30 ms·

Because you'd prefer that other people not casually erect their own legal structure where your interests are concerned. The law exists, among other reasons, to

Because you'd prefer that other people not casually erect their own legal structure where your interests are concerned. The law exists, among other reasons, to save us the N! negotiation of appropriate barriers. In that way, taking some aliquot of entertainment is not different from sleeping on your porch. Or in your living room.

Karunamon 11y ago
And when the law is broken, backwards, or wrong? Slavish adherence to the law regardless of its nuance is not noble, it does not contribute to some greater whole, it is mere obedience, nothing more. "Speed Limit 65" on major highways is a law too, and one that has roughly as much respect among the people as copyright law. And we're a more efficient society for ignoring it.
- chipotle_coyote 11y ago
  I think the problem the OP is pointing to is exactly where one draws the line between "this law is broken, backwards or wrong" and "breaking this law gets me what I want at zero cost with little chance of penalty." Actually walking out of a store with a physical copy of a book (or a CD or a movie) is something most people would agree is theft, but making a digital copy of the same book or CD or movie without paying for it is... something else. By this point anyone on HN can enumerate the salient differences, which all revolve around digital copies having zero marginal cost. The problem is that we too often ignore the salient similarities. The reason you want this particular book or CD or movie has nothing to do with the marginal cost of that particular copy. The bulk of the value always lay in the creative work; in digital media, all of the value lies in the creative work. If I want to sell you a novel and you don't like the price I've set, you'd never think that justifies walking out of the store without paying for a physical copy. Why does it justify you making a digital copy without paying for it? DRM is a terrible "solution" to this problem, but I think its worst feature may be that its existence obscures the actual value of creative works by focusing attention back on the medium. My hypothetical novel's value, or lack thereof, ultimately has nothing to do with whether it's a trade paperback or an EPUB file. The principle of "you give me money in exchange for my work" remains the same even if my work is not fixed in a physical, tangible form.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Probably no way to say this that doesn't sound overly snarky, but: If we're talking about justification rather than law, the question can easily be turned around to become "What gives you the right to prevent me from making a digital copy?" Because you made the thing? More likely than not, I'll pay you if your work is any good. Content producers seem to want to make the jump from physical to digital to gain its benefits without their customers realizing those same benefits, such as the ability to try before buying, or format shifting, etc. They treat this relationship as inherently adversarial in nature, and that's even before DRM gets added to the mix. If your work is good, I will pay you. You lost the ability to control whether that happens before or after I've sampled the work, and you can thank decades of bad business practices for the justification for that.
- mwcampbell 11y ago
  On the other hand, if laws are to be effective without requiring excessive resources or undesirable technological measures (e.g. DRM) for enforcement, then breaking laws shouldn't be something we do lightly or merely for personal pleasure. Civil disobedience should probably be something that one does only after much soul searching -- something that keeps one up at night.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    You treat the law as if it was a whole body rather than a bunch of individual things. Willfully choosing to ignore the speed limit has no impact on the rest of the law - that law is ignored because it is widely seen to be broken, inefficient, and nothing more than a vehicle for unjust profit. Coincidentally, the same negative descriptors apply to copyright in 2015. This is not D&D, we do not have character alignments. I am not giving up some imaginary karma and slighting the deity/concept of Justice and Good Order by choosing to ignore a subset of non-beneficial laws.
WorldWideWayne 11y ago
But that's what happens anyway isn't it? Disney kept getting the law changed to protect their fictional mouse character. The MAFIAA got their terrible DMCA. And so on... The question is - how can you fight it? If the plebes could get laws made in their interest, they would. But they can't, so some of them do the next best thing - break the law. And I don't see anything wrong with that. Might makes right is the ultimate rule here. If nobody can stop you from doing what you want, then it's OK. That's just how the world works.

Karunamon 11y ago

And when the law is broken, backwards, or wrong? Slavish adherence to the law regardless of its nuance is not noble, it does not contribute to some greater whole, it is mere obedience, nothing more. "Speed Limit 65" on major highways is a law too, and one that has roughly as much respect among the people as copyright law. And we're a more efficient society for ignoring it.

chipotle_coyote 11y ago
I think the problem the OP is pointing to is exactly where one draws the line between "this law is broken, backwards or wrong" and "breaking this law gets me what I want at zero cost with little chance of penalty." Actually walking out of a store with a physical copy of a book (or a CD or a movie) is something most people would agree is theft, but making a digital copy of the same book or CD or movie without paying for it is... something else. By this point anyone on HN can enumerate the salient differences, which all revolve around digital copies having zero marginal cost. The problem is that we too often ignore the salient similarities. The reason you want this particular book or CD or movie has nothing to do with the marginal cost of that particular copy. The bulk of the value always lay in the creative work; in digital media, all of the value lies in the creative work. If I want to sell you a novel and you don't like the price I've set, you'd never think that justifies walking out of the store without paying for a physical copy. Why does it justify you making a digital copy without paying for it? DRM is a terrible "solution" to this problem, but I think its worst feature may be that its existence obscures the actual value of creative works by focusing attention back on the medium. My hypothetical novel's value, or lack thereof, ultimately has nothing to do with whether it's a trade paperback or an EPUB file. The principle of "you give me money in exchange for my work" remains the same even if my work is not fixed in a physical, tangible form.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Probably no way to say this that doesn't sound overly snarky, but: If we're talking about justification rather than law, the question can easily be turned around to become "What gives you the right to prevent me from making a digital copy?" Because you made the thing? More likely than not, I'll pay you if your work is any good. Content producers seem to want to make the jump from physical to digital to gain its benefits without their customers realizing those same benefits, such as the ability to try before buying, or format shifting, etc. They treat this relationship as inherently adversarial in nature, and that's even before DRM gets added to the mix. If your work is good, I will pay you. You lost the ability to control whether that happens before or after I've sampled the work, and you can thank decades of bad business practices for the justification for that.
mwcampbell 11y ago
On the other hand, if laws are to be effective without requiring excessive resources or undesirable technological measures (e.g. DRM) for enforcement, then breaking laws shouldn't be something we do lightly or merely for personal pleasure. Civil disobedience should probably be something that one does only after much soul searching -- something that keeps one up at night.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  You treat the law as if it was a whole body rather than a bunch of individual things. Willfully choosing to ignore the speed limit has no impact on the rest of the law - that law is ignored because it is widely seen to be broken, inefficient, and nothing more than a vehicle for unjust profit. Coincidentally, the same negative descriptors apply to copyright in 2015. This is not D&D, we do not have character alignments. I am not giving up some imaginary karma and slighting the deity/concept of Justice and Good Order by choosing to ignore a subset of non-beneficial laws.

WorldWideWayne 11y ago

But that's what happens anyway isn't it? Disney kept getting the law changed to protect their fictional mouse character. The MAFIAA got their terrible DMCA. And so on... The question is - how can you fight it? If the plebes could get laws made in their interest, they would. But they can't, so some of them do the next best thing - break the law. And I don't see anything wrong with that. Might makes right is the ultimate rule here. If nobody can stop you from doing what you want, then it's OK. That's just how the world works.