Comment by JohnHaugeland
4 years ago
> This can't be real. It reads like a joke. Something users purchased can no longer be accessed?
This is relatively common and has been since before you were born
.
> I think that's the definition of stealing.
It's not. This is, though:
> Good thing we still have torrents.
.
I don't like what Sony is doing here, but it's really weird for you to try to hold the moral high ground while also announcing that you do something much worse than they did.
> it's really weird for you to try to hold the moral high ground while also announcing that you do something much worse than they did.
That's likely because you're viewing it through a different lens than the person you're replying to. Try to look at it this way...
- Company sold ownership of an item to individual. This is what "purchase" means to most people.
- Company then decided that individual should no longer have access to item, so takes it away.
- Individual knows that company has no (moral) right to take away item, so takes it back.
From a moral view, if you agree on what purchase means, the individual is completely in the right. If you don't agree on what purchase means, then the individual is not in the right. There are a lot of people that do not believe that companies should be able to use a word and just define it as meaning something totally different in their specific case ("purchase" when they mean rent, "unlimited data" when they mean limited, etc); and that when a company uses a word, they are morally bound to its common definition. For such a person, the OP's statements are internally consistent.
> That's likely because you're viewing it through a different lens than the person you're replying to
Is that lens "being a creator and wanting my copyrights to be honored too?"
.
> From a moral view, if you agree on what purchase means
There's no need to "agree" on what purchase means. It just has a meaning. That meaning doesn't come from either of us. If you disagree, you're simply wrong. The law and the definitions of words are not a matter of being negotiated in online comments, even though online comments misunderstanding descriptivism might have told you that they were.
This is really just a bunch of self serving word salad, redefining words so that you can steal things and pretend you're somehow fighting back against Elsevier, who is in no way involved in this
If you've gotten to the point of trying to argue by framing everything in terms of whether someone agrees with an obviously incorrect definition of a word, then I'm not sure why you spent the time.
You seem to have lost track of the story, besides. The discussion wasn't actually about pirating what was already paid for. That's obviously fine, and something I myself have had to do. The story was "the reason I pirate is that in theory this could happen." Those two positions are leagues apart.
.
> There are a lot of people that do not believe that companies should be able to use a word and just define it as meaning something totally different in their specific case
Literally what you're doing in your comment, mister "if you agree on what means," but okay
Anyway, companies actually cannot do this, and if you believe that they can, try asking a lawyer about it. I'd ask you to show me a single case in American history where big-spooky-they've done this, but I know you can't, so I'm not going to waste the time. If you offer something for free then redefine free to mean "costs $100," then the court will just say you don't get your $100, and get a fine for false advertising. I have no idea why you thought this was a thing.
You spend an awful lot of time attempting to use what generic people believe as a way to argue.
Generic people believe in homeopathy, chiropracty, and astrology, too. Belief isn't a valid foundation for a discussion of this form, even if you had evidence of it, which you do not.
.
> For such a person, the OP's statements are internally consistent.
Manson was internally consistent too. Who cares? Internal consistency was never challenged and isn't relevant. (This seems like pleading for intellectual authority, frankly.)
This is simple.
1. Parent poster is trying to justify taking things that aren't free without paying for them, by pointing fingers at other groups and saying "well this one non-music publishing entity did something bad first, so the whole music purchasing system should be refused"
2. You've confused that with recovering things you paid for and can no longer access through one authority, which is actually not piracy or even illegal at all under American law, obviously not immoral, and something I would never bother arguing against (something I can't imagine anyone ever arguing against)
3. You need to explain to me that there's nothing wrong with the thing that is very obviously not what I was talking about
Okay, cool, thanks for your help
I feel like you didn't even read what I read. I was arguing that, once I've purchased a copy of something, I have a moral right to that copy. I was not talking about downloading a copy of something I did not purchase, which is what you _appear_ to be indignant about.
> There's no need to "agree" on what purchase means. It just has a meaning. That meaning doesn't come from either of us.
Correct. And the online store told me I "purchased" the item. Then they decided that "purchase" doesn't mean what everyone (see your comment above "It just has a meaning") agrees it means, and they took it away from me.
> You seem to have lost track of the story, besides. The discussion wasn't actually about pirating what was already paid for. That's obviously fine
No, it wasn't. Specifically, the thread I was replying to looks like this...
> > > you will no longer be able to view your previously purchased Studiocanal content
> > This can't be real. It reads like a joke. Something users purchased can no longer be accessed? I think that's the definition of stealing.... Good thing we still have torrents
> it's really weird for you to try to hold the moral high ground while also announcing that you do something much worse than they did.
There was nothing in the response indicating they went out and downloaded the content _instead_ of buying it. My read was "They purchased it from company, company decided to take it away from them, good thing they can take it back (via torrent)".
If you're going to jump down someone's throat and rant about how they don't understand or are playing word games, at least take the time to see if there is a reading that is consistent with what they are saying.
You sold someone a copy; they end up with a copy. Your copyright was honored.
You don't have a moral right to take away the copy you sold just because you managed to bait-and-switch them with a TOS that says you can take it back whenever you want.
>There's no need to "agree" on what purchase means. It just has a meaning. That meaning doesn't come from either of us. If you disagree, you're simply wrong. The law and the definitions of words are not a matter of being negotiated in online comments, even though online comments misunderstanding descriptivism might have told you that they were.
We quite literally change the meaning of what words mean through common parlance, that includes online 'negotiation'. We constantly 'negotiate' the meaning of words as a society. Literally now literally means literally *and* figuratively.
For normal people 'purchase' doesn't mean rent indefinitely. There have also been tons of class-action law suits that have been settled over disputes of the meaning of the contract or that the contract is partially invalid as it would break the law. The meaning of the contract is quite literally what the words used actually mean.
If I purchase or already have a legal copy of a game, am I then morally wrong (and culpable) for downloading a copy of the internet? You seem to say that's not the case, but you can absolutely read the original comment in that way, as well as the way you're implying.
It appears you are confusing copyright infringement with theft. At least in the US, these are very different things.
Wow. You call copyright infringement "stealing" (which it is not) but give the company a pass for removing the content they paid for (which is much closer to "stealing").
Really hard to take this comment in good faith
> Wow. You call copyright infringement "stealing"
So does the US government. So does the EU court system.
.
> > I don't like what Sony is doing here, but > > but give the company a pass for removing the content they paid for
I didn't give the company any passes. What are you talking about?
.
> Really hard to take this comment in good faith
What you're reacting to isn't my comment.
No, the US government calls it "copyright infringement". If it was called "stealing", it would fall under the general theft laws. Instead, it has its own body of law.
> since before you were born
Color TV didn't exist when I was born (or VCRs).
Your remark makes me think you don't know what you're talking about and just assume things without thinking for yourself.
Regular color tv broadcasts didn't start until the mid 50s (at least in North America), and even then it wasn't widespread for a number of years. I would expect there are quite a few HN users who grew up without color tv.
People living past the age of 85 is not extremely uncommon, especially not in developed countries.