4 ms·
I never said anyone was entitled to anything. Except I do say that someone is entitled to not have their work stolen from them. The only difference between stea
by city41 17y ago
I never said anyone was entitled to anything. Except I do say that someone is entitled to not have their work stolen from them. The only difference between stealing music and stealing groceries is the music is significantly easier to steal. The convenience and low likelihood of getting caught is the only reason its so rampant. But it's still stealing.
Accept the reality of it? Accept that things are just going to be stolen and that's that? What kind of society is that? I'd like to think we can rise above being selfish vigilantes who only choose to see things through their own eyes instead of work with society as a whole.
- kiba 17y agoI don't accept the notion that copying is equivalent to stealing. Nor do I accept anybody to have the right to potential profits. As such, you cannot derives ethical justification for it. I support property right, and see copyright as a violation of such rights.
- city41 17y agoThe laws do support the notion that copying is equivalent to stealing. Thus the $600k+ verdict that our current President's administration is apparently standing behind. Does that mean it's right? Not necessarily. Maybe the laws do need to change. But in the meantime, they are the laws. Taking the laws into your own hand just because you don't agree with them is wrong. And if you're fine with that, then be fine with accepting the consequences when you get caught, too. We need to consider all sides of the story here. File sharers are very selfishly saying "well the law is wrong anyway, so who cares?" which is just their way of justifying stealing. File sharers don't care about what is right or what's wrong, they just want free stuff. If copyright law needs to change either on a moral ground or a grounds that current infrastructure makes our laws unreasonable, fine. That's great. But let's do this the right way, which gives us the best chance of all parties maintaining their rights.
- kiba 17y agoWhat file-sharers or the law say is irrelevant to the fact or non-fact that copying is stealing. Nor whether or not file-sharers want free stuff have anything to do with the non-fact and fact of copying and stealing being an equivalent. Authority and intention doesn't matter. What does matter if it logically make sense to make equivalent the crime of copying to stealing. To steal is to deprive someone of their property. To copy is to make duplicates of something. There is no deprivation of property occurring. Therefore, copying is NOT stealing.
- city41 17y agoHas this conversation really fallen to the technicalities of a definition in 3 replies? That's not a good sign. Go ahead and define it anyway you want, I really don't care. They are acquiring something of which they did not pay for and do not have a legal right to have, that sure is stealing in my book. Ask the creators if they care what the difference is, I'm pretty sure they don't either. Beyond that, I can pretty much copy and paste my last response to be used here. What you or anyone "feels" is correct or logical is completely irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the law and how we as a society choose to create them and enforce them.
- kiba 17y agoBeyond that, I can pretty much copy and paste my last response to be used here. What you or anyone "feels" is correct or logical is completely irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the law and how we as a society choose to create them and enforce them. Relevant to who, by what standard, and who this "society" you speak of? EDIT: Are we're really even debating the same thing? EDIT2: I feel that there has been some breakdown in communication.