Hacker News Reader

Comment by sergiotapia | Hacker News Reader

If you have children you have a moral imperative to pirate content and prevent this from infecting their lives.

Search for a plexshare. $20 for everything, zero ads. Screw these greedy bastards.

Same reason why Facebook still pervades here in Thailand. Facebook offers 'free' internet access to their site. The have discounted 'social' bundles for data plans (providers necessarily have to snoop your traffic to see what you're using). People grow up with it as the 'normal'. Teaching kids that data collection is just a part of the internet does have moral implications—just like we should stop training kids on Microsoft and Adobe software or letting Google's Chromebooks invade the education space.

You’re right, it’s a moral imperative to show children that if you can’t legally get what you want just do it illegally…

Legal != moral.

So yes it’s your “moral right” to obtain content without paying for it because you don’t want ads.

Would you feel the same way if a commercial entity violated the GPL?

Is it a "moral right" for companies to use intellectual property laws to force your children to watch ads? Children are legally unable to participate in contracts, should they be allowed to watch any media, with binding licenses and laws, at all?

Then either buy media without ads or limit the amount of time and content your children spend watching ads?

The media producing individual/group/company could do something else with their time/capital that isn't so casually pirateable, such as building housing or producing actual goods/services, instead of the "produce once then sit on your ass and collect royalties forever for the next century and a half" behavior that media production encourages.

Are you spending your time building houses? Are you willing to quit your job and work for Habitat for Humanity?

Yes, I would download a car.

Do you admit it is easy to tsk tsk and say how other people should work. But you won’t make the same sacrifice?

I thought this was the motto of startups. "Move fast and break things." etc.

downloading video content copy for personal consumption without owning original is legal in many European countries, uploading/distributing would be very different matter, let alone software

Most pirating is done via torrent. If you’re downloading content, you are also uploading it.

But no it isn’t legal to download content that wasn’t authorized to be uploaded.

> Most pirating is done via torrent.

that's certainly not truth in many EU countries and one of the reasons is because downlaoding is legal, so DDL is king, heck even I pirate since 90s and started to use torrents just in recent years, until then was downloading all my movies/TV shows legally from DDL where are illegally uploaded by someone else

> But no it isn’t legal to download content that wasn’t authorized to be uploaded.

wrong, it's legal to download/stream video content for your personal usage and you don't need to care about any authorization, that's problem of the hosting provider and uploader, you as downloader are off the hook

check question 11 for various countries - Czechia, Slovakia, Spain and many other countries allow this https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/faq-cs...

Incorrect. You can turn seeding off. (Although that is not a very neighbourly thing to do) Also torrents are just one source.

Even when you’re not “seeding” completed downloads, the segments you have are available to other downloads. Many clients also have the ability to downgrade an downloaders ability to get segments if you are not reciprocating.

> downloading video content copy for personal consumption without owning original is legal in many European countries

No it isn't.

> 11. Am I infringing copyright if I watch a movie by streaming it instead of downloading it from the internet?

> Films, series, etc. can be downloaded or streamed online thanks to various websites (services) that offer this content legally. *However, users can also obtain this content thanks to various online file-hosting services and websites with embedded videos, which do not have the appropriate authorisation for this kind of communication of works to the public.*

> *Users are not liable for copyright infringement in the case of downloading or streaming the work for their own personal use* — based on the private-use exception and the three-step test.

Answer nr 11. Source: https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/faq-cs...

Same applies to Slovakia, same applies to Spain, etc.

Next time you better check your sources before giving misleading answers about something you have no idea about.

Three isn't "many", and you're wrong about Spain and Slovenia anyway, Spain requires you to copy the work from a personally owned legitimately obtained copy or for the original to be made legally available online and is subject to the terms not prohibiting it.

The answer in Slovenia's FAQ is badly written, and hasn't been updated since 2016 when there is a European Court of Justice ruling that contradicts it from 2017 - https://www.ip-watch.org/2017/04/28/european-court-justice-t...

The Czech Republic is the only country where what you said could be considered in any way accurate, and their copyright law on this isn't especially compatible with their European treaty commitments and will unquestionably go away at some point.

Perhaps you should consider checking your sources instead.

I am not even going to waste my time anymore with someone who confuses Slovakia with Slovenia, that sums up your knowledge about EU laws pretty well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com