5 ms·

"Stop using hyperbolic language" The main perpetrators of hyperbolic language on this topic are the people who act as if there is some necessity and moral righ

"Stop using hyperbolic language" The main perpetrators of hyperbolic language on this topic are the people who act as if there is some necessity and moral right behind downloading some crap CD or movie or TV show, as if that was the same as stealing bread to feed a family. Guess what, you won't perish if you don't watch that TV show everyone is talking about, or if you have to wait six months for that new movie to show up on Netflix. The "harm" of doing without entertainment is no harm at all.

ssebro 15y ago
Death and physical injury aren't the only ways someone can be harmed. Trust me - if you're the only kid in highscool without cable who isn't able to talk about that show from last night, you miss opportunities to bond. Those missed bonds are worth quite a lot, since they directly impact your future.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's the most entitled and ridiculous position I've ever heard presented on the issue. As if copyright violation is somehow necessary to prevent social maladjustment. Where I grew up, we got two channels. Later, when we erected a huge antennae, we got two more. I didn't know what "Nickelodeon" was. So what did I do? I asked kids about the show they described, and I went to a friends house who had cable to watch it.
  - chc 15y ago
    Was your situation much worse than everyone around you? Because studies have found that past a certain point, people's satisfaction with life tends to be highly relative. If you grew up without TV in a culture where most people didn't have TV, your experience is not comparable to someone who grows up without TV in a culture where a good deal of social interaction is based around TV.
    - georgieporgie 15y ago
      The answer to your question is contained within my previous statement.
      - chc 15y ago
        Your previous comment seems to imply the situation that my answer assumed — that TV wasn't a big part of the culture where you grew up. (I got this from the statement, "Where I grew up, we got two channels.") But I didn't want to flat-out say you didn't know what you were talking about just based on an inference, so I phrased it in the form of a question. If indeed TV wasn't a big deal where you grew up, replace "TV" with whatever activity dominated the social scene among kids your age. For example, it might just be hanging out and shooting the breeze, or it might be sports, etc. As a former homeschooled kid, I definitely believe shared experiences and culture are important to socializing.
- cglace 15y ago
  You could also argue that wasting all of your time watching TV shows directly impacts your future. Basically anything we do now directly impacts our future.
  - ssebro 15y ago
    It depends on how and why you watch tv. If I didn't watch tv, I probably wouldn't have gotten into Stanford.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- batista 15y ago
  Those are "first world problems" of the first order. The sense of entitlement and the notion of "harm" contained in the above comment is just unbelievable. How about real bloody issues, like being the only kid in highschool who's parents can't afford medical coverage? Or sending him to college?
  - ssebro 15y ago
    "first world problems" do matter. As someone from a third world country, I have a keen sense of how much is conveyed and how much is learned from "silly" tv shows. You may not notice it yourself, but they define a large part of culture. Understanding that culture is extremely important to success in a variety of fields.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    "first world problems"...only kid in highschool who's parents can't afford medical coverage? Or sending him to college? Those are also first world problems.
    - jonhendry 15y ago
      Affording medical treatment certainly isn't just a first world problem.
      - yummyfajitas 15y ago
        Affording US style comprehensive fancy coverage is a first world problem. The various types of free "low quality" (by US standards) medicine available in the US are far better than what you get in much of the third world.
    - batista 15y ago
      Not having medical treatment and not having access to education are very real third world problems. Despite what the media show in their humanitarian segments, the third world is vast, and third world problems are not just of the kind: no access to water, famine and/or civil war.
- ssebro 15y ago
  I think a lot of the replies to my post are missing the point: "harm" isn't as obvious as you think it is, and pain can be inflicted by creating demand that must go unfulfilled.
  - jonhendry 15y ago
    That's not pain. That's inconvenience. Get some perspective.
- jonhendry 15y ago
  Sitting at home watching a downloaded video isn't very social. You know what would be social? Going over to a friend's house to watch that show with them.
njs12345 15y ago
There's no necessity or moral right behind it, but I fail to see how an action which does not harm others but benefits yourself is immoral --- much piracy has this form; here's a study which says that only 20% of album sales displace sales: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10874.pdf?new_window=1 http://www.nber.org/papers/w10874.pdf?new_window=1
- batista 15y ago
  If the study is true, 20% is huge (assuming you meant to write: "20% of an albums piracy displaces sales").
  - njs12345 15y ago
    There's probably still a net increase in welfare, although of course that's quite hard to measure.
    - sophacles 15y ago
      Not to mention the almost impossible to measure fact that once a work is in the zeitgeist, by wide spread sharing, it also will likely make more money than the same song that didn't get that level of exposure with no piracy. If this wasn't true, why would the music industry pay to get songs played on the radio?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
chc 15y ago
It's not as silly as thinking you have the moral right to control how people use copies of something just because you made the original. To be clear, I'm not arguing against copyright. I think some form of copyright is still a good compromise that serves society well. But I don't see how you can construct a system of human interaction where copyright is more of an inherent moral right than the general right to share information (including "entertainment," which can carry great cultural value).
- J3L2404 15y ago
  The software you wrote is good copyright, but the movie you want to watch is bad copyright. I don't see how this is a viable position for someone trying to make a living writing software (assuming you are).
  - chc 15y ago
    I don't believe I said anything like that. I said that invoking "inherent moral rights" to defend a very artificial compromise like copyright is a losing game. I outright said, "I'm not arguing against copyright." I definitely think copyright is a kludge, no two ways about it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. I think copyright is a good and necessary compromise, where we temporarily give up some of our natural rights in order to improve society in the long run. But I think some people place it on far too high a pedestal. Violating copyright — even my copyright — does not necessarily make you a bad, selfish person any more than my insistence that I am entitled to this weird privilege called "copyright" makes me a bad, selfish person.
sophacles 15y ago
It is not the same as stealing bread to feed a family. That too is hyperbolic. You know what is just plain disingenous though? Framing discussions about how copyright could be different (better for many), as pointless or silly since copyright infringement isn't the same as stealing bread to feed a family. Possibly even in the same hyperbolic way, since "everything is perfect because it is not an extreme" is itself hyperbolic.

ssebro 15y ago

Death and physical injury aren't the only ways someone can be harmed. Trust me - if you're the only kid in highscool without cable who isn't able to talk about that show from last night, you miss opportunities to bond. Those missed bonds are worth quite a lot, since they directly impact your future.

georgieporgie 15y ago
I'm sorry, but that's the most entitled and ridiculous position I've ever heard presented on the issue. As if copyright violation is somehow necessary to prevent social maladjustment. Where I grew up, we got two channels. Later, when we erected a huge antennae, we got two more. I didn't know what "Nickelodeon" was. So what did I do? I asked kids about the show they described, and I went to a friends house who had cable to watch it.
- chc 15y ago
  Was your situation much worse than everyone around you? Because studies have found that past a certain point, people's satisfaction with life tends to be highly relative. If you grew up without TV in a culture where most people didn't have TV, your experience is not comparable to someone who grows up without TV in a culture where a good deal of social interaction is based around TV.
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    The answer to your question is contained within my previous statement.
    - chc 15y ago
      Your previous comment seems to imply the situation that my answer assumed — that TV wasn't a big part of the culture where you grew up. (I got this from the statement, "Where I grew up, we got two channels.") But I didn't want to flat-out say you didn't know what you were talking about just based on an inference, so I phrased it in the form of a question. If indeed TV wasn't a big deal where you grew up, replace "TV" with whatever activity dominated the social scene among kids your age. For example, it might just be hanging out and shooting the breeze, or it might be sports, etc. As a former homeschooled kid, I definitely believe shared experiences and culture are important to socializing.
cglace 15y ago
You could also argue that wasting all of your time watching TV shows directly impacts your future. Basically anything we do now directly impacts our future.
- ssebro 15y ago
  It depends on how and why you watch tv. If I didn't watch tv, I probably wouldn't have gotten into Stanford.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
batista 15y ago
Those are "first world problems" of the first order. The sense of entitlement and the notion of "harm" contained in the above comment is just unbelievable. How about real bloody issues, like being the only kid in highschool who's parents can't afford medical coverage? Or sending him to college?
- ssebro 15y ago
  "first world problems" do matter. As someone from a third world country, I have a keen sense of how much is conveyed and how much is learned from "silly" tv shows. You may not notice it yourself, but they define a large part of culture. Understanding that culture is extremely important to success in a variety of fields.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  "first world problems"...only kid in highschool who's parents can't afford medical coverage? Or sending him to college? Those are also first world problems.
  - jonhendry 15y ago
    Affording medical treatment certainly isn't just a first world problem.
    - yummyfajitas 15y ago
      Affording US style comprehensive fancy coverage is a first world problem. The various types of free "low quality" (by US standards) medicine available in the US are far better than what you get in much of the third world.
  - batista 15y ago
    Not having medical treatment and not having access to education are very real third world problems. Despite what the media show in their humanitarian segments, the third world is vast, and third world problems are not just of the kind: no access to water, famine and/or civil war.
ssebro 15y ago
I think a lot of the replies to my post are missing the point: "harm" isn't as obvious as you think it is, and pain can be inflicted by creating demand that must go unfulfilled.
- jonhendry 15y ago
  That's not pain. That's inconvenience. Get some perspective.
jonhendry 15y ago
Sitting at home watching a downloaded video isn't very social. You know what would be social? Going over to a friend's house to watch that show with them.

njs12345 15y ago

There's no necessity or moral right behind it, but I fail to see how an action which does not harm others but benefits yourself is immoral --- much piracy has this form; here's a study which says that only 20% of album sales displace sales: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10874.pdf?new_window=1 http://www.nber.org/papers/w10874.pdf?new_window=1

batista 15y ago
If the study is true, 20% is huge (assuming you meant to write: "20% of an albums piracy displaces sales").
- njs12345 15y ago
  There's probably still a net increase in welfare, although of course that's quite hard to measure.
  - sophacles 15y ago
    Not to mention the almost impossible to measure fact that once a work is in the zeitgeist, by wide spread sharing, it also will likely make more money than the same song that didn't get that level of exposure with no piracy. If this wasn't true, why would the music industry pay to get songs played on the radio?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

chc 15y ago

It's not as silly as thinking you have the moral right to control how people use copies of something just because you made the original. To be clear, I'm not arguing against copyright. I think some form of copyright is still a good compromise that serves society well. But I don't see how you can construct a system of human interaction where copyright is more of an inherent moral right than the general right to share information (including "entertainment," which can carry great cultural value).

J3L2404 15y ago
The software you wrote is good copyright, but the movie you want to watch is bad copyright. I don't see how this is a viable position for someone trying to make a living writing software (assuming you are).
- chc 15y ago
  I don't believe I said anything like that. I said that invoking "inherent moral rights" to defend a very artificial compromise like copyright is a losing game. I outright said, "I'm not arguing against copyright." I definitely think copyright is a kludge, no two ways about it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. I think copyright is a good and necessary compromise, where we temporarily give up some of our natural rights in order to improve society in the long run. But I think some people place it on far too high a pedestal. Violating copyright — even my copyright — does not necessarily make you a bad, selfish person any more than my insistence that I am entitled to this weird privilege called "copyright" makes me a bad, selfish person.

sophacles 15y ago

It is not the same as stealing bread to feed a family. That too is hyperbolic. You know what is just plain disingenous though? Framing discussions about how copyright could be different (better for many), as pointless or silly since copyright infringement isn't the same as stealing bread to feed a family. Possibly even in the same hyperbolic way, since "everything is perfect because it is not an extreme" is itself hyperbolic.