5 ms·
No copyright holders being paid is theft. Authors write and should be paid for their efforts. This is glorified and legalized privacy.
by sodosopa 8y ago
No copyright holders being paid is theft. Authors write and should be paid for their efforts. This is glorified and legalized privacy.
- mimixco 8y agoNo, we're talking about out-of-print books. There is no one around to claim copyright or payment. No one is trying to download Harry Potter from Google Books, lol!
- Fnoord 8y ago> No copyright holders being paid is theft No, it isn't. It is copyright infringement. Theft is something completely different. Different laws apply.
- sodosopa 8y agoIf you take money out of an author/musician/artist’s hand for a work they created. You can call it anything you desire but it’s theft and piracy.
- Fnoord 8y agoSo if I decide not to take the bus its theft as well? If I decide to steal a bicycle, its theft from the bus company?
- greglindahl 8y agoIf I visit an ad-supported website and fail to look at the ads, is that theft?
- darkpuma 8y agoIncredible as it may seem, I've actually seen that asserted. Years ago when I was a kid, before we had internet, my family would get a lot of magazines. Whoever picked up the mail, usually whoever came home most recently after it was delivered, would flip through every magazine and tear out all the advertisements and throw them in the trash before putting the magazine on the counter for the family to read. I wonder, was that 'theft'? We also used to change the channel or mute the television/radio whenever advertisements came on. Was that 'theft'? Usually people who call adblocking theft start squirming when these pre-digital examples of ad avoidance are put to them.
- vkou 8y agoUnless that author, musician, or artist operated in a vacuum, their work is a direct derivative of the work of other authors, musicians, and artists. Every dollar a musician earns I'd, therefore, a dollar they take out of the hand of the musicians, whose work they based theirs off of. This is why the public domain exists. You can make derivative works without paying anyone... But your work will fall into the public domain, so that you pass this benefit on to the next generation.
- EliRivers 8y agoYou're conflating literal theft with metaphorical theft. One of them is theft; the other isn't.
- johnisgood 8y agoBut you don't take money out of their hand, because there is no money to take out to begin with. Or did you mean imaginary money? If you did, well, I could come up with many different ways as to how you are doing the exact same thing to virtually anyone. :P Anyways, you can't physically remove and deprive an owner of an idea. It doesn't fit the definition of theft at all.
- greglindahl 8y agoDid you know that some people consider libraries lending physical books to be theft?
- mimixco 8y agoWell, they're crazy. If libraries didn't lend physical books, academic research would be set back 200 years.
- darkpuma 8y agoI think maybe that's his point. There are some crazy people in this world, so no matter how reasonable anything is there will always be somebody who gets frothing mad over it for no rational reason.
- greglindahl 8y agoI was more making the point that it's reasonable for copyright owners to not get paid extra in every circumstance. But we're not going to have a nice discussion about it after an accusation of theft and piracy.
- jandrese 8y agoYeah, but think of all of the money that could be made by the publishers.
- HNLurker2 8y agoDoesn't in Europe all research papers be made free by 2020:https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/28/eu-ministers-2020-target-free-access-scientific-papers https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/28/eu-ministers... Something Aron Schwartz envisioned?
- sodosopa 8y agoAnd that’s stupid.
- jandrese 8y ago