4 ms·

I feel a Sunday rant coming on.... Its people who incorrectly keep using the word "stealing" who make me want to copy everything I can. People who confuse bor

by alan_cx 14y ago

I feel a Sunday rant coming on.... Its people who incorrectly keep using the word "stealing" who make me want to copy everything I can. People who confuse borrowing and sharing with stealing must be hard to get on with. Can I borrow that newspaper? No. Can I borrow that book? No. Can I borrow a lawn mower? No. Kids? Do they share, sorry, steal books from each other? Toys? Are newspapers left on the trains when people get off to incite other to "steal" ? If I glance across and read a head line as you read, are you illegally sharing? Copying and sharing is NOT stealing. Get that in to your head and you might get a sensible debate going. Until people stop using these exaggerated WMD terrorist OTT type claims, the debate cant even start. Oh yeah, I have heard it claimed that sharing funds terrorism. Really. More than anything, I am sick an tired of this industry, backed by the US gov, continuing to support a failing old industry with bullying and threats. See how nasty and vindictive these people get when their controls on us fail. That infinitely worse than sharing stuff. And if sharing is wrong, then the USA can stop using our language, English. Or perhaps pay the UK a licence fee for its use. In fact, the US could really help put Spain in that respect. See, it's ridiculous, isn't it? Anyway, isn't it Christian to share? Isn't it kind and decent to share? That's what I learned as a kid. Has the world really gotten that bad? Lastly, I want to see a loss proved. I want to see it proved that down-loaders would have purchased had they not down loaded. Or, I want to see a business like Fox go bust due to sharing. If that happens, I will believe their claims. Until then, I will be sure that all they are doing is protecting greed, since despite all the whining, they are still incredibly profitable. I suspect out sourcing costs more US jobs than sharing. I'm now off to download something I don't want. Never seen Hurt Locker..... I'll leave a comment on the torrent site to explain my motivation. Sunday rant done. Thank-you.

benologist 14y ago
I'm so glad someone finally posted this on HN. The unique and new viewpoint you bring to this site is invaluable, just like in years gone by when it was pasted almost verbatim all over Digg and Reddit thousands of times. I hope you and many more people come here armed with the same diatribe about copying != stealing to post on the many future fluff pieces TorrentFreak and TechDirt will write just for your upvotes.
citricsquid 14y ago
> Its people who incorrectly keep using the word "stealing" who make me want to copy everything I can. Words evolve, why can't "to steal" mean "to take something without permission regardless of the expectations of the person licensed to distribute that something"? We need a word for it... the world is becoming more and more digital! Stealing is just a word that so far has only been used to refer to physical goods because only recently have digital goods existed! The word "hacker" has evolved in meaning, why can't "stealing"? If a car is on sale for $10,000 and I could plausibly take that car without paying for it without depriving the owner of that car I would still not take it. If the person licensed to sell this car wants people to pay $10,000 for it, they should. If that car isn't worth $10,000 to anyone then the car would never sell and they would be forced to adjust pricing if they wanted to make sales. People just taking the car without paying are not incentivising lowering the price (because who would pay $5,000 if the alternative was free if they're happy to just take something when it's $10,000?) they're incentivizing measures to make it a pain in the ass to take without paying, the music / movie equivalent would be DRM -- if we assume DRM was effective. > And if sharing is wrong, then the USA can stop using our language, English. Or perhaps pay the UK a licence fee for its use. In fact, the US could really help put Spain in that respect. See, it's ridiculous, isn't it? No, that's a ridiculous example. English wasn't created by one man who wanted to keep it to himself but other people took it and used it anyway. If that was the case then sure, your example works. > Anyway, isn't it Christian to share? Isn't it kind and decent to share? That's what I learned as a kid. Has the world really gotten that bad? Now you're just being plain manipulative. If you make something (a song) and you give it to someone that is sharing, if someone makes a song and then you take it without their permission and then give it to someone else that doesn't make it "right" to have taken that in the first place. How can we live in a world that is moving more and more towards things being digital if people can't accept that there has to be some sort of expectation that people won't take digital things without permission. If songs are just "information" and information "wants to be free" why does anyone give any thought to Facebook telling your girlfriend that you chatted to a hot chick while you were drunk one night? People get enraged about that, but it's just information! information is free! (and for reference I don't believe that is a fair comparison, but I believe it's a fair enough comparison based on what you're trying to say) When you were a child you were taught that taking things is wrong not because then that person won't have it but because it's not yours to take! Yes, it should absolutely be the case that if someone makes something they should be able to release it for everyone in the world to consume but it should also be the case that if you make a song or I make a TV show or Linus Torvalds makes an operating system we should be able to charge for it and not have to build our expectations around "well 100,000 people are going to use it but only 1 is going to pay". Sharing as it's taught to children is about taking something of your own and letting other people use it, however it's also your right as a person to refuse that. If a person wants to use a bedsheet that you own to make a halloween costume then you should be open to the idea because that's sharing, however if that person is a member of the KKK and wants to use your bed sheet to use at a rally and you're against what the KKK believe in then you are well within your right to say no. True sharing is about being a good person, a good neighbour, someone that considers others when you do something, the piracy version of "sharing" is none of that, it's completely disrespectful to the people that create the content. > Lastly, I want to see a loss proved. Why can't it be about having some human decency? A large amount of our laws and policies in every country around the world exist because people are assholes, this sort of thing (re: copyright) is just more laws needing to be made because 99% of the human population is made up of assholes that don't have an ounce of human decency and would rather take something against the wishes of the creator than do what the creator wants. If you want to listen to the latest Britney album and it costs $10 to listen to it then you should pay that $10. If you want a new BMW M5 you should pay the $100,000 it costs. If you want to watch the latest episode of Breaking Bad you should pay the Netflix subscription fee / cost of cable / cost of the DVD / cost of the itunes download. If you do not want to pay then you should not have whatever it is, whether it's physical or digital. Not because you're depriving anyone of anything but because the person that created it (or is licensed to distribute it) doesn't want you to have it. edit: removing some inflammatory stuff
ghshephard 14y ago
I am genuinely curious - if you were a software developer, and wrote a commercial package, and tried to sell it, but everyone just "shared it" and copied it instead, how would you feel? How would you describe their behavior? What if you were an author, and spent a year writing a book, but instead of buying it from the store, people just made copies of it? Or (in the most relevant example) - you were a production company that invested $50mm into a box-office picture, but everyone decided to share it instead of paying for it? I'm not sure what word you like to use for "People who make copies of other peoples songs, books, movies and software without their permission", but I'm happy to adjust my vocabulary when discussing that behavior with you.

by alan_cx 14y ago

benologist 14y ago

I'm so glad someone finally posted this on HN. The unique and new viewpoint you bring to this site is invaluable, just like in years gone by when it was pasted almost verbatim all over Digg and Reddit thousands of times. I hope you and many more people come here armed with the same diatribe about copying != stealing to post on the many future fluff pieces TorrentFreak and TechDirt will write just for your upvotes.

citricsquid 14y ago

> Its people who incorrectly keep using the word "stealing" who make me want to copy everything I can. Words evolve, why can't "to steal" mean "to take something without permission regardless of the expectations of the person licensed to distribute that something"? We need a word for it... the world is becoming more and more digital! Stealing is just a word that so far has only been used to refer to physical goods because only recently have digital goods existed! The word "hacker" has evolved in meaning, why can't "stealing"? If a car is on sale for $10,000 and I could plausibly take that car without paying for it without depriving the owner of that car I would still not take it. If the person licensed to sell this car wants people to pay $10,000 for it, they should. If that car isn't worth $10,000 to anyone then the car would never sell and they would be forced to adjust pricing if they wanted to make sales. People just taking the car without paying are not incentivising lowering the price (because who would pay $5,000 if the alternative was free if they're happy to just take something when it's $10,000?) they're incentivizing measures to make it a pain in the ass to take without paying, the music / movie equivalent would be DRM -- if we assume DRM was effective. > And if sharing is wrong, then the USA can stop using our language, English. Or perhaps pay the UK a licence fee for its use. In fact, the US could really help put Spain in that respect. See, it's ridiculous, isn't it? No, that's a ridiculous example. English wasn't created by one man who wanted to keep it to himself but other people took it and used it anyway. If that was the case then sure, your example works. > Anyway, isn't it Christian to share? Isn't it kind and decent to share? That's what I learned as a kid. Has the world really gotten that bad? Now you're just being plain manipulative. If you make something (a song) and you give it to someone that is sharing, if someone makes a song and then you take it without their permission and then give it to someone else that doesn't make it "right" to have taken that in the first place. How can we live in a world that is moving more and more towards things being digital if people can't accept that there has to be some sort of expectation that people won't take digital things without permission. If songs are just "information" and information "wants to be free" why does anyone give any thought to Facebook telling your girlfriend that you chatted to a hot chick while you were drunk one night? People get enraged about that, but it's just information! information is free! (and for reference I don't believe that is a fair comparison, but I believe it's a fair enough comparison based on what you're trying to say) When you were a child you were taught that taking things is wrong not because then that person won't have it but because it's not yours to take! Yes, it should absolutely be the case that if someone makes something they should be able to release it for everyone in the world to consume but it should also be the case that if you make a song or I make a TV show or Linus Torvalds makes an operating system we should be able to charge for it and not have to build our expectations around "well 100,000 people are going to use it but only 1 is going to pay". Sharing as it's taught to children is about taking something of your own and letting other people use it, however it's also your right as a person to refuse that. If a person wants to use a bedsheet that you own to make a halloween costume then you should be open to the idea because that's sharing, however if that person is a member of the KKK and wants to use your bed sheet to use at a rally and you're against what the KKK believe in then you are well within your right to say no. True sharing is about being a good person, a good neighbour, someone that considers others when you do something, the piracy version of "sharing" is none of that, it's completely disrespectful to the people that create the content. > Lastly, I want to see a loss proved. Why can't it be about having some human decency? A large amount of our laws and policies in every country around the world exist because people are assholes, this sort of thing (re: copyright) is just more laws needing to be made because 99% of the human population is made up of assholes that don't have an ounce of human decency and would rather take something against the wishes of the creator than do what the creator wants. If you want to listen to the latest Britney album and it costs $10 to listen to it then you should pay that $10. If you want a new BMW M5 you should pay the $100,000 it costs. If you want to watch the latest episode of Breaking Bad you should pay the Netflix subscription fee / cost of cable / cost of the DVD / cost of the itunes download. If you do not want to pay then you should not have whatever it is, whether it's physical or digital. Not because you're depriving anyone of anything but because the person that created it (or is licensed to distribute it) doesn't want you to have it. edit: removing some inflammatory stuff

ghshephard 14y ago

I am genuinely curious - if you were a software developer, and wrote a commercial package, and tried to sell it, but everyone just "shared it" and copied it instead, how would you feel? How would you describe their behavior? What if you were an author, and spent a year writing a book, but instead of buying it from the store, people just made copies of it? Or (in the most relevant example) - you were a production company that invested $50mm into a box-office picture, but everyone decided to share it instead of paying for it? I'm not sure what word you like to use for "People who make copies of other peoples songs, books, movies and software without their permission", but I'm happy to adjust my vocabulary when discussing that behavior with you.