6 ms·

OP, if this is just a whine about how unfair the world is and how special you are, then fine. But if it's an attempt to make something happen (stop SOPA), then

by edw519 15y ago

OP, if this is just a whine about how unfair the world is and how special you are, then fine. But if it's an attempt to make something happen (stop SOPA), then it's not working and is in fact counterproductive, so please just STFU. You are offsetting the good hard work of so many others trying to make the right things happen. Make no mistake about it, we have reached the point where the best course of action is probably to simply appeal to the common people's innate sense of "fairness". Copyright is not fair. We get that. Pirating is not right. Most people would agree with that, too. Multiple wrongs do not make a right; most people's reptilian brains sense that, too. Long ago, before the Code of Hammurabi, the common code of law was often unfair. If, for example, I accidently killed your daughter, the penalty was to put my daughter to death. Such logic today is laughable and modern people would never put up with it. Except that's exactly what SOPA is, penalizing Party B for Party A's transgression. We don't do that anymore. There are other good arguments against SOPA, but yours is not one of them. Instead of influencing those who need to be influenced, you are just fanning the flames of SOPA proponents. Hell, after reading your article, I almost understand their reasoning...they need to do something to stop your wrong to stop someone else's wrong to stop someone else's wrong, etc. It's time to stop the cycle of doing wrong to combat other wrong, and just start doing right. It works better anyway. It would be nice to have you on board for that. I have more to say, but unfortunately, someone in another thread did something wrong, so a moderator has turned off the rest of my comment... * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.

ThomPete 15y ago
Perhaps your "life is unfair" line could be extended to the artists who feel it's their natural right to take advantage of the diminishing costs of digital distribution.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- richardw 15y ago
  They aren't charging to get the song physically to you. They're charging you for the right to play it. Up until now, that has been easiest via payment on transfer of the physical good. Now that we have new mechanisms, they're still allowed to set the terms under which you may use their music. For example, radio stations pay more. They may have the physical CD in their grasp, but they have to pay to play it on air. DVD shops get charged more per video because they rent it out repeatedly - they don't just use the same home version as you do and pocket the difference. Changing the distribution mechanism to radio stations and DVD shops to digital doesn't change the concept of copyright owners being able to set the terms of use for their content. Now, would I like a whole new approach? Sure. I long for ways to reinvent the industry, like crowdsourcing aspects of music production, marketing etc. There will be many ways to make a living from music in the future. But that doesn't mean I think it's ok to just make up the rules as I go along and copy anything that I fancy.
- ThomPete 15y ago
  That is the problem though. I am paying for the rights to pay for the music instead of paying for the music. That is exactly where it went wrong.
bmelton 15y ago
"Pirating is not right. Most people would agree with that, too." The biggest problem I see today is that there are so many people who aren't even bothering to justify pirating, and instead insist that it is natural, good and just -- not just as a means to get access to content they otherwise wouldn't be able to, but for everything. To draw my line in the sand, I have no problems with people pirating works they simply don't have any other access to. American shows that aren't broadcast overseas, for example; pirate away. I don't personally do it, but I don't have any problems with those that do. Others, however, simply incur piracy as a matter of course. Looking for a new album to listen to? Limewire. Looking for a movie? Pirate Bay. While I don't mind downvotes, that I repeatedly get voted down while suggesting that yes, even though copyright is wrong, it is the law, and people should either respect it or engage in civil disobedience (which is a public affair) instead of just casually pirating every piece of content they consume, it is telling of the more and more common mentality (or at least is becoming more common on HN.)
- sbarre 15y ago
  > To draw my line in the sand, I have no problems with people pirating works they simply don't have any other access to. American shows that aren't broadcast overseas, for example; pirate away. Really? The problem I have with this argument is that you remove control of the creation from the creator. What if they are in the process of trying to make a distribution deal while people cut off demand at the knees by stealing the product instead? Much like the linked article, that position takes that control away. YES the industry sucks at distribution and their offerings are terrible and expensive, but I don't think that's an acceptable or legitimate reason to pirate things instead. The legitimate option is GO WITHOUT IT. You have no RIGHT to anything here... If the food is too expensive at your favourite restaurant, you don't pull a runner after the meal, you simply don't eat there, and you hope that in time the owners will realize and make adjustments. But if they choose not to, then that is their right.
  - bmelton 15y ago
    I don't disagree, and in practice, I don't pirate except where encouraged by the content owners. Admittedly, I don't know how or why that particular justification is okay with me, except that I know a number of expats who simply don't have access to American television in any other way. I understand and agree that I'm being hypocritical, and I agree that piracy is "not okay", which is why I don't do it. However, I simply can't judge the piraters who do so out of lack of availability with the same stance that I judge those who do so casually, or as a matter of course, or because they don't agree with DRM, or because they don't like the record producer, or whatever. Unavailability just seems like a less shallow justification to me to an act that it still equally wrong.
etherael 15y ago
I think copyright infringement by itself is unfair and impolite, but at a certain point, some organisations have taken action that probably realigns the hierarchy of acceptable behaviour when it comes to copyright infringement. Under no circumstances ever should people actively sabotaging the freedom of expression of the entire world ever be supported by any payments from anyone, ever. Especially not the people whose world they're trying to destroy. When it comes to organisations that have lobbied for or support SOPA, piracy of their works is to me the second best step on a ladder of approaches. 1) Boycott them, there is nothing wrong with this plan, you shoot yourself in the foot a little if they made something you want and you refuse to purchase it due to principles, but it's probably the most noble of all approaches. 2) Pirate anything they produce that you wish to consume. You may be making an impolite move and breaking a law that if it were used to protect other organisations that weren't such poisonous vile scum it would be immoral to break, but at least you're not feeding the beast. 3) Actually pay them for their content, at this stage you are not breaking any laws but you are effectively contributing to their continued existence and their lobbying to destroy the world as we know it. If absolutely NOONE picks door number three, the problem will finally be solved. And this entire debacle is all the evidence anyone should ever need that they so desperately deserve destruction.
- Naga 15y ago
  That is, I think, the most salient part of the original post, one that I had never considered before. Buying anything from those organizations is effectively money going towards lobbying and DRM and all those harmful things. I had never looked at it that way before.
tomkin 15y ago
Great comment, although I'd like to add that I believe pirating isn't really an occupation of greed. It's about convenience. Finding and downloading movies is a pain in the ass. But driving 5km away to rent or buy a piece of plastic and packaging is even more of a pain in the ass. For the past year I've been paying for Netflix, and while the selection isn't always the greatest, the sheer thought of pirating has gone down considerably. Do I want to pay $8/mo or do I want to spend time finding, downloading, dealing with codecs, categorization and management of movies that I will probably delete later? If Netflix could offer every movie, every tv show and/or a music subscription that worked on any device, would I ever want to pirate? Even if it was $20/mo? As producers of creative works, we need to understand the psychology of our audience, more than we need to understand the economy of the industry.
slewis 15y ago
Devil's advocate: Where does civil disobedience fit in with "Multiple wrongs do not make a right"?

by edw519 15y ago

ThomPete 15y ago

Perhaps your "life is unfair" line could be extended to the artists who feel it's their natural right to take advantage of the diminishing costs of digital distribution.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
richardw 15y ago
They aren't charging to get the song physically to you. They're charging you for the right to play it. Up until now, that has been easiest via payment on transfer of the physical good. Now that we have new mechanisms, they're still allowed to set the terms under which you may use their music. For example, radio stations pay more. They may have the physical CD in their grasp, but they have to pay to play it on air. DVD shops get charged more per video because they rent it out repeatedly - they don't just use the same home version as you do and pocket the difference. Changing the distribution mechanism to radio stations and DVD shops to digital doesn't change the concept of copyright owners being able to set the terms of use for their content. Now, would I like a whole new approach? Sure. I long for ways to reinvent the industry, like crowdsourcing aspects of music production, marketing etc. There will be many ways to make a living from music in the future. But that doesn't mean I think it's ok to just make up the rules as I go along and copy anything that I fancy.
ThomPete 15y ago
That is the problem though. I am paying for the rights to pay for the music instead of paying for the music. That is exactly where it went wrong.

bmelton 15y ago

"Pirating is not right. Most people would agree with that, too." The biggest problem I see today is that there are so many people who aren't even bothering to justify pirating, and instead insist that it is natural, good and just -- not just as a means to get access to content they otherwise wouldn't be able to, but for everything. To draw my line in the sand, I have no problems with people pirating works they simply don't have any other access to. American shows that aren't broadcast overseas, for example; pirate away. I don't personally do it, but I don't have any problems with those that do. Others, however, simply incur piracy as a matter of course. Looking for a new album to listen to? Limewire. Looking for a movie? Pirate Bay. While I don't mind downvotes, that I repeatedly get voted down while suggesting that yes, even though copyright is wrong, it is the law, and people should either respect it or engage in civil disobedience (which is a public affair) instead of just casually pirating every piece of content they consume, it is telling of the more and more common mentality (or at least is becoming more common on HN.)

sbarre 15y ago
> To draw my line in the sand, I have no problems with people pirating works they simply don't have any other access to. American shows that aren't broadcast overseas, for example; pirate away. Really? The problem I have with this argument is that you remove control of the creation from the creator. What if they are in the process of trying to make a distribution deal while people cut off demand at the knees by stealing the product instead? Much like the linked article, that position takes that control away. YES the industry sucks at distribution and their offerings are terrible and expensive, but I don't think that's an acceptable or legitimate reason to pirate things instead. The legitimate option is GO WITHOUT IT. You have no RIGHT to anything here... If the food is too expensive at your favourite restaurant, you don't pull a runner after the meal, you simply don't eat there, and you hope that in time the owners will realize and make adjustments. But if they choose not to, then that is their right.
- bmelton 15y ago
  I don't disagree, and in practice, I don't pirate except where encouraged by the content owners. Admittedly, I don't know how or why that particular justification is okay with me, except that I know a number of expats who simply don't have access to American television in any other way. I understand and agree that I'm being hypocritical, and I agree that piracy is "not okay", which is why I don't do it. However, I simply can't judge the piraters who do so out of lack of availability with the same stance that I judge those who do so casually, or as a matter of course, or because they don't agree with DRM, or because they don't like the record producer, or whatever. Unavailability just seems like a less shallow justification to me to an act that it still equally wrong.

etherael 15y ago

I think copyright infringement by itself is unfair and impolite, but at a certain point, some organisations have taken action that probably realigns the hierarchy of acceptable behaviour when it comes to copyright infringement. Under no circumstances ever should people actively sabotaging the freedom of expression of the entire world ever be supported by any payments from anyone, ever. Especially not the people whose world they're trying to destroy. When it comes to organisations that have lobbied for or support SOPA, piracy of their works is to me the second best step on a ladder of approaches. 1) Boycott them, there is nothing wrong with this plan, you shoot yourself in the foot a little if they made something you want and you refuse to purchase it due to principles, but it's probably the most noble of all approaches. 2) Pirate anything they produce that you wish to consume. You may be making an impolite move and breaking a law that if it were used to protect other organisations that weren't such poisonous vile scum it would be immoral to break, but at least you're not feeding the beast. 3) Actually pay them for their content, at this stage you are not breaking any laws but you are effectively contributing to their continued existence and their lobbying to destroy the world as we know it. If absolutely NOONE picks door number three, the problem will finally be solved. And this entire debacle is all the evidence anyone should ever need that they so desperately deserve destruction.

Naga 15y ago
That is, I think, the most salient part of the original post, one that I had never considered before. Buying anything from those organizations is effectively money going towards lobbying and DRM and all those harmful things. I had never looked at it that way before.

tomkin 15y ago

Great comment, although I'd like to add that I believe pirating isn't really an occupation of greed. It's about convenience. Finding and downloading movies is a pain in the ass. But driving 5km away to rent or buy a piece of plastic and packaging is even more of a pain in the ass. For the past year I've been paying for Netflix, and while the selection isn't always the greatest, the sheer thought of pirating has gone down considerably. Do I want to pay $8/mo or do I want to spend time finding, downloading, dealing with codecs, categorization and management of movies that I will probably delete later? If Netflix could offer every movie, every tv show and/or a music subscription that worked on any device, would I ever want to pirate? Even if it was $20/mo? As producers of creative works, we need to understand the psychology of our audience, more than we need to understand the economy of the industry.

slewis 15y ago

Devil's advocate: Where does civil disobedience fit in with "Multiple wrongs do not make a right"?