3 ms·

I notice a lot of hostility towards "entitlement of culture" on Hacker News. While it sucks that artists aren't always being fairly compensated, I think there a

I notice a lot of hostility towards "entitlement of culture" on Hacker News. While it sucks that artists aren't always being fairly compensated, I think there are some other factors to consider, starting with one major question: Would the people pirating these works have bought them in the first place? This article focuses on the sheer "access" aspect, because that's the most noble. If you can't legally buy a work, you aren't going to pay for it. If ever the word "entitlement" should be used in these debates, I'd say it's here. For people who aren't able to legally access these culturally significant works, I'd say yes they are entitled to be able to access these in an illegal manner and experience our culture. Note culturally significant. I'm not talking about the artistic merit of Hollywood blockbusters and the top 40 here. Similar to the "access" argument, there's the "exposure" argument. How many works have been pirated simply because they were free, but not something you'd be willing to risk ~$10+ on? Piracy enables people to get a taste of genres and styles they never would otherwise experience. I grew up in the age of Napster, and I was in middle school going to high school when Limewire was getting big. I listened to a much wider range of music and watched movies I never would have otherwise because they took almost 0 effort to acquire. I am a rather different person than I would have been without piracy. I look at my music library and my taste in movies, and realize almost all of that is because I was able to pirate them. I think the fact that older people tend to be more hostile to piracy isn't only because of ingrained habits, but partly because they weren't shaped by its effects.

gte910h 14y ago
There is something similar to the "straight up or down vote" mentality many people take towards media I think while in lawmaking, it's crazy to think you can do that, I think it's crazy to expect people to accept a copyright regime that supports bundling and timeshifting.
tzs 14y ago
> Would the people pirating these works have bought them in the first place? A given person pirating a given work might not have bought that specific work if piracy was not available, but he probably would have bought something. E.g., imagine someone who pirates all the new movie releases. If piracy became unavailable, do you think he'd simply stop watching movies? I doubt it. He'd start going to the theater. He probably would no longer see all the new releases, but he'd surely go see some. Edit: This got a down vote? Seriously? Someone actually thinks the typical pirate would give up movies completely if he could not pirate them?
- demetrius 14y ago
  >> Someone actually thinks the typical pirate >> would give up movies completely if he could >> not pirate them? Why not? If people couldn’t watch movies, they would just read books. Lots of these in public domain. I, for instance, don’t watch movies and I don’t think I miss much. (I’ve been watching some [pirated] Hong Kong movies this year to improve my Cantonese though.)
npsimons 14y ago
My biggest issue with "entitlement culture" is the phrase itself: it's loaded language, thinly veiled propaganda to make opponents look bad. The creationists and NeoCons use the same tactic all the time (and freely admit to it being a tactic they use on purpose; look up their policy documents sometime). "Death tax" instead of inheritance tax, "taxpayer money" instead of public funds, etc, etc. "Framing" is another good topic to look up along these lines. What I want to know is why creators of content feel "entitled" to get paid? Sure, it'd be nice to get paid every time you do work, but that's not how the world works. Getting paid every time someone makes a copy (where virtually no work is done, these days) was a fluke of history that people shouldn't rely on either. Note that I'm not justifying copyright infringement (not "piracy", another loaded term), but "intellectual property" has no basis in reality, and a very thin one in what we jokingly call law these days. If a creative work is so important, then it's important enough to preserve, and that just about requires unfettered access, especially since there is no requirement to submit a non-DRM'ed copy to the copyright office anymore.
- nathan_long 14y ago
  >>...it's loaded language, thinly veiled propaganda to make opponents look bad. The creationists and NeoCons use the same tactic all the time... ...along with pretty much anybody with an agenda. "Pro choice" and "pro life" are both terms designed to sound good, for example. Who wants to be anti-choice OR anti-life? Of course, a less cynical viewpoint is that both terms are designed to express what that side believes is the most relevant issue.
- CJefferson 14y ago
  It is not a fluke of history. It is a long standing principle, which had everyone independently and had survived longer than many other law and principles. Why Complain about misleading wording and then talking about copyright like that?
- white_devil 14y ago
  > "taxpayer money" instead of public funds Exactly how is "taxpayer money" inaccurate there?

gte910h 14y ago

There is something similar to the "straight up or down vote" mentality many people take towards media I think while in lawmaking, it's crazy to think you can do that, I think it's crazy to expect people to accept a copyright regime that supports bundling and timeshifting.

tzs 14y ago

> Would the people pirating these works have bought them in the first place? A given person pirating a given work might not have bought that specific work if piracy was not available, but he probably would have bought something. E.g., imagine someone who pirates all the new movie releases. If piracy became unavailable, do you think he'd simply stop watching movies? I doubt it. He'd start going to the theater. He probably would no longer see all the new releases, but he'd surely go see some. Edit: This got a down vote? Seriously? Someone actually thinks the typical pirate would give up movies completely if he could not pirate them?

demetrius 14y ago
>> Someone actually thinks the typical pirate >> would give up movies completely if he could >> not pirate them? Why not? If people couldn’t watch movies, they would just read books. Lots of these in public domain. I, for instance, don’t watch movies and I don’t think I miss much. (I’ve been watching some [pirated] Hong Kong movies this year to improve my Cantonese though.)

npsimons 14y ago

My biggest issue with "entitlement culture" is the phrase itself: it's loaded language, thinly veiled propaganda to make opponents look bad. The creationists and NeoCons use the same tactic all the time (and freely admit to it being a tactic they use on purpose; look up their policy documents sometime). "Death tax" instead of inheritance tax, "taxpayer money" instead of public funds, etc, etc. "Framing" is another good topic to look up along these lines. What I want to know is why creators of content feel "entitled" to get paid? Sure, it'd be nice to get paid every time you do work, but that's not how the world works. Getting paid every time someone makes a copy (where virtually no work is done, these days) was a fluke of history that people shouldn't rely on either. Note that I'm not justifying copyright infringement (not "piracy", another loaded term), but "intellectual property" has no basis in reality, and a very thin one in what we jokingly call law these days. If a creative work is so important, then it's important enough to preserve, and that just about requires unfettered access, especially since there is no requirement to submit a non-DRM'ed copy to the copyright office anymore.

nathan_long 14y ago
>>...it's loaded language, thinly veiled propaganda to make opponents look bad. The creationists and NeoCons use the same tactic all the time... ...along with pretty much anybody with an agenda. "Pro choice" and "pro life" are both terms designed to sound good, for example. Who wants to be anti-choice OR anti-life? Of course, a less cynical viewpoint is that both terms are designed to express what that side believes is the most relevant issue.
CJefferson 14y ago
It is not a fluke of history. It is a long standing principle, which had everyone independently and had survived longer than many other law and principles. Why Complain about misleading wording and then talking about copyright like that?
white_devil 14y ago
> "taxpayer money" instead of public funds Exactly how is "taxpayer money" inaccurate there?