5 ms·

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 would

by 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.
  - wangchow 10y ago
    Wow we were literally on the same wavelength there :)
  - dhimes 10y ago
    All laws are fiction by your account. Why is violence illegal? Why can't bigger/more skilled people just beat up the weak and take their stuff? That's how things were for tens of thousands of years. Prohibiting that is a legal fiction. Torrenting a movie does not fall into the category of "theft of ideas." It is falls into the category of stealing a work. As for the argument that things would be made/written etc. anyway, you can still find that. It's out there. If it was better, you would be hearing the music all over the radio. You would be seeing the productions all over TV (because there's no royalty to pay, right?). You do hear and see some, but it's no way for a lot of to make a living. It's not enough. There's no way to take a year off and write that novel that you aren't going to get paid for. So you write a blog instead. No, some way to protect the work of the people who do it is needed. I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think it's the right answer here.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      Yeah, all laws are inventions of people intended to express shared morals in a way that prevents vigilantism. I did say copyright is often a useful fiction. But it goes way too far in its present form of 120 year terms and conflation with physical property. As just one hypothetical, we could easily have a system of patronage with a pseudomarket that determines where the patronage is applied, and creators would still get paid, without having to sue single moms and college students. You're still using words like "theft" and "stealing". Those terms confuse duplication with deprivation. If we had a magic ray gun that could make a copy of any car on the street for basically zero cost, without affecting the original owner of the car, you'd better believe people would use that, and they definitely wouldn't call it stealing. So when discussing how to reward creators of intangible products for their work (but only if it's actually good -- nobody "deserves" extra money just because they want it), talking about "theft" and "property" is not helping. --- Added in edit: > You would be seeing the productions all over TV (because there's no royalty to pay, right?). I don't think we can reasonably use our current reality as proof that it's the only possible reality. We see talented people gravitate toward the available market for their talents, yes, but in the absence of that market I don't see how their talents would just evaporate. Besides, most of us who oppose current copyright aren't talking about total abolition (at least not until society is completely post-scarcity). We want an acknowledgement that current works stand on the shoulders of past works, and that future works should be allowed and encouraged to do the same, as well as an acknowledgement that technology is changing and the conveniences of that technology should be embraced, not hindered with crap like DRM and oppressive lawsuits.
- wangchow 10y ago
  Well, this is true in Capitalism as we know it. But, truthfully there is a deeper relationship to the things we create and the people we share them with. What is the end goal of creating art or new scientific discoveries? If it's money alone, well, that's a problem. Ideas need to be shared whether art or science. Just think how we use Arabic numerals.. Every day. Should we be paying someone for that privilege? What if there were no copyrights. Would people still create things? Damn right they will. At least the skilled and the curious people will.

by Endy 10y ago

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.
- wangchow 10y ago
  Wow we were literally on the same wavelength there :)
- dhimes 10y ago
  All laws are fiction by your account. Why is violence illegal? Why can't bigger/more skilled people just beat up the weak and take their stuff? That's how things were for tens of thousands of years. Prohibiting that is a legal fiction. Torrenting a movie does not fall into the category of "theft of ideas." It is falls into the category of stealing a work. As for the argument that things would be made/written etc. anyway, you can still find that. It's out there. If it was better, you would be hearing the music all over the radio. You would be seeing the productions all over TV (because there's no royalty to pay, right?). You do hear and see some, but it's no way for a lot of to make a living. It's not enough. There's no way to take a year off and write that novel that you aren't going to get paid for. So you write a blog instead. No, some way to protect the work of the people who do it is needed. I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think it's the right answer here.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Yeah, all laws are inventions of people intended to express shared morals in a way that prevents vigilantism. I did say copyright is often a useful fiction. But it goes way too far in its present form of 120 year terms and conflation with physical property. As just one hypothetical, we could easily have a system of patronage with a pseudomarket that determines where the patronage is applied, and creators would still get paid, without having to sue single moms and college students. You're still using words like "theft" and "stealing". Those terms confuse duplication with deprivation. If we had a magic ray gun that could make a copy of any car on the street for basically zero cost, without affecting the original owner of the car, you'd better believe people would use that, and they definitely wouldn't call it stealing. So when discussing how to reward creators of intangible products for their work (but only if it's actually good -- nobody "deserves" extra money just because they want it), talking about "theft" and "property" is not helping. --- Added in edit: > You would be seeing the productions all over TV (because there's no royalty to pay, right?). I don't think we can reasonably use our current reality as proof that it's the only possible reality. We see talented people gravitate toward the available market for their talents, yes, but in the absence of that market I don't see how their talents would just evaporate. Besides, most of us who oppose current copyright aren't talking about total abolition (at least not until society is completely post-scarcity). We want an acknowledgement that current works stand on the shoulders of past works, and that future works should be allowed and encouraged to do the same, as well as an acknowledgement that technology is changing and the conveniences of that technology should be embraced, not hindered with crap like DRM and oppressive lawsuits.
wangchow 10y ago
Well, this is true in Capitalism as we know it. But, truthfully there is a deeper relationship to the things we create and the people we share them with. What is the end goal of creating art or new scientific discoveries? If it's money alone, well, that's a problem. Ideas need to be shared whether art or science. Just think how we use Arabic numerals.. Every day. Should we be paying someone for that privilege? What if there were no copyrights. Would people still create things? Damn right they will. At least the skilled and the curious people will.