51 ms·

Sure, it's all virtual, you're not actually 'stealing' their money since you weren't actually going to pay for it anyways, but if we're pedantic about it you ar

Sure, it's all virtual, you're not actually 'stealing' their money since you weren't actually going to pay for it anyways, but if we're pedantic about it you are depriving them their rights. As the owner, they can copyright it, they can specify the terms by which you're allowed to view it or not view it. They can decide to not let you view it. You are taking that right from them. You are saying your right to access the content is more important than their rights, it's pretty simple. Sure, it's a big faceless corporation that already has billions of dollars, so it's as offensive. but it's basically the same thing as a GPL violation. Whenever a big corporation steals, err, I mean 'copies,' GPL code and refuses to give the output away, they aren't actually stealing, they were never going to contribute anything anyways...

duozerk 10y ago
"You are saying your right to access the content is more important than their rights, it's pretty simple." Not exactly; I'm saying the benefits to society as a whole offered by the post-scarcity nature of data on the Internet (infinitely copiable with negligible cost) is so large that, in my opinion, their right to decide who should access the content is far less important and so should be ignored. It certainly sucks for them; and it certainly means that we need to think about new models to finance content creation (since we are living in a definitely scarcity-based society in real life, for now at least); but there you go. And you say they are the "owner" of the content; given the current laws, yes, "they" usually posess the content. But the "they" in question is very often great industry behemoths constructed on the old, physical model of distribution; regularly offering incredibly bad deals to content creators. As I said, when a content creator distributes its content directly or with a non-DRM intermediary (such as GoG) - and I consider, for example, both netflix and steam as little more than new forms of DRM - then I always pay for it. I pay for it because we still don't have a new model allowing free distribution of data while providing incentives for content creators (a global licence mechanism or something similar - easier said than done), and so I see it as a compromise in the meantime. It also encourages those new means of distribution.
- spdustin 10y ago
  What about my case: I run a software training company. We provide streaming access to recordings made of the live session for which a student purchased a seat. Pay for a four day class, and you can stream the recording of that four day class for, at the least, 18 months. Why 18 months? That's all we promise, ideas end up being available for longer - five years and counting now - and in 18 months the class tends to have changed enough that we'd rather you just attend again (for free, if it's online). Do you have the right to pirate the videos that my students paid for? Do they have the right to share it with people who didn't attend the course, and are thus missing the context of the classroom experience (and the web site where updated materials/code samples are dispensed)?
- coffeevradar 10y ago
  Rationalizing your own behavior of downloading content you like and enjoying consuming it as being a "benefit to society" is quite a stretch. Thinking that everything you do, even selfishly, is somehow ethically laudable is not a sign of maturity.
  - duozerk 10y ago
    So if I have a different opinion than you on copyright and intellectual property, it means I'm immature, right ? You don't really give arguments to counter beyond the ad hominem attack, but let me try to explain why I think this way. We have the capability to copy and distribute at negligible cost most of the cultural & educational content (books, scientific articles, movies, music, etc.) ever produced by humanity to our entire species; and because we don't have the same capability for physical things, we impose an artificial scarcity on this. Think of the enormous amounts of money and man hours spent on intellectual property: lawyers, consulting firms, etc... entire industries dedicated to limit our capability as a species to distribute knowledge and cultural content. Now, if only a portion of these efforts had been spent towards spreading network infrastructure and creating, spreading and supporting educational material to the widest amount of people possible, where would we be right now as a species ? Given that, I can help but think that yes, copyright and intellectual property is more of an issue globally than a solution to the problem of incentivizing content production. So no, it's not only rationalization of my "wrong" behavior (part of it probably is, sure); I genuinely believe this, and I genuinely believe that ignoring those laws and downloading content illegally is a form of non-violent (and massively followed) social protest; the mass reaction of the individuals in society to absurd laws. As I said above, some sort of new economic model should have to be found for this to be viable; hence why compromise is necessary in the meantime (and hence why yes, I also pay for content when it is distributed in a way that in my view helps to go towards that direction).
bleachedsleet 10y ago
You are assuming that everyone agrees copyright is a good thing...
- Nelson69 10y ago
  I make no such assumption, I'm just pointing out that it's the current framework that we have and that with it content creators are given actual rights and among those rights is the right to significant control over distribution and consumption of their content.
  - bleachedsleet 10y ago
    You responded to a comment arguing that piracy could be considered a form of social protest. As such appealing to copyright seems a poor counter since copyright could be the very thing being protested. It's anecdotal at this point but also worth noting that the earliest conception of copyright in the colonial era had nothing to do with protecting creators and everything to do with allowing distributors and regulators get a piece of the pie.
  - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
    And the current framework hands out almost no punishments at all. Given the theory that social norms and laws are not what is written but what is enforced, then the current framework only supports limited cases of copyrights that apply generally between financially very well endowed entities. If the current framework written was fully applied, it would not last two full election cycles.
icebraining 10y ago
Whenever a big corporation steals, err, I mean 'copies,' GPL code and refuses to give the output away, they aren't actually stealing, they were never going to contribute anything anyways... Why would you think people would disagree with that?
uola 10y ago
"[...] if we're pedantic about it you are depriving them their rights" Don't confuse the economic and moral rights in copyright. When you copy something you aren't necessarily depriving someone of their rights so much as disregarding their awarded monopoly. Just like you usually do if you make moonshine or take a unlicensed taxi.

duozerk 10y ago

"You are saying your right to access the content is more important than their rights, it's pretty simple." Not exactly; I'm saying the benefits to society as a whole offered by the post-scarcity nature of data on the Internet (infinitely copiable with negligible cost) is so large that, in my opinion, their right to decide who should access the content is far less important and so should be ignored. It certainly sucks for them; and it certainly means that we need to think about new models to finance content creation (since we are living in a definitely scarcity-based society in real life, for now at least); but there you go. And you say they are the "owner" of the content; given the current laws, yes, "they" usually posess the content. But the "they" in question is very often great industry behemoths constructed on the old, physical model of distribution; regularly offering incredibly bad deals to content creators. As I said, when a content creator distributes its content directly or with a non-DRM intermediary (such as GoG) - and I consider, for example, both netflix and steam as little more than new forms of DRM - then I always pay for it. I pay for it because we still don't have a new model allowing free distribution of data while providing incentives for content creators (a global licence mechanism or something similar - easier said than done), and so I see it as a compromise in the meantime. It also encourages those new means of distribution.

spdustin 10y ago
What about my case: I run a software training company. We provide streaming access to recordings made of the live session for which a student purchased a seat. Pay for a four day class, and you can stream the recording of that four day class for, at the least, 18 months. Why 18 months? That's all we promise, ideas end up being available for longer - five years and counting now - and in 18 months the class tends to have changed enough that we'd rather you just attend again (for free, if it's online). Do you have the right to pirate the videos that my students paid for? Do they have the right to share it with people who didn't attend the course, and are thus missing the context of the classroom experience (and the web site where updated materials/code samples are dispensed)?
coffeevradar 10y ago
Rationalizing your own behavior of downloading content you like and enjoying consuming it as being a "benefit to society" is quite a stretch. Thinking that everything you do, even selfishly, is somehow ethically laudable is not a sign of maturity.
- duozerk 10y ago
  So if I have a different opinion than you on copyright and intellectual property, it means I'm immature, right ? You don't really give arguments to counter beyond the ad hominem attack, but let me try to explain why I think this way. We have the capability to copy and distribute at negligible cost most of the cultural & educational content (books, scientific articles, movies, music, etc.) ever produced by humanity to our entire species; and because we don't have the same capability for physical things, we impose an artificial scarcity on this. Think of the enormous amounts of money and man hours spent on intellectual property: lawyers, consulting firms, etc... entire industries dedicated to limit our capability as a species to distribute knowledge and cultural content. Now, if only a portion of these efforts had been spent towards spreading network infrastructure and creating, spreading and supporting educational material to the widest amount of people possible, where would we be right now as a species ? Given that, I can help but think that yes, copyright and intellectual property is more of an issue globally than a solution to the problem of incentivizing content production. So no, it's not only rationalization of my "wrong" behavior (part of it probably is, sure); I genuinely believe this, and I genuinely believe that ignoring those laws and downloading content illegally is a form of non-violent (and massively followed) social protest; the mass reaction of the individuals in society to absurd laws. As I said above, some sort of new economic model should have to be found for this to be viable; hence why compromise is necessary in the meantime (and hence why yes, I also pay for content when it is distributed in a way that in my view helps to go towards that direction).

bleachedsleet 10y ago

You are assuming that everyone agrees copyright is a good thing...

Nelson69 10y ago
I make no such assumption, I'm just pointing out that it's the current framework that we have and that with it content creators are given actual rights and among those rights is the right to significant control over distribution and consumption of their content.
- bleachedsleet 10y ago
  You responded to a comment arguing that piracy could be considered a form of social protest. As such appealing to copyright seems a poor counter since copyright could be the very thing being protested. It's anecdotal at this point but also worth noting that the earliest conception of copyright in the colonial era had nothing to do with protecting creators and everything to do with allowing distributors and regulators get a piece of the pie.
- Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  And the current framework hands out almost no punishments at all. Given the theory that social norms and laws are not what is written but what is enforced, then the current framework only supports limited cases of copyrights that apply generally between financially very well endowed entities. If the current framework written was fully applied, it would not last two full election cycles.

icebraining 10y ago

Whenever a big corporation steals, err, I mean 'copies,' GPL code and refuses to give the output away, they aren't actually stealing, they were never going to contribute anything anyways... Why would you think people would disagree with that?

uola 10y ago

"[...] if we're pedantic about it you are depriving them their rights" Don't confuse the economic and moral rights in copyright. When you copy something you aren't necessarily depriving someone of their rights so much as disregarding their awarded monopoly. Just like you usually do if you make moonshine or take a unlicensed taxi.