9 ms·

It's parasitical. And dishonours the intentions of the content creators.

by Tycho 14y ago

tomp 14y ago
Most content creators that I know would be very glad if the whole world woudl listen to their music! More likely, I'm dishonouring the intentions of the content distributors. And I really don't give a fuck about them, they certainly don't honor anybody/anything other than cash!
- Tycho 14y ago
  What did the content creators intend when they accepted investment to realise their works. Or what did they intend when they agreed to provide their creative input to a movie for a fee. Or what did they intend when they signed the rights to their work over to a distributor in exchange for some form of compensation or royalty payments?
hxa7241 14y ago
It is not necessarily parasitical (and not at all dishonourable), because the only justification for imposing restrictions on people's freedom to share informational goods is the standard economic rationale, and we cannot a priori specify the correct extent of that. If copyright is actually too long (broad, etc.) a de facto reduction of it by illicit copying would be economically beneficial (and that seems most likely the case).
- Tycho 14y ago
  Someone worked really hard to make something, then you take it without permission. You want others to live for your sake. That makes you a parasite.
  - nddrylliog 14y ago
    You clearly lack perspective: try to reverse the point of view and apply the same logic. An employer wants others to live for his sake, does that make him a parasite? No. (The analogy fails to go any further, but your point is nonetheless invalid.) Plus, if you had some intuition, you'd realized that 1) we too, have worked really hard on movies.io (and still are), and 2) we would love to work towards a legal solution. Discussing with people right now, will press release if/when that happens. But our requirements are pretty steep, cf. http://www.dontmakemesteal.com/ http://www.dontmakemesteal.com/
    - melvinram 14y ago
      An employer provides compensation for the work of the employee. If he didn't, and the employee wasn't working willingly, that would be slavery, which would definitely make the "employer" a parasite. As far as http://www.dontmakemesteal.com http://www.dontmakemesteal.com, what gives you the right to blackmail a business into doing things? If you don't like their prices, don't watch the movie right now. Wait and watch when it's on TV. If you don't like the DRM, don't buy it. Market forces are strong when the market puts their money behind their intent. I don't like the bullshit restrictions some companies put on their content, such as HBO but they have a right to whatever the F they want with their hard earned content. They put up the financing/energy/creativity/etc to produce the content. It's not my right to put them to an ultimatum: do things my way or I'm going to steal from you.
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        You might have been taken more seriously if you didn't misuse the world "steal" but...
        melvinram 14y ago
        STEAL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal verb (used with object) 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. 3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend. 4. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually followed by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child. 5. Baseball . (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch. STEEL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steel http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steel noun 1. any of various modified forms of iron, artificially produced, having a carbon content less than that of pig iron and more than that of wrought iron, and having qualities of hardness, elasticity, and strength varying according to composition and heat treatment: generally categorized as having a high, medium, or low-carbon content. 2. a thing or things made of this metal. 3. a flat strip of this metal used for stiffening, especially in corsets; stay. 4. a bar of this metal that has one end formed to hold a bit for driving through rock. 5. steels, stocks or bonds of companies producing this metal. You're welcome and I accept your apology.
  - hxa7241 14y ago
    These are nonrival goods -- as many people can use and enjoy them as want to with no hindrance or loss to any. When there is plenty for everyone, why should any have a right to impose restrictions on others? The only plausible reason is a collective one: that we can in practice (by stimulating production) get a better functioning economy. Living for others' sake is what being human is largely about, it is what cooperative systems like economies are about -- which are critical for us to live well. By maximising our costless use of nonrival goods we all gain.
tikhonj 14y ago
Being a parasite requires some sort of active harm. Since the cost of obtaining a torrent is essential nil, and the creator doesn't support it anyhow, you're not harming them in the least. Now, you're also certainly not giving them any benefit, and perhaps you believe that they deserve some benefit, but that still doesn't make you a parasite any more than anybody who just didn't buy a movie. Put another way: to the creator, the utility of your torrenting a movie is the same as the utility of just not buying the movie. Now, obviously the utility of your paying the creator is higher, but that still doesn't make you a parasite. You are at worst a symbiont, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Now, there are other arguments for copyright, but your point about being a parasite is just inaccurate.
- Tycho 14y ago
  You're hampering the exclusivity which the creators rely upon to sell their work to distributors, and you're also forcing them to compete against another outlet (bittorrents) using their own work against them. That's pretty harmful. By your logic, someone could set up a company called PBO which just mirrors HBO's cable feed, and there'd be nothing unethical about it.

It's parasitical. And dishonours the intentions of the content creators.

by Tycho 14y ago

It's parasitical. And dishonours the intentions of the content creators.

tomp 14y ago

Most content creators that I know would be very glad if the whole world woudl listen to their music! More likely, I'm dishonouring the intentions of the content distributors. And I really don't give a fuck about them, they certainly don't honor anybody/anything other than cash!

Tycho 14y ago
What did the content creators intend when they accepted investment to realise their works. Or what did they intend when they agreed to provide their creative input to a movie for a fee. Or what did they intend when they signed the rights to their work over to a distributor in exchange for some form of compensation or royalty payments?

hxa7241 14y ago

It is not necessarily parasitical (and not at all dishonourable), because the only justification for imposing restrictions on people's freedom to share informational goods is the standard economic rationale, and we cannot a priori specify the correct extent of that. If copyright is actually too long (broad, etc.) a de facto reduction of it by illicit copying would be economically beneficial (and that seems most likely the case).

Tycho 14y ago
Someone worked really hard to make something, then you take it without permission. You want others to live for your sake. That makes you a parasite.
- nddrylliog 14y ago
  You clearly lack perspective: try to reverse the point of view and apply the same logic. An employer wants others to live for his sake, does that make him a parasite? No. (The analogy fails to go any further, but your point is nonetheless invalid.) Plus, if you had some intuition, you'd realized that 1) we too, have worked really hard on movies.io (and still are), and 2) we would love to work towards a legal solution. Discussing with people right now, will press release if/when that happens. But our requirements are pretty steep, cf. http://www.dontmakemesteal.com/ http://www.dontmakemesteal.com/
  - melvinram 14y ago
    An employer provides compensation for the work of the employee. If he didn't, and the employee wasn't working willingly, that would be slavery, which would definitely make the "employer" a parasite. As far as http://www.dontmakemesteal.com http://www.dontmakemesteal.com, what gives you the right to blackmail a business into doing things? If you don't like their prices, don't watch the movie right now. Wait and watch when it's on TV. If you don't like the DRM, don't buy it. Market forces are strong when the market puts their money behind their intent. I don't like the bullshit restrictions some companies put on their content, such as HBO but they have a right to whatever the F they want with their hard earned content. They put up the financing/energy/creativity/etc to produce the content. It's not my right to put them to an ultimatum: do things my way or I'm going to steal from you.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      You might have been taken more seriously if you didn't misuse the world "steal" but...
      - melvinram 14y ago
        STEAL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal verb (used with object) 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. 3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend. 4. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually followed by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child. 5. Baseball . (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch. STEEL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steel http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steel noun 1. any of various modified forms of iron, artificially produced, having a carbon content less than that of pig iron and more than that of wrought iron, and having qualities of hardness, elasticity, and strength varying according to composition and heat treatment: generally categorized as having a high, medium, or low-carbon content. 2. a thing or things made of this metal. 3. a flat strip of this metal used for stiffening, especially in corsets; stay. 4. a bar of this metal that has one end formed to hold a bit for driving through rock. 5. steels, stocks or bonds of companies producing this metal. You're welcome and I accept your apology.
- hxa7241 14y ago
  These are nonrival goods -- as many people can use and enjoy them as want to with no hindrance or loss to any. When there is plenty for everyone, why should any have a right to impose restrictions on others? The only plausible reason is a collective one: that we can in practice (by stimulating production) get a better functioning economy. Living for others' sake is what being human is largely about, it is what cooperative systems like economies are about -- which are critical for us to live well. By maximising our costless use of nonrival goods we all gain.

tikhonj 14y ago

Being a parasite requires some sort of active harm. Since the cost of obtaining a torrent is essential nil, and the creator doesn't support it anyhow, you're not harming them in the least. Now, you're also certainly not giving them any benefit, and perhaps you believe that they deserve some benefit, but that still doesn't make you a parasite any more than anybody who just didn't buy a movie. Put another way: to the creator, the utility of your torrenting a movie is the same as the utility of just not buying the movie. Now, obviously the utility of your paying the creator is higher, but that still doesn't make you a parasite. You are at worst a symbiont, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Now, there are other arguments for copyright, but your point about being a parasite is just inaccurate.

Tycho 14y ago
You're hampering the exclusivity which the creators rely upon to sell their work to distributors, and you're also forcing them to compete against another outlet (bittorrents) using their own work against them. That's pretty harmful. By your logic, someone could set up a company called PBO which just mirrors HBO's cable feed, and there'd be nothing unethical about it.