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

201–210 of 334 posts

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

#201

Post by mikeash »

SteveJS wrote: post #158
mikeash wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just the kind of junk I'm talking about. I get that the author disagrees. The problem is that neither he nor you back it up with any reasoning. You're just declaring that you're right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. What's the point of that? The simple fact is that copyright infringement is not a universally-agreed wrong the way e.g. murder is. If you want to convince people that it should be, that's…

An intellectual argument about morals requires a basis upon which to argue. There are psychology researchers doing work in this area: http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php Is it moral to wear shoes into a Indian temple? How do you argue that without going circular?

I agree that it gets tough (although I think the Golden Rule answers the temple question, and a lot of others). The thing is, in this case, they aren't even trying.

The whole "you don't have a choice" bit rests on the assumption that piracy is immoral, and the posts themselves serve simply to remind people of that. It's rather condescending, and entirely pointless if they don't accept the assumption that piracy is immoral, which they almost certainly do not.

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

#202

Post by mattgreenrocks »

Karunamon wrote: post #61
mattgreenrocks wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except moral relativism is not any more defensible. Suppose the creator of a work asks you to pay for it, but a pirate chooses not to. Why shouldn't we call the pirate an asshole? They've disrespected the terms of use set by the author, as well as the author themselves. It's that simple.

I'm perfectly okay with the "Pirates are assholes" stance. I am an asshole. I admit this. What I'm not okay with is when industry groups distort facts by trying to get one crime confused as a completely separate crime. Make no mistake.. both are crimes, but the attempt is to bring the loaded meanings of one term to a completely different word. It's factually incorrect, and it needs to stop. It's that simple.

+1 to you, and this is correct. The industry doesn't get called out by Congress when it claims billions of dollars of lost revenue by people who wouldn't have paid either way.

Of course, I've come to believe that intellectual honesty is a cognitive luxury for most people; especially politicians.

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

#203

Post by bluebridge »

krig wrote: post #165
bluebridge wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an employee, you have no basis for understanding the perceived loss that piracy incurs- you are paid 100% what you agreed upon for your creative efforts. Someone else is taking the risk and losing the profit. If you went to get your paycheck and found out that it was 40% lower than what you thought, you might feel some of that self-righteous anger that businesses are espousing. More realistically the worst you wil…

Now you are making a different argument, but I can argue just as effectively against this one. :) In my role as copyright superhero have I not only worked as an employee at companies producing copyrighted works, I have also, personally, produced and sold copyrighted works that have, to some extent, been pirated. I have yet to feel any self-righteous anger. The only anger I might feel is a certain frustration where so…

Well then, I stand corrected, you do have some basis for your statement. :)

Though it doesn't sound like you gained your livelihood from the production of such works. My dad is a farmer who wanted to pass on the farm to my brother. They had various communication issues, but one of the underlying complaints of my father was that my brother didn't understand the seriousness of being in business. He would say, "His nuts aren't in the ringer."

I don't think piracy ruins businesses. However, I don't think that anyone can make the argument that they ethically have the right to disregard the producer's terms for consuming their product, regardless of the form the product is in or how unreasonable those terms are. The creator of the product has the right to define their terms and if you violate his/her terms, it's a transgression. It's not a favor, a lesson, or a statement, you're taking without honoring their work in the way they've decided. Maybe it will turn out great for them in the end, maybe not- it doesn't matter, they set the terms and you violated them.

Piracy is parasitic, not productive, and everyone loses. We get these stupid censorship bills rolling through and resources are spent in trying to control the phenomena instead of innovating and addressing real issues.

Regarding Minecraft-- I did not realize that it was successful because it was pirated. I know that it got some good reviews on popular sites and I believe they sold a cheap development version and were successful because of this accessible model (versus a Microsoft approach). Wikipedia says that the developers decided to start their video game company and focus exclusively on it with the money they earned from their sales. To me, this does not sound like a pirate success story. It actually reinforces my belief that it absolutely requires resources to back any serious effort and this is something that piracy never provides.

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

#204

Post by v0cab »

hnal943 wrote: post #135
JulianMorrison wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What a convenient morality you have. "I get to have what I want and have no obligation to anyone else." To bad it doesn't scale.

(I agree with JulianMorrison.)

Why doesn't it scale?

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

#205

Post by v0cab »

tmh88j wrote: post #141
JulianMorrison wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd really like to hear your explanation for why you have no obligation. Just because pirating isn't theft in the technical sense, it doesn't mean you're excempt from paying for someone else's work if you use it for their intended purposes. (as in downloading a song and listening to it)

Somebody probably bought that song originally, and they are sharing it with you.

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

#206

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#207

Post by roguecoder »

VMG wrote: post #186
aklofas wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happens if nobody pays for a copy of Linux 3.2? There won't be a Linux 3.4. I think the business model needs to change a bit. That's all.

That is not your decision to make. By the way, are GPL violations equally just anachronistic hippie pipe dreams or real crimes?

GPL violations are hypocrisy. We can judge people on their proclaimed beliefs without sharing those beliefs ;-)

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

#208

Post by roguecoder »

chaz wrote: post #134
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…

World of Goo launched on Steam and still saw 90% piracy. http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/12/my-software-is-bein...

Why would it have been a better outcome if the same number of people had paid for the game and only 10% as many people got to play? It wouldn't have been better for the game-makers and it would have been far worse for the population.

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

#209

Post by v0cab »

davorb wrote: post #89

I do not feel that I am morally obliged to pay and I believe that the laws should be changed. We have IP rules when it comes to a musical composition and architecture. Why not in other areas such as hairstyles or recipes?

Right. I'm a language teacher and I don't get paid when a student gets a job and uses something I taught him.

I also don't get paid if that student becomes a language teacher and reuses lesson ideas he got from me.

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

#210

Post by kmm »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #52
kmm wrote: post #18

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 usi…

Except moral relativism is not any more defensible. Suppose the creator of a work asks you to pay for it, but a pirate chooses not to. Why shouldn't we call the pirate an asshole? They've disrespected the terms of use set by the author, as well as the author themselves. It's that simple.

Read again, I didn't say you couldn't call the pirate an asshole. But in this article, and in many others, this is presented as an argument and not as the insult/opinion it is.

Besides, more often than not these terms are not set by the author of the work, but by for example a music label. Most artists of popular contemporary music don't hold the copyright to their own work any more.

Post reply on HN