If your in the US I wonder why are you still pirating copyrighted material? Im curious to hear...
Fuck DRM. When the video-distribution industry gets rid of DRM, then I'll buy video online. When my favorite TV shows are available for $10 a season in 1080p without DRM (and with episodes released before the official airtime, preferably), I will be the first to sign up. Until then, the pirates provide a significantly better product. For free.
The music industry figured it out. I have no trouble buying music I like in a lossless format these days, and there is never DRM. So why not the video industry? Their product is significantly more disposable than music, and yet it costs more and they use more "technology" to "protect" it. It doesn't make sense.
(I listen to songs over and over again. I watch a TV show once, and then delete it to free up hard drive space for more TV shows.)
How many people here on HN have used pirated software to help build a web app? Quite a few I'd bet. If your fledging web app is a success, whose software are you gonna buy when you are successful? The one you 'test-drove' as a pirate of course. Remember Jobs and Woz used a 'blue box' to get free long distance calls on AT&T's network. Their next idea was the Apple I. Fast forward to the 2000's and the iPhone is making At&T billions. If this scene played out today, they would've probably been sued into oblivion or arrested by the FBI., and Apple would never have been.
Why do you think the tech industry and the web grew out of America and not some other wealthy country? It's because America tolerates a certain amount of rebellious, anti-authoritarian behavior (among other things).
Pg talkes about this much better than I can in his essay about the nature of hackers:
http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html
"Why are programmers so violently opposed to these laws? If I were a legislator, I'd be interested in this mystery—for the same reason that, if I were a farmer and suddenly heard a lot of squawking coming from my hen house one night, I'd want to go out and investigate. Hackers are not stupid, and unanimity is very rare in this world. So if they're all squawking, perhaps there is something amiss.
Could it be that such laws, though intended to protect America, will actually harm it? Think about it."
I'm not pro-piracy per se, but I believe a certain amount has to be tolerated as the alternative is a police state on the web.
Possibly. But there aren't really any real stats to back this up.
"Why do you think the tech industry and the web grew out of America and not some other wealthy country? It's because America tolerates a certain amount of rebellious, anti-authoritarian behavior (among other things)."
The GPL is becoming its own dictatorship and when people like Chris from thesis go against the ideals, he is treated like a criminal. The GPL is no different than proprietary software licenses. Companies and people involved in both want people to abide by their rules. However, only one seems to be supported here on HN and other communities. It's very hypocritical and it's one of the reasons why I can't take the community seriously.
"I'm not pro-piracy per se, but I believe a certain amount has to be tolerated as the alternative is a police state on the web."
This is a little extreme. The alternative is not a "police state". The alternative is respecting someone's rights, even if you don't agree with it (don't pirate something you don't want to pay for).
I would expect this number to be close to 0. What does this even mean?
The whole point of the GPL is to stop companies from profiting off of other's programs without also giving something back to the community. Noone in the "pirate movement" supports for-profit piracy or copyright infringement.
Really? so the touchy-feely reasons that most people in the free software movement is a lie? It's all to stop profits? This sure doesn't sound like "freedom" to me. Freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want with my code. This is why I don't support the GPL.
You also bring up another good point. The people of the community want others to respect their own license and ideals yet when they infringe on the rights of others (through copyright infringement), they thinks it's fine.
Copyright and Robin Hood ethics both breach the principle of live-and-let-live.
Robin Hood's takes away from some people. He justifies this with claims about the welfare another group.
Copyright applies the same principle. Defenders of copyright will say that in order to protect artists, engineers, etc, all of the rest of us should have less rights. We are not allowed to do certain things with magnetic signals on pieces of metal the we own, even in the privacy of our own homes.
It's not clear that it gives actual benefit to the recipient group. In practice, these people aren't defended well if at all, and the cost to the system is huge.
There'd also be a cost to the local economy if you had a brigand raiding merchants. I wouldn't operate in a region with those issues. Maybe if the people didn't have trading difficulties they'd have been able to lift themselves out of poverty, rather than being pushed into the arms of a revolutionary-come-nobleman.
It's strange that you say this, because no matter how many times someone creates a proprietary app based on the GPL license, nothing is lost. The original work is out there for all to enjoy (with credits to all the authors).
The only thing you don't get are the changes (which weren't yours in the first place). Forcing changes to be under the GPL isn't for freedom, but political ideology.
Robin Hood taxed the tax men ("Robin Hood," Disney, 1973). It was less a matter of rich vs. poor than of beneficiaries vs. victims of oppressive taxation (similar mechanics, opposite direction). The GPL attempts to use the weight of copyrights in general as leverage against abusive copyrights.
If you had civil-rights objections to copyright then you'd perceive the GPL as a neat hack around it but be looking for something to destroy it.
Thinking about the rule of law as an ultimate good is a valid position.
I've actually tried this, and you get into contrived situations like this one: the boss shows you a four line perl script in use at a client site that another company wrote ten years ago, and asks you to modify it in a trivial way to solve an important problem. You'll respond that you aren't allowed to do that for breach of copyright - unless the client company specifically relinquished the code then the rights vest with them. Further, you will explain that you can now no longer write code to replicate the functionality of it because you have been influenced by having read the code of the client company.
Advocates of the rule of law should oppose laws that are selectively enforced, and absurdly complicated.
[1] ... and the industry actively breaks it by creating artificial market regions and distribution restrictions. Hard to see why I'm not allowed to rent a movie from iTunes due to my physical location.
Surely Swedish pedophiles are having a field day? Am I missing something?
Governments that are saying "we need to monitor your every move to save you from the .5%" are playing on your fears to take your freedoms away.
Is monitoring filesharing sites the most effective way of fighting pedophilia?
All valid points and I humbly stand corrected.
I wasn't suggesting that this will directly increase that form of activity but I was more curious as to the possible negative applications an annonymous IP service would subsequently provide to those looking to take advantage of the system. I still am curious to be honest.
You might say that some people would get off on creating it and putting it up on the internet for free, but what's stopping them from doing everything but that last step now?
I don't think torrenting has an effect on it either way, but if you do please provide your argument.
