Hacker News Reader

Comment by redundantly | Hacker News Reader

I love when soulless corporations bribe governments to keep a stranglehold on works of art that have impacted cultures around the world and prevent future artists from being able make more art and prevent the proper collection and preservation of these works and block the access to them, all so they can keep making money off of decades old IP.

It goes both ways. There are no Saints to be found on either side.

I don't care one bit about the pocketbooks of our corporate overlords, and neither should you.

View on HN

In fairness, somebody has to pay for the actors and the grips and the foley artists, and I'm not particularly convinced that the pirate's stance of "I want it for 20 cents, in 4k, and DRM free and if I can't have that then torrrenting it is my moral right" is either right or sustainable.

> somebody has to pay for the actors and the grips and the foley artists

They are paid. If they're not paid enough then that's on the companies behind the production of those shows and movies.

These corporations make billions. Piracy isn't hurting them. However, these corporations are causing harm to society. It doesn't make sense to white knight for them.

Many corporations make billions. That isn't an argument to not pay for the goods or services they offer.

I'll add, since I'm not the person you were replying to, I don't care about who gets paid what. I don't care if the actors get paid or not. All I care about is some basic consistency if we're going to have morals about anything. Is it wrong to steal? Yes? Then piracy is wrong. (Or, no? Then let's skip this conversation entirely, you are my enemy.) Yeah, piracy is pretty easy. Yeah, it feels harmless when we do it. Should individuals get fined tens of thousands of dollars for infractions? No. But I'd say it's about as wrong as stealing a loaf of bread from a grocery store. To pretend it's a noble cause is transparent garbage, and unless you can pose an argument that doesn't complain about how much corporations make, I'm not interested.

There appears to be nothing underpinning your worldview for why the industry you work in ought not allow open thievery, but this one should. Yes, their corporations make billions of dollars, just like in every other industry where theft is not tolerated. Or perhaps you support open thievery everywhere at any time, in which case, like I said, you are my enemy.

We disagree before your argument even begins to form. I don't believe that piracy, the act of downloading a movie, tv show, or song is stealing.

On the flip side, these corporations take from society and refuse to give back thanks to ridiculously long copyright protection terms.

They take advantage of their workers, paying a fraction of a penny to them that they make.

They screw artists over with bad contracts or lousy residuals.

They defraud investors by purposely producing works they know won't perform well.

They use things like the DMCA to bankrupt anyone that tries to write software that gets around DRM.

They threaten to sue people into oblivion that use P2P software to download something they "own."

They cover up the crimes of pedophiles and other sexual predators because they make them money.

So, again, I don't care about the pocketbooks of these corporations. I don't care that someone can download a movie without paying for it. I don't care that groups like rarbg or TPB exist.

> you are my enemy

This is exactly the type of thing an internet white knight would write. You're ridiculous.

Cool, a gish-gallop of whataboutisms. Good job.

> This is exactly the type of thing an internet white knight would write. You're ridiculous.

I'm responding to a comment that is defending another comment that said:

> o7 thank you for your service

> Where one piracy site dies, a thousand spawn from its corpse.

Et cetera. Have a nice day, enemy.

> Cool, a gish-gallop of whataboutisms. Good job.

Cool. Brushing off what I wrote instead of addressing it. Good job.

> I'm responding to a comment that is defending another comment

Then perhaps you should respond to that comment instead.

> Have a nice day, enemy.

Ah, never mind, you were in fact responding to me.

Farewell, Ser White Knight.

Ridiculous.

I agree with your plea for moral consistency, but it should be noted that describing the unlicensed copying of data as "stealing" and "thievery" is a metaphor. If I steal a car, I have denied someone else use of the car. If I pirate a film that I would never have paid for, I have enriched myself at no cost to anyone else. If I pirate a film which I would otherwise have paid for, then yes, I have impoverished the studio.

Sorry to be picky, but I think it's important to remember that intellectual "property" rights are a legal construct that societies create in an attempt to make society as a whole richer by encouraging creativity. I worry that overuse of metaphors like "property" and "theft" elevate IP to a god-given commandment (thou shalt not steal), obscuring the fact that we should design our intellectually property rights to ensure they're doing what we want. Enriching creators is not an end goal in itself.

I agree in a sense, it's a grey area, given the only crime is a person is literally copying a work and enjoying/using it. So my biggest issue with IP laws are that the potential punishments for copying do not come close to matching the crime, as they're quite draconian.

And I find it hard to believe that the spirit of these laws was intended to target end-users who copy something to watch for their own personal enjoyment, rather than to target people who copied works in an attempt to earn a profit personally. The only way the punishment fits the crime is in the latter situation, IMO. Yet I assume the laws are applied more frequently to the former situation.

> In fairness, somebody has to pay for the actors

Using open source software is stealing because in fairness somebody has to pay software developers.

Also watching ads and not buying the product is stealing because somebody has to pay the actors in those ads and people who make those ads.

Don't pretend you care about artists when you refuse to pay them.

You shouldn't assume what I do or do not do.

I take my kids to the movies. I subscribe to services like Apple Music and TV+, and HBO Max. We watch YouTube videos where there's sponsored content in them. We buy officially licensed merchandise like clothing and toys. We buy books, both physical and digital.

And, frankly, it doesn't matter what I do personally. Millions, hell billions, of people around the world do as well.

If artists are struggling it's because they're not getting paid properly by the corporations they work for, like Disney, Netflix, and others. It's not because of individuals like you or me or the people that run piracy sites.

This is false. Artists get paid residuals, meaning, per sale, so every non-sale due to piracy is literally coming out of artists' pockets.

Not once in the history of my consumption of digital content has me not pirating something turned into a sale.

Sometimes I pirate it, sometimes I buy it. Sometimes I consume something free instead. Sometimes I pay for the stuff I don't consume at all. But the substitution is always in the direction of cheaper, more available solution. Never in the direction of buying something.

There were cases however when me pirating something eventually turned into a sale or even few sales.

And yet, demonstrably speaking, not pirating something leads to actual sales amongst normal people.

It's truly bizarre that so many techies complain about the "cost" of artistic works while they sip their $20 lattes and go to their six-figure jobs with ergonomic chairs and free snacks.

And yet statistically speaking piracy doesn't lead to less sales. It leads to more.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/09/eu-study-finds-piracy...

What's bizzare is that some of those rich people you mention actually internalized corporate made morality toward "intelectual property" and proselytize it as if that was their full time job.

To them piracy is and always has been theft, the way that Santa is wearing and has always been wearing red.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com