5 ms·

I think calling copyright infringement stealing is a hyperbole. They are very different things. Sometimes it's more than an inconvenience, though. At the presen

by aflag 6y ago

I think calling copyright infringement stealing is a hyperbole. They are very different things. Sometimes it's more than an inconvenience, though. At the present moment in time, I have no way to legally watch all but 3 Rick and Morty's episodes from the latest season (episodes 6, 7 and 8). And that's a brand new show. Don't get me started on older movies/tv shows. We have the technology to allow everyone to have access to any film produced that we still have available in some format, but the distributors/copyright holders just can't organise themselves to make this happen, but instead give us a broken experience. I see projects like popcorn time pushing the boundaries a little bit, trying to make the problem evident. I, for one, would like to see the copyright law reviewed. It could require you to pay part of the profits from the derivative work to copyright holders, but not give the copyright holder the power to prevent you from distributing it, for instance. That could would allow netflix, apple tv, etc to have pretty much whatever they wanted in their collection.

hashkb 6y ago
How do you figure you're entitled to watch everything that's ever been released? There's no precedent for that. Even taping with a VCR was in the gray area. You had to buy every movie individually, and that was really just a personal viewing license.
- qntty 6y ago
  How do you figure that media companies are entitled to wield the power of the state in a way that doesn't create an institution of intellectual property that makes the world better for everyone?
  - hashkb 6y ago
    It's not the power of the state, it's the power of a private entertainment business. You could choose to only watch open/free media like many of us do with software. It's out there. > in a way that doesn't create an institution of intellectual property that makes the world better for everyone? That question is loaded with your opinion (in particular the opinion I was suggesting is baseless) and so isn't really an answer at all... you want the world your way, I'm asking, beyond your opinion that it's "better for everyone" (ignoring artists, I guess), why you seem to think there's an issue of right/wrong here.
    - qntty 6y ago
      Intellectual property exists as it does because it was created that way by the state.
      - hashkb 6y ago
        But you can't just ignore the reason... and "the state" created ways to protect intellectual property (at least in some significant part if not entirely) because creators wanted it. You can't ignore the fact that most creators are in favor of the general idea of copyright.
- aflag 6y ago
  I didn't say you shouldn't pay for it. My suggestion was to compensate the copyright holder, just reduce their power over their creation. Currently, you need the copyright holder to agree upon you releasing their work. It doesn't need to be like that. The copyright holder can still be compensated even if they can't stop you from publishing their stuff.
  - hashkb 6y ago
    > It doesn't need to be like that. The copyright holder can still be compensated even if they can't stop you from publishing their stuff. But on your terms instead of theirs? Why would you want to reduce my power of my creation? Won't that have a chilling effect on what I produce? Can't I charge whatever price I see fit for my own work? If I were a chef, and it were possible for you to duplicate food, would you apply the same reasoning to my infinitely duplicated meals? I should be paid, but have no leverage myself in how / how much? Edit: and let's say I have a valid reason for not wanting to cook for you, in particular; that choice also should be taken away from me? How do you see the role of artists in our society? Assembly line workers, churning out art for mass consumption?
    - aflag 6y ago
      It's not my terms vs their terms. The terms are ours. We, as a society, decided that creators have full monopolistic power over their creation for a certain number of years. It doesn't need to be that way, though. Society can weigh the pros and cons and decide. I don't pretend to have figured everything out, but the rate publishers pay creators doesn't need to be fixed. As long as exclusivity contracts are not allowed (including self publishing). I think we should be experimenting, though. If the rules change and the end result is that there's less content (or of lower quality), then it could be a justification to go back to the old system. We won't know if we don't try. Taking your food example. If we had a way to duplicate food for free, it would suck if anyone is starving or having to eat the same thing everyday because of our laws. We have the power to losslessly copy data now, we should be taking advantage of it rather than outlawing it.
michaelmior 6y ago
I disagree that it's hyperbole, but I can understand your argument. And it is debatable whether downloading through unauthorized channels is actually taking anything from the original creator. However, I don't think content creators have an obligation to make their content universally available. I do feel as though I should limit myself to whatever avenues of distribution the creator has decided on. If that means I can't access the content at all, so be it. I think the same about Sci-Hub although it's easy for me to say since I'm fortunate enough to be employed by an institution that gives me access to the vast majority of articles I would want anyway.

by aflag 6y ago

hashkb 6y ago

How do you figure you're entitled to watch everything that's ever been released? There's no precedent for that. Even taping with a VCR was in the gray area. You had to buy every movie individually, and that was really just a personal viewing license.

qntty 6y ago
How do you figure that media companies are entitled to wield the power of the state in a way that doesn't create an institution of intellectual property that makes the world better for everyone?
- hashkb 6y ago
  It's not the power of the state, it's the power of a private entertainment business. You could choose to only watch open/free media like many of us do with software. It's out there. > in a way that doesn't create an institution of intellectual property that makes the world better for everyone? That question is loaded with your opinion (in particular the opinion I was suggesting is baseless) and so isn't really an answer at all... you want the world your way, I'm asking, beyond your opinion that it's "better for everyone" (ignoring artists, I guess), why you seem to think there's an issue of right/wrong here.
  - qntty 6y ago
    Intellectual property exists as it does because it was created that way by the state.
    - hashkb 6y ago
      But you can't just ignore the reason... and "the state" created ways to protect intellectual property (at least in some significant part if not entirely) because creators wanted it. You can't ignore the fact that most creators are in favor of the general idea of copyright.
aflag 6y ago
I didn't say you shouldn't pay for it. My suggestion was to compensate the copyright holder, just reduce their power over their creation. Currently, you need the copyright holder to agree upon you releasing their work. It doesn't need to be like that. The copyright holder can still be compensated even if they can't stop you from publishing their stuff.
- hashkb 6y ago
  > It doesn't need to be like that. The copyright holder can still be compensated even if they can't stop you from publishing their stuff. But on your terms instead of theirs? Why would you want to reduce my power of my creation? Won't that have a chilling effect on what I produce? Can't I charge whatever price I see fit for my own work? If I were a chef, and it were possible for you to duplicate food, would you apply the same reasoning to my infinitely duplicated meals? I should be paid, but have no leverage myself in how / how much? Edit: and let's say I have a valid reason for not wanting to cook for you, in particular; that choice also should be taken away from me? How do you see the role of artists in our society? Assembly line workers, churning out art for mass consumption?
  - aflag 6y ago
    It's not my terms vs their terms. The terms are ours. We, as a society, decided that creators have full monopolistic power over their creation for a certain number of years. It doesn't need to be that way, though. Society can weigh the pros and cons and decide. I don't pretend to have figured everything out, but the rate publishers pay creators doesn't need to be fixed. As long as exclusivity contracts are not allowed (including self publishing). I think we should be experimenting, though. If the rules change and the end result is that there's less content (or of lower quality), then it could be a justification to go back to the old system. We won't know if we don't try. Taking your food example. If we had a way to duplicate food for free, it would suck if anyone is starving or having to eat the same thing everyday because of our laws. We have the power to losslessly copy data now, we should be taking advantage of it rather than outlawing it.

michaelmior 6y ago

I disagree that it's hyperbole, but I can understand your argument. And it is debatable whether downloading through unauthorized channels is actually taking anything from the original creator. However, I don't think content creators have an obligation to make their content universally available. I do feel as though I should limit myself to whatever avenues of distribution the creator has decided on. If that means I can't access the content at all, so be it. I think the same about Sci-Hub although it's easy for me to say since I'm fortunate enough to be employed by an institution that gives me access to the vast majority of articles I would want anyway.