3 ms·

Would you use the same justification for pirating movies? Or for stealing from large supermarkets? Not a pointed question, I just find it genuinely interesting

Would you use the same justification for pirating movies? Or for stealing from large supermarkets? Not a pointed question, I just find it genuinely interesting where people draw the line. Ultimately in all scenarios you are consuming resources from a third party, and avoiding paying for them.

rebeccaskinner 3y ago
> Or for stealing from large supermarkets? This isn’t the right analogy. It’s more like someone opens up a shop where you can walk to the counter and ask for some food, and they stick a sample of some product in the bag when they give you the food. It’s not immoral to throw away the sample if you don’t want it, just like it’s not immoral to not play back the ad you get served along side a video you request if you don’t want to watch it.
- Jensson 3y ago
  If you made a robot that automatically goes there and takes the food and throws away all the samples I bet they would stop serving that robot very quickly.
  - jack1243star 3y ago
    Well they also have robots serving the food if we go by this analogy. Doesn't seem too unfair to streamline the process.
raincole 3y ago
It's HN. People's time and effort are not valued unless it's to make rust compiler run on gameboy. Remember the whole "news" part of HN works because people are allowed to link to "unpaywalled" version of paywalled content. It's what HN is about -- stealing premium content. If these kinds of links are banned HN will lose a lot of traffic.
cde-v 3y ago
The social contract has broken down so yes all of that is now okay.
anthk 3y ago
My computer, my code. No JS, no ads. Also, Google it's already mining my data thru cookies/Android and earning money because of it. Thus, it's an even match.
- devnullbrain 3y ago
  Just turn on DNT in your HTTP headers, Google have made it clear that selectively choosing which data to process is wrong.
hightrix 3y ago
Stealing and piracy are not related at all. They are not close to the same thing. Comparing them is the wrong way to make an argument.
MeImCounting 3y ago
I take issue with equating the three actions of not viewing ads, piracy and shoplifting although, I am absolutely 100% alright with all three for different reasons. Not viewing ads is a lot more like not looking at billboards on the highway or not reading the inserts you get in your free local newspaper. Pirating movies is a method of showing disdain for extractive and manipulative IP law that lines the pockets of nasty old rich fuds while not paying the actual artists that made a work. I would not pirate an indie film for instance. Stealing from large supermarkets is basically just preventing them from throwing the unsold food away at the end of the profit cycle. Again the only person youre stealing from is the ruling class who profit off of hunger and poverty.
ohhnoodont 3y ago
Copying/sharing media is not the same as stealing from a store. We already had this debate like 30 years ago - "You wouldn't download a car!" Unless you really believe that borrowing a book from a friend deprives the author of a sale and that that's equivalent to pickpocketing $10 from the author. Google has every right to restrict who gets to access their services (although antitrust concerns do come up) and every user has the right to control the software on their devices.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > Copying/sharing media is not the same as stealing from a store This is different, you aren't copying youtube videos and sending them to a friend using your own resources, you are using their server capacity to watch it yourself. So you are costing Youtube money just like stealing from a store costs the store money. So the old "copying is not theft" argument doesn't hold here. It does work for torrenting etc, but not when you stream directly from their servers.
  - ohhnoodont 3y ago
    Sure but the post I was responding to starts with "Would you use the same justification for pirating movies? Or for stealing from large supermarkets?", that's what I was responding to. Also in this context the situation is amusing to me given that YouTube's early success was built on pirated content. That continued for a long time even after Google's acquisition. With respect to server/network resources, like I said Google is free to restrict access as they see fit.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > the post I was responding to starts with "Would you use the same justification for pirating movies? Or for stealing from large supermarkets?", that's what I was responding to The post you responded to didn't say that those two were the same, it clearly shows those two as different levels of bad if you read the next line: > "Not a pointed question, I just find it genuinely interesting where people draw the line." So your point here is just you not understanding and reacting with a meme since his post sounded a bit similar to an argument you have seen before.

rebeccaskinner 3y ago

> Or for stealing from large supermarkets? This isn’t the right analogy. It’s more like someone opens up a shop where you can walk to the counter and ask for some food, and they stick a sample of some product in the bag when they give you the food. It’s not immoral to throw away the sample if you don’t want it, just like it’s not immoral to not play back the ad you get served along side a video you request if you don’t want to watch it.

Jensson 3y ago
If you made a robot that automatically goes there and takes the food and throws away all the samples I bet they would stop serving that robot very quickly.
- jack1243star 3y ago
  Well they also have robots serving the food if we go by this analogy. Doesn't seem too unfair to streamline the process.

raincole 3y ago

It's HN. People's time and effort are not valued unless it's to make rust compiler run on gameboy. Remember the whole "news" part of HN works because people are allowed to link to "unpaywalled" version of paywalled content. It's what HN is about -- stealing premium content. If these kinds of links are banned HN will lose a lot of traffic.

cde-v 3y ago

The social contract has broken down so yes all of that is now okay.

anthk 3y ago

My computer, my code. No JS, no ads. Also, Google it's already mining my data thru cookies/Android and earning money because of it. Thus, it's an even match.

devnullbrain 3y ago
Just turn on DNT in your HTTP headers, Google have made it clear that selectively choosing which data to process is wrong.

hightrix 3y ago

Stealing and piracy are not related at all. They are not close to the same thing. Comparing them is the wrong way to make an argument.

MeImCounting 3y ago

I take issue with equating the three actions of not viewing ads, piracy and shoplifting although, I am absolutely 100% alright with all three for different reasons. Not viewing ads is a lot more like not looking at billboards on the highway or not reading the inserts you get in your free local newspaper. Pirating movies is a method of showing disdain for extractive and manipulative IP law that lines the pockets of nasty old rich fuds while not paying the actual artists that made a work. I would not pirate an indie film for instance. Stealing from large supermarkets is basically just preventing them from throwing the unsold food away at the end of the profit cycle. Again the only person youre stealing from is the ruling class who profit off of hunger and poverty.

ohhnoodont 3y ago

Copying/sharing media is not the same as stealing from a store. We already had this debate like 30 years ago - "You wouldn't download a car!" Unless you really believe that borrowing a book from a friend deprives the author of a sale and that that's equivalent to pickpocketing $10 from the author. Google has every right to restrict who gets to access their services (although antitrust concerns do come up) and every user has the right to control the software on their devices.

Jensson 3y ago
> Copying/sharing media is not the same as stealing from a store This is different, you aren't copying youtube videos and sending them to a friend using your own resources, you are using their server capacity to watch it yourself. So you are costing Youtube money just like stealing from a store costs the store money. So the old "copying is not theft" argument doesn't hold here. It does work for torrenting etc, but not when you stream directly from their servers.
- ohhnoodont 3y ago
  Sure but the post I was responding to starts with "Would you use the same justification for pirating movies? Or for stealing from large supermarkets?", that's what I was responding to. Also in this context the situation is amusing to me given that YouTube's early success was built on pirated content. That continued for a long time even after Google's acquisition. With respect to server/network resources, like I said Google is free to restrict access as they see fit.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > the post I was responding to starts with "Would you use the same justification for pirating movies? Or for stealing from large supermarkets?", that's what I was responding to The post you responded to didn't say that those two were the same, it clearly shows those two as different levels of bad if you read the next line: > "Not a pointed question, I just find it genuinely interesting where people draw the line." So your point here is just you not understanding and reacting with a meme since his post sounded a bit similar to an argument you have seen before.