3 ms·

The OPs argument is bad/stupid, but there is a real argument to be made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id

The OPs argument is bad/stupid, but there is a real argument to be made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028392

me_me_me 6y ago
Your comment is bad/stupid. You are bringing nothing to this discussion.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I regret saying stupid, too abrasive and I didn't intend it as a personal attack. My comment links to my actual argument.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    That's fine. But its a hijack of a thread. I admitted my reasoning is not moralistically ethical or law abiding. My argument is that piracy is there for a reason. There was a huge dip in torrent usage at the dawn of Netflix, for a reason. The convenience of Netflix outweighed 'cost' of piracy. Now piracy is back up, why? Thats the reality of the world we are living in. The argument you linked is great and it makes sense. And shows issues with copyright etc. that is my long time belief. But the reality is that I pirate things when its more convenient to me. As a lot of people too. Saying otherwise is lying. And arguing how CP is bad and damaging doesn't change anything, because disney and company will uphold it no matter what.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      Yeah I understand where you're coming from, I just find that argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. For example, if instead of piracy we were talking about stealing from a brick and mortar store it wouldn't be right to do it just because it's possible and easy to get away with it (or because the store didn't provide convenient service, etc.). File sharing is different for lots of reasons (digital goods are non-rival, the issue with copyright I mention in my comment) and it's those reasons that make the argument compelling (basically that modern copyright law is itself bad). I think just saying it's okay because you don't care about corporate profit actually weakens the ability to persuade people with the underlying arguments which I think are good and I don't think it's an ethical position that really holds up. Thoughtful people that see only those arguments (or worse 'information wants to be free') come away with a stronger defense of existing copyright law. I do think that companies should take it into account for pragmatic reasons and recognize that it's the real competition to not delivering high quality convenient service, but that's largely because it's not possible to enforce actual copyright law with the internet at scale - which is somewhat of a different issue. I don't think it's really hi-jacking the thread because I think the issue is so tightly coupled. I just didn't want to copy/paste my comment because that seemed like bad etiquette?
      - me_me_me 6y ago
        > For example, if instead of piracy we were talking about stealing from a brick and mortar store But we are not. That's shifting goalposts fallacy. What about buying used DVD is that piracy? After all two parties watch a movie but movie maker made one sale? > I think just saying it's okay because you don't care about corporate profit actually weakens the ability to persuade people with the underlying arguments which I think are good and I don't think it's an ethical position that really holds up. Thoughtful people that see only those arguments (or worse 'information wants to be free') come away with a stronger defense of existing copyright law. That is why the very first line I am admitting that my position is out of pure lazyness calculation. > I do think that companies should take it into account for pragmatic reasons and recognize that it's the real competition to not delivering high quality convenient service, but that's largely because it's not possible to enforce actual copyright law with the internet at scale - which is somewhat of a different issue. I am of belief that piracy is great equalizer. A force that curbs infinite appetite of corporate overlord that would bleed us dry if they could. It makes particularly movie industry more customer friendly and more competitive. > I don't think it's really hi-jacking the thread because I think the issue is so tightly coupled. I just didn't want to copy/paste my comment because that seemed like bad etiquette? Actually it was hi-jacking. Imagine two people talk and you overhead them you cut in. Completely disregarding the actual discussion and drop your opinion in without addressing what was previously said. Sure you could have dropped in that, but at least address why you think that is better argument and why you disagree with previous post. That is called a discussion and not stating your opinion. Hope that it make sense.
        fossuser 6y ago
        > "But we are not. That's shifting goalposts fallacy." I address this in the next sentence. > "That is why the very first line I am admitting that my position is out of pure lazyness calculation." Sure, but that doesn't make the argument good. > "I am of belief that piracy is great equalizer. A force that curbs infinite appetite of corporate overlord that would bleed us dry if they could. It makes particularly movie industry more customer friendly and more competitive." I don't disagree with this in a pragmatic sense, but it's just not a very good argument for why something is ethical or okay. You could make the same statement that stealing is a 'great equalizer' between the people and the 'corporate overlords'. The reason it's different for file sharing has to do with the underlying copyright issues and the law being bad. > "Actually it was hi-jacking. Imagine two people talk and you overhead them you cut in." I wasn't talking to you or really that interested in replying to you, I was talking to the person I replied to because I thought they'd find my argument more persuasive. On an internet forum replying to others in threads is allowed. By linking to the other thread rather than commenting I was attempting to not hijack and just have the discussion related to that thread at the link instead of here.

The OPs argument is bad/stupid, but there is a real argument to be made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26028392

me_me_me 6y ago

Your comment is bad/stupid. You are bringing nothing to this discussion.

fossuser 6y ago
I regret saying stupid, too abrasive and I didn't intend it as a personal attack. My comment links to my actual argument.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  That's fine. But its a hijack of a thread. I admitted my reasoning is not moralistically ethical or law abiding. My argument is that piracy is there for a reason. There was a huge dip in torrent usage at the dawn of Netflix, for a reason. The convenience of Netflix outweighed 'cost' of piracy. Now piracy is back up, why? Thats the reality of the world we are living in. The argument you linked is great and it makes sense. And shows issues with copyright etc. that is my long time belief. But the reality is that I pirate things when its more convenient to me. As a lot of people too. Saying otherwise is lying. And arguing how CP is bad and damaging doesn't change anything, because disney and company will uphold it no matter what.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    Yeah I understand where you're coming from, I just find that argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. For example, if instead of piracy we were talking about stealing from a brick and mortar store it wouldn't be right to do it just because it's possible and easy to get away with it (or because the store didn't provide convenient service, etc.). File sharing is different for lots of reasons (digital goods are non-rival, the issue with copyright I mention in my comment) and it's those reasons that make the argument compelling (basically that modern copyright law is itself bad). I think just saying it's okay because you don't care about corporate profit actually weakens the ability to persuade people with the underlying arguments which I think are good and I don't think it's an ethical position that really holds up. Thoughtful people that see only those arguments (or worse 'information wants to be free') come away with a stronger defense of existing copyright law. I do think that companies should take it into account for pragmatic reasons and recognize that it's the real competition to not delivering high quality convenient service, but that's largely because it's not possible to enforce actual copyright law with the internet at scale - which is somewhat of a different issue. I don't think it's really hi-jacking the thread because I think the issue is so tightly coupled. I just didn't want to copy/paste my comment because that seemed like bad etiquette?
    - me_me_me 6y ago
      > For example, if instead of piracy we were talking about stealing from a brick and mortar store But we are not. That's shifting goalposts fallacy. What about buying used DVD is that piracy? After all two parties watch a movie but movie maker made one sale? > I think just saying it's okay because you don't care about corporate profit actually weakens the ability to persuade people with the underlying arguments which I think are good and I don't think it's an ethical position that really holds up. Thoughtful people that see only those arguments (or worse 'information wants to be free') come away with a stronger defense of existing copyright law. That is why the very first line I am admitting that my position is out of pure lazyness calculation. > I do think that companies should take it into account for pragmatic reasons and recognize that it's the real competition to not delivering high quality convenient service, but that's largely because it's not possible to enforce actual copyright law with the internet at scale - which is somewhat of a different issue. I am of belief that piracy is great equalizer. A force that curbs infinite appetite of corporate overlord that would bleed us dry if they could. It makes particularly movie industry more customer friendly and more competitive. > I don't think it's really hi-jacking the thread because I think the issue is so tightly coupled. I just didn't want to copy/paste my comment because that seemed like bad etiquette? Actually it was hi-jacking. Imagine two people talk and you overhead them you cut in. Completely disregarding the actual discussion and drop your opinion in without addressing what was previously said. Sure you could have dropped in that, but at least address why you think that is better argument and why you disagree with previous post. That is called a discussion and not stating your opinion. Hope that it make sense.
      - fossuser 6y ago
        > "But we are not. That's shifting goalposts fallacy." I address this in the next sentence. > "That is why the very first line I am admitting that my position is out of pure lazyness calculation." Sure, but that doesn't make the argument good. > "I am of belief that piracy is great equalizer. A force that curbs infinite appetite of corporate overlord that would bleed us dry if they could. It makes particularly movie industry more customer friendly and more competitive." I don't disagree with this in a pragmatic sense, but it's just not a very good argument for why something is ethical or okay. You could make the same statement that stealing is a 'great equalizer' between the people and the 'corporate overlords'. The reason it's different for file sharing has to do with the underlying copyright issues and the law being bad. > "Actually it was hi-jacking. Imagine two people talk and you overhead them you cut in." I wasn't talking to you or really that interested in replying to you, I was talking to the person I replied to because I thought they'd find my argument more persuasive. On an internet forum replying to others in threads is allowed. By linking to the other thread rather than commenting I was attempting to not hijack and just have the discussion related to that thread at the link instead of here.