4 ms·

Yes it is, in my opinion. It's up to the owner of the intellectual property to decide who can have access to his or her property, not you. If you refuse to acce

Yes it is, in my opinion. It's up to the owner of the intellectual property to decide who can have access to his or her property, not you. If you refuse to accept the conditions that's fair enough, but in that case still accessing the copyrighted material is taking something that you're not entitled to. I don't agree with the behaviour of the recording industry or with criminalizing the general public but simply taking something that's not yours is not the right solution, in my opinion.

lt 16y ago
He's not saying that piracy isn't wrong. He's saying that the act is called copyright infringement, not theft.
- DrJokepu 16y ago
  I know, that's what I was talking about in the first part of my post. I had to add the the second part just to make sure that I'm not misunderstood.
axod 16y ago
> " but simply taking something that's not yours is not the right solution, in my opinion." I think that was his point - you're not taking something that's not yours. Say I take a photo of your cup, then feed the 3d image into a 3d printer, so that I have an exact replica of your cup, I haven't stolen your cup have I.
- Kliment 16y ago
  It could be argued that you have stolen the design, in as far as the concept of stealing applies. Just as if you download a movie ripped from a dvd, there is no argument about whether you have stolen the DVD. The content is separable from the medium.
  - axod 16y ago
    Again, IMHO the definition of stealing supposes that you have deprived the previous owner of something. I don't think we should use 'stealing' to apply to 'design' or any type of non-concrete property.
    - Kliment 16y ago
      I agree with you, and indeed that is where the argument lies. You have deprived the owner of the design of their right to determine how that design is distributed, in a sense. Whether there is such a thing as legitimate ownership of intellectual property and whether this right in itself is legitimate is a different question. All I ask is that we do not conflate ownership of the copy with ownership of the rights to the design.
      - axod 16y ago
        >> You have deprived the owner of the design of their right to determine how that design is distributed, in a sense. But the whole notion of 'right to determine how IP is distributed' is an artificial, and very recent creation. Why should people have such rights? Why do we need them when we functioned fine as a society for so many millennia without them.
        griftah 16y ago
        The whole notion of 'freedom' is an artificial and very recent creation. We functioned fine as a society for so many millennia with slavery.
        axod 16y ago
        Well trolled. In actual fact, there's more 'slaves' today than at any time in history. For one, legalized slavery in the US - prisoners are forced to manufacture household appliances, number plates, military uniforms etc. If they refuse, they get solitary confinement and other punishments. Perhaps the concept of 'freedom' is a good one, but it doesn't map in any way to the real world. It's not like they created the concept of 'freedom' and then slavery ended.
jacquesm 16y ago
You are missing out on the fact that 'intellectual property' is a figment of our collective imagination. Would you respect intellectual property on the wheel or the hand axe in a stone age setting ? I know that sounds ridiculous, but intellectual property has its basis in 'information can be property' and that's so fraught with error that we would still be living in the stone age if it were true. If you want to keep your stuff to yourself: don't publish. Have it die with you, please do not make your thoughts/writings/music/movie/whatever available to the public in order to then turn around and claim it as your own again.
- griftah 16y ago
  All human rights are "figments of our collective imagination". Should we abolish them too?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    They follow some logic and can be deduced from first principles. We would not have culture or have achieved the level of society that we have if 'intellectual property' were the normal mode and could be deduced from first principles. Copyright and patents are supposed to foster creation and innovation but it seems they are hindering rather than helping our development in these areas.
    - shadowfox 16y ago
      > They follow some logic and can be deduced from first principles Well. Some of these follow when you accept certain axioms and work from there. Not everyone accepts those axioms (at at least the same ones), if the vast variance in "human rights" across the globe is any indication. Now of course it can be argued that only a few countries in the "civilized western world" understand logic and can come up with the proper first principles. (People have told me that)
      - baddox 16y ago
        It's logically fine to reject axioms. You could argue, for example, that torture is morally good because you disagree with the axiom that suffering is bad. That's logically consistent, and logic alone is built on axioms and therefore cannot discern which axioms are "better."

lt 16y ago

He's not saying that piracy isn't wrong. He's saying that the act is called copyright infringement, not theft.

DrJokepu 16y ago
I know, that's what I was talking about in the first part of my post. I had to add the the second part just to make sure that I'm not misunderstood.

axod 16y ago

> " but simply taking something that's not yours is not the right solution, in my opinion." I think that was his point - you're not taking something that's not yours. Say I take a photo of your cup, then feed the 3d image into a 3d printer, so that I have an exact replica of your cup, I haven't stolen your cup have I.

Kliment 16y ago
It could be argued that you have stolen the design, in as far as the concept of stealing applies. Just as if you download a movie ripped from a dvd, there is no argument about whether you have stolen the DVD. The content is separable from the medium.
- axod 16y ago
  Again, IMHO the definition of stealing supposes that you have deprived the previous owner of something. I don't think we should use 'stealing' to apply to 'design' or any type of non-concrete property.
  - Kliment 16y ago
    I agree with you, and indeed that is where the argument lies. You have deprived the owner of the design of their right to determine how that design is distributed, in a sense. Whether there is such a thing as legitimate ownership of intellectual property and whether this right in itself is legitimate is a different question. All I ask is that we do not conflate ownership of the copy with ownership of the rights to the design.
    - axod 16y ago
      >> You have deprived the owner of the design of their right to determine how that design is distributed, in a sense. But the whole notion of 'right to determine how IP is distributed' is an artificial, and very recent creation. Why should people have such rights? Why do we need them when we functioned fine as a society for so many millennia without them.
      - griftah 16y ago
        The whole notion of 'freedom' is an artificial and very recent creation. We functioned fine as a society for so many millennia with slavery.
        axod 16y ago
        Well trolled. In actual fact, there's more 'slaves' today than at any time in history. For one, legalized slavery in the US - prisoners are forced to manufacture household appliances, number plates, military uniforms etc. If they refuse, they get solitary confinement and other punishments. Perhaps the concept of 'freedom' is a good one, but it doesn't map in any way to the real world. It's not like they created the concept of 'freedom' and then slavery ended.

jacquesm 16y ago

You are missing out on the fact that 'intellectual property' is a figment of our collective imagination. Would you respect intellectual property on the wheel or the hand axe in a stone age setting ? I know that sounds ridiculous, but intellectual property has its basis in 'information can be property' and that's so fraught with error that we would still be living in the stone age if it were true. If you want to keep your stuff to yourself: don't publish. Have it die with you, please do not make your thoughts/writings/music/movie/whatever available to the public in order to then turn around and claim it as your own again.

griftah 16y ago
All human rights are "figments of our collective imagination". Should we abolish them too?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  They follow some logic and can be deduced from first principles. We would not have culture or have achieved the level of society that we have if 'intellectual property' were the normal mode and could be deduced from first principles. Copyright and patents are supposed to foster creation and innovation but it seems they are hindering rather than helping our development in these areas.
  - shadowfox 16y ago
    > They follow some logic and can be deduced from first principles Well. Some of these follow when you accept certain axioms and work from there. Not everyone accepts those axioms (at at least the same ones), if the vast variance in "human rights" across the globe is any indication. Now of course it can be argued that only a few countries in the "civilized western world" understand logic and can come up with the proper first principles. (People have told me that)
    - baddox 16y ago
      It's logically fine to reject axioms. You could argue, for example, that torture is morally good because you disagree with the axiom that suffering is bad. That's logically consistent, and logic alone is built on axioms and therefore cannot discern which axioms are "better."