Piracy - You can't have your cake and eat it • Hacker News Board

Re: Piracy - You can't have your cake and eat it

#11

Post by kmm » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 1:57 PM UTC

blottsie wrote: post #9

andreyvit wrote: post #3

On morality: given how widespread the piracy is, we probably shouldn't assert that the moral side of the things is obvious here. Regarding the law, that's one way to look at that. Another way is that the role of copyright is about to change, and disobeying the law en masse might be one way to help that change. (Disclaimer: I'm not much of a pirate myself, I have a US iTunes Store account despite living in Russia just…

The morality question isn't necessarily obvious, but the pervasiveness of a particular activity has nothing to do with its morality. Was slavery more morally correct when the majority approved of it, or at least looked the other way? Absolutely not.

Actually, it was. You can't judge the morality of practices from the past from your present point of view. You shouldn't be convicted that your morality is absolute and will always be the only correct one.

Not to mention that software piracy is on a completely other level than slavery.

Re: Piracy - You can't have your cake and eat it

#12

Post by wazoox » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:02 PM UTC

I solved this problem the "hard" way a long time ago. I don't use windows, at all, but GNU/Linux (Yeah, I'm this sort of guy, too).

And you know what, as time goes by it's actually less and less of an actual problem; heck, I was even able to buy games for my box this year, thank you Humble Bundle! OK, this isn't free software, but at least you don't feel like you've been anally raped with barbed wire.

And music? Well, I still buy CDs, mostly; the time when CDs came with DRM apparently faded away, so I don't even need to screen for this anymore (yes, I've actively boycotted some artists because of this for a while). From time to time, for music I don't actually care about, I buy mp3s from Amazon.

I don't write this to emphasize my moral superiority but to emphasize that it isn't that hard. You don't agree with their policy? don't buy the frigging stuff.

Re: Piracy - You can't have your cake and eat it

#13

Post by zerostar07 » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:05 PM UTC

blottsie wrote: post #9

andreyvit wrote: post #3

On morality: given how widespread the piracy is, we probably shouldn't assert that the moral side of the things is obvious here. Regarding the law, that's one way to look at that. Another way is that the role of copyright is about to change, and disobeying the law en masse might be one way to help that change. (Disclaimer: I'm not much of a pirate myself, I have a US iTunes Store account despite living in Russia just…

The morality question isn't necessarily obvious, but the pervasiveness of a particular activity has nothing to do with its morality. Was slavery more morally correct when the majority approved of it, or at least looked the other way? Absolutely not.

Morals are not natural laws. People did not generally feel guilty or immoral for using slaves until the morals themselves changed. Similarly today with piracy: it doesn't feel morally wrong enough to warrant legal action to the minds of many. There needs to be a larger discussion about what is intellectual property (in fact, whether it exists) in the digital age. Legal experts should be discussing these issues but they seem too occupied with chasing pirates.

Re: Piracy - You can't have your cake and eat it

#14

Post by Jem » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:08 PM UTC

Apreche wrote: post #5

The only problem I have with this article is this line: "since when does that suddenly mean that you can decide that you are no longer going to pay for products that both legally and morally you are obliged to pay for, yet still use them?" Legally obliged to pay for? Yes. Morally? No. I have no moral problem with piracy. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Those are the foundations of my morality. I wo…

> "Morally? No. I have no moral problem with piracy. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Those are the foundations of my morality. I would love it if people pirated things I made. That's my morality."

I assume, therefore, that you invite those with an interest in sadomasochism to inflict pain on you?

(No, I don't think sadomasochism and piracy are alike, but the idea of making and breaking laws based on what one person is happy to have done to them is IMO ridiculous.)

Re: Piracy - You can't have your cake and eat it

#15

Post by acg » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:09 PM UTC

If copyright were just to protect the investment of a company in development of an artist or product I'd broadly agree with this argument.

Where copyright seems objectionable to me, is where the initial cost of development was non-existent or large profits have been made for years. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Royalty_a...

For some copyright to last 95 years seems more like profiteering than protection of the creative industries considering creation is often based on the work of others.

I don't condone piracy, but I think piracy would be far less socially acceptable if: - the creator can be seen to benefit from their work - copyright better resembled its original intent of protecting investment in the creation of something new and not staking ownership over the work of others.

Re: Piracy - You can't have your cake and eat it

#16

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:09 PM UTC

Apreche wrote: post #5

The only problem I have with this article is this line: "since when does that suddenly mean that you can decide that you are no longer going to pay for products that both legally and morally you are obliged to pay for, yet still use them?" Legally obliged to pay for? Yes. Morally? No. I have no moral problem with piracy. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Those are the foundations of my morality. I wo…

So, your boss will be happy he doesn't have to pay you. The question is how're you going to afford to live and how long will you work for someone who doesn't pay you anything?

Don't get me wrong I'm for communism and intentional communities; but are you really advocating that?

Re: Piracy - You can't have your cake and eat it

#17

Post by DirtyCalvinist » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:10 PM UTC

Apreche wrote: post #5

The only problem I have with this article is this line: "since when does that suddenly mean that you can decide that you are no longer going to pay for products that both legally and morally you are obliged to pay for, yet still use them?" Legally obliged to pay for? Yes. Morally? No. I have no moral problem with piracy. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Those are the foundations of my morality. I wo…

I think your logic is a bit facile. If you want people to take your creations, that is not piracy, more or less by definition.

Re: Piracy - You can't have your cake and eat it

#18

Post by kmm » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:11 PM UTC

The law is nothing but a piece of paper. I'm glad it exists, as it provides a framework that protects me from harm and allows me to life my live, but I feel no moral obligation at all to follow it.

This style of argumentation is starting to tire me. Obviously, this author thinks piracy is morally wrong. Other people have no such moral qualms about piracy. Both points of view are fine!

But implicitly or explicitly using morality as an argument for or against piracy is a bad style of argumentation and is almost an ad hominem. If I were to say that I am for piracy and someone told me that this was morally wrong, I would pay no attention to this person. But if he were to say that he personally feels piracy is morally wrong AND if he were to give me an argument as to why he feels that way, I would listen to this argument and at least think about it.

Re: Piracy - You can't have your cake and eat it

#19

Post by wazoox » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:13 PM UTC

fastviper wrote: post #8

Hm.. this article is mental slavery. Also it misses the point that some laws are passed being backed up by well-paid lies. So breaking the law can no longer be any moral issue. Example: * speed limits * never-ending copyright * exporting cryptography

People looks for excuses, and I suppose conflating different things like speed limits, copyright and cryptography is some way to nullify their possible importance. These are not on the same level:

* speeding and more generally, driving misbehaviour are directly responsible for deaths.

* Pirating software and music never killed anyone, but is about maximizing profits for some corporations.

* limiting cryptography is about government control, and is almost only a political matter.

Law can change the way people behave, notwithstanding their agreement :

Speed limits have been enforced much more severely in France in the past few years and guess what, people are speeding much less now. I, myself, changed too: I used to drive at 180 kph quite casually, and I don't anymore. In the same time, road casualties fell significantly, though of course this is for a large part because cars are much safer than they used to be (thank you to Euro-NCAP). Almost everybody complains about the speed limits, the radars everywhere, higher fines, but it's hard to deny that the policy was efficient, and that it's good.

Now copyright is an entirely different matter. Copyright is only about maximizing profits; extremely tight and severely enforced copyright, or the absence of it, wouldn't change our lives that much, anyway.

Re: Piracy - You can't have your cake and eat it

#20

Post by jiggy2011 » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:15 PM UTC

acg wrote: post #15

If copyright were just to protect the investment of a company in development of an artist or product I'd broadly agree with this argument. Where copyright seems objectionable to me, is where the initial cost of development was non-existent or large profits have been made for years. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Royalty_a... For some copyright to last 95 years seems more like profitee…

Playing "happy birthday to you" in public might be a legit act of civil disobedience .

Pirating last weeks blockbuster isn't.