5 ms·

>But if you put enough hurdles in front of them, they will become pirates. As I did this morning. People are seriously re-prioritizing their "needs". There's a

>But if you put enough hurdles in front of them, they will become pirates. As I did this morning. People are seriously re-prioritizing their "needs". There's a prayer about having enough so you're not tempted to steal. It's supposed to be about food and daily necessities. Apparently some people need music so much that it's worth stealing for. Can't you just move on with your life, and decide to not listen to that music? Relevant discussion was "don't make me steal": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2176804 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2176804

leftnode 16y ago
I don't understand this logic. It seems like he took every avenue possible to attempt to pay for the music (much more than other people who don't know about grabbing a UK IP address) and he wound up unable to do so. Sure, I suppose he could just move on with his life, but it's an album he really wanted and even offered to pay for it. Changes in how the record industry operates need to happen, not peoples priorities.
- rubidium 16y ago
  I entirely agree that changes in the record industry need to happen. And I entirely believe that more people will pirate until those changes happen. It would be great for the music industry to change, it needs it. My only point: pirating is not a valid form of protest, because it is actually about you satisfying your wants.
  - jaekwon 16y ago
    Are you really saying that one can't enjoy the act of protesting? "Pirating" music is as much an act of protest as it does satisfy. In fact, it doubles the enjoyment whilst filesharing is considered illegal, and triples it when you tell the world about it. It's practically free joy for the price of naught, and contributes to world peace.
  - joel_ms 16y ago
    >My only point: pirating is not a valid form of protest, because it is actually about you satisfying your wants. How does the second follow from the first? I'm reluctant to pay for music when I know that a large portion of the money is going towards the record industry, which essentially means that I'm contributing to efforts like ACTA, IPRED, attacks on net neutrality and the gradual shift to blaming the ISPs. To me this is far worse to society than anything allegedly caused by piracy. Considering how little money the average artist get from record sales, I would rather protest the record companies by pirating the music and spending money directly on the artists through live venues and merchandise.
rmc 16y ago
I am not stealing. I am downloading TV shows.
_delirium 16y ago
I don't see how it would have helped anyone if he had just moved on with his life and not downloaded the album. Isn't the usual justification for intellectual property that it rewards the creator? If you compare the "download the album" and the "move on and don't listen to the album at all" alternatives, the creator gets no reward either way, so it seems ethically neutral--- contrary to the case where he could've paid the creator and instead chose not to, where the creator actually loses out on a sale. Now perhaps you could say that it's unethical because if he hadn't downloaded this album, he would've paid for someone else's, so he's not stealing from the creator of this album, but indirectly from the creators of other albums that he didn't buy instead. But that seems like an argument that proves too much; in that scenario, is it also unethical to listen to CC-licensed music, because doing so steals business from non-CC-licensed music?
- mhb 16y ago
  So what if you don't see what the motivations are of the people who own the content or the distribution network? Can you imagine a world in which those people are making decisions whose justification they don't wish to share with you? Maybe they've done A/B testing on the way to release content to maximize their profit or some other good that they value and think that revealing the results to you would affect the outcome.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    I suppose I don't see that as part of the copyright social contract, though some people do argue for a complete ability to control (for a temporary period of time) the use of a work. The model of copyright that makes sense to me is intended to provide a mechanism for creators to be compensated for published work, i.e. to prevent readers/listeners/etc. from bypassing the paid distribution channel. The justification is that if everyone is funneled towards the paid distribution channel, that will provide funds and encouragement for more such work to be created and published. But if the work isn't being published (or isn't being published to a particular audience), then that side of the social contract isn't being upheld, so the purpose of copyright (to encourage such material to be produced and made available) isn't being fulfilled, and therefore I don't see copyright as ethically applicable (or ethically applicable to that audience). I guess a shorter version of the obligation I feel users of a work have is: Compensate the creator, if they'll take your money.
jaekwon 16y ago
The other day I was at Bourbon and Branch in San Francisco, a bar designed and run like a 20's era speakeasy when alcohol was illegal. Can you imagine living in a world where the government, no, puritans, dictated what you can or cannot brew for your own consumption? If you think sharing digital music is "stealing", then I suggest you get familiar with the principle of abundance. The real crime is in drawing an analogy between peers who elect to share digital information, and pirates who kill and steal limited resources in transit from A to B. The fact is, while the market includes a large number of P2P filesharers, many people will gladly pay for convenience and live concert tickets, and none of this is going to change. If you can't deal with this, you are in the wrong business. If you are a musician who feels robbed by the masses of torrent sharers, then I dare you to reveal your identity and speak up against filesharing and see how quickly you alienate your fans. Understand that when you liken the free flow of information to "stealing", you are speaking a point of view that is quickly becoming extinct. The next generation born into the P2P era will think nothing of this, and find your prudish inclinations out of touch with reality.
jancona 16y ago
The real point isn't piracy, it's that the band and the record company lost the sale! They had a customer ready to give them money and they failed to get it. At that point whether he pirated it or did without is irrelevant. Talking about piracy just made it more dramatic.

leftnode 16y ago

I don't understand this logic. It seems like he took every avenue possible to attempt to pay for the music (much more than other people who don't know about grabbing a UK IP address) and he wound up unable to do so. Sure, I suppose he could just move on with his life, but it's an album he really wanted and even offered to pay for it. Changes in how the record industry operates need to happen, not peoples priorities.

rubidium 16y ago
I entirely agree that changes in the record industry need to happen. And I entirely believe that more people will pirate until those changes happen. It would be great for the music industry to change, it needs it. My only point: pirating is not a valid form of protest, because it is actually about you satisfying your wants.
- jaekwon 16y ago
  Are you really saying that one can't enjoy the act of protesting? "Pirating" music is as much an act of protest as it does satisfy. In fact, it doubles the enjoyment whilst filesharing is considered illegal, and triples it when you tell the world about it. It's practically free joy for the price of naught, and contributes to world peace.
- joel_ms 16y ago
  >My only point: pirating is not a valid form of protest, because it is actually about you satisfying your wants. How does the second follow from the first? I'm reluctant to pay for music when I know that a large portion of the money is going towards the record industry, which essentially means that I'm contributing to efforts like ACTA, IPRED, attacks on net neutrality and the gradual shift to blaming the ISPs. To me this is far worse to society than anything allegedly caused by piracy. Considering how little money the average artist get from record sales, I would rather protest the record companies by pirating the music and spending money directly on the artists through live venues and merchandise.

rmc 16y ago

I am not stealing. I am downloading TV shows.

_delirium 16y ago

I don't see how it would have helped anyone if he had just moved on with his life and not downloaded the album. Isn't the usual justification for intellectual property that it rewards the creator? If you compare the "download the album" and the "move on and don't listen to the album at all" alternatives, the creator gets no reward either way, so it seems ethically neutral--- contrary to the case where he could've paid the creator and instead chose not to, where the creator actually loses out on a sale. Now perhaps you could say that it's unethical because if he hadn't downloaded this album, he would've paid for someone else's, so he's not stealing from the creator of this album, but indirectly from the creators of other albums that he didn't buy instead. But that seems like an argument that proves too much; in that scenario, is it also unethical to listen to CC-licensed music, because doing so steals business from non-CC-licensed music?

mhb 16y ago
So what if you don't see what the motivations are of the people who own the content or the distribution network? Can you imagine a world in which those people are making decisions whose justification they don't wish to share with you? Maybe they've done A/B testing on the way to release content to maximize their profit or some other good that they value and think that revealing the results to you would affect the outcome.
- _delirium 16y ago
  I suppose I don't see that as part of the copyright social contract, though some people do argue for a complete ability to control (for a temporary period of time) the use of a work. The model of copyright that makes sense to me is intended to provide a mechanism for creators to be compensated for published work, i.e. to prevent readers/listeners/etc. from bypassing the paid distribution channel. The justification is that if everyone is funneled towards the paid distribution channel, that will provide funds and encouragement for more such work to be created and published. But if the work isn't being published (or isn't being published to a particular audience), then that side of the social contract isn't being upheld, so the purpose of copyright (to encourage such material to be produced and made available) isn't being fulfilled, and therefore I don't see copyright as ethically applicable (or ethically applicable to that audience). I guess a shorter version of the obligation I feel users of a work have is: Compensate the creator, if they'll take your money.

jaekwon 16y ago

The other day I was at Bourbon and Branch in San Francisco, a bar designed and run like a 20's era speakeasy when alcohol was illegal. Can you imagine living in a world where the government, no, puritans, dictated what you can or cannot brew for your own consumption? If you think sharing digital music is "stealing", then I suggest you get familiar with the principle of abundance. The real crime is in drawing an analogy between peers who elect to share digital information, and pirates who kill and steal limited resources in transit from A to B. The fact is, while the market includes a large number of P2P filesharers, many people will gladly pay for convenience and live concert tickets, and none of this is going to change. If you can't deal with this, you are in the wrong business. If you are a musician who feels robbed by the masses of torrent sharers, then I dare you to reveal your identity and speak up against filesharing and see how quickly you alienate your fans. Understand that when you liken the free flow of information to "stealing", you are speaking a point of view that is quickly becoming extinct. The next generation born into the P2P era will think nothing of this, and find your prudish inclinations out of touch with reality.

jancona 16y ago

The real point isn't piracy, it's that the band and the record company lost the sale! They had a customer ready to give them money and they failed to get it. At that point whether he pirated it or did without is irrelevant. Talking about piracy just made it more dramatic.