4 ms·

> Why do they insist on justifying stealing? They do not "justify stealing", they do not consider copying of publicly available information amongst each other

> Why do they insist on justifying stealing? They do not "justify stealing", they do not consider copying of publicly available information amongst each other (sharing with thy neighbour) as stealing. (FYI, not even current _laws_ consider people exchanging "protected" but public information as stealing, its only you and your ilk who keep repeating this, who directly profit from the prohibition.) > have every right to discard your economic theories. It is also considered that a for-profit censorship right is morally wrong, and thus can be ignored. > Is it because people don't think art should be owned? It is because very very many people do not think that for-profit censorship rights (also known as "copyright") should be applied to private and non-commercial information sharing because it makes western countries no better than china, north korea & co. As hard and fiercely as you can get hit there for copying and spreading a bit of political information, you can get hit here for copying and spreading a song, a picture, a poem. Both utilize censorship of _private_ information exchange in order to protect a unnatural prohibition against its own people for the benefit of a few "rights holders". They basically only differ in justification. Those evil pirates do not want their homecountries to engage in massive censorship and daily remind them of North Korea, and thus collectively keep engaging in passive resistance by ignoring censorship laws. The icing on the cake, and a definitive validation of their views, is the little cute pieces of hate propaganda that is always accompanying censorship regimes. The endlessly repeated 1984esque mantra "copying is stealing, duplicating is deleting, sharing is theft" , you and your ilk never get tired to repeat, perfectly fits that role. So keep repeating if you like, but consider that it may have a completely opposing effect on your target audience.

latch 16y ago
This seems like a personal attack wrapped in a reasonable response. I have no ilk, I'm not part of or affiliated with anyone or thing you seem to be implying. My personal belief is that information, though wanting to be free, can be owned just as sure as a loaf of bread or a kitchen sink. And people who own that information should be able to charge for and control the information how they want. Some information can cost billions to create, take decades and involve thousands of individuals. I do think that companies that make such investment must be allowed to profit from it. You make an interesting point about censorship, one I hadn't considered and will need to think more about. I see a difference between public information and private information. I think, after a certain period of time, private information should be forced public, but I'm talking decades. But again, this is a new perspective that I'll have to digest. But still, ur response came off pretty aggressive to me.

latch 16y ago

This seems like a personal attack wrapped in a reasonable response. I have no ilk, I'm not part of or affiliated with anyone or thing you seem to be implying. My personal belief is that information, though wanting to be free, can be owned just as sure as a loaf of bread or a kitchen sink. And people who own that information should be able to charge for and control the information how they want. Some information can cost billions to create, take decades and involve thousands of individuals. I do think that companies that make such investment must be allowed to profit from it. You make an interesting point about censorship, one I hadn't considered and will need to think more about. I see a difference between public information and private information. I think, after a certain period of time, private information should be forced public, but I'm talking decades. But again, this is a new perspective that I'll have to digest. But still, ur response came off pretty aggressive to me.