Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#71

Post by mfoy_ »

joesmo wrote: post #63
rayiner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At this point, piracy is the only ethical solution to obtaining such content, as giving these companies money is immoral and supports people who threaten and ruin people's lives for profit. I don't understand this rationale at all. Surely the solution to an industry whose business practices you don't like is to stop using their products . Indeed, your rationale is one reason why Hollywood has so much power. Piracy…

I think it is my right to access culture, and it is my duty, if at all possible, to avoid supporting organizations that cause such pain and suffering in the world. I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that I don't want people going to jail and losing everything because they copied a song or movie and some company somewhere allegedly lost some fraction of a cent. I think access to culture is importa…

What "right to access culture"? Last I checked there was no such thing. At least not remotely in the way you seem to mean it.

Even if there was, it certainly wouldn't define culture solely as "Hollywood movies and pop music". Broaden your cultural horizons.

Just like if you were to say "access to clean drinking water is my right", that wouldn't entitle you access to ALL clean drinking water. Just like "access to culture" wouldn't entitle you to pirating whatever content you feel like.

If you're going to try and take the moral high ground, do it right and just avoid consuming content produced by organizations you disapprove of.

A much stronger pro-piracy argument in my opinion is that of convenience and consumer experience. Legitimate paying customers suffer under the tyranny of DRM while pirates have a much better experience. If I buy a song on the Apple music store I may not be able to play it on every music player[0]. If I pirate it then I can convert the format and consume it however I like. Video games with DRM may require an Internet connection to "validate" when the pirated versions are available offline (remember that Sim City debacle?). What's worse, remember the SONY rootkit disaster? Also, Ubisoft actually had a remote code execution back door exploit for a while. I've never heard of a DRM that made anything better for the paying customer.

[0] This has apparently changed in recent years.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#72

Post by joesmo »

mfoy_ wrote: post #71
joesmo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is my right to access culture, and it is my duty, if at all possible, to avoid supporting organizations that cause such pain and suffering in the world. I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that I don't want people going to jail and losing everything because they copied a song or movie and some company somewhere allegedly lost some fraction of a cent. I think access to culture is importa…

What "right to access culture"? Last I checked there was no such thing. At least not remotely in the way you seem to mean it. Even if there was, it certainly wouldn't define culture solely as "Hollywood movies and pop music". Broaden your cultural horizons. Just like if you were to say "access to clean drinking water is my right", that wouldn't entitle you access to ALL clean drinking water. Just like "access to cult…

I do not define culture as "Hollywood movies and pop music," and do not appreciate the personal attack. You should learn how to read properly. My cultural horizons are broad enough, thank you.

Just because a right isn't spelled out in the constitution, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes, DRM in inconvenient, but that's not a moral issue like throwing people in jail, driving them to suicide, or taking all their possessions are, all previously used tactics by the copyright enforcers.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#73

Post by forrestthewoods »

joesmo wrote: post #22

So they're criminalizing yet another everyday activity that hurts no one and is already protected by civil law. It seems to me the US and its puppet follower states just love the idea of criminalizing things that occur naturally, hurt no one, and in their enforcement and chaos bring in billions of dollars in profit off of ruining people's lives. This has now been the norm for almost two decades and the movie / music…

If you're gonna go that far then I'd contest that simply consuming their content is unethical. HBO is more than thrilled with the piracy rates for Game of Thrones. It helps them. A lot.

If you don't want to support "immoral" companies then great. But you don't get claim moral superiority while benefiting from their work. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#74

Post by ghaff »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #45
tptacek wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my very most successful friends, by far one of the most socially and artistically connected people I know, didn't see Star Wars until his late 30s. He seemed to have suffered for that: not at all. Exactly, in as much detail as you can be patient enough to provide, how does "effective cultural participation" require you to see shitty new-release Hollywood movies? Is Marco Arment culturally disconnected? http://…

When I was growing up, we didn't have a television until partway through junior high. (One of the best moves my parents made.) I kept hearing these conversations in the hallway: "Did you see Starsky & Hutch last night?" (Yes, I really am that old...) I felt a bit left out based on that. But I felt left out because of a lot of things. I wasn't a member of the dominant religion. I came into that school knowing nobody,…

And "popular culture" (whatever that means exactly) is so fragmented today anyway that not being up-to-date on even popular TV shows, movies, or books aren't exactly a recipe for social isolation. I actually feel like I'm at least reasonably plugged into what's going on in culture and I hardly ever see a movie in the theaters, watch a bare handful of TV shows, and don't listen to much current music.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#75

Post by anon4 »

mfoy_ wrote: post #71
joesmo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is my right to access culture, and it is my duty, if at all possible, to avoid supporting organizations that cause such pain and suffering in the world. I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that I don't want people going to jail and losing everything because they copied a song or movie and some company somewhere allegedly lost some fraction of a cent. I think access to culture is importa…

What "right to access culture"? Last I checked there was no such thing. At least not remotely in the way you seem to mean it. Even if there was, it certainly wouldn't define culture solely as "Hollywood movies and pop music". Broaden your cultural horizons. Just like if you were to say "access to clean drinking water is my right", that wouldn't entitle you access to ALL clean drinking water. Just like "access to cult…

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."

As cheesy as that quote is, it's absolutely right. Also note that posting it is probably a copyright violation and reading an unauthorised copy is, too. You're welcome to either forget reading it, or send a million dollars per letter to Marvel.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#76

Post by maldusiecle »

jakejake wrote: post #32
joesmo wrote: post #22

So they're criminalizing yet another everyday activity that hurts no one and is already protected by civil law. It seems to me the US and its puppet follower states just love the idea of criminalizing things that occur naturally, hurt no one, and in their enforcement and chaos bring in billions of dollars in profit off of ruining people's lives. This has now been the norm for almost two decades and the movie / music…

If you feel that way and don't want to support the industry, the real ethical thing to do is to not watch or listen to their products. Only support artists who are releasing their material under terms that you agree with.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that even cultural products released on looser terms tend to be captured by corporate behemoths. It's not uncommon for large labels to buy up rights to independently-released music, for instance. The artists may have limited say in this: they licensed the music to a small label, that label went bankrupt, the rights got bought up by a bigger company (which never would have signed the artist in the first place, but now that they're semi-successful there's less risk).

The problem isn't that you can't buy this or that new album without supporting the industry, the problem is that an entire medium is getting sucked up by these huge corporations, who push for copyright limits which make it impossible for that work to ever enter the public domain. "Vote with your wallet" is not a reasonable answer to this kind of situation.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#77

Post by angersock »

antihero wrote: post #44

Why exactly are any governments agreeing to this shit?

Because, honestly, none of it inconveniences them.

You honestly think a congressman gives two shits about how much it costs to buy a DVD? Or having their internet traffic logged? Or whatever else is backdoored in these deals?

Meanwhile, by kowtowing and allowing this to happen, they win major career points.

Face it--we're not the citizens, we're the product.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#79

Post by twoodfin »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #68
tptacek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite telling detail in this debate is the extent to which people pirate fonts. Fonts . Vanity letter shapes.

I haven't seen many statistics, but fonts are quite expensive to license. By the same token, few designers would be foolish enough to pirate a font and use it publicly; so I would think most font pirates simply want them for personal use, which can't be denying the foundries and typeface designers much income...

few designers would be foolish enough to pirate a font and use it publicly

Really? What about your local "mom & pop" design shops doing signage work for small businesses and ads for regional magazines? Are the type foundries that dedicated to tracking down pirates?

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#80

Post by err4nt »

smnrchrds wrote: post #62
err4nt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've seen, Tom Mulcair is the only Canadian politician that seems to be in favour of the TPP. His criticism of Harper is that Harper is too weak to see it all the way through to a deal (implying an NDP gov't would ). Unless he's changed position on that he's the one to avoid on these issues.

He is in favour of a deal . He wants to see the text before making any decisions about this deal .

It's very clearly not in our best interest to be involved in the TPP. The Canadian position should be: HECK NO! regardless of your position left, right, or center. We have nothing to gain, and quite a bit to lose if we join this, so under any terms it is in the best interest of every Canadian that no deal goes through.

Tom Mulcair is the only one championing these proceedings. Harper is involved because he's our current PM, but I don't think he's terribly enthusiastic about the situation.

Do you know where the Liberals stand on the TPP (including and excluding Trudeau)?

Post reply on HN