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

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

#21

Post by rplst8 » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:17 PM UTC

"if you want to protest the crappy way these companies treat their customers, don't buy their stuff. but you can't have your cake and eat it. protest by not using or having it at all. they have something you want; even if you don't agree with their methods, it is still theirs to decide what to do with. all you are doing is supporting the industry in their drive to stamp out pirates; instead, support legal ways of obtaining this content through spotify and others. "

The one fault I see with this argument (mainly related to music) is this: There is no way to simply boycott the the recording companies' products without boycotting the artists as well. Recording companies have a monopoly on the artists they cover. While US contract law supports this arrangement, the model is broken in today's world of digital distribution.

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

#22

Post by jiggy2011 » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:18 PM UTC

I don't know about the morals of this but I do know that if we hadn't pirated as gratuitously for the last 10 years we wouldn't have DRM or Walled Gardens to the extent we do today.

I think the content industries will decide we can't be trusted with our toys anymore and move them all to the cloud where we can peek at them for a monthly fee.

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

#23

Post by epo » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:20 PM UTC

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…

You have no idea what you are talking about, I'm guessing this is because you have never created anything worthwhile on which your livelihood depended. I'm sure you'd be quick to whine if your employer (assuming you are old enough to work) could decide whether or not you should be paid for your work after you had done it. I hope you congratulate the next person to steal from you with a cheery "well done, that's my morality too".

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

#24

Post by cicero » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:20 PM UTC

zerostar07 wrote: post #13

blottsie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The morality question isn't necessarily obvious, but the pervasiveness of a particular activity has nothing to do with its morality. Was slavery more morally correct when the majority approved of it, or at least looked the other way? Absolutely not.

Morals are not natural laws. People did not generally feel guilty or immoral for using slaves until the morals themselves changed. Similarly today with piracy: it doesn't feel morally wrong enough to warrant legal action to the minds of many. There needs to be a larger discussion about what is intellectual property (in fact, whether it exists) in the digital age. Legal experts should be discussing these issues but th…

If we are going to reduce morality to the way a majority feels about an issue, then in a democratic society, does it make any sense to differentiate between morality and legality? Shouldn't the democratic process eventually result in laws that reflect the morality of the majority? How can you say a law is immoral without taking a vote? For example, if the majority in California voted for Proposition 8, how can it be immoral?

(Note: I believe morals are natural laws. They are just not as easy to discern as physical laws because it is harder for us to be morally neutral observers.)

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

#25

Post by mikeash » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:26 PM UTC

I don't really understand these posts that simply declare that the correct choice is not to use their stuff, that piracy is wrong, and it's not your choice.

I happen to agree with the overall conclusion that one should seek alternatives in these cases, but this is just an argument by shouting. It's foolish to simply declare, "it's not your choice". Clearly, people think it is their choice. If you want to convince them, you had better back it up with reasoning. The right to control is simply not an obvious, mostly-universally-held right like the right not to be murdered or the right to physical property.

The copyright debate is getting awfully stale. I wish the participants would come up with something new to say instead of just constantly declaring that piracy is not allowed on one side and that piracy doesn't hurt anybody on the other side.

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

#26

Post by larrik » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:29 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #22

I don't know about the morals of this but I do know that if we hadn't pirated as gratuitously for the last 10 years we wouldn't have DRM or Walled Gardens to the extent we do today. I think the content industries will decide we can't be trusted with our toys anymore and move them all to the cloud where we can peek at them for a monthly fee.

I disagree.

In my experience as a consultant and graphic designer (actually fronting for my wife, I'm not really a designer), everyone who isn't a young internet-savvy type just freaks out at the idea that people might "steal" stuff of their website. They constantly ask if there is way to let users/visitors see PDFs or other parts of their website without people being able to download them.

I, of course, tell them that downloading is actually an unavoidable requirement to the user seeing anything at all, etc. Some simply don't post as much as they would have.

My point is that DRM would likely always be the first idea a content owner thinks of when they consider putting something on any digital medium.

(Also consider that DRM existed long before the internet, in the earliest software and games. It just wasn't as fancy.)

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

#27

Post by larrik » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:37 PM UTC

rplst8 wrote: post #21

"if you want to protest the crappy way these companies treat their customers, don't buy their stuff. but you can't have your cake and eat it. protest by not using or having it at all. they have something you want; even if you don't agree with their methods, it is still theirs to decide what to do with. all you are doing is supporting the industry in their drive to stamp out pirates; instead, support legal ways of obt…

That's a good point.

The next best thing may be to only buy used CDs. Then you legally get the music AND annoy them at the same time.

Of course, you COULD actually boycott the artists. There are tons of independent musicians on the internet you can support. If you think that only the big label ones are worth your time and money, then clearly your opinions on the big labels themselves are unfounded.

(Just to be clear, all of the above "you"s refer not to the parent, but to everyone in general)

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

#28

Post by kmm » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:39 PM UTC

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.

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

#29

Post by rmc » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:42 PM UTC

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…

Legally obliged to pay for? Yes.

A technicality, but if you commit copyright infringement you are not legally obliged to pay for it, you either have commited a crime or you are liable to be sued. You can't just download and then owe the person money. This isn't like when you go into a hair dresser, sit down, get your hair cut and now legally have to pay them.

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

#30

Post by manuscreationis » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 2:43 PM UTC

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?