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

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

#111

Post by wazoox » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 4:56 PM UTC

sequoia wrote: post #40

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 but I'm voting down. There's no need to use violent rape analogies when talking about someone requiring you to activate over the phone. Turn it down a notch please.

> when talking about someone requiring you to activate over the phone.

What about software that phones home and require some physical gizmo like a CD or dongle to use, after you've already spent a nice sum of money to acquire it? You're simply treated not like an amiable customer, but a thief, while actual thieves simply use it.

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

#112

Post by Iv » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 4:58 PM UTC

I agree on software : alternative exists and the real way to say "fuck off" is to use the corresponding free software alternative or to develop it. This is true to the extent where Microsoft plays the rules of competition and IT correctly. If a government or a provider gives me a document in a format that Microsoft does not publish, they are effectively trying to make competition impossible and I feel entitled to pirate their software.

On music, I could not disagree more : there is a lack of a solution to pay artists directly. 90% of the artists I know today, I know from friends or web radio. I would like to repay them directly. I have no way of doing that. The alternative is just not there. Some artists accept direct donations but majors try to prevent that. This anti-competitive behavior makes it totally OK in my opinion to pirate music.

Oh, and don't tell me I am rationalising. I stopped being part of this game several years ago. I don't buy music, I don't download tunes (unless it is authorised by the band like Partition 36). I decided this whole show was stupid when I got my first DRMed CD and that I didn't want to fight on it or break any law. Nowadays the situation is such that this conflict can't be ignored anymore. "Piracy" is used as a pretext to put forward net filtering, restrictive laws, and tools of censorship.

I don't give a fuck about music and musicians. I can do without. I respect them and they deserve a pay, but the current system is completely FUBAR and its insanity is creeping in other domains. It should be stopped before it is too late.

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

#113

Post by ernesth » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 5:01 PM UTC

You can't keep a movie on your hard drive and watch it too? Are you sure?

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

#114

Post by randomdata » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 5:01 PM UTC

TheCapn wrote: post #94

I don't understand pirates that think downloading the content is a form of protest. If you want to make a change and win then you have to think like your opponent. This is how the greedy suits think: "Our product has sold X copies, but Y people downloaded it. That means there are X+Y people interested in my product! We must make it so X+Y people buy it and 0 download it!" NO! Stop! Bad pirates! By downloading the pro…

By downloading the product you're telling the company you want their offerings but are too lazy or greedy or whatever.

In most cases it says, "I want your content, but you are failing to provide it to me."

Look at Napster. People used it not because it was free, it was because there was no other choice. Once the music industry finally got around to approving iTunes, it became a huge and successful business for not only Apple, but the music industry too. If iTunes was available from day one, Napster would have never rose to fame.

Now look at the movie industry. I know of a lot of people who happily pay for Netflix and pirate content that is not on Netflix. If that content was on Netflix in the first place, the content owner would have received their money no questions asked.

There are some pirates who are plain cheap. But in most cases, it is just a power struggle. If you do not respect others, they will not respect you.

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

#115

Post by wazoox » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 5:02 PM UTC

kmm wrote: post #28

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 did the same thing, some five years ago. But what if someone can't go to Linux or OS X because this person needs software that is Windows-only or doesn't have the time or knowledge to learn a new operating system? Just shouting "don't buy the frigging stuff" isn't going to stop them.

> this person needs software that is Windows-only

Frankly, when I first migrated I spent a long time making Wine to work properly with various pieces of software, and I finally never actually used it because there are alternatives to about everything. Maybe they're not always as good as their counterparts, but in the end they get the job done. I've shared word documents with OpenOffice, I've drawn billboards and websites with Inkscape and GIMP, and it's good enough.

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

#116

Post by Tim-Boss » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 5:13 PM UTC

Skroob wrote: post #88

yangez wrote: post #83

This article is interesting to read and think about from a theoretical perspective. Practically, though, it is completely and utterly useless. Fact 1: Pirating is possible and fairly easy across the board. Fact 2: Some content creators try to limit access to maintain "exclusivity" or to keep margins high. These guys get destroyed by piracy. Fact 3: Other services strive to make it as easy as possible to get their pro…

As creators, we can curb piracy by making it easier, safer and more reliable to purchase legally. As users, shouldn't we curb piracy by not pirating things?

As users we should, wherever possible, purchase media from the easier, safer and more reliable LEGITIMATE sources, and carry on pirating wherever the opposite is true ("locked down" content such as DRM, rootkits, cumbersome convoluted registrations and ages-long anti-piracy messages on legal media!)

To put it another way, it seems we need a "carrot" (legally purchasing) approach to the 'good guys' creators/developers and "stick" (illegally downloading) approach to the arseholes who put rootkits on music CD's etc.

...thats my humble opinion anyway

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

#117

Post by awfabian2 » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 5:17 PM UTC

We, the human race, made up property. And we made up intellectual property. So if you want to argue to me about morality and legality, save it. Those aren't arguments, those are superstitions and/or conventions.

Tell me why a convention should be observed. If content creators don't get paid, perhaps less content will get generated. Perhaps there will be legal consequences like getting sued by the MPAA or RIAA.

But, again, give me actual reasons, not superstition and/or convention.

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

#118

Post by ScottBurson » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 5:21 PM UTC

jxcole wrote: post #51

Ok. I hope I'm not going against the rules of HN discourse here but I'd like to go out on a limb and say any article in which the author doesn't bother capitalizing the first word in his sentences is not an article I'm going to bother to read. One of the few things I miss about the world before the internet is a proper adherence to grammar. If he were ESL, I would be more forgiving, but this post just smacks of lazy…

Shrug That doesn't bother me nearly as much as all the instances I've seen lately of someone writing "it's" when they meant "its".

I guess we all have our little pet peeves :-)

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

#119

Post by learc83 » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 5:24 PM UTC

wazoox wrote: post #19

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 a…

In the United States speed limits are not enforced for safety. They are instead a revenue stream for local government.

Relative speed kills, and if police were really concerned about safety they would prevent people from driving too slowly for traffic conditions as well as too fast.

I'll give you a similar example from recent news. Over the last few years, many towns have installed red light cameras. However, many local governments have discovered that red light cameras work too well.

After people got used to them, they stopped running red lights, and the revenue from citations dried up.

Guess what happened? Towns started removing red light cameras even though they enforced safer driving.

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

#120

Post by learc83 » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 5:27 PM UTC

manuscreationis wrote: post #30

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

... Speed limits are laws that are set up by well-paid lies? By whom? That all-too-powerful "Let's drive slow" lobby? I'm with you on the "When the law hurts the very people it's meant to protect, it's the right and responsibility of the people to fight against it" angle... But speed limits? That is your line in the sand?

There are lobbying groups in favor of slower speed limits, but he's probably talking about local governments that use speed limits to generate revenue.