[lachyg]

My comment doesn't directly relate to the issue in the article (how she's being put in jail early) but I'll go ahead anyway.

Does anyone honestly think piracy should go unpunished? People that upload movies, music, games etc should be punished, as they are doing something illegal and and the people downloading should also be punished as they are getting the content without paying the creators.

I'm curious if anyone has any logical argument about why they should go unpunished.

Edit: I hate to be the dude that posts the stupid downvote edit, but seriously, I'm posing a question, I'm not stating what should or shouldn't happen. Please post why or why not you disagree instead of just blindly hitting the downvote. The downvote button is for unsavory comments, trolls, etc

[toyg]

I'll bite: do you honestly think people should be sent to prison for copyright offences? Monetary damages, yes; bankruptcy, maybe (if the infringement was on mass-scale and resulted in direct profit for the guilty, say, above 1000$); but prison?

Prison is not about punishment, in a civil society; it's about isolating individuals with the potential to irreparably harm their community. Unless the copyright holders go bankrupt as a direct, proven result of infringers' actions, there is simply no irreparable harm done: the rightsholder still owns the IP and is free to sell it.

[lachyg]

Oh god no, definitely not. Monetary damages, yes. Prison sentences for a non-violent crime, definitely not.

[fourspace]

Just to play devil's advocate here, what you're saying is that folks like Bernie Madoff should not go to prison.

[droithomme]

Lots of old folks lost their pensions because of Madoff. People lost their homes. People lost their health insurance. People have died because of what he, and most everyone else on wall street has been up to. So yes theirs was a violent crime. Not that they will ever be punished. We know now that they own the government, bought with the money the stole.

As far as this woman, she ran a video site that had user uploaded content that was streamed to other users. Same business model as youtube and google videos, and youtube has more unlicensed content than ninja video ever did yet isn't being investigated at all.

[phillmv]

You know what, taking all of that man's money away and putting him on probation for the rest of his life is probably just as effective as a deterrent. Being forced to work at Walmart to make bills pay, that sort of thing.

Probation is actually pretty shitty, and in some cases totally effective at ruining your quality of life.

[Natsu]

And to be fair, it would be better for him to spend his time working off his debt to his victims, rather than being a drain on society in prison. Structured appropriately, it could constitute adequate punishment--for example, being under "house arrest" rather than in prison.

[droithomme]

I agree with you. Situations like this are perfect for indentured servitude (which is specifically permitted under the 14th Amendment as punishment for a crime). Madoff should spend the rest of his life scrubbing the toilets of the people he defrauded, starting at the smallest debt and working his way up, earning minimum wage doing whatever legal tasks they require of him until he has repaid each one in full. All his heirs and relatives need to be carefully audited as well to get back the money he has holed away throughout the globe.

[schiffern]

If the monetary compensation actually proportional (i.e. not just a slap on the wrist), then I would be completely satisfied.

[toyg]

Madoff did irreparably harm the community, and with his connections he could probably do it again. Hence, prison.

[yardie]

There is a big difference between fraud and infringement. I don't see how they are similar at all.

[anamax]

As always, what if I don't pay?

In Madoff's case, at least some of the money is off short and some is hidden.

[learc83]

If you're willfully disobeying a court order the judge can hold you in contempt and you'll serve jail time that way.

[lachyg]

Then you go to jail, simple.

[anamax]

So, you think that folks who commit fraud shouldn't go to jail, presumably because "Oh god no, definitely not. Monetary damages, yes. Prison sentences for a non-violent crime, definitely not." (from the parent), but disobeying a judge deserves jail.

What's violent about disobeying a judge?

[lachyg]

It's not that it's violent, it's that you've been given an option that you've decided not to take, and then it escalates.

[dangrossman]

@oelewapperke : You are hellbanned so (almost) nobody can see your comments. Copyright infringement is also a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and statutory damages. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

[18pfsmt]

Just to be clear, commercial copyright infringement (i.e. for profit) is criminal, personal copyright infringement (i.e. you download it and watch it) is civil.

[tbrownaw]

Or if you reproduce (does "reproduce" include downloading a copy, or only providing copies to others? Doesn't matter for bittorrent I suppose.) or distribute things worth more than $1000 retail value in 180 days (17.506.a.b) or you share pre-release works (17.506.a.c).

I'm pretty sure most "so-and-so discography" torrents would qualify for the first one.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.pdf

[realo]

Picture this for a moment:

It's your Birthday. Your friends invited you to the nicest restaurant in town. Very nice venue, food is great. End of meal... time for dessert. Your friends love you and, together, singe you the nicest rendition of 'Happy Birthday To You' you ever heard. Life is good.

This was an illegal performance. Secret police comes in, puts your friends in prison (they stole & performed the song) and also you and everyone in the restaurant at that time go to prison as well because you got the song without paying the creators.

Of course, according to the New extended SuperSOPA law, the restaurant is closed down, and it's owner is sent to prison as well, because he should not have allowed all this to happen in the first place.

Do you really want to live in that Orwellian world?

[VMG]

What's Orwellian is your comparison of singing "Happy Birthday" to what this woman did:

Mid-2010, nine sites connected to movie streaming were targeted by the U.S. government. They included NinjaVideo.net, at the time one of the Internet’s most prominent video streaming sites.

One of her co-founders admitted to making 58k$ off ninja-video.

[Dylanlacey]

That's really the crux of things. She didn't help people pirate, she made money off other people's content, and didn't pay a cent for it. To my mind, that's wrong.

[lachyg]

It's taken me three hours to really think about your comment, and I can't really think of a satisfying response. Your hyperbole aside, I think this is apples and oranges. I don't think it's a comparable situation.

People playing Nirvana in a garage and singing Happy Birthday to You at birthday parties is not the same thing as downloading material that you have access to buy. It's accepted that we can partake in these luxuries. If we want to profit off them though, we do have to pay a licensing fee.

[chc]

The distinction you're drawing seems arbitrary. You could buy a license to "Happy Birthday To You", but instead you choose to perform it without a license. How is appropriating without a proper license to perform a work substiantially different from doing the same thing to watch a work?

[18pfsmt]

I'm glad you brought up the point about people profiting from copyrighted works for which they do not have the rights because in the US, that is the only thing that is criminally offensive wrt piracy. Downloading content without payment simply for personal consumption, however, is a civil matter between the copyright holder and the downloader.

The current legislation under consideration surrounding copyrights attempts to shift the burden of enforcement from the private, copyright-holding entities to the public, or another private company that is only tangentially related (i.e. advertising platforms).

[hussong]

Someone should make a short film about this scene, it would go pretty viral.

[realo]

That would be cool, as long as the 10,000$ license fee for "Happy Birthday" is paid to Warner...

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

[draggnar]

What?! I was reading these comments thinking -- oh that would be funny if everything was under copywrite. I feel violated. The video, if you make it, should end with the fact that it actually is owned by Warner.

[gonehome]

The perhaps even stranger part is that there exists a public domain variant of the happy birthday song. The song was modified and it is this version that Warner owns the copyright to (and the one that we sing).

The modification? -- One Note.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

[droithomme]

Yes, given that the song was written in 1893 and has been published with the current melody and lyrics since 1912 it's amazing to think it is still really under copyright, especially given that there is not a single other thing in the world from 1893 or 1912 whose copyright hasn't long since expired.

[botj]

Except in this case it's more akin to stealing the meal no?

[lukeschlather]

No, not at all. This is exactly like SOPA. A totally non-infringing activity (serving food in a restaurant) becomes criminal when someone starts playing an infringing song. Now, there is a bit of a hedge here - the rightsholder would technically have to ask you to stop, and you would have to refuse, before the feds came.

[SoftwareMaven]

But before the Feds come, Warner could put the restaurant out of business by making its banks and credit card processors dump them, newspapers and magazines not advertise them, printers not print their menus, etc. And all of this without a judge ever being involved.

[richardburton]

You are using the slippery-slope argument here. That is a fallacy.

[chairface]

I see no slippery slope in his argument. Singing Happy Birthday in public is actually a copyright violation, right now.

[richardburton]

De dure, not de facto. Show me a report of someone getting arrested for it. Hence my accurate description of his ridiculous scenario appealing to a slippery-slope style train of thought. Case closed.

[chairface]

It's still not a slippery slope. It's an analogy that illustrates what would be possible, de jure. Honestly, there's no slope involved at all.

[richardburton]

It is not an analogy. What is the analogue? The slope is descending from now (you cannot get arrested for singing happy birthday) to then (you can). Slippery.

[rbanffy]

There are a couple issues here.

The first one is whether copyright infringement as I think she was part of really hurts content producers. If someone is unwilling to pay a couple dollars for a movie in iTunes, you are not likely to buy the DVD either, thus, it's not a lost sale. If, OTOH, the work gets more exposure thanks to alternative distribution networks and that generates more customer engagement, the content producer wins in the end.

The second is whether books, movies, music and games whose primary purpose is to make a profit can be considered art. I think they can't. The primary purpose - and usefulness - of art is to transform the people who experience it. I don't think laws should protect the business model of selling art and experiences, but their usefulness.

A third question is whether it's even possible to prevent the duplication of digital goods. Most probably it isn't. Businesses must adapt to new realities - should typewriter makers be afforded the right to ban computer sales because they hurt the already established business?

Another one is whether they were turning in a profit. If they were, part of it belongs, rightfully, to the content producers.

Finally, there is her attitude towards law enforcement. I understand her frustration with what she considers unfair laws and processes. I am not sure her attitude is constructive and that sending her to jail was the best way to deal with it. If I were the judge, I'd like to lecture her about what she's doing that can be misinterpreted as threats. Jails are very tense environments and they don't need more agitation than they already have.

[lachyg]

"The first one is whether copyright infringement as I think she was part of really hurts content producers. If someone is unwilling to pay a couple dollars for a movie in iTunes, you are not likely to buy the DVD either, thus, it's not a lost sale. If, OTOH, the work gets more exposure thanks to alternative distribution networks and that generates more customer engagement, the content producer wins in the end."

Seriously? This is not an issue of whether it financially hurts the content producer, it's that you're getting it without paying for it, and others are paying for it. You're getting access to content that you haven't paid for.

[dillona]

What if you are not given the option to pay for it? Is it still wrong to download?

Remember many people outside America can't use Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Instant Video, etc.

[Dylanlacey]

Yes it's still wrong. You're not entitled to media content. It's not a civil right or a natural resource or something you've earned.

It's an entertainment product you can choose to access.

[lachyg]

I'm one of those people with none of those options. Yes, it's definitely still wrong. Just because we don't have the option, doesn't mean it's morally / ethically right and or legal.

[chc]

But that doesn't mean it isn't morally and ethically right either. You need to first lay out a moral framework that enshrines copyright as inviolate (I'm very curious what, if any, exceptions you'll make for fair use), and then argue for it. It seems to me that in the most common rational models of morality, things default to being either moral or amoral unless shown to be otherwise.

[dillona]

I suppose I just disagree.

These are ephemeral goods we are talking about. Nobody loses anything if you download a movie. I don't see how it is morally wrong to download something if the creators refuse to take your money.

[lachyg]

Again, like all my opinions above I'm going to get downvoted, but I still can't comprehend how you can justify that it's not wrong to download it just because they're "ephemeral" digital goods.

How does that make it any different?

How about this: famous dress maker designs and creates an extravagant dress and then you, with your fine sowing skills replicate the dress entirely and wear it. Is that not wrong in your eyes?

The above isn't the best example, but I still can't see the reasoning as to why it's not wrong.

[rbanffy]

So, your point is that someone is not paying for something someone else is. If you follow your logic, you'll never cook at home because people pay to eat at restaurants.

It gets even worse because many people don't live next to a restaurant.

Plus, all these analogies fail at one simple point: when a work is copied, a copy is created and nothing is destroyed except the scarcity someone wants to create for things that, by definition, cannot be scarse.

[Zirro]

As long as it is illegal, it is technically correct for them to be punished. Some laws, however, are too absurd to remain.

Piracy, for me is certainly not about not wanting to pay. It's about the feeling that the money I pay mostly doesn't go to creators, but to the companies in-between who doesn't deserve it. I don't want to support such an industry.

It also the fact that I want to push for legal alternatives which are as easy-to-use as piracy today. I want to press a link and have a 1080p DRM-free film download in minutes. The cost is not the issue.

I hope that, within 20 years, sharing will be legal. Just because it's written as illegal in the law today, it's not set in stone. Things can change, and for the sake of the creative people, I hope it does.

[Xlythe]

Isn't it up to the creators to fight for more compensation? We, as consumers, shouldn't be justifying our actions by picking up a fight we were never asked to join. We've provided the technology to circumvent the middlemen, proven its preference among users. However, as it stands now, less money goes to the creators when you pirate than when you play by their game. Don't claim to be fighting in their name.

I agree, though, that this industry is rotten... A pirated copy of any game, music, or video is not only cheaper and more convenient, but its of better quality (DRM-free). You can't win a fight where you attack both pirates and consumers.

[intended]

Whats interesting is that they have the funds to still fight.

This, to me, sounds like an inefficient business model.

When you have the funds to fight both your customers and pirates, lobby the government, and constantly man a PR machine, while losing market share, I have to wonder - how much cash are they sitting on?

[Zirro]

Well, personally I choose not to consume such content at all in most cases, but I sympathize with those who do pirate. If the artist get 5% of what I paid, and the rest of the money goes to those who promote SOPA, I'd rather torrent it. This is better in the long run, and I hope future creators will agree.

Those who lose are the current artists who remain with the big companies. Hopefully, they'll find a way out of that system.

[biot]

Let's say I ran a startup and secured $20M in VC funding but had to give up 80% of the company to get that, then later had several additional large rounds of financing which diluted my ownership to 5%. Would you rip off my company's products/services because you feel I'm not getting most of the profit?

I'm curious to know how the two situations differ. In both cases, parties have entered into contractual agreements to give up a large portion of ownership in exchange for money and other benefits they wouldn't otherwise receive if they tried to bootstrap things on their own. Would you rather people get 5 cents on the dollar from your purchase so that they could save up enough profit to not have to give up so much ownership the next time? Or 0 cents on the dollar from your piracy and not be able to save anything such that they're forced into the same arrangement the next time?

[Zirro]

I believe that record companies essentially scam their artists (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcwgdB0NltY for example). I wouldn't think the same way about your company, since you've made a larger part of the decision yourself.

The issue also remains, that by buying a product from one of the large companies would mean I'm indirectly sponsoring SOPA. This would not be the case, I hope, when I buy a product from your company.

[d0mine]

piracy != lost sale.

If you get 0 cents with piracy, you will get the same 0 cents without it.

[biot]

In case you missed this paragraph:

  "Piracy, for me is certainly not about not wanting to pay.
   It's about the feeling that the money I pay mostly doesn't
   go to creators, but to the companies in-between who doesn't
   deserve it. I don't want to support such an industry."

Paraphrased:

  "I want to pay, but the creators don't get most of the money.
   So rather than paying, I pirate instead."

This invalidates your argument.

[d0mine]

It should be self-evident that not all people are like the author of the paragraph you cited.

[biot]

It's also self-evident that I was replying to the person who wrote it, thus I made no claims about what "all people" do.

Besides which, your statement that "piracy != lost sale" is demonstrably false. You could have qualified your statement with "in some cases" or "for some people", but such a trivially true claim wouldn't add much to the discussion since the discussion is about what one person does.

[lachyg]

Just because it's not a lost sale, that makes it right? It's right that some people have to pay for it and some don't (just because one would buy it and one wouldn't)?

[lachyg]

I sort of agree with you, and I sort of don't. The reason for me is not because I don't feel the money goes to the creators (because I think the creators of movies and musical pieces are very well compensated), it's because here in Australia there is often not a very good way to acquire content quickly and easily (no Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, etc).

When I was in the U.K. I was a subscriber of Spotify and I didn't once pirate a song, as it was easily available in high quality.

Yet I still think piracy should be illegal, it has to be! Why should it be legal in 20 years? Shouldn't we just have a way to 'press a link and have a 1080p DRM free film downloaded in minutes' instead of having to resort to an illegal method?

[Zirro]

I used to have a Spotify Premium account and just like you, I never pirated a song. This lasted until I started listening exclusively to music which artists choose to distribute for free.

Spotify is exactly what I mean by good legal alternative, except for that I still don't believe the artists are compensated very well. If there are enough reasonably priced legal alternatives available everywhere, piracy will shrink in importance. I say, if there's a last 2 or 3 percent of the population who don't feel like paying for themselves - let them. It's better than this hunt for file-sharers that's been launched by media-companies.

[cschwarm]

There's probably no good answer to your question, since it depends on your choice of axioms. Given certain axioms, you might be able to logically derive the answer that "piracy" should not be punished.

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that piracy is illegal, and prevents authors to be payed.

But just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's right. Provided a law is morally wrong, for instance, punishment for breaking said law would also be morally wrong, and should not be supported. You'll probably also cheer to the freedom fighter breaking laws to overcome a dictator.

Interestingly, most Americans would probably deny that anybody has a right to have income, or a minimum level of wealth and health in every other profession (for this would be "socialism"). So, why should authors and investors in creative works have that right?

After all, the authors of most works have been payed. Most of the time, even the investors in these works have been paid as well. What you argue is basically that authors and investors haven't been paid 'enough'. But how do we rationally determine what payment is 'enough' or not?

Of course, these "pirates" are fooling themselves if they think their moral arguments hold. Most of them don't do anything constructive (unlike, say, Open Source developers, or the Creative Commons community).

[dchest]

Regarding the "illegal downloading" point, simple question: how do you recognize when the music, movie, photograph, or text that you downloaded (or viewed in browser -- there's no technical difference) has been "properly" licensed?

[lachyg]

What do you mean? I think most people know it's illegal when they go to download (or view) a movie on the 'net.

Obviously photographs and text is a lot harder, but movies are pretty clear due to the cost that goes into production.

[dchest]

I think most people know it's illegal when they go to download (or view) a movie on the 'net.

What about hulu.com? Should we have a list of "approved" websites somewhere? Also, how do you know that hulu has proper licenses for their videos?

There was a recent case when Amazon licensed (remember, that we're dealing with licensing in case of copyright laws, not selling) "1984" for Kindles for which they didn't have the proper license. Why haven't those people (who downloaded the book into their Kindles) been prosecuted? It would be easy to do, since Amazon had the list of customers. Or should we apply laws selectively?

[JoeAltmaier]

Kind of straying from the mark. She was convicted because she ran the site, not because she uploaded one movie. In that example, its Amazon at 'fault'.

[dchest]

I was replying to the comment that "doesn't directly relate to the issue in the article" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3464128

[lachyg]

I think the onus lies on the distributor (Amazon, Hulu, NinjaViedo) more so than the consumer. I do believe the consumer holds a relative degree of responsibility (and I guess this is what should be determined by a court) - e.g. it's obvious with Ninja, but some sites might not be so obvious e.g. if, like Amazon, Netflix distributed a movie that they did not have rights to -- then it falls on them.

[tomp]

Your assumptions are wrong. When people pirate content (download without paying), that doesn't necessarily mean that they are not paying the content creators. A Swiss government study found out that people's entertainment budgets are relatively constant - what we don't spend for digital content, we spend for concerts and such. So, there is no real economic harm from piracy (if there was, Hollywood wouldn't be having record profits...).

[tzs]

> A Swiss government study found out that people's entertainment budgets are relatively constant - what we don't spend for digital content, we spend for concerts and such. So, there is no real economic harm from piracy

Your second sentence does not follow at all from the first. When people have a fixed budget, piracy might not change how much they spend, but it will change the distribution of the spending.

For instance, if someone could not pirate, they might buy two albums a month and see one movie in a theater. If they pirate, they can pirate the music, and go out to the movies twice. Same total spent, but the musicians have been harmed, and the movie producers have benefited.

[lachyg]

In my opinion, that's completely besides the point. It doesn't matter if people wouldn't have bought it anyway. Just because we wouldn't have bought it anyway doesn't give us a right to download it. That's ridiculous.

The issue with digital content versus physical content is that there is no cost of replication, whereas with physical goods the cost of replication goes beyond the initial R&D, it goes into the actual materials, machinery and labour to produce it. I believe this is where the "it's okay to pirate content" comes from -- because theres no 'money lost'.

[Bud]

Lachyg:

You claim that downloaders must be punished because "they are getting the content without paying the creators". You actually don't have any idea whether this is the case. Please stop pretending that you do know.

For instance, I have often downloaded or streamed content that I've already paid for in two (cable subscription, DVD purchase) or even three different ways.

Who are you to assume that a given customer did not pay the creators?

Frankly, since this fallaciousness is the entirety of your argument, you have a lot of nerve asking others for a logical argument about why a given downloaded should "go unpunished". In this society, last I checked, the default stance on any and all conduct was that it should "go unpunished", as you put it. Only via clear, just laws and rigorous proof should this standard ever be overruled.

[lachyg]

I obviously am referring to the people that have not paid ("without paying the content producers"). I'm not making assumptions, I'm not trying to take some moral high ground as you're making me out to be taking, I'm simply starting a discussion point and looking for logical reasoning.

Your point has provided none, it's just provided some moral high ground.

You completely ignored everything I said about the uploader too, the focus of my point.

[sklipo]

Piracy is just copying information. The only "harm" it might do is make the person selling the information lose a sale that might never have taken place (I, for one, would not have bought the things I have pirated if I couldn't have pirated them). Basically, I don't think that I should be less free just because someone wants to make more money.

If I was in charge, laws would only restrict the freedom of the people for the safety of others (and even then it would only do so by making harmful acts illegal, not by spying on them or other crazy things). Intellectual property would only outlaw copying for commercial use, which would allow artists to make money from movie theaters, concerts, etc.

I'm sure many problems would arise from such a world, but I doubt that they'll be worse than the problems from the current system, and I'm sure that given time and actually implementing it, the kinks could be worked out.

[Tichy]

People might not agree with every law in their country.

[lachyg]

And?

[JoeAltmaier]

Read something about Socrates sometime.

[tsotha]

Should we emulate someone who was forced to drink poison?

[Tichy]

Does it really need spelling out? Justice is not necessarily what the law says.

[tomjen3]

You were correctly downvoted for you posted a stupid question -- just because it is illegal doesn't make it wrong.

And only wrong things should be punished.

[lachyg]

I would love to hear your explanation on why piracy is not wrong! That was the exact purpose of the question, so others would share their views on the matter and I would have an enlightened view.

[regularfry]

Flip the question on its head: why is piracy considered wrong? What is the specific, provable harm that it does? Is it true to say that there is no benefit to it? If there is a benefit, is the benefit to society greater than the harm to the creator? If there is no benefit to it, why does it happen? Does the cost of fighting it outweigh the harm done? What is the cost of fighting the fight if you disagree?