4 ms·

>Is there not enough media that is ad free for you to watch There's a bizarre assumption in the wording of this sentence. If I can not pay to watch a specific

>Is there not enough media that is ad free for you to watch There's a bizarre assumption in the wording of this sentence. If I can not pay to watch a specific thing I would like to watch without ads, I am going to pirate it, regardless of what volume of other things there are to watch.

ModernMech 4y ago
> If I can not pay to watch a specific thing I would like to watch without ads, I am going to pirate it But why? Why does your desire to want to watch something override the creator's right to distribute their content how they see fit? The fact that you have other options means you don't have to be subject to ads if you don't want to. So it seems to me the choice is watch media and not be subject to ads, or watch other media and be subject to ads. You seem to imply there is a third option, that you get to do whatever you want regardless of anyone else's rights or desires. If everyone thought that way, society wouldn't work.
- amelius 4y ago
  > Why does your desire to want to watch something override the creator's right to distribute their content how they see fit? Perhaps the desire exists exactly through ads :) If the creator planted the idea into your head of watching a show, isn't it your right to consume that show as you see fit?
  - pb7 4y ago
    No. You’re not entitled to other people’s property, intellectual or physical.
    - SantalBlush 4y ago
      For the sake of discussion, we should specify whose definition of property we're using. Are you talking about the US government's definition?
    - amelius 4y ago
      > No. You’re not entitled to other people’s property, intellectual or physical. You conveniently left out the part where the creator effectively shoved the content in my face.
      - pb7 4y ago
        They didn't shove the content in your face. They made you aware of it so you can decide whether you want to pay for it or not. This is such a dangerous line of thinking. Do you feel entitled to people wearing revealing clothing too? They're also planting an idea in your mind.
    - happytoexplain 4y ago
      This is over-simplistic. Physical property has the intrinsic concept of having (you have it - now I take and and I have it, and you do not have it). The value is in the having, and the having is mutually exclusive to some degree. Not only that, but the transference of having has a non-negligible expense. Intellectual property does not have this same set of properties to the same degrees, and it is not useful to equate the two implicitly without attempting to account for this obvious and monumentally large difference. What is left is the realm of pure money theory, which certainly has real effects and is worth considering/debating. But it has nothing to do with "that's my property", except in the legal context, which is static at any given point in time and can not be argued (i.e. we can't argue whether it is illegal to distribute IP without permission - it's a fact).
- einherjae 4y ago
  Just to ask: Is deciding precisely the way your IP is made available a right the creator should have? Should that right be transferable at all? (Copyright is after all something we as humans have made up, and thus should be up for discussion)
  - gameshot911 4y ago
    Yes, it is.
    - einherjae 4y ago
      Fair enough, should it be transferable?
      - gameshot911 4y ago
        IMO that's up to the agreement between the creator and the person they sell/license their creations to. I offer product "A" with defined conditions attached. It may be as simple as "it's 100% yours for $X", and anything beyond that. If we both agree to the conditions, you get the product. If you disagree with my conditions, then you don't. That's where piracy falls apart ethically, IMO. Proponents argue "well it's not technically 'stealing' by the definition", "I would buy it if [it were cheaper; it were released sooner; it didn't have DRM; it didn't have X restriction, etc.]", but in the end all those arguments fall apart for the very simple reason stated above. Namely: the creator has the right to sell it with any conditions they see fit, and if anyone disagrees with them, their resource is to not buy/enjoy the product, NOT to take it by other means.
- happytoexplain 4y ago
  I do not believe that I do or do not have the right to download a movie I couldn't find elsewhere, because I believe that "right" is a meaningless word in this context (the context being colloquial/moral, of course - not legal). This arises when an object becomes "hyper-available", as most digital content is - i.e. near-zero reproduction/distribution cost/friction. I wouldn't say, "I have a right to pick this flower from of a field of wildflowers", or "I have a right to sip water from this waterfall", because the framing is nonsensical. "Right" is simply a too-dramatic word for what is actually being described. It would be like if people tried to restrict the functionality of Star Trek matter replicators for entertainment purposes. It makes sense economically for those individuals, but it's fallacious in a "common sense" context.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    You do believe you have a right because you do so contrary to law. You can frame your actions as moral and rationalize your lawbreaking all you want, but you’re still breaking the law. Imagine if everyone acted this way? I can get metaphysical about all kinds of things I’d like to do contrary to the law, and create all kinds of rationalizations like “no one is hurt by my actions”. But that’s not quite true because if everyone acted in such a way, society would break down. At the end of the day it seems like you’re just rationalizing selfishness.
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      You're still conflating morality with legality. Piracy being illegal has no basis on whether it's moral. > Imagine if everyone acted this way? This is basically deontology by Immanuel Kant. Not everyone is a Kantian though, so this is why you see a clash of your personal ethics with those of non-Kantians. I don't think you're going to convince anyone through messages on HN (similarly those who are non-Kantians will not convince you, as you are seeing in your replies), just as I would not be able to convince an anti-abortionist about the opposite views. These ethical frameworks are so basal to our belief structures that if one disagree with someone else on these grounds, it is basically irreconcilable.
    - happytoexplain 4y ago

ModernMech 4y ago

> If I can not pay to watch a specific thing I would like to watch without ads, I am going to pirate it But why? Why does your desire to want to watch something override the creator's right to distribute their content how they see fit? The fact that you have other options means you don't have to be subject to ads if you don't want to. So it seems to me the choice is watch media and not be subject to ads, or watch other media and be subject to ads. You seem to imply there is a third option, that you get to do whatever you want regardless of anyone else's rights or desires. If everyone thought that way, society wouldn't work.

amelius 4y ago
> Why does your desire to want to watch something override the creator's right to distribute their content how they see fit? Perhaps the desire exists exactly through ads :) If the creator planted the idea into your head of watching a show, isn't it your right to consume that show as you see fit?
- pb7 4y ago
  No. You’re not entitled to other people’s property, intellectual or physical.
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    For the sake of discussion, we should specify whose definition of property we're using. Are you talking about the US government's definition?
  - amelius 4y ago
    > No. You’re not entitled to other people’s property, intellectual or physical. You conveniently left out the part where the creator effectively shoved the content in my face.
    - pb7 4y ago
      They didn't shove the content in your face. They made you aware of it so you can decide whether you want to pay for it or not. This is such a dangerous line of thinking. Do you feel entitled to people wearing revealing clothing too? They're also planting an idea in your mind.
  - happytoexplain 4y ago
    This is over-simplistic. Physical property has the intrinsic concept of having (you have it - now I take and and I have it, and you do not have it). The value is in the having, and the having is mutually exclusive to some degree. Not only that, but the transference of having has a non-negligible expense. Intellectual property does not have this same set of properties to the same degrees, and it is not useful to equate the two implicitly without attempting to account for this obvious and monumentally large difference. What is left is the realm of pure money theory, which certainly has real effects and is worth considering/debating. But it has nothing to do with "that's my property", except in the legal context, which is static at any given point in time and can not be argued (i.e. we can't argue whether it is illegal to distribute IP without permission - it's a fact).
einherjae 4y ago
Just to ask: Is deciding precisely the way your IP is made available a right the creator should have? Should that right be transferable at all? (Copyright is after all something we as humans have made up, and thus should be up for discussion)
- gameshot911 4y ago
  Yes, it is.
  - einherjae 4y ago
    Fair enough, should it be transferable?
    - gameshot911 4y ago
      IMO that's up to the agreement between the creator and the person they sell/license their creations to. I offer product "A" with defined conditions attached. It may be as simple as "it's 100% yours for $X", and anything beyond that. If we both agree to the conditions, you get the product. If you disagree with my conditions, then you don't. That's where piracy falls apart ethically, IMO. Proponents argue "well it's not technically 'stealing' by the definition", "I would buy it if [it were cheaper; it were released sooner; it didn't have DRM; it didn't have X restriction, etc.]", but in the end all those arguments fall apart for the very simple reason stated above. Namely: the creator has the right to sell it with any conditions they see fit, and if anyone disagrees with them, their resource is to not buy/enjoy the product, NOT to take it by other means.
happytoexplain 4y ago
I do not believe that I do or do not have the right to download a movie I couldn't find elsewhere, because I believe that "right" is a meaningless word in this context (the context being colloquial/moral, of course - not legal). This arises when an object becomes "hyper-available", as most digital content is - i.e. near-zero reproduction/distribution cost/friction. I wouldn't say, "I have a right to pick this flower from of a field of wildflowers", or "I have a right to sip water from this waterfall", because the framing is nonsensical. "Right" is simply a too-dramatic word for what is actually being described. It would be like if people tried to restrict the functionality of Star Trek matter replicators for entertainment purposes. It makes sense economically for those individuals, but it's fallacious in a "common sense" context.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  You do believe you have a right because you do so contrary to law. You can frame your actions as moral and rationalize your lawbreaking all you want, but you’re still breaking the law. Imagine if everyone acted this way? I can get metaphysical about all kinds of things I’d like to do contrary to the law, and create all kinds of rationalizations like “no one is hurt by my actions”. But that’s not quite true because if everyone acted in such a way, society would break down. At the end of the day it seems like you’re just rationalizing selfishness.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    You're still conflating morality with legality. Piracy being illegal has no basis on whether it's moral. > Imagine if everyone acted this way? This is basically deontology by Immanuel Kant. Not everyone is a Kantian though, so this is why you see a clash of your personal ethics with those of non-Kantians. I don't think you're going to convince anyone through messages on HN (similarly those who are non-Kantians will not convince you, as you are seeing in your replies), just as I would not be able to convince an anti-abortionist about the opposite views. These ethical frameworks are so basal to our belief structures that if one disagree with someone else on these grounds, it is basically irreconcilable.
  - happytoexplain 4y ago