3 ms·

Good comment, it was very funny to see how people desperately try to find moral justification for pirating media A but not B. "It's apples to oranges, you see,

by Yizahi 3y ago

Good comment, it was very funny to see how people desperately try to find moral justification for pirating media A but not B. "It's apples to oranges, you see, there are less letters in the NYT article than in the book and they are rendered differently, so it is ok to pirate their work. I did nothing wrong!" :)

sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
Of course pirating any media is totally fine from a moral standpoint.
fodkodrasz 3y ago
It is actually pirating content by companies for humongous profit, or pirating by individual human beings for free access to culture and entertainment, oftentimes for content one has already paid for, but rendered inaccessible by megacorporations.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Which content making businesses earn humorous profit margins? Are all the journalist layoffs a fever dream? This is one of the more profitable ones, and only because they employ unscrupulous tactics: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWS/news/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWS/news/profit-ma... This is NYT, the most successful news business: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times... As for movies/tv show/music makers, let’s just say most people in the software engineering business would look at their numbers and count their lucky stars that they are not in the movie/tv show/music business. (It is also true that excessive copyright lengths have removed access to content that the public should have a right to).
  - defrost 3y ago
    > Which content making businesses earn humorous profit margins? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_(magazine) https://www.theonion.com/ https://www.theonion.com/
  - sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
    The movie/tv show and music business can keel over and die tomorrow - it wouldn’t affect the value of art produced by humans at all. I see those more as exploitative leeches than as contributing anything positive. If only piracy would actually harm these businesses but alas as often demonstrated it has zero effect on their bottom line, if anything it increases their profits.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      What do you mean by "art"?
      - sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
        Hard question, but in the context of my comment I would say any kind of visual media or music
  - fodkodrasz 3y ago
    > Which content making businesses earn humorous profit margins? You got my point backwards: AI companies will make it from the pirated content, that individual users don't make.
amelius 3y ago
There's no way to get your money back if you didn't like the content. If they don't want their articles to be read for free then they should keep them out of my view. And certainly not use clickbaity headlines. Information can be copied and they should accept it, or change their business/distribution model.
- Yizahi 3y ago
  So if I went to a cinema and didn't like the movie, I should be entitled for a return, right? Or if I went into a museum and didn't like the art displayed there? If you are advocating for a free for all libertarian dystopia, well, I have some bad news for you - they never work.
  - amelius 3y ago
    > So if I went to a cinema and didn't like the movie, I should be entitled for a return, right? Not being able to un-see a movie and get your time and money back is one side of the coin. The other side is that information can be copied. Both sides suck for one of the parties. There's no reason why one of them gets it their way, especially if it requires a contrived legal framework while the other way would require nothing at all.
    - bena 3y ago
      You’re not paying to enjoy the content, you’re paying to experience the content. And as long as you had the opportunity to experience the content, you’ve gotten what you paid for. I don’t see “I don’t like it” as a valid reason for a refund.
      - amelius 3y ago
        > You’re not paying to enjoy the content, you’re paying to experience the content. Not sure about others, but I'm not.
        3y ago
ks2048 3y ago
It seems pretty natural to me. People generally have less problem with stealing a candy bar than stealing a car. (Consider the cost to produce a NYT article vs the cost to produce a Hollywood movie). I don't think the stealing-vs-pirating analogy is perfect, but it's related.
dillydogg 3y ago
I wonder what the reaction of some of the people who browse this forum would be if the output of their careers were so commonly pirated. Somehow, I think most think that this argument doesn't apply.
- Demiurge 3y ago
  I’d be pretty delighted. I’m paid for getting projects done, not for keeping hold on some copyrighted code. I want all my code to be open sourced, and reused.

by Yizahi 3y ago

sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago

Of course pirating any media is totally fine from a moral standpoint.

fodkodrasz 3y ago

It is actually pirating content by companies for humongous profit, or pirating by individual human beings for free access to culture and entertainment, oftentimes for content one has already paid for, but rendered inaccessible by megacorporations.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Which content making businesses earn humorous profit margins? Are all the journalist layoffs a fever dream? This is one of the more profitable ones, and only because they employ unscrupulous tactics: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWS/news/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWS/news/profit-ma... This is NYT, the most successful news business: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times... As for movies/tv show/music makers, let’s just say most people in the software engineering business would look at their numbers and count their lucky stars that they are not in the movie/tv show/music business. (It is also true that excessive copyright lengths have removed access to content that the public should have a right to).
- defrost 3y ago
  > Which content making businesses earn humorous profit margins? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_(magazine) https://www.theonion.com/ https://www.theonion.com/
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
  The movie/tv show and music business can keel over and die tomorrow - it wouldn’t affect the value of art produced by humans at all. I see those more as exploitative leeches than as contributing anything positive. If only piracy would actually harm these businesses but alas as often demonstrated it has zero effect on their bottom line, if anything it increases their profits.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    What do you mean by "art"?
    - sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
      Hard question, but in the context of my comment I would say any kind of visual media or music
- fodkodrasz 3y ago
  > Which content making businesses earn humorous profit margins? You got my point backwards: AI companies will make it from the pirated content, that individual users don't make.

amelius 3y ago

There's no way to get your money back if you didn't like the content. If they don't want their articles to be read for free then they should keep them out of my view. And certainly not use clickbaity headlines. Information can be copied and they should accept it, or change their business/distribution model.

Yizahi 3y ago
So if I went to a cinema and didn't like the movie, I should be entitled for a return, right? Or if I went into a museum and didn't like the art displayed there? If you are advocating for a free for all libertarian dystopia, well, I have some bad news for you - they never work.
- amelius 3y ago
  > So if I went to a cinema and didn't like the movie, I should be entitled for a return, right? Not being able to un-see a movie and get your time and money back is one side of the coin. The other side is that information can be copied. Both sides suck for one of the parties. There's no reason why one of them gets it their way, especially if it requires a contrived legal framework while the other way would require nothing at all.
  - bena 3y ago
    You’re not paying to enjoy the content, you’re paying to experience the content. And as long as you had the opportunity to experience the content, you’ve gotten what you paid for. I don’t see “I don’t like it” as a valid reason for a refund.
    - amelius 3y ago
      > You’re not paying to enjoy the content, you’re paying to experience the content. Not sure about others, but I'm not.
      - 3y ago

ks2048 3y ago

It seems pretty natural to me. People generally have less problem with stealing a candy bar than stealing a car. (Consider the cost to produce a NYT article vs the cost to produce a Hollywood movie). I don't think the stealing-vs-pirating analogy is perfect, but it's related.

dillydogg 3y ago

I wonder what the reaction of some of the people who browse this forum would be if the output of their careers were so commonly pirated. Somehow, I think most think that this argument doesn't apply.

Demiurge 3y ago
I’d be pretty delighted. I’m paid for getting projects done, not for keeping hold on some copyrighted code. I want all my code to be open sourced, and reused.