I do tend to disagree with the sentiment on HN regarding some aspects of the "pirating issue".
Common arguments are (as quoted from the text)and my symbolic translation to the HN world:
> "Movie theater incomes are in most cases enough to cover the production costs. Their business remains viable even if people continue downloading their movies"
in HN-speak: "Developer salaries are the highest in the economy, so their careers remain viable if people start copying their code"
> "Isn’t the main goal of content producers that their content is seen ? Well. If you would charge less for a movie I would be glad to pay for it. But prices for buying movies online are just abusively high."
in HN-speak: "The main goal of a developer should be to get the product/code in front of many people. If the price would be lower, I would buy it. Ergo, the price should be lower and if not, im just gonna take it"
> "If I buy a DVD I have the right to do what I want with it"
in HN-speak: "I know the terms and licenses of the code I am using. However, i dont like it, so im just gonna do whatever I want anyways."
My view is that this is just like any other market: If you don't like the product or the way its sold under specific conditions, you always have the freedom of not buying it. No one is forcing you to anything.
Also, before this whole downvoting madness starts, please consider that I'm just trying to voice my opinion and argument for my stance.
This is exactly what I am thinking. If we expect others to respect our software licenses, why don't we respect others' license on creative content they produce, no matter how outlandishly priced or badly delivered we believe it to be?
What baffles me is the amount of rationalisation. I come from Russia, where piracy is a social norm, and if you pay full official price for entertainment products, you are either a sucker, or a rich person asserting your wealth status (I don't imagine much has changed). But Russians never attribute themselves downloading movies and cracking games to some higher purpose: we just like free stuff, and gaming the system for personal gain is a national pastime.
Just because some people copy and think they're stealing doesn't mean that the people who think copying is moral are rationalizing. This assumes the correctness of copyright and dumps the arguments against it as rationalization, without providing any argument in favor of copyright.
I don't think it's bad. I grow up in a time where it's normal that all information are free. I already have to pay fee's on electronic devices like printers, hard drives, DVDs etc. so this should be enough.
I'm sorry, but I still don't live in that time. I have to pay to get to academic journals to read that information. I have to pay to watch television live. What sort of world are you living in where information is already all free?
File sharing is normal for people today. I grew up with it and all people in my class exchanged games, music, movies etc. each other. Now I started working and it's nearly the same. I understand your point, of course. Music, Movies etc. are still protected by copyright, but I don't want to pay for a crappy service e.g DVD, which includes copyright violation warnings, previews of other movies and copy protection if I can get a better service for free. But I'll probably purchase the Tom Lowe movie, because he is a cool guy and offer the movie TimeScapes in various formats.
The counterpoint is movies as culture and socially relevant information. Why is it right to deny people access to information acquired and redistributed by their peers? Why should an organization be able to control the flow of information on the Internet to suit their business model? At what point do you draw the line and say "that's too much of our information you're sharing"? Is it when someone describes a plot? Is it when they share what they're looking at with their friend (photo or video)? Is it when that friend shares the stream with a hundred million friends on BitTorrent?
The Internet is a link between all of us, so that your experience can be my experience. It's naive to think you can segregate people into those with and without access to your precious information. Thanks to the Internet, we are all one entity. You can't hide information from yourself.
> "Isn’t the main goal of content producers that their content is seen ? Well. If you would charge less for a movie I would be glad to pay for it. But prices for buying movies online are just abusively high."
in HN-speak: "The main goal of a developer should be to get the product/code in front of many people. If the price would be lower, I would buy it. Ergo, the price should be lower and if not, im just gonna take it"
Hi i have a bug in my movie. Can you tell me how to watch the last part? My movie doesn't start? (support)
I have no problem with people trying to voice their opinions on distribution, price or convenience as your manifesto points out.
I have a problem with the entitlement or even "right" to consume a product or service if you have other opinions on the conditions of such consumption.
I say it again, if you don't like the conditions, don't buy. If you don't like a product in the store because of its price, it's apparence, it's production environment, what you do it to use your buying power and market pressure to force alternatives. If those alternatives do not spring up, that probably means that a sufficient amount of people are fine with the conditions of the product or service for the business to disregard people like you.
"I say it again, if you don't like the conditions, don't buy"
Sure, but there's no (real) competition. They all behave the same. If I could buy movies with no copy protection, it would influence my decision a lot.
"If those alternatives do not spring up, that probably means that a sufficient amount of people are fine with the conditions of the product.."
Maybe. Or maybe people downloading "vents" enough of the frustration people have. Downloading are the alternatives, maybe the only alternatives.
As said, I believe the major reason for there not being real competition is that enough people are fine with the current condition. We cannot assume that every niche can be served.
I'm not doubting people download to "vent", but isn't that independent of the moralic discussion of whether someone should be entitled to download?
Yes, but maybe enough people are fine with the current condition because they can download. If they couldn't, more people would be frustrated with status quo and force something else to appear.
"..but isn't that independent of the moralic discussion.."
Well, one could argue that since they refuse to make an alternative, people can resort to the only alternative there is.
They all behave the same? I have one movie in particular, Gamers: Dorkness Rising, that has a section on piracy. It says that they encourage people to share this movie with their friends, burn it, copy it, whatever.
So, there are some companies that do allow for the movies to be shared.
Oh, now here's a fun situation we find ourselves in. The movie company themselves openly encourage people to share the movie. Now people are sharing the movie. Are you going to pay for the movie as well, to encourage them to make more movies so that they can continue their share the movie practice? Hm...
Common arguments are (as quoted from the text)and my symbolic translation to the HN world:
> "Movie theater incomes are in most cases enough to cover the production costs. Their business remains viable even if people continue downloading their movies"
in HN-speak: "Developer salaries are the highest in the economy, so their careers remain viable if people start copying their code"
> "Isn’t the main goal of content producers that their content is seen ? Well. If you would charge less for a movie I would be glad to pay for it. But prices for buying movies online are just abusively high."
in HN-speak: "The main goal of a developer should be to get the product/code in front of many people. If the price would be lower, I would buy it. Ergo, the price should be lower and if not, im just gonna take it"
> "If I buy a DVD I have the right to do what I want with it"
in HN-speak: "I know the terms and licenses of the code I am using. However, i dont like it, so im just gonna do whatever I want anyways."
My view is that this is just like any other market: If you don't like the product or the way its sold under specific conditions, you always have the freedom of not buying it. No one is forcing you to anything.
Also, before this whole downvoting madness starts, please consider that I'm just trying to voice my opinion and argument for my stance.