3 ms·

I have always suspected that the variety of pro-piracy posters on HN probably have no qualms about violating the GPL or other FOSS licenses either. It would be

I have always suspected that the variety of pro-piracy posters on HN probably have no qualms about violating the GPL or other FOSS licenses either. It would be logically consistent at least.

pierat 4y ago
It's funny you say that, but it was Linux that really got me to double down on actual piracy. I tried to get a Netflix subscription. For a long while, nope. Wouldn't work. Even now, Paramount streaming specifically excludes Linux. Theyll gladly take your money, though. Oh, and it works for chrome and android, of which the second is Linux. The people who actually try to buy and pay distributors/creators get screwed time and again. I further refuse to take part in getting screwed again. Or take the Microsoft Zune. Anyone who bought music there ended up buying void after they arbitrarily shut the auth servers down. Cause, uhh, Microsoft couldn't afford a few auth servers? And their sharing added in illegal DRM, especially if I was playing CC tracks that expressly forbid that. (And of course, the irony that MS is part of the business software alliance, with heavy draconian hands of licenses and copyright.... All the while pirating and breaking GPL with copilot. And you want US to respect you? QED: fuck off, MS) There's the whole DVD debacle with deCSS. Whereas with Linux and the FLOSS ecosystem, I do recognize that fellow creators are being ethical, and giving for the cost of "follow my license if you use code". And there's no spyware, DRM, or other harmful stuff. Sure, there's bad actors.... But those bad actors are usually companies like Microsoft who pilfer all our code for their benefit and profit (Copilot). Tit for tat is the best game theory solution so far. And given how many times I've been screwed over by media companies arbitrarily revoking first-sale doctrine because it was really a rental... That means I'll "pierat" my media. I've paid enough. And I will help others free of charge do the same. I guess to look at my views, it really is anti-commercial and pro-FLOSS. And having copyright rules different for the rest of us versus the big media also colors my judgement. (And my last 3 projects were aGPL3, precisely to keep companies from _aaS my software without contributing back.)
kmeisthax 4y ago
No, there's a lot of people here angry at GitHub for making a code-writing tool that occasionally launders GPL code. To actually violate the GPL requires at least some effort towards locking the system down. If you just torrent some Linux ISOs, they either contain source, links to source, or that weird written offer thing that GPLv2 wanted. You'd have to actually remove those in order to violate GPL. Pirates would not be happy with you for doing this. It's also important to note that there's a bit of a difference between different kinds of piracy, and they have different mentalities. You have the FTP topsite scene users, then P2P users, then people trying to resell copyrighted material for money. The first two are more aligned with either "we don't like copyright, period" or "we like downloading free shit", which makes them either aligned with or neutral to the FOSS community. The latter group does not care, they just want a quick way to make a buck. If they couldn't resell other people's books on Amazon, they'd probably be committing some other kind of cybercrime.
bediger4000 4y ago
I hope you do not include me in the pro-piracy category! I buy books and I like to hold them in my hands before buying. I've even bought books to reward, in some small way, authors that seem like good people. Unfortunately, as in most things, the context of my question seems to have gotten ignored: > As consumers, we are regularly told that price of goods or services is absolutely all that matters. Modern anti-trust law pivots on this principle. Modern attitudes toward labor and hourly rates are based on this principle. Why are we asked to abandon this only in select cases, cases where we as consumers, end up carrying the bulk of the burden?

I have always suspected that the variety of pro-piracy posters on HN probably have no qualms about violating the GPL or other FOSS licenses either. It would be logically consistent at least.

pierat 4y ago

It's funny you say that, but it was Linux that really got me to double down on actual piracy. I tried to get a Netflix subscription. For a long while, nope. Wouldn't work. Even now, Paramount streaming specifically excludes Linux. Theyll gladly take your money, though. Oh, and it works for chrome and android, of which the second is Linux. The people who actually try to buy and pay distributors/creators get screwed time and again. I further refuse to take part in getting screwed again. Or take the Microsoft Zune. Anyone who bought music there ended up buying void after they arbitrarily shut the auth servers down. Cause, uhh, Microsoft couldn't afford a few auth servers? And their sharing added in illegal DRM, especially if I was playing CC tracks that expressly forbid that. (And of course, the irony that MS is part of the business software alliance, with heavy draconian hands of licenses and copyright.... All the while pirating and breaking GPL with copilot. And you want US to respect you? QED: fuck off, MS) There's the whole DVD debacle with deCSS. Whereas with Linux and the FLOSS ecosystem, I do recognize that fellow creators are being ethical, and giving for the cost of "follow my license if you use code". And there's no spyware, DRM, or other harmful stuff. Sure, there's bad actors.... But those bad actors are usually companies like Microsoft who pilfer all our code for their benefit and profit (Copilot). Tit for tat is the best game theory solution so far. And given how many times I've been screwed over by media companies arbitrarily revoking first-sale doctrine because it was really a rental... That means I'll "pierat" my media. I've paid enough. And I will help others free of charge do the same. I guess to look at my views, it really is anti-commercial and pro-FLOSS. And having copyright rules different for the rest of us versus the big media also colors my judgement. (And my last 3 projects were aGPL3, precisely to keep companies from _aaS my software without contributing back.)

kmeisthax 4y ago

No, there's a lot of people here angry at GitHub for making a code-writing tool that occasionally launders GPL code. To actually violate the GPL requires at least some effort towards locking the system down. If you just torrent some Linux ISOs, they either contain source, links to source, or that weird written offer thing that GPLv2 wanted. You'd have to actually remove those in order to violate GPL. Pirates would not be happy with you for doing this. It's also important to note that there's a bit of a difference between different kinds of piracy, and they have different mentalities. You have the FTP topsite scene users, then P2P users, then people trying to resell copyrighted material for money. The first two are more aligned with either "we don't like copyright, period" or "we like downloading free shit", which makes them either aligned with or neutral to the FOSS community. The latter group does not care, they just want a quick way to make a buck. If they couldn't resell other people's books on Amazon, they'd probably be committing some other kind of cybercrime.

bediger4000 4y ago

I hope you do not include me in the pro-piracy category! I buy books and I like to hold them in my hands before buying. I've even bought books to reward, in some small way, authors that seem like good people. Unfortunately, as in most things, the context of my question seems to have gotten ignored: > As consumers, we are regularly told that price of goods or services is absolutely all that matters. Modern anti-trust law pivots on this principle. Modern attitudes toward labor and hourly rates are based on this principle. Why are we asked to abandon this only in select cases, cases where we as consumers, end up carrying the bulk of the burden?