6 ms·

Further, what is the message of the allegory supposed to be? The analogy between music and tech suggests that the two hits-based industries selling digital goo

Further, what is the message of the allegory supposed to be? The analogy between music and tech suggests that the two hits-based industries selling digital goods are not so different after all. But why would our morality in one case be so different from the other case? If anything, this allegory seems to suggest to me that the recording industry has committed one of the biggest public relations bungles of our lifetimes. People who wouldn't think to pirate a mobile app would pirate music without a second thought thanks to widespread lawsuits, pay-for-play, price fixing, and of course, ease.

shantanubala 15y ago
Also, people can support an musician by buying concert tickets and merchandise. Software doesn't let people "morally offset" piracy in other ways.
- briandear 15y ago
  The whole idea of moral offsetting is nonsense. That's like saying that I'm going to steal Oreos from the grocery store but make up for it by buying milk.
  - zecho 15y ago
    To be fair, it's more like saying you'd wait for Oreos to come to town, pay an outrageous sum of money to view them and then buy milk at four times what you'd normally pay for it. It's not that I think music piracy is justified, but let's not understate the reality of merchandising and touring prices in the music industry. When people feel they're being ripped off, they're probably going to be more likely to not feel so bad when they return the favor.
  - whatusername 15y ago
    Do you live in a country where there are restrictions on products you would like to purchase? (as in -- anywhere that's not the continental US). Perhaps an ebook that's not available in your country. If the only way to consume a good is to obtain it illegally (and there is no loss of the orginal owner - I'm talking about digital copies) then moral offsetting is the only slightly moral way to consume/acquire the item.
    - saw-lau 15y ago
      ...or not consume it in the first place. I don't understand where this 'right to be able to get everything I want' has come from in recent years. Sometimes it sucks to not get all you want, but - you know - that's life.
  - shantanubala 15y ago
    I didn't say it was ethical, but you can't deny that it definitely makes it easier for people to justify piracy in their minds.
sliverstorm 15y ago
what is the message of the allegory supposed to be? It sounded to me like the message was supposed to be "it doesn't sound so awesome when you see it from the other side of the looking glass, now does it". (It felt like it was targeted at people who can identify with developing mobile apps)
- babebridou 15y ago
  The author said in the comments: "The point of the article is that making that choice for someone else is wrong." It's my feeling that in this article at least, the author does not really care about the rights and wrong of copying, piracy, intellectual property, etc. He is scared by relatively few people on the internet being both lawmaker, judge, party and executioner when it comes to the monetization of a digital product, and the reason why he is scared is that these few people are not even potential customers.
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    Actually, I'm scared that we live in a world where people think they're entitled to anything they can take without consequence. The fact that they aren't taking the original means nothing. They have broken a social contract with the creator of content that, ironically, they really enjoy and would like to see more of in the future. The problem of someone taking copyrighted content and making it available for others is a small one. The big problem is the many millions of people who take advantage of it. If everyone recognized that they're not entitled to anything except their basic human rights, none of which have anything to do with access to MP3s, then others posting that content online wouldn't matter. The hope with this article was a little empathy from a community that often leans toward not caring about copyright law as it pertains to music. While many chose to go the route of poking tiny holes in parts of the analogy, plenty didn't realize it was an allegory and talked about how messed up it was. Many of them the same people who fight music copyright tooth and nail. It's just sad to think that everybody enjoys music, just like they enjoy software, and so many other things that can be easily taken, and yet don't care if the people who create it see enough benefit to keep making it for them. It's short sighted and will result in fewer people having the time to become experts in these crafts, which is a loss for everyone. Sure, quantity is at an all time high, but in art that hardly matters.
jimmyhwang 15y ago
I feel the same way. I don't understand the point of this allegory other than to insight discussion and get ranked highly on HN. Maybe I'm used to reading "easy" articles that provide a problem and possible solution to it. I haven't read the allegory of the cave since college so I'm not used to thinking this hard... (laziness on my part I guess)

shantanubala 15y ago

Also, people can support an musician by buying concert tickets and merchandise. Software doesn't let people "morally offset" piracy in other ways.

briandear 15y ago
The whole idea of moral offsetting is nonsense. That's like saying that I'm going to steal Oreos from the grocery store but make up for it by buying milk.
- zecho 15y ago
  To be fair, it's more like saying you'd wait for Oreos to come to town, pay an outrageous sum of money to view them and then buy milk at four times what you'd normally pay for it. It's not that I think music piracy is justified, but let's not understate the reality of merchandising and touring prices in the music industry. When people feel they're being ripped off, they're probably going to be more likely to not feel so bad when they return the favor.
- whatusername 15y ago
  Do you live in a country where there are restrictions on products you would like to purchase? (as in -- anywhere that's not the continental US). Perhaps an ebook that's not available in your country. If the only way to consume a good is to obtain it illegally (and there is no loss of the orginal owner - I'm talking about digital copies) then moral offsetting is the only slightly moral way to consume/acquire the item.
  - saw-lau 15y ago
    ...or not consume it in the first place. I don't understand where this 'right to be able to get everything I want' has come from in recent years. Sometimes it sucks to not get all you want, but - you know - that's life.
- shantanubala 15y ago
  I didn't say it was ethical, but you can't deny that it definitely makes it easier for people to justify piracy in their minds.

sliverstorm 15y ago

what is the message of the allegory supposed to be? It sounded to me like the message was supposed to be "it doesn't sound so awesome when you see it from the other side of the looking glass, now does it". (It felt like it was targeted at people who can identify with developing mobile apps)

babebridou 15y ago
The author said in the comments: "The point of the article is that making that choice for someone else is wrong." It's my feeling that in this article at least, the author does not really care about the rights and wrong of copying, piracy, intellectual property, etc. He is scared by relatively few people on the internet being both lawmaker, judge, party and executioner when it comes to the monetization of a digital product, and the reason why he is scared is that these few people are not even potential customers.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  Actually, I'm scared that we live in a world where people think they're entitled to anything they can take without consequence. The fact that they aren't taking the original means nothing. They have broken a social contract with the creator of content that, ironically, they really enjoy and would like to see more of in the future. The problem of someone taking copyrighted content and making it available for others is a small one. The big problem is the many millions of people who take advantage of it. If everyone recognized that they're not entitled to anything except their basic human rights, none of which have anything to do with access to MP3s, then others posting that content online wouldn't matter. The hope with this article was a little empathy from a community that often leans toward not caring about copyright law as it pertains to music. While many chose to go the route of poking tiny holes in parts of the analogy, plenty didn't realize it was an allegory and talked about how messed up it was. Many of them the same people who fight music copyright tooth and nail. It's just sad to think that everybody enjoys music, just like they enjoy software, and so many other things that can be easily taken, and yet don't care if the people who create it see enough benefit to keep making it for them. It's short sighted and will result in fewer people having the time to become experts in these crafts, which is a loss for everyone. Sure, quantity is at an all time high, but in art that hardly matters.

jimmyhwang 15y ago

I feel the same way. I don't understand the point of this allegory other than to insight discussion and get ranked highly on HN. Maybe I'm used to reading "easy" articles that provide a problem and possible solution to it. I haven't read the allegory of the cave since college so I'm not used to thinking this hard... (laziness on my part I guess)