wage but baulk at paying to add DRM and several layers of executives whose function appears to be to make it as hard as possible to actually watch the content without paying again and again and who extract far more than their share of the revenue. Sure, all of the people torrenting are really just protesting as the unjust profits made by studio executives. This is laughable. >The family in question used a hacked Wii to watch DVDs, but the DRM prevented half of them from working. And a perfectly functional DVD player is like $20. =============================== Rate-limited by HackerNews, but in response to the below: =============================== >What's your second point? That just because it only costs a week's groceries to buy a DVD player it was wrong to torrent a work that has been paid for and only can't be consumed due to DRM? Do you find that use immoral? Copyright becomes unenforceable if you can just go buy a physical DVD with cash whenever you get sued or warned for pirating something.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  First point taken, I overstretched. What's your second point? That just because it only costs a week's groceries to buy a DVD player it was wrong to torrent a work that has been paid for and only can't be consumed due to DRM? Do you find that use immoral?