4 ms·

That would be excessive and impractical; just because you can't go the whole way toward doing something, it doesn't mean that any measure along the way is usele

by ue_ 9y ago

That would be excessive and impractical; just because you can't go the whole way toward doing something, it doesn't mean that any measure along the way is useless. Supporting copyright less is better than supporting it more, as I'm sure GP would agree.

smt88 9y ago
> That would be excessive and impractical That's the only reason not to steal everything? Just that it's impractical? Not because only a fraction of it goes to bad laws, whereas most of the money goes to paying the people who created it? I think you missed my point entirely. My point is that when you buy absolutely anything, you're giving money to something bad. You can't control how producers of goods/services will use your money. Copyleft advocates spend a lot of time defending their circumvention of copyright laws, but what about the actual content producers? Where is all the energy being spent to make sure they're still making money? I'm not talking about big studios. I'm talking about directors, animators, musicians, etc. Why is there so much more effort put into BitTorrent clients than into something like Patreon to support those people?
- bdcravens 9y ago
  > Why is there so much more effort put into BitTorrent clients than into something like Patreon to support those people? People generally don't want to pay for anything. They shape their moral narrative to match that. (Obviously I'm generalizing, and there's always exceptions)
  - smt88 9y ago
    Exactly. My point is that, if this is an ideology, it's not consistent. If people want to live in a world where things that are easy to duplicate (music, movies, etc.) are created by talented people who need to make a living, then there has to be a way to pay for it. We need a replacement for copyright.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >That's the only reason not to steal everything? Just that it's impractical? If you're talking about personal property, then I'm against stealing that. Private property and goods that can be infinitely copied at my cost are different matters. Perhaps it sounds cruel, but I do not believe that simply making and publishing something ought to guarantee one lengthy rights to decide as to how it is dealt with beyond the point of sale. I view it as an affront to my freedom. >Copyleft advocates spend a lot of time defending their circumvention of copyright laws Copyleft isn't about anti-copyright, rather copyleft is edorsing copyright and turning it aganist itself, i.e to use it for good not evil. >but what about the actual content producers? I'd be happy to support them voluntarily if they provide a method for me to do this, which guarantees that my money is going to them rather than other people. I'm not going to pay a publisher to do what I can do at home, i.e copy some media. >I'm talking about directors, animators, musicians, etc. I don't think that they are owed or deserve money just for making what they made. Yes, they made it on the assumption that they would, but that doesn't mean I have to buy into that assumption. I may (or may not) decide to support these people, but with my music collection many albums are out of print or there is no way to support the artist. If the artist has a bandcamp/patreon/donation link I may decide to give to that, ironically especially if they are willing to give it away for free in the first place. People make BT clients because programming is fun, there's not much more to it.

by ue_ 9y ago

smt88 9y ago

> That would be excessive and impractical That's the only reason not to steal everything? Just that it's impractical? Not because only a fraction of it goes to bad laws, whereas most of the money goes to paying the people who created it? I think you missed my point entirely. My point is that when you buy absolutely anything, you're giving money to something bad. You can't control how producers of goods/services will use your money. Copyleft advocates spend a lot of time defending their circumvention of copyright laws, but what about the actual content producers? Where is all the energy being spent to make sure they're still making money? I'm not talking about big studios. I'm talking about directors, animators, musicians, etc. Why is there so much more effort put into BitTorrent clients than into something like Patreon to support those people?

bdcravens 9y ago
> Why is there so much more effort put into BitTorrent clients than into something like Patreon to support those people? People generally don't want to pay for anything. They shape their moral narrative to match that. (Obviously I'm generalizing, and there's always exceptions)
- smt88 9y ago
  Exactly. My point is that, if this is an ideology, it's not consistent. If people want to live in a world where things that are easy to duplicate (music, movies, etc.) are created by talented people who need to make a living, then there has to be a way to pay for it. We need a replacement for copyright.
ue_ 9y ago
>That's the only reason not to steal everything? Just that it's impractical? If you're talking about personal property, then I'm against stealing that. Private property and goods that can be infinitely copied at my cost are different matters. Perhaps it sounds cruel, but I do not believe that simply making and publishing something ought to guarantee one lengthy rights to decide as to how it is dealt with beyond the point of sale. I view it as an affront to my freedom. >Copyleft advocates spend a lot of time defending their circumvention of copyright laws Copyleft isn't about anti-copyright, rather copyleft is edorsing copyright and turning it aganist itself, i.e to use it for good not evil. >but what about the actual content producers? I'd be happy to support them voluntarily if they provide a method for me to do this, which guarantees that my money is going to them rather than other people. I'm not going to pay a publisher to do what I can do at home, i.e copy some media. >I'm talking about directors, animators, musicians, etc. I don't think that they are owed or deserve money just for making what they made. Yes, they made it on the assumption that they would, but that doesn't mean I have to buy into that assumption. I may (or may not) decide to support these people, but with my music collection many albums are out of print or there is no way to support the artist. If the artist has a bandcamp/patreon/donation link I may decide to give to that, ironically especially if they are willing to give it away for free in the first place. People make BT clients because programming is fun, there's not much more to it.