3 ms·

IP law needs to be reformed. It's deeply immoral in both general idea and implementation. Royalties should not be a thing, period. We are not in medieval Englan

by exo762 10y ago

IP law needs to be reformed. It's deeply immoral in both general idea and implementation. Royalties should not be a thing, period. We are not in medieval England anymore, we as a society have ways of providing patronage that does not involve state violence. Apart from that there are live performances (which feed like 99% of artists). And I don't really care about mega-production Hollywood. It can burn today if I care.

grzm 10y ago
Given the laws we have today, do you believe there is anything wrong with the behavior?
- exo762 10y ago
  People doing business on someones content - no, that's not OK. Copying someones work for your own consumption? Nothing is wrong with such behavior. Nor with non-commercial sharing. Not until you have disposable income. Then consuming and not chipping in is meh. Legal positivism is has it's stronger sides, but this is victimless crime. And what about your views? :)
  - grzm 10y ago
    I think it's really important to be upfront with saying what you believe is wrong. It makes it really easy for people to dismiss an argument when all they read is "no, it is not stealing", particularly in this domain. It's too easy to roll this in with those who don't want to pay for anything, that all content should be free. You're arguing something different, which isn't clear until someone else digs down. I think you do yourself a disservice in doing so. I don't think whether or not you have disposable income is an important discriminant. Who decides whether you have enough disposable income to justify paying for content? I think there are a lot of issues with laws regarding intellectual property and content. Even though I disagree with them, I don't think flouting those laws is right or some sort of civil disobedience. Same with copying someone's work for personal use or non-commercial sharing. The existing framework is the one we've got, and there are currently ways authors or content providers can make it clear that they are willing to do so: Creative Commons licenses are one example. Likewise with other patronage models, such as Patreon. In other cases, you're benefitting from their work without them receiving compensation. There's no agreed upon transaction. Whatever term is used to describe it, I don't think it's right.

by exo762 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

Given the laws we have today, do you believe there is anything wrong with the behavior?

exo762 10y ago
People doing business on someones content - no, that's not OK. Copying someones work for your own consumption? Nothing is wrong with such behavior. Nor with non-commercial sharing. Not until you have disposable income. Then consuming and not chipping in is meh. Legal positivism is has it's stronger sides, but this is victimless crime. And what about your views? :)
- grzm 10y ago
  I think it's really important to be upfront with saying what you believe is wrong. It makes it really easy for people to dismiss an argument when all they read is "no, it is not stealing", particularly in this domain. It's too easy to roll this in with those who don't want to pay for anything, that all content should be free. You're arguing something different, which isn't clear until someone else digs down. I think you do yourself a disservice in doing so. I don't think whether or not you have disposable income is an important discriminant. Who decides whether you have enough disposable income to justify paying for content? I think there are a lot of issues with laws regarding intellectual property and content. Even though I disagree with them, I don't think flouting those laws is right or some sort of civil disobedience. Same with copying someone's work for personal use or non-commercial sharing. The existing framework is the one we've got, and there are currently ways authors or content providers can make it clear that they are willing to do so: Creative Commons licenses are one example. Likewise with other patronage models, such as Patreon. In other cases, you're benefitting from their work without them receiving compensation. There's no agreed upon transaction. Whatever term is used to describe it, I don't think it's right.