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

Why I'm a Pirate

ploum.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 527 posts

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#441

Post by tikhonj »

troll24601 wrote: post #400
ThomPete wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all I have had plenty of my ideas, designs etc. copied. I don't care cause at the end of the day it doesn't matter. I don't know why you guys keep arguing the same misguided argument. Here is the difference. When I design for a client I put in the work and design specifically to to them. I am in other words a performing artist. I don't just send them a CD with the same design I did for all my other clients.…

So to clarify: if you do work with the intent of selling it to one buyer it should be protected, but if you do work with the intent of selling it to two or more buyers it should not?

No. Rather, the point is that you are paid for your work rather than a copy of the result of your work. This is just like a software developer working for a salary rather than somebody eking out an existence in an app store.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#442

Post by randallsquared »

chrisbennet wrote: post #425
ThomPete wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep confusing the two. If I take an microphone from you, you don't have an microphone. If I copy a song from you, you still have the song yourself. It might be that you don't see the difference but I do and therein is our disagreement.

By that logic, if you work a day for me and then I decide not to pay you, you aren't any poorer than you were before so no harm right?

if you work a day for me and then I decide not to pay you, you aren't any poorer than you were before so no harm right?

In the absence of a contract (if I just decided to work for a day for you without your prior agreement to pay for the day of work), yes. Doing work does not automatically create an obligation of others to pay you for having done it.

There are two things that can create such an obligation:

* altering something you already had (such as an object or your body)

* a contract between you and another party

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#443

Post by teamonkey »

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…

> The problem is that the creators are not the copyright owners any more.

I'm not sure.

A singer and songwriter aren't the only people involved in a music product. Likewise a song isn't the only thing involved in a music track. It involves production, for example, investment, the confluence of a variety of artistic, technical, management and manufacturing skills. Why shouldn't a music company have some claim over the copyright of the finished product?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#444

Post by teamonkey »

dchest wrote: post #331
tjr wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the point, I believe, is that the concept of breaching the GPL is nonsensical if you do not respect the GPL or the copyright law on which it rests. Whether if you share something against its creator's will, or if you refuse to share something against its creator's will, in both cases you are ignoring the creator's wishes and violating copyright law.

Yes. But speaking in terms of morale, not laws, not sharing the source code for GPL software is morally wrong and dishonorable. Sharing it is morally right and honorable.

Depends on what you find morally correct. If I don't agree with the GPL, why should I bother sharing my modified GPL code? I don't find it immoral.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#445

Post by marshray »

chrisbennet wrote: post #425
ThomPete wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep confusing the two. If I take an microphone from you, you don't have an microphone. If I copy a song from you, you still have the song yourself. It might be that you don't see the difference but I do and therein is our disagreement.

By that logic, if you work a day for me and then I decide not to pay you, you aren't any poorer than you were before so no harm right?

If I work a day for you, it is a day that I am not able to work for someone else (possibly myself in my own business). So, yes, I have lost a workday. If I am not compensated for that workday, then I am that much poorer.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#446

Post by marshray »

praptak wrote: post #395
gravitronic wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of me hopes that your vision becomes reality and all financially backed art falls apart.. just so you, ThomPete, can live in a world that shitty and know that this is what you wanted. Enjoy your cat videos.

Yeah, a totally shitty world with those crappy pre-copyright amateurs like Shakespeare and without the great art of Justin Bieber. The horror, the horror.

I don't think Justin Bieber was being paid for the art which made him popular.

From what I hear he started out covering pop songs on YouTube. Exactly the type of infringement that SOPA/PIPA is trying to kill off.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#447

Post by chj »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #381
absconditus wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not your only option. You could also choose not to watch those shows at all. Desires are poor justification for such behavior.

When they aren't accepting payment, not getting paid is no opportunity cost to them. An act which slightly increases my happiness and wealth, without imposing harm or costs on anyone, is its own justification. How would you advocate deprivation which doesn't even benefit anyone?

The authors will be very unhappy. So you just build your own happiness on other people's unhappiness and ignore them, saying, "why should they?"

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#448

Post by marshray »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #257

How about "how I just don't want to pay While trying to play it off like I have some moral/political agenda". This post hurts the pro-copyright people, anti-copyright people, and all people with brains. Edit: I think I was too harsh with that last line. But my point still stands that this article is doing more harm than good. There are a lot of people who write these rants but do it for the wrong reasons and try to p…

Are there some examples from the article that support this idea that primarily "he just doesn't want to pay"?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#449

Post by hwiechers »

billswift wrote: post #394
billswift wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They argue that way because their inflated claims have no merit. The only justification for copyright that doesn't amount to arrogant and unjustifiable claims of "creator privilege" (my phrase, but that is what their wordy arguments amount to) is that given in the US Constitution, as a practical matter "to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclu…

Also, as far as lack of copyright crippling music, I am sure that would be astounding news to Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, among many others.

At least two of those composers died in poverty so they might have actually thought that copyright is a good thing.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#450

Post by jiggy2011 »

ThomPete wrote: post #260
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…

Exactly you could also ask What if the instrument creators started to license the use of their guitars, drums and people had to pay royalties.

I suppose they could have patented them (although there would have been allot of prior art), but that patent would have expired way before now.
Post reply on HN