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

471–480 of 527 posts

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#471

Post by jiggy2011 »

ThomPete wrote: post #133
citricsquid wrote: post #8

This is such bullshit, I really wish I could downvote this sort of post. If you don't agree with the methods used by companies to sell their products DON'T then take it anyway, you're showing people WANT the product but aren't willing to pay, so what's the best solution? Make it harder to pirate / try to block pirating. This guy and everyone else who refuses to just not consume media they can't get on terms they and…

This argument could obviously easily be reversed. If Rihanna and others don't want their music to be pirated they shouldn't make it digital. It is not a naturally given right you know to create an album once and then sell it in millions. It's an opportunity.

It's not a right to make millions it's a right to make... whatever you make.

Rihanna could release her music on vinyl only but it would still be recorded and converted to an MP3 and up on torrents in a matter of hours, digital has nothing to do with it.

The business model they would probably switch to in the case of no copyright would be to distribute a small amount of the music for free but if you want to hear the rest you have to attend a live concert where you would be searched for recording devices on entry.

Would you prefer that model?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#472

Post by billpatrianakos »

angersock wrote: post #398
billpatrianakos wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all creators take their balls and go home. But enough will for it to be notable. Yes, there are those who will either deal with piracy and those who will give away their work freely. Those people will never go away but in a world without copyright we may not have had a Steve Jobs or a Bill Gates to play such a crucial role in the development of products we all use and love. I'm sure someone else may have created…

(upvoted for effort, thank you sir/madam) "There are competing interests between creators and consumers." This part I don't quite get--what do consider the rights in conflict? Obviously there is the difference in what creators want to be paid and what consumers want to save, but is there something beyond this you intend...? "When people argue about middle men screwing over artists and consumers we should be finding a…

The only reason I don't dig deeper here is because it's late and I'm sure everyone has moved on now but I just have to say I don't like Red Hat being used as a model for how to be profitable while giving away a product. It doesn't scale. Most software doesn't lend itself well to that. You're not paying for software, you're paying for the output.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#473

Post by InclinedPlane »

This entire debate has been wrong footed from day 1, "piracy" is and always has been a misnomer and an aggressive attempt to frame the debate.

Sharing, lending, and broadcasting have been a core part of the dissemination of creative works for centuries. Libraries. Personal borrowing. Museums. Broadcast TV and radio. For the entirety of the modern age it has been the norm for the average individual "consuming" a creative work to do so without directly purchasing a licensed copy. Somehow creative industries survived.

Today the limits to copying are very different and thus unfamiliar if not frightening for some. Yet creative industries have not died and are not dying, despite persistent attempts to fight against modern technology at every stage (resisting digital distribution, creating experiences that are typically wholly inferior to the "piracy" experience). Imagine if literature, music, etc. never embraced libraries, radio, or television. Imagine if book lending was made illegal.

There are ways to embrace sharing and dissemination of IP without direct payment for every consumed copy while still maintaining profitability. The old limits are dead. Portraying all manner of sharing of creative works as "intellectual property theft" is frankly ridiculous. The idea that the line between borrowing a book from a library (or reading a book within the library) and borrowing a digital copy of a movie from a friend (or even a stranger) is a line between acceptable behavior and theft is an idea born of prejudice and provincialism. We need to get over such old prejudices and begin to form new models and new boundaries.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#474

Post by bdonlan »

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...…

I've talked about this before on HN (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3366032), but I think a big problem with these discussions is people seem to assume, as an axiom, that allowing authors to control downstream copying is natural. It isn't - this principle was invented around the time the printing press made mass production of creative works possible, for reasons which were very good at the time, but which may not be justified, overall, anymore.

Any argument about copyright cannot end up in "Well, I think the authors should have control of their own works." This is circular, and it boils down to assuming copyright as an axiom without justification. It also can't end up in an analogy to a case in the physical world - there are too many differences between physical goods and IP. For instance, in your example of the hen with bread, if this were a case of copyright, everyone _including the hen_ could end up eating bread, after the hen put in the work. Is this fair to the hen? Maybe not. On the other hand, though, there have to be ways to balance things just enough to reward the hen for her efforts without starving all the other animals. The conclusion we gained from the physical-world analogy in which _only one animal_ could eat the bread simply does not apply, as one of its fundamental assumptions has been violated.

In short, there are perfectly good arguments you can use (and which have been used, when copyright was invented) to argue why copyright is good and essential _for society as a whole_, and there are of course arguments against it as well, but too often these are not articulated _at all_. People argue from the end result "Artists should have control over their work!", which is essentially the _definition_ of copyright, and use it to argue for copyright. And all too often, the position of the rest of society - which, since they outnumber the artists, ought to be given more weight - is ignored.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#475

Post by reinhardt »

ThomPete wrote: post #383
reinhardt wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If I take an microphone from you, you don't have an microphone." ..and so I have to buy a new one if we both want to have one at the same time. "If I copy a song from you, you still have the song yourself." Awesome, we can just buy one then and split the cost! But why stop there? Let's also give a copy to Tom, Dick and Harry so that each pays 20%! Now, what if we could somehow share the song and the cost with a hund…

If I buy a microphone I can borrow it and give it to whoever I want to. In fact I can chip in and share it with 200 friends if I want to. You see the difference?

I do, do you? Microphone sharing (a) means only one person at a time can access it and (b) it is way more inconvenient. Microphone creators are not threatened by sharing, digital creators are.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#476

Post by urbanjunkie »

ThomPete wrote: post #276
route66 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that you are the maker of FinalTouch. Where do you offer the free downloads?

Why should i? People pay for it. Did I ever say that you shouldn't be allowed to make money? Of corse not. I said its not a right but an opportunity.

I certainly intend to find and distribute pirate versions of FinalTouch.

You're ok with that, right?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#477

Post by ThomPete »

reinhardt wrote: post #475
ThomPete wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I buy a microphone I can borrow it and give it to whoever I want to. In fact I can chip in and share it with 200 friends if I want to. You see the difference?

I do, do you? Microphone sharing (a) means only one person at a time can access it and (b) it is way more inconvenient. Microphone creators are not threatened by sharing, digital creators are.

If someone steals 20 microphones from the mic creator he has 20 microphones less. If someone downloads 20 songs from a song creator the creator of that song still has the song.

That is the difference.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#478

Post by ThomPete »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #463
ThomPete wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it give you less freedom? Software will turn into SaaS anyway or to onLive types of constructions.

If all my software is only available via a cloud service then it would restrict my freedom compared to having a local copy to the extent that I have no control over any changes to the software. If they release an update that I don't like for example then it will not be possible for me to retain the older version. If they decide to discontinue the software or go bust etc then I will lose access to it, this would not h…

All your software don't have to be available via the cloud. The data could be or vice versa. There will still be plenty of free alternatives just as there are today.

You very well know there are plenty of ways around this and it is being practiced today.

Spotify is one example.

You are creating pseudo problems that would not really exist.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#479

Post by ThomPete »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #440
ThomPete wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The same thing that happens when a game gets discontinued today.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#480

Post by jiggy2011 »

rytis wrote: post #121
cturner wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend you think about this: where does property come from? Is something ours because the government says it's ours or does it have a deeper meaning that transcends government? I'd argue that property exists because things (apples, cars, gym equipment) have limitations on their use. If I eat an apple, you can't. If you grow a crop on this property, you can't. While he uses this gym equipment, they can't. Even in…

You raise a good point here about what property actually is. I'd like to extend on this concept and add ownership into equation. In the example with an apple. I own it, therefore only I can eat it. It is my property. Now what happens if I give the apple to somebody else? It's their property now, so you would naturally assume they own it? And therefore they can eat it. Alas, it's not the case with music/etc. I bought…

I think the CD is your property , you can destroy it if you want but the contents of the CD are only licensed to you.

Obviously this is a strange concept since the contents of the CD are a physical part of the CD itself.

Post reply on HN