4 ms·

Everyone has the legal right to view something. Copyright only prevents producing and distributing unlicensed copies, i.e. uploading or sharing. Downloading,

by deepnet 10y ago

Everyone has the legal right to view something. Copyright only prevents producing and distributing unlicensed copies, i.e. uploading or sharing. Downloading, streaming, or attending an unlicensed performance is not copyright infringement. Without Copyright, and when it expires, the natural state of culture is to be copied, that is how it evolves - all works exist naturally in the public domain. Copyright is a limited right to encourage the arts by providing a temporary monopoly. The word theft is entirely out of place in discussions of copyright.

6d6b73 10y ago
You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. If they say that you can view it after you pay, that's their right. If you pay and are allowed to view it you can describe it in any way you want to other people, but you are not allowed to spend that time you had for viewing it to make a copy of it and show it to some other people that did not pay the original author. If you at the same time use your copy to make money, taking that potential income from the original owner how is that not a theft?
- deepnet 10y ago
  It is legal to view something, regardless of whether the source is licensed. Copyright only prevents producing and distributing unlicensed copies, i.e. uploading or sharing - it does not cover viewing or downloading. You may not agree with the law but nonetheless there is no prohibition against viewing an unauthorised copy. -- can't reply below ? So replying here. > as legal as buying a stolen tv. Buying stolen goods is an offense in law. Buying an unauthorised copy is not. > How is downloading not creating a copy? There was one file before you downloaded it, now there are two. Yes, but it is not copyright infringement. Making a local copy for the purposes of viewing a web page, a picture or other digital media is not copyright infringement, this is well established by precedent.
  - arcticfox 10y ago
    How is downloading not creating a copy? There was one file before you downloaded it, now there are two.
  - 6d6b73 10y ago
    It's about as legal as buying a stolen TV.
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      I think a knockoff TV would be a better analogy.
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        I don't think this is a good analogy either: Since at a knockoff TV the seller deceives the buyer that the TV is an original. So it's a clear case of fraud.
- deepnet 10y ago
  > but you are not allowed to spend that time you had for viewing it to make a copy of it and show it to some other people that did not pay the original author I clearly said that making an unlicensed copy and distributing it infringes copyright so we agree. > You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. Here we disagree, copyright does not prevent many things like borrowing a friends book or downloading a movie. Do you have any sources where someone was prosecuted for unlicensed viewing or downloading - this would substantiate your argument. Uploading and sharing is what copyright prevents, not downloading. > how is that not a theft? It is not theft, theft means depriving someone of something actual - copyright infringement is against the law but no-one is charged with theft for it. Damages are awarded against uploaders but potential income and stolen money are not equivalent. Copyright is a time limited monopoly, possesion is not - trying to conflate copying with theft does not further the discussion, it only muddies the discourse.
- pieracy 10y ago
  > You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. There are a number of ways I can view something against the wishes of the copyright holder, thus reducing their monetary income. Are all of these wrong? You already mentioned the case of me describing something to other people. The NFL has a (probably unenforceable) disclaimer for the Super Bowl that says, "any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited." Buying used is often quite cheap. The creator doesn't see a dime. There's no guarantee that the seller of the used item won't use that money to buy something else used instead of new. Is that wrong? Is the creator entitled to a large market of new buyers? Format shifting is convenient for the customer but not the creator. For example, I bought Advance Wars on the Game Boy around 15 years ago. I've since backed up my copy (trivial to make your own backup with a flashcart). Now, Nintendo sells it on the Virtual Console for 8 bucks. If I play my backed up copy on a hacked Wii U, they're out 8 bucks. Is that wrong? Is the creator entitled to have every customer re-buy media for every new platform they want to consume on? The RIAA says that backing up a CD to an iPod is wrong: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/riaa-says-ripping-cds-your-ipod-not-fair-use https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/riaa-says-ripping-cds-... Buying in other countries is often cheaper. Look at textbooks for a prime example. When I was in college, I paid $20 for a legit copy of my physics textbook from India printed on poor-quality paper with a cheap binding; the content was exactly the same as the American textbook. Was that wrong? Some people even buy books in bulk in cheap countries and sell them in America for profit. Wiley sued a Thai guy for doing this, made it to the Supreme Court, and LOST. Are creators entitled to segment markets in this way? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-bookseller-defeated-a-publishing-giant-at-the-supreme-court/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-books... Renting something instead of buying it reduces profit. Did you know that video game rental is illegal in Japan? Should it be illegal in the US too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xuy5YALl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xuy5YALl0 Lots of people watch stuff with a friend. I had a friend with HBO Go, and we had Game of Thrones night where three or four of us would watch it together. Should we have bought individual accounts? Some media is paid for by ads. I use an adblocker in my browser. My grandma mutes the TV and goes to the fridge during commercials. Is that wrong? Some works don't get published in foreign markets. Lots of old video games, TV shows, movies, and books are only officially released in one language, and are never translated by the creator for any number of reasons: lack of interest in the market, lack of money for translation, attachment to the "integrity" of the original work, etc. Unofficial translation violates copyright law, at least in the US. Say a work is only available in Japan, and in Japanese. Is it wrong for someone to translate it to English? Is it wrong for someone from the US to pirate the translated work, when that person would never have bought the work in its original translation and is region-locked from buying it anyway?

by deepnet 10y ago

6d6b73 10y ago

You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. If they say that you can view it after you pay, that's their right. If you pay and are allowed to view it you can describe it in any way you want to other people, but you are not allowed to spend that time you had for viewing it to make a copy of it and show it to some other people that did not pay the original author. If you at the same time use your copy to make money, taking that potential income from the original owner how is that not a theft?

deepnet 10y ago
It is legal to view something, regardless of whether the source is licensed. Copyright only prevents producing and distributing unlicensed copies, i.e. uploading or sharing - it does not cover viewing or downloading. You may not agree with the law but nonetheless there is no prohibition against viewing an unauthorised copy. -- can't reply below ? So replying here. > as legal as buying a stolen tv. Buying stolen goods is an offense in law. Buying an unauthorised copy is not. > How is downloading not creating a copy? There was one file before you downloaded it, now there are two. Yes, but it is not copyright infringement. Making a local copy for the purposes of viewing a web page, a picture or other digital media is not copyright infringement, this is well established by precedent.
- arcticfox 10y ago
  How is downloading not creating a copy? There was one file before you downloaded it, now there are two.
- 6d6b73 10y ago
  It's about as legal as buying a stolen TV.
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    I think a knockoff TV would be a better analogy.
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      I don't think this is a good analogy either: Since at a knockoff TV the seller deceives the buyer that the TV is an original. So it's a clear case of fraud.
deepnet 10y ago
> but you are not allowed to spend that time you had for viewing it to make a copy of it and show it to some other people that did not pay the original author I clearly said that making an unlicensed copy and distributing it infringes copyright so we agree. > You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. Here we disagree, copyright does not prevent many things like borrowing a friends book or downloading a movie. Do you have any sources where someone was prosecuted for unlicensed viewing or downloading - this would substantiate your argument. Uploading and sharing is what copyright prevents, not downloading. > how is that not a theft? It is not theft, theft means depriving someone of something actual - copyright infringement is against the law but no-one is charged with theft for it. Damages are awarded against uploaders but potential income and stolen money are not equivalent. Copyright is a time limited monopoly, possesion is not - trying to conflate copying with theft does not further the discussion, it only muddies the discourse.
pieracy 10y ago
> You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. There are a number of ways I can view something against the wishes of the copyright holder, thus reducing their monetary income. Are all of these wrong? You already mentioned the case of me describing something to other people. The NFL has a (probably unenforceable) disclaimer for the Super Bowl that says, "any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited." Buying used is often quite cheap. The creator doesn't see a dime. There's no guarantee that the seller of the used item won't use that money to buy something else used instead of new. Is that wrong? Is the creator entitled to a large market of new buyers? Format shifting is convenient for the customer but not the creator. For example, I bought Advance Wars on the Game Boy around 15 years ago. I've since backed up my copy (trivial to make your own backup with a flashcart). Now, Nintendo sells it on the Virtual Console for 8 bucks. If I play my backed up copy on a hacked Wii U, they're out 8 bucks. Is that wrong? Is the creator entitled to have every customer re-buy media for every new platform they want to consume on? The RIAA says that backing up a CD to an iPod is wrong: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/riaa-says-ripping-cds-your-ipod-not-fair-use https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/riaa-says-ripping-cds-... Buying in other countries is often cheaper. Look at textbooks for a prime example. When I was in college, I paid $20 for a legit copy of my physics textbook from India printed on poor-quality paper with a cheap binding; the content was exactly the same as the American textbook. Was that wrong? Some people even buy books in bulk in cheap countries and sell them in America for profit. Wiley sued a Thai guy for doing this, made it to the Supreme Court, and LOST. Are creators entitled to segment markets in this way? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-bookseller-defeated-a-publishing-giant-at-the-supreme-court/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-books... Renting something instead of buying it reduces profit. Did you know that video game rental is illegal in Japan? Should it be illegal in the US too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xuy5YALl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xuy5YALl0 Lots of people watch stuff with a friend. I had a friend with HBO Go, and we had Game of Thrones night where three or four of us would watch it together. Should we have bought individual accounts? Some media is paid for by ads. I use an adblocker in my browser. My grandma mutes the TV and goes to the fridge during commercials. Is that wrong? Some works don't get published in foreign markets. Lots of old video games, TV shows, movies, and books are only officially released in one language, and are never translated by the creator for any number of reasons: lack of interest in the market, lack of money for translation, attachment to the "integrity" of the original work, etc. Unofficial translation violates copyright law, at least in the US. Say a work is only available in Japan, and in Japanese. Is it wrong for someone to translate it to English? Is it wrong for someone from the US to pirate the translated work, when that person would never have bought the work in its original translation and is region-locked from buying it anyway?