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

Why I'm a Pirate

ploum.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 527 posts

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#501

Post by jiggy2011 »

ThomPete wrote: post #495
jiggy2011 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I'm creating psuedo problems. If you have software without the cloud then you return to the same copyright problem repeated ad nauseum in this thread. Ok, perhaps you could have applications in the cloud with locally stored data but I can't see this as being popular for 2 reasons. 1) Vendors would like the lock-in power that storing your data gives. 2) If I have a lot of data it may not be practical to…

And then you use some other service. See pseudo problems.

Assuming there is another service that fits my needs, doesn't have the same problem, has a price I like and will let me move all my data over from the old service..

I just don't understand why you think losing all control over your software would be preferable to copyright?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#502

Post by jiggy2011 »

ThomPete wrote: post #496
jiggy2011 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but are you trolling me on purpose? I deliberately did not equate anything with stealing and you haven't responded to the overall point of my previous post.

Do you know what trolling is? Let me rephrase then. Is it different from an ip point of view if you transcribes riff or a chord progression from other musicians? In other words is it ok when the musicians do it?

Yes, it is different for reasons already discussed.

Why would it be different for musicians?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#503

Post by tjr »

vidarh wrote: post #492
sequoia wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me first state that I'm in basically total agreement with OP and mostly agree with parent, but one point sticks in my craw: >> The point is that this is my decision. >Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? http://thegatheringplacehome.myfastforum.org/archive/life-le...…

A comparison with physical goods is pretty much irrelevant. If you take away copyright, you take away a limitation on others, but don't prevent the creator of the work from enjoying the work itself. There is a reason copyright law and property law are universally separate: One creates an artificial restriction on the public to prevent them from doing something which would not take away the freedom to act of the creat…

If my only options for what to do with my digital works are to keep them to myself, or release them unhindered into the public domain, then in some cases I would not release at all.

I do not want music I have composed to be used in risqué films; I do not want software that I released under the GPL to be assimilated into proprietary products; etc. If by releasing my work to the public I relinquish all control, then I can do nothing to enforce my wishes.

Is it better for the public that I do not release anything that I am not willing to let be used in any fashion whatsoever? Or is it better that I do release, but assert copyright restrictions on how the public may use my works (which they wouldn't have at all if I kept them to myself)?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#504

Post by waxjar »

Czarnian wrote: post #455
waxjar wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something everyone that talks about this topic needs to understand. Basic economics teach us that an infinite supply comes at the price of (near) zero. The amount of music, movies, software (products) that can be distributed is only limited by technical issues, such as the amount of bandwidth and hard drive space. So naturally distributors should expect their product to have a lower price than it once had, es…

You probably shouldn't have skipped the day when they talked about market saturation. Infinite supply does not imply infinite demand.

Can you elaborate on that? If there's an infinite supply of something and say, a demand for that product with 20% of the people, wouldn't the situation be worse for the entertainment companies?

I left the costs etc out of the equation, which is obviously a wrong thing to do.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#505

Post by pingswept »

dorian-graph wrote: post #418
pingswept wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment, but it seems you have a contradiction here: " (All I have left is to make a list of the music I have and listen to in order to delete it all and slowly purchase it, which I've started doing). I either pay for something, borrow it or go without." If you really believe what you say, you'd delete all your pirated music right now. Either that, or you might modify your views a bit.

I have some free time today after work where I'm going to finish making the list and then I'll have it all deleted. :)

To quote you: "you don't have some God given right to the content they produce/deliver. Instead of pirating go without."

I don't understand how that fits with finishing making the list. If you can keep some pirated music around since high school, and now longer so that you can make a list, can't I download a little to see if I like it? If it's good, I'll pay to go to a concert or buy the tracks off Amazon. ":)"

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#506

Post by ThomPete »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #499
vidarh wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because someone wants something doesn't mean they have a right to it. I'd like to charge everyone who sees me when I walk down the street - I'd make a bundle - but I'd think society would be pretty stupid if they indulged me.

You really can't see the difference between that and somebody making money from your work (possibly more than you do) without providing you with any compensation?

Sorry but that isn't the discussion here. No one is saying it's ok to make money from other peoples work.

We are talking about normal consumers.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#507

Post by gurkendoktor »

bdonlan wrote: post #474
sequoia wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me first state that I'm in basically total agreement with OP and mostly agree with parent, but one point sticks in my craw: >> The point is that this is my decision. >Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? http://thegatheringplacehome.myfastforum.org/archive/life-le...…

I've talked about this before on HN ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3366032 ), but I think a big problem with these discussions is people seem to assume, as an axiom, that allowing authors to control downstream copying is natural. It isn't - this principle was invented around the time the printing press made mass production of creative works possible, for reasons which were very good at the time, but which may…

Bravo.

> a big problem with these discussions is people seem to assume, as an axiom, that allowing authors to control downstream copying is natural. It isn't

But neither is physical ownership of things or land. We could well go back to letting the 'free market' sort it out, or conversely split everything evenly and legalize any maneuvers to do so. I'm not arguing that physical and digital goods are the same, but rather that both are arbitrary.

For a tiny example, German law downplays the usual importance of physical ownership if theft is about food for direct consumption. This decision is just as arbitrary as heightening the value of authorship.

All laws have to be analyzed as an arbitrary society-as-a-whole thing to make any sense. And that's why I think it's harmful that this discussion is always reduced to tiny examples with two people and a car, or in this case a hen and other animals, and a single transaction at one point in time only.

Not disagreeing with the core of your posting at all, but I think you got lost in the hen analogy too.

> And all too often, the position of the rest of society - which, since they outnumber the artists, ought to be given more weight - is ignored.

Not sure about the phrasing of that argument. If female nurses demanded more wages than male ones, should this opinion be given 95% of the weight?

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#508

Post by gabaix »

stevecooperorg wrote: post #490
gabaix wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can sell rights to be the first viewer/reader/consumer. With a world where all digital content is almost free, first-time exclusivity can increase highly its value.

I agree that 'first consumer pays everything' is an option. Hardback books work like this a little -- if you want to read it earlier, you need to pay more. I don't know that this continues to work for digital goods. Are there examples you're thinking of?

No, that's right. I think there are a lot of opportunities businesses haven't explored enough.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#509

Post by ThomPete »

urbanjunkie wrote: post #476
ThomPete wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should i? People pay for it. Did I ever say that you shouldn't be allowed to make money? Of corse not. I said its not a right but an opportunity.

I certainly intend to find and distribute pirate versions of FinalTouch. You're ok with that, right?

Yes of course. If you really want to go through the trouble. Be my guest. It's not going to mean anything.

Re: Why I'm a Pirate

#510

Post by SilasX »

ThomPete wrote: post #420
SilasX wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again who is talking about doing something for free? The guy that cracked your account and used it to make these comments: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480674 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480761 >Don't blame me for you lack of imagination that would have allowed you to see a world where artist could create without making money on digitally mass produced son…

You know just because you keep repeating the same strawmen it doesn't make them more true. If you cant see the difference between a performance and copying the performance to re-sell it, then frankly there isn't much to discuss.

Just in case you're not noticing it (and I can understand why you wouldn't), your involvement on this topic pretty much consists of:

- offering an argument, - being shown how it is flawed, and then - ignoring the explanation you were just given, to fall back on a variant of "copying is free".

I think a lot of us readers would prefer it if you engage the arguments given to you.

Post reply on HN