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

Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

neowin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 235 posts

Re: Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

#221

Post by qu4z-2 »

rhizome wrote: post #35
cremnob wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This trope comes up every time piracy is discussed. The point is no one is talking about the legal meaning of "stealing" versus "copyright infringement". What people are saying is that it's immoral. The fact that a content company's product is easily stolen simply because the nature of his business means it is effortless to do through the internet doesn't change anything. If you go to a lawyer for legal advice and th…

What do you mean, "entitled" to it? Are you saying that people who engage in this behavior argue for it to continue indefinitely? I've always known copying to be a reaction to a market failure, not a proposed permanent state of affairs. Where does "entitlement" come into it?

I'm gonna chime in and say that I would certainly propose sharing as a permanent state of affairs. Just not sharing the works of authors who'd prefer we didn't. I propose we move toward listening to/watching/playing more stuff that's Creative Commons or similarly licensed.

Mix that in with a bit of Work-for-Hire for things no-one really wants to make, and it would hopefully be viable. Maybe I'm an idealist.

Re: Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

#222

Post by qu4z-2 »

angersock wrote: post #212
Domenic_S wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reasonable "victim" left for this crime of infringement The victim is the artist's heirs.

What'd they do to deserve anything?

Hey, it takes a lot of effort and sweat-of-the-brow to be born as the kid of some rich dude!

I've been trying for years and I still haven't managed it!

Re: Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

#223

Post by qu4z-2 »

gizmo686 wrote: post #55
Devilboy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy for personal use is a 'victimless' (don't bite my head off please) crime, that's why it's OK here. Stealing is not.

Not necessarily. When you pirate something, you are hurting the owner's chances of selling it to you in the future. If you know that there is no chance that you will buy it, then it is victimless. If however things change and you are in a position where you would buy it, you are far less likely to, which does hurt the seller.

In some cases you're actually helping the owner's chances of selling it to you in the future. Sometimes I pirate something and it's so good that I just have to buy it.

Of course, in a lot of cases demos would work well for that, but they seem to have fallen out of favour recently.

Re: Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

#224

Post by qu4z-2 »

joesb wrote: post #200
learc83 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the homeless person was taking food from the infinite food replicator, then yes it would be fine.

Why does it have to be infinite? Every restaurant has left over at the end of the day. Is it wrong for the homeless to pick up food from those shop during the day without paying? Is it wrong for the homeless to sleep in your house in the room no one is currently using?

It has to be infinite for the analogy to work.

The restaurants have to pay to replace food the homeless would pick up during the day (or even put in work to prepare it for a restaurant). Food that's leftover at the end of the day and can't be sold the next day could certainly be given to the homeless for free (and I know of at least a few restaurants in my city that do this).

The homeless person sleeping in the spare room creates cleanup work, and prevents you from using that room at a moment's notice. If a homeless person could sleep in my spare room without using the shared spaces and leaving the room instantly, in perfect order, the moment I wanted to use the room, I don't think I can morally justify not letting them.

So while the situations you mention may or may not be moral, it's shifting the debate back into a worldview centred around scarcity.

Re: Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

#225

Post by javert »

barrkel wrote: post #126
javert wrote: post #109

I’m just saying that it’s not all black and white. It is black and white. It's theft. The issue of whether you shold steal in certain conditions is a separate issue, as discussed some in the article. But it is black and white, it's theft.

Are you using black and white to mean a clear distinction, or to mean moral good and bad? It's not black and white to me. It's obvious that copyright violation is not directly equivalent to theft on a black and white basis; there are clear differences, such as theft depriving someone else of a physical good, so under the "clear distinction" interpretation of your statement, it is plainly wrong. And as to moral interp…

I use it to mean a clear distinction.

Re: Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

#226

Post by qu4z-2 »

cotsuka wrote: post #183

I responded to the people justifying piracy using this article here: http://nightra.in/random/ethics-of-piracy/ In short, I think Vlad is trying to explain that piracy was only a last resort for him. And it should only be a last resort.

> There are many commentators online trying to split hairs and say that pirating is not the same as stealing. As such, it isn’t a crime.

Just to nitpick a little here (and I apologise if I misunderstood your post) but I don't think I've EVER heard anyone argue that piracy is not a crime just because it's not stealing. Copyright infringement ("piracy") is definitely a crime, and it's definitely not stealing. Whether it's morally defensible is a whole different debate and one I don't want to enter into right now.

Re: Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

#227

Post by qu4z-2 »

Domenic_S wrote: post #186
polskibus wrote: post #57

Information wants to be free. Nothing will stop it. Humanity has been copying "proprietary" information forever. People gossip about work and other secrets, copy other people's notes, etc. Computer software is just yet another example of it, the scenery of old Soviet block just puts a bit more contrast to it in comparison to Western experiences. Now, generating a trend, by for example making your information the domi…

> Information wants to be free You might be too young to have read this in Phrack, but I feel it's apt: Let me tell you something. Information does not want to be free, my friends. Free neither from its restraints nor in terms of dollar value. Information is a commodity like anything else. More valuable than the rarest element, it BEGS to be hoarded and priced. Anyone who gives something away for nothing is a moron.…

I feel like you and your source misunderstand the phrase. It is worded confusingly, so it's not all that surprising.

Perhaps a better wording would be "Information tends to spread". It's really about the arrow of time. It's much easier to give someone information than to take information away from them. Taking public knowledge and making it secret is a lot harder than taking secret knowledge and making it public.

> Trade secrets don't want to be free, marketing projections don't want to be free, formulas don't want to be free, troop placements don't want to be free, CAD designs do not want to be free, corporate financial information doesn't want to be free, my credit report sure as hell doesn't want to be free!

Personification confuses the issue here, but assuming those examples were meant as "want to be secret" rather than the much weaker "don't want to be free ('cause they're information, and have no will of their own)" then I should point out that it's actually YOU that wants your credit report to stay secret, and the army that wants troop placements to remain secret. The information wants nothing, but will tend to spread.

There's nothing to stop you working against this natural tendency, but it requires you to put in a certain amount of effort and maintenance. Water tends to flow downhill, but we can make hollows and dams and the like to keep it in, and that's a very useful thing to do. But in a sense water could be said to "want to flow downhill".

Of course, if someone argued against dams because "water wants to flow downhill", that would be ridiculous. I'm sure that a lot of (most?) people who use that phrase mean it in exactly the way that you interpret it, which is unfortunate as it is then reduced to something more like "I feel we have a moral imperative to share information". And surely there's a better way of phrasing that.

So maybe I'm the one misunderstanding. But I like my interpretation better.

Re: Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

#228

Post by guard-of-terra »

Xcelerate wrote: post #173
guard-of-terra wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's your right to not hire anyone you don't like, but then it's our right to thing you're stupid. You are. And then you are spoiled. And invested too much into the whole "I'm creating something so great that I'm entitled" school of thought.

> it's our right to thing you're stupid Likewise. Instead of ad hominem attacks, explain to me why exactly you think I am spoiled. I expect better replies from Hacker News than something like Reddit, and yours fails to meet such a standard. I appreciate constructive, well thought-out criticism to my arguments, but your post demonstrates nothing of the sort.

Sorry, I was typing from my phone.

Promising to not hire someone is an ad hominem attack of itself. Really helpless and pathetic one at that.

Re: Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

#229

Post by Xcelerate »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #228
Xcelerate wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's our right to thing you're stupid Likewise. Instead of ad hominem attacks, explain to me why exactly you think I am spoiled. I expect better replies from Hacker News than something like Reddit, and yours fails to meet such a standard. I appreciate constructive, well thought-out criticism to my arguments, but your post demonstrates nothing of the sort.

Sorry, I was typing from my phone. Promising to not hire someone is an ad hominem attack of itself. Really helpless and pathetic one at that.

> Really helpless and pathetic one at that

I don't say things like this. This is level DH0 (see http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html). If you keep posting these sorts of comments, then you don't belong on HN because you can't formulate a coherent argument against my points. Other people can -- just look at some of the other replies I've gotten. For some reason, you seem unable to do so.

In fact, I just looked through your comment history. It's amazing how many of your posts are gray, indicating that you have negative points. There are a lot of guides on the internet for coming up with better arguments (with more etiquette as well). Immature arguments belong on places like Reddit or 4chan. Hacker News holds itself to higher standards, so hopefully I can get you to reach these as well. If you need some tips on good debate skills, I will be glad to share them with you.

Re: Editorial: "How piracy changed my life"

#230

Post by demetrius »

Domenic_S wrote: post #185
demetrius wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> What is wrong with accepting that >> you are doing something wrong and... >> keep doing it if you wish? Because we believe there’s honestly nothing wrong with it. Paraphrasing you: I don’t understand what is wrong with accepting that pirates are doing something right and... abstain from doing it if you wish?

> Because we believe there’s honestly nothing wrong with it. Your belief is not required. Laws are laws.

Laws are not set in stone (and when they were, in Hammurapi’s time, it didn’t help much), and some laws are clearly stupid and vicious. For example, in imperial China, it was once illegal for an ordinary person to keep astronomical tools at home (if I remember corectly, there was a death penalty for this). I believe copyright laws are just like this.
Post reply on HN