hoodatninja
Former landed gentry
- 0 Posts
- 30 Comments
I mean, piracy is a real crime,
Yes.
if people were free to pirate without consequence, those jobs would be crippled.
No. Source or stop parroting this please.
You wouldn’t go into a book store and steal a book, why is software viewed any differently?
Because when you take from a store you are taking a physical thing and depriving someone/the business of it. A copy of a digital product takes nothing in any physical way and deprives no one of the software. You also can’t even assume lost revenue.
Let me be clear here: I hate bad piracy arguments. I hate how people window-dress it with nonsense excuses (no, you are not archiving it, you are just filling a drive with all your favorite games and shows. Be honest). But I also think that 1) saying “it’s a crime” has no bearing because our laws do not inform our values, it’s the other way around. We should change our laws to meet our values. Which brings me to 2) there is a very real, very nuanced discussion to be had about what “ownership” means in the digital space that physical ownership does NOT inform. We also can’t decouple how copyrights are abused and ends up being a form of hoarded, generational wealth, largely in the hand of businesses.
CD burners and VHS players that could record TV’s did not ruin media publishing/distribution. Decades of piracy being readily available has not ruined it. Clearly these arguments hold no water.
That isn’t a middle ground. You’re just saying the state can publish a recommendation, which it always has been able to. That’s absolutely in the “unregulated” / “no safety nets” camp. It’s caveat emptor as a status quo and takes us back to the gilded age.
To put it another way: The middle ground between “the state has no authority here” and “the state can regulate away a product” isn’t “the state can suggest we don’t buy it.” It still puts the burden on the consumer in an unreasonable way. We can’t assess literally everything we consume. If I go to a grocery store and buy apples, I can reasonably assume they won’t poison me. Without basic regulations this is not possible. You can’t feed 8 billion people without some rules.
Let me be clear, I agree with the EFF on this particular issue. ISP’s should not regulate speech and what sites I browse. But it’s not the same as having the FDA. For starters, ISP’s are private corporations.
It takes me several dozen hours every 6-12mo to keep up with the arms race that is privacy. I can’t imagine what it’s like for people who are less technically inclined. It must be a completely impenetrable problem.
4 years ago everybody told me to get on Brave. Look what happened lol
Arguably the most well known VPN is Nord. Yet you can find dozens of posts on HackerNews and other sites saying not to use it.
It’s one thing to diagnose and try to solve the problem, but then you need a bunch of technical knowledge and knowledge of where to find good answers to even know what solutions are viable or are just a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a total minefield sometimes, it’s hard to not simply land with someone else who wants to take all your data and strip away your privacy.
The idea sounds nice in theory, but there is a reason people bring their car to a shop instead of changing their own oil. There are a lot of things we could/should take responsibility for directly but they are far too numerous for us to take responsibility for everyone of them. Sometimes we just have to place trust in groups we loosely vetted (if at all) and hope for the best. We all do it every day in all sorts of capacities.
To put it another way: do you think we should have the FDA? Or do you think everybody should have to test everything they eat and put on their skin?
My understanding was that it was sent back but not struck down saying that it just didn’t fall under anti-terrorism laws, but I guess I was mistaken!