3 ms·

> The content creator? Can't pay them, don't want to pay them, don't like the price? Then you don't have the right to consume the content. What kind of "right"

by jarek 15y ago

> The content creator? Can't pay them, don't want to pay them, don't like the price? Then you don't have the right to consume the content. What kind of "right" are we talking about here? Moral, whose? Legal, in which jurisdiction? Under your definition of right, do they have the right to deny me their content they won't sell to me, if my consumption causes them no loss? If a bar won't let me in because I'm underage, but they position their TVs to be perfectly viewable by someone standing on the street, do I have no right to stand around and watch the TVs?

res0nat0r 15y ago
Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. You value the content enough to consume it, so it is not 'free'. Why is it everyone thinks music is exempt from payment when value is derived from it? You don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free just because they are too expensive to afford do you? By this standard you will happily then give me your paycheck for this coming week correct? I believe the output of your work to have zero value, therefore your work entitles you to zero compensation. This is essentially your argument. Why would an artist want to produce music if they can't afford to pay their bills because you deem it your obligation to have their work for free?
- jarek 15y ago
  > Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. Repeating this doesn't make it true. A specific pair of jeans costs a specific amount to create from raw materials, and if not paid for causes a loss. The situation with a set of bits being copied is subject to interpretation and I don't see why your interpretation is any more valid than mine or anyone else's. My paycheque is the result of an agreement between me and my employer, who does believe the output of my work to have some value. Whether the people who use Facebook apps I help build or the corporation that paid my employer for them agree is irrelevant. Artists and producers get paid by their label, in some degree, independent of efforts of the distributor, and certainly independent of the public's perception of the worth of their work. It might influence their next contract (just like everyone thinking my work is shit/great would influence my next job offer), but few contracts are written to be based 100% on distributor's performance. However, I will be sending you a bill for reading my posts in this thread. You value the content enough to read and reply to them, and so you are causing me a loss not paying for the content. Again: if a bar won't let me in because I'm underage, but they position their TVs to be perfectly viewable by someone standing on the street, do I have no "right" (under your definition) to stand around and watch the TVs? Why or why not? Is the bar functionally different from a music or film distributor?
  - res0nat0r 15y ago
    This is another long winded argument basically saying the same as above. "Since I can easily steal it without paying for it, I am doing it". Damn the artist or whomever thinks they should be paid for their creative output. How silly of them.
    - jarek 15y ago
      I am beginning to lose patience with this conversation. I do not accept your point of view and your classification of my actions. You have done nothing to attempt to convince me that you're right except for repeating that you're right and strawmaning. You have not responded to my specific questions that might have helped me understand your argument. Have a pleasant day.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  > You don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free just because they are too expensive to afford do you? I don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free, but not for that reason. I don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free because nobody offered me one. If someone did, I expect Levi's to stay out of the deal, because it's none of their business. And more generally, I don't expect to get offered a pair of jeans for free because nobody can manufacture them for free, and because I can't trivially copy a pair of jeans. Given the availability of replicators in the future, I expect to get jeans and many other things for free. Someone has bits and offers to provide a copy. Someone else wants those bits and takes them up on the offer. A copy occurs. Nobody else has any business getting involved; any third-party control over that transaction can only occur artificially. That doesn't represent a statement of morality, just a statement of how the world works. Re-examine your claims and consider what assumptions you've started from. You don't have a natural right to get paid by someone unless they agree to pay you.
  - res0nat0r 15y ago
    You've basically just said, "since I can steal music because it is easy, I am doing it." That is fine, but quit making excuses and just say that.
    - JoshTriplett 15y ago
      > You've basically just said, "since I can steal music because it is easy, I am doing it." That is fine, but quit making excuses and just say that. I did not say that at all; for one thing, your use of the term "steal" implies a position I fundamentally disagree with. You've assumed a certain moral position which supports the idea of copyright, and you want everyone else to express their positions relative to your opinions on morality. I refuse to do so. I don't agree with your opinions on what you consider "right" and "wrong".
      - res0nat0r 15y ago
        Your position is music should be free, or if you disagree with the price you can just decide what that price should be on your own terms?

by jarek 15y ago

res0nat0r 15y ago

Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. You value the content enough to consume it, so it is not 'free'. Why is it everyone thinks music is exempt from payment when value is derived from it? You don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free just because they are too expensive to afford do you? By this standard you will happily then give me your paycheck for this coming week correct? I believe the output of your work to have zero value, therefore your work entitles you to zero compensation. This is essentially your argument. Why would an artist want to produce music if they can't afford to pay their bills because you deem it your obligation to have their work for free?

jarek 15y ago
> Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. Repeating this doesn't make it true. A specific pair of jeans costs a specific amount to create from raw materials, and if not paid for causes a loss. The situation with a set of bits being copied is subject to interpretation and I don't see why your interpretation is any more valid than mine or anyone else's. My paycheque is the result of an agreement between me and my employer, who does believe the output of my work to have some value. Whether the people who use Facebook apps I help build or the corporation that paid my employer for them agree is irrelevant. Artists and producers get paid by their label, in some degree, independent of efforts of the distributor, and certainly independent of the public's perception of the worth of their work. It might influence their next contract (just like everyone thinking my work is shit/great would influence my next job offer), but few contracts are written to be based 100% on distributor's performance. However, I will be sending you a bill for reading my posts in this thread. You value the content enough to read and reply to them, and so you are causing me a loss not paying for the content. Again: if a bar won't let me in because I'm underage, but they position their TVs to be perfectly viewable by someone standing on the street, do I have no "right" (under your definition) to stand around and watch the TVs? Why or why not? Is the bar functionally different from a music or film distributor?
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  This is another long winded argument basically saying the same as above. "Since I can easily steal it without paying for it, I am doing it". Damn the artist or whomever thinks they should be paid for their creative output. How silly of them.
  - jarek 15y ago
    I am beginning to lose patience with this conversation. I do not accept your point of view and your classification of my actions. You have done nothing to attempt to convince me that you're right except for repeating that you're right and strawmaning. You have not responded to my specific questions that might have helped me understand your argument. Have a pleasant day.
JoshTriplett 15y ago
> You don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free just because they are too expensive to afford do you? I don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free, but not for that reason. I don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free because nobody offered me one. If someone did, I expect Levi's to stay out of the deal, because it's none of their business. And more generally, I don't expect to get offered a pair of jeans for free because nobody can manufacture them for free, and because I can't trivially copy a pair of jeans. Given the availability of replicators in the future, I expect to get jeans and many other things for free. Someone has bits and offers to provide a copy. Someone else wants those bits and takes them up on the offer. A copy occurs. Nobody else has any business getting involved; any third-party control over that transaction can only occur artificially. That doesn't represent a statement of morality, just a statement of how the world works. Re-examine your claims and consider what assumptions you've started from. You don't have a natural right to get paid by someone unless they agree to pay you.
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  You've basically just said, "since I can steal music because it is easy, I am doing it." That is fine, but quit making excuses and just say that.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    > You've basically just said, "since I can steal music because it is easy, I am doing it." That is fine, but quit making excuses and just say that. I did not say that at all; for one thing, your use of the term "steal" implies a position I fundamentally disagree with. You've assumed a certain moral position which supports the idea of copyright, and you want everyone else to express their positions relative to your opinions on morality. I refuse to do so. I don't agree with your opinions on what you consider "right" and "wrong".
    - res0nat0r 15y ago
      Your position is music should be free, or if you disagree with the price you can just decide what that price should be on your own terms?