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

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

#261

Post by yungchin » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:03 PM UTC

grellas wrote: post #214

alextingle wrote: post #125

The author has a fundamental misunderstanding of what laws mean, and how they change. In England, it is illegal to eat mince pies on Christmas day? Why? Because centuries ago England was governed by a despotic, fundamentalist Christian regime that did not approve of Christmas celebrations. Should I then refrain from eating the mince pie? No. I and millions of my fellow countrymen eat mince pies, and most are complete…

The Internet has made copyright law outdated. Social norms are in the process of adjusting to the new situation. Well, the Internet certainly has led to a generation of young people who are accustomed to downloading freely from various sources without regard to copyright restrictions and, in this sense, I would concur that social norms are changing. Unfortunately, the law itself is far from changing and, while some o…

Thanks for your thoughtful posts on this topic. I can only agree when you say that "copyright is a key part of many forms of commercial activity whose nature is not changed by the Internet and whose deep-seated roots require the continuation of copyright" - however, it seems this begs the question whether society wouldn't be as likeable without those forms of commerce, and with others in their place?

I think you're right that in a world of weaker IP, Pixar wouldn't have happened, for want of capital. However, Toy Story might still have happened - perhaps it would have taken a few years more, until the cost of making it would have dropped enough to make it worthwhile investing in even though you'd only get a few weeks of box-office revenue?

Perhaps, also, many movies would be closer to "Dogville" (shot on a bare film set) than to "The Wolfman" (last year's remake, costing ~150M dollars). But, as Boldrine and Levine argue in their book "Against Intellectual Monopoly", maybe actors would compensate for their lower income by making more films per year (they look to the adult film industry to back up this suggestion, arguing that that is a reasonable model for a world of weak copyright). That is, creative output would not necessarily drop.

> ... whose livelihood in the economy as currently structured depends on it.

Your careful wording here tells me that we don't really disagree: certainly a reform that brings weaker copyright laws would cause a lot of pain to many established trades. With a well-designed transitional period though, I suspect that in the long term they would adapt, rather than simply cease to be creative.

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

#262

Post by etfb » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:06 PM UTC

Quite right. That earlier rant about the moral superiority of piracy was just embarrassing. Nobody who produces anything of value needs to be told that they should be giving it away for free. They can choose to give it away, but being required to do so is another matter entirely.

If everybody who believes that copyright is completely unnecessary were to die today, the total amount of useful, worthwhile art produced by the world would not decrease.

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

#263

Post by bluebridge » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:16 PM UTC

krig wrote: post #246

bluebridge wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, I've never worked for myself as in paying the bills based on my own copyright, although not from a lack of trying. I, like many people, started out with dreams of fame and glory through music, but gave it up quite early as the risks involved in choosing that career far outweighed the potential benefit. Plus, this was during the first dot com bubble, so getting into computers seemed like a good deal. I see you bro…

I agree on ethics. No one can prove right or wrong, so it has limited charm. I think though, that most would understand that beyond ethics, piracy is directly compromising the agreement that the producer sets out- similar to lying or stealing in that it's not admirable behavior, regardless of how many Johnny Depp posters you have put up (like one of the pro-piracy blogs that was posted earlier.)

Don't get me wrong, I don't support these asinine bills, however I do see people who pirate as directly supporting them. Which is upsetting because they're creating a demand and a rationale for censorship, which affects everyone.

On the same note, I see bandied around that the bills creators don't understand the fundamental architecture of the Internet and the damage it would cause. I see, "pirates," as not understanding the fundamental architecture of capitalism and ignoring the damage it causes.

Specifically, the exchange of resources where both parties benefit.

If a provider wants exposure and wants to give away their product for exposure, that's up to them, not anyone else. And for digital products it's a hell of a lot easier to provide them public domain or open source than it is to sell them.

However, exposure doesn't pay the bills. I am self employed and I see similar sentiments expressed on a regular basis. Product or service provider, if what I provide is valuable enough for you to ask for or steal, I obviously don't need the exposure that bad. There was a $6,000 photograph post up earlier that expressed the same idea.

If you liked Minecraft, there is nothing to prevent you from paying for it and touting it. Minecraft is an especially relevant example because the developers set the bar so low in regards to price and people still pirated something they claimed to love? That's so bizarre to me- I want to support independent developers much more so than the big guys and they weren't asking for much.

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

#264

Post by angus77 » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:29 PM UTC

roguecoder wrote: post #207

VMG wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ;-)

GPL violations are copyright violations. Where's the hypocrisy?

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

#265

Post by teamonkey » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:43 PM UTC

tikhonj wrote: post #191

grantheaslip wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re saying that because people are stealing their software, Microsoft should throw away their business model? If people were stealing iPads from Apple stores, would you suggest Apple should “figure [that] out for themselves”?

First of all, copying is completely different from stealing, but we've been over that before. Secondly, stores actually do deal with shoplifting--they euphemistically call it "inventory shrinkage" and just chalk it up as an expense . "Unauthorized" copying isn't even an expense!

Yeah, it's fine to steal from stores because they budget for it, it's fine to steal from people's homes because they have insurance, etc. Nobody loses!

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

#266

Post by SteveJS » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:46 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #201

SteveJS wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

It can't quite be the Golden Rule .. "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you". I'm an atheist. I have zero holy places to profane. And yet I do think it is immoral to profane someone's holy place, despite my belief that it is a social creation.

I don't believe many serious people would ascribe to this 'GR' moral logic: "I don't care if someone appropriates my creations" (because I give mine away, or I have none) ergo "I am morally sound in appropriating others creations."

I agree with you that it may be pointless to argue piracy is immoral with someone who thinks it is moral. However, I don't think it is actually condescending to have that as a base assumption.

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

#267

Post by DanEdge » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:51 PM UTC

v0cab wrote: post #204

hnal943 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because people who don't pirate stuff are subsidising those who do and if nobody paid for anything, new stuff wouldn't get made (or at least it wouldn't be available from those people who relied on the income from sales to make a living).

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

#268

Post by res0nat0r » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:54 PM UTC

martinkallstrom wrote: post #253

res0nat0r wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is his right to do so. It is also the right of other authors to be against free bittorrenting of their books because they believe it hurts their pocketbook. The key is the creator of the material makes this decision, not the consumer.

Actually, he did this illegally. His publisher had the copyright to all translations, not himself. So he routinely asked "to see them" and then routinely leaked them on The Pirate Bay. Again, this is according to himself.

Notice how this was the content creators choice to put his works online for free. Since he didn't own the works it is still technically wrong, but it is also wrong for Joe Blow consumer to decide to put up copies online of content from creators without their permission.

Why do I keep getting downvoted for stating a fact? It is against the law to put online content you don't own copyright to. Not sure why this is incorrect.

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

#269

Post by Retric » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:55 PM UTC

res0nat0r wrote: post #234

onemoreact wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability for 1/2 the people on the planet to distribute content without meaningful cost barriers is vary new. It's caused people to create and publish far more interesting content in a single day than you can consume in a single day. We are transiting through a tipping point where locating and filtering content is becoming more valuable than creating it. Consider, on average do you enjoy reading HN posts? In what…

I'm pretty sure no one is trying to make a living by creating new HN posts with interesting content. If he is, I need to send him a couple of boxes of ramen so he can eat next week ;)

Your stuck with Post > Money. Some people have gone Posts > Better Job > Money other have gone Post > investor > Lost of Money. That ignores the value of some of the HN discussions I recently had an respond to my post with something 1/4 the size of the linked article. While money did not change hands I suspect we both benefited for level of discourse.

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

#270

Post by artsrc » Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:55 PM UTC

roguecoder wrote: post #193

mikeash wrote: post #25

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 the…

People don't understand how Ethics works. On the anti-piracy side there are two groups: The first are artists who believe, without any evidence, that they can make more money when copyright is enforced. The second are people start out assuming that the right to control information is a moral right. They then derive the ethical implication that people shouldn't pirate. On the pro-file sharing side there are two groups…

Is this a separate anti-intellectual property view:

I like content and am greedy for it. Copyright helps me get more content by providing incentive. This is the benefit.

Whatever these are benefits of copyright, the practical collateral costs (to privacy, freedom, making everyone a criminal etc) of enforcing copyright law make it not a worthwhile.