7 ms·

If I download a song from, let’s say, The Pirate Bay, I never agree to any terms. Futher, it’s debatable whether clicking “I agree” on a pages-long EULA where

If I download a song from, let’s say, The Pirate Bay, I never agree to any terms. Futher, it’s debatable whether clicking “I agree” on a pages-long EULA where there is no realistic expectation that people actually read the text, is really agreement.

aranelsurion 3y ago
I also take issue with "you've agreed to the contract" arguments in general, if the contract is between one individual vs. an entire organization, or usually collection of organizations. There's such a high power imbalance there that I find it intellectually dishonest to say that it is a free-willing contract between two entities. In my decades of Internet use, I haven't once set a single clause on a contract I've "agreed to" with a service. Those agreements were always even more one-sided than Treaty of Versailles, and the upper limit of how far they'd push was almost always what the local regulations permitted. Therefore I ask, can you exist on this digital world without ever accepting one EULA in your life? or moving the goal post: can you exist on this world without accepting one-sided agreements, like, all the time? It's not an agreement if you had no real choice to begin with.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  It's just as immoral to steal from Big MegaCorp as it is to steal from Joe Random, especially when what you're stealing is entirely frivolous and not in any way required for your life or even happiness. The insidious nature of piracy is that it's so completely unnecessary. There are no "but I'm starving" kind of arguments to be had here.
  - TheMode 3y ago
    You are acting like entertainment exists in a vacuum. You go about your day, consume some movie, then go back to your life as if nothing happened. In practice, new entertainment entices more people into consuming it. For example lets say your group of friend suddenly became huge fan of some unknown show, you didn't see it but they keep talking about it for days. You then notice that it costs $500. You indeed have the choice to not watch it, its not like you ever felt the need to before it has been mentioned to you, but won't you? This example is a bit excessive but these kind of events happen all ever the case for entertainment that cost a fraction of it. The problem is that it stacks up. As for your immoral accusation, its perfectly fine if you think this way, but I also believe that it is perfectly fine to think the opposite way. The only things companies can lose from piracy are potential sales, and ultimately if people aren't willing to pay for it I believe that it is fine for the company to shut down. Why should they be forced to pay for something they can access without causing any harm?
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      for many, it does exist in a vacuum. Others may place more weight into it. >For example lets say your group of friend suddenly became huge fan of some unknown show, you didn't see it but they keep talking about it for days. You then notice that it costs $500. You indeed have the choice to not watch it, its not like you ever felt the need to before it has been mentioned to you, but won't you? sure, life is all about compromises. I had plenty of rich friends take things for granted in grade school that my parent literally could not afford. I probably "lost" some rich friends because I could not engage in such actiities. Such is life. I grew up not expecting to get everything I wanted when I wanted it. Practicing restraint and prioritizing my needs over my wants is a core part of my character. So hearing people act like they need to watch Game of Thrones but can't pay HBO or whatever falls on deaf ears. I simply never watched Game of Thrones, life did move on. >As for your immoral accusation, its perfectly fine if you think this way, but I also believe that it is perfectly fine to think the opposite way. I care more about hypocrisy than morals, and a lot of the "pro-consumer" arguments come off a hypocritical. They compare it to people breaking into your house but are happy in most other contexts treating the digital commons as different from a physical one, despite that cost of the commons coming from some often non-government entity. And honestly, it's just the dishonesty that bothers me the most. Some just don't want to say they do bad things. At least own up to it. I pirate, sometimes I just don't care. I'm not a good person. There, easy. >and ultimately if people aren't willing to pay for it I believe that it is fine for the company to shut down. Why should they be forced to pay for something they can access without causing any harm? logistically, the company shutting down hurts the people who caused it the least. So I do feel bad. CEO has a million dollar eject button and the rest of the airplane of underpaid artists are stuck in a nosedive. Maybe I couldn't save it, but I at least don't want to say I didn't chip in. morally, a company that produces value that has all of what is valued stolen is a downer.
      - TheMode 3y ago
        > sure, life is all about compromises. I had plenty of rich friends take things for granted in grade school that my parent literally could not afford. I probably "lost" some rich friends because I could not engage in such actiities. Such is life. Sometimes you indeed have to cope, not everything can be accessible. But in the case of digital data it is definitively possible, and people are independently distributing torrents, not like movie studios have to distribute their own work for free. More digital piracy would also overall mean less production, and so less expectation from consumers, and less barriers for the people who cannot afford everything (or anything really). Going back to a more "organic rate" of story telling. Stories have always existed after all. > And honestly, it's just the dishonesty that bothers me the most. Some just don't want to say they do bad things. At least own up to it. I pirate, sometimes I just don't care. I'm not a good person. There, easy. Maybe that I am a bad person too then. But its a pretty quick reasoning, am I really to blame for downloading bytes over the internet? Why couldn't you blame all the creators for expecting this sort of income? am I to blame if their work only has value when imposed?
WendyTheWillow 3y ago
You know the person who you downloaded from did, which is then benefitting from ill gotten gains, and also immoral.

aranelsurion 3y ago

I also take issue with "you've agreed to the contract" arguments in general, if the contract is between one individual vs. an entire organization, or usually collection of organizations. There's such a high power imbalance there that I find it intellectually dishonest to say that it is a free-willing contract between two entities. In my decades of Internet use, I haven't once set a single clause on a contract I've "agreed to" with a service. Those agreements were always even more one-sided than Treaty of Versailles, and the upper limit of how far they'd push was almost always what the local regulations permitted. Therefore I ask, can you exist on this digital world without ever accepting one EULA in your life? or moving the goal post: can you exist on this world without accepting one-sided agreements, like, all the time? It's not an agreement if you had no real choice to begin with.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
It's just as immoral to steal from Big MegaCorp as it is to steal from Joe Random, especially when what you're stealing is entirely frivolous and not in any way required for your life or even happiness. The insidious nature of piracy is that it's so completely unnecessary. There are no "but I'm starving" kind of arguments to be had here.
- TheMode 3y ago
  You are acting like entertainment exists in a vacuum. You go about your day, consume some movie, then go back to your life as if nothing happened. In practice, new entertainment entices more people into consuming it. For example lets say your group of friend suddenly became huge fan of some unknown show, you didn't see it but they keep talking about it for days. You then notice that it costs $500. You indeed have the choice to not watch it, its not like you ever felt the need to before it has been mentioned to you, but won't you? This example is a bit excessive but these kind of events happen all ever the case for entertainment that cost a fraction of it. The problem is that it stacks up. As for your immoral accusation, its perfectly fine if you think this way, but I also believe that it is perfectly fine to think the opposite way. The only things companies can lose from piracy are potential sales, and ultimately if people aren't willing to pay for it I believe that it is fine for the company to shut down. Why should they be forced to pay for something they can access without causing any harm?
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    for many, it does exist in a vacuum. Others may place more weight into it. >For example lets say your group of friend suddenly became huge fan of some unknown show, you didn't see it but they keep talking about it for days. You then notice that it costs $500. You indeed have the choice to not watch it, its not like you ever felt the need to before it has been mentioned to you, but won't you? sure, life is all about compromises. I had plenty of rich friends take things for granted in grade school that my parent literally could not afford. I probably "lost" some rich friends because I could not engage in such actiities. Such is life. I grew up not expecting to get everything I wanted when I wanted it. Practicing restraint and prioritizing my needs over my wants is a core part of my character. So hearing people act like they need to watch Game of Thrones but can't pay HBO or whatever falls on deaf ears. I simply never watched Game of Thrones, life did move on. >As for your immoral accusation, its perfectly fine if you think this way, but I also believe that it is perfectly fine to think the opposite way. I care more about hypocrisy than morals, and a lot of the "pro-consumer" arguments come off a hypocritical. They compare it to people breaking into your house but are happy in most other contexts treating the digital commons as different from a physical one, despite that cost of the commons coming from some often non-government entity. And honestly, it's just the dishonesty that bothers me the most. Some just don't want to say they do bad things. At least own up to it. I pirate, sometimes I just don't care. I'm not a good person. There, easy. >and ultimately if people aren't willing to pay for it I believe that it is fine for the company to shut down. Why should they be forced to pay for something they can access without causing any harm? logistically, the company shutting down hurts the people who caused it the least. So I do feel bad. CEO has a million dollar eject button and the rest of the airplane of underpaid artists are stuck in a nosedive. Maybe I couldn't save it, but I at least don't want to say I didn't chip in. morally, a company that produces value that has all of what is valued stolen is a downer.
    - TheMode 3y ago
      > sure, life is all about compromises. I had plenty of rich friends take things for granted in grade school that my parent literally could not afford. I probably "lost" some rich friends because I could not engage in such actiities. Such is life. Sometimes you indeed have to cope, not everything can be accessible. But in the case of digital data it is definitively possible, and people are independently distributing torrents, not like movie studios have to distribute their own work for free. More digital piracy would also overall mean less production, and so less expectation from consumers, and less barriers for the people who cannot afford everything (or anything really). Going back to a more "organic rate" of story telling. Stories have always existed after all. > And honestly, it's just the dishonesty that bothers me the most. Some just don't want to say they do bad things. At least own up to it. I pirate, sometimes I just don't care. I'm not a good person. There, easy. Maybe that I am a bad person too then. But its a pretty quick reasoning, am I really to blame for downloading bytes over the internet? Why couldn't you blame all the creators for expecting this sort of income? am I to blame if their work only has value when imposed?

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

You know the person who you downloaded from did, which is then benefitting from ill gotten gains, and also immoral.