7 ms·

I've developed my own golden rule: if something is 5 years or older its public domain. TPB and digital piracy in general functions as a library of Alexandria.

by Feniks 9y ago

I've developed my own golden rule: if something is 5 years or older its public domain. TPB and digital piracy in general functions as a library of Alexandria. Nobody in our society gives a shit about keeping things available. It's all about NOW and MONEY. So much entertainment would be lost without the internet.

eli 9y ago
Are there other areas besides digital media where you think it's acceptable to take copies or something to which you are not legally entitled?
- tazard 9y ago
  Are there areas other than digital media where you can make copies so cheaply and easily?
- JohnBooty 9y ago
  Does that question make sense outside the domain of media?
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  > legally entitled? When discussing the validity of copyright laws, using legal entitlement as an argument is pretty circular, don't you think?
  - greiskul 9y ago
    Some people really don't get the distinction between moral vs legal. I have actually seen a law student say that they were against legalizing pot, because smoking it is immoral because it's illegal. And he couldn't see how that argument made no sense.
    - rcoveson 9y ago
      While that argument may make no sense to you or me, it makes just as much objective "sense" as any other moral basis. Some people are strict utilitarians, some people have a deontological code, some people's morals come out of a holy book, and some people equate moral with legal. None of them are "correct" or "incorrect," and they absolutely do not make "sense."
      - sofal 9y ago
        It's about circular logic, not moral philosophy.
      - KMag 9y ago
        The other systems you mention may or may not be arbitrary, but at least they're not circular. The reasoning "It's immoral because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's immoral" is unsound because it's circular. Disagreeing over your base set of axioms is one thing, but circular reasoning is quite another. Under a circular legal moral system, moral progress would hinge on new understanding of old laws or else nominally morally neutral changes to the law. The other systems more easily promote moral progress via new understanding. Utilitarians can have new insights into utility functions. Religious based morality can have life experience and new cultural understandings influence their understanding and consequences of their basic commands.
- croon 9y ago
  Everything you've learned in your life, in school or out; Do you give proper credit to the creator/author/inventor/discoverer of that knowledge, or refrain from using it? The question isn't whether this happens to be legal or not, the question is whether it should be, and to what extent. Do you have any example which you were wanting to compare to, or was the question deliberately open-ended?
- lostcolony 9y ago
  To -make- copies, not -take-. And yes. Every photocopy a text book? Ever trace out a comic book panel or other image? Ever make copies of a photo (obviously more common digitally, but could be done in the film age too) that you didn't take originally? I've done all of them, they're all things I'm not legally entitled to do.
  - space_fountain 9y ago
    I feel like there is a key difference in all the examples people are giving. Taking a picture of a text book for personal use is a only a small part of the complete work closer would be scanning the entire thing. Further assuming you keep it to personal use it's also very different than spreading it to others.
    - lostcolony 9y ago
      Oh, I didn't say the textbook was -my- textbook. From the library or from a friend, getting the relevant bits we needed was super common, because the textbooks were infrequently referenced and super expensive for many classes. But, to the OP's point, I totally agree digital changes the equation. But it should also change the law. Theoretically having an img tag that references someone else's site could be thought of as illegal, after all. I'm reproducing the work without authorization, and even making money from it (ad impressions on my site rather than the hosting site), -while costing the original site money- (since they still pay the hosting and bandwidth costs). Digital changed -everything-, because the cost to copy went to 0. The laws have not kept up.
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    France has this notion of private copy, where you can legally copy basically anything you want as long as you keep it to yourself, your family, and maybe some of your friends. Check your legislation. It may allow what you're talking about already. (Though I agree with you even if it doesn't.)
    - ajnin 9y ago
      With the substantial limitation that the source must be "legal", i.e. you can't copy something from a torrent for example since it is likely the uploader didn't put it here legally. Also I think this is a European law.
- pessimizer 9y ago
  I sometimes sing songs in front of people.
- Feniks 9y ago
  Yep, entire continents like Australia and North America ;)
wil421 9y ago
Ever heard of a real library? They will order almost any book from other libraries. The ones in my county are free.
- 42fortytwo 9y ago
  In my county library costs $150 per person per year in taxes. So not exactly free ;-) Edit: actually it's ~$200 per household (depends on the value of the property)
- syrrim 9y ago
  What's the difference then?
aquadrop 9y ago
Yes, I've been thinking about something similar. Some time limit for individual's liability might be a good compromise. If you could wait to get some things free for personal use later without being in danger of legal problems it can remove the pressure from people... And on other hand if you really, really, really want to watch that freshest movie of an audio album right now, paying for it seems reasonable? Those who ca wait probably wouldn't pay for it in the first place, so copyright holders won't lose that much, at the same time keeping happy "long tail" of people who don't want rare/old things to vanish without means to access it. I wouldn't say that it's public domain though, because I still don't think it's ok to profit from it, like just downloading a book/movie and selling it or something like that.
maldusiecle 9y ago
There are a lot of great artists who put out work that doesn't catch on until 5+ years after they make it. It seems like a large social problem if such creators can't be rewarded for their work; given that this kind of work is usually the most innovative, it could lead to a creative stagnation.
- olau 9y ago
  To some extent I think you're right. But the problem, just like with patents, is that there a many kinds of actors in our modern world, including large companies who couldn't really care less. A company like Disney would, I think, be more motivated by a 5 or 10 year copyright period, as it would require them to keep on producing and innovating. If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system anyway.
  - maldusiecle 9y ago
    > If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system anyway. This is a really stunning claim and one that needs a lot more defense than you're giving it. I can think of countless innovative musicians, film directors, and authors who benefit from selling back catalog that's 10-20+ years old. I'd be happy to furnish a list if such a thing is necessary, but as it is your statement seems absurd on the face of it.
    - nkurz 9y ago
      olau: If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system maldusiecle: I can think of countless innovative musicians, film directors, and authors who benefit from selling back catalog that's 10-20+ years old I'd love to see more support for both sides of this argument. My guess would be that olau and maldusiecle may not have much overlap in the list of artists that they consider innovative. I'm probably closer to olau's position: while there are artists who benefit from copyright, they tend to be the ones who have chosen to concentrate on the commercial potential of their work rather than innovation. And I'd guess that most of those who are "doing art for art's sake" would do as well or better under a much less restrictive copyright regime.

by Feniks 9y ago

eli 9y ago

Are there other areas besides digital media where you think it's acceptable to take copies or something to which you are not legally entitled?

tazard 9y ago
Are there areas other than digital media where you can make copies so cheaply and easily?
JohnBooty 9y ago
Does that question make sense outside the domain of media?
vanderZwan 9y ago
> legally entitled? When discussing the validity of copyright laws, using legal entitlement as an argument is pretty circular, don't you think?
- greiskul 9y ago
  Some people really don't get the distinction between moral vs legal. I have actually seen a law student say that they were against legalizing pot, because smoking it is immoral because it's illegal. And he couldn't see how that argument made no sense.
  - rcoveson 9y ago
    While that argument may make no sense to you or me, it makes just as much objective "sense" as any other moral basis. Some people are strict utilitarians, some people have a deontological code, some people's morals come out of a holy book, and some people equate moral with legal. None of them are "correct" or "incorrect," and they absolutely do not make "sense."
    - sofal 9y ago
      It's about circular logic, not moral philosophy.
    - KMag 9y ago
      The other systems you mention may or may not be arbitrary, but at least they're not circular. The reasoning "It's immoral because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's immoral" is unsound because it's circular. Disagreeing over your base set of axioms is one thing, but circular reasoning is quite another. Under a circular legal moral system, moral progress would hinge on new understanding of old laws or else nominally morally neutral changes to the law. The other systems more easily promote moral progress via new understanding. Utilitarians can have new insights into utility functions. Religious based morality can have life experience and new cultural understandings influence their understanding and consequences of their basic commands.
croon 9y ago
Everything you've learned in your life, in school or out; Do you give proper credit to the creator/author/inventor/discoverer of that knowledge, or refrain from using it? The question isn't whether this happens to be legal or not, the question is whether it should be, and to what extent. Do you have any example which you were wanting to compare to, or was the question deliberately open-ended?
lostcolony 9y ago
To -make- copies, not -take-. And yes. Every photocopy a text book? Ever trace out a comic book panel or other image? Ever make copies of a photo (obviously more common digitally, but could be done in the film age too) that you didn't take originally? I've done all of them, they're all things I'm not legally entitled to do.
- space_fountain 9y ago
  I feel like there is a key difference in all the examples people are giving. Taking a picture of a text book for personal use is a only a small part of the complete work closer would be scanning the entire thing. Further assuming you keep it to personal use it's also very different than spreading it to others.
  - lostcolony 9y ago
    Oh, I didn't say the textbook was -my- textbook. From the library or from a friend, getting the relevant bits we needed was super common, because the textbooks were infrequently referenced and super expensive for many classes. But, to the OP's point, I totally agree digital changes the equation. But it should also change the law. Theoretically having an img tag that references someone else's site could be thought of as illegal, after all. I'm reproducing the work without authorization, and even making money from it (ad impressions on my site rather than the hosting site), -while costing the original site money- (since they still pay the hosting and bandwidth costs). Digital changed -everything-, because the cost to copy went to 0. The laws have not kept up.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  France has this notion of private copy, where you can legally copy basically anything you want as long as you keep it to yourself, your family, and maybe some of your friends. Check your legislation. It may allow what you're talking about already. (Though I agree with you even if it doesn't.)
  - ajnin 9y ago
    With the substantial limitation that the source must be "legal", i.e. you can't copy something from a torrent for example since it is likely the uploader didn't put it here legally. Also I think this is a European law.
pessimizer 9y ago
I sometimes sing songs in front of people.
Feniks 9y ago
Yep, entire continents like Australia and North America ;)

wil421 9y ago

Ever heard of a real library? They will order almost any book from other libraries. The ones in my county are free.

42fortytwo 9y ago
In my county library costs $150 per person per year in taxes. So not exactly free ;-) Edit: actually it's ~$200 per household (depends on the value of the property)
syrrim 9y ago
What's the difference then?

aquadrop 9y ago

Yes, I've been thinking about something similar. Some time limit for individual's liability might be a good compromise. If you could wait to get some things free for personal use later without being in danger of legal problems it can remove the pressure from people... And on other hand if you really, really, really want to watch that freshest movie of an audio album right now, paying for it seems reasonable? Those who ca wait probably wouldn't pay for it in the first place, so copyright holders won't lose that much, at the same time keeping happy "long tail" of people who don't want rare/old things to vanish without means to access it. I wouldn't say that it's public domain though, because I still don't think it's ok to profit from it, like just downloading a book/movie and selling it or something like that.

maldusiecle 9y ago

There are a lot of great artists who put out work that doesn't catch on until 5+ years after they make it. It seems like a large social problem if such creators can't be rewarded for their work; given that this kind of work is usually the most innovative, it could lead to a creative stagnation.

olau 9y ago
To some extent I think you're right. But the problem, just like with patents, is that there a many kinds of actors in our modern world, including large companies who couldn't really care less. A company like Disney would, I think, be more motivated by a 5 or 10 year copyright period, as it would require them to keep on producing and innovating. If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system anyway.
- maldusiecle 9y ago
  > If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system anyway. This is a really stunning claim and one that needs a lot more defense than you're giving it. I can think of countless innovative musicians, film directors, and authors who benefit from selling back catalog that's 10-20+ years old. I'd be happy to furnish a list if such a thing is necessary, but as it is your statement seems absurd on the face of it.
  - nkurz 9y ago
    olau: If we're talking about great, innovative artists, I think few of them actually benefit much from the copyright system maldusiecle: I can think of countless innovative musicians, film directors, and authors who benefit from selling back catalog that's 10-20+ years old I'd love to see more support for both sides of this argument. My guess would be that olau and maldusiecle may not have much overlap in the list of artists that they consider innovative. I'm probably closer to olau's position: while there are artists who benefit from copyright, they tend to be the ones who have chosen to concentrate on the commercial potential of their work rather than innovation. And I'd guess that most of those who are "doing art for art's sake" would do as well or better under a much less restrictive copyright regime.