471–480 of 509 posts
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.
Jobs and Wozniak started by building freaking boxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: I work at a legal online video streaming site. Jaywalking, doing drugs, and underage drinking are fundamentally acts against rules, not acts against entities. A risk is being taken and the burden of failure is on the risk-taker. Selling alcohol to minors is unethical. Do I need to get into that? Acquiring media in an unauthorized fashion is an act against the creator and their licensed distributor. That m…
> Selling alcohol to minors is unethical. Do I need to > get into that? Let's. Example: The legal drinking age in Detroit, Michigan, USA is 21 years of age. The legal drinking age in Windsor, Ontario, Canada (right across the river from Detroit) is 19 years old. A 19 year old US citizen drives across the Detroit River and buys a drink at a bar. Is the bar acting unethically? If not, how is it any different (ethically…
Putting an age limit on drugs use is a matter of public health, and protecting people who are not mature enough to understand the consequences of their acts.
Some people take more time than others to reach maturity, so I agree that setting an arbitrary age is not ideal, but it makes some sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually do believe it is a human right to have access to all the art and knowledge. Other people seem to think so too, thats why we have public libraries. I don't know what the solution here is but good things are happening like Spotify were people have the ability to expand their minds, listen to something new and support the artists at the same time. We probably wouldn't have had Spotify without the threat of pi…
It's contested whether Spotify really supports the artists though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why is it wrong? If it's right for me to take someone's work and distribute it against their wishes, why is the diary different? Why would I respect the protections of privacy or trade secret if I don't respect the rights of authorship? I'm not trying to set up a non-sequitur, I'm genuinely trying to understand. Also, while I understand that trade secrets are a different issue with copyright, the only tangible di…
It's wrong because it's trespassing or theft. It directly causes harm to someone to disseminate their private thoughts, whereas a literary or artistic work is intended to be distributed. Trade secrets are really more about contract protection than any right of authorship - the third difference is the key one. Once a trade secret is out in the open it's no longer wrong to spread it further.
And there's really no middle ground? There's no "I want to share this to you, but you can't have it," ???
If we can protect trade secrets though, then I should be able to come up with a song, and play it for a friend, but tell them to keep it secret. Make them sign an NDA even (that's how trade secrets are enforced after all). And THEN I can keep it, right?
So what's the difference between that and releasing a record, on the condition that you keep it secret? Why can't I do that?
Like I said, for me, the anti-copyright notion is too far a stretch. I get that copyright is perhaps broken, and it's certainly been skewed from its original intent, but I don't believe that getting rid of it altogether is the fix for that. I wouldn't support banning all airplane travel because a few have crashed, and I think that's what the anti-copyright extreme would basically have us do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Magnet links are great for trackers dodging liability, but the risk to the user is still the same, correct? The RIAA and MPAA can still monitor connected peers. I think Mike might be making more of a reference to non-private trackers. I wish I had your great interface for trusted communities I'm a member of...
Definitely. We're thinking of open-sourcing it, but we want to clean it up first. Just a Github button away...
There is one book from a portuguese writer where the argument is something like this: press a button, you'll get a million dollars and somebody (that you don't know) in a very far way place dies. Nobody will know about it just you. Will you press it or not? Piracy is the same. Is so easy to get and normally nobody will know, just a smaller reward and smaller consequences too. Most of people just press it.. disclaimer…
Press button, use money to save >2 lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not consider it immoral as long as there is no other way to access the same content without committing an illegal act. As a non-US citizen, I can't even watch half the content even if I would want to pay. The fact that people had to pay multiple times for watching the same content in different formats and that it is considered perfectly legal is more immoral to me than any thing else.
Why can't you use a US iTunes account? How is that illegal? It may well be a violation of the Apple/iTunes TOS but that is different to being illegal .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you just run the randomizer and get the first unique 100 or 200 and cull for NSFW, the effect would be the same without the peril.
That's the thing though: we have 0 movies marked as NSFW from TMDB in our database. We'd have to have a 'Report as NSFW' link somewhere to achieve that, and that seems easy to abuse.