9 ms·

This is a series of pretty poor arguments. The author seems to be looking for reasons to justify their own piracy and conflates anger at the approach of the "co

This is a series of pretty poor arguments. The author seems to be looking for reasons to justify their own piracy and conflates anger at the approach of the "copyright industry" with infringement upon peoples' rights. One of the final lines of the article, in particular, is jarring: "If I'm a pirate, it's not to have some cheap music. It is because the time has come for you to fuck off." It's fine to be angry about the approach large copyright holders take to piracy - suing consumers, encouraging the extradition of 23 year old UK citizens for linking, throwing cash at politicians to try to push through obscene laws like SOPA/PIPA. I'm angry about it. It's a horribly reactive, staid approach to a changing world that just isn't going to net them any long-term profitability. What's not fine is in your mind elevating your piracy to the level of a significant political protest. It might make you feel better about it, but it really doesn't change the fact that you're stealing something of value that someone worked hard to produce.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago
I wasn't particularly impressed with the quality of the arguments either. On the other hand I don't see much hope of change unless 'piracy' becomes even more commonplace than it already is. So while I personally would rather do without (similar to using Linux/Gimp vs pirating Windows/Photoshop etc.) and think that piracy in many ways strengthens the hand of the copyright owners by suffocating legitimate alternatives (again see Linux/Gimp vs pirated XP/Photoshop) I think that encouraging and legitimizing widespread piracy could well be the only "significant political protest" with any chance to succeed. Riots and revolutions tend to happen in the summer, maybe copyright will only change if some people get to watch Transformers for free. I can live with that.
Tichy 15y ago
"with infringement upon peoples' rights" People's rights are man made, so they are debatable.
- gavinballard 15y ago
  That's one of my problems with his argument. The author seems to think he has a fundamental right to access the produce of media companies... but only on terms he finds reasonable, of course. As you say, rights are often malleable - and reevaluating and redefining them (from both sides of this debate) should be an ongoing process.
  - tomp 15y ago
    The way I see it is that the author is using this blog post to fight for what he believes are his rights, and the businesses are fighting for what they believe are their rights. Philosophical/Moral arguments aside, this war will be won by whoever is louder/more influential.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    He acts on what he believes is right.
- fauigerzigerk 15y ago
  Absolutely, but the counter argument is that the conclusion of that debate is expressed by the law, which is supposed to be the will of the people. You could of course make the case that our democracy is too imperfect to accept the letter of any particular law as a direct expression of the will of the people without applying your further judgement. Laws can be inconsistent, unjust or inappropriately applied and that's why we have the courts to make those judgements. Unfortunately, access to the courts is very unequal, particularly in the case of civil law. It's always been like this, hence breaking the law has always been the poor man's expensive lawyer and lobbyist at the same time. Of course this argument could be used as a blanket excuse for breaking any law. Personal judgement just can't be replaced by any system.
cturner 15y ago
> It might make you feel better about it, but it really > doesn't change the fact that you're stealing something > of value Copyright infringement is not stealing. Separately, the person who worked hard to produce whatever you're buying is reaping a fraction of a percentage point of whatever you're spending, and that's only if the distributor hasn't found a way to screw them out of that entirely (or else they've been long since dead).
- tomp 15y ago
  > Copyright infringement is not stealing. I assume there will be counter-arguments/downvotes, so to elaborate on this point using my own arguments: If you steal something from me, I don't have it (as in "steal a car"), so you're putting me in a worse-off position. If you copy/pirate something that is mine (properly copy, with attribution, and not out of context), I am not worse-off (possibly even better-off, as I get more widely known, more famous). Some compare pirating a DVD with going to a masseuse/prostitute and not paying her/him afterwards. This analogy is not correct - the expectation/social contract is that I have to pay you after I receive a service, and if I don't pay you, you are worse-off because you don't have money that you would otherwise have. However, people that pirate movies/music are not automatically lost revenue - probably they would buy less than 10% (just a guess) of entertainment content that they download/consume through piracy.
  - wladimir 15y ago
    Exactly. A prostitute performs a personal service for you. Not paying directly hurts him/her. When copying information on the other hand, nothing happens, you don't feel it when your information is copied. (yes, you can say it does indirectly through some convoluted story, but that's always debatable) The future economy will be more about directly personalized experiences and services that cannot be copied, or are much less interesting when copied, instead of trivial fan-outs of information. It is all about scarcity. Better to let that sink in than try to preserve what is already lost, at the cost of freedom. (edit: why do I say future? It is already the present for many of us)
    - 15y ago
loup-vaillant 15y ago
> you're stealing something of value that someone worked hard to produce. What exactly is stolen? Certainly not the piece of music, film, or knowledge: unlike spaghetti, those are abundant, non-conflicting goods. Nor the exclusivity, for it is only destroyed. Nor secrecy or privacy, for the piece of knowledge or art is public already. This is not theft. This is infringing a state granted monopoly. It doesn't make it a good idea, mind you. Upholding the law is generally a good idea. But unlike plain theft, it's not obviously wrong either.
- gavinballard 15y ago
  See my comment above re: pedantic arguments about the definition of "stealing". grellas made an excellent post the other day about the nature of physical property rights vs intangible property rights [1]. The general gist is that declaring one "fundamental" and the other "not-fundametal" is sophistry; both are considered important to society and both are and will continue to be protected by law. In my opinion, the existence of both physical and IP property rights is a social good - it's defining the boundaries of those rights that becomes the tricky part. I don't think we're hitting the right balance worldwide at the moment, but I also don't think we should be swinging violently towards SOPA or conversely anarchy. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3463640 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3463640
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    This is indeed a good post, thanks for the link. Grellas is right to point out that current laws turn a range of intellectual goods into property. We shouldn't forget however how they do this: by enforcing scarcity when the default was abundance. By the way, you can get abundance back by breaking the law. I reject the terms "property" and "theft" when talking about ideas and recordings because they are abundant by default. By using those words, they make you think in terms of scarcity. They skew your perception of the issues, then exploit that bias. This is why I insist that others do not use the word, "it's GNU/Linux" style. Even if you know what you meant, many people don't, and it has consequences. (In the same vein, I remind people not to say "internet" when talking about the world wide web alone. If you believe you "have the internet" as long as you can run a web browser, you won't notice nor protest when your ISP starts blocking TCP ports.) I also reject copyright and patents altogether. Not because they are not property by default, and therefore illegitimate (I find this argument very weak). I reject them because I believe they do more evil than good. Most probably, they are more a hindrance than a help for our economy and our technological development. Not to mention the inevitable loss of individual liberties, which humans tend to value by themselves. Overall, I believe scarcity should be abolished whenever possible. If we get to the point where there is so much abundance that life is not fun any more, then we'd have a good reason for scarcity. (Video games provide an example: god mode, unlimited ammo, and free experience points tend to spoil the game. I'm still tempted by the cheat codes, but I think twice before I type them.) But right now scarcity is a problem to be solved. Copyright and patents are part of that problem (or at least a symptom).
ZenPsycho 15y ago
Of course you're right. We should always, as proud citizens of the USA strictly adhere to the ethics our founding fathers set forth: 1. A citizen may not injure a corporation, or through inaction, cause a corporation to come to harm. 2. A citizen must obey orders given to them by a Corporation except where such orders would conflict with (1.) 3. A citizen must protect his/her own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with (1.) and (2.) So given that, you are right, he doesn't refute (1.) (2.) or (3.) at all!
chernevik 15y ago
+1. Show biz may be stupid, they may offer a lousy service and an irrational business model. But it's in the nature of a right that the holder has liberty to exercise it as they choose, no matter how stupid or irresponsible that exercise may seem to others. A respect for copyright revocable at the user's convenience is no respect at all. And yes, property is a right, one of far greater importance to political liberty than is generally allowed. And intellectual property is property. The placement of economic activity _outside_ the direct control of the state prevents the state from entirely dominating the society. Now, SOPA is a really bad bill, because DNS filtering is a free speech nightmare. If you make me choose between speech rights and property rights, I'm taking the speech right, it's the foundation of everything else. The willingness of show biz and its lackeys to mess with speech rights demonstrates a disturbing greed and / or ignorance. But that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything. It's a complicated world, and technology is revising the everyday realization of our rights and responsibilities. We aren't going to work our way through that with a black-and-white simplification of the debates.
Iv 15y ago
I am exactly in line with what the article says, except that I don't buy, neither do I downloaded music these last few years. In my case it is therefore not a rationalization for having free stuff. I downloaded a lot when I was a student, when I began to work I decided I did not have the "I'm poor" excuse any more and I began buying CDs of bands I like. I stopped buying CDs after I got my first DRMed one. I thought "ok, this is stupid, I don't want to be part of this any more". Only recently I have discovered the real harm that copyright laws and lobbyists are doing to the society. They are criminalising sharing. Think a bit about it. We have to stand against them. Now there are copyright restrictions on SCIENCE papers. It is effectively a danger to our society. Here in France a law was proposed to display on CDs price tag how much the artist receives when you buy a CD. It was voted down by lobbyists' minions. That alone says a lot.
marknutter 15y ago
I admit it's stealing, but I don't care. I also break the speed limit - constantly. I also smoke pot from time to time. Music is so abundant and readily accessible it no longer makes sense to charge $20 per CD, let alone anything for songs that take two seconds to download. There is no way to stop pirating without either crippling or sensoring the Internet. Technology advances and industries die as a result. Instead of accepting the cold hard reality of the Internet and the ease of pirating and adjusting their business models, the major media companies are trying to reverse the wheel of time. They probably want us all using records again.
radu_floricica 15y ago
There's a subtle line this post is drawing: from the plain guilt of not paying the artists who created the art, to horror at realizing that if you pay them, you also give several times as much money to interest groups that go head on with your morals. Once you realize this line exists, paying for music is no longer "the right thing to do" but an evil act, at least as evil as supporting sweat shops and Amazon deforestation. Whether you continue to pirate music or simply stop listening to it is one's personal choice, but buying already ceased being the moral choice.
- technoslut 15y ago
  So it is moral to rob artists of royalties of songs they made which you enjoy? I'm willing to guarantee that most don't know the labels that most artists belong to. Some are indie and are not involved with the RIAA. Should they be punished as well? You're not any different from from those you preach against.
matwood 15y ago
I agree with you. If you want to stick it to copyright holders and the industry then don't use those materials. Don't watch movies that are produced by the MPAA and don't listen to music that's produced by the RIAA. Pirating only gives those on the other side the impression and ammunition to say 'we are creating great things that people steal we just need to force them pay.' Not using their works at all is the only way to win.
rdtsc 15y ago
> you're stealing something of value that someone worked hard to produce. How is it stealing if they can still have that something? You compose a song. I copy that song. You still have that song. If I'd taken away a recorder with your only master copy of it, then I would have stolen it.
- HeyImAlex 15y ago
  >How is it stealing if they can still have that something? Because that's not a decision you should get to make. The cost associated with creating most things isn't in raw materials alone but man hours that went in to produce it, and the author is entitled to ask for whatever they think their hard work and their end product are worth. Is the benefit of getting that product not worth the price they're asking? Here's a novel idea; you don't buy the product and don't get the benefit. It is worth the price? Then vote with your wallet and buy away. Saying that they can 'still have that thing' does little to justify why you feel entitled to that thing in the first place.
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    > Because that's not a decision you should get to make. So who gets to make it. I guess that means you'd agree with MPAA claims some 16 year old kid out there can be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars because they downloaded a couple of songs. What if they sue them for $100M, is that valid? If the defendant gets to unilaterally re-define and attribute semantics to words and decide what the punishment is do you think that makes sense? > Saying that they can 'still have that thing' does little to justify why you feel entitled to that thing in the first place. Why doesn't it. It makes a pretty big difference. Not at the point of transaction but during a dispute. If someone steals your song does it mean you can ask for $100M from them claiming you lost potential profit because it was going to be a hit song. How do you decide what one copy is worth? That is the key question. Sorry, but "it is worth whatever the seller says is worth, is bullshit". If that hypothetical teenager didn't copy the song, do you think the record company would be $100M richer. How do you prove that?
    - HeyImAlex 15y ago
hxa7241 15y ago
If one rejects copyright, there is no 'stealing' of things of value, there is only copying -- since the work to produce things would be paid for through other means than restrictions. If someone argues against copyright, you cannot defend it by invoking 'stealing'. The 'stealing' here is not removing of anything in any normal sense. It is infringement of, or disobedience of, copyright -- which of course would not exist if there were no copyright. There is no basic harm. You might say it would be difficult to pay for production with other economic arrangements. But that is a matter of comparing economic efficiency; it has nothing to do with stealing.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago

I wasn't particularly impressed with the quality of the arguments either. On the other hand I don't see much hope of change unless 'piracy' becomes even more commonplace than it already is. So while I personally would rather do without (similar to using Linux/Gimp vs pirating Windows/Photoshop etc.) and think that piracy in many ways strengthens the hand of the copyright owners by suffocating legitimate alternatives (again see Linux/Gimp vs pirated XP/Photoshop) I think that encouraging and legitimizing widespread piracy could well be the only "significant political protest" with any chance to succeed. Riots and revolutions tend to happen in the summer, maybe copyright will only change if some people get to watch Transformers for free. I can live with that.

Tichy 15y ago

"with infringement upon peoples' rights" People's rights are man made, so they are debatable.

gavinballard 15y ago
That's one of my problems with his argument. The author seems to think he has a fundamental right to access the produce of media companies... but only on terms he finds reasonable, of course. As you say, rights are often malleable - and reevaluating and redefining them (from both sides of this debate) should be an ongoing process.
- tomp 15y ago
  The way I see it is that the author is using this blog post to fight for what he believes are his rights, and the businesses are fighting for what they believe are their rights. Philosophical/Moral arguments aside, this war will be won by whoever is louder/more influential.
- Tichy 15y ago
  He acts on what he believes is right.
fauigerzigerk 15y ago
Absolutely, but the counter argument is that the conclusion of that debate is expressed by the law, which is supposed to be the will of the people. You could of course make the case that our democracy is too imperfect to accept the letter of any particular law as a direct expression of the will of the people without applying your further judgement. Laws can be inconsistent, unjust or inappropriately applied and that's why we have the courts to make those judgements. Unfortunately, access to the courts is very unequal, particularly in the case of civil law. It's always been like this, hence breaking the law has always been the poor man's expensive lawyer and lobbyist at the same time. Of course this argument could be used as a blanket excuse for breaking any law. Personal judgement just can't be replaced by any system.

cturner 15y ago

> It might make you feel better about it, but it really > doesn't change the fact that you're stealing something > of value Copyright infringement is not stealing. Separately, the person who worked hard to produce whatever you're buying is reaping a fraction of a percentage point of whatever you're spending, and that's only if the distributor hasn't found a way to screw them out of that entirely (or else they've been long since dead).

tomp 15y ago
> Copyright infringement is not stealing. I assume there will be counter-arguments/downvotes, so to elaborate on this point using my own arguments: If you steal something from me, I don't have it (as in "steal a car"), so you're putting me in a worse-off position. If you copy/pirate something that is mine (properly copy, with attribution, and not out of context), I am not worse-off (possibly even better-off, as I get more widely known, more famous). Some compare pirating a DVD with going to a masseuse/prostitute and not paying her/him afterwards. This analogy is not correct - the expectation/social contract is that I have to pay you after I receive a service, and if I don't pay you, you are worse-off because you don't have money that you would otherwise have. However, people that pirate movies/music are not automatically lost revenue - probably they would buy less than 10% (just a guess) of entertainment content that they download/consume through piracy.
- wladimir 15y ago
  Exactly. A prostitute performs a personal service for you. Not paying directly hurts him/her. When copying information on the other hand, nothing happens, you don't feel it when your information is copied. (yes, you can say it does indirectly through some convoluted story, but that's always debatable) The future economy will be more about directly personalized experiences and services that cannot be copied, or are much less interesting when copied, instead of trivial fan-outs of information. It is all about scarcity. Better to let that sink in than try to preserve what is already lost, at the cost of freedom. (edit: why do I say future? It is already the present for many of us)
  - 15y ago

loup-vaillant 15y ago

> you're stealing something of value that someone worked hard to produce. What exactly is stolen? Certainly not the piece of music, film, or knowledge: unlike spaghetti, those are abundant, non-conflicting goods. Nor the exclusivity, for it is only destroyed. Nor secrecy or privacy, for the piece of knowledge or art is public already. This is not theft. This is infringing a state granted monopoly. It doesn't make it a good idea, mind you. Upholding the law is generally a good idea. But unlike plain theft, it's not obviously wrong either.

gavinballard 15y ago
See my comment above re: pedantic arguments about the definition of "stealing". grellas made an excellent post the other day about the nature of physical property rights vs intangible property rights [1]. The general gist is that declaring one "fundamental" and the other "not-fundametal" is sophistry; both are considered important to society and both are and will continue to be protected by law. In my opinion, the existence of both physical and IP property rights is a social good - it's defining the boundaries of those rights that becomes the tricky part. I don't think we're hitting the right balance worldwide at the moment, but I also don't think we should be swinging violently towards SOPA or conversely anarchy. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3463640 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3463640
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  This is indeed a good post, thanks for the link. Grellas is right to point out that current laws turn a range of intellectual goods into property. We shouldn't forget however how they do this: by enforcing scarcity when the default was abundance. By the way, you can get abundance back by breaking the law. I reject the terms "property" and "theft" when talking about ideas and recordings because they are abundant by default. By using those words, they make you think in terms of scarcity. They skew your perception of the issues, then exploit that bias. This is why I insist that others do not use the word, "it's GNU/Linux" style. Even if you know what you meant, many people don't, and it has consequences. (In the same vein, I remind people not to say "internet" when talking about the world wide web alone. If you believe you "have the internet" as long as you can run a web browser, you won't notice nor protest when your ISP starts blocking TCP ports.) I also reject copyright and patents altogether. Not because they are not property by default, and therefore illegitimate (I find this argument very weak). I reject them because I believe they do more evil than good. Most probably, they are more a hindrance than a help for our economy and our technological development. Not to mention the inevitable loss of individual liberties, which humans tend to value by themselves. Overall, I believe scarcity should be abolished whenever possible. If we get to the point where there is so much abundance that life is not fun any more, then we'd have a good reason for scarcity. (Video games provide an example: god mode, unlimited ammo, and free experience points tend to spoil the game. I'm still tempted by the cheat codes, but I think twice before I type them.) But right now scarcity is a problem to be solved. Copyright and patents are part of that problem (or at least a symptom).

ZenPsycho 15y ago

Of course you're right. We should always, as proud citizens of the USA strictly adhere to the ethics our founding fathers set forth: 1. A citizen may not injure a corporation, or through inaction, cause a corporation to come to harm. 2. A citizen must obey orders given to them by a Corporation except where such orders would conflict with (1.) 3. A citizen must protect his/her own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with (1.) and (2.) So given that, you are right, he doesn't refute (1.) (2.) or (3.) at all!

chernevik 15y ago

+1. Show biz may be stupid, they may offer a lousy service and an irrational business model. But it's in the nature of a right that the holder has liberty to exercise it as they choose, no matter how stupid or irresponsible that exercise may seem to others. A respect for copyright revocable at the user's convenience is no respect at all. And yes, property is a right, one of far greater importance to political liberty than is generally allowed. And intellectual property is property. The placement of economic activity _outside_ the direct control of the state prevents the state from entirely dominating the society. Now, SOPA is a really bad bill, because DNS filtering is a free speech nightmare. If you make me choose between speech rights and property rights, I'm taking the speech right, it's the foundation of everything else. The willingness of show biz and its lackeys to mess with speech rights demonstrates a disturbing greed and / or ignorance. But that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything. It's a complicated world, and technology is revising the everyday realization of our rights and responsibilities. We aren't going to work our way through that with a black-and-white simplification of the debates.

Iv 15y ago

I am exactly in line with what the article says, except that I don't buy, neither do I downloaded music these last few years. In my case it is therefore not a rationalization for having free stuff. I downloaded a lot when I was a student, when I began to work I decided I did not have the "I'm poor" excuse any more and I began buying CDs of bands I like. I stopped buying CDs after I got my first DRMed one. I thought "ok, this is stupid, I don't want to be part of this any more". Only recently I have discovered the real harm that copyright laws and lobbyists are doing to the society. They are criminalising sharing. Think a bit about it. We have to stand against them. Now there are copyright restrictions on SCIENCE papers. It is effectively a danger to our society. Here in France a law was proposed to display on CDs price tag how much the artist receives when you buy a CD. It was voted down by lobbyists' minions. That alone says a lot.

marknutter 15y ago

I admit it's stealing, but I don't care. I also break the speed limit - constantly. I also smoke pot from time to time. Music is so abundant and readily accessible it no longer makes sense to charge $20 per CD, let alone anything for songs that take two seconds to download. There is no way to stop pirating without either crippling or sensoring the Internet. Technology advances and industries die as a result. Instead of accepting the cold hard reality of the Internet and the ease of pirating and adjusting their business models, the major media companies are trying to reverse the wheel of time. They probably want us all using records again.

radu_floricica 15y ago

There's a subtle line this post is drawing: from the plain guilt of not paying the artists who created the art, to horror at realizing that if you pay them, you also give several times as much money to interest groups that go head on with your morals. Once you realize this line exists, paying for music is no longer "the right thing to do" but an evil act, at least as evil as supporting sweat shops and Amazon deforestation. Whether you continue to pirate music or simply stop listening to it is one's personal choice, but buying already ceased being the moral choice.

technoslut 15y ago
So it is moral to rob artists of royalties of songs they made which you enjoy? I'm willing to guarantee that most don't know the labels that most artists belong to. Some are indie and are not involved with the RIAA. Should they be punished as well? You're not any different from from those you preach against.

matwood 15y ago

I agree with you. If you want to stick it to copyright holders and the industry then don't use those materials. Don't watch movies that are produced by the MPAA and don't listen to music that's produced by the RIAA. Pirating only gives those on the other side the impression and ammunition to say 'we are creating great things that people steal we just need to force them pay.' Not using their works at all is the only way to win.

rdtsc 15y ago

> you're stealing something of value that someone worked hard to produce. How is it stealing if they can still have that something? You compose a song. I copy that song. You still have that song. If I'd taken away a recorder with your only master copy of it, then I would have stolen it.

HeyImAlex 15y ago
>How is it stealing if they can still have that something? Because that's not a decision you should get to make. The cost associated with creating most things isn't in raw materials alone but man hours that went in to produce it, and the author is entitled to ask for whatever they think their hard work and their end product are worth. Is the benefit of getting that product not worth the price they're asking? Here's a novel idea; you don't buy the product and don't get the benefit. It is worth the price? Then vote with your wallet and buy away. Saying that they can 'still have that thing' does little to justify why you feel entitled to that thing in the first place.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  > Because that's not a decision you should get to make. So who gets to make it. I guess that means you'd agree with MPAA claims some 16 year old kid out there can be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars because they downloaded a couple of songs. What if they sue them for $100M, is that valid? If the defendant gets to unilaterally re-define and attribute semantics to words and decide what the punishment is do you think that makes sense? > Saying that they can 'still have that thing' does little to justify why you feel entitled to that thing in the first place. Why doesn't it. It makes a pretty big difference. Not at the point of transaction but during a dispute. If someone steals your song does it mean you can ask for $100M from them claiming you lost potential profit because it was going to be a hit song. How do you decide what one copy is worth? That is the key question. Sorry, but "it is worth whatever the seller says is worth, is bullshit". If that hypothetical teenager didn't copy the song, do you think the record company would be $100M richer. How do you prove that?
  - HeyImAlex 15y ago

hxa7241 15y ago

If one rejects copyright, there is no 'stealing' of things of value, there is only copying -- since the work to produce things would be paid for through other means than restrictions. If someone argues against copyright, you cannot defend it by invoking 'stealing'. The 'stealing' here is not removing of anything in any normal sense. It is infringement of, or disobedience of, copyright -- which of course would not exist if there were no copyright. There is no basic harm. You might say it would be difficult to pay for production with other economic arrangements. But that is a matter of comparing economic efficiency; it has nothing to do with stealing.