3 ms·

I think I'm more anti-piracy than the average person and despite bitwize being downvoted to oblivion, they are right. You aren't entitled to anything anyone cre

I think I'm more anti-piracy than the average person and despite bitwize being downvoted to oblivion, they are right. You aren't entitled to anything anyone creates. However, piracy is also 100% a service problem that has been exacerbated by everyone creating their own streaming services and I'm actually really curious how Amazon, Netflix, and Disney get away with "exclusive content." The US vs Paramount Pictures[1] decided that you can't have exclusive theaters that are owned by production companies yet it is entirely fine if they have streaming exclusives. If anything, this is an indicator that the laws haven't kept up and need to be updated to probably apply to streaming as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....

autoexec 5y ago
> You aren't entitled to anything anyone creates. I don't think that's always true even now, but it certainly shouldn't be. When something becomes of a part of our culture, and our history, it belongs to all of us. No one is entitled to anything someone else creates until it is shared. Once it is, ownership is also somewhat shared. If someone wants to write a song and have total control over it they just need to keep it to themselves because once I hear it, I naturally have a right to hum that tune to myself for the rest of the day, or to sing it at the top of my lungs. If someone wants total control over a story they write they should keep it to themselves because once I hear or read it, it's my natural right to be allowed to remember it, think about it, talk about it with others, and retell it in my own words. Before copyright this was the norm. Stories and songs were written and sung, others heard them, repeated what they remembered, added in their own changes and continued to share. If someone designed an illustration, or a bridge, or a garment, once others saw it, they could study it and incorporate those designs into their own works freely. Improving and modifying those designs however they liked. Telling people that they are forbidden from saying, writing, or re-telling certain things to anyone is a massive imposition on our freedoms. We created copyright knowing it would be a special exception to the norm. It gave special rights and privileges to content creators which would allow them to circumvent our rights and limit what we can say or write or share for a limited time, and in exchange for the brief imposition on our freedoms to reward and encourage creators, copyrighted works were supposed to enter the public domain and after that everyone could freely access and use them. It's wasn't even a terrible idea, but it's been perverted and corrupted into something that does more harm than good to creativity and progress. Now copyright lasts forever, and if somehow after centuries a copyright does manage to lapse, DRM can still keep those works from ever reaching the public. The copyright on most of what we think of as media doesn't even protect creators at this point, just the corporations who purchased the copyrights from the creative minds responsible for the work. Basically, the contract between creators and the public good has been completely broken. Th media industry paid to have and keep the power of law on their side, but in terms of "entitlement" and morality, they lost the high ground ages ago.
- QuikAccount 5y ago
  > If someone wants to write a song and have total control over it they just need to keep it to themselves because once I hear it, I naturally have a right to hum that tune to myself for the rest of the day, or to sing it at the top of my lungs. If someone wants total control over a story they write they should keep it to themselves because once I hear or read it, it's my natural right to be allowed to remember it, think about it, talk about it with others, and retell it in my own words. This seems like an intentionally obtuse interpretation of what I'm saying. No one is saying you can't hum a song but you certainly aren't entitled to a lossless download of that song.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    > . No one is saying you can't hum a song but you certainly aren't entitled to a lossless download of that song. The media industry says that you cannot. Doing so can have severe penalties under the law. They wrote those laws. Hum just a few of the wrong notes in a song you're writing and you can be sued for millions. Create a base line too similar to one you've heard in another song and they'll see you in court. Hum a few bars of something on your youtube channel and Content-ID will cause you to lose your income and put your ability to participate on one of the largest global platforms at risk, not because YouTube cares, but because if they aren't hyper-aggressive about enforcing the copyrights of others the media industry will take YouTube to court. We're at the point now where creating an original work in the same _genre_ as someone can open you up to costly court battles (https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/20/tale-two-hit-songs-inspired-past-hits-very-different-way-which-copyright-holders-reacted/ https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/20/tale-two-hit-songs-inspi...). It was increases in the accessibility of printing and literacy which caused copyright law to be created. Although we've moved from printing presses and dictation to lossless downloads today it doesn't change the underlying struggle of balancing the freedoms of the average person, the need to support and encourage creators, the harm to progress and creativity caused by limiting the public's access to content, and the desires of certain people to act as gatekeepers for power and profit. Once you start talking about who is "entitled" to what it's critical to keep in mind what copyright was created to accomplish and what it has actually become.

autoexec 5y ago

> You aren't entitled to anything anyone creates. I don't think that's always true even now, but it certainly shouldn't be. When something becomes of a part of our culture, and our history, it belongs to all of us. No one is entitled to anything someone else creates until it is shared. Once it is, ownership is also somewhat shared. If someone wants to write a song and have total control over it they just need to keep it to themselves because once I hear it, I naturally have a right to hum that tune to myself for the rest of the day, or to sing it at the top of my lungs. If someone wants total control over a story they write they should keep it to themselves because once I hear or read it, it's my natural right to be allowed to remember it, think about it, talk about it with others, and retell it in my own words. Before copyright this was the norm. Stories and songs were written and sung, others heard them, repeated what they remembered, added in their own changes and continued to share. If someone designed an illustration, or a bridge, or a garment, once others saw it, they could study it and incorporate those designs into their own works freely. Improving and modifying those designs however they liked. Telling people that they are forbidden from saying, writing, or re-telling certain things to anyone is a massive imposition on our freedoms. We created copyright knowing it would be a special exception to the norm. It gave special rights and privileges to content creators which would allow them to circumvent our rights and limit what we can say or write or share for a limited time, and in exchange for the brief imposition on our freedoms to reward and encourage creators, copyrighted works were supposed to enter the public domain and after that everyone could freely access and use them. It's wasn't even a terrible idea, but it's been perverted and corrupted into something that does more harm than good to creativity and progress. Now copyright lasts forever, and if somehow after centuries a copyright does manage to lapse, DRM can still keep those works from ever reaching the public. The copyright on most of what we think of as media doesn't even protect creators at this point, just the corporations who purchased the copyrights from the creative minds responsible for the work. Basically, the contract between creators and the public good has been completely broken. Th media industry paid to have and keep the power of law on their side, but in terms of "entitlement" and morality, they lost the high ground ages ago.

QuikAccount 5y ago
> If someone wants to write a song and have total control over it they just need to keep it to themselves because once I hear it, I naturally have a right to hum that tune to myself for the rest of the day, or to sing it at the top of my lungs. If someone wants total control over a story they write they should keep it to themselves because once I hear or read it, it's my natural right to be allowed to remember it, think about it, talk about it with others, and retell it in my own words. This seems like an intentionally obtuse interpretation of what I'm saying. No one is saying you can't hum a song but you certainly aren't entitled to a lossless download of that song.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > . No one is saying you can't hum a song but you certainly aren't entitled to a lossless download of that song. The media industry says that you cannot. Doing so can have severe penalties under the law. They wrote those laws. Hum just a few of the wrong notes in a song you're writing and you can be sued for millions. Create a base line too similar to one you've heard in another song and they'll see you in court. Hum a few bars of something on your youtube channel and Content-ID will cause you to lose your income and put your ability to participate on one of the largest global platforms at risk, not because YouTube cares, but because if they aren't hyper-aggressive about enforcing the copyrights of others the media industry will take YouTube to court. We're at the point now where creating an original work in the same _genre_ as someone can open you up to costly court battles (https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/20/tale-two-hit-songs-inspired-past-hits-very-different-way-which-copyright-holders-reacted/ https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/20/tale-two-hit-songs-inspi...). It was increases in the accessibility of printing and literacy which caused copyright law to be created. Although we've moved from printing presses and dictation to lossless downloads today it doesn't change the underlying struggle of balancing the freedoms of the average person, the need to support and encourage creators, the harm to progress and creativity caused by limiting the public's access to content, and the desires of certain people to act as gatekeepers for power and profit. Once you start talking about who is "entitled" to what it's critical to keep in mind what copyright was created to accomplish and what it has actually become.