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

Show HN: movies.io — torrent search like it should be

movies.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 509 posts

Re: Show HN: movies.io — torrent search like it should be

#321

Post by hxa7241 »

edw519 wrote: post #79

I don't know which I feel saddest about: 1. Whether or not this is actually illegal, it is clearly unethical and not in the spirit of good clean business and technology practices we should all be aspire to. 2. That it quickly made it to #1 on Hacker News. 3. That I seem to be one of the few who cares while most others nit on details.

People really ought to stop and examine this idea that copying information is somehow underneath unethical -- and that the special word 'unethical' can be uttered and that will tell people to behave.

Information is a nonrival good: it is an abundance with respect to access -- how on earth, in any rational conception of morality, can free access to an abundant good be construed as intrinsically immoral?

It is unethical only pragmatically: only in that (it is proposed) the economy will function better with some restrictions on copying -- which is the main purpose of the law. That is: it is unethical no further than it is illegal.

Re: Show HN: movies.io — torrent search like it should be

#322

Post by icebraining »

watsix wrote: post #258
icebraining wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Stealing", as you call it, doesn't "hurt the creators of the material" any more than simply not buying does. In fact, if anything it helps: Among Canadians who engage in P2P file-sharing, our results suggest that for every 12 P2P downloaded songs, music purchases increase by 0.44 CDs. That is, downloading the equivalent of approximately one CD increases purchasing by about half of a CD. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/…

That only works if you contend that every single person who pirated something would not have purchased the thing otherwise. I'm pretty sure that's wrong in the same way that saying every single pirated copy of something results in lost revenue (as the MPAA and RIAA contend.) It might not be as wrong, but it's still wrong. And while there are plenty of studies that suggest piracy might help sales, there are also plent…

That only works if you contend that every single person who pirated something would not have purchased the thing otherwise.

First, downloading doesn't prevent purchasing.

Secondly, otherwise how? Either you download it or you don't. Do you mean, if it wasn't available to download? But that's not the "stealing" part. That's uploading/sharing, which is a different issue.

Thirdly, "hurting" potential sales is not inheritly wrong. In fact, that's what many - most? - startups try to do.

And while there are plenty of studies that suggest piracy might help sales, there are also plenty that suggest that it does not:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-digit....

That's not a study, that's a joke. 30 movies of an extremely biased sample over just a three year period?

I'd rather have a more global view of the movie industry: for example, the five years of consecutive record profits that the MPAA had right during the Bittorrent boom.

In fact, while the issue is plenty debatable I'd say that most of the evidence comes down on the side of "yes, piracy hurts sales, just no where near as much as the MPAA would have you think." (Though even the article above suggests that piracy wouldn't be as much of an issue if movies were released worldwide simultaneously.)

Most studies are paid by the industry. It'd be extraordinary if they said otherwise.

Furthermore, "hurting the creators" needn't necessarily be financial. There are many, many artists, programmers, etc. -- not big publishers, but creators -- who hate piracy with a passion. They often feel under assault by Internet companies the way that people here feel under assault by the MPAA. I think they're misguided, but it's irresponsible to just say "fuck you, this doesn't hurt."

I'm pretty sure file sharers feel offended by your inacurate accusations too, but that didn't stop you.

So no, "hurting the creators" is not false, probably not financially

Again, not buying is not buying. Whether you "pirate" or not is irrelevant - it doesn't affect the creator financially either way.

and certainly not ethically (you're doing something with their work they don't want.)

And I'm pretty sure MS doesn't want me to install LibreOffice on "their" work. So what? We, content creators, are not gods that have a right to demand whatever we want from our users. Is it unethical to lend or sell your car if e.g. Toyota doesn't want you to?

Re: Show HN: movies.io — torrent search like it should be

#323

Post by [deleted] »

jellicle wrote: post #199
laughinghan wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. Why do you think this "clearly unethical"? I don't think it's clear at all. Everyone I know pirates movies, TV shows, and music. Everyone I know also jaywalks. I also know people who use drugs illegally, as well as participate in or facilitate underage drinking, and I don't have a problem with any of it. Are these unethical? Someone clearly thought so. Do I care? You know what the truth is, for me, and eve…

I would say it's clearly ethical, even required, to share knowledge and information with other people. That's pretty much the highest impulse a human has, right up there with "protect your offspring". As Rick Falkvinge is so eloquent in saying, this is our culture, and permitting monopolies on it is just disastrously bad policy. Copyright is a subsidy to distributors, not artists. And the distributors know it. There'…

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: movies.io — torrent search like it should be

#324

Post by laughinghan »

sigzero wrote: post #293
ma2rten wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you asked, I shall explain. Here is my working definition of something that immoral: Violating the written or unwritten rules of the society one lives in, in a way that is directly harmful to another person or group of people, though ones actions. So taking drugs is fine, since you are not harming another person. Downloading a film is also fine for the same reason. With selling drugs and jaywalking it depends.…

Ethics and morals are not the same.

This is not a constructive comment. Care to explain the distinction and how that distinction is relevant to a discussion about digital piracy?

Re: Show HN: movies.io — torrent search like it should be

#325

Post by hxa7241 »

Tycho wrote: post #261
hxa7241 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not necessarily parasitical (and not at all dishonourable), because the only justification for imposing restrictions on people's freedom to share informational goods is the standard economic rationale, and we cannot a priori specify the correct extent of that. If copyright is actually too long (broad, etc.) a de facto reduction of it by illicit copying would be economically beneficial (and that seems most likel…

Someone worked really hard to make something, then you take it without permission. You want others to live for your sake. That makes you a parasite.

These are nonrival goods -- as many people can use and enjoy them as want to with no hindrance or loss to any. When there is plenty for everyone, why should any have a right to impose restrictions on others? The only plausible reason is a collective one: that we can in practice (by stimulating production) get a better functioning economy.

Living for others' sake is what being human is largely about, it is what cooperative systems like economies are about -- which are critical for us to live well. By maximising our costless use of nonrival goods we all gain.

Re: Show HN: movies.io — torrent search like it should be

#326

Post by paulhauggis »

laughinghan wrote: post #186
edw519 wrote: post #79

I don't know which I feel saddest about: 1. Whether or not this is actually illegal, it is clearly unethical and not in the spirit of good clean business and technology practices we should all be aspire to. 2. That it quickly made it to #1 on Hacker News. 3. That I seem to be one of the few who cares while most others nit on details.

I'll bite. Why do you think this "clearly unethical"? I don't think it's clear at all. Everyone I know pirates movies, TV shows, and music. Everyone I know also jaywalks. I also know people who use drugs illegally, as well as participate in or facilitate underage drinking, and I don't have a problem with any of it. Are these unethical? Someone clearly thought so. Do I care? You know what the truth is, for me, and eve…

"Everyone I know pirates movies, TV shows, and music. Everyone I know also jaywalks. I also know people who use drugs illegally, as well as participate in or facilitate underage drinking, and I don't have a problem with any of it. Are these unethical? Someone clearly thought so. Do I care?"

I love discussions like this, because something like this is not clearly unethical, but when GNU code is used without following the license (like in the thesis Wordpress theme debacle awhile back, people cry "theft".

"I don't hurt people, and I don't steal (physical things)"

This is a nice way of trying to legitimize piracy. As a business owner, should I really feel bad if I outsource to China and put 100 people in the US out of work? or how about if I automate people out of jobs?

Re: Show HN: movies.io — torrent search like it should be

#327

Post by pbhjpbhj »

rmc wrote: post #158
canadaduane wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy is paired because both piracy and meth are illegal in the USA. However, the pairing lacks equivalence in my view because crystal meth is clearly (and by nature, not by law) harmful to the user, while piracy is not. A better analogy might be a website that helps others circumvent the Great Firewall of China. It is illegal in one particular country, but circumvention does not harm individuals (only the soc…

Your censorship analogy is flawed, since copyright infringement is not legal in any country (im not sure, but Ethiopia might have started recognising foreign copyrights now)

>since copyright infringement is not legal in any country //

Last time I looked there were still a few countries that weren't signatories to international copyright laws, PNG I think was one? Maybe Nauru, Tuvalu, Vatican City?

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/summary.jsp gives details of those places that aren't party to _international_ IP treaties. Note Vatican City is in that list as "Holy See" and is a signatory to a few IP treaties.

Re: Show HN: movies.io — torrent search like it should be

#328

Post by laughinghan »

ma2rten wrote: post #270
laughinghan wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. Why do you think this "clearly unethical"? I don't think it's clear at all. Everyone I know pirates movies, TV shows, and music. Everyone I know also jaywalks. I also know people who use drugs illegally, as well as participate in or facilitate underage drinking, and I don't have a problem with any of it. Are these unethical? Someone clearly thought so. Do I care? You know what the truth is, for me, and eve…

Since you asked, I shall explain. Here is my working definition of something that immoral: Violating the written or unwritten rules of the society one lives in, in a way that is directly harmful to another person or group of people, though ones actions. So taking drugs is fine, since you are not harming another person. Downloading a film is also fine for the same reason. With selling drugs and jaywalking it depends.…

1. To be immoral, something both has to violate rules of society in addition to being "directly" harmful? So if it's directly harmful but violates no rules of society (e.g. beating and raping women in societies where that's socially acceptable), or it violates rules of society but is only indirectly harmful, it's perfectly moral?

2. What's your working definition of "directly harmful"? Littering directly harms wildlife, does it directly harm people? Buying some drugs directly supports people who actively harm other people. Last I heard, there was mounting evidence that second-hand smoke was worse than what used to be believed; is smoking indoors "directly harmful" to other occupants?

3. I'm not sure what you mean by "counter-argument" (what are you arguing against? Your definition?), but you seem to be saying you feel like there should be intentionality in there somewhere but you're not sure where. I hope you don't need me to tell you that muddies the issue further, e.g. religious fanatics that really believe they're saving souls or the world when they hurt people.

Re: Show HN: movies.io — torrent search like it should be

#329

Post by laughinghan »

paulhauggis wrote: post #326
laughinghan wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. Why do you think this "clearly unethical"? I don't think it's clear at all. Everyone I know pirates movies, TV shows, and music. Everyone I know also jaywalks. I also know people who use drugs illegally, as well as participate in or facilitate underage drinking, and I don't have a problem with any of it. Are these unethical? Someone clearly thought so. Do I care? You know what the truth is, for me, and eve…

"Everyone I know pirates movies, TV shows, and music. Everyone I know also jaywalks. I also know people who use drugs illegally, as well as participate in or facilitate underage drinking, and I don't have a problem with any of it. Are these unethical? Someone clearly thought so. Do I care?" I love discussions like this, because something like this is not clearly unethical, but when GNU code is used without following…

1. That's actually very good point. I don't know anything about this "thesis Wordpress theme debacle", but if someone copied GNU code without attribution, for example, even though it doesn't obviously hurt anyone, I'd think that's wrong.

I think the difference is twofold: it's socially unacceptable, and empathically, I'd be offended if someone plagiarized my work.

2. I am not trying to legitimize piracy just because "I don't hurt people, and I don't steal (physical things)", and I didn't say so. What I mean, and what I tried to say, was that I haven't decided whether I think piracy is ethical or not, and I care little enough that I probably won't decide for the forseeable future.

As a business owner, should I really feel bad if I outsource to China and put 100 people in the US out of work? or how about if I automate people out of jobs?

I'm surprised you take it as a given that you should feel bad doing so. We live in a very capitalistic world, and I think most capitalists would say no, you absolutely shouldn't feel bad. Do you believe we should be employing people in obsolete jobs just to avoid putting people out of work? I will happily provide examples compiled by capitalists of just that, taken to the extreme, to prove how bad of an idea it is.

Re: Show HN: movies.io — torrent search like it should be

#330

Post by rplnt »

nddrylliog wrote: post #20
rplnt wrote: post #16

I miss the time when torrentz.com (now https://torrentz.eu/ ) used to have magnet links. Now I have to click through to piratebay (or worse). Although I don't plan on using this, nice job. One point - I don't think you should move the search bar around. It would be better if it was in the same place all the time, whether there are results or not.

Fair point about the search bar, we'll try to think of it in the redesign. Do you have any idea why torrentz pulled magnet links? Seems insane that linking to sites with .torrent files is easier to defend (legally) than having directly magnet links.

Maybe someone got scared? I don't know.. but my guess would be a better CTR on sponsored links that are shown alongside trackers.
Post reply on HN