4 ms·

First, copyright violation is not necessarily wrong, and saying that something is stealing when it is clearly not is wrong -- it confuses the issue. Plagiarism

First, copyright violation is not necessarily wrong, and saying that something is stealing when it is clearly not is wrong -- it confuses the issue. Plagiarism can be a copyright problem, but in this case I took the more appropriate fraud angle since I'm arguing that copyright is invalid and hence the problem is a fraud problem not a copyright problem. Well the entire purpose of copyright is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts", when media industry is crippling science and technology it becomes important. And your last point doesn't follow, I'm specifically saying that violating copyright isn't wrong. Just as abolitionists who refused to follow the fugitive slave act, weren't doing something wrong by refusing to send slaves back to the south. So violating copyright isn't wrong, and it sure isn't stealing. Now it may be illegal, but during prohibition alcohol was illegal and drinking it also wasn't wrong just because some people said it was, so it is with copyright. We are going to see major changes as digital technology rips through the media industry. Just as the shipping industry faced when container shipping started. For instance longshoremen unpacking and repacking pallets (completely useless and unnecessary make-work) was eliminated as locked containers moved from boat to train/truck. So to will the media industry lose control over distribution.

nailer 16y ago
> First, copyright violation is not necessarily wrong You're right. It's illegal. But this isn't one of the cases where the law differentiates from what's right for most human beings. > Just as abolitionists who refused to follow the fugitive slave act, weren't doing something wrong by refusing to send slaves back to the south. I'm sorry to use this language...wait, I won't. I'll be polite. Do you make something? I've made something, so have my colleagues. TPB distribute it when they're not allowed. Stuff I spent all those late nights on, and my colleagues the same. Do you make anything? Do you use it to make income? How would you feel if I steal it? Would that be wrong, or right? Do. You. Think. Stealing. My. Work. Is. Like. Conscientious. Objection. To. Punishing. Escaped. Slaves? Don't just read that and then start typing. Think about it. Really think about it. Do you, Daniel Gagne, feel that way? In your heart, in your brain? Do you genuinely agree with this analogy? Are you sure? Or would you like to change your mind?
- dantheman 16y ago
  I fundamentally object to the notion that the government gives you a right to a monopoly on an idea, for what looks like perpetuity -- nothing has gone out of copyright since 1923. Second, you seem to confuse stealing with copying. Stealing means you've lost something i.e. no longer have it. This is clearly not the case with copying. Third, the comparison to slavery was only to disprove your assertion "Doing something wrong to someone else who did something wrong is still wrong." It was in no attempting to compare the two, the injustice found in slavery is far more egregious than that of any IP case. Do you think it's ok for a teacher to photocopy portions of a book or article to pass out to their students? This is allowed under the current system. Shouldn't each student be forced to buy the book or article? Are they stealing from the author? What about showing a clip from a movie? How does fair use apply to software? Why does fair use apply to other forms of creation but not software? Why don't mathematicians or physicist get to copyright their discoveries - i can't reuse the plot of a movie (hell, I can't even summarize it: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/996/996.F2d.1366.92-7985.92-7933.919.1392.html http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/996/996.F2d.1366.92...), but I can reuse someone else's discoveries? This is not an easy issue. Do you think wikileaks should be shutdown since it posts material it shouldn't have? Why is it ok in some cases and not ok in others? How are the lines drawn? Do I think that people should be compensated for their work? Of course I do; however, I do not think that copyright is the correct mechanism. Injustice is injustice and should not be left in place just because it's convenient. I think a better way would be to have those purchasing your software sign an agreement that if they distribute it without your permission they must pay X amount of dollars, for they are the only ones you have any legal claim on. I'm not trying to encourage piracy, but I am taking the position that copyright is not legitimate. I think your stuck in a mindset in which people can be compensated only by through copyright, and I don't think that's the case. I can't predict what the business model that would eventually arise is going to look like. But I am certain one would emerge. Additionally, I think that majority of software developers are actually employed on applications that are not sold to the public commercially so perhaps large portions of the software industry would not even be effected (banking, aerospace, hr, etc). As for the personal references, yes i create things and understand the effort and all that jazz. But once again, I think that the current system in unethical and will eventually be replaced, perhaps by thinking through it now we can hope to improve the situation and not re-architect the internet and destroy many civil liberties to try and keep an outdated business model going.

nailer 16y ago

> First, copyright violation is not necessarily wrong You're right. It's illegal. But this isn't one of the cases where the law differentiates from what's right for most human beings. > Just as abolitionists who refused to follow the fugitive slave act, weren't doing something wrong by refusing to send slaves back to the south. I'm sorry to use this language...wait, I won't. I'll be polite. Do you make something? I've made something, so have my colleagues. TPB distribute it when they're not allowed. Stuff I spent all those late nights on, and my colleagues the same. Do you make anything? Do you use it to make income? How would you feel if I steal it? Would that be wrong, or right? Do. You. Think. Stealing. My. Work. Is. Like. Conscientious. Objection. To. Punishing. Escaped. Slaves? Don't just read that and then start typing. Think about it. Really think about it. Do you, Daniel Gagne, feel that way? In your heart, in your brain? Do you genuinely agree with this analogy? Are you sure? Or would you like to change your mind?

dantheman 16y ago
I fundamentally object to the notion that the government gives you a right to a monopoly on an idea, for what looks like perpetuity -- nothing has gone out of copyright since 1923. Second, you seem to confuse stealing with copying. Stealing means you've lost something i.e. no longer have it. This is clearly not the case with copying. Third, the comparison to slavery was only to disprove your assertion "Doing something wrong to someone else who did something wrong is still wrong." It was in no attempting to compare the two, the injustice found in slavery is far more egregious than that of any IP case. Do you think it's ok for a teacher to photocopy portions of a book or article to pass out to their students? This is allowed under the current system. Shouldn't each student be forced to buy the book or article? Are they stealing from the author? What about showing a clip from a movie? How does fair use apply to software? Why does fair use apply to other forms of creation but not software? Why don't mathematicians or physicist get to copyright their discoveries - i can't reuse the plot of a movie (hell, I can't even summarize it: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/996/996.F2d.1366.92-7985.92-7933.919.1392.html http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/996/996.F2d.1366.92...), but I can reuse someone else's discoveries? This is not an easy issue. Do you think wikileaks should be shutdown since it posts material it shouldn't have? Why is it ok in some cases and not ok in others? How are the lines drawn? Do I think that people should be compensated for their work? Of course I do; however, I do not think that copyright is the correct mechanism. Injustice is injustice and should not be left in place just because it's convenient. I think a better way would be to have those purchasing your software sign an agreement that if they distribute it without your permission they must pay X amount of dollars, for they are the only ones you have any legal claim on. I'm not trying to encourage piracy, but I am taking the position that copyright is not legitimate. I think your stuck in a mindset in which people can be compensated only by through copyright, and I don't think that's the case. I can't predict what the business model that would eventually arise is going to look like. But I am certain one would emerge. Additionally, I think that majority of software developers are actually employed on applications that are not sold to the public commercially so perhaps large portions of the software industry would not even be effected (banking, aerospace, hr, etc). As for the personal references, yes i create things and understand the effort and all that jazz. But once again, I think that the current system in unethical and will eventually be replaced, perhaps by thinking through it now we can hope to improve the situation and not re-architect the internet and destroy many civil liberties to try and keep an outdated business model going.