Hacker News Reader

I agree with you so much. To this person and all the others you don't have some God given right to the content they produce/deliver. Instead of pirating go without.

Will life stop if you don't watch the latest episode of Community? Probably. Give it a go. If you die I have dibs on your $2000 Macbook Pro, $800 iPhone, $250 Sennheiser headphones, etc. The very phrase 'Because you are messing with my life' in this context shows how much is wrong with the current culture.

These companies are destroying civilisation? I've asked this question before: If I create a piece of software and ask you to not use it without purchasing it, will you do that? Very few people seem to be able to answer yes. The people who can't answer yes are those who are ruining civilisation. There is so much hyperbole in this article ("Messing with my life was not enough. You are even trying to destroy one of the pillar of our society: education.") I'm not quite sure if it's satirical or not, hah.

Steve Jobs mentioned that in the end it comes down to the person knowing they've done something wrong after they've tried to rationalise their way out of it ("BUT IT'S NOT STEALING" or whatever the latest fad is).

During high school I pirated a hell of a lot of software, videogames, music, movies—everything. I still bought more video games than most people will in their life times but that in no way balances what I pirated. I've stopped (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.

The funny thing is, I don't like these big corporations either. I wish people would stop treating them as large, mythical and faceless entities but talk to the people behind the door. Until both sides come to understand each other and seek that communication they [we] will forever be at war.

I don't support SOPA nor do I support blatant pirates.

And the artists don't have a god given right to produce it once and sell it many times.

Yes they do because they created it. As much as they have ownership over their music, you have the god given right not to buy it.

Well then they have a god given right to not digitalize it.

You're right but do you really want to return to the 90s when CDs cost $20 each and you had to carry around a 100 CDs instead of an mp3 player? Or to the 80s when we used lo-fi tapes instead? The labels would love this.

It shouldn't be required of just the RIAA to use technology properly but everyone. If someone makes music you like, and they're not attempting to rob, respect them. $1 is not much for a song you enjoy.

I don't care what the labels do. If they fell they cant make money that way then they should probably stay out of the digital business model.

But the truth of course is that they saw huge benefits throughout the years as it became cheaper and cheaper for them to produce and distribute the music.

Where is your sympathy for all the truckers, records store people etc. that lost their jobs because of digitalization?

I personally have more sympathy for them, the musicians will always have the music. Whether they will be able to live from it is another thing.

The smart ones will.

I'm trying to understand your point. Are you for digital music being available or not?

>Where is your sympathy for all the truckers, records store people etc. that lost their jobs because of digitalization?

Of course I do have sympathy for them but humanity has to move forward. We are living in a disruptive age – much like those in the beginning of the Industrial Age. Humanity will need to adjust. This really is another subject for another story and doesn't hold relevance to the topic of piracy.

>I personally have more sympathy for them, the musicians will always have the music. Whether they will be able to live from it is another thing.

This makes no sense. You are condemning musicians to the same fate as those you mentioned. The only difference is that potential future truckers and HS/college students at record stores won't suffer because there will be new jobs created but the artist always will.

The world does not need more starving artists.

So basically what you are saying is that the truckers should get with the times but the artist shouldn't?

We live as you say in a disruptive age and this applies in no small part to artists.

As with regards to the starving artists.

Let me remind you that the kind of artists that actually have spent many years becoming good have always been struggling and always needed to do live gigs.

They are very different than those the labels push to become big stars today.

What i mean with they will alway have art is this.

The trucker will loose their job and that's pretty much it. The artists will always be able to do art whether they get paid for it or not.

>So basically what you are saying is that the truckers should get with the times but the artist shouldn't?

You're playing a game that has nobody's interests at hand.

Yes I'm saying this because 'truckers' are going to get left behind. You still haven't answered the question of whether we should live in the digital age or not.

>Let me remind you that the kind of artists that actually have spent many years becoming good have always been struggling and always needed to do live gigs.

You're playing a game against my argument. All artists struggle but do you want them to become eternally poor?

>Let me remind you that the kind of artists that actually have spent many years becoming good have always been struggling and always needed to do live gigs.

Do you or many know the difference? Are most making the distinction and buying indie products? I can already tell that they are not.

I lived as a musician for some years. I think I have a pretty good understanding on how it works and I am playing no game at all.

Plus I have both a product out (cost money), a service out (free), have a design agency.

I don't say that artist shouldn't make money. I think they should when they work. But claiming that it's somehow a right for musicians to keep reaping the benefits of digital distribution but not those related to it, is in my mind wrong and not serving the anyone.

Truckers and musicians who don't conform to the new reality is going to be left behind.

It's really that simple. Of course they will try and get the government to protect their interest and it will have people helping them defend that.

But it's not a fair game.

And artist neither are nor will be eternally poor. It's a poor argument. There will always be people who make money on their creations, they will just have to do it differently than what we do today.

Technology is always a double edged sword. No one, not even artist can escape that.

> Yes they do because

Who gave it to them? I dont think that we ever, as a society, ever fundamentally _agreed_ to the existence of such exclusivity rights. Yes they are in the constitution, yes they are in the lawbooks, but the people at large never fundamentally agreed that such rights should be in there. The decision process was always top-down, never bottom-up. They are not a result of peoples morality, but of a interest-driven, behind-closed-doors development process. Those laws dont map the will of the people, of your fellow citizens, but of a few, but influential stake holders. Such rights are not democratically backed. If you would ever have a referendum on copyright policy, you would probably lose them.

I see that you are the maker of FinalTouch. Where do you offer the free downloads?

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.

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. ":)"

When I started making enough money to buy everything I was consuming, I put an end to my piracy habit for some time. I had Netflix, used Rhapsody (then Spotify), bought season passes on iTunes (I used iPlayer a couple times but being in the US I had to use Tor to get around the region filter to watch a Louis Theroux documentaries, I guess that's "piracy").

I stopped when I realized that while I could afford it, all of these services were inferior to the ones I was used to. I will gladly pay for a product that is better than its free counterpart. I will even pay for a product that I could pirate, but I will not pay more to watch ads and listen to music on only a limited number of DRM-supported devices.

When I started making enough money to buy a car I put an end to my car stealing habit for some time.

See how silly this sounds?

The problem with digital media is that it's very easy to copy. You can't just copy a car.

There are tons of website offering free music. So just support those artists instead of the ones charging too much for an inferior service.

"You can't just copy a car."

Yup! And that's why comparing digital piracy with car theft is also equally silly.

Note, I don't have a hard stance on this. Counterfeiting drugs, etc. is wrong for obvious reasons. Coming up with a similar argument for entertainment media is a bit less tenable.

When the MPAA and RIAA cede the moral high ground by acting like idiots (suing 12-year olds, pushing for high criminal charges, SOPA/PIPA, etc.), it makes it more difficult to make a moral argument for the industry.

The everything free argument is crap. But given that I pay for songs on iTunes but pirate TV shows because Derp Studios refuses to put it anywhere online, the user case is valid.

I was comparing the laws of theft. It's just the law that a copyright owner can ask whatever for it. When you obtain a copy without flowing this rule it is called theft.

So I think the discussion should be about the copyright law. Not about "I think this service sucks so I will get an illegal copy".

Don't get me wrong. I think it's absurd that you can get a penalty of $10.000 for downloading a MP3. I think the copyright rules should change.

But I think it's silly to fight a law by disobeying it. It will give the MPAA good ground to say "see they are pirates".

Laws aren't absolute; they are, when properly written, the codification of social mores. Presently, copyright law conflates copying with theft, you are correct in this. But I think the meta-debate surrounding the issue is whether this assumption is correct; it is thus circular to cite the law as one's defence.

"I think it's silly to fight a law by disobeying it"

I agree with the sentiment that this should not be a first response. But if the intent is to deprive the studios of revenue while sticking a finger to them with the intention of encouraging them to back down, then it is a valid strategy (with precedence). Given the radicalisation of the MPAA, however, I don't see that as being likely.

So I agree with you in practice, but diverge in principle.

Why is "counterfeiting drugs" obviously wrong? Plenty of developing nations counterfeit drugs to avoid paying ridiculous prices for drug IP.

http://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/brazil...

The article talks about generic drugs, which are off-patent drugs, and completely okay.

Problem with counter-feit drugs is the usual quality checks aren't present. This can lead to ineffective or even harmful drugs that patients take while thinking they are getting the real thing.

"You can't just copy a car."

Not yet, but the technology is rapidly improving. With the right equipment (3d scanner, 3d printer), you can copy basic items at home today. It is only a matter of time.

With the right technology, why wouldn't you copy a car? A car only has value because of its inherit scarcity. If you could copy a car, it wouldn't be worth anything (aside from the cost of materials required to perform the copy).

> When I started making enough money to buy a car I put an end to my car stealing habit for some time.

> See how silly this sounds?

Yes, that completely hyperbolic, not analogous example sure does sound silly!

I was in the movie theatre three weeks ago and paid almost 10€ for the ticket only to be forced to watch - I kid you not - 30 minutes of commercials + another 20 minutes of movie trailers before the movie even started. And when you reserve a ticket, you are forced to be there 30 minutes before the movie begins, otherwise they released the seats.

That was a waste of 50+30 minutes of my time, which was more than half of the entire movie. And I even paid 10 freaking bucks for it.

This was the moment when I realized that I probably won't go to a movie theater more than once a year from now on.

This doesn't mean that I now will go on and pirate the movie. There's still iTunes and I don't need to see a movie on release day, but it was a great example for how companies mess up the user experience.

The irony is that some theaters show something like a self-commercial with the saying "Cinema - that's what movies are made for".

Disclaimer: This happened in Germany. The movie-watching experience in the US was way better to me. No commercials, only a few trailers.

You should find a smaller cinema then. In my experience only huge ventures like Cinestar can afford to behave so badly to their customers, whereas independent cinemas have excellent service (and sometimes are even cheaper!).

Same thing here in Austria. They cancelled most of the 2D features, leaving only ~10€ 3D movies - which I don't like, because the screen seems to be too dark as to compensate for the polarization filter of the glasses. Also, a small bottle of soda costs 3,40€ at the vending machine.

I believe ploum still lives in France and in France when you buy a usb sticks, blank CDs and hard drives, you have to pay a "private copy tax" that can be in the tens of euros.

So even if he ignores it, he is still paying them money because media companies can't adjust or accept that they're doing it wrong.

So, does this tax then mean that I can pirate songs/movies? After all, I have already paid for them (through the tax).

(Fiction, I know, but one can dream...)

The concept is a bit different, at the moment. Creating copies of copyrighted material _could_ be possible with scanners, printers, CD and DVD burners ... The fee you pay on those and other devices is rather to pay for illegal copies that are created of copyrighted material you own. Not for creating hardcopies of illegally acquired content.

At least that is what is supposed to do. In reality ... well you might want to learn German for that and read this interesting tidbit about the rights holder association of Germany (GEMA): hxxp://www.musiker-online.de/Newsdetails.newsdetails.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=267&tx_ttnews[backPid]=10&cHash=226c5da554

Isn't it you fair use right to create copies of things you already own? E.g. for backup, or for your own music compilations, ...

Duplicating CDs (or DVDs or books) for private use is indeed legal in France (even if the original comes from a library). The "taxe sur la copie privée" is intended to compensate for the fact that fewer copies are sold because of such private copy. It has nothing to do with piracy.

Discliamer: IANAL.

No, it's not fiction. I live in Spain and we have a similar tax. It taxes private copys, which are defined as

1. The work must be publicly available.

2. It must be done by a physic person (as opposed to an organization)

3. For private use, i.e. not broadcasting to an open audience allowed (but I can play it in my house with my friends).

4. Access to the work must have been obtained legally. 5. Must be non-profit.

6. The receiver of the copy cannot be a collective. So I can buy a CD and make a copy to all of my friends. They can do the same, and so on (a copy of a legal bought CD is legal).

According to some experts, P2P falls into a gray area, or it used to before they changed the law. I'm sure they will refine it progressively, but I won't stop downloading while I pay my copy tax for USB STICKS, BLANK CDs & DVDs, MP3 PLAYERS, HDDs AND EVENT PRINTERS AND PAPER.

Anyway the general attorney throw a paper stating that downloaders shouldn't be prosecuted.

One time, years ago, some members of an internet freedom organization, got a laptop with WIFI and, after calling the police to inform them of the fact, they mounted a table in the street and downloaded copyrighted works, offering free copys to whomever passed near, to show that it's legal.

There is an exception, however: Software is not covered under the private copy, so it would be illegal to copy software (being myself a developer, I have never undertood the differentiation).

The funniest part is that this tax is directly collected by private entities (our *AA counterpart), which have in the higher seats crappy artists which decide how to share the collected money (i.e. between themselves and their dearest friends). Some of them, like Alejandro Sanz, are arguably very crappy, but at least they are artists (for some definition of the word). But some others, like Teddy Bautista (ex president, now convict for different forms of stealing) or Ramoncín, AFAIK haven't composed or sung a song in the last decades.

On a tangent topic, I hate to buy videogames nowadays, with all the DRM crap and other nasties. But if I pirate them, everything works without effort, despite the industry marketing advertising the opposite (you know: beware! virus!, et cetera). I won't pay for losing my time with their nonsense. So a couple months ago I decided to only buy DRM-free games from Humble Bundle.

It was actually proposed at the French parliament to (basically) make "piracy" legal and subsidize the cultural industry via taxes. The name of that system was "Licence Glogale" (global licensing).

I feel that these taxes worsen the problem. If, every time I bought blank media, the record companies got a cut, then you bet I'd not buy any music, but copy it instead. I would see it as a right that I had paid for.

I think he is from Belgium, not France.

This is such bullshit, I really wish I could downvote this sort of post.

No. Upvote and explain why the author is wrong. We need to educate more people about piracy and intellectual property.

You have no right to the media they produce

They have no right to force everyone else to conform to absurd rules made to preserve their profits.

That's an entirely different issue and not a counter point to what I'm saying.

Do they force you? Do you have to buy a Rihanna album?

Some people would consider popular music to be part of their culture. It's much like asking if you have to buy Microsoft Office when it has such a hegemony. You can of course not buy it, but there is pressure to do so.

That's a fuzzy line that invites far more chaos from over-zealous regulation than it does protect the user.

> This is such bullshit, I really wish I could downvote this sort of post.

Don't forget that people might upvote a post not because they agree, but because they're interested in the discussion that follows. At least, it's why I upvoted the post. I hadn't completely made up my mind and arguments like yours convinced me.

Good point. It is strange to read how people try to justify copying music/movies/... if they never had the intention to buy it in the first place. I do have sympathy for to circumvent DRM, ... e.g. to watch a DVD of region x (which I bought) on a player of region y. I don't have any sympathy for people who steal while I pay for the same thing.

This argument could obviously easily be reversed.

If Rihanna and others don't want their music to be pirated they shouldn't make it digital.

It is not a naturally given right you know to create an album once and then sell it in millions. It's an opportunity.

It's not a right to make millions it's a right to make... whatever you make.

Rihanna could release her music on vinyl only but it would still be recorded and converted to an MP3 and up on torrents in a matter of hours, digital has nothing to do with it.

The business model they would probably switch to in the case of no copyright would be to distribute a small amount of the music for free but if you want to hear the rest you have to attend a live concert where you would be searched for recording devices on entry.

Would you prefer that model?