Why I'm a Pirate • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#351

Post by billpatrianakos » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 6:57 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #171

edw519 wrote: post #143

OP, if this is just a whine about how unfair the world is and how special you are, then fine. But if it's an attempt to make something happen (stop SOPA), then it's not working and is in fact counterproductive, so please just STFU. You are offsetting the good hard work of so many others trying to make the right things happen. Make no mistake about it, we have reached the point where the best course of action is proba…

"Pirating is not right. Most people would agree with that, too." The biggest problem I see today is that there are so many people who aren't even bothering to justify pirating, and instead insist that it is natural, good and just -- not just as a means to get access to content they otherwise wouldn't be able to, but for everything. To draw my line in the sand, I have no problems with people pirating works they simply…

It's so rare to find someone who thinks like me on this. There is a lot of bullying via downvotes when it comes to this. It seems you can't disagree. It becomes a big "let's pat each other on the back because we're all right" party.

But you're right. It seems like a lot of this bragging about piracy is a thinly veiled excuse and a thinly veiled justification of what they're doing. This a new phenomenon that I think people my age (20's) and younger are part of where we feel entitled to just get whatever via free downloads. It's so weird that a community all about business would have such an anti business view on this. It's one thing to be against SOPA-like laws and the growing power of copyright but why are we for totally abolishing it? It makes more sense to simply try to stop the overreach of power and scale back copyright.

Everyone is both a creator and a consumer. Those are two competing interests and business is all about competing interests and it makes the market go round. Swinging the power away from creators and giving it all to consumers is just as bad as doing the opposite. We should be fighting for the balance of rights and not trying to give it to any one group. Just because there are more of us than of them (in a sense) doesn't mean it's right. It's one thing to want to distribute income from the few to the many, to fight for the rights of minorities, etc. but this whole getting rid of copyright thing is strange. There's a part of me that sees it as a childish attempt to cry to get whatever you want for free.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#352

Post by msutherl » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 6:57 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #277

adharmad wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > The point is that this is my decision. > Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? Because, the creative work would not exist if not for the creator. If you take away the creator's right (and I am not arguing that it should be infinite and indefinite), you take away the i…

This is not true. Artist will always make art and always have.

Art – the kind you find in the museum – is entirely enabled by the concept of the "patron". Throughout most of history, patrons have been aristocrats and other wealthy peoples. Without wealthy people to support artists to make art, there will be no art.

At the moment we have many people making something equivalent to "folk art" and getting paid to do so. Folk art does not necessarily need support from a patron since it is typically fairly easy to make (i.e. it can be done in one's spare time). People will continue making folk art after they can no longer be ensured payment for their work, though to a lesser extent.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#353

Post by burgerbrain » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 7:02 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #338

burgerbrain wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use your imagination.

Spoken like somebody who doesn't have an answer. It's okay to admit that. But given that you generally seem more interested in calling people "insane" and telling people to go fuck themselves[1] than having an honest conversation, I am unsurprised at your behavior. [1] - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3468027 - Work-for-hire is a concept that, sure, can work in some cases. It does not solve the problem of the de…

If you seriously think I don't know how a work for hire business plan could work, then I have to stand by my assertion that you are in fact a troll.

Similarly, dhimes claiming to not know how a work for hire business plan for a song writer could work strains credibility. Hence my snark.

If you honestly believe the answer is not trivial, then feel free to respond to fabjan above.

I have responded briefly to your Valve Software point here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3481338

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#354

Post by literalusername » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 7:03 PM UTC

Derbasti wrote: post #228

grellas wrote: post #212

Creative effort - or at at least any that is truly worthy of the name - takes tears, and sweat, and blood. We can marvel at the output of an artist, or a writer, or a composer, or a film maker and yet fail to focus on the years of toil that often preceded that work. And I am not here speaking of some isolated genius. I still remember the days when I was so dissatisfied with my lack of writing skills that I decided to…

The problem is not copyright itself. The problem is that the creators are not the copyright owners any more. This is a very subtle distinction. We should do all we can to help creators, not publishers. Publishers have their place in the distribution chain, but they should not be allowed to act as if they were the creators. If the publisher's business model is failing, so be it. Publishers and gatekeepers are not wort…

Unalienable rights can not be created or destroyed; the law only attempts to offer legal protection for them.

Furthermore, if an artist wants to sell IP ownership of his work then there's no reason he shouldn't be free to do so.

Your main point, however, is a good one. Disruptive distribution channels should be able to fix this by allowing artists to make good money without selling out to big media companies.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#355

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 7:04 PM UTC

Czarnian wrote: post #336

ThomPete wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you even know how much great great great music gets created without ever making a single dime.

Leaving aside the rather obvious question of what makes you think your taste in music is superior to anyone else, how much MORE of that great, great, great music would get created if the artists didn't have to wash dishes for 10 hours a day to make rent and eat? Every hour you have to spend working a day job is an hour you can't spend creating.

This is getting silly.

I am telling you that even with the music you like whatever that is there is plenty of great music that you never have heard of and never will. That's how it is in all genres of music.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#356

Post by SilasX » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 7:04 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #350

SilasX wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And (currently-existing) lumberjacks have always cut down trees, and (because of an identity now largely grounded therein) probably always will. Still, I'd rather not have to depend on charity-lumberjacking, you know? If someone wants to chop down trees for free, that's between him and his god (or dryad, as the case may be). If that's the only way trees ever get cut down? God help us all. Above statement refers, for…

Way to go making a comparison that makes no sense at all. A lumberjack can't digitally mass produce cutting down trees. They have to actually be present at each tree.

Yes, I know that you can identify differences between abolition of copyright and a ban on all monetary compensation for lumberjacks.

What you cannot do, however, is find a difference that distinguishes them in a way that defends your argument that we shouldn't worry about a world where X is only produced by charity, since some people do X for free.

If you don't care that art would only be produced for free, neither should you care if lumberjacking only happened by charity. If you're not ready to go that far, you might not want to lean so heavily on the argument that "(some) artists create for free".

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#357

Post by sunir » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 7:05 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #315

sunir wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your argument or what you are saying is wrong. Rights are a legal limitation on the actions of others, not a physical limitation. They exist to limit people from doing what they otherwise "can" do to you in the physical world. You have physical property rights so people cannot enter your home when you are at work and take your television. That is enforced through the law not the Fort Knox security…

Allow me to clarify--thank you for your feedback. The rights we're talking about here are not able to be compared to physical property rights because there is no mutual exclusion of access. If somebody steals my physical property, I can't use it, therefore they've harmed me and limited my actions. For knowledge, IP, etc. they cannot limit my access or permission, so I do not need to be put up guards. My core argument…

The non-rival argument is popular, but not very robust. There is an economic harm by an unauthorized third party increasing the supply and diluting the value to the creator.

Another rough equivalent to criminally using without depleting physical goods is someone who breaks into your house to sleep in your bed while you are on vacation. Even if they are clean, and the bed remains the same afterwards for all reasonable inspection, they have trespassed on your property and guilty of a crime.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#358

Post by nate_meurer » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 7:06 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #327

cturner wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote: "Unfortunately, if we take your idea to its natural conclusion, a lot of industries that create and distribute valuable works are going to change direction or possibly split several ways." This is not a strong argument. I could equally look at the time of the enlightenment and say "if people weren't forced to give their money to the Catholic church, think of all the lovely buildings and choral music we'd b…

> There is no demonstration that an economy with copyright is superior to an economy without copyright, and plenty of current and historical annecdotal evidence to suggest that copyright is strongly detrimental to economic success. Which you haven't cited, I notice. If an alternative economic model provides a more effective incentive than copyright, then it is unlikely that today's copyright laws prevent anyone from…

There is compelling evidence that Prussia's explosive progress in the 19th century was due to the lack of copyrights. At the same time, England's progress was smothered under strong copyrights. The historian Eckhard Höffner has done a lot of research in this area. Here's a taste:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,...

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#359

Post by fauigerzigerk » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 7:10 PM UTC

cturner wrote: post #281

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these "distribution and promotion channels" limited by? What you're saying sounds to me like artists don't deserve to get a larger share because what they do simply isn't the most difficult part of actually making money. At the end of the day it may just be a completely normal function of supply and demand. Many people can easily supply what mainstream radio stations play all day long.

> What are these "distribution and promotion channels" limited by? Limited radio spectrum, limited television stations, somewhat limited music distribution chains/relationships, somewhat limited magazine readership.

OK, but a new media company wouldn't face any hurdles that established ones don't. It's not like, say, the market of PC operating systems or social networks where you need network effects. What you describe is simply a limited pool of customers.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#360

Post by hxa7241 » Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 7:10 PM UTC

sequoia wrote: post #274

hxa7241 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is that this is my decision. Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? > In that case, anybody can use it, replicate it, seek to profit from it, claim it as his own, or whatever, all without my having any say whatever in that process. This is a common approach, bu…

Let me first state that I'm in basically total agreement with OP and mostly agree with parent, but one point sticks in my craw: >> The point is that this is my decision. >Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? http://thegatheringplacehome.myfastforum.org/archive/life-le...…

> because the hen made the fucking bread, and the cow didn't

Yes, we could say that work justifies payment (very simply and roughly). But that is not in dispute. It is that it does not justify payment by a particular means -- one that restricts the freedom (to copy etc.) of others. And -- you will forgive me if I am mistaken -- I am afraid inclusion of the word 'fucking' does not quite cover that.

Does payment depend, necessarily, on restriction of copying? No, it does not. It is possible to be paid in other ways -- that do not impose on other freedoms. Then in the most general sense, that sounds like what we ought to be doing (i.e. that is moral).

Again, in so far as it turns out most practical to pay by copyright, that is how far it is justified. Not in some other ethical way.