4 ms·

Given that this is a time of emergency, I think that definitely a good argument can be made for relaxing copyright laws. That said, many commenters on this subj

Given that this is a time of emergency, I think that definitely a good argument can be made for relaxing copyright laws. That said, many commenters on this subject are extending the discussion into a general discussion on the value of copyright, and there I cannot fully agree with the notion that copyright is a bad thing. I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy) but one difference between me and many other pirates is that I know that I am sometimes hurting people when I pirate. I don't try to console myself with ideological contrivances designed to help me avoid feeling responsibility for causing harm to others.

techsupporter 7y ago
> I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy)... I’m not sure what you mean here; how do you try? Pirating content instead of paying for it is rather binary: you either paid the requested charge for it and obtained it in line with the mechanism the author or creator used to sell it...or you didn’t. If you have no option to pay because the creator didn’t make one available to you, that’s still piracy, isn’t it? If you respect copyright, and presumably a creator’s ability to make money off of their creations (within time limits, which I firmly believe are way too long in most of the world), I think there’s not much grey in this area. As a wise philosopher once said, there isn’t really a “try” here, in my view. You either paid or you didn’t. So, why not not pirating? Am I off-base?
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  Sometimes digital copies of things just aren't for sale, but I still want them.
- axguscbklp 7y ago
  I agree that pirating vs. not pirating a given item of content is rather binary. What I mean by "I try to limit my piracy" is that I try not to pirate too many distinct items of content.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  I think I get what the OP meant, or at least I have my interpretation of it. I used to be fairly blasé about pirating software, justifying it with the belief that the prices were just too high. I came to believe that was really a pretty weak justification. I went through a somewhat similar change of belief later when it came to video; it's easy to talk yourself into the belief that copying TV shows and movies for free is somehow a strike against big corporations, but unless you're up for entirely reinventing the way our economy works, at the end of the day somebody really does have to pay for those shows and movies to be created, and pirating them is essentially declaring "I want to enjoy this work, I just want somebody else to pay for me doing so." But: There are cases where you might want to give your money to a creator or publisher and you literally can't. Up until a few years ago, no amount of money would have been able to get you the whole series of WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, especially with the original music, for instance. The soundtrack for The Last Unicorn was never released on CD anywhere but Germany, as far as I can tell, and it's become a rare, expensive collector's item. There are hundreds of TV shows like this, thousands of movies, thousands of records, thousands of novels, thousands of programs -- and I'm probably vastly underestimating each of those categories. Their analog releases, if they were ever made, are long out of print and they were never officially released digitally. And, I'll admit, in those cases I'm perfectly okay with piracy. The rights holder either can't or won't release it, and you can't get it legally. One can argue in such a case you'd have a moral obligation to buy an official release if and when it's made, perhaps, but that may never happen. If what
kiba 7y ago
I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy) but one difference between me and many other pirates is that I know that I am sometimes hurting people when I pirate. Question: Is losing a sale when it would otherwise be necessarily a moral harm?
- axguscbklp 7y ago
  Probably not necessarily, since content creators who are already rich don't really see their lives much affected by piracy. But content creators who are not rich need to sell product in order to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, so in that case yes, as far as I can tell, there is a moral harm.
- KarlKemp 7y ago
  If piracy could be limited to cases where people would not have bought the work in question, that would be ideal. You’d get fanatical support from creators who, after all, do enjoy people reading their work. But that’s just not realistic, is it? There are schemes that approximate this, using price discrimination. Libraries are among them, allowing people to read works for free or nearly free by investing the time and/or inconvenience. The staggered release of expensive hard-bound and cheaper paperback editions serve the same purpose.
JadeNB 7y ago
Not to be rude, but so what? If piracy causes harm, do you think it makes any difference to the victims of that harm whether you know that you are causing that harm, or are consoling yourself with ideological contrivances?
- axguscbklp 7y ago
  >do you think it makes any difference to the victims of that harm whether you know that you are causing that harm, or are consoling yourself with ideological contrivances No, it makes no difference at all as far as I can tell, except in the probably irrelevant sense that my dislike of justifying my piracy might have some small influence upon others. I made my initial comment mainly because I wished to explore the question of how much anti-copyright rhetoric is actually based on selfish ulterior motives rather than on principled ideology.

techsupporter 7y ago

> I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy)... I’m not sure what you mean here; how do you try? Pirating content instead of paying for it is rather binary: you either paid the requested charge for it and obtained it in line with the mechanism the author or creator used to sell it...or you didn’t. If you have no option to pay because the creator didn’t make one available to you, that’s still piracy, isn’t it? If you respect copyright, and presumably a creator’s ability to make money off of their creations (within time limits, which I firmly believe are way too long in most of the world), I think there’s not much grey in this area. As a wise philosopher once said, there isn’t really a “try” here, in my view. You either paid or you didn’t. So, why not not pirating? Am I off-base?

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
Sometimes digital copies of things just aren't for sale, but I still want them.
axguscbklp 7y ago
I agree that pirating vs. not pirating a given item of content is rather binary. What I mean by "I try to limit my piracy" is that I try not to pirate too many distinct items of content.
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
I think I get what the OP meant, or at least I have my interpretation of it. I used to be fairly blasé about pirating software, justifying it with the belief that the prices were just too high. I came to believe that was really a pretty weak justification. I went through a somewhat similar change of belief later when it came to video; it's easy to talk yourself into the belief that copying TV shows and movies for free is somehow a strike against big corporations, but unless you're up for entirely reinventing the way our economy works, at the end of the day somebody really does have to pay for those shows and movies to be created, and pirating them is essentially declaring "I want to enjoy this work, I just want somebody else to pay for me doing so." But: There are cases where you might want to give your money to a creator or publisher and you literally can't. Up until a few years ago, no amount of money would have been able to get you the whole series of WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, especially with the original music, for instance. The soundtrack for The Last Unicorn was never released on CD anywhere but Germany, as far as I can tell, and it's become a rare, expensive collector's item. There are hundreds of TV shows like this, thousands of movies, thousands of records, thousands of novels, thousands of programs -- and I'm probably vastly underestimating each of those categories. Their analog releases, if they were ever made, are long out of print and they were never officially released digitally. And, I'll admit, in those cases I'm perfectly okay with piracy. The rights holder either can't or won't release it, and you can't get it legally. One can argue in such a case you'd have a moral obligation to buy an official release if and when it's made, perhaps, but that may never happen. If what

kiba 7y ago

I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy) but one difference between me and many other pirates is that I know that I am sometimes hurting people when I pirate. Question: Is losing a sale when it would otherwise be necessarily a moral harm?

axguscbklp 7y ago
Probably not necessarily, since content creators who are already rich don't really see their lives much affected by piracy. But content creators who are not rich need to sell product in order to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, so in that case yes, as far as I can tell, there is a moral harm.
KarlKemp 7y ago
If piracy could be limited to cases where people would not have bought the work in question, that would be ideal. You’d get fanatical support from creators who, after all, do enjoy people reading their work. But that’s just not realistic, is it? There are schemes that approximate this, using price discrimination. Libraries are among them, allowing people to read works for free or nearly free by investing the time and/or inconvenience. The staggered release of expensive hard-bound and cheaper paperback editions serve the same purpose.

JadeNB 7y ago

Not to be rude, but so what? If piracy causes harm, do you think it makes any difference to the victims of that harm whether you know that you are causing that harm, or are consoling yourself with ideological contrivances?

axguscbklp 7y ago
>do you think it makes any difference to the victims of that harm whether you know that you are causing that harm, or are consoling yourself with ideological contrivances No, it makes no difference at all as far as I can tell, except in the probably irrelevant sense that my dislike of justifying my piracy might have some small influence upon others. I made my initial comment mainly because I wished to explore the question of how much anti-copyright rhetoric is actually based on selfish ulterior motives rather than on principled ideology.