8 ms·

For sure correlation between piracy and sales, but causation? I'm not convinced. I've always been a strong proponent of, "piracy is theft" with the caveat of,

For sure correlation between piracy and sales, but causation? I'm not convinced. I've always been a strong proponent of, "piracy is theft" with the caveat of, "theft is bad, but there are lots of worse things". I think we should stop building justifications and just call it what it is, theft, and admit society is probably more okay with theft than we're willing to admit to one another. Pirating content shouldn't fundamentally alter the "am I a good person?" equation, but it does sit with a negative sign next to it.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Indeed... I have downloaded a lot of movies, TV show, music, software, and books over the years. But I’ve never felt it necessary to subscribe to this insane justification of it, or to glorify it as some sort of political statement with “information wants to be free”. I was simply to cheap to pay for these things. To be sure: I would have only bought a small fraction of what I pirated if that wasn’t possible. And I continue to believe that the lack of Spotify-style licensing is leaving a lot of money for creators on the table (journalism being the clear leader in that regard right now).
- skinnymuch 6y ago
  This is usually what I am amazed by. The need for righteously justify things.
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
    Doesn't it feel righteous to say "fuck you" to someone who's been fucking you over for years though? A whole host of industries have well documented anti-consumer practices which make it so people who pay are noticeably worse off than people who don't. From disappearing digital goods, to ads shoved in your face in paid products, to anti-piracy measures that are glorified malware, to harvesting and selling your data, I could go on...
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
      Meh, no. Still trying to find justification. Among other things, “the industry” isn’t a thing. The people you are punishing are entirely different ones from those that supposedly wronged you. Then, there’s the whole rule-of-law thing. If you don’t like them, lobby for changes.
  - fock 6y ago
    well, I want to play a movie I've paid for without anyone destroying my hardware (!) (which effectively is what the AACS-key update mechanism is) nor spying on me (commercial players with regular internet connectivity). I don't think this is particularly righteous, I just don't think corporations have the right to strip me of my rights because they think I'm a pirate.
    - skinnymuch 6y ago
      That’s pretty righteously fine to me. The amount of people who pay for the content then pirate it has to be a tiny fraction though.
userbinator 6y ago
Imaginary property is imaginary.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  Effort isn't imaginary, however.
  - raspyberr 6y ago
    The effort of making a physical object and a digital object can be reasoned to be quite similar. Yet the digital object has the potential to be worth literally billions because it's easily and infintely replicateable. Physical objects made once, available to one person means the price is dictated by economy/market. Digital objects made once, available to everyone everywhere should mean it's price is practically zero if you want to treat it like a physical object. And surprise surprise many businesses do want to treat digital objects like physical objects. They often artificially limit the "supply" side. Digital things don't work like physical things. Sitting around in a world where 100% of people (who have access to the internet) can have a digital creation for practical use and entertainment is like being on the brink of a utopia. Yet we're all trying to argue about a fundamental aspect of a digital object as being "unethical". Intellectual property should only give one right - the right to claim authorship. We need to come up with a better way to give those that make digital objects money that isn't artificial limiting or unethical advertisements.
athrowaway3z 6y ago
Google has calculated my attention time to be worth around 10cents. You are a thief because this comment has annoyed me so much that it has taken my attention. Please add a negative sign to your karma equation. © AThrowaway3z DISCLAIMER: THIS COMMENT IS AN ORIGINAL PRODUCTION AND THE PROPERTY OF ATHROAWAY3Z, THE OWNER HAS GIVEN ycombinator.com THE RIGHT TO A SINGLE PUBLICATION WHICH MUST BE USED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER IT IS RECEIVED. FURTHER USE OF THIS COMMENT AFTER THIS TIME IS THEFT AND WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTEND OF THE LAW APPLICABLE AT EVERY TIME OF REPRODUCTION. REDISTRIBUTION OR PROCESSING OF THE TEXT IS NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR.
probably_wrong 6y ago
I started at "piracy is theft", eventually switched to "piracy is too complicated an issue to be labeled as black or white", and now I've settled in "actually, I'm okay with most of it". The typical example: the music industry says "copying a CD is stealing from the artist", but plenty of small artists would counter-argur that a. the music industry is the one getting the money, not them, and b. they would prefer you to pirate their songs and make them popular so they can actually make money with more concerts. In my opinion, piracy is bad when it hurts small producers (which tends to be the case with books) and actually good when it benefits society in detriment of some giant corporation. And if said giant corporation invested millions into laws that restrict people's access to their own culture (with Disney at the top of that list), I will actually encourage it. I see this as siding with society instead of corporations. I know that this is not an universally accepted view, but I just bring it up to point out that there is more to piracy than "yes, it's theft" or "no, it isn't".
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  My point was, can't it both be "it's theft" and "I'm probably okay with most of it"? We treat "bad" as this absolute, "all bad is Bad!" but really no, there are all kinds of degrees of bad. Theft is bad, but IP theft is probably a lot less bad than armed robbery, for example. I just don't get the conflict. I entirely agree with you otherwise.
- chii 6y ago
  > In my opinion, piracy is bad when it hurts small producers (which tends to be the case with books) and actually good when it benefits society in detriment of some giant corporation. the problem with this line of thinking is that it's got a built-in personal bias against the monied and wealthy. Just because a corporation is rich, doesn't mean they can suffer detriment. The issue of corporate overreach in copyright law is a separate issue that should be solved using law and democracy, not a backhanded application of robinhood morals. If piracy is benefitial to society, then it's just as beneficial if it was pirating an indie artist's content as well as content produced by a corporate.
athrowaway3z 6y ago
My initial reply was unconstructive because I couldn't think of coherent response at the moment so I threw absurdity at absurdity. Here is a hopefully more constructive critique. If piracy is theft. Then I have a linguistic problem. If a thief steals my bike I lost my bike. If, in your view, it is also okay to say "a thief stole my content" then I suddenly lack the vocabulary to differentiate between the two. Even though the consequences in the first case are physical, measurable, immediate. And in the latter they are hypothetical, not measurable, and spread out over an indeterminate amount of time. So before a discussion can even take place, we need more words.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

Indeed... I have downloaded a lot of movies, TV show, music, software, and books over the years. But I’ve never felt it necessary to subscribe to this insane justification of it, or to glorify it as some sort of political statement with “information wants to be free”. I was simply to cheap to pay for these things. To be sure: I would have only bought a small fraction of what I pirated if that wasn’t possible. And I continue to believe that the lack of Spotify-style licensing is leaving a lot of money for creators on the table (journalism being the clear leader in that regard right now).

skinnymuch 6y ago
This is usually what I am amazed by. The need for righteously justify things.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
  Doesn't it feel righteous to say "fuck you" to someone who's been fucking you over for years though? A whole host of industries have well documented anti-consumer practices which make it so people who pay are noticeably worse off than people who don't. From disappearing digital goods, to ads shoved in your face in paid products, to anti-piracy measures that are glorified malware, to harvesting and selling your data, I could go on...
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    Meh, no. Still trying to find justification. Among other things, “the industry” isn’t a thing. The people you are punishing are entirely different ones from those that supposedly wronged you. Then, there’s the whole rule-of-law thing. If you don’t like them, lobby for changes.
- fock 6y ago
  well, I want to play a movie I've paid for without anyone destroying my hardware (!) (which effectively is what the AACS-key update mechanism is) nor spying on me (commercial players with regular internet connectivity). I don't think this is particularly righteous, I just don't think corporations have the right to strip me of my rights because they think I'm a pirate.
  - skinnymuch 6y ago
    That’s pretty righteously fine to me. The amount of people who pay for the content then pirate it has to be a tiny fraction though.

userbinator 6y ago

Imaginary property is imaginary.

TameAntelope 6y ago
Effort isn't imaginary, however.
- raspyberr 6y ago
  The effort of making a physical object and a digital object can be reasoned to be quite similar. Yet the digital object has the potential to be worth literally billions because it's easily and infintely replicateable. Physical objects made once, available to one person means the price is dictated by economy/market. Digital objects made once, available to everyone everywhere should mean it's price is practically zero if you want to treat it like a physical object. And surprise surprise many businesses do want to treat digital objects like physical objects. They often artificially limit the "supply" side. Digital things don't work like physical things. Sitting around in a world where 100% of people (who have access to the internet) can have a digital creation for practical use and entertainment is like being on the brink of a utopia. Yet we're all trying to argue about a fundamental aspect of a digital object as being "unethical". Intellectual property should only give one right - the right to claim authorship. We need to come up with a better way to give those that make digital objects money that isn't artificial limiting or unethical advertisements.

athrowaway3z 6y ago

Google has calculated my attention time to be worth around 10cents. You are a thief because this comment has annoyed me so much that it has taken my attention. Please add a negative sign to your karma equation. © AThrowaway3z DISCLAIMER: THIS COMMENT IS AN ORIGINAL PRODUCTION AND THE PROPERTY OF ATHROAWAY3Z, THE OWNER HAS GIVEN ycombinator.com THE RIGHT TO A SINGLE PUBLICATION WHICH MUST BE USED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER IT IS RECEIVED. FURTHER USE OF THIS COMMENT AFTER THIS TIME IS THEFT AND WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTEND OF THE LAW APPLICABLE AT EVERY TIME OF REPRODUCTION. REDISTRIBUTION OR PROCESSING OF THE TEXT IS NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR.

probably_wrong 6y ago

I started at "piracy is theft", eventually switched to "piracy is too complicated an issue to be labeled as black or white", and now I've settled in "actually, I'm okay with most of it". The typical example: the music industry says "copying a CD is stealing from the artist", but plenty of small artists would counter-argur that a. the music industry is the one getting the money, not them, and b. they would prefer you to pirate their songs and make them popular so they can actually make money with more concerts. In my opinion, piracy is bad when it hurts small producers (which tends to be the case with books) and actually good when it benefits society in detriment of some giant corporation. And if said giant corporation invested millions into laws that restrict people's access to their own culture (with Disney at the top of that list), I will actually encourage it. I see this as siding with society instead of corporations. I know that this is not an universally accepted view, but I just bring it up to point out that there is more to piracy than "yes, it's theft" or "no, it isn't".

TameAntelope 6y ago
My point was, can't it both be "it's theft" and "I'm probably okay with most of it"? We treat "bad" as this absolute, "all bad is Bad!" but really no, there are all kinds of degrees of bad. Theft is bad, but IP theft is probably a lot less bad than armed robbery, for example. I just don't get the conflict. I entirely agree with you otherwise.
chii 6y ago
> In my opinion, piracy is bad when it hurts small producers (which tends to be the case with books) and actually good when it benefits society in detriment of some giant corporation. the problem with this line of thinking is that it's got a built-in personal bias against the monied and wealthy. Just because a corporation is rich, doesn't mean they can suffer detriment. The issue of corporate overreach in copyright law is a separate issue that should be solved using law and democracy, not a backhanded application of robinhood morals. If piracy is benefitial to society, then it's just as beneficial if it was pirating an indie artist's content as well as content produced by a corporate.

athrowaway3z 6y ago

My initial reply was unconstructive because I couldn't think of coherent response at the moment so I threw absurdity at absurdity. Here is a hopefully more constructive critique. If piracy is theft. Then I have a linguistic problem. If a thief steals my bike I lost my bike. If, in your view, it is also okay to say "a thief stole my content" then I suddenly lack the vocabulary to differentiate between the two. Even though the consequences in the first case are physical, measurable, immediate. And in the latter they are hypothetical, not measurable, and spread out over an indeterminate amount of time. So before a discussion can even take place, we need more words.