6 ms·
> How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? Perhaps it is? I've almost never had anyone remark th
by rhaps0dy 10y ago
> How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music?
Perhaps it is? I've almost never had anyone remark that I was doing something bad when not paying for a software or movie or music.
- stop_thief 10y agoWell it is bad. You're basically a thief, no matter how you try to justify it to yourself. Really, you should be ashamed, rather than nonchalantly unconcerned about your behaviour.
- Fifer82 10y agoYou have to care to be ashamed.
- monochromatic 10y agoTheft != copyright infringement.
- stop_thief 10y agoAh, that tired old linguistic argument that completely misses the point.
- contras1970 10y agoif copyright infringement is theft, then theft is surely murder?
- stop_thief 10y agoIllogical. Please show your working.
- kuschku 10y agoAh, that tired old PIRATE-COPIER-MURDERER-TERRORIST argument. You do realize that copyright protection is an invention to prevent artists from being fucked over by commercial publishers, and was originally not intended to limit people from copying content noncommercially?
- stop_thief 10y agoAn interesting history lesson, but irrelevant to the current discussion.
- monochromatic 10y agoIf I steal your car, I've deprived you of the use of your car. If I copy your program, have I deprived you of the use of your program? How is that a linguistic argument?
- stop_thief 10y agoBecause you're using an unreasonably narrow definition of theft that doesn't include intangibles.
- icebraining 10y agoTell that to the SCOTUS: interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. By the way, the infringer was acquitted, since the court agreed he hadn't "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", despite even making money from his infringing activities.
- stop_thief 10y agoA counterpoint to this interpretation of the Dowling verdict - http://lawtheories.com/?p=1881 http://lawtheories.com/?p=1881: > This lack of “physical removal,” as required by the statute, meant that Dowling’s infringing copies were not “the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment § 2314 makes criminal.” But this doesn’t mean that Dowling’s acts of infringement in creating the physical records were not themselves acts of theft or conversion.
- icebraining 10y agoUnconvincing argument. The court's statement, as I reproduced above, is not about the specifics of the statute, otherwise it would have said "it's theft, just not physical removal". The wording is very clear. The example of the other case (which, by the way, was only a District Court decision) also seems weak. AFAIK (IANAL), the fact that copyright law preempted state law doesn't mean the two are equal, it just means that both theft and copyright infringement occurred - which is easily seen to be the case, since physical plans were actually removed from a place.
- distances 10y agoThat's a bit beside the point parent was making: it's true that music piracy is somehow usually not frowned upon, at least based on my anecdotal experience. People don't see it as a thing to explicitly avoid, any more that they would avoid sharing someone's (copyrighted) photo in Facebook.
- tracker1 10y agoI expect that when I click a link via google, that I get the same content that google gets. It took years for google to demote expertSexChange and now that WSJ is fully paywalled, they shouldn't get a pass on this.
- kaspiCZ 10y agoLet's pretend you developed a piece of software you want to sell. People download it without paying you. What do you do in that case?
- beefield 10y agoRethink my business model?
- kofejnik 10y agoit's a logical fallacy to assume that people who downloaded your work would have discovered it and actually paid for it if there was no free option a lot of artists would PAY to get millions of downloads/views
- hacknat 10y agoYou mean pirated? It's a logical fallacy to assume that your otherwise non-discovery makes your decision moral.
- gaius 10y agoLet me know when you can pay rent or buy groceries with retweets.
- vonklaus 10y agoit's unclear if you do not realize thousands of people make their living full-time as promoters on social media. They literally pay rent with money that was paid to them proportionate to their retweets. Or if this was hyperbole to underscore your disagreement with a freemium business model
- abiox 10y agothis seems like an equivocation
- abiox 10y ago> it's a logical fallacy to assume that people who downloaded your work would have discovered it and actually paid for it if there was no free option it's a "logical fallacy" to assume they wouldn't
- hacknat 10y agoWell, hear it now. I'm judging you.
- hadfgdasf 10y agocrickets
- tonfa 10y agoAlso there are still countries where downloading copyrighted materials is not illegal (distributing it usually is, though).