I certainly wouldn’t steal food from a store as that deprives the store of food. That seems cut and dry.
If I could photograph food and turn it into food to feed myself, I would certainly do that, even if it was illegal. It doesn’t deprive the owner of anything.
There’s lots of injustice in the world. And I think IP leans more towards unjust than just. Do I think creators should be compensated? Yes. Do I think creators’ descendents should be compensated for 90 years? Probably not.
I think copyright is designed and biased toward massive corporations to the detriment of society. So I don’t feel bad when I subscribe to HBONow and also “illegally” download torrents so it’s easier for loved ones to watch.
I also feel like there’s a giant PR effort from wealthy entities against a few individuals and the fact that you’d equate downloading a movie with stealing food is so weird to me that it shows how distorted the discussion is.
So we need some distinction between essential rights that seem real to me (bill of rights stuff) and “rights” that only exist because of successful lobbying on behalf of a very tiny industry (content industry is only like $100-200B globally where agriculture is $1.2T in the US alone).
I think following the law is ethical, and copyright is not only the law, it follows directly from the Constitution.
> If I could photograph food and turn it into food to feed myself, I would certainly do that, even if it was illegal.
Context and perspective. We're talking about a media landscape that is flush with content, to the point where people complain that it's all just rehashed. There's plenty of media to go around.
> It doesn’t deprive the owner of anything.
It deprives someone of their rights, which is something I think pirates don't really care about at all, as it's never considered in the calculus. It's always "what's more convenient for me and my desires to consume particular media, rights be damned". I wish pirates would just be frank and admit this like the other poster who was replying to me.
> I think copyright is designed and biased toward massive corporations to the detriment of society.
Me too. But I also enjoy the rule of law and the hard work of people who make content that I consume.
> There’s lots of injustice in the world. And I think IP leans more towards unjust than just. Do I think creators should be compensated? Yes. Do I think creators’ descendents should be compensated for 90 years? Probably not.
I would feel more sympathetic to this argument if pirates had ever given an inch, or seriously attempted to organize to fix the law in the US over the past 20 years. Instead, they just kept pirating as hard as they could, even when the industry moved toward streaming services, and rationalized their behavior away.
> I also feel like there’s a giant PR effort from wealthy entities against a few individuals and the fact that you’d equate downloading a movie with stealing food is so weird to me that it shows how distorted the discussion is.
So you're saying my strong feelings about copyright infringement are due to a PR campaign, and not a carefully considered position I've come to on my own, through my own experiences as a content creator, artist, and owner of copyrighted works?
I understand that some people are so blasé about violating copyrights, they don't even think they could possibly be doing anything wrong. On the other end of the spectrum are people who have to spend money and resources to defend their rights from violations of law by others. I fully understand that digital media and physical goods are not the same. But I categorically reject that zero people are harmed when copyrights are violated.
> “rights” that only exist because of successful lobbying on behalf of a very tiny industry
As I said, copyright is a fundamental provision of the US Constitution. We can talk about the parameters of "securing for limited Times" but "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." is not up for debate. The word "exclusive" is important here.
And as for the size of the industry interested in copyright... upending copyright would also upend trademarks and patents. There's a much larger industry (well... all of them) interested in those forms of IP.
> I think following the law is ethical, and copyright is not only the law, it follows directly from the Constitution.
Copyright was 14 years at the time of the Constitution. If it was still that, I’d have no problem waiting it out and only watching material 14 years old.
Following laws isn’t always ethical. The constitution also allowed slavery. Do you think owning slaves was ethical? There’s lots of instances where laws are out of sync with ethics and morality, and, hopefully change over time.
In the past 20 years gay marriage became legal and I would argue it’s always ethical. Same for recreational drug use. And therapeutic mdma and ketamine. The list goes on and on.
Especially when the copyright laws aren’t the result of some specific debate and determination but by very targeted lobbying by Disney and others to extend copyright from 14 years to its current length of life+70 years or 95 years for corporate works.
Upending copyright would have nothing to do with trademarks (perpetual as long as in use) or patents (usually 20 years) and can be reformed completely independently. Although those other IP topics could also be improved.
I’m not making a judgement on your beliefs or how you formed them. I don’t know you. But there are PR campaigns to promote copyright targeted toward school kids (remember “don’t copy that floppy” [0] and “you wouldn’t steal a car” [1]) and I think they are in alignment with “copying a friend’s video is like stealing bread” so you just seem to be using simile analogies. It’s quite possible that you reached the analogy independently. It’s also possible that you aren’t aware of how you reached this analogy and are influenced by advertising and PR, just like everyone else.
Let's take a moment and recap this discussion. I put out a call for a "full throated" defense of pirating. In your reply, your full throated defense was that:
"pirating still gives me the best user interface"
To support this argument, you cited the various inconveniences you face when dealing with copyrighted works. Only after more prompting have you landed on a high-minded, ethical argument. Why didn't you argue this in the first place if you feel so strongly about these points? Why was your first foot forward an argument based on convenience?
Personally I pirated a ton back in the day due to convenience. Why did I stop? Because now I have money and it's all on my TV one click away. It's so convenient today compared to 2003, so that's why I don't understand why people who can afford it still pirate. I can understand why people without money would, but still... it's like $10 a month for all the music in the world, anytime, anywhere; whereas back then all you got was a CD for $10 that you could play in your crappy boom box or walkman. As a young pirate, Spotify was my dream growing up, and now that it's a reality, the pirates still aren't satisfied.
> Do you think owning slaves was ethical?
I think you know the answer to this question.
> slavery... gay marriage.... medical drugs.... etc...
Everything you listed was changed due to robust and organized social movements to effect that change. Because the societal ills were so egregious, society mobilized to neutralize those.
If you want copyright to stand next to slavery, gay rights, and the drug wars as a worthy social cause, it's fine to make that argument. But you've got to back it up with a robust social movement centered around effecting change, not selfishly consuming.
When I look at the last 20 years of piracy, I don't see the same kind of movements. I see a lot of petulance disguised as civil disobedience (looking at the Pirate Bay), and a joke of a social movement (the Pirate Party), but other than that really nothing. Could it be because most of society doesn't really care about this issue the way they care about human rights? Maybe society recognizes piracy as the selfish act it is. I know that's not popular to say here on HN, but as a former pirate myself, I really can't justify my behavior any other way. I'm certainly not going to compare my actions to those of civil rights leaders and the movements they formed.
And if I did feel so strongly about the ethical nature of my actions, I wouldn't start by grounding my argument as "pirating still gives me the best user interface". Because if I did that, others would think that's what I really care about, and any ethical considerations would be secondary.
As I said to the other poster, I'm not judging you for this. It's okay to be unethical and selfish. I'm very unethical and selfish as a person (most people are), so it's okay if you are too. You can also be ethical and giving in other areas of our lives. Just be honest about your motivations like they were, and it's all good.
> Upending copyright would have nothing to do with trademarks (perpetual as long as in use) or patents (usually 20 years) and can be reformed completely independently. Although those other IP topics could also be improved.
My reply to you in this regard was in response to your assertion that copyright is not an "essential right", but instead a "right" only due to successful lobbying. My point was that this right is grounded in the Constitution itself, and no corporations today lobbied for that.
It's true that rights holders have broader protections today, and as a rights holder, I appreciate that. But as a citizen, I also recognize that the term should be much shorter, and we can indeed reform the whole system. But I wouldn't go back to the drawing board, because that requires a rewrite of the Constitution. As long as it's in the Constitution, rights holders will have representation to make sure our interests are protected.
> I think they are in alignment with “copying a friend’s video is like stealing bread” so you just seem to be using simile analogies.
I think what's actually happened here is that you've internalized these more than I have, and are jumping to conclusions. Because I didn't argue what you quote there, so let's go back and look at what I actually said instead of paraphrasing.
"Stealing food from the store is way more convenient than going through the line. Best UI there is for grocery shopping."
I was not saying that that copying data deprives someone of property, but that convenience is not an excuse for violating the law. I made no argument regarding deprivation of property. Stealing food and violating copyright are both illegal. I'm not saying they are both stealing, as was the argument when I was growing up. It doesn't matter that one is physical and one is digital. You are free to make the argument that the acts are different and therefore one should not be illegal, or the punishment should be different, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that both are de jure illegal, and the convenience argument doesn't make one better than the other.
> Everything you listed was changed due to robust and organized social movements to effect that change. Because the societal ills were so egregious, society mobilized to neutralize those.
People had illegal gay sex for centuries before society mobilized. So it was the groundswell of “unethical” activity that eventually led to social movement. Same for drugs and whatnot.
I think the societal change for legalizing what I think is ethical (and what billions of people think is ethical enough to do despite laws) will come about after many years of people just not caring and doing what’s convenient.
The convenient argument is just the most straightforward and I think why people continue to pirate. So that answers your question. All the other parts are going into additional detail that you requested.
It’s like if you asked someone why they illegally smoked pot 40 years ago they’d likely say “because I like to get high.” That doesn’t mean that there aren’t deep reasons why, just that that is the most important one.
Obviously legalizing pot cost corporations lots of lost revenue. And modernizing copyright will cost corporations lots of lost revenue as well.
I certainly wouldn’t steal food from a store as that deprives the store of food. That seems cut and dry.
If I could photograph food and turn it into food to feed myself, I would certainly do that, even if it was illegal. It doesn’t deprive the owner of anything.
There’s lots of injustice in the world. And I think IP leans more towards unjust than just. Do I think creators should be compensated? Yes. Do I think creators’ descendents should be compensated for 90 years? Probably not.
I think copyright is designed and biased toward massive corporations to the detriment of society. So I don’t feel bad when I subscribe to HBONow and also “illegally” download torrents so it’s easier for loved ones to watch.
I also feel like there’s a giant PR effort from wealthy entities against a few individuals and the fact that you’d equate downloading a movie with stealing food is so weird to me that it shows how distorted the discussion is.
So we need some distinction between essential rights that seem real to me (bill of rights stuff) and “rights” that only exist because of successful lobbying on behalf of a very tiny industry (content industry is only like $100-200B globally where agriculture is $1.2T in the US alone).