4 ms·

I use plex as an interface and it organizes my content in an easy to find and watch manner. It’s the fewest clicks to see new content. Comically I subscribe t

I use plex as an interface and it organizes my content in an easy to find and watch manner. It’s the fewest clicks to see new content. Comically I subscribe to many online services (Hulu, Netflix, apple+) and will end up discovering and watching new shows through plex and my rss feeds than the actual apps. So pirating still gives me the best user interface. Especially with combining content from multiple services. Also, it’s not just pirating. I ripped my couple hundred dvd collection years ago when kids kept breaking DVDs. Comically, the cheapest way to watch most movies is to buy the dvd at Walmart for $4 and rip it to watch through Plex. The file never goes away and it skips the frustration of figuring out if Wolf of WalStreet is on Netflix, or Hulu, or HBO, some stupid one off streaming service that I’ll never use (peacock, paramount, whatever whatever). So I think it’s the same reason in 2023 as it was in 2003.

ModernMech 4y ago
So piracy gives you the best UI. Sure. But why do you believe your need for the best UI is enough to clear the bar for ethics when it comes to violating other people's IP rights? Stealing food from the store is way more convenient than going through the line. Best UI there is for grocery shopping.
- prepend 4y ago
  Why do you think copyright is ethical? I certainly wouldn’t steal food from a store as that deprives the store of food. That seems cut and dry. If I could photograph food and turn it into food to feed myself, I would certainly do that, even if it was illegal. It doesn’t deprive the owner of anything. There’s lots of injustice in the world. And I think IP leans more towards unjust than just. Do I think creators should be compensated? Yes. Do I think creators’ descendents should be compensated for 90 years? Probably not. I think copyright is designed and biased toward massive corporations to the detriment of society. So I don’t feel bad when I subscribe to HBONow and also “illegally” download torrents so it’s easier for loved ones to watch. I also feel like there’s a giant PR effort from wealthy entities against a few individuals and the fact that you’d equate downloading a movie with stealing food is so weird to me that it shows how distorted the discussion is. So we need some distinction between essential rights that seem real to me (bill of rights stuff) and “rights” that only exist because of successful lobbying on behalf of a very tiny industry (content industry is only like $100-200B globally where agriculture is $1.2T in the US alone).
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > Why do you think copyright is ethical? I think following the law is ethical, and copyright is not only the law, it follows directly from the Constitution. > If I could photograph food and turn it into food to feed myself, I would certainly do that, even if it was illegal. Context and perspective. We're talking about a media landscape that is flush with content, to the point where people complain that it's all just rehashed. There's plenty of media to go around. > It doesn’t deprive the owner of anything. It deprives someone of their rights, which is something I think pirates don't really care about at all, as it's never considered in the calculus. It's always "what's more convenient for me and my desires to consume particular media, rights be damned". I wish pirates would just be frank and admit this like the other poster who was replying to me. > I think copyright is designed and biased toward massive corporations to the detriment of society. Me too. But I also enjoy the rule of law and the hard work of people who make content that I consume. > There’s lots of injustice in the world. And I think IP leans more towards unjust than just. Do I think creators should be compensated? Yes. Do I think creators’ descendents should be compensated for 90 years? Probably not. I would feel more sympathetic to this argument if pirates had ever given an inch, or seriously attempted to organize to fix the law in the US over the past 20 years. Instead, they just kept pirating as hard as they could, even when the industry moved toward streaming services, and rationalized their behavior away. > I also feel like there’s a giant PR effort from wealthy entities against a few individuals and the fact that you’d equate downloading a movie with stealing food is so weird to me that it shows how distorted the discussion is. So you're saying my strong feelings about copyright infringement are due to a PR campaign, and not a carefully considered position I've come to on my own, through my own experiences as a content creator, artist, and owner of copyrighted works? I understand that some people are so blasé about violating copyrights, they don't even think they could possibly be doing anything wrong. On the other end of the spectrum are people who have to spend money and resources to defend their rights from violations of law by others. I fully understand that digital media and physical goods are not the same. But I categorically reject that zero people are harmed when copyrights are violated. > “rights” that only exist because of successful lobbying on behalf of a very tiny industry As I said, copyright is a fundamental provision of the US Constitution. We can talk about the parameters of "securing for limited Times" but "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." is not up for debate. The word "exclusive" is important here. And as for the size of the industry interested in copyright... upending copyright would also upend trademarks and patents. There's a much larger industry (well... all of them) interested in those forms of IP.
- Lio 4y ago
  The grand parent didn't say anything about selling or returning the DVD for a refund, so how is shifting formats to something more durable piracy? If it's just a backup I can't see any ethical reason why you shouldn't be able to do this. We went through all this in the courts when we got the rights to timeshift recorded TV programmes. Comparing it to stealing food is ridiculous. No body has been deprived of anything, it's just copyright violation.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > No body has been deprived of anything, it's just copyright violation. The second part of your sentence doesn't follow from the first. If someone is violating a copyright, that someone else has been deprived of their rights to control their IP, and they're owed compensation. That's the system we set up, so that's the system we should follow. If a rights holder wants to grant you the privilege of copying the data, that's great. Many of them actually do that. But that doesn't mean we're allowed to just violate the rights of those who choose otherwise. The response should be to consume media that is offered in favorable terms, not to pirate media just because you feel it's convenient.
    - Lio 4y ago
      The system we set up includes fair use. Backing up media is fair use. Again, no one has been deprived of their rights and the copyright holder’s rights are not unlimited.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        Granted fair use is a thing, and rights aren’t unlimited. I’m not arguing against fair use, but many here advocating piracy are not arguing from a fair use perspective. Or are you trying to argue that all piracy is fair use? That would be a more interesting argument than pointing at the existence of fair use, not that I would agree with it.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

ModernMech 4y ago

So piracy gives you the best UI. Sure. But why do you believe your need for the best UI is enough to clear the bar for ethics when it comes to violating other people's IP rights? Stealing food from the store is way more convenient than going through the line. Best UI there is for grocery shopping.

prepend 4y ago
Why do you think copyright is ethical? I certainly wouldn’t steal food from a store as that deprives the store of food. That seems cut and dry. If I could photograph food and turn it into food to feed myself, I would certainly do that, even if it was illegal. It doesn’t deprive the owner of anything. There’s lots of injustice in the world. And I think IP leans more towards unjust than just. Do I think creators should be compensated? Yes. Do I think creators’ descendents should be compensated for 90 years? Probably not. I think copyright is designed and biased toward massive corporations to the detriment of society. So I don’t feel bad when I subscribe to HBONow and also “illegally” download torrents so it’s easier for loved ones to watch. I also feel like there’s a giant PR effort from wealthy entities against a few individuals and the fact that you’d equate downloading a movie with stealing food is so weird to me that it shows how distorted the discussion is. So we need some distinction between essential rights that seem real to me (bill of rights stuff) and “rights” that only exist because of successful lobbying on behalf of a very tiny industry (content industry is only like $100-200B globally where agriculture is $1.2T in the US alone).
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > Why do you think copyright is ethical? I think following the law is ethical, and copyright is not only the law, it follows directly from the Constitution. > If I could photograph food and turn it into food to feed myself, I would certainly do that, even if it was illegal. Context and perspective. We're talking about a media landscape that is flush with content, to the point where people complain that it's all just rehashed. There's plenty of media to go around. > It doesn’t deprive the owner of anything. It deprives someone of their rights, which is something I think pirates don't really care about at all, as it's never considered in the calculus. It's always "what's more convenient for me and my desires to consume particular media, rights be damned". I wish pirates would just be frank and admit this like the other poster who was replying to me. > I think copyright is designed and biased toward massive corporations to the detriment of society. Me too. But I also enjoy the rule of law and the hard work of people who make content that I consume. > There’s lots of injustice in the world. And I think IP leans more towards unjust than just. Do I think creators should be compensated? Yes. Do I think creators’ descendents should be compensated for 90 years? Probably not. I would feel more sympathetic to this argument if pirates had ever given an inch, or seriously attempted to organize to fix the law in the US over the past 20 years. Instead, they just kept pirating as hard as they could, even when the industry moved toward streaming services, and rationalized their behavior away. > I also feel like there’s a giant PR effort from wealthy entities against a few individuals and the fact that you’d equate downloading a movie with stealing food is so weird to me that it shows how distorted the discussion is. So you're saying my strong feelings about copyright infringement are due to a PR campaign, and not a carefully considered position I've come to on my own, through my own experiences as a content creator, artist, and owner of copyrighted works? I understand that some people are so blasé about violating copyrights, they don't even think they could possibly be doing anything wrong. On the other end of the spectrum are people who have to spend money and resources to defend their rights from violations of law by others. I fully understand that digital media and physical goods are not the same. But I categorically reject that zero people are harmed when copyrights are violated. > “rights” that only exist because of successful lobbying on behalf of a very tiny industry As I said, copyright is a fundamental provision of the US Constitution. We can talk about the parameters of "securing for limited Times" but "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." is not up for debate. The word "exclusive" is important here. And as for the size of the industry interested in copyright... upending copyright would also upend trademarks and patents. There's a much larger industry (well... all of them) interested in those forms of IP.
Lio 4y ago
The grand parent didn't say anything about selling or returning the DVD for a refund, so how is shifting formats to something more durable piracy? If it's just a backup I can't see any ethical reason why you shouldn't be able to do this. We went through all this in the courts when we got the rights to timeshift recorded TV programmes. Comparing it to stealing food is ridiculous. No body has been deprived of anything, it's just copyright violation.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > No body has been deprived of anything, it's just copyright violation. The second part of your sentence doesn't follow from the first. If someone is violating a copyright, that someone else has been deprived of their rights to control their IP, and they're owed compensation. That's the system we set up, so that's the system we should follow. If a rights holder wants to grant you the privilege of copying the data, that's great. Many of them actually do that. But that doesn't mean we're allowed to just violate the rights of those who choose otherwise. The response should be to consume media that is offered in favorable terms, not to pirate media just because you feel it's convenient.
  - Lio 4y ago
    The system we set up includes fair use. Backing up media is fair use. Again, no one has been deprived of their rights and the copyright holder’s rights are not unlimited.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      Granted fair use is a thing, and rights aren’t unlimited. I’m not arguing against fair use, but many here advocating piracy are not arguing from a fair use perspective. Or are you trying to argue that all piracy is fair use? That would be a more interesting argument than pointing at the existence of fair use, not that I would agree with it.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]