5 ms·

> Pirates rob ships in the see and use guns for that purpose I presume. What a web site providing access to the music has to do with it? "Piracy" has been a te

> Pirates rob ships in the see and use guns for that purpose I presume. What a web site providing access to the music has to do with it? "Piracy" has been a term of art in the copyright world for over 100 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyrightpirates.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyrightpirates.jpg > Is it a property at all if the usage of it is limited? If you buy a copy of a book, you are not eligible to reprint that book and sell it yourself. There are limits on what folks can do with copyrighted works they buy. It might be worth reading, for instance, about the American concept of first-sale doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

betterunix2 5y ago
"Piracy" has been a propaganda term in the copyright world... FTFY
- 123pie123 5y ago
  Piracy implies theft and sounds more serious; where as copyright infringement does not sounds as exciting... (from wikipedia...) Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works Theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
- akomtu 5y ago
  The correct term is probably greed: not giving back to the author of music, movie, software you use. But greed is also the foundation of our economy, so copyright owners had to come up with a different word.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    Copyrights have very little to do with paying content creators. From the very first copyright law (the Statute of Anne) it was about securing profits for the industry, who invariably give only a tiny slice of those profits, if anything, to the content creators. Hollywood studios are famous for trying to screw actors, screenwriters, and others out of their share of blockbuster movie profits. Likewise with the music industry -- most musicians do not make anything close to enough money on record sales (or the modern equivalent) to live on, even as the studios themselves bring in vast sums of money. So in a sense you are right, "greed" is the operative word -- not on the part of people who download, but on the part of the people who benefit most from the copyright system.
lovelyviking 5y ago
It's unclear why 'monopoly over making copies' is called in your comment by confusing term 'copyright'. Why something that is not 'right' and cannot exist as 'right' called by this strange term? How one can have 'right' over what others do? May be you can explain also that? If such 'right' even exist then it belongs to people who wish to make copy of something isn't it? It's hard to see why how and who on earth is entitled to prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy as long as a person who makes copy doesn't present such copy as original.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Copyright is as much a "right" as mineral rights are a "right." It is just a system for regulating a particular industry. Don't make the mistake of thinking that all "rights" are "natural rights."
  - quadrangle 5y ago
    No rights are "natural rights".
- lelandfe 5y ago
  > It's hard to see why how and who on earth is entitled to prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy The how and who are easy: the Constitution[0], and the American government. The why is trickier, but the idea at least is that restricting copies means more people buy the "real" thing, which means more money goes to the owner, and creators are therefore more incentivized to make and copyright things in America. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
  - kmeisthax 5y ago
    The "why" is that distribution is always cheaper than production of creative works. In other words, people who make new works are stuck with all the costs, while people who sell copies get all the profit. This also tends to be an asymmetric relationship: creators tend to be individuals while publishers tend to be large corporate enterprises with the ability and know-how to bury you. Copyright exists to force publishers to negotiate with creators that would otherwise have no leverage[0]. The idea that copies are supposed to be scarce is an invention of Disney marketing, and I'd argue contrary to the spirit of the law. The stated purpose of copyright is to increase the amount of works on the market (by giving creators some negotiating leverage with publishers), not to make individual copies more valuable. That's just a side effect, one that is supposed to be bounded by limited term lengths[1]. [0] For those wondering, this is also what drove copyright harmonization over the last century. Any difference in law between countries creates an avenue for publishers to find a way to cheat creators. Before the era of international copyright it was quite common for publishers to race creators to foreign markets, since translation was not yet an exclusive right of the creator and most countries did not recognize each other's copyright interests. [1] Please stop laughing. I know life+70 is practically forever.
lovelyviking 5y ago
>"Piracy" has been a term of art in the copyright world for over 100 years. So if it's long enough it assumes it's correct? Hard to see logical connection there. In our power to reconsider false and confusing terminology.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  > In our power to reconsider false and confusing terminology. Is it? Framing a conversation through word connotation is a very powerful, and oft used, political tool. It isn't necessarily within your power to control it when stronger political and social forces are pushing it in other directions.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  > So if it's long enough it assumes it's correct Sure, that's a good enough of a descriptivist basis for a definition to be "correct." I'd wager most folks on here don't see the name "The Pirate Bay" and question what it has to do with literal seafaring scallywags.
  - mountainboy 5y ago
    counterpoint. I do. every time. Using the term "pirate" or "piracy" for copyright infringement annoys the hell out of me.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      You don’t question it because of actual confusion. You’re questioning it because you want to question it each time you come across it. Makes sense. It is an issue for you.
- Levitz 5y ago
  >So if it's long enough it assumes it's correct? Hard to see logical connection there. Well... Yes? That's how words work, really. If enough people agree a word means something, then it does.

betterunix2 5y ago

"Piracy" has been a propaganda term in the copyright world... FTFY

123pie123 5y ago
Piracy implies theft and sounds more serious; where as copyright infringement does not sounds as exciting... (from wikipedia...) Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works Theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
akomtu 5y ago
The correct term is probably greed: not giving back to the author of music, movie, software you use. But greed is also the foundation of our economy, so copyright owners had to come up with a different word.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Copyrights have very little to do with paying content creators. From the very first copyright law (the Statute of Anne) it was about securing profits for the industry, who invariably give only a tiny slice of those profits, if anything, to the content creators. Hollywood studios are famous for trying to screw actors, screenwriters, and others out of their share of blockbuster movie profits. Likewise with the music industry -- most musicians do not make anything close to enough money on record sales (or the modern equivalent) to live on, even as the studios themselves bring in vast sums of money. So in a sense you are right, "greed" is the operative word -- not on the part of people who download, but on the part of the people who benefit most from the copyright system.

lovelyviking 5y ago

It's unclear why 'monopoly over making copies' is called in your comment by confusing term 'copyright'. Why something that is not 'right' and cannot exist as 'right' called by this strange term? How one can have 'right' over what others do? May be you can explain also that? If such 'right' even exist then it belongs to people who wish to make copy of something isn't it? It's hard to see why how and who on earth is entitled to prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy as long as a person who makes copy doesn't present such copy as original.

betterunix2 5y ago
Copyright is as much a "right" as mineral rights are a "right." It is just a system for regulating a particular industry. Don't make the mistake of thinking that all "rights" are "natural rights."
- quadrangle 5y ago
  No rights are "natural rights".
lelandfe 5y ago
> It's hard to see why how and who on earth is entitled to prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy The how and who are easy: the Constitution[0], and the American government. The why is trickier, but the idea at least is that restricting copies means more people buy the "real" thing, which means more money goes to the owner, and creators are therefore more incentivized to make and copyright things in America. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  The "why" is that distribution is always cheaper than production of creative works. In other words, people who make new works are stuck with all the costs, while people who sell copies get all the profit. This also tends to be an asymmetric relationship: creators tend to be individuals while publishers tend to be large corporate enterprises with the ability and know-how to bury you. Copyright exists to force publishers to negotiate with creators that would otherwise have no leverage[0]. The idea that copies are supposed to be scarce is an invention of Disney marketing, and I'd argue contrary to the spirit of the law. The stated purpose of copyright is to increase the amount of works on the market (by giving creators some negotiating leverage with publishers), not to make individual copies more valuable. That's just a side effect, one that is supposed to be bounded by limited term lengths[1]. [0] For those wondering, this is also what drove copyright harmonization over the last century. Any difference in law between countries creates an avenue for publishers to find a way to cheat creators. Before the era of international copyright it was quite common for publishers to race creators to foreign markets, since translation was not yet an exclusive right of the creator and most countries did not recognize each other's copyright interests. [1] Please stop laughing. I know life+70 is practically forever.

lovelyviking 5y ago

>"Piracy" has been a term of art in the copyright world for over 100 years. So if it's long enough it assumes it's correct? Hard to see logical connection there. In our power to reconsider false and confusing terminology.

technothrasher 5y ago
> In our power to reconsider false and confusing terminology. Is it? Framing a conversation through word connotation is a very powerful, and oft used, political tool. It isn't necessarily within your power to control it when stronger political and social forces are pushing it in other directions.
lelandfe 5y ago
> So if it's long enough it assumes it's correct Sure, that's a good enough of a descriptivist basis for a definition to be "correct." I'd wager most folks on here don't see the name "The Pirate Bay" and question what it has to do with literal seafaring scallywags.
- mountainboy 5y ago
  counterpoint. I do. every time. Using the term "pirate" or "piracy" for copyright infringement annoys the hell out of me.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    You don’t question it because of actual confusion. You’re questioning it because you want to question it each time you come across it. Makes sense. It is an issue for you.
Levitz 5y ago
>So if it's long enough it assumes it's correct? Hard to see logical connection there. Well... Yes? That's how words work, really. If enough people agree a word means something, then it does.