4 ms·

Although I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment about 1st world problems, can you expand on why as a developer you are in favor of more piracy? I feel the

by J3L2404 15y ago

Although I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment about 1st world problems, can you expand on why as a developer you are in favor of more piracy? I feel the big guys will always be able to protect themselves and it is the little guys who really suffer.

gsoltis 15y ago
Being against SOPA/ACTA/etc. should not be construed as being pro-copyright infringement. He might simply be pro-due process and pro-innocent until proven guilty. Those positions alone are enough to cause one to not support these sorts of bills.
- J3L2404 15y ago
  I wish you were right, but pg has clearly stated anything copyable deserves no copyright.
  - gsoltis 15y ago
    That the original commenter is pro-piracy does not follow from pg having voiced an opinion on copyright. Claiming as much only serves to mask the problems with these bills. Perhaps you meant to limit your statement on wanting more copyright infringement to pg?
    - J3L2404 15y ago
      Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I in no way meant to put words in the original commenters mouth and truly want to know why being a developer means you are very concernered about a bill that protects intellectual property. Anyone can be concerned about the rule of law. What is it as a developer that causes concern about SOPA? Surely you want your products to make you money. Many new users of this site think that not paying for stuff is a good enough reason.
      - gsoltis 15y ago
        Speaking for myself (I am also a developer), I am concerned with the circumvention of due process and presumption of guilt that is built into these bills. If I am operating a service that someone files a complaint against, especially if I am a startup, I have very little recourse before my business is trashed. This is independent of whether or not I am guilty of anything, or my users have submitted infringing content to my service. Content owners and federal agencies have a historical lack of concern about the accuracy of their claims, so I would like to ensure that they have to be rigorous before they can take down my service. They should have to prove to a judge that I am in fact in violation of the law before they can cut off my source of income. Speaking to the philosophical issue that pg raised, I believe people have a right to attempt to make money from their efforts. I also believe that they most definitely do not have a right to be successful in that attempt, regardless of how much effort they have put in. They also do not have a right to continued success if the world around them changes. What works on Monday may not work on Friday, and the fact that it worked Monday should not serve as a guarantee that Friday's endeavor has a right to success. If the effort it takes to secure a number of the size required to represent a 3 minute song becomes a burden on society, then I do not think they have a right to be successful in doing so. The same goes for the software I produce. If my securing it from copying that I do not approve of becomes a burden on society, then I do not have a right to be successful in securing it. Personally, I interpret a circumvention of due process and an attitude of "guilty until a successful appeal is filed" as a burden on society.
        J3L2404 15y ago
        This is the most salient explanation that I have seen on HN, although some points need rebutting. For instance >If the effort it takes to secure a number of the size required to represent a 3 minute song becomes a burden on society, then I do not think they have a right to be successful in doing so. That is only true after the law has been changed, at least from a legal standpoint. > If my securing it from copying that I do not approve of becomes a burden on society, then I do not have a right to be successful in securing it. Same as above. Most responses on HN have been something like "if you want to make money from your creation you should use kickstarter and give it away after that". This is a very foolish attitude both realistically and philosophically. I have every right to use the current laws to my advantage and an obligation to my investors to do exactly that. I have no problem with flouting laws if they are truly unjust, but I have no sympathy for piracy profiteers like Kim Dotcom because he knew very well what he was doing. Copying between friends can never be stopped but if you make enough money from it you are a valid target.
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  By the same token, saying that one wants to block bad foreign websites is not the same thing as "voicing support for SOPA"--which is the connection the linked petition tries to make. And no surprise, since the SOPA protest was so huge. I expect every single IP-related issue to be called "SOPA" for the next couple years as a result. It has become a power word.

by J3L2404 15y ago

gsoltis 15y ago

Being against SOPA/ACTA/etc. should not be construed as being pro-copyright infringement. He might simply be pro-due process and pro-innocent until proven guilty. Those positions alone are enough to cause one to not support these sorts of bills.

J3L2404 15y ago
I wish you were right, but pg has clearly stated anything copyable deserves no copyright.
- gsoltis 15y ago
  That the original commenter is pro-piracy does not follow from pg having voiced an opinion on copyright. Claiming as much only serves to mask the problems with these bills. Perhaps you meant to limit your statement on wanting more copyright infringement to pg?
  - J3L2404 15y ago
    Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I in no way meant to put words in the original commenters mouth and truly want to know why being a developer means you are very concernered about a bill that protects intellectual property. Anyone can be concerned about the rule of law. What is it as a developer that causes concern about SOPA? Surely you want your products to make you money. Many new users of this site think that not paying for stuff is a good enough reason.
    - gsoltis 15y ago
      Speaking for myself (I am also a developer), I am concerned with the circumvention of due process and presumption of guilt that is built into these bills. If I am operating a service that someone files a complaint against, especially if I am a startup, I have very little recourse before my business is trashed. This is independent of whether or not I am guilty of anything, or my users have submitted infringing content to my service. Content owners and federal agencies have a historical lack of concern about the accuracy of their claims, so I would like to ensure that they have to be rigorous before they can take down my service. They should have to prove to a judge that I am in fact in violation of the law before they can cut off my source of income. Speaking to the philosophical issue that pg raised, I believe people have a right to attempt to make money from their efforts. I also believe that they most definitely do not have a right to be successful in that attempt, regardless of how much effort they have put in. They also do not have a right to continued success if the world around them changes. What works on Monday may not work on Friday, and the fact that it worked Monday should not serve as a guarantee that Friday's endeavor has a right to success. If the effort it takes to secure a number of the size required to represent a 3 minute song becomes a burden on society, then I do not think they have a right to be successful in doing so. The same goes for the software I produce. If my securing it from copying that I do not approve of becomes a burden on society, then I do not have a right to be successful in securing it. Personally, I interpret a circumvention of due process and an attitude of "guilty until a successful appeal is filed" as a burden on society.
      - J3L2404 15y ago
        This is the most salient explanation that I have seen on HN, although some points need rebutting. For instance >If the effort it takes to secure a number of the size required to represent a 3 minute song becomes a burden on society, then I do not think they have a right to be successful in doing so. That is only true after the law has been changed, at least from a legal standpoint. > If my securing it from copying that I do not approve of becomes a burden on society, then I do not have a right to be successful in securing it. Same as above. Most responses on HN have been something like "if you want to make money from your creation you should use kickstarter and give it away after that". This is a very foolish attitude both realistically and philosophically. I have every right to use the current laws to my advantage and an obligation to my investors to do exactly that. I have no problem with flouting laws if they are truly unjust, but I have no sympathy for piracy profiteers like Kim Dotcom because he knew very well what he was doing. Copying between friends can never be stopped but if you make enough money from it you are a valid target.
snowwrestler 15y ago
By the same token, saying that one wants to block bad foreign websites is not the same thing as "voicing support for SOPA"--which is the connection the linked petition tries to make. And no surprise, since the SOPA protest was so huge. I expect every single IP-related issue to be called "SOPA" for the next couple years as a result. It has become a power word.