Warez, MP3s, Cracking, Hacking

[seebs]

Maintaining a FAQ doesn’t mean that you have it right
Your FAQ is ok for the masses, but not for the real underground scene’s members.

Er, no. You guys are the "masses" who know nothing about hacking. I'm with the people who coined the term when the first script kiddies weren't even in diapers yet. The "underground" scene is nearly as important as the question of whether someone got snubbed for a prom date, and all of the attempts to make it seem significant and cool are not going to change anything.

Lemme put it bluntly: If you don't see what that FAQ has to do with anything, you are not anywhere within miles of the "hacking" scene. You're in the bin with the five or ten people a month who email me asking if I can help them break into someone's hotmail account. That's the "underground scene" you're with.

Please, let’s not argue about it, and concentrate on the moral part of my question.

How about we look at the moral part of the question "if rapists decide to declare that they are lovemakers, should we let them do it"? Go find your own word. We got here first.

 

[bethinker]

You're really funny. At least, be polite and let the others participate on this thread.

 

[Cleany]

ooh the good old fashioned hacker/cracker argument. now thats fundementalism!

 

[ChristianCenturion]

First of all, I admit that I'm into all of the above.

Do you think that it is inappropriate for a Christian to have anything to do with those, assuming that they are used in a non-profit basis?

Yes.
Just say no to cracks.

 

[seebs]

You're really funny. At least, be polite and let the others participate on this thread.

I am encouraging them to participate; I just want to make sure they understand what the terms mean.

The moral answer is simple: Breaking other peoples' stuff (without their permission) is absolutely immoral, and cannot be justified or reconciled. Breaking into things is essentially contrary to moral law.

 

[seebs]

ooh the good old fashioned hacker/cracker argument. now thats fundementalism!

What can I say? I am a pedant.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Er, no. You guys are the "masses" who know nothing about hacking. I'm with the people who coined the term when the first script kiddies weren't even in diapers yet. The "underground" scene is nearly as important as the question of whether someone got snubbed for a prom date, and all of the attempts to make it seem significant and cool are not going to change anything.

Lemme put it bluntly: If you don't see what that FAQ has to do with anything, you are not anywhere within miles of the "hacking" scene. You're in the bin with the five or ten people a month who email me asking if I can help them break into someone's hotmail account. That's the "underground scene" you're with.



How about we look at the moral part of the question "if rapists decide to declare that they are lovemakers, should we let them do it"? Go find your own word. We got here first.

Personally, one of the reasons that I tend to avoid using cateorical terms to define myself is that the internet tends to ruin any name that any group wants to adopt in the long run. It's happened so many times, though I don't really want to get into the other examples because they definitely could bring up debates that really aren't pertinent to anything that we've been talking about.

But you all know how it goes. A few people invent a name, everything works fine for a year or two, then some new people start calling themselves that when really they don't fit the original definition, give another year or two and these new people far outnumber the old and thus claim the word for themselves, denying that it ever had the original meaning.

Sometimes I really hate the internet.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Personally, one of the reasons that I tend to avoid using cateorical terms to define myself is that the internet tends to ruin any name that any group wants to adopt in the long run. It's happened so many times, though I don't really want to get into the other examples because they definitely could bring up debates that really aren't pertinent to anything that we've been talking about.

But you all know how it goes. A few people invent a name, everything works fine for a year or two, then some new people start calling themselves that when really they don't fit the original definition, give another year or two and these new people far outnumber the old and thus claim the word for themselves, denying that it ever had the original meaning.

Sometimes I really hate the internet.

The application of that sentiment as it applies to others (say, a religion), I found to be ironic, sad, and true.

 

[Lifesaver]

Well, what are the arguments put forward by those who claim copying a file is immoral?

 

[Nymphalidae]

We actually agree on something, [/color]scary.

I was about to say the same thing

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Question: If you lived in a place without copyright laws, would this change your view of the morality of these actions?

 

[Lokisdottir]

I admit, I pirated a certain program that rhymes with Boat-o-stop. If we're talking immoral... trying to make me pay $600 for software, now THAT is immoral.

And yes, I download MP3s. If I really like what I hear, I'll go and buy the CD anyway. If not, well, I've avoided wasting money.

 

[bethinker]

A difference in the laws wouldn't make me change anything on my cracking-software habits. And I don't mean using other people's cracks, but reversing software myself. Especially the ones that are protected with anti-cracking protections. It’s stupid to have to use a program that always checks itself, even if you register it, even if you buy it, you have to wait till it checks its integrity. The same with the CD-checks. I would pay if they give me the option to have pure fast good code, but never for the bad slow buggy code they use to sell.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I admit, I pirated a certain program that rhymes with Boat-o-stop. If we're talking immoral... trying to make me pay $600 for software, now THAT is immoral.

And yes, I download MP3s. If I really like what I hear, I'll go and buy the CD anyway. If not, well, I've avoided wasting money.

Have you tried GIMP? It can do a lot of the things people want Photoshop for and is free.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Well, what are the arguments put forward by those who claim copying a file is immoral?

I imagine most arguments for its immorality would revolve around the fact that it undermines an artist's ability to survive solely off of his or her art (barring a patron, but even that is more charity than profit); but I have to wonder, why should we ensure that artists are able to profit off of their work in the first place? It is possible to be an artist yet earn money another way (as many struggling artists know), and it seems that to have the art more than pay for itself is to encourage artists to be motivated in profit first and foremost. And that can only lead to flawed art in the end.

Of course that line of reasoning leads to seeing some serious flaws in our current "supply/demand" capitalistic system; it would be more in support of a "fair price" market. So I doubt many people will consider my point because it seems dogma these days that a supply/demand economy is the best type in every way.

 

[Lifesaver]

I imagine most arguments for its immorality would revolve around the fact that it undermines an artist's ability to survive solely off of his or her art (barring a patron, but even that is more charity than profit); but I have to wonder, why should we ensure that artists are able to profit off of their work in the first place? It is possible to be an artist yet earn money another way (as many struggling artists know), and it seems that to have the art more than pay for itself is to encourage artists to be motivated in profit first and foremost. And that can only lead to flawed art in the end.

Of course that line of reasoning leads to seeing some serious flaws in our current "supply/demand" capitalistic system; it would be more in support of a "fair price" market. So I doubt many people will consider my point because it seems dogma these days that a supply/demand economy is the best type in every way.

The defense of a free economy, where people are free to make copies of whatever they like, gives this extra disencouragement to turning art into simple consumption goods.
In the past, artists were sustained by rich people or by the Church; that way, they were free to create their art and not worry about selling anything. And the patrons were also not preoccupied with who copied their art.

Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making popular art to the large public, nor with recording it and selling the CDs. But to go from there to prohibitting people to buy their own materials and make whatever they want with them is absurd.

The fact is that the firms which see their industry going down always try to get the State to protect their businesses. This happens in all sectors: agriculture, transports, fuel, and also popular entertainment. The fact is that new technologies have made it possible for people to make a cheap copy of a CD by themselves (or of books, in the case of Xerox), just like they are able to take a picture of a painting.

I'm all in favour of firms using their creativity to keep their business desirable to the public; but resorting to the State to prohibit that which migh bring their industry down is shameful; and yet, it happens all the time, and everytime with a shallow coating of morality; unfortunately, many people indeed fall for it.

 

[bethinker]

So if we see and use copying as another way of protesting, we can keep copying.

 

[Arkanin]

Why do so many Christians seem to instantly equate legality with morality? They're completely different things; I still think stealing intellectual property is wrong, but "It's illegal; therefore, it's wrong," is never a hard and fast rule almost anyone will accept.