Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Why I Pirate - An Open Letter to Content Creators
doctorfrog:
"I'm not going to deny myself the enjoyment of your creation just because you haven't figured out how to collect."
I once felt this way myself, but I kinda grew up. This is extremely immature, but it's also the attitude of someone (again I was like this myself) who probably wasn't going to part with a buck to support your work anyway.
-doctorfrog (March 09, 2012, 02:50 AM)
--- End quote ---
AMEN! Whether we AGREE or DISAGREE, content CREATORS have a RIGHT to charge whatever they want and to CONTROL the distribution of THEIR creations. To say that you have a RIGHT to someone ELSE'S hard work is a RATIONALIZATION, IMHO.
-db90h (March 09, 2012, 02:58 AM)
--- End quote ---
Hold on there, Sally. Just as a consumer can't expect his every demand to be met at once, neither can any sensible content creator or legal IP owner perch in a chair and expect people to line up and hand over cash on exactly their terms 100% of the time. It's not gonna happen either way, so keep your shirt on.
Consumer: the world don't owe you constant entertainment and software.
Content holders: the world don't owe you a living.
Both camps: get over yourselves.
Also, open letters to entire swaths of people are self-indulgent and useless.
40hz:
Also, open letters to entire swaths of people are self-indulgent and useless.
-doctorfrog (March 09, 2012, 02:36 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not when they're posted in a forum! They provide the kickoff point for a debate. That's what forums are all about. ;D
IainB:
There is no one right that trumps all other rights, not the free speech, not the freedom of assembly, not even the right to life. So why would property and copyright be the only rights to which there are no exceptions? When put like this, the position is untenable.
-tranglos (March 09, 2012, 02:08 PM)
--- End quote ---
Very good point, nicely argued. Well done, tranglos! :Thmbsup:
-40hz (March 09, 2012, 02:13 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well, it sounds great when put like that, but it would seem to be just a high-sounding opinion naively flying in the face of what is apparently a quite different reality in practice. The reality being that under US law, the rights to some kinds of property seem to take priority/precedence - almost like an ideological god-objective in their own right.
Copyright is property, and the copyright owners have that right sanctioned in law, and because they are corporate legal persons with apparently greater democratic/lobby rights than public persons (QED), then their acknowledged statistically artificial claims (QED) to monetary loss from copyright infringement are regarded as truthful reasons to justify treating copyright infringement as a major felony - with punishments that seem to be sometimes far in excess of the sort of punishments meted out to people for having committed arguably more serious crimes - e.g., such as (say), large-scale banking or corporate fraud against the public, enslavement or killing someone.
At that point - having the status of a major felony - no matter how harmless to other people this arguably victimless crime might be - the right to life and protection of life apparently takes a back seat.
Don't believe that? Look at the exemplary dotcom raid.
Don't think that the right to life can be that easily superseded?
Try these:
* Handcuffed girl tasered, now in coma. Police cleared of wrongdoing
* Death In The Devil's Chair: Florida Man's Pepper Spray Death Raises Questions About Jail Abuse
* New Orleans Police Kill Unarmed Man During Pot Raid
If you can read up on those links and watch the videos without it turning your stomach or making your blood boil, then you could well be insensate.
The real criminals here could arguably be the lawmakers, judiciary and the state police - all there for your legal protection. Oopsy-daisy, we just made it legal to kill, and then did kill another innocent civilian for some apparently farking minor or non-offence. All correct and necessary in the execution of duty. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind. One less "felon" to worry about.
OK, let's revisit this statement:
There is no one right that trumps all other rights, not the free speech, not the freedom of assembly, not even the right to life. So why would property and copyright be the only rights to which there are no exceptions? When put like this, the position is untenable.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, right.
db90h:
First, I am not a license nazi. I give most all my content away freely. I author lots of open source. I don't go to great lengths to protect my paid software. I guess that's why pirates have been selling it lately. I agree consumers are as important as producers, and that's why I treat them with respect and dignity. I don't make them jump through hoops to use something they paid for, for instance.
Second, here's a quick article from a two second Google search: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/06/software-cracks-a-great-way-to-infect-your-pc/
Yes, some of this malware is extremely sneaky. Ever heard of a rootkit? These guys controlling massive botnets have hundreds of thousands of PCs under their control, and the PC owners have no idea they are infected. Rootkits make it near impossible to remove or detect the malware. I am sure there are safe pirated software out there, and I'm not trying to scare people, this is just the truth. Your machine could be infected for years and you never have any idea that it's used in DDoS attacks, or whatever other nefarious purpose the botnet owner desires.
I am not MAKING UP the fact that I have SEEN and ANALYZED with my OWN EYES pirated software that installs fine, seems to work fine, but comes with an extra surprise -- a permanent rootkit infection (or other type of malware). The user never has any idea. Not ALL pirated software is infected, but this is one of the largest vectors of spreading malware. That is fact, not a scare tactic.
It's a reality. Botnet owners can tell you! How else do you think they get hundreds of thousands of PCs under their control?
... Also consider this: What if someone decided they wanted to copy ALL OF DonationCoder.com and put it up at some other URL. That happens every day to large sites. Do they have a right to do that?
Do IP laws need reformed? ABSOLUTELY. Do content CONSUMERS need protected too? ABSOLUTELY. Do content consumers need to be treated with more respect? ABSOLUTELY. However, we MUST have IP laws, else we have chaos.
Renegade:
Don't believe that? Look at the exemplary dotcom raid.
Don't think that the right to life can be that easily superseded?
Try these:
* Handcuffed girl tasered, now in coma. Police cleared of wrongdoing
* Death In The Devil's Chair: Florida Man's Pepper Spray Death Raises Questions About Jail Abuse
* New Orleans Police Kill Unarmed Man During Pot Raid
-IainB (March 09, 2012, 04:27 PM)
--- End quote ---
The US police are increasingly becoming militarized. Drop by InfoWars.com and find out more about that. It's sickening.
But for the right to life...
Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed
Australian Bill Allows for Sterilizations Without Parental Consent at Any Age
Oh, hey... Let's kill babies and sterilize children! WOW! What a good idea! :'(
Hello? McFly?
These people are insane!
I have a vested interest in copyright and IP. I make my living on it. But when it comes to copyright laws... we already have enough. No more are needed. We don't need to flush our freedom of speech down the toilet to protect copyright. We all know where that is headed. Because everytime we let governments take away one freedom, they line up to take another.
262,000,000 people were murdered by their governments in the 20th century. That's 10% of the world population in 1950.
We have every reason in the world to be very afraid of what will happen if we let them take away any freedom.
Copyright isn't that important.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version