5 ms·

Seriously. The idea that it's just fine to pirate everything because you can or have the tech to do it is appalling to see in this community.

by _tbyy 6y ago

cosmojg 6y ago
Huh? Why?
- NortySpock 6y ago
  Because I make my money selling my labor and IP to my company (software engineer, it's in my contract.) If someone stole my IP from me or my company, it would be harder to pay the bills for either me, or my company.
  - enitihas 6y ago
    I think the irony is that someone on HN will jump on this thread saying copyright needs to be abolished, and you didn't lose anything as the user wouldn't have paid for it anyways, with the irony being that a large majority of HN either earns money via tracking ads(which is far worse than any copyright), or works money by writing paid software.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      > a large majority of HN either earns money via tracking ads Have you ever seen any numbers on HN users jobs? I’m continually surprised by the diverse roles of domain experts that appear in threads. I guess I’m hoping you’re wrong.
    - jrockway 6y ago
      I think a lot of HN readers write software that is hosted somewhere, so the users never see the code. Thus, copyright provides us no protection. (I suppose the ex-employee could always take the code and start their own competing service, so copyright does have some value.)
  - swdev281634 6y ago
    When I was younger, out of curiosity I've downloaded leaked source code of Windows or video games. Got an impression that code is not that useful to an outsider. It can help answering extremely specific questions how a particular small isolated function is implemented. Even ignoring legal issues, it won't significantly help building competing products, let alone building a successful business around such product. When we hire people, they gain access to complete source code, documentation, continuous integration environment, bug tracker, and most importantly to the current developers. It usually takes them months to become productive. With just the source code, would probably take a year even for very smart person.
  - ballenf 6y ago
    Wouldn't it be ironic if your job arose in part due to demands placed on the internet infrastructure as a result of pirating activity? Or due to pressure on content owners to lower the cost of streaming enough to make it become mainstream? It would be interesting to tally up all the investment into streaming platforms and the supporting software and servers. Without BitTorrent I really wonder how much smaller that market would be. Or if we'd all still be waiting for our discs in the mail or trying to program our DVRs to record the right shows. Doesn't make copying someone else's work without payment right.
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      > Doesn't make copying someone else's work without payment right. I believe it is right in a moral sense. The illusion that any art is always to be treated as having a value commensurate with the effort involved (or the transient demand), is a fantasy that has been commoditized. Thats the current worldthink. Many of us create over years and see our programs go to waste without a second thought in the same way. It has been a brutal set of lessons over the years. Media creators are no different than me and both arts are better serving humanity in the digital age where the information can flow freely in society. Software licensing is bad and media copying is goid. I believe this now (20 years later), as I always have.
  - foobar_ 6y ago
    The idea "exclusive monopolies" and transferable intellectual property rights for perpetuity is bullshit. The blunt fact of the matter is - A majority of the movies would gain more by giving it away to the public domain because most movies fail. Radio did not kill Art. Internet is the new radio. The same is true even for software. 80% of business fail. It would not matter if they gave their code away. GPL based business have made billions, i'n not even talking about open source and have more users than some of the biggest "startups". Among the minority that made it "big" copyright contributed maybe 5% to the success. IP allows big companies to bully creators, lie to consumers and bully independent companies that they perceive as threats. In Music, Code, Science ... openness has lead to more innovation. Movies and Games present an interesting case. They have plenty of upfront costs. Games have already embraced some notions of the freemium mode. It would be really interesting if 100 million dollar movie is entirely funded by the people. There is nothing stopping that from happening. Copyright, Patents should last at-most 1 year.
    - doctor_eval 6y ago
      Plenty of 100 million dollar movies have been entirely funded by the people [0]. They pay using a thing called “tickets”, or sometimes by paying a small fee to download it to their homes. To your point, the vast majority of media and software is proprietary, though much of it is supporting in nature and not directly for sale. Nevertheless, shouldn’t publishers be free to choose how they fund their creations? If we take away the option of artificial scarcity then an entire highly trained professional class will be out of work. While I don’t think Jonny Depp, for example, is worth $650M [1], I don’t personally think that’s a great option for the editors, writers, extras, gaffers, and many other professionals that work together to make great media. Companies are motivated to maximise the revenue from making this stuff. If they could make more money without copyright, they would have done this already. (And radio is a terrible example: commercial radio simply plays advertising for artists, called “songs”, 24x7) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films [1] https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jul/13/johnny-depp-tells-high-court-the-sun-libel-case-lost-650m-earnings https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jul/13/johnny-depp-tel...
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    Does it help much that Android's source is available?
epanchin 6y ago
Thank goodness people did, or we’d still be listening to music on CDs and watching TV on the broadcasters schedule.
zipwitch 6y ago
From an 1841 speech to the British House of Commons on the dangers of increased copyright times: At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot… Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. Source:https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyright/ https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyr...
fernandotakai 6y ago
i pay for amazon prime, youtube premium, hbo max, hulu, netflix and spotify. if i'm downloading something i'm 100% sure the media company that owns the rights is getting my money somehow.

Seriously. The idea that it's just fine to pirate everything because you can or have the tech to do it is appalling to see in this community.

by _tbyy 6y ago

Seriously. The idea that it's just fine to pirate everything because you can or have the tech to do it is appalling to see in this community.

cosmojg 6y ago

Huh? Why?

NortySpock 6y ago
Because I make my money selling my labor and IP to my company (software engineer, it's in my contract.) If someone stole my IP from me or my company, it would be harder to pay the bills for either me, or my company.
- enitihas 6y ago
  I think the irony is that someone on HN will jump on this thread saying copyright needs to be abolished, and you didn't lose anything as the user wouldn't have paid for it anyways, with the irony being that a large majority of HN either earns money via tracking ads(which is far worse than any copyright), or works money by writing paid software.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    > a large majority of HN either earns money via tracking ads Have you ever seen any numbers on HN users jobs? I’m continually surprised by the diverse roles of domain experts that appear in threads. I guess I’m hoping you’re wrong.
  - jrockway 6y ago
    I think a lot of HN readers write software that is hosted somewhere, so the users never see the code. Thus, copyright provides us no protection. (I suppose the ex-employee could always take the code and start their own competing service, so copyright does have some value.)
- swdev281634 6y ago
  When I was younger, out of curiosity I've downloaded leaked source code of Windows or video games. Got an impression that code is not that useful to an outsider. It can help answering extremely specific questions how a particular small isolated function is implemented. Even ignoring legal issues, it won't significantly help building competing products, let alone building a successful business around such product. When we hire people, they gain access to complete source code, documentation, continuous integration environment, bug tracker, and most importantly to the current developers. It usually takes them months to become productive. With just the source code, would probably take a year even for very smart person.
- ballenf 6y ago
  Wouldn't it be ironic if your job arose in part due to demands placed on the internet infrastructure as a result of pirating activity? Or due to pressure on content owners to lower the cost of streaming enough to make it become mainstream? It would be interesting to tally up all the investment into streaming platforms and the supporting software and servers. Without BitTorrent I really wonder how much smaller that market would be. Or if we'd all still be waiting for our discs in the mail or trying to program our DVRs to record the right shows. Doesn't make copying someone else's work without payment right.
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    > Doesn't make copying someone else's work without payment right. I believe it is right in a moral sense. The illusion that any art is always to be treated as having a value commensurate with the effort involved (or the transient demand), is a fantasy that has been commoditized. Thats the current worldthink. Many of us create over years and see our programs go to waste without a second thought in the same way. It has been a brutal set of lessons over the years. Media creators are no different than me and both arts are better serving humanity in the digital age where the information can flow freely in society. Software licensing is bad and media copying is goid. I believe this now (20 years later), as I always have.
- foobar_ 6y ago
  The idea "exclusive monopolies" and transferable intellectual property rights for perpetuity is bullshit. The blunt fact of the matter is - A majority of the movies would gain more by giving it away to the public domain because most movies fail. Radio did not kill Art. Internet is the new radio. The same is true even for software. 80% of business fail. It would not matter if they gave their code away. GPL based business have made billions, i'n not even talking about open source and have more users than some of the biggest "startups". Among the minority that made it "big" copyright contributed maybe 5% to the success. IP allows big companies to bully creators, lie to consumers and bully independent companies that they perceive as threats. In Music, Code, Science ... openness has lead to more innovation. Movies and Games present an interesting case. They have plenty of upfront costs. Games have already embraced some notions of the freemium mode. It would be really interesting if 100 million dollar movie is entirely funded by the people. There is nothing stopping that from happening. Copyright, Patents should last at-most 1 year.
  - doctor_eval 6y ago
    Plenty of 100 million dollar movies have been entirely funded by the people [0]. They pay using a thing called “tickets”, or sometimes by paying a small fee to download it to their homes. To your point, the vast majority of media and software is proprietary, though much of it is supporting in nature and not directly for sale. Nevertheless, shouldn’t publishers be free to choose how they fund their creations? If we take away the option of artificial scarcity then an entire highly trained professional class will be out of work. While I don’t think Jonny Depp, for example, is worth $650M [1], I don’t personally think that’s a great option for the editors, writers, extras, gaffers, and many other professionals that work together to make great media. Companies are motivated to maximise the revenue from making this stuff. If they could make more money without copyright, they would have done this already. (And radio is a terrible example: commercial radio simply plays advertising for artists, called “songs”, 24x7) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films [1] https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jul/13/johnny-depp-tells-high-court-the-sun-libel-case-lost-650m-earnings https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jul/13/johnny-depp-tel...
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Does it help much that Android's source is available?

epanchin 6y ago

Thank goodness people did, or we’d still be listening to music on CDs and watching TV on the broadcasters schedule.

zipwitch 6y ago

From an 1841 speech to the British House of Commons on the dangers of increased copyright times: At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot… Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. Source:https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyright/ https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyr...

fernandotakai 6y ago

i pay for amazon prime, youtube premium, hbo max, hulu, netflix and spotify. if i'm downloading something i'm 100% sure the media company that owns the rights is getting my money somehow.