Never spent a penny on anything byte related, from the time I was 12 years old.
The irony is now I want people to pay me to write software ?
Maybe I am just an unproductive scum on earth, mooching off other people's work. But I was homeless for a month this year so not like I have had much options.
> But I was homeless for a month this year so not like I have had much options
You have the choice not to consume any content or to consume free content. You are entitled.
Maybe that if people paid for things that are on the web, you wouldn't have so much problem getting paid for software work. Maybe that would've kept you from the street.
> You have the choice not to consume any content or to consume free content.
Over the years that I've watched this discussion, I've come to notice that people who advocate for paying for stuff seem (though it might just be my perception) to use expressions like "consume content" more often than those who don't.
It's rather uninspiring, and I suspect it's counter-productive. No one wants to "consume content". They want to watch a film, or listen to a song, or read a book, or just be entertained. I doubt anyone ever invited a date round "to consume beverages and content".
First of all, I am not an advocate for paying stuff. I just didnt like how he painted himself as a victim: he had plenty of choice and what he chose is his responsibility, not a curse.
I don't always I pay for what I watch, sometimes I use a VPN to watch Louis Theroux on the BBC's website (you want me to be specific right ?) and I will never say that I didn't have a choice because it is ridiculous. Saying that the act of not paying for something is imposed to you is counter-productive.
I could have said "watch a film, or listen to a song, or read a book, or just be entertained", I chose "consume content" because it is shorter. I could enumerate every aspect of content consumption but that would be counter-productive as well.
Are you producing content by watching a television show? No, that's absurd, you're consuming the content that others have produced. It's really not that far from consuming a beverage. People would say drink, or in this case, watch, but the truth is that those are just two verbs that describe the type of consumption you're doing.
Why would you say it's counter productive to label it consumption? The truth is, if you're sucking up entertainment without providing anything or incentivizing production, you're a net loss in the system.
I say this as someone who has pirated things -- pretending you're not a burden on the production system if you're just pirating things is delusional. The argument that people make towards pirating and paying for content which they liked is much more consistent. Rather than pay people off for marketing/hype and support bad content in the future, you can fund solely content that you think is worthwhile. But again, this is just changing the way in which you're consuming material.
If you consume something you are making it impossible for someone else to consume that same thing. You can consume a beverage (no one can drink it after you did) but you can't consume digital content. Here[1] it is explained by someone more knowledgable than me. (incidentally, the FSF also suggests to avoid the word 'piracy' to describe illegal file sharing)
Also, when saying pirating is a net loss to the system, maybe you can say it about piracy as a whole, but for the individual I would not be so sure. Suppose I wouldn't have bought the content anyway (that is, my alternatives would have been pirating it or not seeing it). How am I causing a loss in this conditions?
Piracy doesn't cause any losses on the whole because it raises the brand image. I wouldn't know anything about Game of Thrones if not for piracy, and it increases my affection for HBO and media as a whole. if not for torrents, i would play outside, not buy GoT.
Personally, I feel like there is a stage in life where things should be free or cheaper. I would not be the person I am today if it weren't for torrents and Usenet. Seriously. Today, I am happy to compensate all writers, artists, programmers, and others for their intangible work. But quite simply, I was a very thirsty teenager and if I had waited for a job in order to drink, I would be stunted.
I very much feel this way. I also live (but did not grow up in) a country where the average yearly income is ~800$. So, I guess my neighbors shouldn't get to experience all the interesting media that I did?
Also, there are many things that I feel I have an obligation to be informed about (like junk on CNN / Fox News, or war propaganda like "Zero Dark Thirty" or "American Sniper"), but I would be ethically opposed to paying for.
I don't understand the film companies. I'd like to watch GoT season 5 and some of the other seasons too.
I want to watch them in English and I live in Germany. Do I have any options apart from a cable subscription for a bunch of other bullshit I don't want. No of course not.
I could wait until the DVDs cone out in a years time, bit the fuckers will more than likely split the season into two releases to make you buy two separate box sets for double the money.
I could watch online but that would be illegal and I don't want to go there. I just don't watch. I'd pay a couple of Euros to watch each episode in the format I want (DNLAed off my Synology) it appears that they don't want my cold hard cash. It has been like that for years and I'm slowly tuning off from media completely. I wonder how many others are like me- abstainers?
We used to pirate GoT two seasons ago, then last season we paid for it "just for this season" since we wanted to watch it live. We never did wind up cancelling HBO even after GoT finished that season, we keep it for the movies, HBO Go (which is actually quite a good even with Netflix and Amazon Digital), and since then John Oliver has a show which we want to DVR.
I absolutely understand why people abroad are pirating and put that at the feet of HBO. Wire cutters now have an option with HBO Now if they wish, and those who don't wish to pay, fair enough, but HBO's product is actually surprisingly good.
Ideally HBO should have seen a large drop in piracy this season due to HBO Now, however unfortunately with this four episode leak people are so paranoid about spoilers that a lot of people feel "forced" to pirate it even if they legitimately pay for either HBO Go or HBO Now.
Keep in mind that a GoT season is 10 episodes. So a four episode leak is almost 1/2 of an entire season.
He argues that somehow piracy caused innovation in the music industry, and thus the piracy of hollywood will somehow usher in a new era of innovation in streaming video. In some respects its true that Napster brought about innovation in digital music... BUT IT HASN"T STOPPED PIRACY!
There is a ton of more streaming options today, which is great for lawful netizens, we do have a lot of great options. But that doesn't excuse pirates from ethical obligations.
You don't have a right to someone's property just because you think you should.
Maybe I should just take refuge in your fancy-house just because I think it would be morally just because you have a nicer house than I do.
Thats essentailly the argument pirates make, and it doesn't hold water.
To further your analogy, it costs me approximately $0 to make an exact copy of fancy-house, it travels over the internet to you, and what you do with your copy doesn't affect me in the slightest.
I am very willing to give you a copy of my fancy-house under such a scheme, and you are completely welcome to do with it whatever you want.
You are living in this entitled fantasy world. How do you believe this doesn't effect film studios? Everyone who pirates a film is someone who could have been a paying customer. Instead they choose to break the law. An alternative option is to not watch the illegal films!
Either don't pirate, or pay for your media. People shouldn't steal.
Maybe they should be patient and wait until the films come into the public domain if they're too cheap to pay.
You're welcome to do that. That's assuming you have the power to press a key and duplicate data that comprises a home and materialize it for your use. I'll even throw in a housewarming gift basket and a helping hand.
The unethical people in these equations are the ones who try to bend the world to their whims of "intellectual" order. They see no problem with violence on human beings over literal duplication of information. Economically speaking, a lesser degree of unethical behavior surrounds only people who duplicate data who would have paid for said content. A minority of content spreads worldwide on that basis. Hundreds of millions of teenagers and adults getting online can barely afford an internet connection if even a personal computer. Meanwhile, the amount of content and producers exponentially increases. They are not "completely unethical" for taking part in fleeting, frivolous entertainment -- the vast amount of it they wouldn't deem worthy to purchase in place of other choices. Everyone's situation is different. Rarely in the human condition is something "completely unethical", especially in the context of data and non-violent actions. Streaming services like Spotify are a good start. They respect the nature of information more. They try to appeal to hearts and minds. That's healthy.
Then there are industries where net positives exist along with piracy. Growing the size of a user/fan base becomes an added dependency of future success. Industry sets adoption. Adoption sets industry. Piracy by individuals is tolerated or even internally respected, while only the piracy of moderate and large businesses is targeted. The world, for instance, was awash with Windows cracks and serials in the 90s and early 2000s, having a tremendous impact globally on people who couldn't afford it or who wouldn't buy it. In the absence of such piracy, such as by a hypothetical corporate-fascist state putting people to death or by magical DRM, Linux would be in millions of more households by now.
> You're welcome to do that. That's assuming you have the power to press a key and duplicate data that comprises a home and materialize it for your use. I'll even throw in a housewarming gift basket and a helping hand.
Okay, I'll take you up on your offer. Can you please set up a server where I can download a disk image of your desktop computer? By one press of the button, I can have a copy of your "house"... no harm to you, right?
Let me just have every piece of data you own... just a harmless copy... just because I want and value it.
It's a lot different when it's your things people want versus other people's things.
That's correct. Your duplicating a home wouldn't harm me. My magical house would be Free and open source. Let me know of any bugs if you'd be so kind. Catch and release if you have a heart. The corner spiders are friends and good workers. I'll set up a server. Prepare your robotic minions. Ping me in 15 years. :)
Personal desire for privacy is wholly separate from whether or not your duplicating a house harms me. It's baffling logic to suggest otherwise. But I'll play along. In this hypothetical, you value some data and I don't want you to have it. Therefore, our interests clash. Acknowledging reality on my end would mean attempting to safeguard the data from you. That means taking realistic measures to do the opposite of making it free or widely available for a price.
There's an intellectual world. There's a physical world. Ethics is not particular laws subjecting people at arbitrary points in time. Ethics is discussion of real-world damage and recourse. It's philosophy that must be perpetually debated before it swirls down a corporate drain along with any other semblance of "justice" flushed with it to churn out prisoners and chilling effects. Caring about reality starts with recognizing reality. Duplicating binary information is easy. Information can spread across the world in seconds. Some obstacles are effective at earning support and capital from information. Other obstacles are not effective. Security is generally weak. Some people are naturally curious and hungry. Some people suck. Most people are generally good. That's reality. People who have disposable incomes often want to encourage the producers they value -- with money, without friction. That's why crowdfunding exists.
22 comments
[ 1437 ms ] story [ 2040 ms ] threadThe irony is now I want people to pay me to write software ?
Maybe I am just an unproductive scum on earth, mooching off other people's work. But I was homeless for a month this year so not like I have had much options.
I do not feel at least bit sorry about stealing.
You have the choice not to consume any content or to consume free content. You are entitled.
Maybe that if people paid for things that are on the web, you wouldn't have so much problem getting paid for software work. Maybe that would've kept you from the street.
Over the years that I've watched this discussion, I've come to notice that people who advocate for paying for stuff seem (though it might just be my perception) to use expressions like "consume content" more often than those who don't.
It's rather uninspiring, and I suspect it's counter-productive. No one wants to "consume content". They want to watch a film, or listen to a song, or read a book, or just be entertained. I doubt anyone ever invited a date round "to consume beverages and content".
I don't always I pay for what I watch, sometimes I use a VPN to watch Louis Theroux on the BBC's website (you want me to be specific right ?) and I will never say that I didn't have a choice because it is ridiculous. Saying that the act of not paying for something is imposed to you is counter-productive.
I could have said "watch a film, or listen to a song, or read a book, or just be entertained", I chose "consume content" because it is shorter. I could enumerate every aspect of content consumption but that would be counter-productive as well.
Why would you say it's counter productive to label it consumption? The truth is, if you're sucking up entertainment without providing anything or incentivizing production, you're a net loss in the system.
I say this as someone who has pirated things -- pretending you're not a burden on the production system if you're just pirating things is delusional. The argument that people make towards pirating and paying for content which they liked is much more consistent. Rather than pay people off for marketing/hype and support bad content in the future, you can fund solely content that you think is worthwhile. But again, this is just changing the way in which you're consuming material.
If you consume something you are making it impossible for someone else to consume that same thing. You can consume a beverage (no one can drink it after you did) but you can't consume digital content. Here[1] it is explained by someone more knowledgable than me. (incidentally, the FSF also suggests to avoid the word 'piracy' to describe illegal file sharing)
Also, when saying pirating is a net loss to the system, maybe you can say it about piracy as a whole, but for the individual I would not be so sure. Suppose I wouldn't have bought the content anyway (that is, my alternatives would have been pirating it or not seeing it). How am I causing a loss in this conditions?
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consume
Also, there are many things that I feel I have an obligation to be informed about (like junk on CNN / Fox News, or war propaganda like "Zero Dark Thirty" or "American Sniper"), but I would be ethically opposed to paying for.
No judgement, I pirated games when I was in school. I still pirate TV.
I want to watch them in English and I live in Germany. Do I have any options apart from a cable subscription for a bunch of other bullshit I don't want. No of course not.
I could wait until the DVDs cone out in a years time, bit the fuckers will more than likely split the season into two releases to make you buy two separate box sets for double the money.
I could watch online but that would be illegal and I don't want to go there. I just don't watch. I'd pay a couple of Euros to watch each episode in the format I want (DNLAed off my Synology) it appears that they don't want my cold hard cash. It has been like that for years and I'm slowly tuning off from media completely. I wonder how many others are like me- abstainers?
I absolutely understand why people abroad are pirating and put that at the feet of HBO. Wire cutters now have an option with HBO Now if they wish, and those who don't wish to pay, fair enough, but HBO's product is actually surprisingly good.
Ideally HBO should have seen a large drop in piracy this season due to HBO Now, however unfortunately with this four episode leak people are so paranoid about spoilers that a lot of people feel "forced" to pirate it even if they legitimately pay for either HBO Go or HBO Now.
Keep in mind that a GoT season is 10 episodes. So a four episode leak is almost 1/2 of an entire season.
He argues that somehow piracy caused innovation in the music industry, and thus the piracy of hollywood will somehow usher in a new era of innovation in streaming video. In some respects its true that Napster brought about innovation in digital music... BUT IT HASN"T STOPPED PIRACY!
There is a ton of more streaming options today, which is great for lawful netizens, we do have a lot of great options. But that doesn't excuse pirates from ethical obligations.
You don't have a right to someone's property just because you think you should.
Maybe I should just take refuge in your fancy-house just because I think it would be morally just because you have a nicer house than I do.
Thats essentailly the argument pirates make, and it doesn't hold water.
To further your analogy, it costs me approximately $0 to make an exact copy of fancy-house, it travels over the internet to you, and what you do with your copy doesn't affect me in the slightest.
I am very willing to give you a copy of my fancy-house under such a scheme, and you are completely welcome to do with it whatever you want.
Either don't pirate, or pay for your media. People shouldn't steal.
Maybe they should be patient and wait until the films come into the public domain if they're too cheap to pay.
The unethical people in these equations are the ones who try to bend the world to their whims of "intellectual" order. They see no problem with violence on human beings over literal duplication of information. Economically speaking, a lesser degree of unethical behavior surrounds only people who duplicate data who would have paid for said content. A minority of content spreads worldwide on that basis. Hundreds of millions of teenagers and adults getting online can barely afford an internet connection if even a personal computer. Meanwhile, the amount of content and producers exponentially increases. They are not "completely unethical" for taking part in fleeting, frivolous entertainment -- the vast amount of it they wouldn't deem worthy to purchase in place of other choices. Everyone's situation is different. Rarely in the human condition is something "completely unethical", especially in the context of data and non-violent actions. Streaming services like Spotify are a good start. They respect the nature of information more. They try to appeal to hearts and minds. That's healthy.
Then there are industries where net positives exist along with piracy. Growing the size of a user/fan base becomes an added dependency of future success. Industry sets adoption. Adoption sets industry. Piracy by individuals is tolerated or even internally respected, while only the piracy of moderate and large businesses is targeted. The world, for instance, was awash with Windows cracks and serials in the 90s and early 2000s, having a tremendous impact globally on people who couldn't afford it or who wouldn't buy it. In the absence of such piracy, such as by a hypothetical corporate-fascist state putting people to death or by magical DRM, Linux would be in millions of more households by now.
Okay, I'll take you up on your offer. Can you please set up a server where I can download a disk image of your desktop computer? By one press of the button, I can have a copy of your "house"... no harm to you, right?
Let me just have every piece of data you own... just a harmless copy... just because I want and value it.
It's a lot different when it's your things people want versus other people's things.
Personal desire for privacy is wholly separate from whether or not your duplicating a house harms me. It's baffling logic to suggest otherwise. But I'll play along. In this hypothetical, you value some data and I don't want you to have it. Therefore, our interests clash. Acknowledging reality on my end would mean attempting to safeguard the data from you. That means taking realistic measures to do the opposite of making it free or widely available for a price.
There's an intellectual world. There's a physical world. Ethics is not particular laws subjecting people at arbitrary points in time. Ethics is discussion of real-world damage and recourse. It's philosophy that must be perpetually debated before it swirls down a corporate drain along with any other semblance of "justice" flushed with it to churn out prisoners and chilling effects. Caring about reality starts with recognizing reality. Duplicating binary information is easy. Information can spread across the world in seconds. Some obstacles are effective at earning support and capital from information. Other obstacles are not effective. Security is generally weak. Some people are naturally curious and hungry. Some people suck. Most people are generally good. That's reality. People who have disposable incomes often want to encourage the producers they value -- with money, without friction. That's why crowdfunding exists.
Yet, up to last year, HBO was saying it was good for business because it made even more people talk about it.
I wish they made up their mind if it's good or bad for business once and for all.