Hacker News Reader

I need to disagree with you.

In my whole life pirate content was present, sometimes more, sometimes less.

I live in a third world country, with poor access to outside culture, and the culture present here is not that interesting to me (example: the most popular music genres, bands and groups all talk about extremely pornographic sex, and has heavy percussion emphasis, with little or no melody, the biggest national party is focused on that same music genres and debauchery).

When I was a kid, the ONLY way to get computer stuff, was pirate it, sometimes some shareware software was for sale for about 10 USD (yep, I paid 10 USD on a SHAREWARE copy of Wolf 3D, having only the first episode), even to get pirated stuff sometimes was extremely hard (to get a copy of Doom 1 and 2, my dad made some engineering services do Kia motors, and agreed to give them a discount if their CEO, that was a known Doom player, gave us a copy, the guy gave my dad a box with about 20 floppies or something).

So, just because I was born here, I have no right to have foreign culture? Because I was born here, I am supposed to settle for a culture about percussion music, debauched promiscuous sex and soccer?

I have no right to coding books? Research papers? European music of all genres (from french eletronica to austrian classical)? I can't see excellent TV series from UK (like Sherlock) and instead must settle for local TV programs with melodramatic plots that praise villains that are adulterous swindlers and con artists?

I seriously don't understand people that think that culture, knowledge and information is not a right, that think that poor people, or people from distant places must resign themselves to remain ignorant.

My ire was directed at those who (like the author of the post I responded to) pirate things just because of minor inconvenience (e.g. not available on Netflix). In the case where there is no way for you to get the content otherwise, we're talking about a very different situation. As far as I can see, if the content provider makes it impossible for you to access the content legally, then it doesn't make much of a difference to them if you pirate it or not. That is one huge disparity between a good which is easily duplicated and something which is not that I'll agree with.

Although to a lesser extent (it used to be much worse 10 years ago), that's what it often looks like in Poland - and today's Poland can hardly be called a third world country. One particular example of such content unavailability I've recently experienced was when I tried to order an album of a German (!) artist some time after it's been published. I'd heard a few samples on Soundcloud some time before and I loved them to the extent, that I was desperate to get it when it's ready. And I couldn't. The album was available in all of the western Europe and the USA, but when I tried to order it from any source (be it Amazon, iTunes and a few more digital stores), I was just presented a message explaining to me that they do not sell music in my region. Another example is that there is quite a high percentage of music normally available on Spotify or Apple Music that is disabled in my country. Why? Because.

We have similar problems in Canada. Shows which are available to everyone else in the world are not available to us, even though we would gladly pay for them. So, Popcorn Time it is.

>We are entitled to content we paid for, but are not entitled to content just because it exists.

To play the devil's advocate. Why not though? The "because it's illegal" I can understand.

But if one's to argue it's also "immoral", then this pressuposses a whole complicated ethics based on a human invention like "copyright", which I'm not sure why people need to respect.

Because it's illegal is (IMHO) not a reason at all, on its own. I'll also agree that copyright is not an intrinsically moral concept, like material theft. However, I think copyright (in some form, not necessarily in the way it is practiced today) is a key piece of positive law. Absent of copyright, there is no reason to pay anyone for any easily duplicatable product, except out of the goodness of one's heart. Now, if those producing the content didn't need money (e.g. some sort of post-scarcity society) then I would see any kind of copyright as pointlessly restrictive, except maybe for some claim of (non rights reserving) authorship.

The sad fact is that we don't live in such a world, so some form of compensation for authors is necessary, if you want them to keep doing what they are doing. Copyright isn't the only model, but I don't see any practical way to pivot back to a patronage model, especially for content which isn't considered high art. So, I don't think it is fair that one should be paid for making cars, but not be paid for making software, since both consume money to produce. The fact that software doesn't consume (much) money to produce more units after one is produced means that the model of compensation may be different, but I don't think it means there should be no compensation at all. It is easy to go too far in the other direction (e.g. the behavior of record companies and movie studios, who exploit the real authors), but I don't think that invalidates the concept entirely.

>Because it's illegal is (IMHO) not a reason at all, on its own. I'll also agree that copyright is not an intrinsically moral concept, like material theft. However, I think copyright (in some form, not necessarily in the way it is practiced today) is a key piece of positive law. Absent of copyright, there is no reason to pay anyone for any easily duplicatable product, except out of the goodness of one's heart.

So no more big bugdet commercial BS endlessly re-run and re-sold on DVDs and such. Art would be created by people really passionate for it. From my point of view, that would be progress. Of course some people would lament not having Transformers 3 -- but then again, some people would lament anything and everything, including bad things. The key question is: is it better in aggregate?

Now, for other stuff, like software, that might indeed be an issue. I'm assuming here that "pro" software is a good thing (more features, higher quality), where "pro art" is a bad thing (more commercialized crap).

Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the members of a 4 letter content producer organizations, or the over-expansion of copyright they push. My point is that copyright in some shape or form is important for less scummy players in the content business.

For example, the direction Patreon and Kickstarter are taking the indie media scene is very encouraging, but these little fish would be even more screwed if copyright completely evaporated.

>So no more big bugdet commercial BS endlessly re-run and re-sold on DVDs and such. Art would be created by people really passionate for it.

It's possible to be passionate about your craft and spend money on it and want to make money at it. I would be willing to bet that most of the people who worked on Transformers 3 were actually quite passionate. Then again, so are Uwe Boll and Stephanie Meyer. Mainstream familiarity breeds contempt in hispters and elitists but it's not necessarily the case that there is an inverse relationship between the scale of distribution and artistic quality. You can find good, high budget commercial fare as well as plenty of garbage on the indie side of any creative industry.

Making an exemption for software development doesn't really make sense either. Surely, if artists need to starve for the sake of their work then programmers do as well?

But I liked the Avengers movies, even though you would certainly call them "commercialized crap".

In a world where they hadn't been created, I would be strictly worse off. Even if I could enjoy low-budget "artsy" movies.

Probably in Hungarian without subtitles, for maximum authenticity.

"Art would be created by people really passionate for it."

That's how art happens even now.

At bottom, its not about respecting 'copyright'. Its about respecting authors. There's a system in place so they can dedicate some part of their lives to creation, and get compensated for that. To flout that system because complex moralizing disrespects authors, right at home where it hurts - their compensation.

I'd say the blame is on their editors for not caring enough for the authors to try selling their work wherever possible. If I can't buy their work, I won't, so they won't see any money from me. Whether I saw their work - from the authors' point of view - is irrelevant.

I'd say that might go under 'complex moralizing'. Their work is available; it may take more than a google or a click to obtain. Too much work to walk down to the store? That is what I meant by disrespecting the author.

I suspect much pirating is rooted in entitlement, and the moralizing comes after.

> Their work is available

Sometimes no, it's not.

Just this morning I was talking with TeMPOraL and we were recalling how the software market looked like in Poland in the nineties (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10397694). My "walk down to the store" then would have to be to another country, a thousand kilometers or so; through two or three national borders. It's not that I didn't want to pay with what little money I had, it's just that there was no one who wanted to take my money (besides "pirates", of course).

This is the context for my statement above. Of course, it's rarely that bad nowadays, but it still happens. And how hard getting the content has to be for you to consider it not available? There being physically not one "legal" copy of Windows in the entire country (been there)? Is it enough for the nearest place offering content to be a thousand kilometers away? 500km? 200km? (and no, nobody wanted to even ship it via snail mail, because uncertain laws and such).

As for entitlement... well, that's trickier and I don't want to go there. I can only say that both sides of this argument have interesting and convincing arguments.

That is probably true in most cases, not just of pirating, but of all interactions. We act, we feel, then we justify why we acted and felt such.

Where is this magical store where you can get (say) American TV in non-potato resolution, the day after it comes out?

I don't know, perhaps ones wife has some boudoir photos taken. Just that they exist would entitle anyone to the right to view them, if they could get them? Moreover, say her husband does things to restrict said access, would people really say that that is immoral?

That doesn't seem quite right to me.

Does the content creator (since there would be no 'owner' without copyright) have any say over the use or distribution? I think of all those rock stars that have had politicians misappropriate their songs and then asked them to stop using them over the years. I wonder what that felt like, you wrote this hit song that was powerful and evoked emotion and then someone you are ideologically opposed to tried to use it for their purpose.

>Just that they exist would entitle anyone to the right to view them, if they could get them?

You've got the "rights" the wrong way around - it's not that people have the right to see the boudoir photos, it's that people have the right to copy photos they own, and the husband/wife are not allowed to infringe on that right.

Basically, it's not "thou shalt not kill", rather than "right to life", although people implicitly do have the right to copy.

The exception being, obviously, copyright - which is a temporary state-sanctioned monopoly on the right to copy your works (in other words, you're temporarily the sole holder of the copy right), for the sake of producing more artistic works for the general public.

>We are entitled to content we paid for, but are not entitled to content just because it exists.

Sorry, what? We absolutely do, if we're willing to pay. The point of copyright is to provide a monetary incentive for authors/makers of works to go make their works, via a temporary state-sanctioned monopoly. If they then take their state-sanctioned monopoly and refuse to sell to certain locations...

Well, that's not what the state granted their monopoly for. They have no right to do that.

Again: The purpose of copyright is generating more artistic works, and if they aren't interested in extracting profits via selling their works in a specific country, then what's the point of restricting the right to copy the work in that country in the first place?

It violates the point of copyright, not to mention anti-trust laws.

Because it's dumb that they want you to suck it through their straw.

So you deserve a particular piece of entertainment because it exists and you pay someone else for an internet connection? What exactly are your criterion for the thinness of the straw before you feel justified in routing around it? It sounds like a moving target to me.

Essentially, as long as I am able to pay a decent price for content without them telling me how I can consume it, I'll do it.

If the price is too high I'll wait until it comes down and not pirate it (see: waiting for a game to be cheaper during a Steam sale).

If the company tries to control how I consume the content in a way that is illogical or very inconvenient, I'll get it by other means or just avoid it altogether. Examples:

1. Rick and Morty is not on Netflix, so I'll watch it on Popcorn Time.

2. Rockstar games have horrendous DRM attached, even with Steam, so I just avoid them altogether. I purchased the GTA bundle and GTA IV simply does not work due to DRM. EA and Ubisoft are the same in this boat for me.

3. Apple requires the use of Safari to view their live streams, for no valid technical reason. So, I don't listen or pay attention to anything during their keynotes. At the office, headphones go on. From my perspective, they don't want me as a customer anyway, so there's no point in giving them any mindshare.

> 1. Rick and Morty is not on Netflix, so I'll watch it on Popcorn Time.

So you pay Netflix, but Netflix didn't pay Comedy Central for Rick and Morty. So why does Comedy Central get penalized because they didn't make a deal with a content provider you consider convenient? Also, in this particular case, you can watch it for free (legally) here[1] (please do, it would be a shame for such a good show to get cancelled because they think nobody is watching).

> 2. Rockstar games have horrendous DRM attached, even with Steam, so I just avoid them altogether. I purchased the GTA bundle and GTA IV simply does not work due to DRM. EA and Ubisoft are the same in this boat for me.

I feel your pain. However, my approach is to pay for the games, and then download cracks when the DRM (inevitably) malfunctions. It is some small inconvenience, but I think it is far more fair than paying nothing at all. Also, going that route ensures that game companies will (1) make the DRM even worse in a vain attempt to make it "uncrackable" (2) give up on PC games that aren't entirely online based. Though I think it may be too late already.

[1]: http://www.adultswim.com/videos/rick-and-morty/

Why don't Comedy Central and Netflix have an agreement?

Secondarily, thank you for pasting that link. I didn't realize it was available to watch for free directly. I'll watch the ones that are open to me there then.

I bet he's paid Comedy Central for thousands of things that he never even asked for if he's ever had a cable bill.

Look at the big picture. We live in a society full of corruption and greed; people are naturally going to "steal" from the big greedy corporations who constantly use their advantage to turn the screws and make society pay for their faulty business plans.

Releasing movies and TV shows simultaneously around the world would cut piracy a lot. That's one pretty clear criteria: the content is sold in a digital format somewhere but not in your home country.

Take the Sherlock TV series for example: who wants to wait for two years for a new season, and then an additional two months for it to arrive in your particular country? In Finland the series is shown on a state-funded channel who don't even get any money from you watching the show on their channel.

Whether they like it or not, they're competing with free. The poster stated they prefer to pay for convenient services, but they have no qualms about free and convenient when they find the paid product is more inconvenient than the free product.

This is what 'content producers' are competing against. You may not like it, but that's reality.

I have no doubt it is reality, and that my comment would do nothing to change it, but that doesn't mean I'll think it's right or not say anything. Brick walls were made to be punched.

I have been paying more than $100 a month to a cable company for a long time. So, I feel entitled to watch whatever I want, wherever I want because if I haven't already paid for it, I probably will soon.

You may be paying for cable, but have you been paying HBO? They're the content producer, not Comcast or Cox or whoever you have.

Absolutely. I've had the "premium" level subscription for at least over a decade, which includes all of the content producers and all of the movies (and music). I've paid roughly $12k to $16k to these bloodsucking corporations in that time and I continue to pay even though I can only take advantage of a small percentage of what I'm paying for via Cable. So I really feel like I'm entitled to watch and listen to what I want to, how and when I want to.

> So I really feel like I'm entitled to watch and listen to what I want to, how and when I want to.

Did the cable company lie to you and say that their contract covered indefinite access to their content after termination of their service? Because if they did, you probably have some serious grounds for a lawsuit. If not, how would you feel if your employer decided he paid you for years, so he is justified in just stopping.

Ah, but I forgot! You're dealing with a corporation, which means that you can m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶i̶z̶e̶ justify doing anything when they are involved. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do what I want to primarily because I can. And I'm not going to feel bad about that. Just because a law or contract exists does not make it good or right or moral to me. Look at the world we live in - Might makes Right is the ultimate law in this world. Corporations, governments (all just people really) do what they want and if nobody stops them, then I guess it's fine. That's why it's fine for me to do what I want.

Secondly, I don't care about your moral code or your justifications, I care about mine - but I guarantee you that you personally don't live by the letter of the law or every contract you've ever signed. So, why should anyone listen to you? There are no absolutes and your laws and contracts are basically for people who wish follow them, but they're not for me because I don't live in a fantasy world where everything is perfect and everybody follows the rules.

> I do what I want to primarily because I can.

Then you should've just said this from the start instead of trying to justify it by past spending.

I gave you the justification that works for me. If it doesn't work for you, then go do what you want.

And it's continued spending, not past spending...and my justification also reflects on the actions of my adversaries.