Pirate Parties (political)
category: general [glöplog]
adok: read lessig's book already ffs
ps: What's the title of this book?
(For those who don't know what ps means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig)
(For those who don't know what ps means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig)
According to your link, you have a 33.333333333333333% chance of guessing the correct title.
True:
- Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (2000)
- The Future of Ideas (2001)
- Free Culture (2004)
Which one is it?
- Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (2000)
- The Future of Ideas (2001)
- Free Culture (2004)
Which one is it?
Just a guess, but probably the one published under the creative commons licence.
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/
And if not, at least it's free.
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/
And if not, at least it's free.
Gonna d/l it.
This is what I think:
1) It is unethical to intentionally hurt someone who has never hurt anyone, is not hurting anyone, and probably never will hurt anyone.
2) Making a copy of software or data in the privacy of your own home does not affect anyone outside of your home. (They can't even tell if you did it unless they spy on you.)
3) Harming someone is a form of affecting someone, so if you do not affect anyone, you do not harm them.
4) Trapping someone in prison is a form of harm.
5) By the above, it is unethical to put someone in jail for software piracy.
What I wrote for 1) is the most important thing, and would make a huge (positive) difference to modern laws if it were actually applied. What I'd like to see is a political party who understands 1) and applies it to everything, including piracy. So far the best type of political party I know of for this is Libertarians.
1) It is unethical to intentionally hurt someone who has never hurt anyone, is not hurting anyone, and probably never will hurt anyone.
2) Making a copy of software or data in the privacy of your own home does not affect anyone outside of your home. (They can't even tell if you did it unless they spy on you.)
3) Harming someone is a form of affecting someone, so if you do not affect anyone, you do not harm them.
4) Trapping someone in prison is a form of harm.
5) By the above, it is unethical to put someone in jail for software piracy.
What I wrote for 1) is the most important thing, and would make a huge (positive) difference to modern laws if it were actually applied. What I'd like to see is a political party who understands 1) and applies it to everything, including piracy. So far the best type of political party I know of for this is Libertarians.
yesso: I do not agree with you on 2). With the same argument you could say that you never pay when you go by train. I mean, the train will drive with or without you anyways, so you do not harm anyone if you just enter the train in case there are enough seats left.
The same is with software/data. You don't do any direct harm to anyone, but you also don't give anything back for what you got. That is not fair and indirectly harms the producers of the software/data as they expected something in return for their work.
I do agree with you on 5), though :-)
PS: Is your avatar Phantasy Star I Myau?
The same is with software/data. You don't do any direct harm to anyone, but you also don't give anything back for what you got. That is not fair and indirectly harms the producers of the software/data as they expected something in return for their work.
I do agree with you on 5), though :-)
PS: Is your avatar Phantasy Star I Myau?
Chock: I'm not sure if yesso implied giving away the copy with 2). As much as I understood, he only meant making a copy for oneself for security purposes (so that you still have a copy even if you lose the original CD etc.).
I read somewhere that young people want to legalize p2p! Isn't that great or so? I mean, just get all the songs you want for free!! And movies too. Young people really really like p2p and also they probably like Warez groups so scene is getting more attention. Maybe in future movie groups can work aside studios that they can directly rip movies to p2p! Long live P2P Long live leechers!
Scene and security is overrated. I mean, kids nowadays bitch if they dont get their romz and gamez in same day when they're released. P2P has really made difference! Also P2P gives you lots of patience when you wait 4 days that files are starting to come when there are enough sources...
YEAH COMPLETELELY OVERRATED, SINCE SOME SCENEMEMBERS ALSO MANAGED TO POST SINGS ON ORANGE AND BLUE BOARDS WHERE MR. PIGGIE CAN READ EVERYTHING. THATS NOT SO CLEVER IS IT YES K NO. OTHERWISE THEY CAN MAKE THEIR GROUPS AND THEIR SITES WHERY FAMOUS SO EVERYBODY KNOWS THEM AND EVERYBODY WILL SAY HEY COOL THIS IS LIKE 1337 AND STUFF.
THE LITTLE SISTER OF MY BROTHERS LITTLE FIREND ALSO TOLD THAT P2P IS ONLY SLOW WHEN YOU HAVE 56K - SO IT ROOOLLLZZ MOM SAID AND THEY THOUGHT YES AND STUFF U KNOW. AND I THINK ADOK IS A MIGHTY AUSTRIAN PIRATE CAUSE I THINK HE IS THE CHEF OF THE SCENE AND SAYS WHAT TO DO AND STUFF. SO HE IS AGAIN VERY COOL. i DONT KNOW.
THE LITTLE SISTER OF MY BROTHERS LITTLE FIREND ALSO TOLD THAT P2P IS ONLY SLOW WHEN YOU HAVE 56K - SO IT ROOOLLLZZ MOM SAID AND THEY THOUGHT YES AND STUFF U KNOW. AND I THINK ADOK IS A MIGHTY AUSTRIAN PIRATE CAUSE I THINK HE IS THE CHEF OF THE SCENE AND SAYS WHAT TO DO AND STUFF. SO HE IS AGAIN VERY COOL. i DONT KNOW.
chock:
I knew someone would reply with that. I thought about including a rebuttle in my original message but I thought I should keep it as simple as possible.
I don't think it's unethical to use the train if you are sure you won't harm the train company or any other passengers at all. But you do affect them, even if just a little, by messing up the train a bit, making it take more energy to move, reducing the amount of free seats, etc... The only way you could draw a good analogy is if you were a ghost, and were completely invisible and undetectible, and you were taking the train without paying.
Don't confuse these two completely separate things: What is "unfair", and what is "unethical". I agree that it's not "fair" for some people to pay for the software and others to use it for free. I think people should make the effort to pay for software. But the simple fact is that piracy is not actually harmful.
Most people say "But it does harm the software companies. Just look how much money they lose because of piracy." Well, there is a difference between "hurting" someone and "not helping" someone. If you don't buy a product, you are not thereby "hurting" the company, you are just "not helping" them. In the same way, you are not causing them to "lose" money by not buying their software. Imagine a software company that has assets of one million dollars. You can't cause their assets to go down, even by one cent, by making copies of their software. You can make as many copies as you want and their assets will still be one million dollars exactly. When they say they are "losing" money, they mean that they are "not gaining as much as they (by some calculation) expect". But if they say it that way, it's harder to make themselves look like victims.
It is (or at least should be) your right to "not buy" whatever you don't want to buy. If you have a store, and a better store opens up, and no one shops at your store anymore, you might claim that the other store "hurt" you and "made you lose money". Well, they didn't. It's just that people were helping you (by shopping at your store), and then (by their own free will) they decided to stop helping you.
Here's another analogy I came up with recently. Imagine a power company, and one guy who pays for power from that company. Now, all the surrounding houses in that guy's village somehow derive their own power from the magnetic field given off by the power going into that guy's house. And they don't pay anything for it. Now, you can say that this situation is not fair, because all of the villagers are using power from the power plant, and only one guy has to pay for it all. You can also say that the other villagers "should" pay their share of the power bill.
But here are two very important questions: 1) Are the villagers "hurting" the power company? 2) Are the villagers "hurting" the guy who pays for the power? 3) Is it ethical to harm the villagers because of what they are doing?
Let's completely remove the villagers from this situation. So all you have is the power company and the one guy. You can see that the situation is exactly the same for the power company and for the guy. It's one power company making power for one guy, and he's paying all of the money for it. Now introduce the villagers again. No change to the situation. The villagers have no effect at all. If someone does not affect a person, they are not harming the person. A person should have the right to not exist, or to have the same effect as not existing.
And, as I said in my last message, if the villagers aren't hurting anyone, it is unethical to hurt them.
A lot of people say it's OK for governments to throw people in jail, or fine them, for pirating software, and the reason is that "if they don't, the software industry will collapse". Well, that's fine with me. I hope it doesn't happen that way, especially since programming is my job, but if an industry can't survive unless it harms innocent people, then we must let it die.
P.S. Yes, it's Myau--and he fits perfectly in 16x16 :)
I knew someone would reply with that. I thought about including a rebuttle in my original message but I thought I should keep it as simple as possible.
I don't think it's unethical to use the train if you are sure you won't harm the train company or any other passengers at all. But you do affect them, even if just a little, by messing up the train a bit, making it take more energy to move, reducing the amount of free seats, etc... The only way you could draw a good analogy is if you were a ghost, and were completely invisible and undetectible, and you were taking the train without paying.
Don't confuse these two completely separate things: What is "unfair", and what is "unethical". I agree that it's not "fair" for some people to pay for the software and others to use it for free. I think people should make the effort to pay for software. But the simple fact is that piracy is not actually harmful.
Most people say "But it does harm the software companies. Just look how much money they lose because of piracy." Well, there is a difference between "hurting" someone and "not helping" someone. If you don't buy a product, you are not thereby "hurting" the company, you are just "not helping" them. In the same way, you are not causing them to "lose" money by not buying their software. Imagine a software company that has assets of one million dollars. You can't cause their assets to go down, even by one cent, by making copies of their software. You can make as many copies as you want and their assets will still be one million dollars exactly. When they say they are "losing" money, they mean that they are "not gaining as much as they (by some calculation) expect". But if they say it that way, it's harder to make themselves look like victims.
It is (or at least should be) your right to "not buy" whatever you don't want to buy. If you have a store, and a better store opens up, and no one shops at your store anymore, you might claim that the other store "hurt" you and "made you lose money". Well, they didn't. It's just that people were helping you (by shopping at your store), and then (by their own free will) they decided to stop helping you.
Here's another analogy I came up with recently. Imagine a power company, and one guy who pays for power from that company. Now, all the surrounding houses in that guy's village somehow derive their own power from the magnetic field given off by the power going into that guy's house. And they don't pay anything for it. Now, you can say that this situation is not fair, because all of the villagers are using power from the power plant, and only one guy has to pay for it all. You can also say that the other villagers "should" pay their share of the power bill.
But here are two very important questions: 1) Are the villagers "hurting" the power company? 2) Are the villagers "hurting" the guy who pays for the power? 3) Is it ethical to harm the villagers because of what they are doing?
Let's completely remove the villagers from this situation. So all you have is the power company and the one guy. You can see that the situation is exactly the same for the power company and for the guy. It's one power company making power for one guy, and he's paying all of the money for it. Now introduce the villagers again. No change to the situation. The villagers have no effect at all. If someone does not affect a person, they are not harming the person. A person should have the right to not exist, or to have the same effect as not existing.
And, as I said in my last message, if the villagers aren't hurting anyone, it is unethical to hurt them.
A lot of people say it's OK for governments to throw people in jail, or fine them, for pirating software, and the reason is that "if they don't, the software industry will collapse". Well, that's fine with me. I hope it doesn't happen that way, especially since programming is my job, but if an industry can't survive unless it harms innocent people, then we must let it die.
P.S. Yes, it's Myau--and he fits perfectly in 16x16 :)
Adok:
I was talking about individuals making copies for themselves. I was also talking about a friend bringing over his disks and you make a copy of them. I was also talking about your friend sending the data over the internet to you (as long as the people actually transmitting the message do so willingly).
I was talking about individuals making copies for themselves. I was also talking about a friend bringing over his disks and you make a copy of them. I was also talking about your friend sending the data over the internet to you (as long as the people actually transmitting the message do so willingly).
I CANT IMAGINE. I THIN`K ADOK HAS NO FRIENDS AND EVEN IF A FRIEND COMES TO HIS HOUSE THEY DONT MAKE COPYS IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MENA HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAR.
Piss off, lamer.
UH I PISSED ON PREACHER - I AM SO SORRY. REALLY. NOT.
hey Preacher.. he is member of ULTRALAME so i guess he is lamer ;)
INDEED. I AM THE LAMEST LAMER OF ALL TIMES. AND I CAN FUCKING ANNOY PEOPLE WHEN THEY FUCKING ANNOY ME. GET IT?
The Piracy Party of Sweden is the lamest fuckers ever lived on this earth. I'm to angry to write anything with sense in english.
Hitch: pwnz! :)
@v4nl4me: and BTW, Cannabis Party does already exist in Spain.
Just so you know.
Just so you know.
yesso: you wrote it's unethical to use a train for free coz it will raise the costs for maintenance etc.
So it must be unethical to use pirate-soft which need to connect to an server e.g an firewall searching for an update isn't it? Coz The pirate "copys" will lower the bandwidth and raise the data-transfer ratio etc.
I agree with you statement "piracy is not harmful" as long as all people using pirate-software were never intended to buy these software just before . <-- sounds little confusing but I hope you got my point :)
So it must be unethical to use pirate-soft which need to connect to an server e.g an firewall searching for an update isn't it? Coz The pirate "copys" will lower the bandwidth and raise the data-transfer ratio etc.
I agree with you statement "piracy is not harmful" as long as all people using pirate-software were never intended to buy these software just before . <-- sounds little confusing but I hope you got my point :)
