Why I'm a Pirate • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#431

Post by kotor » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:43 AM UTC

hxa7241 wrote: post #234

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 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…

>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?

Where does this argument end? Why can't I drive your car whenever I want? Is your "ownership" of your car really more valid than my ownership of something that I invested significant time and effort (maybe even money) to create, and if so, why?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#432

Post by jiggy2011 » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:52 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #355

Czarnian wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's assume we are discussing modern music not Bach or something.

There are of course good musicians who distribute their music monetarily free but how much of it is explicitly copyright free (i.e libre not gratis)?

I know a number of aspiring musicians who if a large media company took their music and redistributed it under a different name with different people lip syncing to their vocals then boy would they be pissed.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#433

Post by jiggy2011 » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 1:01 AM UTC

Czarnian wrote: post #343

angersock wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it that the folks defending copyright always pull out the "But then creators will take their balls and go home!" card? That's such a repugnant, faithless argument. Numerous examples exist of people creating in spite of the system--and even making a living doing the same! So, the entire issue for indie developers (of whose ranks I count myself a member) can be solved by not making a product until you confirm th…

They won't be taking their balls and going home out of pique, they'll be doing it because they have to go to work. Every hour an artist has to spend at a day job is an hour they can't spend creating. It's an hour they can't spend practicing. It's an hour they can't spend raising awareness of their work.

This is true but as a sort of counterpoint I think that sometimes once an artist gets well established they lose some of their connection to the normal world.

For example a lot of rock music comes from anger and frustration of having to work a shitty job, behave in a prescribed way and having little money.

As soon as you have released a few albums and have free reign to fill your nose with coke , cover yourself in tattoos and can afford to live wherever you like you may lose some of initial meaning behind the art and start to become pretentious and contrived.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#434

Post by moozilla » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 1:15 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #180

olavk wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the pirate is enjoying the music, then clearly the pirate would be willing to pay something more than nothing to hear the music, if piracy were not easily avaliable.

> be willing to pay something more than nothing to hear the music. In this case $0 or even a negative value amount is what you can plug into something . Why? Think about artists that tried pay-what-you-want model. A lot of people pay $0. Some pay $0.10. But a lot pay $0. However, what they pay with is with their time and attention. I used to know someone who managed a movie theater. He would sneak us into movies quit…

> Think about artists that tried pay-what-you-want model. A lot of people pay $0. Some pay $0.10. But a lot pay $0.

FWIW, the only album I've paid for in years was a pay-what-you-want deal. I paid something like $3. Which was all that was left in my bank account after I paid my rent and bought groceries for that month - I'm a college student.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#435

Post by stevecooperorg » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 1:23 AM UTC

cturner wrote: post #87

stevecooperorg wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an economic concept called 'club goods', which describe the way copyrighted materials are supposed to work -- you pay for access and get the same rights that everyone else who pays gets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good -- shut down today in SOPA protest

No. Club goods are different. With a club good there is a tangible thing such as a running machine. By my use of it, you are unable to use it. But we judge the tradeoff to be worth it because we don't each want to go out and buy a gym. That is unlike copyright where the cost of making a copy is nothing, and may even increase the value of the copied data through network effects.

I was using the definition on wikipedia. Quoting from that page;

> Examples of club goods include private golf courses, cinemas, cable television, access to copyrighted works, and the services provided by social or religious clubs to their members.

Also this definition on econport.org;

> Club Goods: Goods that are excludable but non-rival, or non-subtractable. This means that while certain people can be excluded from the consumption of a good, one person's consumption of it does not diminish another person's.

The point is; people say copyright violation is stealing, is isn't stealing, and arguments occur. To have a good conversation about it, it's useful to distinguish club good from private goods, because then we can talk about the difference between "unauthorised access to a club good" (piracy) and "unauthorised posession of a private good" (theft).

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#436

Post by gaulinmp » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 1:24 AM UTC

prodigal_erik wrote: post #387

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…

There's a level of indirection that we should think about very clearly. We aren't talking about control over the first or any other copy of a work of art, but rather control over people who want to use them. Control over people with their own free will can never be better than a necessary evil, so we as a society should agree on the bare minimum that would satisfy those goals we share.

This is a fine and very important point that has gotten too little coverage. It seems all the arguments here come down to a philosophical argument about how much control over others (the consumers) should we, as a society, agree to exert?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#437

Post by smallblacksun » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 1:30 AM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #138

Ok, Let me tell you why Piracy, it works most people who sell stuff them self want piracy to work. To start with this let me tell you something. I didn't have genuine exposure to computers until I was 17, The first time I really worked with a computer seriously was in First semester engineering. Here in India it was not very easy to afford computers for guys like me. In the first semester I went to a friends home who…

>Only many days later did I learn, If Microsoft wanted they could stop piracy easily.

Microsoft spends millions fighting piracy. What is this magical way that Microsoft could "easily" stop piracy?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#438

Post by prodigal_erik » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 1:33 AM UTC

stevecooperorg wrote: post #435

cturner wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Club goods are different. With a club good there is a tangible thing such as a running machine. By my use of it, you are unable to use it. But we judge the tradeoff to be worth it because we don't each want to go out and buy a gym. That is unlike copyright where the cost of making a copy is nothing, and may even increase the value of the copied data through network effects.

I was using the definition on wikipedia. Quoting from that page; > Examples of club goods include private golf courses, cinemas, cable television, access to copyrighted works , and the services provided by social or religious clubs to their members. Also this definition on econport.org; > Club Goods: Goods that are excludable but non-rival, or non-subtractable. This means that while certain people can be excluded fro…

By "access to copyrighted works" they may be talking about going to the club's library and reading the copy they already have (which may occasionally conflict with other members' use) rather than making more copies.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#439

Post by stevecooperorg » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 1:40 AM UTC

hxa7241 wrote: post #360

sequoia wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Does payment depend, necessarily, on restriction of copying? No, it does not.

The only other way I can think of is patronage; I produce a work for a patron according to their wishes, and hand it over for a fee, at which point I relinquish any further control.

Are there other models?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#440

Post by jiggy2011 » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:29 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #332

txxxxd wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course individuals or small groups will still create art in their free time. You can't deny however that any massive undertakings would be effectively killed. No one will invest millions of dollars to produce a video game, or hundreds of millions to produce a movie if it can be freely copied. It's great that you can make a game or movie on a small budget, but isn't it better to live in a world where we can ha…

1. Games and movies still makes lots of money 2. Streaming technologies will render the need for physically storing games, movies or anything more and more obsolete. 3. Just wait til the movie houses start using 3d models in stead. You see the problem is that you have to think about this in a much larger perpective to realize that things will even themselves out. With regards to cost of copyright. Then yes when it ma…

I'm not sure game streaming would be any better, it may require less copyright but then what happens when the company decides it is no longer economically feasible to stream the game that you like to play?

I'm not sure how 3d models would make a difference in movies? Many movies are already basically 3d renders.