3 ms·

Except that sharing is not illegal. The idea itself is absurd and sounds absurd when expressed. If you told people that sharing was illegal, the most common res

Except that sharing is not illegal. The idea itself is absurd and sounds absurd when expressed. If you told people that sharing was illegal, the most common response you'd get would likely be, "lol, wut?"

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Sharing what you don't own without owner's permission is either illegal or considered u ethical. Cant recall off yop of head. Buying copywritten works usually buys license yo use, not distribute (share). So, don't share the copywritten work seems like sane default if one wants to stay legal. Whether or not copyright systems make sense or not is another discussion entirely. Irrelevant even given it has to be changed via Congress by strong, voter push and/or more bribes than pro-copyright groups. If talking laws and metaphors, I focus on what is rather than should be.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  Owning what you don't possess sets you up for legal takeover. No one stops you from handing a book or disc to another person, in fact, entire governmental organizations exist to handle the logistics of freely sharing such artifacts. Sharing is the first moral many of us are taught.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    You're again talking about unimplemented morals, which vary person to person, while Im talking about ways to describe actual law. A copywritten work cant be legally shared, displayed, or so on without permission of the owner. The laws have exceptions like fair use, first sale doctrine on individual copies, or libraries loaning them out. Past that, your claims of morals have no practical meaning in a country that enforces the opposite. Such morals should instead incite those who possess them to act as a democracy to reform the complex and corrupt system. Like we did fighting thjngs like SOPA. So far, almost no action toward elected officials backing up alternatives you suggest people want while they put strong effort onto other issues. I think this means majority of the US just doesnt care that much. And quite a few oppose us hoping to be next to get rich with a monopoly or maintain good portfolios.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      You brought up the topic of ethics. I am just explaining why the argument, "sharing is illegal", sounds absurd to many people. As you noted, copyright laws respect many legally protected activities, like sharing media and holding local displays. The law is pretty clear and I think that is why we don't see many cases about the topic.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        " I am just explaining why the argument, "sharing is illegal", sounds absurd to many people." Oh yeah, I can see that. Might help get the laws changed if more people realize how absurd they are. :)
- ultramancool 10y ago
  > Buying copywritten works usually buys license yo use, not distribute (share) Under this definition loaning a book or movie to a friend is sketchy. The sharing model is rampant as individuals, it only became a problem when the internet made it so strangers could share without much of a thought that they were even doing so. But I seriously have to ask myself how borrowing a DVD from my friend differs from torrenting it instead. Perhaps the only difference is that only 1 copy can be watched at a time? Do we need a file loaning service?
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "But I seriously have to ask myself how borrowing a DVD from my friend differs from torrenting it instead. " I cant remember the specifics on loaning angle. I'd just not advertise that I did. Your comment reminds me that i need to fo a refresher on this stuff's grey areas in case the wording needs to be modified.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Sharing what you don't own without owner's permission is either illegal or considered u ethical. Cant recall off yop of head. Buying copywritten works usually buys license yo use, not distribute (share). So, don't share the copywritten work seems like sane default if one wants to stay legal. Whether or not copyright systems make sense or not is another discussion entirely. Irrelevant even given it has to be changed via Congress by strong, voter push and/or more bribes than pro-copyright groups. If talking laws and metaphors, I focus on what is rather than should be.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
Owning what you don't possess sets you up for legal takeover. No one stops you from handing a book or disc to another person, in fact, entire governmental organizations exist to handle the logistics of freely sharing such artifacts. Sharing is the first moral many of us are taught.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  You're again talking about unimplemented morals, which vary person to person, while Im talking about ways to describe actual law. A copywritten work cant be legally shared, displayed, or so on without permission of the owner. The laws have exceptions like fair use, first sale doctrine on individual copies, or libraries loaning them out. Past that, your claims of morals have no practical meaning in a country that enforces the opposite. Such morals should instead incite those who possess them to act as a democracy to reform the complex and corrupt system. Like we did fighting thjngs like SOPA. So far, almost no action toward elected officials backing up alternatives you suggest people want while they put strong effort onto other issues. I think this means majority of the US just doesnt care that much. And quite a few oppose us hoping to be next to get rich with a monopoly or maintain good portfolios.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    You brought up the topic of ethics. I am just explaining why the argument, "sharing is illegal", sounds absurd to many people. As you noted, copyright laws respect many legally protected activities, like sharing media and holding local displays. The law is pretty clear and I think that is why we don't see many cases about the topic.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      " I am just explaining why the argument, "sharing is illegal", sounds absurd to many people." Oh yeah, I can see that. Might help get the laws changed if more people realize how absurd they are. :)
ultramancool 10y ago
> Buying copywritten works usually buys license yo use, not distribute (share) Under this definition loaning a book or movie to a friend is sketchy. The sharing model is rampant as individuals, it only became a problem when the internet made it so strangers could share without much of a thought that they were even doing so. But I seriously have to ask myself how borrowing a DVD from my friend differs from torrenting it instead. Perhaps the only difference is that only 1 copy can be watched at a time? Do we need a file loaning service?
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "But I seriously have to ask myself how borrowing a DVD from my friend differs from torrenting it instead. " I cant remember the specifics on loaning angle. I'd just not advertise that I did. Your comment reminds me that i need to fo a refresher on this stuff's grey areas in case the wording needs to be modified.