5 ms·

You couldn't be more wrong. You do not have an entitlement to intellectual property, our entire society is built on top of that concept. It's more like you're

You couldn't be more wrong. You do not have an entitlement to intellectual property, our entire society is built on top of that concept. It's more like you're saying you get to use any logos you want because you can download the images for them on their website. The only reason you can listen to a concert outside of the venue is because there's no way to stop you that's also in any way proportionate to the crime. Edit: I'm rate limited so here's a clarification. My point is that just because it's available doesn't mean you ought to have access to it. You do, no arguments there, but should you? No. You are not entitled to that media by virtue of the fact that it is available to you, much like you are not entitled to the contents of someone's home just because their door is unlocked. You're not satan if you download a TV show, but I hate it when people try to rationalize that behavior with a moral argument.

LeoNatan25 7y ago
> The only reason you can listen to a concert outside of the venue is because there's no way to stop you that's also in any way proportionate to the crime. As is stopping people from pirating. Where there is will, there is a way. The promise of Netflix was that virtually all content (or at least a very large percentage of it) would be there, under one subscription, at optimal quality. And convenience. As years have gone by, that promise is nothing but a husk (not necessarily by Netflix' wrong doing).
- diminoten 7y ago
  I agree, I don't think the individual pirates are ever going to be in any real trouble. HOWEVER, while it's impossible to find every person who improperly listened to a concert without paying for a ticket, it is not impossible to find every person who improperly obtained a video file for content they haven't paid for. Just something to keep in mind as we talk about this; you can actually find the people who did it, and there's actual (digital) evidence, if the government ever decides to change its mind on the issue. Let me be clear; I don't give a shit if someone pirates digital media. But I do think it's a personal failing of mine that I don't care. I do, in principle, believe in the concept of intellectual property, and I do, in principle, believe someone who owns an idea can decide to only give it to people who have paid. However, on a purely practical level, I cast no judgement towards anyone who violates that belief, even though I do understand that it does cause real, tangible harm.
  - LeoNatan25 7y ago
    I do also believe that a comprehensive intellectual property is necessary (not necessarily abolishing it), so I sleep soundly.
  - LinuxBender 7y ago
    Out of curiosity, do people only torrent, or is usenet still a thing? For the longest time, usenet providers would not log read access, only writes.
    - LeoNatan25 7y ago
      Usenet is still around, and there is content, but for archival purposes, torrents are still a lot more convenient. Years back, publishers started issuing take downs to Usenet provides on specific binary posts. So, as all cat&mouse games go, there were private NZB forums/sites which posted encrypted content and provided the key to members.
      - LinuxBender 7y ago
        Nice to hear it's still around. I suppose more folks would then use burner cards with VPS providers + torrent and just sftp down their loot. I can't imagine torrenting from home is safe.
      - tstrimple 7y ago
        I'm actually much happier with my usenet setup than I ever was with torrents. I use tools like Sonarr and Radarr to subscribe to and automatically download content from usenet. Since it's automatic, it's easier to pick up content before DMCA take down notices. Especially because usenet will allow me to use my full bandwidth instead of relying on a trickle from peers.
        LeoNatan25 7y ago
        It depends on the torrent tracker. I've settled down on several private ones, which normally max my 200mbps connection right away. The reason I prefer torrents is the back catalog. With Usenet, it was very difficult to find older content. Also, the content that is uploaded there is scene stuff, which for 15 years now, isn't the most quality stuff (technically). With torrents, the library is always there, and plenty of versions to choose from.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
baddox 7y ago
You seem to be confusing the idea of entitlement with simply having the ability to do something. It's perfectly possible to download copyrighted content while also not feeling entitled to that content. If I look for a torrent for some movie, and I can't find a torrent, I don't throw a fit, because I don't feel entitled to that movie. If I do find the torrent and download it, cool, that still doesn't mean that I feel entitled to it. People seem to label any actions they don't like as being an indicator of "entitlement," when that word actually has a pretty clear specific meaning. And yes, you're completely correct about the reason you can listen to a concert from outside, and that is also true of online copyright infringement. Remember the whole "suing grandmothers because their grandkids used Napster" thing? It wasn't even remotely proportionate, and it didn't go over well.
- jmastrangelo 7y ago
  He's not saying you're acting entitled towards the content, (ie you'll throw a fit if you can't pirate it). He's saying you're acting entitled towards being morally justified in downloading the content for free from a torrent site. It's perfectly possible to have an ability to do something and not be justified in doing it.
kempbellt 7y ago
Eh, we're in legalese grey area here. "Entitlement" is a loaded word. Personally, I believe that if I am walking down the street and someone is playing The Avengers on a screen, I'm very much entitled to stick around and watch the movie. The internet, to me, is the same thing as walking down that street - public space. Feel free to disagree though - the CCP does. Not to get into politics, but it's fundamentally similar. If I torrented a movie and then went to resell it in the public market, feel free to pursue legal charges. If I click a link and the movie downloads onto my computer, look for the person who uploaded it if you want someone to charge. Don't come at me for using the internet. The internet is a free market, or at least ought to be, if we're discussing what ought to be.
- LeoNatan25 7y ago
  Here’s the logical continuation of your analogy: If the movie is showing in the park for free, you can stick around and stand to watch it, but if there was a better service at a reasonable cost, you could go home and watch it there more comfortably.
  - diminoten 7y ago
    That's the rub; it's not showing in the park, because that's only possible if the park got permission. It's being shown in an alley
    - LeoNatan25 7y ago
      Works even better. You can stand in the dirty alley (with piss smell and dog poo) and watch it, or go home and watch it comfortable, if the price and service is right. Sure, some people will never go home (maybe they don't even have one), but most people will, given the right incentive.
      - diminoten 7y ago
        Works great, until you realize the "alley" is a metaphor for doing something that harms the content creators...
monocasa 7y ago
> You do not have an entitlement to intellectual property, our entire society is built on top of that concept. Our society is based on the idea that the public in fact does have an entitlement to all IP except trademarks. The Constitution is pretty clear that it's a limited monopoly that was originally 14 years for copyright. When that's been perverted so that "forever minus a day" is a limited copyright, then I don't feel the need to respect their property.
- diminoten 7y ago
  No it's not and no it doesn't. You are 100% wrong.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    [citation needed]
    - diminoten 7y ago
      > Our society is based on the idea that the public in fact does have an entitlement to all IP except trademarks. You need a citation to demonstrate that you aren't entitled, legally, to all IP? That's sad.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        The constitution literally describes IP as "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." with "for limited times" clause in many, many court cases being taken to mean that everything eventually enters the public domain. That's why the CPEA couldn't extend copyright indefinitely like originally planned as constitutionally it all must enter the public domain eventually. The "forever minus a day" thing is their dubious legal hack that's blatantly at odds with the constitution. None of this is really in question.
        diminoten 7y ago

LeoNatan25 7y ago

> The only reason you can listen to a concert outside of the venue is because there's no way to stop you that's also in any way proportionate to the crime. As is stopping people from pirating. Where there is will, there is a way. The promise of Netflix was that virtually all content (or at least a very large percentage of it) would be there, under one subscription, at optimal quality. And convenience. As years have gone by, that promise is nothing but a husk (not necessarily by Netflix' wrong doing).

diminoten 7y ago
I agree, I don't think the individual pirates are ever going to be in any real trouble. HOWEVER, while it's impossible to find every person who improperly listened to a concert without paying for a ticket, it is not impossible to find every person who improperly obtained a video file for content they haven't paid for. Just something to keep in mind as we talk about this; you can actually find the people who did it, and there's actual (digital) evidence, if the government ever decides to change its mind on the issue. Let me be clear; I don't give a shit if someone pirates digital media. But I do think it's a personal failing of mine that I don't care. I do, in principle, believe in the concept of intellectual property, and I do, in principle, believe someone who owns an idea can decide to only give it to people who have paid. However, on a purely practical level, I cast no judgement towards anyone who violates that belief, even though I do understand that it does cause real, tangible harm.
- LeoNatan25 7y ago
  I do also believe that a comprehensive intellectual property is necessary (not necessarily abolishing it), so I sleep soundly.
- LinuxBender 7y ago
  Out of curiosity, do people only torrent, or is usenet still a thing? For the longest time, usenet providers would not log read access, only writes.
  - LeoNatan25 7y ago
    Usenet is still around, and there is content, but for archival purposes, torrents are still a lot more convenient. Years back, publishers started issuing take downs to Usenet provides on specific binary posts. So, as all cat&mouse games go, there were private NZB forums/sites which posted encrypted content and provided the key to members.
    - LinuxBender 7y ago
      Nice to hear it's still around. I suppose more folks would then use burner cards with VPS providers + torrent and just sftp down their loot. I can't imagine torrenting from home is safe.
    - tstrimple 7y ago
      I'm actually much happier with my usenet setup than I ever was with torrents. I use tools like Sonarr and Radarr to subscribe to and automatically download content from usenet. Since it's automatic, it's easier to pick up content before DMCA take down notices. Especially because usenet will allow me to use my full bandwidth instead of relying on a trickle from peers.
      - LeoNatan25 7y ago
        It depends on the torrent tracker. I've settled down on several private ones, which normally max my 200mbps connection right away. The reason I prefer torrents is the back catalog. With Usenet, it was very difficult to find older content. Also, the content that is uploaded there is scene stuff, which for 15 years now, isn't the most quality stuff (technically). With torrents, the library is always there, and plenty of versions to choose from.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

baddox 7y ago

You seem to be confusing the idea of entitlement with simply having the ability to do something. It's perfectly possible to download copyrighted content while also not feeling entitled to that content. If I look for a torrent for some movie, and I can't find a torrent, I don't throw a fit, because I don't feel entitled to that movie. If I do find the torrent and download it, cool, that still doesn't mean that I feel entitled to it. People seem to label any actions they don't like as being an indicator of "entitlement," when that word actually has a pretty clear specific meaning. And yes, you're completely correct about the reason you can listen to a concert from outside, and that is also true of online copyright infringement. Remember the whole "suing grandmothers because their grandkids used Napster" thing? It wasn't even remotely proportionate, and it didn't go over well.

jmastrangelo 7y ago
He's not saying you're acting entitled towards the content, (ie you'll throw a fit if you can't pirate it). He's saying you're acting entitled towards being morally justified in downloading the content for free from a torrent site. It's perfectly possible to have an ability to do something and not be justified in doing it.

kempbellt 7y ago

Eh, we're in legalese grey area here. "Entitlement" is a loaded word. Personally, I believe that if I am walking down the street and someone is playing The Avengers on a screen, I'm very much entitled to stick around and watch the movie. The internet, to me, is the same thing as walking down that street - public space. Feel free to disagree though - the CCP does. Not to get into politics, but it's fundamentally similar. If I torrented a movie and then went to resell it in the public market, feel free to pursue legal charges. If I click a link and the movie downloads onto my computer, look for the person who uploaded it if you want someone to charge. Don't come at me for using the internet. The internet is a free market, or at least ought to be, if we're discussing what ought to be.

LeoNatan25 7y ago
Here’s the logical continuation of your analogy: If the movie is showing in the park for free, you can stick around and stand to watch it, but if there was a better service at a reasonable cost, you could go home and watch it there more comfortably.
- diminoten 7y ago
  That's the rub; it's not showing in the park, because that's only possible if the park got permission. It's being shown in an alley
  - LeoNatan25 7y ago
    Works even better. You can stand in the dirty alley (with piss smell and dog poo) and watch it, or go home and watch it comfortable, if the price and service is right. Sure, some people will never go home (maybe they don't even have one), but most people will, given the right incentive.
    - diminoten 7y ago
      Works great, until you realize the "alley" is a metaphor for doing something that harms the content creators...

monocasa 7y ago

> You do not have an entitlement to intellectual property, our entire society is built on top of that concept. Our society is based on the idea that the public in fact does have an entitlement to all IP except trademarks. The Constitution is pretty clear that it's a limited monopoly that was originally 14 years for copyright. When that's been perverted so that "forever minus a day" is a limited copyright, then I don't feel the need to respect their property.

diminoten 7y ago
No it's not and no it doesn't. You are 100% wrong.
- monocasa 7y ago
  [citation needed]
  - diminoten 7y ago
    > Our society is based on the idea that the public in fact does have an entitlement to all IP except trademarks. You need a citation to demonstrate that you aren't entitled, legally, to all IP? That's sad.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      The constitution literally describes IP as "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." with "for limited times" clause in many, many court cases being taken to mean that everything eventually enters the public domain. That's why the CPEA couldn't extend copyright indefinitely like originally planned as constitutionally it all must enter the public domain eventually. The "forever minus a day" thing is their dubious legal hack that's blatantly at odds with the constitution. None of this is really in question.
      - diminoten 7y ago