4 ms·

Copying isn't stealing. If I made a perfect double of your car based on a picture of it, and you didn't lose your car, there is literally no way you can make th

by kick 6y ago

Copying isn't stealing. If I made a perfect double of your car based on a picture of it, and you didn't lose your car, there is literally no way you can make that out to be bad. Your analogy falls flat on its face and chokes to death before it accomplishes anything.

xhkkffbf 6y ago
No. As I said above, it doesn't matter whether the word is "stealing" or "blajeidmjdels". The authors can't eat if they aren't paid. Now fill out the form and opt out or I'm going to feel completely good about taking your car.
- kick 6y ago
  Tell me, though, if the person doesn't take your car, doesn't take literally any asset from you, and just copies your car, how's that taking your car? Though I have to point out you seemingly ignored my other question, so I'm not sure how much good this one'll do.
  - xhkkffbf 6y ago
    No. You're ignoring the reality that digital assets aren't like cars. Close to 100% of the cost of creating a book, movie or song lies in the creation not the duplication. If all of the audience copies it for free instead of buying it, the creator makes nothing. It has ZERO to do with whether the book store is deprived of the use of the copy. It has everything to do with whether the creation costs are split evenly amoungst the users. Here's an assignment for you: imagine writing a book or creating a movie. Now imagine that everyone pirates a digital version instead of paying you. Do you feel okay because no one deprived you of your original copy? Or are you depressed because everyone is using your work but not paying you what you asked?
    - kick 6y ago
      You're ignoring the reality that digital assets aren't like cars. You made a stupid analogy, I called you out on your stupid analogy. Close to 100% of the cost of creating a book, movie or song lies in the creation Correct. not the duplication. Exactly! Duplication costs nothing and as such should be free to all. If all of the audience copies it for free instead of buying it, the creator makes nothing. This never happens, and you'd have to have the strangest mindset to believe it does. I've got three bookshelves stocked with nothing more than CC-licensed hard copies of books. (I actually just spent $200 acquiring a mint copy of one that was particularly special to me as a child a couple of weeks ago.) It has ZERO to do with whether the book store is deprived of the use of the copy. Then maybe you shouldn't have made such a ridiculous analogy. It has everything to do with whether the creation costs are split evenly amoungst (sic) the users. Costs shouldn't be distributed evenly: people who can pay more should pay more, and people who can't pay at all shouldn't pay. Here's an assignment for you: imagine writing a book or creating a movie. Sure. I'd argue that books are objectively more valuable than movies, but you're obviously not taking this at any level but the most superficial. Now imagine that everyone pirates a digital version instead of paying you. Completely unlikely[1], and also ignoring that theater sales are where movies actually get the majority of their revenue, but sure. [1] It's actually impossible, because the pirated copy had to come from somewhere. Do you feel okay because no one deprived you of your original copy? I'd recommend looking up Drew DeVault's words on this topic. He recently wrote a book, was receiving reasonable royalties from it, all the while it was licensed under a CC license. Or are you depressed because everyone is using your work but not paying you what you asked? People don't have a right to a business model, and if we're making decisions on levels of depression now, I declare that the idea of hypercapitalist nonsense like you're advocating for and that the current intellectual property system defends is depressing to me, and we have to change it now to something that supports authors (or, radical idea, everyone) while also not robbing the public of information.
      - xhkkffbf 6y ago
        You say it never happens? But it does. And even if it's not 100% theft, the author is still hurt by 50% theft. This is not hypercapitalism. It's hyperfairness. We all have a right to control our work and how it is used by the world. If you don't want to buy my book, write your own.
RodgerTheGreat 6y ago
If the value of the car to the owner is derived from its scarcity, then making more copies of that car available will, from a certain way of thinking, harm the owner (from their perspective). If you own a jaguar because you love to drive it, more jaguars on the road seems neutral to good. If you own a jaguar because it demonstrates that you can afford it and others cannot, more jaguars on the road seems bad. The root of this difference is whether a personal value system is based on the sum of utility- how many people are happy, and how much- versus the spread of utility- how much better off I am compared to my neighbors. Much of present human culture publicly praises the former- collectivism which "raises all ships"- while individuals quietly optimize their personal advantage, and cry outrage at policies which they perceive as allowing others to "close in" on their own standard of living. This tendency toward zero-sum thinking- and the resistance to social progress it creates- is a troubling problem.
- kick 6y ago
  I forgot to mention this when I added your post to my favorites a few hours ago: I really appreciated this response! Thanks for giving it.

by kick 6y ago

xhkkffbf 6y ago

No. As I said above, it doesn't matter whether the word is "stealing" or "blajeidmjdels". The authors can't eat if they aren't paid. Now fill out the form and opt out or I'm going to feel completely good about taking your car.

kick 6y ago
Tell me, though, if the person doesn't take your car, doesn't take literally any asset from you, and just copies your car, how's that taking your car? Though I have to point out you seemingly ignored my other question, so I'm not sure how much good this one'll do.
- xhkkffbf 6y ago
  No. You're ignoring the reality that digital assets aren't like cars. Close to 100% of the cost of creating a book, movie or song lies in the creation not the duplication. If all of the audience copies it for free instead of buying it, the creator makes nothing. It has ZERO to do with whether the book store is deprived of the use of the copy. It has everything to do with whether the creation costs are split evenly amoungst the users. Here's an assignment for you: imagine writing a book or creating a movie. Now imagine that everyone pirates a digital version instead of paying you. Do you feel okay because no one deprived you of your original copy? Or are you depressed because everyone is using your work but not paying you what you asked?
  - kick 6y ago
    You're ignoring the reality that digital assets aren't like cars. You made a stupid analogy, I called you out on your stupid analogy. Close to 100% of the cost of creating a book, movie or song lies in the creation Correct. not the duplication. Exactly! Duplication costs nothing and as such should be free to all. If all of the audience copies it for free instead of buying it, the creator makes nothing. This never happens, and you'd have to have the strangest mindset to believe it does. I've got three bookshelves stocked with nothing more than CC-licensed hard copies of books. (I actually just spent $200 acquiring a mint copy of one that was particularly special to me as a child a couple of weeks ago.) It has ZERO to do with whether the book store is deprived of the use of the copy. Then maybe you shouldn't have made such a ridiculous analogy. It has everything to do with whether the creation costs are split evenly amoungst (sic) the users. Costs shouldn't be distributed evenly: people who can pay more should pay more, and people who can't pay at all shouldn't pay. Here's an assignment for you: imagine writing a book or creating a movie. Sure. I'd argue that books are objectively more valuable than movies, but you're obviously not taking this at any level but the most superficial. Now imagine that everyone pirates a digital version instead of paying you. Completely unlikely[1], and also ignoring that theater sales are where movies actually get the majority of their revenue, but sure. [1] It's actually impossible, because the pirated copy had to come from somewhere. Do you feel okay because no one deprived you of your original copy? I'd recommend looking up Drew DeVault's words on this topic. He recently wrote a book, was receiving reasonable royalties from it, all the while it was licensed under a CC license. Or are you depressed because everyone is using your work but not paying you what you asked? People don't have a right to a business model, and if we're making decisions on levels of depression now, I declare that the idea of hypercapitalist nonsense like you're advocating for and that the current intellectual property system defends is depressing to me, and we have to change it now to something that supports authors (or, radical idea, everyone) while also not robbing the public of information.
    - xhkkffbf 6y ago
      You say it never happens? But it does. And even if it's not 100% theft, the author is still hurt by 50% theft. This is not hypercapitalism. It's hyperfairness. We all have a right to control our work and how it is used by the world. If you don't want to buy my book, write your own.

RodgerTheGreat 6y ago

If the value of the car to the owner is derived from its scarcity, then making more copies of that car available will, from a certain way of thinking, harm the owner (from their perspective). If you own a jaguar because you love to drive it, more jaguars on the road seems neutral to good. If you own a jaguar because it demonstrates that you can afford it and others cannot, more jaguars on the road seems bad. The root of this difference is whether a personal value system is based on the sum of utility- how many people are happy, and how much- versus the spread of utility- how much better off I am compared to my neighbors. Much of present human culture publicly praises the former- collectivism which "raises all ships"- while individuals quietly optimize their personal advantage, and cry outrage at policies which they perceive as allowing others to "close in" on their own standard of living. This tendency toward zero-sum thinking- and the resistance to social progress it creates- is a troubling problem.

kick 6y ago
I forgot to mention this when I added your post to my favorites a few hours ago: I really appreciated this response! Thanks for giving it.