undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnate_meurer14y ago0 comments

Apples to oranges. These are all examples of commercial infringment, which is quite different from the standard Hollywood claim that "unauthorized viewing" of a movie is exactly equivalent to stealing.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

MrScruff14y ago· 2 in thread

So you're saying the difference is that the perpetrator intends to profit from copying? Surely by copying a movie for personal use you are still profiting, if not by much.

nate_meurerOP14y ago

You're playing games with words now. If you're going to define "profit" so broadly that it covers benefit of any kind, then I fear we can't have a profitable discussion.

No, I do not typically profit from piracy. When I purchase a kids' movie on DVD, Hollywood says that I have only purchased a "licence" to use the movie. When I then rip the movie to avi's (no complex decoding required to view) and copy the files to two old laptops so that my kids can watch the movie in the car, Hollywood says that I am a pirate -- that I am stealing their movie.

Not only does this process cost me time (and thus money) and aggravation, I also get the benefit of being labelled a criminal. At least the kids are happy.

MrScruff14y ago

If we are talking about wealth in the broadest sense, as discussed by PG in the link below then I certainly class copying a DVD that you haven't purchased as profiting, yes.

http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

I don't think anyone realistically considers format shifting as copyright infringement, other than opportunistic executives. I'm not aware of anyone being taken to court for format shifting.

Oh, and I'm not sure if your 'profitable discussion' pun was intentional or not, but I enjoyed it anyway.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse