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

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

broadmuse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 334 posts

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

#41

Post by matwood »

wazoox wrote: post #12

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 agree with you 100%. I haven't felt the need to be as extreme as you have gone, but any media I consume I either buy it or go without. More often than not, I find myself going without because I don't feel the price is worth it.

If people really wanted to take a stand they wouldn't buy OR pirate and would simply not consume. If everyone stopped consuming then changes would happen quickly.

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

#42

Post by etherael »

lachyg wrote: post #37
etherael wrote: post #35

Piracy isn't as desirable as a straight boycott of the parties that are currently trying to break the Internet, but at least pirates aren't feeding the beast. Those companies deserve complete destruction for what they have done

What have they 'done'?

They have tried to destroy the internet, remember yesterday? As long as they exist they will keep on trying and as an existential threat to the internet I can't see how anyone can excuse continued support for them in any way. Better a boycott, but failing that piracy is still more ethical than feeding the beast.

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

#43

Post by zerostar07 »

cicero wrote: post #24
zerostar07 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

If we are going to reduce morality to the way a majority feels about an issue, then in a democratic society, does it make any sense to differentiate between morality and legality? Shouldn't the democratic process eventually result in laws that reflect the morality of the majority? How can you say a law is immoral without taking a vote? For example, if the majority in California voted for Proposition 8, how can it be…

Many people think that way about their own morals, that's the problem.

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

#44

Post by lachyg »

etherael wrote: post #42
lachyg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What have they 'done'?

They have tried to destroy the internet, remember yesterday? As long as they exist they will keep on trying and as an existential threat to the internet I can't see how anyone can excuse continued support for them in any way. Better a boycott, but failing that piracy is still more ethical than feeding the beast.

There is nothing ethical about pirating.

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

#46

Post by grandinj »

We granted a limited legal monopoly to certain parties in order to encourage the growth of certain industries.

Over time, that bargain has been severely corrupted by those industries.

Piracy is the consequence.

I'm sure that with time, and a more balanced approach to the granting of such monopolies, piracy will become less and less of a problem.

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

#47

Post by JulianMorrison »

lachyg wrote: post #38
JulianMorrison wrote: post #33

The law is just a thing I follow to avoid inconvenience, when necessary. It's completely distinct from my morality. And, my morality simply does not see copying as stealing, pirating, thermonuclear mass-murder, or whatever blood curdling words you use to label it. It remains copying, and is fine.

Why don't you see it as immoral or stealing? These companies spend millions on these movies, countless people work on them and depend on them for their wages (not just the actors, but the support crew, the caterers, the make up artists, the lighting crew, editing, post production, script writers, casting agents, location scouts, etc etc). They then charge people a small price for the right to view their work (either…

Because basically, I don't think that the trouble they go to creates an obligation in me in regard of my network, my hard drive, my screen.

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

#48

Post by etherael »

lachyg wrote: post #44
etherael wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have tried to destroy the internet, remember yesterday? As long as they exist they will keep on trying and as an existential threat to the internet I can't see how anyone can excuse continued support for them in any way. Better a boycott, but failing that piracy is still more ethical than feeding the beast.

There is nothing ethical about pirating.

There is even less ethical about financially supporting companies that tried to buy laws that would destroy the net as we know it.

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

#49

Post by krig »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #16
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?

Your argument makes no sense. If my boss doesn't pay me, I'm not working for him. Thus, he is no longer my boss. How is that relevant to the morality issue of piracy? Do you mean in the sense that if I pirate something, the creator of that something doesn't get paid and thus doesn't create the thing that I pirated? But that argument is backwards. If you mean that no more things will be produced in a world with piracy, that's demonstrably false. We've had rampant piracy since the first printing press, the world we live in now is not free from piracy, yet there's more creative work created every year.

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

#50

Post by sixbrx »

I think the big drivers of music consumption must still depend on traditional media and corporations in a big way. Otherwise we'd have tech specialists hooking up directly with musicians and together they would have delivered the death blow to the traditional music distributors already.

I think what's missing is the combination of talent-search + promotion. Most users just won't be proactive about searching through a bunch of no-name bands to find some music worth listening to.

Post reply on HN