4 ms·

Laws != ethics And simply put, my vote does not matter. The similar chucklehead gets put into office, and does the will of the monied elite. And yes, I do vote

Laws != ethics And simply put, my vote does not matter. The similar chucklehead gets put into office, and does the will of the monied elite. And yes, I do vote, as little as it matters. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-... I'm not a millionaire. I have no PAC's to my name. I do not hire or otherwise fund lobbyists. So, my only time to exert any sort of control on this system is to vote. And congress (state AND national) has only about a 3% parity with what I vote. Had I been in the monied interests category, I would get about 75% of what I wanted. So indeed, piracy it is. Reverse engineering and talking how I did it is. Sharing "illegal number" it is. I have no other course of action.

rayiner 5y ago
Convince yourself that consuming for free a completely optional entertainment product that someone else created from their own labor is “ethics.”
- car_analogy 5y ago
  Media conglomerates don't concern themselves with ethics when they lobby to strip you of more of your rights. But they're grateful that you continue funding their efforts in the name of ethics.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    s/lobby to strip you of more of your rights/set their own terms on how they want to sell the products of the labor they acquired. Pirates are empirically no more merciful of content distributed on more egalitarian principles and outside of "major label" distribution channels. The root of the phenomenon is acquisitiveness, not ethics. It's just fun to back-rationalize the behavior, especially in places (like HN) where the audience is largely dismissive of the underlying ethics.
    - car_analogy 5y ago
      > s/lobby to strip you of more of your rights/set their own terms on how they want to sell the products of the labor they acquired. Their "terms of sale" include legally prohibiting you from unlocking your own property, even for otherwise legal purposes. Sorry, did I say terms of sale? I meant law, that applies to you whether or not you buy anything from them. There is not even the fig leaf of "you agreed to the EULA".
      - tptacek 5y ago
        You say it's "your property". They say that your argument is no different from walking into a movie theater with a camcorder. Most people don't want to argue about the distribution terms of a movie; they just want to make a decision about whether it's worth $19 to watch now, or whether they want to wait until it's $1.99 instead. Media companies are right to want to serve those kinds of customers --- the majority of customers --- and are within their rights to set terms that enable them but don't enable you to create a permanent, redistributable library of their content. You'd have the moral high ground if you were boycotting content distributed on those terms. But that's not what we're talking about. The high-horsing on piracy threads is farcical. Before it was tenable to set the kinds of terms you're upset about, studios simply didn't make content available the way it is now. We have never had more, faster, and better access to content than we do now, and it's in spite of, not because of, piracy.
        car_analogy 5y ago
        > Before it was tenable to set the kinds of terms you're upset about, studios simply didn't make content available the way it is now. Yeah it's weird why until 1998, when the DMCA's anti-circumvention became law, we didn't stream movies over our 56 kbps modems. On the other hand, we did have VHS, which could be used to rent and copy movies, or tape broadcasts. Somehow, despite the film studio's claims and failed attempts to ban them, that didn't kill the movie industry either. > to set the kinds of terms I already brought this up - these are not contract terms - this is law, prohibiting unlocking your own devices, reducing your rights of ownership and transferring them to the manufacturers of your devices or software, regardless of any contract terms you accept or reject.
- noasaservice 5y ago
  Your first mistake is thinking it's about downloading movies and games. That's ONLY a small part. It's about being able to copy and backup your own content. It's about owning your hardware you buy, be it a phone, a computer, IoT hardware, your car, industrial equipment, and more. It's about reverse engineering stuff you own without fear of some "copyright" taking away personal ownership of the thing. It's about being able to freely talk about and fully explain the procedures to reverse engineer "technological preventions", especially on hardware you own. But sure, gravitate to just downloading movies. Great way to distract from the terribleness of the DMCA and how it erodes physical ownership.

rayiner 5y ago

Convince yourself that consuming for free a completely optional entertainment product that someone else created from their own labor is “ethics.”

car_analogy 5y ago
Media conglomerates don't concern themselves with ethics when they lobby to strip you of more of your rights. But they're grateful that you continue funding their efforts in the name of ethics.
- tptacek 5y ago
  s/lobby to strip you of more of your rights/set their own terms on how they want to sell the products of the labor they acquired. Pirates are empirically no more merciful of content distributed on more egalitarian principles and outside of "major label" distribution channels. The root of the phenomenon is acquisitiveness, not ethics. It's just fun to back-rationalize the behavior, especially in places (like HN) where the audience is largely dismissive of the underlying ethics.
  - car_analogy 5y ago
    > s/lobby to strip you of more of your rights/set their own terms on how they want to sell the products of the labor they acquired. Their "terms of sale" include legally prohibiting you from unlocking your own property, even for otherwise legal purposes. Sorry, did I say terms of sale? I meant law, that applies to you whether or not you buy anything from them. There is not even the fig leaf of "you agreed to the EULA".
    - tptacek 5y ago
      You say it's "your property". They say that your argument is no different from walking into a movie theater with a camcorder. Most people don't want to argue about the distribution terms of a movie; they just want to make a decision about whether it's worth $19 to watch now, or whether they want to wait until it's $1.99 instead. Media companies are right to want to serve those kinds of customers --- the majority of customers --- and are within their rights to set terms that enable them but don't enable you to create a permanent, redistributable library of their content. You'd have the moral high ground if you were boycotting content distributed on those terms. But that's not what we're talking about. The high-horsing on piracy threads is farcical. Before it was tenable to set the kinds of terms you're upset about, studios simply didn't make content available the way it is now. We have never had more, faster, and better access to content than we do now, and it's in spite of, not because of, piracy.
      - car_analogy 5y ago
        > Before it was tenable to set the kinds of terms you're upset about, studios simply didn't make content available the way it is now. Yeah it's weird why until 1998, when the DMCA's anti-circumvention became law, we didn't stream movies over our 56 kbps modems. On the other hand, we did have VHS, which could be used to rent and copy movies, or tape broadcasts. Somehow, despite the film studio's claims and failed attempts to ban them, that didn't kill the movie industry either. > to set the kinds of terms I already brought this up - these are not contract terms - this is law, prohibiting unlocking your own devices, reducing your rights of ownership and transferring them to the manufacturers of your devices or software, regardless of any contract terms you accept or reject.
noasaservice 5y ago
Your first mistake is thinking it's about downloading movies and games. That's ONLY a small part. It's about being able to copy and backup your own content. It's about owning your hardware you buy, be it a phone, a computer, IoT hardware, your car, industrial equipment, and more. It's about reverse engineering stuff you own without fear of some "copyright" taking away personal ownership of the thing. It's about being able to freely talk about and fully explain the procedures to reverse engineer "technological preventions", especially on hardware you own. But sure, gravitate to just downloading movies. Great way to distract from the terribleness of the DMCA and how it erodes physical ownership.