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

Author Slams eBook Piracy, Son Outs Her As a Music Pirate

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 176 posts

Re: Author Slams eBook Piracy, Son Outs Her As a Music Pirate

#141

Post by ugh »

RK wrote: post #136
krschultz wrote: post #56

I've seen the following argument a thousand times: "Well the marginal cost of a copy of [some digital good] is 0 so it isn't stealing!" That argument is actually completly irrelevant. I took a train the other night, and there were only 2 people in my whole car. The previous week it was packed. Both times I had to buy a ticket at the same price. If you don't see what that has to do with pirating music (or software, or…

Without commenting on IP piracy itself, I don't think the train analogy works for the additional reason that it certainly costs less to transport a train with (say) zero people than a train at full capacity. Fuel cost is probably the biggest issue. Others have already pointed out that a train has a finite capacity, unlike copies of digital media.

That’s a negligible difference, irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned. The marginal cost of an additional passenger on a train might no be literally zero but compared to the fixed costs it very nearly is.

Re: Author Slams eBook Piracy, Son Outs Her As a Music Pirate

#142

Post by archangel_one »

rick888 wrote: post #125
psadauskas wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In high school and college, I pirated plenty of music, because I was dead broke. Now that I'm older, and have a job, I'm buying a lot of the music that I downloaded 10 years ago. $1 a song is still too much, but when Amazon has digital albums for $5, I'll buy a few. I've always gone to shows, though, to support the local artists as directly as I can.

"$1 a song is still too much" too much??! really? $1 is hardly a lot of money for a good song. I also forgot to mention that we now have the ability to preview almost any song before buying with services like Grooveshark.

In many cases you don't know that it is a good song before you purchase it. I'm happy to spend a few dollars on an album, but not at $1/song if 70% of them are poor at best.

Re: Author Slams eBook Piracy, Son Outs Her As a Music Pirate

#143

Post by Tycho »

hxa7241 wrote: post #127
Tycho wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, it's the same as any other situation where people act unethically just because there's low risk of getting caught. People steal items from hotel rooms, catch a train without buying a ticket, hack cable TV circuits, use others' unprotected wifi, keep a 20 when they were expecting a 10, insure items after they're damaged, etc etc. My last two flatmates have left without paying their share of the utility bil…

There is a fundamental difference: copying, in itself, renders no such harm as normal property infractions. Consider the underlying necessary facts. If you take a material object from me, you have deprived me. If you copy that object, you have done no such harm. The 'harm' of copying/infringement depends solely on the laws. If we didn't have the laws there wouldn't be the harm. People know this unconsciously. A few m…

My point was that, in response to the GP, plenty of folk have 'inherent difficulty' respecting other peoples' property in many situations outwith the copying/piracy issue. Which is to say, the lowest common denominator is simply 'can I easily get away with this?' Piracy, regardless of anything else, is incredibly easy to get away with.

But as far as the broader issue of copyright violation, to my mind it's really no different from any other type of property violation. Property is stuff we control and use to make a living, if we lose control chances are we can't make a living - which is why the law enforces your property rights. Whether it's stealing a possession, or renting something then straying from the terms of use, or copying a film, it's all the same. Property isn't the object itself, its your right of disposal (which sometimes might mean consuming, which physical deprivation would make impossible, or sometimes might mean distributing, which copying would make impossible, or sometimes mean privacy, which trespassing would make impossible, etc.)

Re: Author Slams eBook Piracy, Son Outs Her As a Music Pirate

#144

Post by pbhjpbhj »

gnosis wrote: post #106
tjr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a professional software developer, I've given my software work away free of charge, e.g., as a volunteer for Project GNU. I see nothing wrong with that, but I think it ought to be my own choice if I want to spend time working on something and then make it available free of charge, or if I want to sell copies of it. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with musicians giving away copies of music free of charge (and I've do…

It's very simple. If you don't want the music you created to be available free of charge, don't release it! It's absolutely your choice. If you want to keep control of it, keep it private. But once you (by your own choice) make it available, don't be shocked or surprised if people share it without sending you money for every copy. The system we have for paying artists is clearly broken. It has been for a very long ti…

>It's very simple. If you don't want the music you created to be available free of charge, don't release it!

If you don't want your car to be stolen then don't leave it in the street. If you don't want to be run over then don't walk anywhere. ...

Seriously, if you one day forget to lock something up do you really think people should be free to help themselves to it?

If you don't like the current music regime, don't buy music from those who've established it and maintain it. If you want free music then only get tracks that artists are giving away as free and/or licensing with free-gratis licenses.

Re: Author Slams eBook Piracy, Son Outs Her As a Music Pirate

#145

Post by pbhjpbhj »

rmc wrote: post #36
pdx wrote: post #2

I feel for the kid. I still grimace when I think of bragging to the game warden when I was 4, about how my dad caught a salmon with his bare hands. Of course, it wasn't fishing season, nor did we have a license. Even at 4, as soon as I said it, I knew I had screwed up. Luckily, everybody just laughed, as the game warden was a friend, but to this day, that slip of the tongue reminds me to think before I speak.

Yes the kid 'outs' her, however she also digs her own grave and makes some points that can easily be used to justify book piracy. e.g. “Pirated handbags? Yes, I do buy them,” she said. “I feel that the genuine Prada bags have such an inflated price.” and “You have a pirated MP3 collection,” Jo added, helpfully. “We copied the first 1500 songs from one place and 300 from another.” “Yes,” admitted Ragbe. “There were a…

>“Pirated handbags? Yes, I do buy them,” she said. “I feel that the genuine Prada bags have such an inflated price.”

I feel that lumping handbags in here is wrong. There's probably a trademark infringement as well with the handbags. But, whilst there is copyright infringement in the design does the design have an artistic quality or is it "just" a design. The fact that there is a skill and materials expense in producing the handbags gives it a different quality IMO.

The important part with the handbags is the infringement of the Prada trademark whilst with the books and music it is the copyright infringement.

A fashion designer would probably disagree?

Re: Author Slams eBook Piracy, Son Outs Her As a Music Pirate

#146

Post by endtime »

scott_s wrote: post #102
endtime wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just not lie to myself. I have sufficiently high confidence that I wouldn't have bought Photoshop that I can sleep at night. :)

We are inherently irrational creatures susceptible to dozens of cognitive biases. As a consequence, we are very good at rationalizing things we want to do but would otherwise judge wrong. That was the point neild was making - in that context, saying you will "just not lie to myself" does not address his point.

In the sense I meant it, it does, though I guess my comment was ambiguous. I believe I am sufficiently introspective and aware of my own biases to determine whether I'm making such a basic rationalization, especially when the question is made explicit. If I make the question to myself explicit before pirating something, I feel secure.

Re: Author Slams eBook Piracy, Son Outs Her As a Music Pirate

#147

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ctkrohn wrote: post #49
abstractbill wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everyone agrees its wrong Are you saying everyone agrees piracy is wrong? In my mind that's very much still open to debate.

No, not at all. I certainly agree that piracy is open to debate. I meant to say that everyone agrees hypocrisy is wrong. If that's the most obvious reading of my comment, the downvotes make a little more sense...

Everyone agrees there are no absolutes.

I think you'd find there are many people who find it acceptable to act contrary to how they expect others to act and moreover acceptable to pretend to be that which they are not.

Re: Author Slams eBook Piracy, Son Outs Her As a Music Pirate

#148

Post by bandushrew »

tjr wrote: post #88
rjprins wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not all about costs. In music there are many people who love to write and record songs for fun. This devalues music regardless of costs. In fact I think most music in itself is practically worthless. It's the face and name of musicians which are worth money, usually because of successful marketing. For books it's a little different. Few people write long stories for fun and it's much harder to write a good book…

Few people write long stories for fun and it's much harder to write a good book then it is to make a good song. Probably. It might be more equivalent to compare a book with a whole album, or a chapter with a song. I'm not sure what quality of music you have in mind, or what quality of book, but I don't think writing good prose is of necessity significantly more difficult than producing good recorded music. Sometimes…

If their work is of sufficiently high value that the consumer is willing to pay for it, then it will survive.

isn't that capitalism 101?

Re: Author Slams eBook Piracy, Son Outs Her As a Music Pirate

#149

Post by pbhjpbhj »

flawawa2 wrote: post #46
rmc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm waiting for the next set of excuses. I use an operating system (Ubuntu Linux) that doesn't support the main digital music download software and live in a country (Ireland) where choice is limited. There are easily a billion people who can't legally purchase mainstream american music.

Then don't. You don't have to. Listen to the radio. Record the radio (in many countries that is legal). Listen to Youtube or streams. Listen to free music!

>Then don't. You don't have to. Listen to the radio.

Here's a good one - listening to the radio at work in the UK is illegal unless you have a license from PRS or it's impossible for anyone else to hear the same radio (it never is).

Yes, when you listen to commercial radio where they've paid already to play the music and the radio station is selling you to their advertisers, it's still considered copyright infringement. So, listen to non-music stations? Still illegal (tortuous) as the PRS get to assume you're guilty if they can show you have a radio on at work.

They get schools too - schools here have to have a PRS music license if they want to show TV programmes in case any of the TV programmes have music in them (eg background music or interstitials, etc.). Crazy.

Re: Author Slams eBook Piracy, Son Outs Her As a Music Pirate

#150

Post by hxa7241 »

Tycho wrote: post #143
hxa7241 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a fundamental difference: copying, in itself, renders no such harm as normal property infractions. Consider the underlying necessary facts. If you take a material object from me, you have deprived me. If you copy that object, you have done no such harm. The 'harm' of copying/infringement depends solely on the laws. If we didn't have the laws there wouldn't be the harm. People know this unconsciously. A few m…

My point was that, in response to the GP, plenty of folk have 'inherent difficulty' respecting other peoples' property in many situations outwith the copying/piracy issue. Which is to say, the lowest common denominator is simply 'can I easily get away with this?' Piracy, regardless of anything else, is incredibly easy to get away with. But as far as the broader issue of copyright violation, to my mind it's really no…

> if we lose control chances are we can't make a living - which is why the law enforces your property rights

That is a circular justification. People can only make a living from IP because of the law, so one cannot then justify the existence of the law because it helps people make a living.

IP law, by definition, invents an artificial obstruction of other people's rights to copy. There must be a good reason for that.

Consider if you made a living selling tea, but then a personal tea-making gadget is invented. Are you then justified in stopping people walking home with their newly bought tea-makers and removing them -- because they are impeding you in earning a living? No. You just have to make a living in a different way. People's general fundamental freedom trumps your right to particular commercial advantage.

Because IP is so long-standing we have become accustomed to expect it, to assume it as a fundamental right. This is mistaken. It is provisional and must answer to real fundamental rights.

There is a rational case for IP: that it is pragmatic. It does harm by restricting people's freedom to communicate, but overall it increases production and so serves the public's interest -- that is the proposition at least. This is the only argument for IP. But given the changes in technological circumstance it must be radically reassessed, probably best replaced.

Post reply on HN