Comment by joesmo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joesmo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think it is my right to access culture, and it is my duty, if at all possible, to avoid supporting organizations that cause such pain and suffering in the world. I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that I don't want people going to jail and losing everything because they copied a song or movie and some company somewhere allegedly lost some fraction of a cent.

I think access to culture is important and what you're effectively arguing is that I should forego such access because some company somewhere is willing to not only sue me but also throw me in jail for copying some text, music, or video. I'm under no illusions that copying actually causes financial damages, of course--that's silly--but I suppose to some that might be appealing.

I also think that copying has been a huge boon to society and the economy in a scale that we can hardly fathom, let alone measure. It has contributed a lot more than the companies holding the copyright to the education and advancement of people and society. I know a lot of people whose great contributions were started only because they had the ability to copy copyrighted works, especially software. I don't know too many children, for example, that can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on software simply to learn (and no, educational licenses, when they are provided, are not enough). We're talking about whole countries depending on copying for advancement not only of themselves, but of the worldwide economy and welfare: see Romania (http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-mix-of-poverty-and-piracy-t...).

What "right to access culture"? Last I checked there was no such thing. At least not remotely in the way you seem to mean it.

Even if there was, it certainly wouldn't define culture solely as "Hollywood movies and pop music". Broaden your cultural horizons.

Just like if you were to say "access to clean drinking water is my right", that wouldn't entitle you access to ALL clean drinking water. Just like "access to culture" wouldn't entitle you to pirating whatever content you feel like.

If you're going to try and take the moral high ground, do it right and just avoid consuming content produced by organizations you disapprove of.

A much stronger pro-piracy argument in my opinion is that of convenience and consumer experience. Legitimate paying customers suffer under the tyranny of DRM while pirates have a much better experience. If I buy a song on the Apple music store I may not be able to play it on every music player[0]. If I pirate it then I can convert the format and consume it however I like. Video games with DRM may require an Internet connection to "validate" when the pirated versions are available offline (remember that Sim City debacle?). What's worse, remember the SONY rootkit disaster? Also, Ubisoft actually had a remote code execution back door exploit for a while. I've never heard of a DRM that made anything better for the paying customer.

[0] This has apparently changed in recent years.

I do not define culture as "Hollywood movies and pop music," and do not appreciate the personal attack. You should learn how to read properly. My cultural horizons are broad enough, thank you.

Just because a right isn't spelled out in the constitution, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes, DRM in inconvenient, but that's not a moral issue like throwing people in jail, driving them to suicide, or taking all their possessions are, all previously used tactics by the copyright enforcers.

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."

As cheesy as that quote is, it's absolutely right. Also note that posting it is probably a copyright violation and reading an unauthorised copy is, too. You're welcome to either forget reading it, or send a million dollars per letter to Marvel.

Or to Mark Twain's estate, seeing as he actually wrote those words in the first place.

Sousa held a very low opinion of the emerging and upstart recording industry. Using an epithet coined by Mark Twain,[8] he derided recordings as "canned music", a reference to the early wax cylinder records that came in can-like cylindrical cardboard boxes. In a submission to a congressional hearing in 1906, he argued:

Sousa in 1900, by Elmer Chickering. These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape. Law professor Lawrence Lessig cited this passage[41] to argue that in creating a system of copyrights in which control of music is in the hands of record labels, Sousa was essentially correct.

2c

I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that I don't want people going to jail and losing everything because they copied a song or movie and some company somewhere allegedly lost some fraction of a cent.

I understand your position, I just don't agree with it. More specifically, I don't agree with the general principle that copying stuff without paying for it is OK within our current economic system. (I do agree that the heavyweight criminal penalties for minor infringement advocated are wildly disproportionate and that some Big Media organisations abuse some legal systems in ways they should not be able to, but I consider both of these to be separate points.)

The only reason your strategy is successful is that other people are paying for these works, which makes them economically viable to produce. By copying, you aren't just ripping off the original creators of the work -- work that you demonstrably value enough to still watch/use/listen to it even though you refuse to pay for it -- you're also freeloading on the back of all the people who do pay instead of contributing your fair share.

I also think that copying has been a huge boon to society and the economy in a scale that we can hardly fathom, let alone measure. It has contributed a lot more than the companies holding the copyright to the education and advancement of people and society.

Sure it has. That's why all businesses run Open Source software written by volunteers instead of expensive commercial software, fan fiction is much better quality than a well-edited novel written by a professional author, your local beer money band create the same atmosphere with their recorded-at-home CD as a professionally produced recording of a studio session, and Furious 7, Avengers: Age of Ultron and Kingsman: The Secret Service were all funded on Kickstarter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com