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

491–500 of 527 posts

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#491

Post by danssig »

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…

>It is possible to be paid in other ways -- that do not impose on other freedoms.

What ways? And if you say "selling t-shirts" then you lose.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#492

Post by vidarh »

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...…

A comparison with physical goods is pretty much irrelevant. If you take away copyright, you take away a limitation on others, but don't prevent the creator of the work from enjoying the work itself.

There is a reason copyright law and property law are universally separate: One creates an artificial restriction on the public to prevent them from doing something which would not take away the freedom to act of the creator of the work, the other places restrictions on the public to prevent them from taking away the freedoms of the owner of something, who would be deprived of the use of what is stolen.

Pretty much every legal system on earth recognizes that these are fundamentally different, and pretty much every one of them recognize that copyright protection is a tool putatively intended for the benefit of society - not created to protect against injustice.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#493

Post by vidarh »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #430
praptak wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 assume Shakespeare made his money from ticket sales to his shows. There were no cameras in those days if there was somebody would simply record the show and distribute it, I would imagine Shakespeare would want some of that action himself.

Just because someone wants something doesn't mean they have a right to it.

I'd like to charge everyone who sees me when I walk down the street - I'd make a bundle - but I'd think society would be pretty stupid if they indulged me.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#494

Post by vidarh »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #273
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…

> 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? Then the alternative is that all creators keep their output to themselves and people with this entitled attitude never get to make use of their work. Or maybe they don't make something at all. Or maybe they don't even try to learn t…

> Then the alternative is that all creators keep their output to themselves

That is provably not the case: People still published written works, performed plays and music for thousands of years before copyright laws were introduced.

Even today, there are vast numbers of novels, movie clips, songs etc. being made available freely.

The alternative is that SOME creators keep their output to themselves. The vast majority of creators are not being paid to create their content.

Now, if you want to make a claim that the works created by the ones that would keep their output to themselves are more important to society, then that's a claim that is not as easily refutable, and it'd even be possible you're right, depending on how one measures importance of a work.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#495

Post by ThomPete »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #484
ThomPete wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think I'm creating psuedo problems. If you have software without the cloud then you return to the same copyright problem repeated ad nauseum in this thread. Ok, perhaps you could have applications in the cloud with locally stored data but I can't see this as being popular for 2 reasons. 1) Vendors would like the lock-in power that storing your data gives. 2) If I have a lot of data it may not be practical to…

And then you use some other service. See pseudo problems.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#496

Post by ThomPete »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #489
ThomPete wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please re-read what this is about. Are musicians stealing from other musicians when they transcribe a song or a riff or a chord progression, or a signature sound? If they are then all musicians are stealing all the time. If it's not then copying music isn't stealing either.

I'm sorry but are you trolling me on purpose? I deliberately did not equate anything with stealing and you haven't responded to the overall point of my previous post.

Do you know what trolling is?

Let me rephrase then.

Is it different from an ip point of view if you transcribes riff or a chord progression from other musicians?

In other words is it ok when the musicians do it?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#497

Post by ThomPete »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #483
ThomPete wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's not true at all, I have a large collection of games dating from around 1990 to present on my shelves. Assuming I can find the disks (most of them are in the wrong boxes) I can re-install any of them and play right now (ok I might have to install dosbox for some of them not to mention find a floppy drive). That's only true currently for games that are only playable via a single central online service (e.g WoW e…

Sorry but you are just being silly now. We are talking about the current and future.

You know times change.

Anyway. I made my point already.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#498

Post by jiggy2011 »

ThomPete wrote: post #497
jiggy2011 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true at all, I have a large collection of games dating from around 1990 to present on my shelves. Assuming I can find the disks (most of them are in the wrong boxes) I can re-install any of them and play right now (ok I might have to install dosbox for some of them not to mention find a floppy drive). That's only true currently for games that are only playable via a single central online service (e.g WoW e…

Sorry but you are just being silly now. We are talking about the current and future. You know times change. Anyway. I made my point already.

Your point as I understand it is that you would find it preferable for content creators not to distribute at all rather than distribute with copyright?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#499

Post by jiggy2011 »

vidarh wrote: post #493
jiggy2011 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume Shakespeare made his money from ticket sales to his shows. There were no cameras in those days if there was somebody would simply record the show and distribute it, I would imagine Shakespeare would want some of that action himself.

Just because someone wants something doesn't mean they have a right to it. I'd like to charge everyone who sees me when I walk down the street - I'd make a bundle - but I'd think society would be pretty stupid if they indulged me.

You really can't see the difference between that and somebody making money from your work (possibly more than you do) without providing you with any compensation?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#500

Post by tatsuke95 »

ThomPete wrote: post #282
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...…

The second an artist is trying to mass produce they are businessmen not artists anymore. The artist didn't make the ability to produce in large numbers and distribute at zero cost, that is what technology did. A technology that served the labels and musicians for one hundred years. Now it is turning on them and they start to complain. Bo freaking ho. People make music without making a single dime on it. Great music i…

I'm not sure why the down votes? Look, I'm as business-oriented as anyone here, but this is the truth.

Art can be profitable for the artist, but whether it is or isn't, it's still happening. People will create sculptures to admire and music to dance to. The distribution stream was invented far, far later. Let's not conflate the creation of the art and the business of selling it.

Post reply on HN