4 ms·

It is still funny how people want to validate their rights to copy and use free what somebody else created and did not allow to copy.

by tibu 11y ago

Thiz 11y ago
If you take a branch from a tree to kill a deer, can I do the same without asking for permission? We wouldn't be here today if we couldn't.
- TimJYoung 11y ago
  This would be completely logical if MP3s from Taylor Swift were found organically in nature everywhere we looked. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this isn't the case, so there are no "natural rights" to be asserted here, as is the case with things like food, water, and shelter.
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    There is a natural right to freely copy information. Our civilization is based on our ability to tell young people the stories we heard from our elders. And we are part of nature.
    - TimJYoung 11y ago
      So, in your opinion, someone taking part in commerce is completely justified in simply copying software without paying a dime to the author, and using that software to then, in turn, make money ? Who gets to decide when one person's rights trump another person's rights ?
      - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
        I'm not talking about commerce and making money, I'm talking about using bittorrent to share books, music and movies.
SeanDav 11y ago
The point of the project is not to demonstrate if copying is right or wrong, it is to demonstrate that the value given to copies is blatantly incorrect because the industry players see every copy as a lost sale, and ask for compensation on that basis.
- analog31 11y ago
  Perhaps a better approach than trying to figure a market value for the copies would be to simply assign a presumed value in cases where a market has not established a value. Say, a buck per copy of a pirated song.
  - moogly 11y ago
    What if the copy was never listened to by a human? Pretty sure that happens a lot. What if another copy was listened to by one certain individual a thousand times? Surely the "value" is not the same for both copies.
    - analog31 11y ago
      My thought is to sidestep the impossible process of computing a value, by assigning a presumptive value, e.g., one dollar per copy. That way, everybody knows the score. It's my understanding that a per-use presumptive value is how performance rights for copyrighted songs are handled. If your band plays "Freebird" in a public venue that does not have a performance license, the liability is a certain fixed amount regardless of the size of the audience, or how much beer got sold as a result of your performance.
forgetsusername 11y ago
This has never really been about whether or not it's okay to copy and use free what someone else created. This is why even companies like Napster eventually reached out to artists. It's about the latter, that the artists didn't "allow to copy". Guess what? They can't stop people from copying digital material, ever, regardless of how much moralizing the industry backers do. This is happening/has happened, so they need to get on board.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  So in a sense everybody is committing a crime, and because everybody does it, artists need to evolve with the state of the world. I agree with this, but it does not change the fact that 'everybody' is committing a crime and harming the artist.
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    >So in a sense everybody is committing a crime What is or isn't a crime evolves with society. >harming the artist No, harming a specific type of artist who insists on maintaining a 30, 40, 50 year old business model. The biggest stars on the planet have their music on YouTube for free, and I'm sure their music is downloaded proportionately more as well. I'm talking about the Adeles, the Taylor Swifts, the Justin Biebers, the Drakes, the Wiz Khalifas. They are hardly harmed. They've "grown up" in the digital world, and have built their careers around it. And it isn't the "middle class" being harmed, either. I can have an album up on iTunes, or any other number of platforms, by tomorrow. At what point in history have independent artists have access to that sort of global reach and distribution? This is a great time to be a musician.
    - TimJYoung 11y ago
      Two problems here: 1) YouTube videos from major distributors are monetized (Vevo), and user-contributed versions are often taken down. So, they are still making money while also promoting the artist and maintaining control over the product. 2) Songs on iTunes cost ~$1, they aren't free.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
Actually you could say this project shows how bad copying something is. Why do I want to create something that could be copied? Why should I create a movie or a piece of software when by nature of being copyable means it's worthless?

It is still funny how people want to validate their rights to copy and use free what somebody else created and did not allow to copy.

by tibu 11y ago

It is still funny how people want to validate their rights to copy and use free what somebody else created and did not allow to copy.

Thiz 11y ago

If you take a branch from a tree to kill a deer, can I do the same without asking for permission? We wouldn't be here today if we couldn't.

TimJYoung 11y ago
This would be completely logical if MP3s from Taylor Swift were found organically in nature everywhere we looked. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this isn't the case, so there are no "natural rights" to be asserted here, as is the case with things like food, water, and shelter.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  There is a natural right to freely copy information. Our civilization is based on our ability to tell young people the stories we heard from our elders. And we are part of nature.
  - TimJYoung 11y ago
    So, in your opinion, someone taking part in commerce is completely justified in simply copying software without paying a dime to the author, and using that software to then, in turn, make money ? Who gets to decide when one person's rights trump another person's rights ?
    - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
      I'm not talking about commerce and making money, I'm talking about using bittorrent to share books, music and movies.

SeanDav 11y ago

The point of the project is not to demonstrate if copying is right or wrong, it is to demonstrate that the value given to copies is blatantly incorrect because the industry players see every copy as a lost sale, and ask for compensation on that basis.

analog31 11y ago
Perhaps a better approach than trying to figure a market value for the copies would be to simply assign a presumed value in cases where a market has not established a value. Say, a buck per copy of a pirated song.
- moogly 11y ago
  What if the copy was never listened to by a human? Pretty sure that happens a lot. What if another copy was listened to by one certain individual a thousand times? Surely the "value" is not the same for both copies.
  - analog31 11y ago
    My thought is to sidestep the impossible process of computing a value, by assigning a presumptive value, e.g., one dollar per copy. That way, everybody knows the score. It's my understanding that a per-use presumptive value is how performance rights for copyrighted songs are handled. If your band plays "Freebird" in a public venue that does not have a performance license, the liability is a certain fixed amount regardless of the size of the audience, or how much beer got sold as a result of your performance.

forgetsusername 11y ago

This has never really been about whether or not it's okay to copy and use free what someone else created. This is why even companies like Napster eventually reached out to artists. It's about the latter, that the artists didn't "allow to copy". Guess what? They can't stop people from copying digital material, ever, regardless of how much moralizing the industry backers do. This is happening/has happened, so they need to get on board.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
So in a sense everybody is committing a crime, and because everybody does it, artists need to evolve with the state of the world. I agree with this, but it does not change the fact that 'everybody' is committing a crime and harming the artist.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >So in a sense everybody is committing a crime What is or isn't a crime evolves with society. >harming the artist No, harming a specific type of artist who insists on maintaining a 30, 40, 50 year old business model. The biggest stars on the planet have their music on YouTube for free, and I'm sure their music is downloaded proportionately more as well. I'm talking about the Adeles, the Taylor Swifts, the Justin Biebers, the Drakes, the Wiz Khalifas. They are hardly harmed. They've "grown up" in the digital world, and have built their careers around it. And it isn't the "middle class" being harmed, either. I can have an album up on iTunes, or any other number of platforms, by tomorrow. At what point in history have independent artists have access to that sort of global reach and distribution? This is a great time to be a musician.
  - TimJYoung 11y ago
    Two problems here: 1) YouTube videos from major distributors are monetized (Vevo), and user-contributed versions are often taken down. So, they are still making money while also promoting the artist and maintaining control over the product. 2) Songs on iTunes cost ~$1, they aren't free.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

Actually you could say this project shows how bad copying something is. Why do I want to create something that could be copied? Why should I create a movie or a piece of software when by nature of being copyable means it's worthless?