Comment by alex_c | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alex_c | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think you're over-analyzing. For me, the best summary of the debate comes from a ridiculous anti-piracy ad that used to play before movies in theaters here in Canada.

The ad said "You wouldn't download a car, would you?"

To which my reaction, and probably that of most people in the audience, is "Are you kidding me??? Of course I would if I could!"

Most people have an aversion to physical stealing, but most people are also happy to get a COPY of something for free, even if it's illegal. That's what reality boils down to, and I can't see anything changing it.

I understand your moral argument, and I don't disagree - there's nothing ambiguous about it. But if you could "download a car", for free, with no fear of repercussions - are your convictions strong enough that you would still choose to go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars on a "real" car?

I'd just do without. Just like I do without the latest version of photoshop or microsoft office. Instead, I use open office in a manner which its creators want me to use it.

Did you ever make someone a mix tape off the radio?

And why were record labels so anxious to stream for free over the airwaves they got themselves in trouble?

No I didn't.

No I didn't.

Well, unfortunately, your level of morality doesn't scale.

I find that hard to believe.

I don't know anyone within a degree or two of separation of myself who did not do that.

Including the previous generation (I was born in the early 80s, my parents in the 50s).

You've swallowed the *AA talking points, hook, line, sinker.

> I use X in a manner which its creators want me to use it.

I still did not understand this kind of often repeated argument, after years and years of reading it. Why _exactly_ should I freely, without any legal and consensual contract, limit my usage of any particular product X (be it a hammer, a car, a song, or a office spreadsheet) in any kind of way its manufacturer wishes after the point of sale?

This must be some kind of moral argument, please explain.

I'm saying that open office creators want you to use it for free. Creators of music do not want you to use it for free. They want to make some money that they can use to pay for rent and time to invest in more music. If you download a song, you are not entering into any product/consumer agreement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com