[jakejake]

I have my own feelings about it which that it is not really theft, but perhaps it is worth considering that the work of musicians and artists is devalued. I hear a lot of rationalization about how the artists don't get any money anyway, but I personally think that is a separate issue from sharing music.

It's an interesting question, especially when you mention software. Because here on HN and other forums I get the impression the majority are in favor of TPB. The more interesting thing is when somebody is caught appropriating a site design, graphics, violates GPL, etc there will be universal rage against them. I guess it is different when you are on the receiving vs. the providing side of things.

[belorn]

Every time someone talks about piracy, someone just have to bring up GPL.

GPL says: Do what ever you want with the program so long no one become restricted by your actions.

If you patch it and send a proprietary version to someone, it will still be the same program. The difference will be the added restriction. The software license only uses copyright to enforce a "share, and share alike" concept.

Using copyright to restrict distribution, ala the proprietary model, is not the same as enforcing a share alike concept. They might use the same law, but the underlying concept is completely separate. Free and open source licenses are also not commonly enforced against individuals, but proprietary software is.

Or to summarize: Restrict restrictions is good. Breaking restrictions is good. Ignoring restrictions is good. Each 3 is consistent with each other.

[jakejake]

I'm not 100% sure your point but if you release work under the GPL then yes, you are giving people explicit permission to copy and share your work under those conditions. But, to use that as an example, if you enjoy pirating music and movies then, to be consistent, I feel you should also support violating the terms of the GPL and all other licenses. In other words, you should not be upset when for-profit companies use GPL code and do not give back or comply with the GPL conditions. Because if you do feel that the idea of licenses and intellectual property are bullshit, then everyone should just be able to ignore them and do whatever they want. As long as someone can get their hands on the code then they should be able to do whatever they want with it.

I think that's a messed up attitude personally, but at least it is a consistent attitude towards intellectual property. I could respect somebody for being consistent in their attitude - especially if they themselves are also having their work pirated. Anybody who is pirating music and movies, but they themselves do not tolerate disobeying the license terms of their own work I feel is a hypocrite.

[belorn]

I disagree, as I find it perfectly consistent attitude towards content restriction to be both for GPL, and to pirate content when its proprietary.

If people ignore content restrictions by pirating works, is that not consistent with the people who uses copyright to prevent content restrictions? Is it not also consistent with people who breaks content restrictions by breaking DRM?

In each 3 cases, content restriction is problem being dealt with. Preventing, ignoring or breaking, either way its dealt with.

[mike_hearn]

The GPL is not preventing content restrictions, it's adding quite complicated restrictions on what can be done with the code. The justification is to try and make more software GPLd in future but the means is additional restriction. And guess what? The justification for copyright is to ensure more content is created in future, and the means is restrictions on the created content. Just like the GPL. Trying to claim they're somehow different is a very weak sort of argument.

[Zigurd]

This is just a mishmash of sentiments. Calling out a ripoff site design as unethical is very different that siccing the police on the people who made a torrent index. Start complaining about hypocrisy when someone goes to prison fro a GPL violation.

[jakejake]

I find both examples unethical. However, I never expressed an opinion on the unfairness of their prosecution. You argue a point that I never made. I don't think they should be treated like murders and neither should a GPL infraction. The degree of punishment is a different issue from whether or not I agree with what they're doing. I don't find that mishmash at all and if you do then that's your own problem.

You do have a unique opportunity to support TPB, though, as all of your books are available there. Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and replace your amazon links in your profile with TPB links.

[Zigurd]

Search for "Zigurd." The first download result appears on the 3rd page of Google's search results.

You are implying hypocrisy where none exists, and comparing vile mafia-like tactics that pull police resources away from real crime to the way that most actual content creators deal with downloads.