4 ms·

I'd argue that copyright infringement is: making a derivative work of something and selling it for a profit; or stealing an idea outright and profiting from it.

dhimes 10y ago
But you also have to allow for the idea that you are doing harm to the creator if you are making it available for free even if you don't profit from it.
- wangchow 10y ago
  Certainly true. However, the digital world is a changing landscape. Consider how technology replaces humans in the workplace and displaces jobs. No matter what, change causes collateral damage and the reality is this time it's hitting the bottom-line of the wealthy studios. If they can't afford to come up with a brilliant technical solution to the problem then they are SOL. :)
  - dhimes 10y ago
    And so are a lot of others I suppose.
  - tooFastFuckYou 10y ago
    Lame justification. Grow up. I torrent stuff all the time, but I would never stoop to this ridiculous attempt to rationalize it. For a better one, try condemning the continued use of DRM to prevent users from deploying content THEY PAID FOR, on the device of their choice.
  - Noos 10y ago
    The wealthy studios are least hit, to be blunt. Generally the more wealthy the content creator, the better they adapt. James Patterson doesn't suffer from piracy as much as the B or C list author who can't get signed or make back his advance. Blizzard doesn't suffer, it's the small indie PC dev. I think the ebook market is a good example. The big companies can absorb ebook piracy just by raising prices and relying on print sales and a large stable of works to deal with weak sales of easily pirated things. But the small presses and indie authors are starting to dry up because piracy tends to hit them much harder as they have less print options (indie authors never get traditional shelf space) no stable of books to offset risk, and a much smaller window when their book is viable. There's a good argument that creative destruction favors the rich more than the poor, I think.
    - wangchow 10y ago
      Hmm. Well put--it certainly trickles down. However, that has always been the case even with piracy aside: when have publishers not squeezed the profits from the artists of the world? Or what about Walmart running small companies out? Spotify paying peanuts to musicians? That's certainly been a trend of capitalism for a long time. The companies that have means to invest lots of legal and technical resources in developing DMC and help track down those torrent hubs have a lot of money. They are trying to shut them down to protect their bottom-line, not the content producers. It's a business after all.
- Endy 10y ago
  No, I don't allow that idea. If anything, I'm helping the creator by getting one more set of eyes and potentially word-of-mouth advertising out there that wouldn't have happened otherwise. If creators believed their product actually had value, they'd offer a 'try-before-you-buy' option. When they paywall & DRM it, my automatic assumption is that they know it's crap and they'd get nothing for it if they were dealing openly and honestly with people.
  - dhimes 10y ago
    When they paywall & DRM it, my automatic assumption is that they know it's crap Then obviously this isn't a primary concern of yours, because why would you rip off crap? How would you execute "try before you buy" for a novel? You can already get free previews. For a movie? You can view a trailer. You can view reviews. You can rent it, but not for free. I don't see how letting you watch it then deciding if you want to buy it or not will work. How many movies do we keep permanent copies of so we can view them repeatedly? Not many adults I know do this very much. There are honest complaints about DRM. My gripe with it is that I don't want vendor lock-in on the reading devices. My gripe with research paywalls is for research paid for with public funds. But I have no problem (morally) with the Washington Post asking for a subscription. To take it when it's not yours is stealing, pure and simple. If it has no value for you then don't take it, and certainly don't redistribute it.
  - andrepd 10y ago
    Someone creates something, they set the rules. End of story. Don't like it? Don't buy. But don't steal, also. If you don't like the price of a shirt and don't like the security in the shop, do you just grab the shirt and leave? Oh, and the store is supposed to thank you, because after all you're going to wear the shirt in public and get a ton of free publicity for the store? Puh-lease...
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      There's nothing inherent in nature that gives a creator any control whatsoever over others' use of their ideas. In the absence of a system of copyright, every audience member at a concert would be free to hold their own concert the next day, singing their remembered versions of the same songs. This is how culture actually worked for ages. Copyright is a legal fiction, created by governments and enforced by the threat of violence. It is often a useful legal fiction, but absolutely none of it justifies the selfish and self-righteous "MINE!" attitude you seem to espouse in your confusion of physical theft with duplication of ideas.

dhimes 10y ago

But you also have to allow for the idea that you are doing harm to the creator if you are making it available for free even if you don't profit from it.

wangchow 10y ago
Certainly true. However, the digital world is a changing landscape. Consider how technology replaces humans in the workplace and displaces jobs. No matter what, change causes collateral damage and the reality is this time it's hitting the bottom-line of the wealthy studios. If they can't afford to come up with a brilliant technical solution to the problem then they are SOL. :)
- dhimes 10y ago
  And so are a lot of others I suppose.
- tooFastFuckYou 10y ago
  Lame justification. Grow up. I torrent stuff all the time, but I would never stoop to this ridiculous attempt to rationalize it. For a better one, try condemning the continued use of DRM to prevent users from deploying content THEY PAID FOR, on the device of their choice.
- Noos 10y ago
  The wealthy studios are least hit, to be blunt. Generally the more wealthy the content creator, the better they adapt. James Patterson doesn't suffer from piracy as much as the B or C list author who can't get signed or make back his advance. Blizzard doesn't suffer, it's the small indie PC dev. I think the ebook market is a good example. The big companies can absorb ebook piracy just by raising prices and relying on print sales and a large stable of works to deal with weak sales of easily pirated things. But the small presses and indie authors are starting to dry up because piracy tends to hit them much harder as they have less print options (indie authors never get traditional shelf space) no stable of books to offset risk, and a much smaller window when their book is viable. There's a good argument that creative destruction favors the rich more than the poor, I think.
  - wangchow 10y ago
    Hmm. Well put--it certainly trickles down. However, that has always been the case even with piracy aside: when have publishers not squeezed the profits from the artists of the world? Or what about Walmart running small companies out? Spotify paying peanuts to musicians? That's certainly been a trend of capitalism for a long time. The companies that have means to invest lots of legal and technical resources in developing DMC and help track down those torrent hubs have a lot of money. They are trying to shut them down to protect their bottom-line, not the content producers. It's a business after all.
Endy 10y ago
No, I don't allow that idea. If anything, I'm helping the creator by getting one more set of eyes and potentially word-of-mouth advertising out there that wouldn't have happened otherwise. If creators believed their product actually had value, they'd offer a 'try-before-you-buy' option. When they paywall & DRM it, my automatic assumption is that they know it's crap and they'd get nothing for it if they were dealing openly and honestly with people.
- dhimes 10y ago
  When they paywall & DRM it, my automatic assumption is that they know it's crap Then obviously this isn't a primary concern of yours, because why would you rip off crap? How would you execute "try before you buy" for a novel? You can already get free previews. For a movie? You can view a trailer. You can view reviews. You can rent it, but not for free. I don't see how letting you watch it then deciding if you want to buy it or not will work. How many movies do we keep permanent copies of so we can view them repeatedly? Not many adults I know do this very much. There are honest complaints about DRM. My gripe with it is that I don't want vendor lock-in on the reading devices. My gripe with research paywalls is for research paid for with public funds. But I have no problem (morally) with the Washington Post asking for a subscription. To take it when it's not yours is stealing, pure and simple. If it has no value for you then don't take it, and certainly don't redistribute it.
- andrepd 10y ago
  Someone creates something, they set the rules. End of story. Don't like it? Don't buy. But don't steal, also. If you don't like the price of a shirt and don't like the security in the shop, do you just grab the shirt and leave? Oh, and the store is supposed to thank you, because after all you're going to wear the shirt in public and get a ton of free publicity for the store? Puh-lease...
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    There's nothing inherent in nature that gives a creator any control whatsoever over others' use of their ideas. In the absence of a system of copyright, every audience member at a concert would be free to hold their own concert the next day, singing their remembered versions of the same songs. This is how culture actually worked for ages. Copyright is a legal fiction, created by governments and enforced by the threat of violence. It is often a useful legal fiction, but absolutely none of it justifies the selfish and self-righteous "MINE!" attitude you seem to espouse in your confusion of physical theft with duplication of ideas.